Final Meeting Minutes

FACA Subcommittee for Ozone, Particulate Matter, and

Regional Haze Implementation Programs

December 17 and 18, 1997

New Orleans, Louisiana

Meeting Agenda

Opening Remarks	2

Introductions and Remarks	2

Communications and Outreach Work Group (COWG) Report	2

Economic Incentives	4

Executive Summary and Final Report	13

STSWG Report	24

Implementation Matrix	26

Revisions to Chapter 4	28

STSWG and National and Regional Strategies Work Group (NRSWG) Comments on the FACA Process	31

Base Programs and Policies Work Group (BPAPWG) Comments on the FACA Process	32

COWG Comments on the FACA Process	33

Subcommittee Comments on the FACA Process	33

Wildland Fires	36

New Source Review (NSR) Update	39

Transportation Conformity	40

General Conformity	43

Wednesday, December 17, 1997

Opening Remarks -- William Hamilton [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Designated Federal Official]

Mr. Hamilton called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. and welcomed all the participants. He noted that the minutes from the last meeting are in draft form and available on EPA's TTN. He requested that Subcommittee members get their travel vouchers in as soon as possible.

Introductions and Remarks -- John Seitz (EPA) and Alan Krupnick (Resources for the Future)

Mr. Krupnick noted that this is the last meeting of the FACA Subcommittee for Ozone, Particulate Matter and Regional Haze Implementation Programs. He requested that everyone stay the next day for a discussion of the FACA process. He said that large stakeholder meetings are a part of the Clinton administration and that their input can improve the process. Mr. Krupnick requested that Subcommittee members think about how they can pull their information together. He added that they will spend a lot of time on the executive summary of the final report. Mr. Krupnick encouraged everyone to read the summary so that it can be as good as possible. He said they would go over the final report and try to reach closure on the issues raised about the report.

John Seitz said he echoed Mr. Krupnick's comments. He added that any feedback and ideas that members have for the future will be helpful. Mr. Seitz also noted that comments on the final report are important. He concluded by saying that although this is the last formal meeting of the Subcommittee, the work products will continue to be used by EPA and everyone should be aware of final products of the Subcommittee.

William Hamilton noted that a performance of the song entitled "The Twelve Days of FACA" would occur at the end of the day.

Communications and Outreach Work Group (COWG) Report -- Ron White (American Lung Association) and Jan Kleeman (EPA)

Mr. White gave an update on the work group meeting held on December 16, 1997. He noted that COWG reviewed the draft final report and looked retrospectively at the FACA process. Mr. White noted that the final report is very nice adding that the executive summary and "one-pagers" do a good job from a communications standpoint. He said that the report represents a good product that communicates the outcome of the FACA process. Mr. White added that the work group reviewed the process and the work group's performance. He said the website has been significant in making this process more open than any other EPA rulemaking process in the past. Mr. White said that good materials were developed by COWG during the process and there was useful input to others. He noted that EPA developed other material and satellite symposia and workshops had been held. He said that he thought a lot had been accomplished although they did not get to all targeted audiences, particularly the public and media. Mr. White said they need to rethink how to make transport and control strategies more understandable to the public. Mr. White thanked the work group members for their work as well as Tom Curran and Jan Kleeman of EPA.

Jan Kleeman reviewed a series of slides. She wanted to let the participants know how they could keep informed of EPA's implementation activities.

Slide 1

Information Sources:

AirLinks http://www.epa.gov/airlinks/

Implementation website

Real-time air quality data

TTN

Slide 2

Implementation Website:

This site has information on the new ozone and particulate matter NAAQS and	the regional haze program.

Slide 3

Real Time Air Quality Data:

EPA will expand maps.

Slide 4

Example of FACA Downloads on the OAQPS TTN

There have been 44,000 downloads since April 1996. This shows an interest in
the process and that the website is a good information source.

Tom Curran (EPA) thanked the other groups for the issue papers they developed. He said there had been a considerable savings on labor and other resources by using electronic media.

Vincent Brisini (GPU GENCO) commended COWG for its accomplishments.

John Seitz agreed noting that they have come a long way.

Economic Incentives -- Bill Henneke (Clean Air Corp.)

Mr. Henneke said was making the presentation for Joe Belanger who was sick. He said that he will be seeing some of the slides for the first time today and that he may not be able to answer all questions that arise. Mr. Henneke commented that the work groups addressing this issue decided they would provide information on economic incentives and goals not fully met; some of the work that was moving forward became less relevant and other work became more relevant. Mr. Henneke said his overview contained concepts followed by recommendations, some of which may not have been presented to the Subcommittee; other recommendations are based on the general paper. He asked for questions to be held until the end of the presentation.

Slide 1

Definition of Early Reductions

Actual pollution reductions that occur prior to any regulatory or legislatively	mandated schedule.

Slide 2

Benefits of Early Reductions

Alleviate high cost of implementing reduction programs "all at once"

Allow increased experimentation with alternative technologies.

Allow incremental improvements of existing technologies.

Allow fine-tuning of operational techniques.

Provide incentives for developing and implementing most cost-effective
technologies first.

Slide 3

General Design Issues for Early Reduction Programs

Overall baseline:

Baseline reflects expected reduction levels at any point in time.

EPA guidance on baseline definition is necessary.

Future treatment of sources:

Programs should provide assurances that participating sources will be treated	equitably if further reductions from a source category are required.

