This is a preliminary document prepared as a joint issue paper by a subgroup of the National and Regional Strategies (N&RS) and Base Programs Analyses and Policies (BPAP) work groups as part of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Subcommittee process. It is not an EPA document. Interested people should forward their comments to a member of the work groups.

Control Strategies

Date:	May 6, 1997

Contact:	Dan Johnson representing the NRSWG, 360/407-6872; fax: 360/407-6802

Jean Vernet representing the BPAPWG, 202/586-4755; fax: 202/586-2062

Status:	Draft (5/6/97) Incorporates background piece, and initial discussion for questions 2 through 5.

Mission Statement

This paper will recommend a process to be used by the responsible air quality planning authorities for allocation of control responsibilities among national, prescribed, and discretionary measures. Using this process, the issue paper will also attempt to produce lists of suggested national measures and prescribed measures, which the FACA Subcommittee should consider and potentially recommend to EPA.

Definitions

For the purpose of this issue paper the Control Strategies Subgroup will use the following definitions. It should be noted that both command and control programs and where appropriate incentive based programs shall be considered.

National Measures = Air quality improvement measures, Federally required and implemented nationwide

Prescribed Measures = Air quality improvement measures, Federally required in a subnational area and applied on the basis of an area's air quality status.

Discretionary Measures = Federally enforceable air quality improvement measures, selected by the air quality regulatory authority, to be added to applicable National and Prescribed measures in a plan to achieve the air quality objectives.

Mandatory Reductions = The total Federally enforceable control program necessary in an area to achieve the air quality objectives.

Area(s) for Control = an area(s) within which emission source(s) will share, appropriately, in the responsibility to achieve an air quality objective (e.g., NAAQS, reasonable progress objective).

[Note: the control strategies subgroup used this more general definition for the concept of Area(s) for Control until they have had sufficient opportunity to discuss this issue with the other related issue paper subgroups. Resolution of the definition at this stage is not critical to the framing of this issue paper.]

Background	5/2/97

The 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments established a framework for control of pollution from particulate matter and ground level ozone. Under the Amendments, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were established for the first time and national control measures were implemented by the early 1970's. These measures include motor vehicle emissions standards and new source performance standards (NSPS) for stationary sources. EPA also promulgated regulations for prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) in 1974.

The Amendments provided States with broad discretion for the development of the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for attaining the NAAQS. Under EPA rules governing SIPs, they were acceptable as long as the NAAQS were met by 1975, with some extensions to 1977.

By 1977, the goal of nationwide attainment of the NAAQS was far from being reached, especially for ozone. The 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments extended compliance deadlines to 1982, with allowable extensions to 1987 for ozone. While extending the compliance deadlines, the 1977 Amendments increased the amount of federal prescription in the development of control strategies.

In the 1977 Amendments, States were required to implement inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs for motor vehicles in order to obtain compliance extensions to 1987 for ozone. The 1977 Amendments also added Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for existing major stationary sources in nonattainment areas, and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) requirements for new or modified sources. States were given the choice of using an offset policy for new or modified sources, or general limits on existing sources to provide for growth.

The 1977 Amendments mandated the development of NSPS for additional source categories, and made a very specific directive for NSPS for fossil fuel-fired sources, requiring standards based on a percentage reduction in order to address fuel switching. The Amendments also provided for a more detailed and restrictive PSD program. The 1977 Amendments made the first provision for sanctions.

A national program for protection of visibility in 156 mandatory class I areas was also established in the 1977 Amendments. A national goal of no manmade visibility impairment was established, and States were required to revise SIPs to make "reasonable progress" toward this goal. A requirement was established for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) to apply to certain existing major stationary sources that contribute to visibility impairment in any class I area. Federal land managers were given influence in the permit process for new and modified sources that would impact air quality related values in class I areas.

With widespread nonattainment problems persisting after 1987, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments further increased the amount of federal prescription in the development of control strategies. They prescribed very specific measures for nonattainment areas, categorized by the severity of the nonattainment problem. These included I/M programs, variable offset ratios, and RACT fix-ups. The 1990 Amendments added other national measures for existing stationary sources, including NOx and SO2 emission reduction requirements for fossil fuel fired electric utility units and maximum achievable control technology (MACT) requirements for existing, new, and modified sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). They also added provisions for new transport institutions and institutional authorities - the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCTVC) and Ozone Transport Commission(s). The amendments also provided for national measures for consumer products and other emission sources.

