FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

FACA Ad Hoc Group on Monitoring Incentives

The following (Nos. 1-5) are the final consensus recommendations of the Ad Hoc Group on Monitoring Incentives:

1.	Provide financial incentives by revising EPA guidance to allow the use of Title V funds for general ambient air monitoring at NAMS, SLAMS, PAMS, and certain SPMs. - In some cases, pollutants measured in the ambient air can be traced back to permitted stationary source emissions either as primary emissions or as secondary pollutants. The States should be allowed the flexibility to use Title V funds where such sources contribute to ambient problems. Implementation of this recommendation would remove any Federal impediment to allowing States to make a decision on whether or not to use Title V funds. If it is necessary to implement this recommendation, EPA should revise its guidance. Additionally, it is recognized that there are other fee programs, e.g., mobile source fees, which do not limit the use of the collected fees and may be used for purposes of general ambient air monitoring.

2.	Expand mandatory national ambient monitoring requirements via rulemaking and provide commensurate funding (or funding mechanisms) to support the new activities. - Since it was observed that most ambient monitoring networks can be improved by additional efforts, minimum monitoring requirements need to be expanded for a variety of purposes including, but not limited to, adding monitors in rural and transport areas, measuring health or environmental impacts, and adequately characterizing the nature of the ambient pollution problem in a given area, e.g., requiring the installation of background and regional transport ozone monitors. One option would be to require the promulgation of revised mandatory ambient monitoring rules, while at the same time creating a national or perhaps regional group of affected parties who should work with EPA to establish the new requirements and revisit the current monitoring requirements. This review would encompass such activities as identifying the various purposes of each type of monitor required, any deficiencies of the current system, plans for expansion of the network, appropriate funding levels and sources, and possible funding mechanisms. New funding (i.e., additional §105 grant monies over and above the current funds; reprogramming of existing monies is not an acceptable substitute for new funds ) must be made available to implement these mandatory requirements for an expanded network to avoid creating an unfunded mandate. It is acknowledged that new increases in §105 funding for these purposes will be augmented by State or local funds.

It was observed that ambient monitoring is needed both in areas of relatively high concentrations as well as in areas of low concentrations, especially rural background sites. By employing a more extensive rural network, i.e., placing monitors in areas of low emissions density or perhaps areas of high emissions, but low population density, a State could better define the area of concern and provide better information on spatial gradients as a basis for model evaluation. In lieu of using a grid system for locating monitors, the recommended practice would be to locate sites with the best science available. At the same time, appropriate consideration should be given to expanding upper air ambient monitoring, i.e., quantifying vertical pollution gradients.

3.	To ensure that focused control strategies are implemented in the appropriate areas, allow the use of both public and private monitoring data to clarify area boundaries, and to analyze the chemical makeup of particulate matter. - Data from public or private ambient monitoring networks which follow EPA sampling protocols and quality assurance/quality control guidelines (including audits) may be useful in clarifying the boundaries of affected areas, especially if modeling was the tool original used to specify those boundaries. A better definition of area (AOI/AOV) boundaries would be an incentive for States and private sources to establish additional monitoring sites.

Affected air pollution control agencies should be encouraged to conduct speciated sampling for PM-2.5 even if the only available methods are not Federal Reference Methods; these data could be used to better focus the control strategies. Federal Reference Methods or EPA guideline methods should be used if available.

4.	Encourage the formation of public-private partnerships to expand ambient monitoring from health-based organizations (e.g., HMOs), environmental groups, private foundations, industry, Federal Land Managers, and Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs), etc. - A viable mechanism for supporting expanded monitoring would be the establishment of various public-private partnerships; such associations have been successful in such areas as the Houston Regional Monitoring network, the Rutgers upper air monitoring site, NARSTO, the Southern Oxidants Study (SOS), etc. Data from such partnerships should be entered into the public record; all data gathered with appropriate sampling methods and quality assurance (including audits) would be considered. Regulators should not be impeded from employing ambient monitoring programs as supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) in lieu of fines as appropriate, when such monitoring is clearly supplemental to other promulgated monitoring requirements.