Slide 4

Clean Air Act Implementation Programs: To Speed Improvements.

Slide 5

Clean Air Implementation: A Source Category Program.

Slide 6

Clean Air Act Implementation: Faster Improvements, Lower Costs.

Slide 7

Early Reduction Programs; Safe Harbors

For sources that reduce emissions early, there will be a grace period during which	the regulatory agency will not seek additional reductions

A SIP should compensate for safe harbors that extend beyond the attainment date or	allow emissions at levels higher than the baseline.

Slide 8

Early Reduction Programs; Emission Trading with Banking

Stronger incentive than safe harbors

Potential problems

- SIP planning concerns

- Pollution spikes

- Increases in emissions after attainment

- Delayed attainment

Emission target set

Accommodates predicted use of banked allowances/credits.

Slide 9

Context for Banking Related Adjustments

Is error random or is there a bias?

Does bias continue or cancel out over time?

How does the scale of error compare to other errors?

What stage of reductions is affected projected inventory?

Slide 9

Other Error Tolerances

Modeling--20%

Historic inventory depends on source category--few to 50+%

Projected inventory

Slide 10

Early Reduction Programs; Emission Trading with Banking

If regulators plan on adjusting emission budgets, don't devalue banked allowances.

Tighten the emission target to accommodate predicted use of banked allowances.

Mr. Henneke concluded by saying that if they look at the system currently used, it encourages slow technology development and high implementation cost. An early reduction program allows benefits from technology improvement. It is worthwhile for the States and Regional offices to look into starting a process that encourages people to go out and experiment with technology that benefits the environment.

Chris Shaver (U.S. Department of the Interior) said that when early reductions occur, the emissions targets are known, but the specific sources may not be known at that time. She noted concerns that sources may aim low when in fact they could get greater reductions.

Ben Henneke noted she was talking about a "safe harbor" approach and not describing a trading approach.

Vincent Brisini said there is a baseline issue with an early reduction program that is implemented before a new program that exceeds existing requirements. He was confused about whether credit would be given for a source to go beyond future requirements.

Ben Henneke restated the question and responded that if one makes an early reduction on incremental changes, it is a choice of system design and regulatory decision makers as to when the credit is taken. Mr. Henneke felt that industry has been snagged by early reductions in the past. They have to separate the bad experiences in the past.

John Elston (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection) commented that all credits are not the same. Discounts can be put on credits for a long period of time.

Ben Henneke noted that there is an administrative simplicity in this approach. His group felt that regulators would be required to keep managing their SIPs. As an example, he referred to areas where training could occur. There is strong evidence in Connecticut that through a process of standards and regulatory control they were able to get 86 percent control of NOx.

Glen Cass (California Institute of Technology) commented that about every decade, the United States goes through a major economic recession. He asked Mr. Henneke if he anticipated the baseline for this banking program to be a baseline in absolute terms or an historical emissions approach.

Ben Henneke responded that it is a system design approach. Either system can be made to work and give good results. It is easier to make it work if one uses emissions output. However, either system has to accommodate economic growth. Mr. Henneke showed an overhead on the rate-based approach in graphic form.

Alan Krupnick, addressing dumping credits, said that as conditions improve the price of the credit goes up. Thus, the holders of back credits have a more valuable asset.

Richard Dworek (U.S. Steel) asked whether, assuming there is a net reduction below baseline, modernization of facilities will qualify as an early reduction.

Ben Henneke responded that it is a regulatory decision but he thought it would qualify.

Shawn Kendall (Phelps Dodge) commented that there is a need for incentives and that early reduction is important. Using the Title III smelting program as an example, he said that there has to be time and incentives for the early reduction program to work. Regarding banking in a market, he gave an example of depreciating a new facility with the IRS. With the banking program it is the same; one will have a capital investment that is going to result in the reduction but one can only use 5 percent per year over a 20-year life.

Ben Henneke agreed that these were good points. He added that an administrative system can be painful and there is incentive to get out of the system.

Steve Gerritson (LADCO) followed up on Alan Krupnick's comment about dumping credits. He noted one interesting aspect of the SO2 program has been the drop in the price of credits. He asked whether the price of credits will be driven down because of improved technology and economic growth.

Alan Krupnick responded that he did not think the Subcommittee or sources should worry about that.

Ben Henneke thought it still would be beneficial to bank credits even if the price moves around.

John Dunlap (California Air Resources Board) commented that with an emissions trading program there needs to be consistency and leadership from EPA. He noted there currently is considerable confusion regarding trading programs.

Ben Henneke showed an overhead on recommendations about early reduction programs.

Recommendation 1: Economic incentives to achieving air quality goals should receive the same planning emphasis as other strategies.

Vincent Brisini asked for clarification of these recommendations and whether they apply to the whole report.

Glen Cass asked for clarification about endorsing safe harbors versus emission trading.

Beverly Hartsock (Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission) asked a procedural point about what they were trying to get consensus on, noting that the recommendations were very general.

Ben Henneke suggested that the Subcommittee look at all five recommendations in the paper following a break.

******BREAK******

Ben Henneke resumed his presentation after the break.

Recommendation 2: Economic incentive programs should show equivalent environmental results but should not bear a greater burden of pre-implementation assurances that may require traditional command-and-control programs.

