This document was prepared by a subgroup composed of members of the National and Regional Strategies Workgroup and the Base Programs Analyses and Policies Workgroup as part of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Subcommittee process.

Control Strategies

Date:	November 17, 1997

Draft

Contacts:	Dan Johnson, representing NRSWG @ (360) 407-6872, fax (360) 407-6802

Jean Vernet, representing BPAPWG @ (202) 586-4755, fax (202) 586-2062

Issue Statement

The purpose of this issue paper is to offer recommendations to the FACA Subcommittee on control strategy issues in the following three areas:

•	the initial round of control strategies for areas that are not covered by regional transport strategies or that will need additional local controls to attain the new standards.

•	the role, if any, for federal backstops.

•	consequences of EPA's failure to implement national measures, lack of timely implementation of such measures, or inadequate emission reductions resulting from such measures.

Summary:

The balance between national control measures, measures that are federally required based on an area being nonattainment, and allowing states the discretion to choose control measures has changed through the years. This issue paper takes a fresh look at national, prescribed, and discretionary measures in the context of revised standards for ozone and particulate matter, and a new program to address regional haze.

An issue group composed of members of both the National and Regional Strategies and

Base Programs and Policies Workgroups was formed to evaluate several key control strategy related issues. The key questions were revised in July, 1997 to reflect guidance provided by the "Presidential Directive".

Most constituencies represented on both Workgroups support allowing states and tribes discretion in designing control strategies, provided that there are "backstops" to ensure attainment if the discretionary measures prove deficient. Workgroup members differ on the issue of who should be held accountable when EPA fails to implement national measures, or when the measures are untimely or deficient.

Key Questions

Question 1. To what degree should the initial round of control strategies offer states flexibility to tailor control strategies to an area's air quality needs?

Question 2. How can a state assure EPA, the public, and stakeholders that an area's control strategy will achieve timely and certain attainment of air quality standards?

Question 3. How should the situation be handled where national measures are not implemented, or are not timely? What is the consequence to the regulatory agency (e.g. sanctions)?

(Note: The Framework for Control Strategies is now contained in Appendix C.)

Evaluation and Recommendations

Partial consensus was achieved on questions 1 and 2 in support of allowing states and tribes discretion in designing control strategies, provided that there are "backstops" to ensure attainment if the discretionary measures prove deficient. The environmental community members of the Subcommittee and the Workgroups do not concur in these recommendations for a variety of reasons. Succinctly stated, they do not believe the recommendations satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act applicable to nonattainment areas as those requirements have traditionally been interpreted or should be interpreted to adequately protect public health and welfare.

Question 1. To what degree should the initial round of control strategies offer states flexibility to tailor control strategies to an area's air quality needs?

Option 1: No discretion: All prescriptive and national measures that are clearly identified and required by the Clean Air Act continue to be adopted and implemented according to statutory direction and deadlines. Similar to the approach provided for areas where EPA has determined regional strategies are sufficient to bring the areas into attainment with air quality standards, EPA identifies and requires additional prescribed measures adequate to meet an area's air quality objectives.

Pros

•	Emission reductions are predictable, assuring expeditious progress toward attainment

•	Federal oversight is simplified; failure by the state to plan or implement is easy to recognize

•	Prescriptive measures coupled with specific deadlines could assure timely environmental progress

Cons

•	Lacking the ability to choose control strategies fails to provide for flexible response methods

•	Potentially affected interests are not afforded the opportunity to participate in control strategy development

•	Clean Air Act amendments would be required before EPA could prescribe specific measures

Option 2: Limited discretion: All prescriptive and national measures that are clearly identified and required by the Clean Air Act continue to be adopted and implemented according to statutory direction and deadlines. Selection of those additional control measures (including innovative and nontraditional strategies) needed to meet an area's air quality objectives is left to the discretion of the air quality planning authority.

