Summary of Communication and Outreach

Work Group Conference Call

December 12, 1996

I.	PURPOSE

A Communication and Outreach Work Group conference call took place on December 12, 1996 to discuss the schedule for 1997, CAAAC meeting reaction, recap of the NAAQS roll-out, December 9 NAAQS Satellite Downlink, Internet/BBS Update, status of the brochure, status of Phase I report, expected changes in Phase II, and AOI/AOV.

II.	PARTICIPANTS

Work Group members in attendance:

Tom Curran, Co-chair, OAQPS/ITG

Ron White, Co-chair, ALA

Jan Kleeman, OAQPS/ITG

Kathy Ellis, DOD

Scott Thomas, Oklahoma DEQ

Caryl Pfeiffer, Kentucky Utilities Co.

Stephanie Cooper, OTC - for Bruce Carhart

Richard Paul, AAMA

Quin Shea, NMA

Nancy Seidman, Massachusetts DEP

Mike Kenyon, EPA/Region I

Jayne Mardock, Clean Air Network

Bill Baker, EPA/Region II

Alice Collingwood, PSAPCA

Work Group members not in attendance:

Tad Aburn, MDE

Margaret Cook, Intertribal Council of Arizona

Sandy Stash, ARCO

Nancy Kruger, STAPPA/ALAPCO

Susan Bullard, OMS

Other attendees: Eric Schweitzer, EC/R Incorporated (EPA Contractor support).

III.	MEETING SUMMARY

Action Items

1.	Jan Kleeman will post John Seitz's presentation slides from the CAAAC meeting on the bulletin board in Word Perfect format.

2.	Members were encouraged to send comments or suggestions for improving future downlinks to Jan Kleeman. One member suggested posting questions asked during the downlink on the FACA Web Page, along with answers composed by the Work Group. EPA is planning more Satellite Downlinks in the future as they have proven to be an efficient way to reach people

3.	EPA has set up a telephone comment line for comments on the proposal. The number is (888) TellEPA. Members were asked to stress the 888 prefix in order to prevent people from dialing (800) TellEPA. EPA has set up a separate "NAAQSPRO" Web Page at http://www.epa.gov/airlinks/ dedicated to information on the NAAQS proposal.

4.	When it is ready, Jan Kleeman will send copies of an information packet explaining different ways to comment. Members were advised that any comments submitted are open to the public.

5.	Jan Kleeman will send copies of the revised brochure, based on the feedback in Denver, to members by early next week. Members were asked to send any comments on the revised brochure to Jan Kleeman as soon as possible. The final product is expected sometime in January.

Other Items to Note

1.	EPA is discussing ways to improve the FACA process in Phase II, including obtaining contractor support on issue paper development. FACA will be expanded to include caucuses and ad hoc groups and its charge will be modified. John Seitz does not want to see the FACA's chemistry altered, particularly in light of the positive feedback he received from the CAAAC. One idea being discussed as a strategy to deal with the lack of closure on issue papers, is limiting to two times the presentation of issue papers to the Subcommittee.

2.	The Subcommittee has not closed on AOI/AOV. The Work Group considered whether to distribute user-friendly information before the Subcommittee closes on an issue, or wait for closure. The Work Group will wait until February to see whether AOI/AOV is taken up and resolved quickly. If not, a one-pager can be developed then to further the discussion.

IV.	SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

Schedule for 1997

Subcommittee meetings are scheduled to occur every two months next year, with the first meeting set for February 18-20, 1997 in Washington DC. Other meetings are tentatively set for the following dates and locations: April (week of the 21st) in Chicago; June in RTP, North Carolina; August in either San Francisco, CA, or Seattle, WA; and October in Washington DC. It was generally agreed that the FACA schedule at the end of 1996 was too grueling to be maintained next year.

Members agreed on meeting once a month next year. The schedule for the first quarter of 1997 is listed below. The February and March meeting dates are still tentative.

Wednesday, January 22, 1996	12:30-2:00 p.m.

Tuesday, February 18, 1997	face-to-face

Wednesday, March 19, 1997	12:30-2:00 p.m.

CAAAC Meeting Reaction

John Seitz made a 45-minute presentation to the CAAAC on the FACA Subcommittee's progress to date. He was told by the CAAAC that this FACA is working well. In general, more people are wanting to participate in this FACA process now than did initially. John Seitz thinks the Communication and Outreach Work Group is working well. There was concern expressed over possibly disturbing the existing chemistry by bringing in other groups/interests.

The CAAAC expressed that this is the most productive and best functioning of the FACA Subcommittees.

Jan Kleeman will put John Seitz's presentation slides from the CAAAC meeting up on the bulletin board in Word Perfect format, so members can see how the FACA recommendations were delivered to the CAAAC.

Recap of NAAQS Roll-out

Newspaper editorials were predominately favorable concerning the NAAQS proposal. Carol Browner was said to be very effective at the press conference. During the proposal, only bonafide press members were allowed into the press conference room. Two sets of information packages concerning the proposal were released, one on Wednesday and the other on Friday. In addition to the two NAAQS proposals, the Interim Implementation Policy, and the PM2.5 monitoring proposal, fact sheets and maps were distributed.

The "List of Counties for PM" not meeting the proposed PM2.5 standards came as a surprise to some. The list is based on 1993-1995 monitored PM10 data and is a prediction using a method which is still controversial.

