Summary of Communication and Outreach

Work Group Meeting

February 19, 1997

I. PURPOSE

A face-to-face Communication & Outreach Work Group meeting took place on February 19, 1997 to discuss outreach activities, the status of the brochure, the Phase I Report, the Communication Plan, the Phase II issue paper development process, and the FACA Home Page. Following is a summary of the discussion and proposed action items.

II. PARTICIPANTS

Work Group members in attendance:

Tom Curran, Co-chair, OAQPS/ITG

Ron White, Co-chair, ALA

Jan Kleeman, OAQPS/ITG

Stephanie Cooper for Bruce Carhart, OTC

Kathy Ellis, DoD

Mike Kenyon, EPA Region I

Jayne Mardock, Clean Air Network

Ellen Shapiro for Richard Paul, AAMA

Caryl Pfeiffer, Kentucky Utilities Co.

Scott Thomas, Oklahoma DEQ

Work Group members not in Attendance:

Tad Aburn, MDE

Bill Baker, EPA Region II

Susan Bullard, OMS

Alice Collingwood, PSAPCA

Margaret Cook, Intertribal Council of Arizona

Nancy Kruger, STAPPA/ALAPCO

Veronica Kun, NRDC West

Nancy Seidman, Massachusetts DEP

Quin Shea, NMA

Sandy Stash, ARCO

Deborah Amaral, EC/R Incorporated (EPA Contractor support)

III.	MEETING SUMMARY

Action items

1)	Workgroup members should advise EPA on the development of a distribution plan for the brochure. The trends report can be used as a template for the distribution plan for the Phase I report.

2)	The group agreed to include pilots on the list of key audiences, and find out how much interest the Pilot's Association has in the FACA process.

3)	The workgroup asked the EPA to ask the contractor to do a mock up for the next conference call of the plain English summaries of the issue papers, showing use of bullets and white space, number of pages, and sections. The audience will be an interested public, not the general public.

4)	The workgroup would like a copy of the outreach plan that was approved at OTAG, to keep aware of what OTAG is doing and when.

5)	EPA will distribute the piece called "What does this mean for my city?" to the workgroup for review, and if there are no problems with it, combine it with the timeline and post it on the website.

6)	The workgroup recommended additional changes to update the web pages to reflect the proposal of the new standards, and to post a schedule showing what will be discussed at future Subcommittee meetings.

Other items to note:

1)	Schedule for upcoming meetings:

3/19	12:30 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. EST	(919) 541-4424

IV.	SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

Summary of Outreach Activity

The Regions have done an impressive amount of outreach. Large mailings to key stakeholders, letters to mayors, and joint meetings with the EPA and the Air and Waste Management Association (AWMA) have happened since the proposed standards were announced. The EPA made speakers available. In two months, Region I has had 15 to 20 speaking engagements.

Each region held a conference with AWMA. Twelve such joint conferences have taken place. OAQPS sent PM and ozone experts, and the regional air directors participated. The conferences also included panels composed of stakeholders. Carol Browner asked the regions to hold at least one public forum in each key state, and these were modeled after the AWMA conferences.

States experienced some surprises when the new standards were announced. Oklahoma officials saw Carol Browner on C-SPAN with a map presenting data on predicted PM2.5 violations. Areas that had worked hard to become "clean" would suddenly be "dirty", and areas that had never been sampled showed up as "dirty." Data in the map may include non-FRM networks, such as IMPROVE, or private monitors.

When the final standards are announced, EPA can do a better job by sharing the methodologies for identifying counties in nonattainment. The communication when the standards were proposed was ten-fold better than in the past, but it was still not all the states could have wanted. Thanksgiving is the most traveled time of the year and people were not around. The courts are firm on the July 19 date for the rule, and during mid-July, vacations will be more staggered, so there should be better coverage.

The Navy had a letter ready to go out to the chain of command when the standards were proposed. Commanders were told to look at the website. The Navy was very satisfied by how many people at the installation level knew about the standard.

The Utilities knew the new standards were coming, but the small customers have escaped regulations in a lot of ways in the past, and may not have known. The utility customers expect deregulation to bring lower prices, but the utilities expect to see a flattening of prices across the country. Business has been educating business, and there have been university teleconferences and inputs from the chambers of commerce.

On the EPA conference calls, Region IV reported that a number of states asked them not to come in to do any presentations on the new standards. Kentucky was one of the states that did not have a presentation from the Region.

The Clean Air Network got an incredible amount of information out based on the information provided by the EPA. Participants were concerned about the number of "trees cut down" due to the number of pages downloaded from the website. At the 2 week point, 1.5 million pages had been downloaded. People were not warned about the number of pages to expect. The main benefit of the electronic format is the speed with which documents can be made available.

The fact sheets helped. Many people downloaded whole documents, but only printed the fact sheets, and waited for the federal register hard copy.

EPA has recently learned of things that could have gone wrong in November, but did not. For example solar flare activity wiped out three satellites about one month ago, including the one EPA uses. The EPA has switched satellites, but each fixed dish has to be adjusted, and not as many channels are available.

Interest in obtaining information is expected to grow through the final rulemaking. For the final rule, communicate what it really means to the affected public. EPA can not plan too soon for the job of translating and explaining what the rule really means to state air offices, business, and the national groups advocating for public health and the environment.