Pros

•	With respect to the prescribed measures required in the control strategy, emission reductions are predictable, assuring some expeditious progress toward attainment

•	With respect to the prescribed measures required in the control strategy, Federal oversight is simplified; failure by the state to plan or implement prescribed measures is easy to recognize

•	Potentially affected interests afforded some opportunity to participate in some parts of control strategy development

•	Provides a limited opportunity to evaluate non-traditional approaches, and potentially selecting these approaches to the extent they are cost-effective

Cons

•	States are provided only limited opportunity to choose control strategies, and thus to provide for flexible response methods

•	Potentially affected interests are afforded only limited opportunity to participate in control strategy development

•	Clean Air Act amendments would be required before EPA could prescribe specific measures

•	Federal oversight complicated to the extent non-traditional approaches are used by the state in the control strategy

Option 3: Most discretion (RECOMMENDED): National measures that are clearly identified and required by the Clean Air Act continue to be adopted and implemented according to statutory direction and deadlines. An air quality authority has the discretion to adopt those additional control strategies (including innovative and nontraditional strategies) needed to meet an area's air quality objectives. Note: this recommendation is only valid when coupled with the Backstops option from Question 2.

Pros

•	Discretion provides states with the best opportunity to accommodate flexible response methods by emission sources

•	Potentially affected interests are afforded the opportunity to participate in control strategy development

•	Allows for the evaluation and selection of the most cost-effective measures (including both traditional and non-traditional measures)

Cons

•	States which lack authority to exceed minimum federal requirements may be unable to plan control strategies on a timely basis

•	Federal oversight complicated to the extent non-traditional approaches are used by the state in the control strategy

Question 2. How can a state assure EPA, the public, and stakeholders that an area's control strategy will achieve timely and certain attainment of air quality standards?

Option 1: Status quo: The state relies on the current SIP approval process combined with air quality monitoring to determine attainment of the standard. Under the SIP approval process, EPA determines the approvability of a SIP and then subjects its determinations on component parts of the SIP to public review through notice-and- comment federal rule-making.

Pros

•	EPA oversight of state planning process could result in early recognition and timely action on deficient plans

•	Potentially affected interests will be engaged in the planning process, including the technical assumptions, emission estimates, and modeling, which may result in the use of best available, scientifically-based information

•	RFP, and RFP contingency measures provide progress towards attainment

Cons

•	RFP alone without a classification/bump up scheme may compromise timely attainment;

•	Continues to focus debate on the science underlying the choice of control strategy options, which often results in delayed implementation and untimely environmental progress

Option 2: Backstops (RECOMMENDED): Initially, the air quality planning agency has discretion to develop and implement a control strategy designed to meet air quality objectives. Only when the strategy fails to show reasonable further progress prior to the attainment date, do pre-adopted contingency measures sufficient to bring the area into attainment "kick in." Note: this recommendation is only valid when coupled with the Most Discretion option from Question 1.

Pros

•	Provides more assurance of timely attainment

•	Provides incentive for implementation of effective alternative control measures (including non-traditional approaches) to avoid having to implement backstop measures

•	Implementation of backstops would be pre-planned and based on specific deadlines

•	Deficiencies in the attainment plan would be remedied automatically, without the need for additional Federal oversight

Cons

•	May not provide sufficient time for non-traditional approaches to succeed before backstops are automatically triggered

•	As contemplated, backstops do not provide for flexible response methods

•	States would be required to adopt more control measures within the same SIP planning timeframes

•	Some areas, having already implemented stringent control measures on all their significant sources, would not realize emission reductions from many, or any, of the backstop measures

Question 3. How should the situation be handled where national measures are not implemented, or are not timely? What is the consequence to the regulatory agency (e.g. sanctions)?

Recommendations cannot be made on this question, there having been too little time for a full discussion on this issue. Options favored by some members of either the workgroups or Subcommittee are identified.

Q3) A. For national measures which EPA fails to develop on schedule:

Option 1 (FAVORED BY SOME): Credit is given from the target date, regardless of actual implementation date.

