EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the Subcommittee for Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze Implementation Programs (Subcommittee) in September 1995 as a part of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC), under the authority of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). At the time, EPA was in the process of conducting a scientific review of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter (PM), and the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) was developing recommendations on strategies for addressing regional haze in Class I areas such as national parks and wilderness areas. Given the potential for significant changes in national air quality standards and related implementation programs in 1997, as well as the existing information about common sources and atmospheric processes leading to formation of ozone, particulate matter and regional haze, EPA believed it was important to initiate a process through which it could obtain advice and recommendations from a broad group of stakeholders on possible new integrated approaches to attaining the NAAQS and reducing regional haze.

There is a scientific basis for pursuing the integration of implementation programs for ozone, particulate matter, and regional haze. Evidence shows that many of the emission precursors, atmospheric processes, and spatial patterns of ozone and fine particles (and the resulting regional haze) are common or similar. It is recognized, however, that several important information gaps exist which present technical challenges to integration of the programs.

The Subcommittee was formed to discuss a range of policy and technical issues (and provide consensus recommendations where possible) related to implementation programs for attaining new/revised NAAQS and reducing regional haze in Class I areas.

The EPA envisioned that the Subcommittee would examine key aspects of the existing implementation programs for ozone, PM, and regional haze to provide for more effective implementation of potential new standards and regional haze program, as well as to provide new approaches that could integrate broad regional and national control strategies with more localized efforts. The focus of the Subcommittee was to be on assisting the EPA in developing implementation control strategies, preparing supporting analyses, and identifying and resolving impediments to the adoption of the resulting programs.

The Subcommittee is composed of eighty-two members representing a broad range of interests in air quality management, including State, local, and Tribal governments, environmental and public interest organizations, industry, and academia. The Subcommittee has five working groups including a coordination group. (Appendix A lists the Subcommittee and work group membership). The work groups reviewed issues and developed issue papers and recommendations for Subcommittee discussion.

Upon their formation, the work groups identified priority issues to address and assigned lead authors for various "issue papers." Each issue paper describes the background of the particular air quality management issue, and presents options and recommendations for Subcommittee consideration. Work group members were charged to develop innovative solutions to issues even if they were outside of the current statutory or regulatory framework (i.e., "thinking outside of the box"). In January of 1997, the Coordination Group finalized a set of content-related principles for issue paper development. These principles were used in the development of the issue paper recommendations and were fully endorsed by the Subcommittee.

In July of 1997, the EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for PM-2.5 and a revised NAAQS for ozone, and it issued a proposed regional haze rule. After promulgation of the new standards, the President issued a directive entitled Implementation Plan for Revised Air Quality Standards. This directive embodied several concepts discussed by the Subcommittee. Principally, the Directive recognized the importance of regional air quality strategies to address violations of the standard. The Directive also delayed the designation of PM-2.5 nonattainment areas until after a complete review of the PM standard (to be completed by July 2002). Finally, the Directive acknowledged the inability of some facilities to cost effectively reduce emissions and allowed for the development of a clean air investment fund (CAIF). These regulatory actions and the issuance of the Presidential Directive affected many of the issue papers that were under discussion by the Subcommittee.

This report summarizes the major issues and recommendations discussed by the Subcommittee and its working groups from September 1995 through December 1997. It provides a comprehensive review of the Subcommittee's work and includes some of the summary information in the Subcommittee's Initial Report on Subcommittee Discussions (issued in 1997).

It is important to note matters which have not been considered by the Subcommittee including: the appropriate level of the underlying NAAQS; the technological feasibility or cost-effectiveness of potential implementation strategies; whether, or in what time period, any implementation strategies will demonstrate compliance with the applicable NAAQS; and the extent to which proposed implementation strategies are consistent with the CAA or other law.

Defining Areas of Violation and Areas of Influence

A central proposal of the Subcommittee is the concept of an Area of Violation (AOV), or the area in which a NAAQS is exceeded, coupled with an Area of Influence (AOI), a broader area including sources that potentially contribute to downwind NAAQS violations. The concept is also applicable in addressing regional haze, whereby AOIs can be developed for the 156 mandatory Class I Federal areas. While the nonattainment approach has brought about significant improvements in air quality, the bright line between attainment and nonattainment areas has created some problems. The AOV/AOI approach may be needed to address NAAQS violations and visibility impairment caused primarily by pollutant transport. The AOV/AOI concept is an important foundation to several issue papers developed by the Subcommittee.