Recommendation 3: The Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) should ensure the further development of the work on this paper, including but not limited to, the Clean Air Investment Fund and programs for incentives for further reductions, and expansion of the area and mobile sources framework as small and large stationary sources.

Recommendation 4: CAAAC should encourage EPA to develop guidance on policy including revising present policies.

Recommendation 5: The use of demonstration projects should be encouraged regarding innovative but untested control programs.

Chris Shaver asked for clarification about pre-implementation assurances versus the command-and-control approach found in Recommendation 2.

Ben Henneke said that for an economic incentives program, one will not have to show any greater assurances of meeting a percent rule effectiveness than in the case of a command- and-control approach.

Ron White asked whether Mr. Henneke was suggesting in Recommendation 5 that for untested innovative programs, they were encouraging them to get SIP credit by a change in EPA policy.

Ben Henneke responded that was correct.

Ron White expressed concern about whether EPA should make policy changes that allow SIP credits for programs that are untested.

Ben Henneke reiterated John Elston's example that there is no benefit, from a regulatory manager's standpoint, in developing an innovative, effective program if there is no credit in the process.

Alan Krupnick asked if he was suggesting the credit be granted without any contingency on performance.

Ben Henneke said no.

William Becker (STAPPA/ALAPCO) asked for clarification regarding Recommendation 1. He said there are two interpretations. One is that economic and innovative approaches are some of many tools that a regulator can use; the other is that these approaches are forced on the regulators. He asked if the recommendation was the former or the latter.

Ben Henneke responded that he thought it was the former but that he would like to take a vote on the issue just to clarify the Subcommittee's position.

David Hawkins (Natural Resources Defense Council) said that the language in these recommendations presented a dilemma for him because he thought there were good things in the recommendations but he also had some concerns. Regarding the language Recommendation 1, "should receive the same planning emphasis," he felt it was appropriate for EPA to encourage the use of economic incentives but they should not get the same emphasis during planning as other mechanisms. Regarding Recommendation 2, Mr. Hawkins was concerned with pre-implementation assurances. He thought if a source is considering a strategy that a State might not approve, then the source will say the State cannot impose a greater burden of pre-implementation assurance because of the FACA Subcommittee recommendations. Regarding Recommendation 3, Mr. Hawkins said it was broadly cast and he did not know whether it implies Subcommittee endorsement on everything in the paper. Regarding Recommendation 4, he had similar comments as those with Recommendation 2. By endorsing this recommendation he was afraid they are putting the weight of this Subcommittee behind a source's arguments with specific things in the existing rules that it may not like. It gives the impression that what is out there today is inappropriate and needs to be changed. Regarding Recommendation 5, Mr. Hawkins said that it presumes that SIP approvability is the primary tool for facilitating demonstration and pilot projects, which he questioned. He echoed Ron White's position that one is using methods that do not have a proven track record to justify not implementing methods that are proven.

Ben Henneke asked how they should deal with issues of the 22 State programs included in the Presidential Directive that do not meet previous guidance and the NAAQS budget for the OTC. He asked how they can develop innovative strategies without interfering with policies nobody intended to interfere with.

David Hawkins said he understood the point of Recommendation 5 but still thought they should not seek a generalized call to revise all of EPA's guidance.

Alan Krupnick said he felt it would be seen as a failure for the Subcommittee not to come out with recommendations on economic incentives. He suggested formation of a small group to work out recommendations that everyone could endorse.

Dan Johnson (State of Washington, WESTAR) commented that for Recommendation 1, he was afraid that in addition to a State following its own rules when it has a nonattainment area, it might also be required to develop the regulatory mechanism to implement a market trading system.

Shawn Kendall made several comments about the recommendations. Regarding Recommendation 1, he said there are going to be cases where it does not make sense to consider economic incentives. He suggested they take out "same planning emphasis" and say that economic incentives should be considered. Regarding Recommendation 5, they should not have a lot of the same programs being tested by different States at the same time. EPA should consider preparing a list of things they would like to see tested for States to consider. Mr. Kendall had a concern about involuntary incentive-based programs.

Beverly Hartsock addressed Recommendation 3. She said that this recommendation implies the Subcommittee has endorsed this paper when she does not believe it has been discussed thoroughly. She also asked for a wording change from "the work in this paper" to "the topic of this paper." Ms. Hartsock agreed with John Dunlap, and asked whether Recommendation 4 addresses the issue that was raised about guidance.

John Seitz asked whether it was the intent of the Subcommittee to recommend that CAAAC work with EPA or that the Subcommittee work with the infrastructure of CAAAC. There is another Subcommittee that deals with these types of things of the CAAAC. He felt this was something that this Subcommittee could do easily as a part of another subcommittee.

John Dunlap asked for EPA to clarify its position on trading and economic incentives. He cited the target emission trading programs already underway in California but said there are many stakeholders that do not want to participate. He asked for EPA to work on this now.

John Seitz agreed this is a good idea.

David Hawkins asked whether the full CAAAC would have to review these recommendations.

John Seitz responded that he is not suggesting that CAAAC debate this again. However, the CAAAC is ongoing and could be used if necessary.

Vincent Brisini suggested that Recommendation 2 appear first. He requested the opportunity to work on any group that would meet during lunch to craft new wording for these recommendations.

Ben Henneke thanked the group for their questions and comments on the recommendations and his presentation.

John Seitz thanked the group for listening to a "pinch hitter" and for their input on economic incentives.