Thus, the approach to attaining NAAQS since the early 1970's has ranged from considerably more discretion at the State level to a more top-down approach with detailed Federal prescriptions. Neither of these approaches has succeeded in producing nationwide attainment of the NAAQS for ozone or for particulate matter, or reduced regional haze to acceptable levels in Class I areas.

States and tribes are frustrated with the increasing number of prescribed measures, and the resultant lack of flexibility to develop control strategies. There have been significant improvements in the tools available for improving air quality since the early 1970's, particularly in the areas of air quality modeling and air pollution control technologies. If States were given more flexibility, modeling could provide a basis for achieving greater economies in attaining the NAAQS. However, many States have laws restricting, in some manner, State regulation beyond Federal requirements; any increased flexibility provided by reduced prescriptive measures could increase the burden (responsibility) on discretionary measures needed to meet the NAAQS.

National and prescribed measures may be important components of attainment strategies. Some control measures are best implemented at the national level, for instance motor vehicle controls and regulations requiring paint reformulation. National measures such as the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) have also been very successful at reducing emissions per vehicle mile traveled. In fact, some ozone nonattainment areas have been able to demonstrate attainment solely on the basis of Federal control measures. In addition, transport of pollutants and pollutant precursors creates a need for measures that can be applied over multi-state domains, where appropriate.

Industry would like to see control programs that have more emphasis on sound science and economics. The health and environmental advocates are concerned with the delays that could ensue if these ideas are implemented. Thy are also concerned with delays that could ensue if States were given more flexibility. The purpose of this issue paper is to find a proper balance between full discretion at the State/tribal level, and a top-down approach based on Federal prescriptions, as discussed in the above mission statement.

Principles	3/28/97

This issue paper was prepared in accord with the "content related principles", (CRP's), adopted by the FACA Subcommittee. Principles that are key to the preparation of this issue paper include:

•	Progress toward attainment ... in an expeditious manner; no backsliding; early actions to improvement ... should be encouraged. [CRP #1, #5]

•	Control strategies should be effective in achieving air quality objectives, should be designed to accommodate flexible response methods by emission sources, and should encourage continuing improvements in air quality. To this end, the advantages, disadvantages, and available information on cost effectiveness of a full range of control methods should be presented, including technology-based performance standards, market-based approaches, and other traditional and nontraditional approaches. [CRP # 6]

•	All options/recommendations should provide for the use of best available, scientifically- based explanations to be used in planning requirements and control strategy development. Such options/recommendations should include methods to identify the role of nonlocal transport processes and mechanisms designed to address such processes. [CRP #7]

•	Opportunities for integration of planning and implementation for ozone, PM and haze that achieve better environmental results and lower cost should be fully pursued. [CRP #8]

•	Planning and implementation ... should include early and continued involvement of potentially affected interests ... must have a timeline for completion ... and must have the legal authority issues resolved ...[CRP #9, #3, #4]

•	A Federal back stop ... for failure to plan, participate or implement. [CRP #2]

Working Assumptions	4/28/97

In addition to the above key principles, this issue paper uses some critical working assumptions about the final implementation process. These are based on the recommendations and current understanding of Phase 1 issue papers, although final decisions have not yet been made. Changes in these working assumptions could require reconsideration of the questions addressed in this paper. The following key working assumptions are used in the current issue paper:

1.	Areas violating the revised ozone and/or particulate matter standard will be considered Areas of Violation in advance of or perhaps in lieu of nonattainment areas.

2.	Class I areas with impairment will be treated as Areas of Violation

3.	In response to an Area of Violation, states, tribes, or multijurisdictional organizations (whichever is appropriate) will identify an Area(s) for Control.

4.	When the Area(s) for Control is multijurisdictional, there will be an institutional mechanism that will, at a minimum, recommend to EPA the appropriate allocation of emission reduction responsibility between states and tribes in a document called a Regionally Integrated Plan (RIP).

5.	New source review requirements will be addressed in a separate issue paper.

6.	Integration ..* .. this is a placeholder for a working assumption on Integrated Implementation.

7.	There will be a scheme that will allow for the differentiation of control measures between and within areas for control.

Key Questions

Question 1

Should there be additional national measures or changes to the mix of those measures? If so, which measures should be adopted, and on what basis will the measures be determined (science, cost-effectiveness, achievability, public health, equity, input from the public, etc.)?