Under the AOV/AOI construct, the AOI would be responsible for the control measures needed to bring the AOV into attainment or improve visibility in Class I areas. In most cases the AOV is located within the AOI. Control obligations often would be identified through multi-State planning and assessment of the AOI. The Subcommittee discussed situations where this construct would be needed. For example, the multi-State planning and assessment may find that the AOV has no control obligation (i.e., all of the air pollution is transported into the AOV, this situation occurs on the tops of mountains in national parks). In some cases (e.g., a western valley with a wood smoke problem) the problem can be addressed exclusively with local measures. Planning activities, including expanded monitoring, enhanced emission inventories, and the development and application of regional-scale models, are recommended to begin as soon as possible.

Under the CAA, areas that violate the NAAQS are required to implement controls necessary to attain the standard. Complete agreement on the AOI/AOV construct was not achieved because of differing opinions on the types of control obligations required in the AOV, and the timing for implementation of measures in the AOV versus the AOI. The FACA Subcommittee discussed a framework whereby the AOV would have responsibility for some level of control prior to the completion of the planning and assessment activities of the AOI. Under this framework, the AOV would not be required to select any particular control measures but would be required to select enough measures to achieve a specified minimum percentage of emission reductions. Development of the framework was not completed. While there was interest in the type of flexibility discussed, there was no consensus in the Subcommittee that the overall framework approach should be recommended.

Planning and Implementation Issues

The Subcommittee discussed various aspects of the air quality planning and implementation process for ozone, PM-2.5, and regional haze. Topics included the designation process for PM-2.5, the size of and process for determining areas of violation, purposes and methods for classifying areas with regard to their air quality, the time required to attain air quality standards, and the integration of air quality planning for the new/revised NAAQS and regional haze rules. Some of the approaches recommended prior to July 1997 were affected or superseded by finalization of the ozone and PM standards, issuance of the Presidential Directive and OTAG recommendations, and proposal of the regional haze program.

Barriers to the collection of air quality data by the States were identified, and the Subcommittee recommended incentives to increase air quality monitoring. The Subcommittee recommended that EPA revise its guidance to allow the use of operating permit fees for general ambient air monitoring, expand the national ambient monitoring requirements and provide commensurate funding, allow the use of both public and private monitoring data to clarify boundaries and analyze the chemical makeup of PM, encourage the formation of public-private partnerships to expand monitoring, and accelerate the implementation of PM-2.5 monitors to improve the information base upon which initial air quality designations will be made.

Areas designated as nonattainment in the past have established the infrastructure to collect air quality data, develop emission inventories, conduct atmospheric modeling, assess trends, draft air quality regulations, and evaluate progress. The work group recognized that a 10-year cycle was typical to collect and analyze data, develop and implement rules, and assess progress. However, the work group also recognized that many newly designated areas could achieve air quality benefits in less time. Although the 5-year attainment date in the CAA may be difficult to achieve for areas with complex air quality problems, it was recognized as a necessary driver for action.

Because the form of the new standards require three years of air quality data to assess compliance, the work group recommended, although the Subcommittee did not endorse, that this 3-year assessment period be outside the 5-year attainment period. Areas that have complex air quality problems could apply for a 5-year extension. However, granting the extension should be contingent upon a good plan and expeditious action in implementing controls.

The Subcommittee discussed the progress in air quality improvement during the time between promulgation of new/revised NAAQS and submittal of State control strategies. Some Subcommittee members identified existing ongoing efforts (including the acid rain program, the air toxic program, and the implementation of measures to meet the existing standards) as sufficient progress. Other Subcommittee members identified a potentially long period where additional measures could be identified and control strategies implemented. The Subcommittee agreed that areas that violate the NAAQS should address the problem expeditiously. It was generally agreed that action could include implementation of State/local control measures prior to approval of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). However, the nature and extent of these controls should vary with the specific circumstances (i.e. the pollutant mix) of a local or regional air quality situation.

The work groups discussed the opportunity to integrate future planning and implementation activities for the NAAQS and regional haze programs. The Subcommittee agreed that unsynchronized planning cycles and implementation schedules are problematic. However, the data and analyses to identify areas that violate the PM-2.5 standard will not be available for several years, whereas some data are available for ozone and regional haze. The work groups recommended against any delays in the ozone attainment dates or progress milestones for regional haze in order to integrate the programs. The Subcommittee fully endorsed pursuing opportunities for integration of planning and implementation for ozone, PM, and haze that achieve better environmental results and lower costs.