William Hamilton noted that Ben Henneke's presentation will be available on the TTN soon.

*****LUNCH*****

Ben Henneke said that the order of the recommendations has been changed. The following are the revised recommendations, which a group developed during the lunch break.

Recommendation 1: As with traditional strategies, economic incentive programs should be designed to provide an adequate basis for determining the expected public health and environmental benefits and an equivalent margin of safety

James Souby (Western Governors Association) commented that this is general and asked to whom the message is directed.

Ben Henneke responded that the point of this recommendation is that any incentive program should have an equivalent environmental benefit.

Greg Green (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality) asked whether he was correct that it implies one can measure the environmental benefit.

Ben Henneke responded yes.

James Souby asked whether the Subcommittee was going to take the recommendations under advisement or whether they were going to vote on them now.

Ben Henneke responded the Subcommittee would vote on the recommendations but not until all five had been read.

Recommendation 2: EPA and the States should identify methods to encourage adequate planning emphasis for economic incentives so that they are considered among initial approaches in developing a regulatory program.

Recommendation 3: CAAAC, through its other standing subcommittee, should ensure fully the development of economic incentive approaches to achieve air quality goals.

Recommendation 4: CAAAC should encourage EPA to develop appropriate guidance on policy so that local, State, and Regional authorities can easily and efficiently develop and implement economic incentive programs.

Recommendation 5: The use of demonstration or pilot projects should be encouraged where appropriate to provide information for developing innovative emission control programs.

Ben Henneke suggested that the wording in Recommendation 1 say, "incentive programs should be designed to provide equivalent environmental results and an adequate basis."

Chris Shaver suggested saying, "economic incentive programs should be designed to provide equivalent environmental benefits as traditional strategies..."

James Souby noted this implied substitution. He believed that the States should be required to look at a tool for economic incentives.

William Becker responded by echoing his previous concern about States being forced to use the economic incentive tool.

James Souby suggested inserting "where appropriate" after "incentive."

No comments were made on Recommendation 3.

David Baron (Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest) expressed concern about using "easily" in Recommendation 4.

The word "easily" was deleted.

No comments were made on Recommendation 5.

David Hawkins addressed Recommendation 1 and said he was not sure about the metrics available for determining equivalency. He said they do not have the tools to do this. Mr. Hawkins also commented that they should use similar yardsticks to evaluate measures.

Vincent Brisini responded that this is substitution whether it is a program, a pollutant, or a measure. If he has a program and he achieves commensurate results then it is substitution.

Alan Krupnick suggested that they have agreement on four of the five recommendations. He said they will come back the next day and discuss the first recommendation.

Executive Summary and Final Report -- Alan Krupnick

Alan Krupnick led a discussion on the executive summary and the final report. He used the version of the executive summary with 20 pages.

Slide 1

Development of Final Report

October 24	Draft #1

November 14	Draft #2

December 10	Draft #3

January 2	Comments due to SAIC (on body) and ECR (on executive summary)

Mid-January	Final version to printer

End of January	Distribution of Final Report

Mr. Krupnick said they will talk about any controversial issues in the Final Report.

Slide 2

Organization of Final Report

1.	Executive summary

2.	Consensus table

3.	Summaries of issue papers (plain English summaries)

4.	Scientific support for development of implementation strategies

5.	Strategy for communication of findings and recommendations

Appendix A:	Membership of Subcommittee and work groups

Appendix B:	Issue paper summaries (with stakeholder positions)

Appendix C:	Primary audiences and information needs.

Mr. Krupnick said that success for today will mean getting through the executive summary and the consensus table.

Slide 3

Development of Executive Summary

Developed by Bill Becker, Beverly Hartsock, David Hawkins, Richard Hayslip, Alan	Krupnick, and Pat Raher with contractor support.

Organized based on a charge to Subcommittee.

Describes the dynamic of Subcommittee discussion.

Highlights important options and recommendations by Subcommittee as well as key	controversies.

Slide 4

Nature of Subcommittee Deliberations -- Successes:

Consensus on content-related principles.

Consensus on several issue paper options and recommendations.

Consensus on interim implementation policy.

Many new ideas developed.

Provided national forum for discussion of broad complex issues.

Provided forum where scientists and policy stakeholders learned from one another.

Slide 5

Nature of Subcommittee's Deliberations -- Reasons for Falling Short of Consensus on	Overall Package of Recommendations:

Design of process

Time constraints

Size of Subcommittee.

Slide 6

Charge to Subcommittee:

1.	Develop recommendations to EPA regarding integrated programs for attaining new/revised ozone and PM NAAQS and making reasonable progress under the regional haze program.

2.	Develop integration strategies to meet new standards that do not interfere with programs being made toward current standards.

3.	Focus on relevant implementation issues, not issues related to standards or other titles of the Clean Air Act

•	Air quality monitoring

•	Classifications

•	Attainment dates.

4.	Strive for innovative, cost-effective, and creative approaches.

5.	Define national and regional strategies. Avoid site-specific, individual source issues and parochial concerns.

6.	Explore all voluntary approaches.

Mr. Krupnick said that on balance, the Subcommittee process was a success. He noted that the Subcommittee developed an extensive set of options and recommendations for EPA's consideration while Subcommittee discussions also affected the Presidential Directive. He said that EPA will benefit from their data. Mr. Krupnick asked Subcommittee members whether the executive summary captured the most interesting, innovative, and central points of the Subcommittee's work.