*** This is a place-holder for material that will be placed in your hands before the joint meeting .. either via a contact at the OTAG meeting .. or via fax or e-mail prior to your travels to Durham ***

Question 2

Should there be minimum requirements imposed as additional prescribed measures common to some or all Areas for Control (e.g. final AOI, preliminary AOI, AOV, other domains, or other domains)? If so, which measures should be adopted, where should they be applied, and on what basis will the measures be determined (science, cost-effectiveness, achievability, public health, equity, input from the public, etc.)?

Introduction

With the complexity of this issue, it seems prudent to break this multi-part question into its component parts. They are:

1)	What is the appropriate mix of prescribed and discretionary measures to achieve a required air quality objective?

2)	What factors should be considered in selecting specific prescribed measures?

3)	Are there specific measures that can be recommended based on how they conform to these factors?

The key issue in the first question is what is meant by the word "appropriate". Here, we can be guided somewhat by the content-related principles, which favor flexible programs and allowing sources flexibility in method of response, while encouraging early emission reductions and allowing for no backsliding. The content-related principles also guide us in our response to the second question, suggesting a variety of factors that are to be weighed in the choice of control measures, but not suggesting a relative weighting of those factors. As to the last question, with appropriate information, such as a more detailed "Opportunity Matrix", it may be possible to offer one or more control measures that are consistent with the factors discussed in the second question.

Question 2.1. What is the appropriate mix of prescribed and discretionary measures to achieve a required air quality objective?

Taken as a whole, the content-related principles suggest the following HYPOTHESIS in response to this question: To the greatest extent practical, air quality planning authorities should be allowed discretion in choosing control measures to meet their Area of Control emission reduction obligations provided that timely attainment of the air quality objective is not compromised. With this as the hypothesis, we could begin by asking what is wrong with complete discretion, and evaluate prescriptive options that would address the weaknesses. We would evaluate each of these prescriptive options from the perspective of "the less prescription the better, so long as air quality objectives are met".

There is one inherent advantage in providing air quality planning authorities with discretion: it allows control programs to be customized to respond to an area's unique air quality problem(s). Presumably, the customized solution would be the optimal solution for the area, however "optimal" might be defined in any given area. There are disadvantages as well, however, disadvantages that have at least contributed to failures or significant delays in states meeting air quality objectives. For example:

•	emission reductions from new or customized measures are difficult to quantify accurately

•	state legislatures or local boards often restrict the authority of the agency in such a way that they are unable to implement measures not specifically mandated by the federal government

•	negotiations between source sectors is difficult without there being a recognized obligation as to the source sectors' emission reduction obligation

•	the recognition that a measure will fail to achieve predicted emission reductions can be untimely when customized solutions are used

•	new and customized measures are administratively and technically burdomsome for individual states to develop

•	the success of targeted solutions often is dependent on having a better understanding of source receptor relationships than the current science gives us

•

The key to determining the appropriate mix between discretionary and prescriptive measures will be to identify forms of prescriptive measures that will ensure timely and certain attainment of the air quality objective while providing as much discretion as possible. How can prescription overcome the shortcomings of a completely discretionary program?

Options for Question 2.1

Option 1: No prescribed measures.

Option 2: Prescribed without option (enhanced I/M, for example)

Option 3: Prescribed as a rebuttable presumption (CTGs, for example)

3.a. Prescribed with allowance for substitution with equivalent emission reduction measures.

3.b. Prescribed as a rebuttable presumption.

Option 4: Prescribed measures triggered when/if planning authority fails to meet an obligation (this might work similar to how the current program requires contingency measures in SIPs)

Option 5: Menu of choices of prescribed measures from which planning authority must choose

Option 6: RACT/RACM type prescription applied to some or all sources (RACM required on significant sources in PM nonattainment areas, for example.) Note: Since a general requirement for RACT/RACM is provided in title I, anything different would require a statutory amendment change.

Option 7: Prescribed measures coupled with classification bump-ups (such as the current O3 and CO program)

Option 8: Prescription limited to emission reduction responsibility by source or source category

Option 9: Mix of prescribed/discretionary differentiated based on distance from AOV or modeled impact on AOV.

Note: [To the Question 2 Group. At this point, I would see us evaluating each option as to its ability to overcome shortcomings while providing for as much discretion as possible perhaps in RTP]

Question 2.2. What factors should be considered when selecting specific prescribed measures?

Two approaches are proposed:

APPROACH 1...

If the option chosen includes having EPA prescribe a specific measure, whether without options as under option 1, or rebuttable, or as a backstop or contingency, the measure should not be chosen arbitrarily. The choice to prescribe specific control measures on a source category should be based, in some relative measure, on:

(1)	cost effectiveness .. Two-pronged: cost/ton of emission reduced or cost/unit of ambient impact.