Explain the concept of the pace of implementation. Just because the standards will be set in July does not mean everyone will be scrambling to reduce emissions. There is a process. Local people will expect things like cleaner buses within a few days of the new standard. People need to know it could take years. EPA should address the publics lack of understanding about inventories and source category contribution.

EPA anticipates a cleaner process when it announces the final rule, as information will be less sensitive. One complication might be the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Enforcement Act (SBREFA) and Congressional reviews after the rule is published. Congress can overturn the rule. In the past, EPA has not withheld a rule once it was sent to the Federal Register for publication. EPA should put the rule on the TTN when it is signed.

Status of Brochure

A sample of the brochure was presented. It will be printed in various shades of blue, with black and white inserts. It is currently in EPA's product review process.

Due to a lack of resources, the FACA Subcommittee and workgroups can not print the brochure, but EPA can. It will be distributed as an EPA product. The brochure has not changed since it was reviewed by the members of the workgroup. EPA is not sure what to do if it needs to be changed, but review by EPA is likely to be quicker than review by the FACA process.

It makes sense to have EPA produce the brochure, as a "neutral party." OTAG has Agency funds for Communications and Outreach, and OTAG is run by the states, not the stakeholders. There will be FACA products, such as the Phase I and Phase II reports, and possibly fact sheets on the issues and strategies. When there is agreement about key issues, the FACA should start to think about developing outreach materials to get broader circulation than just the 80 Subcommittee members.

The issues are how to get multiple copies and how to distribute them. EPA needs a distribution plan. The workgroup can review and comment on the distribution plan, and have a hand in shaping it. The use of inserts can extend the life of the brochure past the hearings. Inserts can be changed, and the brochure can be distributed after promulgation, and into implementation. The trends report has been a sellout every year. The regions distribute the trends report to the states. Workgroup members should advise EPA on the development of a distribution plan for the brochure.

Phase I Report

The proposed schedule for the report was distributed and reviewed. All the workgroup co-chairs and several members of the Coordination Group met recently as an ad hoc group to review the draft Phase I report. Workgroup members will not be asked to review the draft Phase I report. The final draft will be distributed to the Subcommittee and workgroup co-chairs in early April. Ideally it will be available for the April meeting, where it will be approved and delivered to CAAAC.

When the draft is close to final, the workgroup can initiate the development of summaries. There is a summary in the front of the report that could be carved out into a free standing piece. This product will need a different distribution plan than the brochure.

Communication Plan

The communication plan is in the draft Phase I report. The EPA has had numerous requests from aviation pilots to be more involved. The Pilot's Association has asked to be added to the list of key audiences. The interest from pilots might result from a recent NRDC report on airports as huge sources. More likely it is about visibility, which pilots have to deal with. The group agreed to include pilots on the list, and find out how much interest the Pilot's Association has in the FACA process.

Phase II Issue Paper Development Process

Items 7 and 9 in the Phase II Issue Paper Development Process concern the workgroup. The contractor will prepare the plain English summaries for review by the Communications and Outreach workgroup. The contractor will make revisions and return the summaries to the workgroup to review and disseminate. Does the workgroup want to review and disseminate the summaries before closure?

There is a difference between the 1-pagers developed for the Coordination Group and the plain English summaries. The 1-pagers help focus the Coordination Group discussions.

An issue paper may close without consensus, in which case the summary will present the options. The summary needs to state the concept, the options, and the issues for those who need to be aware of the major issues and do not need to read a ten page paper.

The workgroup can be more proactive about the general appearance of the summaries. The workgroup, the EPA, or the contractor could do a template of the basic structure. The EPA will ask the contractor to prepare a mock up for the next conference call showing use of bullets and white space, number of pages, and sections. The audience will be an interested public, not the general public.

The description of the development process suggests the workgroup will disseminate the summaries. The Phase I report dissemination plan may be a good template to use for the dissemination of the plain English summaries. Unless EPA gives the workgroup a budget to implement the dissemination plan, the Subcommittee should disseminate the plain english summaries.

The workgroup hopes the Subcommittee will have the summary of the Phase I report and the summaries of one or two issue papers by mid-April. It makes sense to look at these as a package. The more the summaries can be bundled together, the more interest they will have for the audience. If the information is presented in drib and drabs, it will not get the attention it deserves from the air directors, nonprofit organizations, and councils of government.

Should the workgroup coordinate with the Communication and Outreach group in OTAG? OTAG is completely non-EPA, and should be kept separate. Keep aware of what OTAG is doing, and avoid overlaps such as big mailings to the same audience at the same time. Get a copy of the outreach plan that was approved at OTAG.

FACA Home Page

It is time to clean up the FACA Home Page. Should it be redesigned? Would this be a good place to put the plain English guide to implementation? Add a text description and put in the EPA timeline chart. Distribute the piece called "What does this mean for my city?" for review by the workgroup, and if there is no problem, roll it over with the timeline into a companion piece and post it on the web.

Update the language (change "will" to "has"), and put in links to the information on the new standards. Add links to the lists of issue papers, and post a schedule for what will be discussed at future Subcommittee meetings. Update the trends to 1995.

Take the car exhaust off the front! Why were cars singled out? Try to find a picture that does not single out any one source. Use a picture of a city.