Prior to the Presidential Directive, the work groups contemplated a new classification scheme. The objectives discussed were to communicate air quality conditions, to differentiate attainment dates, control requirements, or complexity of the air pollution problem (transport versus local sources). The Presidential Directive established a transitional classification category for areas that attain the old 1-hour ozone standard and participate in implementing the eastern regional ozone strategy. Following the issuance of the Presidential Directive, the Subcommittee agreed that designing a PM-2.5 classification scheme is premature until the outcome of the next standard review is known and more PM-2.5 data are available. The Subcommittee recommended no additional classification scheme for ozone beyond the transitional classification established in the Presidential Directive. The Subcommittee acknowledged that classifications based on severity of air quality problems are useful for public information purposes, but additional information should be provided to the residents of those areas exceeding the NAAQS regarding the nature of the air quality problem and the types of strategies needed to comply with the standards.

The Subcommittee discussed implementation of a regional haze program to make reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal of no manmade impairment in Class I areas. The Subcommittee endorsed various criteria that can be used to determine if reasonable progress is being achieved. The group recommended that States and Tribes include long-term strategies for assuring continued progress in their plans. The group also recommended the allowance of innovative strategies to address the requirement for best available retrofit technology (BART). The workgroup recommended using stakeholder input in establishing Class I area visibility targets, but Subcommittee members also suggested establishment of a "Federal backstop" rate of progress.

Prior to the Presidential Directive, a subgroup discussed how and where transportation conformity should apply in areas that potentially violate or potentially contribute to a violation of the new/revised standards for ozone and PM. The scope of the subgroup's discussion was limited to the issues that are unique to the application of transportation conformity to the presumably larger areas, and in some cases more rural areas, which are likely to be subject to additional emissions control requirements to attain the new/revised standards.

Areas at Risk or Too Close to Call

The Subcommittee discussed actions that States could take to prevent air quality violations. The Subcommittee recommended that EPA provide States and other planning bodies guidance on available approaches for tracking air quality trends and assessing whether an area is sufficiently close to a standard violation to warrant development of a preventative program. The Subcommittee agreed that areas at risk of violating the standard would not be required to take action, but that EPA could provide States with incentives for adopting programs in areas that are determined to be at risk of violating a standard.

Meteorology plays an important role in the formation of ozone, PM-2.5, and regional haze. During years of "bad" meteorology air quality monitors register violations. During years of "good" meteorology these same monitors may not register violations. The Subcommittee discussed the effect of meteorology on these violations and the ability of an area to flip in and out of attainment based on meteorology. The Subcommittee discussed options for a "too close to call" classification category but because of strong disagreement and work load priorities, the Subcommittee did not rework or continue discussion of the issue.

Scientific and Technical Issues

The Subcommittee discussed the availability and development of science and technical tools. The Subcommittee agreed that additional data and tools are needed to understand the formation, interaction, and cost-effective control of ozone, PM-2.5, and regional haze. Ozone, PM-2.5, and regional haze have common precursors emissions. Some pollutants, specifically nitrogen oxides which are a product of combustion, participate in the formation of ozone, PM-2.5, and regional haze. However, in some urban areas, nitrogen oxide scavenges ozone. In order to cost effectively integrate the control programs additional air quality monitoring data, emission inventories, and atmospheric chemistry models are needed. Time is also needed to understand these phenomena. The Subcommittee discussed these effects, the availability and implications of air quality and emissions data, and the state of the science with regard to atmospheric models to understand these phenomena.

The Subcommittee discussed the need to improve the emission inventories and the modeling process and model evaluation in particular. Appropriate uses of models to identify controls and regulations was discussed and the need for more rigorous quantitative uncertainty analysis. The Subcommittee also discussed the flexibility an agency or other stakeholder should be allowed in choosing an air quality model.

The Subcommittee discussed the current air quality monitoring system. Air quality monitors are used to determine the highest concentration of a pollutant in an area and the representative air pollutant concentrations in areas of high population density. The Subcommittee discussed "population weighting" or "exposure weighting" of monitors as a means to reflect actual human exposure to a particular air pollutant. The Subcommittee discussed different approaches for implementing an exposure-weighted monitoring system but did not reach consensus on a recommended approach. The Subcommittee did agree that when evaluating different strategies, each of which would attain the standard, decision makers should give preference to strategies that provide improved air quality for the greatest number of people.