Option 2: Credit is given from the actual implementation date: RFP requirements are reduced by the difference in reductions for one RFP period. (Attainment dates and requirements remain unchanged.)

Option 3: Credit is given from the actual implementation date, with a grace period to allow for substitute measures to meet RFP requirements. (Attainment dates and requirements remain unchanged.)

Option 4: Credit is given from the actual implementation date. Discretionary measures must be substituted by the target date to make up the difference in emission reductions to meet RFP requirements.

Option 5 (FAVORED BY SOME): EPA responsible for substituting based on advancing the implementation date of another national measure.

Q3) B. For national measures which are not implemented:

Option 1: Difference in emission reductions made up by discretionary measures; RFP requirements are reduced by the difference for one RFP period. (Attainment dates and requirements remain unchanged.)

Option 2 (FAVORED BY SOME): Differences in emission reductions made up by discretionary measures; a grace period is allowed for implementation of these discretionary measures. A reassessment of overall reduction requirements (such as a mid-course correction) may be conducted.

Option 3 (FAVORED BY SOME): Discretionary measures must be substituted by the original target date.

Option 4 (FAVORED BY SOME): USEPA is responsible for substituting measures sufficient to achieve equal reductions.

Q3) C. What should be the consequences to the regulatory agency?

Option 1 (FAVORED BY SOME): Sanctions are waived for states for USEPA's failure to implement a national rule for which credit has been allowed.

Option 2 (FAVORED BY SOME): A grace period is allowed within which substitute measures must be adopted and implemented. If substitute measures are not adopted by the end of the grace period, appropriate sanctions will be applied.

Option 3 (FAVORED BY SOME): Substitute measures must be adopted and implemented by the target date. If they are not implemented, appropriate sanctions will be applied.

Appendices:

Appendix A:	Draft Control Strategy Issue Paper, dated June 23, 1997

Appendix B:	Summary of National and Prescribed Measures

Appendix C:	Framework for Control Strategies

Appendix D:	Linkages Between Control Strategies and Other Issue Papers

Appendix E:	Summary of FACA Subcommittee Discussion

Control Strategies Issue Paper

Appendix C

Framework for Control Strategies

Introduction: The success or failure of any plan to attain healthful levels of air quality is based on emission reductions that result from successful air pollution control strategies. Though the nature of the strategies may differ (e.g., command and control, voluntary, market based), the Issue Group feels that control strategies should:

•	result in timely and certain attainment of air quality standards;

•	be developed in an environment of flexibility so that the strategy can be tailored to address an area's air quality needs most efficiently; and

•	provide for the ability to assess the effectiveness of the strategy on an ongoing basis.

These goals are consistent with the "Content Related Principles" upon which all issue papers are to be based. To help achieve these goals, we propose an alternate route for SIP development and implementation that provides flexibility, ensures attainment in a timely manner, and builds in a formal assessment of the effectiveness of applied control strategies.

Summary: Under the proposed alternative, states or local air management agencies would have seven years from the date of designation to attain the standard or to demonstrate that the measures will achieve attainment by the statutory deadline. This demonstration would be conducted using methodologies and performance targets developed by the state, written into the SIP, and subject to EPA's review and approval. Should it be determined that the alternative plan is falling short of its targeted reductions for any reason, specific contingency measures sufficient to ensure attainment within the statutory deadline would be automatically triggered. These contingency measures would also be part of the SIP.

Timeline: The following table compares control strategy implementation requirements implied by the Presidential Directive, and the requirements in transitional areas, to the "alternative" requirements. Dates are offered as examples only. The time between key milestones would apply for both ozone and PM irrespective of the date the initial nonattainment designation occurs.