(2)	amount of emission reduction feasibly achievable

(3)	equity <what does this mean to people??>

(4)	acceptability from a public and political perspective

(5)	extent to which more than one pollutant reduced or ambient problem addressed

(6)	amount of disbenefit "costs"

(7)	predictability of emission reduction

(8)	extent to which source category is nationwide

(9)	Suitability of implementation via market-based approaches

Question about the above factors:

- is the list complete?

- are they "objective" criteria?

- can they be quantified?

- An alternate approach has been suggested .. Just list a complete set of factors, and apply these to the list of potential measures and allow the pros/cons for each measure to reflect the relative worth of the factor to each measure.

Options for Question 2.2

Prescriptive control measures should be selected based on:

Option 1: (4) and (8) musts, then priority based on cost effectiveness only

Option 2: (8) a must, then priority based first on acceptability, the cost effectiveness

Option 3: ...

Option 4: ...

APPROACH 2: Based on comments received, I suggest we consider (for discussion next week)

the following alternative to question 2.2, as a different way to formulate

an appropriate range of options

Several of the above factors cannot be quantified, and essentially are

issues of values. In general, in terms of who should decide who is

responsible for emission reductions (EPA through precribed measures or

state/tribes through discreationary measures), it is desirable to leave the

evaluation of measures that are especially sensitive to qualitative

considerations to the lowest level of government possible. This is on the

presumption that the more local the governmental entity, the more responsive

and sensitive they are likely to be to the values of the community. This is

consistent with the hypothesis stated above, encouraging discretion. It may

be appropriate to distinguish those factors that lend themselves to

quantitative evaluation and those that are value oriented.

When prescribed measures are called for...

Option 1: All of the above factors should be taken into consideration by

EPA.

Option 2: Only those factors that can be ranked quantitatively should be

taken into consideration by EPA.

Option 3: EPA should develop prescriptive measures for all source

categories that are national in scope and have the potential for significant

reductions. The only remaining decision would be based on where and when the

prescriptive measures apply.

Option 4: A hierarchical approach should be used, whereby the most

important factors are considered first, and measures that seem appropriate

on the basis of these factors would be further evaluated based on some or

all of the remaining factors.

a. Only the highest ranking measures based on quantitative analysis of

factors should be considered. Qualitative factors would then be taken into

consideration.

b. Only measures that address a source category that is common in all

parts of the country and have the potential to significantly reduce

pollutants contributing to the air quality problem(s) being addressed should

be considered. Of the measures meeting these conditions, the choice should

be based on:

1. Cost effectiveness only

2. Cost effectiveness, with additional consideration of other factors.

3.

4.

c.

Option 5: Same as option 4, but only quantifiable factors are used.

Subquestion 2.3. Are there specific measures that can be recommended based on how they conform to these factors?

Once the preferred option is identified for the above question, it is contemplated that the control measures in the Opportunity Matrix will be evaluated to determine which, if any, stand out as appropriate prescribed measures.

Option 1: ...

Option 2: ...

Question 3

How should the order of implementation be determined?

Introduction

In preparing SIPs and attainment demonstrations, air quality planning agencies must show that the control measures will be implemented in a timely manner (if the measure is accompanied by a deadline), and must supplement any national and prescribed measures with sufficient discretionary measures to demonstrate attainment by the required date. In addition, planned emissions reductions must be made, to comply with reasonable further progress (RFP) requirements. The question of the order of implementation holds great importance for air quality planners, because (1) SIPs are due at the beginning of the implementation process; and (2) planning agencies may take credit for emissions reductions from national measures when they are expected to occur. Reductions from these national measures (which, if they are implemented, will occur outside of the air quality planning process) may reduce or eliminate the need for some prescribed and/or discretionary measures. This question thus focuses on both the timing of implementation and credit for the various measures.

Option 1: National measures are presumed to be fully implemented upon their target dates. Prescribed measures are implemented according to the associated requirements. Discretionary measures will be added sufficient to ensure attainment. Full credit will be given for national and prescribed measures based on proposed implementation dates.

Option 2: National measures are presumed to be fully implemented upon their target dates, with full credit from those dates. A mix of prescribed and discretionary measures will be used, depending on ease of implementation, costs, and feasibility, to demonstrate attainment and comply with RFP requirements.