December 9 NAAQS Satellite Downlink

The downlink was most helpful to those knowing little about the FACA process. NESCAUM's seats were sold out, causing EPA Region I to activate its downlink site. Work Group Members suggested that future downlinks be better organized, allow more time for questions and answers, and be more structured. One member also suggested the Work Group compose written answers to the questions posed during the downlink and post them on the FACA Web Page.

Downlink attendees were predominately those directly involved in implementation, such as State and Local agency members and a few people from API. EPA is planning more downlinks in the future as they have proven to be an efficient way to reach people. Although no dates have been set as of this time, several members noted that they could do a better job of notifying their constituencies of impending downlinks in the future.

Members were encouraged to send any comments or suggestions on how future downlinks could be improved to Jan Kleeman.

Internet/BBS Update

The day of the NAAQS proposal was a test of what EPA's computer system could handle. As soon as the proposal was posted, there was a flurry of activity. On Wednesday alone, there were 360, 327, 285, and 209 copies of the ozone proposal, PM proposal, Interim Implementation Policy, and PM2.5 monitoring proposal downloaded, respectively. By the end of the second week following the release of the proposal, these 4 documents had been accessed over 5,000 times, which broke the previous Clean Air Act record by 75 percent.

Approximately 20 percent of the downloads were via the bulletin board system (BBS), indicating that many people still find the BBS to be an important means of accessing information.

EPA has set up a telephone comment line for comments on the proposal. The number is (888) TellEPA. Members were asked to stress the 888 prefix in order to prevent people from dialing (800) TellEPA.

EPA NAAQSPRO Web Page

EPA has developed a separate Web Page called "NAAQSPRO" dedicated to information on the NAAQS proposal. The site is accessible at the following address: www.epa.gov/airlinks/ and is the first item listed on the airlinks Home Page under Air Pollution Hot Topics. The page includes the rule packages, press release, maps, fact sheets, What does this mean to me?, and background fact sheets. The NAAQSPRO Page is also linked to the FACA, EPA, Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), and OAQPS Pages.

There is a link from the NAAQS proposal page to a comments page, which will be ready in the next few days. There are 5 separate e-mail addresses, one for general comments and 4 others for comments on the specific rule packages (i.e., the two NAAQS proposals, the Interim Implementation Policy, and the PM2.5 monitoring proposal).

When it is ready, Jan Kleeman will send copies of an information packet explaining different ways to comment. Members were advised that any comments submitted are open to the public.

February 18, 1997 is the projected date for the close of the comment period.

Status of Brochure

The contractor will deliver a revised version of the brochure today, based on the changes made at the Denver meeting. Jan Kleeman will send copies of the revised brochure to members by early next week. The final product is expected sometime in January. Members were asked to send any comments on the revised brochure to Jan Kleeman as soon as possible.

Status of Phase I Report

There was no major news to report concerning the Phase I report. The goal is to complete the report in January, 1997. A written copy of the Phase I report is expected to be delivered to the CAAAC at its March, 1997 meeting.

Expected Changes in Phase II

EPA is discussing ways to improve the FACA process in Phase II, including obtaining contractor support on issue paper development. The Agency is also looking at greater staff involvement in the FACA process.

FACA will be expanded and its charge will be modified. There will be caucuses and ad hoc groups added. For instance, small businesses and city and local governments will participate and there will be a Federal government caucus. Some caucuses will report to the Coordination Group. Adding many business and local agency members might alter the balance within this FACA process. However, John Seitz does not want to see the FACA's chemistry altered, particularly in light of the positive feedback he received from the CAAAC.

One idea being discussed as a strategy to deal with the lack of closure on issue papers, is limiting to two times the presentation of issue papers to the Subcommittee. The first presentation of an issue paper to the Subcommittee will be to get direction and agreement on the basic principles. It will then be sent back to the author Work Group for changes. The second presentation, which might not occur at the Subcommittee meeting directly following the first presentation, should present options and recommendations.

In order to proceed, Work Groups need to know whether an issue has been closed and whether there was consensus or just agreement on the principles. If changes are not made to the process, there may be another bottleneck of issue papers at the end of Phase II.

The Economic Incentives ad hoc group has been dissolved. Members will carry out its functions as part of the National Regional Strategies Work Group.

New Issue Paper Procedures

Environmental FACA members have felt they are at a disadvantage because they do not have the representation to write draft issue papers. Some people have suggested that the process might go faster if EPA staff wrote draft issue papers.

EPA is discussing the possibility of drafting the background portions of future issue papers. A Work Group member would sponsor an issue paper and contractor support would be called on for issue paper preparation. EPA is hoping this process will focus on the key issues on which the Agency is seeking feedback. Contractors may also prepare plain English summaries of the issue papers.

One member recommended that EPA provide guidance in Phase II on what the critical issue papers are. This can prevent a recurrence of expending too much time on issue papers of lower priority.

AOI/AOV

The Work Group considered whether to distribute user-friendly information before the Subcommittee closes on an issue, or wait for closure. The Subcommittee has not closed on AOI/AOV. Because it seems that many people have different definitions of issues such as AOI/AOV, one member recommended that the Work Group wait for Subcommittee closure before conducting outreach. The Work Group will wait until February to see whether AOI/AOV is taken up and resolved quickly. If not, a one-pager can be developed then to further the discussion.

The Work Group discussed AOI/AOV in terms of the interaction between NAAQS and implementation issues. One member noted that comments on the NAAQS will inevitably be affected by what people envision implementation will involve. It may not be helpful to introduce the AOI/AOV concept without being able to answer questions about what it will mean to people.