Shawn Kendall gave comments to ECR on the executive summary.

James Souby responded that the report captured a lot of "good work." On page ES5, lines 6 and 7, he took exception to the wording "fell short," which he thought should be changed since the Subcommittee was not asked to reach consensus.

Steve Gerritson thought the authors did a good job. He suggested that the product needs more emphasis. He also recommended adding a reference in the executive summary about the cost of implementing of the new standards.

William Becker suggested the following changes:

EPA needs to continue developing national programs of emission reductions. This is very important and should be included on page ES-8 in the last paragraph.

Successful implementation of the ozone and PM NAAQS will require substantial increases in resources at local, State, and Federal levels.

John Seitz said he wants to look for consistency between William Becker's statement and what was developed last year.

William Becker said that even if nothing was recorded, this is something very important to the States and should be included in the executive summary.

Shawn Kendall wanted to expand the resource statement so that the States, Tribes, and local authorities realize they are responsible for bringing resources to the table also.

Greg Green agreed with Shawn Kendall regarding the above recommendation. He asked John Seitz what he wanted to go back and check.

John Seitz explained that he wanted to go back to earlier Subcommittee discussion to make sure there were no contradictions between what William Becker stated and what the Subcommittee agreed to.

Gary Allen (Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Commission) supported William Becker's statement regarding funding for implementation. He suggested that some reference be made to Section 174 organizations (precursors to regional air management partnerships) in the executive summary.

Vincent Brisini thought the report was done well, but there were some areas where the executive summary did not capture the most important points. For example, on ES 9 in the discussion on monitoring, it does not mention the fact that the Subcommittee discussed looking at other types of programs for funding monitoring instead of relying only on stationary sources. Also, on ES 10 under attainment dates, he felt the most important recommendation was left out, which was that areas that try and fail should be treated differently than areas that failed to try.

Shawn Kendall felt this was covered on ES 11, lines 10 and 11.

Sally Shaver (EPA) asked whether it is critical.

Vincent Brisini thought should it be there. He added that he discussed this with ECR and they indicated it was clearly an oversight and needed to be in the executive summary.

John Dege (E.I. DuPont) agreed with Vincent Brisini that the reference to Title IV operating fees should be taken out and that one needs additional funding from sources other than stationary sources (ES-9, line 38).

John Seitz said with respect to funding for monitoring, there was consensus that EPA should explore using other fees.

John Dege noted that exploring is different from recommending.

Beverly Hartsock raised the issue about States failing to plan versus States that plan but fail as found on ES-9, lines 26 - 29. She asked whether this discussion helped resolve Vincent Brisini's question.

Vincent Brisini responded that it was not sufficiently specific.

David Baron asked whether the Subcommittee members are being asked to agree with Vincent Brisini's statements. He did not remember reaching consensus about attainments dates.

Vincent Brisini responded that it was not different attainment dates but rather a recognition of States that tried but failed.

John Seitz said that they need to make reference to the minutes and review them to see what was agreed to during previous meetings.

Vincent Brisini did not remember addressing the cost effectiveness of a program for reducing regional levels of pollution (ES 13, line 18).

Alan Krupnick asked Vincent Brisini to submit his comments.

Vincent Brisini asked for something to be inserted in the discussion about the benefits of voluntary approaches.

Chris Shaver suggested that on ES17, funding needed, RAMPS might make more efficient use of funds by coordinating their analyses. Ms. Shaver also commented on the membership of RAMPs as found on line 15; she thought EPA should be included as a representative, although a non-voting one, in RAMPs.

John Seitz suggested that the executive summary be consistent with what was agreed upon.

Shawn Kendall wanted to make change on ES 18, which states that EPA could establish RAMPs using its authority. He wanted to say also that EPA could recognize RAMPs that were created voluntarily.

David Baron asked whether there was a difference in the executive summary faxed to him on December 11 and the version being discussed today.

Rebecca Battye (ECR) responded no.

David Baron said there were substantive changes between the version of the executive summary being presented and the one that had been faxed to him. He referred to ES13, line 1, saying he felt that it was an overboard statement. He suggested deleting the statement. There was not consensus on the need for more flexibility.

Alan Krupnick suggested there may be placeholders in the executive summary for economic incentive issues that will be changed to reflect the Subcommittee's discussions earlier that day.

Beverly Hartsock agreed with Mr. Baron that the sentence addressing flexibility was too broad based on earlier discussions.

David Hawkins, offered the following fix for ES13 line 1: "However, there was a recognition that more effective accountability mechanisms were essential under approaches that rely on flexibility in the use of economic incentives."

David Baron liked Mr. Hawkins's change. He then said ES 16, line 21, sounds like the Subcommittee endorses the framework approach presented by the control strategy work group. He remembered that there were members who thought there should be federally prescribed measures up front and no waiting for contingency measures. He did not oppose including the statement as a recommendation made by the work group, but he did not think consensus was reached by the Subcommittee.

Pat Raher (Hogan and Hartson) thought that the Subcommittee is clearly saying that States have flexibility and discretion to achieve reasonable progress. If that fails, then Federal contingency measures kick in.

John Seitz agreed with Pat Raher's interpretation of the sentence.

Dan Johnson suggested that the Subcommittee borrow language from the body of the report, characterizing it as partial consensus.