This timeline assumes states are allowed 10 years from designation (plus two possible one year extensions) to attain the standard. In fact, the Act requires attainment to be achieved "…as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the date such area was designated nonattainment,…except that [EPA] may extend the attainment date…for a period no greater than 10 years." If the 5 year extension was not provided, the attainment date would be year 5. Given the three year average form of the new standards, compliance would have to be determined based on data from years 3, 4 and 5 (years which would not have fully benefited from attainment plan control measures). States or tribes would need to request a 5 year extension of the attainment date.

Year Current Requirements

(with EPA approval of 5 year extension) Transitional Requirements Alternative Requirements (with EPA approval of 5 year extension) 2000 Nonattainment designation 8 hr Ozone SIPs due; areas classified "Transitional" Nonattainment designation 2001

2002

2003 Attainment SIPs due Alternative SIPs due including:

- progress assessment methods

- contingency measure backstops 2004 Local strategies implemented EPA approval of control and contingency measures 2005

2006

2007 Assess attainment based on regional and local measures Progress assessment using agreed methodologies 2008 Implement backstop measures if required; full EPA SIP approval 2009

2010 Attainment date

Attainment date (?) Attainment date 2011

2012 Maximum attainment date

Maximum attainment date Maximum attainment date

Contingency Measure Backstops: Contingency measures that serve as backstops in the event the core SIP attainment plan proves deficient are critical to the success of this alternative framework. The framework envisions the development by EPA, in partnership with the states, of non-binding model regulations for all significant source categories, regulations that when implemented would result in emission reductions in all but those few areas where the most stringent rules are already being implemented. Model regulations could be applied by a given state with modifications that are appropriate in light of the circumstances in that state. States would be required to adopt sufficient "backstop" regulations as part of this contingency plan that, when coupled with those measures from the core SIP for which EPA has quantified and approved emission reduction credit, will ensure attainment by the applicable attainment date.

Key Features of Alternative Framework: The key features of this proposed alternative are:

•	states and local air management agencies are offered the opportunity to prepare an attainment plan using any mix of innovative and non-traditional measures (e.g., economic incentives and voluntary approaches) and traditional measures such as command and control;

•	the plan must meet all RFP requirements, and must show attainment no later than the statutory deadline; those agencies choosing the Alternative SIP approach (including pre-adopted contingency measures) would be allowed to support their choice of control measures with a simplified attainment demonstration not subject to the customary level of rigorous review by EPA;

•	the plan must also include specific rate-of-progress targets and deadlines, and specific methods to be used to assess or measure success in meeting those targets, and to predict the plan's future success;

•	finally, the plan must include a set of specific contingency measures which would be triggered automatically should the rate-of-progress targets not be met; contingency measures which must be, at a minimum, 1) designed to insure timely attainment of the NAAQS, and 2) quantified consistent with EPA issued guidance regarding the projected emission reduction potential of such measures.

Thus the rate-of-progress assessment and the methods for assessing success would become part of the SIP, as would the commitment to use contingency measures to redress any shortfall(s) of the alternative plan. This should assure attainment of the standard in a timely manner.

Conclusion: This alternative provides state and local air management agencies with the flexibility to respond to local conditions in the most efficient manner. It also provides the public with a higher guarantee of attainment of the NAAQS by the statutory deadline, through the use of the rate-of-progress assessment built into the process. Finally, the backstop or contingency requirements offer a further guarantee that attainment will be achieved in a timely manner.

October 3, 1997

Control Strategies Issue Paper

Appendix D

Linkages Between Control Strategies and Other Issue Papers

Contingency Measures Base Programs evaluated key questions and options in light of the Control Strategy framework. The analysis, which concludes that a set of options could be recommended consistent with the framework, can be found in "Integration of Contingency Measures Issues with Control Strategies and the Presidential Directive", dated October 2, 1997.