5.	Accelerate implementation of PM 2.5 monitors to improve the information base upon which initial designations will be made. - Designations must be complete by June, 2000. Since the complete PM2.5 monitoring network will be phased in over three years, only limited PM2.5 measurements will be available for designations at that time. Any acceleration of the PM2.5 monitoring network, including the very important speciation analysis, will reduce the uncertainty associated with the currently available information base and provide better data for decision-making. EPA should ensure that appropriate funding is made available for this activity.

The following are considered "limited-consensus" recommendations (Nos. 6-10) of the Ad Hoc Group on Monitoring Incentives. General support was obtained from the State and industry representatives, but not from the environmental community:

6.	Redefine the immediate link between a measured violation and mandatory nonattainment regulatory provisions. (This approach would need to be compatible with the AOI/AOV concepts currently under consideration). - To encourage early, effective implementation of control strategies, monitoring, and other measures, the imposition of mandatory nonattainment regulatory requirements should be decoupled from the measurement of ambient concentrations which violate a NAAQS, especially where such exceedances of the standards are associated with unusually adverse meteorological conditions, e.g., a 100-year flood. This decoupling will result in additional monitors for determining health impacts, for characterizing pollution problems in rural, urban and regional transport areas, and for improving modeling and emissions inventories. In addition, this decoupling should be designed to produce measured results (i.e., equivalent or better public health benefits) in a shorter time frame than the current nonattainment/SIP process.

Early planning would be advisable if an area finds its ambient concentrations approaching NAAQS levels; then if a measured violation of a NAAQS is recorded, an immediate response from EPA and the affected State would be initiated. The response would consist of an analysis of the cause(s) of the violation, the planning of corrective measures to reduce air quality below violation levels, and the implementation of those measures on a negotiated schedule. These immediate actions and planning activities would supersede the need for automatic, mandatory "nonattainment" requirements. By conducting early, up-front planning, the affected State could initiate appropriate control strategies sooner than if the standard SIP process was implemented. However, rules should be crafted so that a State or Local Agency which failed to respond appropriately (according to guidelines, a time limit, etc.) or whose programs did not adequately resolve the problems which caused the violation, would be subjected to the automatic control strategies imposed by a "nonattainment" designation. This decoupling could take a form similar to the current Flexible Attainment Region (FAR) agreements. The violation of the standard, as well as the ambient monitoring data, would remain in the public record; all data gathered with appropriate sampling methods and quality assurance would be considered.

7.	Allow the use of realistic inputs instead of defaults, where appropriate, for modeling assumptions once an area has installed all the monitors required for the new network. - When a source is required to model (dispersion) and creates the inputs for the model, it is important that sufficient data for inputs be available to provide the most accurate outputs. This incentive recognizes that using actual measured inputs is more desirable than using defaults or estimates. If sufficient monitoring data exist which show that modeling assumptions are excessively conservative, then the use of less conservative assumptions should be allowed, so long as an adequate degree of conservatism remains in the modeling analysis. This incentive would especially support an expansion of appropriate meteorological monitoring activities.

8.	When possible, locate monitors at areas of highest population, especially near buildings where people actually live. - Similar to the proposed changes to 40 CFR 58 for PM2.5, requirements should consider population density when siting monitors to evaluate public health impacts. When deciding the attainment status of an area, additional consideration should be given to violations measured at such population-oriented monitors. (Note that this recommendation does not suggest that data from population-oriented monitors be used to the exclusion of other monitoring data, but only articulates that such information be used to assist in prioritizing measured ambient air problems.)

9.	Require federally-referenced continuous and instantaneous-reading monitors for 24-hour PM sampling when episodic control strategies are employed; such instrumentation should be encouraged to support other uses such as public reporting, etc. - Should a state choose to permit episodic controls, a source would benefit by having continuous/instantaneous data available. (It is recognized that such continuous Federal Reference Method (FRM) PM instruments may not be available in the near future. Note that this recommendation does not specifically advocate the use of episodic controls, but does support mandatory continuous ambient monitoring requirements if a State permits such controls. )

10.	Initiate a national voluntary partnership program for specific selected sources in lieu of "command-and-control" requirements. - Partnerships with the private sector would include requirements for both emissions and ambient monitoring. To enhance flexibility and efficiency, a source which had executed a partnership agreement with elements of monitoring included could, within limits, identify its own emissions reductions, perhaps even across various pollutants, to meet reduction targets rather than being subjected to command-and-control requirements.