Option 3: A mix of prescribed and discretionary measures, depending upon ease of implementation, costs, and feasibility, will be used to demonstrate attainment. Credit for national measures may be substituted (via SIP revision) for equal amounts of reductions from discretionary measures, if and when the national measures are implemented.

Option 4: National measures credited upon target dates. Discretionary measures credited on plan (SIP) dates. (No prescribed measures.)

Option 5: Both national and prescribed measures credited on target dates. Discretionary measures provided only in contingency and maintenance plans.

Question 4

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)?

Introduction

Currently, air quality planning agencies may take credit for certain national rules, promulgated by USEPA, even if the rules have not been implemented (or even finalized) at the time of the SIP submittal. For example, states with moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas were allowed to take a substantial credit in VOC reductions in their 15% plans for an expected national rule on architectural coatings, even though the negotiations with paint manufacturers regarding the final requirements of the rule were still going on at the submittal deadline. The final agreement on paints was later than expected, however, and resulted in significantly less reduction credit than was initially expected. In other instances, states waited for guidance from EPA in the form of CTG documents, which were required by the Clean Air Act Amendments. The CTGs which were completed were tardy, and most were never completed. Thus this question focuses on the ramifications for and responsibilities of air quality planning agencies when a national measure for which credit has been assumed is late or is not implemented.

For national measures which are delayed:

Option 1: 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 attainment 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.

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: Differences in emission reductions made up by discretionary measures; a grace period is allowed for implementation of these discretionary measures.

Option 3: Discretionary measures must be substituted by the original target date.

What should be the consequences to the regulatory agency?

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

Option 2: 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: Substitute measures must be adopted and implemented by the target date. If they are not implemented, appropriate sanctions will be applied.

Question 5

For areas of control that involve multiple jurisdictions (e.g., interstate/intertribal/state-tribal), what process and criteria should be used by the responsible planning body in assessing the mix of controls (national, regional, state and local) to be included in the regionally integrated plan? [Restated from: For interstate, or State/tribal Area(s) for Control, what (if any) guidelines should be used by the responsible air quality planning authority in assessing the mix of controls?]

Option 1. No guidelines provided: Planning effort would not be constrained by existing law or regulations. EPA would provide a timeline for developing plans that achieve NAAQS and make reasonable progress toward reducing regional haze. States/tribes would have flexibility to develop regionally integrated plan that met air quality objectives using whatever mix of strategies they want.

Option 2. No guidelines provided except for applicable laws and regulations: EPA would provide timeline for plan development; states/tribes within regional planning body would decide own their process and criteria for reaching consensus on regionally integrated plan.

Option 3. General guidelines provided: EPA would provide guidance to the regional planning body and set timeframe to make recommendations. Guidance would include: (1) minimal procedural guidelines (consensus process, stakeholder/public participation); (2) factors to be considered: e.g., cost-effectiveness, timeliness, socioeconomic considerations, equity, administrative/resource needs, ease of implementation, legal authority and enforceability; and (3) proposed emission reduction targets or budgets to be achieved on regional scale (subject to refinement).

Option 3a. Guidelines could be more specific and include (1) criteria for distinguishing between regional pollutants/precursors and localized impacts (science and tech support needed); and (2) a suggested decision path approach, e.g., planning body would assess: (a) the effect of national measures ? existing, planned, and preferred (ones those states would like implemented on a national basis), including CAAA; (b) the effect of any existing or proposed regional measures; (c) the effect of ongoing state and local programs on regional transport; (d) the need for additional reductions on regional scale to address transport (leading to possible refinement of emission reduction target provided by EPA initially); and (e) how the reduction responsibility would be divided up among jurisdictions.

[Note: If, at this stage, a transport commission were formed, the process outlined in CAA could be used to come to consensus/majority recommendation to EPA.]

Option 4. (Stand alone option or in combination with above/below) EPA would publish a federal/backstop plan to take effect at some date certain if regional action or recommendations are not forthcoming or are substantially inadequate.

Option 5. Emissions budgets for the multi-jurisdictional area would be prescribed upfront by EPA, along with timeframe for plan development, adoption and implementation. EPA might also provide technical info, tools or guidance to assist planning body with assessment of what combination of measures will achieve desired result.

Option 6. EPA would prescribe mandatory measures that would have to be included in plan. Mandatory measures alone may be sufficient to reach attainment and make progress toward regional haze goals; otherwise, additional measures would need to be adopted.

Question 6

After answering each of the above questions, what implications are there for, or from, other issue papers?

Control Strategies Appendix A. "National Measures, in-place or proposed."

This is a place-holder for a collection of current information on National Measures.