Attainment Dates (Note: This was prepared based on a preliminary version of the Attainment Date recommendation.) Consistency between the Alternative Framework and the Attainment Dates recommendation is dependent with the degree of latitude afforded EPA in setting and applying criteria for initial attainment date extensions beyond an initial 5-year period. In so far as any attainment date option contemplates, at the time of designation, EPA's analysis of the ability/feasibility of attainment in order to grant attainment extensions (up to the statutory maximum), the Alternative Framework could accommodate a similar process at the time of the EPA review/approval of the initial ("core") SIP program, including its progress assessment methodology, and contingency backstops. It would be necessary to allow for the attainment air quality assessment to include the three years subsequent to attainment date year in order to accommodate the shortest timeline contemplated by the Alternative Framework, as reflected in the BPAP Attainment Dates recommendation.

Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) The papers are consistent in recommending

progress be judged by pre-planned "targets", though the RFP paper does not recommend a fixed point in time for the target evaluation while the control strategy framework would require the evaluation 4 years after SIP submittal.

Both papers recommend a mid-course evaluation, and outcomes if targets are missed. The contingency measure backstop approach envisioned in the control strategy framework appears more prescriptive than outcomes envisioned in the RFP paper for missing a target. In no case does the RFP paper prescribe a specific set of contingency measures, sanctions or penalties -- these are all to be determined on a case-by-case basis, in part to allow for the selection of contingency measures that are the best solution to the cause of the missed target.

Both papers would allow for the use of end-loaded strategies when such strategies are best suited to solving the air quality problem. This is an explicit recommendation in the RFP paper, The control strategy framework would allow a state to propose, for EPA approval, targets that are appropriate measures of progress for their control strategy, including strategies that are end-loaded.

The papers appear to differ in two areas. 1) While the Control strategy framework envisions a ten year attainment obligation, the RFP paper includes an alternative, RFP process that does not lead to attainment by the attainment date in areas (consensus was not achieved on this in the RFP group). 2) The control strategy framework allows for an emission reduction target customized at the airshed level, whereas the RFP group did not reach consensus no this issue.

Framework for AOI/AOVs This paper was still under development at the time of this writing. The paper states the opportunity to go through a simplified SIP process in return for early implementation of some percentage of a list of prescribed measures. Insofar as this approach is optional, it would not be inconsistent with the control strategy framework. The current version of the paper goes on to propose control strategy requirements for areas which do not take advantage of this option. In this case, some percentage of a prescribed list of measures would be required elements in a SIP. To the extent that this approach would limit the States' discretion to choose "core" measures or would require the implementation of specific measures prior to the progress assessment date contemplated in the control strategy framework (four years after SIP submitted), this would be inconsistent with the control Strategy framework which provides states the flexibility to choose any measures for their control strategy.

Economic Incentives. The economic incentive-based programs contemplated in this paper would not be inconsistent with the control strategy framework provided that the state is careful in its choice of backstop contingency measures. In general, to avoid potentially undermining the incentive-based program, contingency measures should only apply to sources that either are not participating in the program, or whose participation has been deficient (e.g., failed to meet emission reduction obligations).

Control Strategies Issue Paper

Appendix E

Summary of FACA Subcommittee Discussion

October 10, 1997

The following summary of discussion related to control strategies was extracted from the posted minutes for the October 10, 1997, FACA meeting.

Control Strategies -- Dan Johnson (State of Washington)

Mr. Johnson made a brief presentation on control strategies so that the information could be used in the discussion of RAMPs/AOIs/AOVs. He said that in the last week or so the Work Groups had an opportunity to see what everyone else had been working on. The control strategy group came up with a framework. He asked that the Subcommittee consider all of the frameworks and identify areas that were consistent and inconsistent. There was a paper discussing the linkages.

Mr. Johnson said his group developed a timeline from designation (Year Zero) to the attainment date (Year 10). Their timeline also developed two additional steps in Years 7 and 8. There was a core attainment plan that was not rigorous and had streamlined attainment demonstrations. There would be a progress target and a method to measure progress. In Year 8, there would be a progress assessment and in Year 8, States would implement contingency plans if required based on the progress assessment. These plans would be adopted ahead of time as part of their SIPs. The 10-year initial planning horizon gave the States flexibility. Mr. Johnson said that Mr. Lopez's work addressed the early years after designation. The control strategies proposal seemed to be complementary and picked up where Bob Lopez's ad hoc group left off.

