SUBJECT:	Summary of November 18, 1996 Communication and Outreach Work Group Meeting

I.	PURPOSE

An in-person Communication and Outreach (C&O) Work Group meeting took place on November 18, 1996 in Denver, Colorado to discuss the revised November 13, 1996 Communication Plan, the information packet material, and the communication strategy for the pending announcement of the proposed revised NAAQS standards.

II.	PARTICIPANTS

Work Group members in attendance:

Tom Curran, Co-chair, OAQPS/ITG

Ron White, Co-chair, ALA

Jan Kleeman, OAQPS/ITG

Susan Bullard (substitute), EPA/OMS

Alice Collingwood, PSAPCA

Kathy Ellis, DOD

Mike Kenyon, EPA/Region I

Nancy Kruger, STAPPA/ALAPACO

Richard Paul, AAMA

Nancy Seidman, Massachusetts DEP

Scott Thomas, Oklahoma DEQ

Work Group members not in attendance:

Tad Aburn, MDE

Bruce Carhart, OTC

Margaret Cook, Intertribal Council of Arizona

Jayne Mardock, Clean Air Network

Caryl Pfeiffer, Kentucky Utilities Co.

Quin Shea, NMA

Sandy Stash, ARCO

Other attendees:

Bill Becker, STAPPA/ALAPCO

Al Zemsky, EPA/Region IX

Beth Friedman, EC/R Incorporated (EPA Contractor support)

III. MEETING SUMMARY

Action Items

1)	Comments on the information packet material are due to Jan Kleeman by Tuesday, November 26.

2)	The next conference call will be on December 12, from 1:00 to 2:30 pm. No face-to- face meetings are anticipated until the February FACA meeting in Atlanta.

3)	Work Group members are invited to contribute to the development of questions for the "Q's and A's."

Other Items to Note

1)	Mike Kenyon, the Associate Director for Air Policy, U.S. EPA Region I, is a new member of the C&O Work Group.

IV.	SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

Communication Strategy for Pending NAAQS Proposal

EPA is limited in its ability to discuss and/or distribute advance materials related to the specifics of the NAAQS proposal notice, because the content of the notice is still being discussed with the Office of Management and Budget.

There was strong sentiment that the C&O Work Group should encourage EPA to be more proactive in providing advance materials, especially to their State and local partners. This material does not have to reveal the exact standard, but should be sufficient to allow the State and local agencies to act as effective advocates in promoting the value of the proposed standards.

The EPA is developing "Q's and A's" and Fact Sheets to address generic issues and questions on the notice, which will be available to the States and other interested parties. STAPPA\ALAPCO is also preparing advance materials. Region I is sending letters to Governors and Commissioners along with generic information and fact sheets.

Work Group members are invited to contribute to the development of questions for the "Q's and A's."

If the FACA reaches closure on the AOI/AOV issue paper, a "one-pager" should be developed immediately and made available for outreach efforts.

The effects of the proposed standards on OTAG process should be addressed.

Adequate support for the outreach efforts should be available. For example, EPA will ensure that the TTN is not down for its regularly scheduled maintenance, the Monday following the announcement of the proposed standards.

Communication Plan

The presentation of the Communication Plan will emphasize that the role of the C&O Work Group is to provide advice regarding the outreach associated with work products developed by the FACA. The plan should emphasize the distinctions between EPA's role and FACA's role.

In addition to ozone maps, maps showing particulate matter data should be developed/made available, if possible.

The blanks in the timelines in the attachments are in the process of being filled. In addition, the date at which the standards will be known should be changed from the proposal date to the expected promulgation date (i.e., June 1997). The timelines also should identify which issues are Phase II issues.

The listing of the GCVTC Report as the source for how EPA is going to factor in "natural events" and "exceptional events" was questioned. In general, the timelines need careful review to ensure they are correct.

The Regulatory Impact Analysis should be listed as source material that includes information on the cross-over benefits to controlling ozone, PM, and regional haze as well as other cost issues.

The list of health reports to support the standards should reference AAMA instead of the AMA. Another member commented that the health data should be limited to EPA data alone.

References to the regionality of fine PM/ozone/regional haze should also recognize that, in some cases, the problem is strictly local in nature.

Section II.E., EPA Briefings with Regional Offices, includes 3 groups (National State and County Legislator's Association, North Carolina County Health Officials, and Industry Groups) that are not EPA regional offices.

Section III.C, Recommendation to Hold a Public Hearing, was discussed. Because EPA's only requirement is to issue notice and take comment on the proposed standards, a public hearing is, in fact, not required, but it is obviously desired.

Information Packet Material

The material is improved over the last version, but additional work is still needed. Comments are due to Jan Kleeman by Tuesday, November 26.

The current packet addresses the "fixed" material. The interchangeable parts have yet to be developed.

Consistent terms should be used to refer to the information material (or kits or packets).

Consistent reference should be made to States and localities.

The recommendations should be presented first.

The explanation of the need for new standards should also be presented early in the material.

The language in the material is still too technical for the general public. For example, instead of talking about the adverse ecological effects of fine PM, say that you cannot see the Grand Canyon. Define the term "lung function", which is the ability of people to breathe.

The implied audience for the material changes throughout the document.

Because of the short shelf-life for this material, production costs should be kept low. A version number to track updates should also be included.

A regional haze expert should review the material.