David Hawkins suggested the following language: "However the Subcommittee also discussed but did not agree on the level of discretion of air quality authority should have in adopting additional control strategies," deleting the part "only when the strategy fails," and replacing it with a sentence that says, "The need for contingency measures was accepted but consensus was not reached regarding the types of measures that should be adopted."

There was a lot of discussion about consensus versus partial consensus. The environmental community wanted it known that agreement was not reached on this issue.

Chris Shaver suggested saying "except that Federal contingency measures are needed if one is not making reasonable further progress."

Dan Johnson said that the paper did not have information on the federally-mandated measures at all, much less the backstop.

David Baron commented on ES 19, lines 42 and 43. He said it would be more accurate to say "for nonattainment areas in Class I areas significantly impacted by pollutant transport."

Pat Raher asked David Baron to explain why he would insert the word "significantly."

David Baron explained he was concerned that some areas with minor impacts from transport could use this as an excuse to delay the planning process.

Pat Raher thought adding "significant" would confuse the discussion and said he would not agree to the suggestion.

Ron White acknowledged Pat Raher's concern but thought there should be some term included so that it would not be abused by areas that are impacted minimally by transport.

Pat Raher commented that was the reason for using the word "impacted."

John Seitz suggested that the sentence be left alone.

Sally Shaver asked whether this was just a timing issue or whether it addressed the concept of not being able to solve the problem strictly on a local basis. She noted confusion in the executive summary regarding this and thought there should be some wordsmithing to address the problem.

Ron White remarked that if the word "significant" is not the right term, maybe it should be "demonstrated" impact.

David Hawkins responded this is problematic because it is an area where agreement really never was reached. He suggested that the key issue is whether there is a threshold an area is allowed. He did not agree that any impact from transport should be an excuse for delay.

John Seitz said that a sentence needed to be added to address the local measures.

David Baron was happy with not having "significant" as long as the other changes were made.

John Seitz suggested adding a sentence clarifying that local measures are important as far as improving air quality. He stated the need to address the issues of timing and local responsibility.

******BREAK******

Alan Krupnick noted that it was essential that time be left to discuss the consensus table. He suggested that be done now and a smaller group meet to resolve the issues on the executive summary.

Bruce Hill (Appalachian Mountain Club) requested discussion on how States felt about the nature of the Subcommittee deliberations found on ES 5, lines 24 and 25. He said State representatives were concerned about the scientific uncertainty associated with the control measures, and he would like to know more about what the States have to say.

Beverly Hartsock answered from that she was comfortable with the statement.

Dan Johnson echoed Beverly Hartsock's comments. He said there has been a lot of discussion on innovative techniques compared to command-and-control measures. It is a State's job to reach attainment, and they need the best possible science to get them there.

Bruce Hill asked whether they were talking about the uncertainty associated with new or innovative control measures.

Dan Johnson responded yes, but it is amplified when one gets into non-traditional controls.

Bruce Hill made a second comment regarding monitoring incentives. In general, he did not feel that the paragraph on ES 13, line 22, captures what was said or agreed upon. He suggested some new language, which he gave to Rebecca Battye for inclusion in the next draft. He suggested that an alternate funding mechanism such as the use of Title IV fees and automobile registration fees for ambient air quality monitoring be inserted.

John Dege said he could not support using Title IV fees here.

Mel Zeldin (South Coast Air Quality Control District) commended the work done on the executive summary but asked who the target audience is and how it will be distributed.

John Seitz answered that it would go to the CAAAC parent committee and, if possible, on the Internet. He thought the executive summary should be kept together with the remainder of the report.

Ron White said that page ES 9, line 27, currently reads "that States that fail to submit an approvable plan or fail to implement their plans may be subject to sanctions." He thought sanctions are not discretionary. He suggested changing "may be" to "are." On page ES 14, line 25, he wanted to change it to read "and" or "reductions in emphasis on NAAQS or VOC."

Alan Krupnick agreed with Ron White's first suggestion.

David Hawkins responded that after 18 months EPA must impose a sanction although it has a choice of which sanction to impose.

Alison Ling (U.S. Department of Defense) added her compliments to the group working on the report. She made three suggestions. On page ES 20, line 31, they need to characterize how the work of the FACA Subcommittee will be used by EPA. On page ES 3, line 11, she suggested striking attainment dates because the Subcommittee did discuss them. She also suggested striking "the extent to which proposed implementation strategies are consistent with the Clean Air Act" for the same reason.

Steve Pezda (Ford Motor Company) agreed with dropping the first one but did not think that the ad hoc group formed to look at the consistency issue ever came through with any recommendations.

Pat Raher stated that the charge to the group was to identify legal issues and that they never came to any legal conclusions.

Alan Krupnick suggested that they add a sentence about the ad hoc legal group.

William Becker suggested the following change regarding funding for the successful implementation of ozone PM and regional haze programs: "These resources are needed to fund all aspects of these programs including, but not limited to, monitoring, modeling, emission inventories, and enforcement. Accordingly, the Subcommittee urged both EPA and State and local air agencies to provide and maintain new funding for all levels of government to accomplish this work."

John Seitz asked William Becker to find a place for his suggestion and give it to Rebecca Battye.

Dan Johnson suggested adding tribal organizations to that statement as well.

William Becker suggested that on page ES 20, lines 9-11, they should delete the current language and replace it with, "The Subcommittee urged, to the extent possible, that planning activities (i.e., PM-2.5 and regional haze) for these programs be harmonized."