Control Strategies -- Dan Johnson and Jean Vernet

Ms. Vernet gave some of the history of the group and how it was affected by the announcement of the Presidential Directive. After the Presidential Directive, the groups revised the issue statement and re-evaluated the questions they thought they would be able to address.

The revised issue statement was to offer recommendations on control strategy issues that remain unresolved after the Presidential Directive, including:

requirements in areas not covered by regional transport strategies

role of federal backstops

consequences of EPA failure to implement national measures

The key questions which the groups tried to address were:

Discretion or prescription of control strategies (how much flexibility do States have)?

How can timely attainment be assured?

What if national measures fail to be implemented in a timely manner or emissions reductions are not seen?

Mr. Dan Johnson compared the timelines of the current requirements and those of the alternative framework. In Year 0, designations would occur, and Year 3 would call for the SIPs. Under the alternative requirements, a progress assessment would be done in Year 7 and backstops would be implemented in Year 8 if required. Year 10 shows the attainment date for both frameworks.

Recognizing that this framework is not fully developed, Mr. Johnson responded to an earlier comment from Ms. Marvin about the amounts that need to be included in the contingency plan. He said that the contingency measures must be able to make up for the non-quantifiable, non-enforceable measures in the core plan.

The core plan is developed by the State and is the best plan the State comes up with to get them to attainment. That could be completely based on voluntary measures in an extreme case.

Mr. Dan Johnson presented the elements of the Alternative Attainment Plan:

A "core" attainment plan is developed and implemented

A progress target and method are set to determine progress

Contingency measures are adopted as needed (backstops)

This is a front-loaded planning exercise, but it allows innovation within that plan.

Most of the workgroup have endorsed the recommendations, but the environmental community has not been able to endorse the recommendations and asked for more time to consider them.

The recommendations of the groups include the following:

The States should be given the most discretion possible to select control measures	assuming that timely attainment is assured.

Backstop contingency measures are necessary to ensure attainment by the	attainment dates.

If a national measure fails and implementation is delayed, then the State should be	able to take credit for them for the target implementation date. Everyone agreed	with some caveats.

If a national measure is not implemented at all, then the EPA should be responsible	for substituting equivalent measures. This option received the most votes	although some others received votes as well.

If a national measure fails, then the States should not be sanctioned under those	circumstances.

Linkages to Other Issue Papers

Contingency Measures

Attainment Dates

Reasonable Further Progress

Framework for AOI/AOVs

Ms. Vernet discussed the linkages between this paper and the Contingency Measures paper. Although the two groups viewed contingency measures differently, there were no show-stopping differences between the two papers.

In terms of linkages with the Attainment Dates issue paper, Ms. Vernet stated that the presumptive five years with an extension request at the time of the SIP submittal would be consistent with the alternative framework. If the attainment dates recommendations go forward as presented yesterday, there are not serious disagreements between the papers.

Mr. Dan Johnson stated that both the Control Strategies and RFP papers are consistent with pre-planned targets. He then listed some similarities between the papers. One difference arose in setting a firm ten-year obligation which the RFP group did not agree on in extreme circumstances. Some on the RFP group felt that the RFP target should be standard where the Control Strategies group felt that it could be customized.

Mr. Johnson explained that the AOI/AOV group worked independently of the Control Strategies group. The frameworks of the two papers should compliment one another to the extent that the AOI/AOV paper does not hand off specific control requirements.

With regard to the Economic Incentives paper, it was felt that the States would have to be careful that the backstops of contingency measures do not undermine the economic incentives program.

Mr. Dan Johnson thinks that the framework works. He reiterated the paper's recommendations.

Mr. Krupnick remarked that further discussion of attainment dates will not be fruitful. He asked what was left in the paper that is still open.