11.	Decouple research monitors from the designation process. - It was proposed to decouple the use of research data for regulatory purposes for a period of several years. After that time, and periodic intervals thereafter, mid-course corrections may occur at the request of the State or Local Agency, at which time the research monitored data may then be used for designation and additional monitors added. This issue is similar to the proposed PM-2.5 3-year "moratorium". If Recommendation # 6, "Decouple the immediate link between a measured violation and mandatory nonattainment regulatory provisions", is adopted, this option may be moot. If the disincentive is removed, then a moratorium may not be needed. Support was expressed that "research" monitors should be used to indicate the need or location for a SLAMS monitor. If such a research monitor measures violations of a NAAQS, or if it measures concentrations close to a standard, the monitor would be converted to a SLAMS. A State could therefore initiate early control actions to return the area to compliance with the NAAQS. This notion of a moratorium was recognized as a powerful monitoring incentive, however, a consensus was not reached. It appeared that this incentive would not be embraced by the environmental community.

OTHER INCENTIVES CONSIDERED/NOT ADOPTED

FACA Ad Hoc Group on Monitoring Incentives

The following issues were discussed without action by the Ad Hoc Group or referred to other groups for consideration:

A.	Utilize average or population-weighted monitored data for the purpose of measuring progress (RFP). - A number of averaging techniques could be employed, e.g., spatial averaging, same-site averaging, weighting, etc. This would create a new "metric" for describing reasonable further progress (RFP); it could be used to augment or replace the current measure of reductions in emissions. This proposal does not advocate averaged data for comparison with the standard. It was unclear how this issue could be classified as a monitoring incentive, but it was under consideration by the RFP Group as an adjunct means for tracking reasonable further progress. This issue was referred to the RFP Group.

B.	Base violations upon averages of all monitors. - In lieu of looking only at one or a few of the highest-reading monitors, it was proposed to utilize the average of all relevant monitors (once all monitors required for the new network are installed). This proposal would advocate the use of averaged data for comparison with a standard. Support was expressed for the averaging provisions of the proposed NAAQS for PM-2.5, however, it was also articulated that averaging should not be allowed which would result in an area with monitored violations being reported as if it were in attainment. Utilizing average data for monitoring reasonable further progress seemed sensible, but such data did not appear useful for measuring compliance with a NAAQS. This issue was also referred to the RFP Group.

C.	Link individual sources to monitors. - Utilize monitoring data to require specificity of the control requirements for those linked sources (presumably less control than might be required otherwise in many cases); performance/progress could be measured by these specific monitors. In cases where a particular prescriptive control was instituted inappropriately, a source could find an incentive to conduct monitoring to obtain additional information on the pollution problem; presumably, the source may be able to show that they are not contributing to the problem (via speciation, etc.) and therefore possibly qualify for less onerous emissions limits. This concept could also apply to auto owners who would pay a fee based on emissions or VMT. Sources and States, etc., should be encouraged to collect additional monitoring data to make judgements on such issues as regulatory requirements, source attribution, and rule appropriateness. Linking monitoring programs to prescriptive emissions requirements was not supported.

D.	Provide incentives for States that meet all monitoring (and attainment) requirements. - Allow easier nonattainment and PSD new source permitting, and classification revision, in the area. This option was not considered practical and therefore not recommended.

E.	Assess compliance with the primary ozone NAAQS using only population-oriented sites on the basis that the primary NAAQS is intended to protect public health. - This ozone issue is an analog to one of the incentives included in the monitoring proposal for PM-2.5. This option was not recommended.

F.	Use weather-adjusted data to demonstrate RFP. -Weather-adjusted data could be used to demonstrate progress toward meeting air quality goals. This option does not advocate averaged data for comparison with the standard. This issue was referred to the RFP Group for consideration. Elements of this issue were included in Recommendation #6. Note that this recommendation would also support additional meteorological monitoring.

August 4, 1997