Chris Shaver said she was concerned that neither PM nor visibility be held up by delaying the other. She did not want areas without PM-2.5 problems but with haze problems to have to wait on PM-2.5 data. She did not see the harm in getting a jump start in areas where there may be both PM and visibility problems but where they know that sulfate or nitrate is a big part of the problem.

Ron White asked William Becker if his sentence was limited to planning.

William Becker responded that he was thinking of SIP activities.

Shawn Kendall said the issue is there are lots of activities that need to be done, including data gathering and modeling, to build effective programs. There will be collateral benefits in getting all of this information.

William Becker said his preference is to be broader, but if it makes sense to be specific then they should do that. He thought they should seek opportunities wherever it is appropriate to do things that make sense.

Glen Cass was glad to see that the executive summary makes strong statements about the need to advance the state of the art in air monitoring and collecting chemical speciated data. He added that emission inventories are in bad shape and they need parallel inventories. He proposed on page ES 9, line 31, to replace "air quality monitoring" with "air quality and emissions monitoring" and to carry that through the rest of the paragraph. This would make source measurements parallel to the ambient measurement proposals that have been put forth.

Pat Raher did not recall the Subcommittee discussing or reaching consensus on this issue.

Harvey Jeffries (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) recalled making recommendations to the Subcommittee from the Science and Technical Support Work Group (STSWG) on this subject.

Pat Raher did not recall reaching consensus to the point that it should be in this report.

Donna Lamb recalled an early paper that had a very carefully constructed discussion about the benefits of integration, using the conceptual model, and monitoring. She recalled a full discussion on this matter.

Pat Raher suggested they go back to the record to see whether consensus was reached.

Glen Cass suggested the Subcommittee formulate a consensus now if there were any doubts about whether or not consensus was reached earlier.

Shawn Kendall realized that key technical findings from STSWG were missing from the executive summary. One thing that was missing was the need for monitoring data and speciated PM-fine data to identify the source sectors. He suggested adding a paragraph about the need to improve the state of the science, monitoring, emissions inventories, and modeling techniques.

Donna Lamb noted that these are all discussed in the full document on page 3-3.

Beverly Hartsock commented that on page ES 7, line 18, she recalled the discussion being about ozone and PM and did not remember haze being part of the discussion. She thought the reference to regional haze should be deleted.

Chris Shaver objected to this change.

Vincent Brisini remembered delaying the issue.

Donna Lamb commented that what was presented a year ago is what should be part of the SIP call.

Beverly Hartsock commented that the law does not allow regional haze to be delayed and asked what should be done about ozone.

David Hawkins made the following recommendations for editorial changes. On page ES 11, line 3, delete "collecting data" and change "developing" to "refining" in line 11. He supports the demonstration need for additional time. On page ES 12, line 27, rewrite the sentence to be more neutral. On page ES 13, line 17, add a sentence about concerns raised regarding allocations. On page ES 14, lines 27-30, the current metric does not allow credit for long term strategies. On page ES 17, line 35, the reference to the CAA is not correct. On page ES 18, line 19, the response to health groups' concerns needs to be more neutral. On page ES 20, line 24, reflect that these are voluntary approaches. Mr. Hawkins said this was an issue of coupling, not balancing.

Dan Johnson endorsed William Becker's comments on funding but said he was getting uncomfortable about the changes that were being made now. Mr. Johnson asked for clarification of the sentence found on page ES 9, line 33. He asked whether the concepts should be spilt into two sentences.

Georgia Callahan (Texas) raised a procedural issue about changes going directly to the contractor. She thought the Subcommittee needed to review any revised language.

Alan Krupnick responded that the executive summary will be reviewed by the Subcommittee.

Sally Shaver asked if a substantive issue arises, whether it should go to the Coordination Group or the Subcommittee.

Alan Krupnick responded that it should go to both the Subcommittee and the Coordination Group. He then moved on to discuss the consensus table included in the report. He noted that there was a long discussion about the table in the Coordination Group meeting last night, and some changes were made to the categorization of levels of consensus.

Shawn Kendall asked whether C4 was the highest level of consensus. He thought it was in reverse order.

Vincent Brisini raised the issue of throwing out the table altogether if the members could not agree on the options.

Shawn Kendall disagreed, saying that the Subcommittee had spent a lot of time on these issues and he wanted that reflected in the report.

David Hawkins disagreed with dropping the table. He thought it would help the reader and wanted to keep the table in the report.

Allison Ling thought this report should be consistent with the initial report, which had a similar table.

Georgia Callahan recommended leaving the table in the report.

John Seitz suggested leaving the roman numeral designators but flipping the language so that the positives come first.

David Baron suggested changing the top three from consensus category II to consensus category III.

Mel Zeldin noted that there is some degree of subjectivity on how the categories were assigned. He suggested that the contractor add a paragraph up front saying that these categories are a best reflection by the contractor on the level of consensus reached by the Subcommittee.

John Seitz agreed this would be difficult to do and suggested that everyone submit comments on the table.

Ben Cooper (Printing Industries of America) thought there should be some reference to the discussion by small business on the issue papers in the report.

John Seitz agreed.