Mr. Dan Johnson responded that the core question is the extent to which a state should be allowed discretion.

Mr. Krupnick asked if the discussion could be limited to this issue.

Sarah Pierce-Sandner felt that the Control Strategies group went one step further than the RFP paper in terms of getting to attainment. RFP paper concurred that the type of emissions and precursors should be customized at the airshed level, but the RFP group could not agree on whether the rate should be standardized or customized. The Control Strategies paper has proposed full customization up to a point, and then a federal backstop hammer went into place if you missed the target. The question comes in determining a federal backstop for the type of emissions which should be reduced. She felt that the area should still be given the discretion as to the type of emissions reductions which need to be made. The backstops should reflect the precursors necessary to get you to attainment.

Ms. Vernet felt that the backstop plan is still developed by the customizing agency doing the core plan.

Mr. Luneberg respect the work toward consensus. He thinks that backstops are necessary. The contingency measure paper deserves more time than it has had. There are a number of items in the alternative framework that do not measure up to the CAA. The issues allowing the States to get off if the EPA fails to implement measures is clearly outside of the CAA.

Mr. Kendall felt that the ad hoc group idea of kickstarting the thing is not inconsistent. He was concerned that the backstops would not go in until Year 8. He felt that there should be some accountability and annual monitoring to get programs into place. For soft control strategy measures, there should be contingency backstops set up for each component that kick in during an early SIP review. He agreed that added flexibility should be given to the State, but this also means additional accountability and responsibility.

Finally, Mr. Kendall had a major problem with what happens when national measures fail. He feels that the governors have the responsibility for the SIPs and their programs. He feels that it is up to the States to come up with an alternative to deal with the issue of when national measures fail.

Mr. Baron agrees about the earlier backstops. Mr. Baron and Mr. Hawkins feel that it is backwards to allow programs first which may or may not work. The CAA provides that all reasonable control measures should be used up front as expeditiously as possible. This framework is a way of delaying adopting measures and a way of delaying attainment.

Mr. Baron pointed out that the Attainment Dates paper provides for reaching attainment in five years and this paper does not. Under this proposal, it is possible that there would not be enforceable measures until 2007 or later.

Mr. Baron does not agree with allowing States to claim emissions reductions when the national measures fail. This act does not reflect reality, and the States ought to be responsible for cleaning up this air.

Ms. Marvin brought up the fact that the paper does not accommodate California's needs. The timing of a 7-year period seems to reflect a transitional area's needs but it will not necessarily work for areas with longer attainment dates. Backstop measures are often designed for a national audience, and she believes that States do design effective programs and should be allowed to continue doing this.

Ms. Marvin also felt that Mr. Johnson had sold the flexible attainment approach as a way that you would not have to pass a bunch of technical hurdles with the EPA. California is not going to proceed forward until they have done that in-depth assessment.

Mr. Lawler thinks that allowing States flexibility is a good thing, but this does not imply a delay in the process. The points on kickstarting the programs are good. For States to get regulations identified and through the process, the basis of the science is necessary. The paper needs to reflect that getting things started ahead of time is good, but doing a SIP without good science will not happen.

Mr. Dan Johnson agrees that the paper needs to be clarified on this point. The discussions focused on what it takes to convince EPA to accept the program. The State must do what they need to do to get approval from legislature and stakeholders. You will need the sound science to convince the stakeholders that they are the right ones to reduce their emissions.

Larry Feldcamp (Baker & Botts) endorses the proposal to make the program more flexible to the States. He questioned the notion that some states are trying to delay. He felt that FACA needs to endorse the recommendation on national measures. EPA should be held accountable if they are late.

Mr. Seitz summarized the conversation with the following points:

There is not a consensus on recommendation three.

The structure is going to have be tailored to individual States.

Many of the issues will remain, so he will not ask the group to bring the paper much further other than to capture what has been said in this discussion. It can then be brought back through the Coordination Work Group.

There are remaining issues that will not be resolved.