Control Strategies for Improving Air Quality

Control Strategies are needed to reduce emissions responsible for NAAQS violations or regional haze problems. The core of the plan is the control strategy or the mix of measures that will be adopted and implemented in the area of influence. State plans must demonstrate both attainment of the standard and reasonable further progress (RFP) for the NAAQS, and "reasonable progress" in reducing visibility impairment in Class I areas in the State. Under the present CAA, in the event that reasonable further progress targets are not met or the area fails to attain the standard, a set of contingency measures are implemented. These contingency measures are identified in the initial plan. If the area fails to submit or implement an acceptable plan the EPA has a list of sanctions (i.e., penalties) that it may impose on the area.

After 27 years of implementing the CAA, States and local areas are at different levels in dealing with their air quality problems. Some areas have aggressively addressed air quality violations and implemented many reasonable measures that can be identified. Other areas will be addressing nonattainment for the first time and have not yet implemented control measures. Future implementation activities must have flexibility to deal with these differences, and allow innovative measures that may achieve equivalent air quality benefit at less cost. The Subcommittee recognized a need for an implementation approach that provides flexibility, yet ensures continued progress.

The Subcommittee discussed the appropriate balance between control measures prescribed by EPA and discretionary measures adopted by States. There was discussion of the need to identify the appropriate level of governance for specific measures. For instance, some measures, including measures dealing with products in interstate commerce (consumer products and cars), were specifically identified as appropriate for the Federal government. In addition, some Subcommittee members emphasized the need to address situations where EPA-prescribed control measures are delayed or are less effective than initially planned. State representatives were particularly concerned about emissions source categories for which the States are preempted from developing their own regulations by Federal law. Many Subcommittee members favored State discretion for new control measures, with some support for Federal backstops. However, the need for some Federal prescription in order to preserve equity was also recognized. Finally, some Subcommittee members raised the idea of the "States as laboratories" for policies that might then be adopted on a wider scale.

Following the Presidential Directive, the Subcommittee discussed a control strategies framework. This framework was developed to address a number of issues, including: areas not covered by regional transport strategies or which need additional local measures to attain the new standards; the role of Federal backstops when plans fail to achieve the target air quality; and consequences of failures in national measures. The framework allows for the development of an alternative plan with total flexibility on the part of the States to design a program using innovative and nontraditional strategies. If the progress targets are not met, contingency backstop measures would be implemented automatically.

The Subcommittee also discussed a framework for an iterative approach to measuring RFP. This approach uses three metrics to periodically check that the plan is on track and effective. The three metrics are emission reductions, completed project milestones, and air quality improvements. The use of project milestones to assess RFP allows for control measures that achieve delayed emission reductions. An example is the installation of a mass transit project. Historically, a required rate of progress has been applied nationally. The Subcommittee discussed whether the rate should be set at the national level or should vary by airshed.

The Subcommittee discussed economic incentives including emission trading programs, emission fees, programs that save people time, and public education programs as a means of achieving air quality objectives more efficiently, equitably and at less cost. An analytical framework was developed as a general guide for air quality regulators who are considering economic incentives to achieve their air quality objectives. The framework helps identify technical and political issues that will arise and lists the attributes that make different types of incentives work well.

In the event that the control strategy fails to make RFP or attain the standard, contingency measures are to be implemented. The Subcommittee discussed attributes of contingency measures including the use of episodic measures (those that occur during a particular season or during an air pollution episode), voluntary measures, the quantity of emissions that must be addressed with contingency measures, when the contingency measures should be adopted, and the ability to substitute or change measures.

The Subcommittee discussed the existing rewards and sanctions under the current clean air program and began formulating a set of options to supplement them. Rewards that were discussed included "safe harbors" (safe harbors from a potential future regulatory action for a limited period of time), additional air-quality set asides of Federal highway money, and public recognition. The Subcommittee recognized that the existing list of sanctions which EPA is authorized to implement do not always fit the level of the offense. The Subcommittee discussed whether the current list of sanctions have furthered air quality objectives. Options for discouraging missed deadlines were discussed including accelerating future deadlines, lowering the reasonably available control technology threshold, or denial of variances or alternative emission limits.

[To be added: A section on "inside" and "outside" the box]