STSWG Report -- Harvey Jeffries

Harvey Jeffries, the work group co-chair, acknowledged the work of Tom Helms, David Sanders, Rich Scheffe, and John Silvasi of EPA. He also acknowledged the contributions of Bob Wayland (EPA; formerly with SAIC) as the group's former note taker. He noted that State government representatives made a significant contribution including Cyril Durrenberger (State of Texas), S.T. Rao (State of New York), Tom Moore (State of Arizona), Dave McNeil (State of Utah), Diana Andrews (State of Kentucky), Rich Poirot (State of Vermont), Kirit Chaudhari (Commonwealth of Virginia), as well as Jeff MacGillivray who is a scientist as well as a Representative in the State of New Hampshire House of Representatives. He likewise acknowledged the major contributions made by industry representatives including Steve Ziman (Chevron), David Chock (Ford), Jeff West (NARSTO), Dan Weiss (Cinergy), John Cabaniss (AIAM), and George Laur (ARCO). Several representatives from the academic community were acknowledged including Glen Cass (California Institute of Technology) for his work on speciation, Ellis Cowling (North Carolina State University), and Jay Turner (Washington University). He added that Ted Russell (Georgia Institute of Technology) had contributed, although he was not an official work group member. He also noted that Bruce Hill (Appalachian Mountain Club) served as the group's representative from the environmental community.

Mr. Jeffries noted that Chapter 4 had undergone major revisions in this report. The revisions are intended to be a position paper and Section 4.3 will be removed. He said the entire Chapter 4 will be rewritten and circulated among members.

Ron White was concerned about replacing the entire chapter and asked whether the Subcommittee will see was before it is placed in the report.

John Seitz asked whether the changes were substantive.

Harvey Jeffries responded that they did not change the scope of the chapter. He noted that the Conceptual Model would appear first.

David Hawkins had changes for the old Chapter 4. He wanted to have the chance to review the new Chapter 4.

Harvey Jeffries wanted STSWG to complete its rewrite before any comments were made on Chapter 4.

Shawn Kendall suggested the comments could be done in parallel. He added this group is different because it is science and policy.

John Seitz stated his prerogative was to get the updated Chapter 4 distributed before they leave since comments on the report are due by January 2, 1998.

Implementation Matrix -- Sally Shaver (EPA)

Sally Shaver presented a chart on the major action items for the ozone and PM NAAQS and regional haze implementation. The chart included:

1. Rulemaking

2. Implementing the 1-hour ozone and pre-existing PM-10 rules

3. Planning guidance for initial ozone/PM/regional haze implementation

4. Program structure guidance

5. Other policy guidance

6. Technical guidance

7. Future rulemakings (after December 1998).

Alan Krupnick thought that the model NOx trade rule should be added.

Dennis Lawler (Illinois EPA) asked whether the draft memos were public domain documents.

Sally Shaver said that they could be shared.

John Seitz suggested that if they have concerns about the matrix to get them to Sally Shaver.

Sally Shaver noted that there have been more than 100 questions asked by States. She said they would be posted soon on the website.

William Hamilton adjourned the meeting at 5:55 p.m. after a singing interlude of the "Twelve Days of FACA."

Thursday, December 18, 1997

William Hamilton called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. and welcomed everyone.

Dick Wilson (EPA) expressed pleasure in being able to participate in many of the meetings. He noted that on Tuesday EPA signed the national motor vehicle rule. He also noted that the next day an agreement with States on NOx emissions is expected to be reached. On behalf of EPA, Mr. Wilson thanked everyone for their participation in the FACA process. He said that the session yesterday was very productive. Mr. Wilson noted that the dynamics were positive in terms of new relationships. The recommendations from the Subcommittee had an impact on the Presidential Directive, adding that without the background work completed by this Subcommittee, it would not have been as easy to prepare the Presidential Directive. Mr. Wilson said that he would like to recognize everyone today, particularly Alan Krupnick and John Seitz. He said that they and everyone had spent a lot of time on the Subcommittee. He also recognized work group co-chairs and key staff persons. These individuals are:

Joe Paisie and Jerry Golden, co-chairs of the Base Programs Analyses and Policies Work Group, and Sharon Reinders, EPA staff lead to BPAP;

David Mobley and Joe Belanger, co-chairs of the National and Regional Strategies Work Group, and Robin Dunkins, EPA staff lead to NRSWG;

Tom Curran and Ron White, co-chairs of the Communications and Outreach Work Group, and Jan Kleeman, EPA staff lead to COWG;

Tom Helms and Harvey Jeffries, co-chairs of the Science and Technical Support Work Group, and David Sanders, EPA staff lead to STSWG; and

Sally Shaver and Pat Raher, co-chairs of the Coordination Group, and Rich Damberg, EPA staff lead to the CG.

He also thanked William Hamilton, Denise Gerth, and Linda Metcalf for providing support to the Subcommittee and for pulling these meetings together. At this point in the meeting, EPA distributed plaques of recognition to all of the Subcommittee members.

William Hamilton thanked Dick Wilson for his guidance in the development of this project. He recognized the contributions of the work group co-chairs and thanked Denise Gerth and Linda Metcalf for their support in planning these meetings. Mr. Hamilton noted that there were a few loose ends to tie up before continuing with the day's agenda.

Alan Krupnick said the first loose end is to try out the new Recommendation 1 for the economic incentives issue paper. The second is to have Harvey Jeffries summarize the revisions to Chapter 4 of the final report. The third is to respond to Georgia Callahan's suggestion.

Ben Henneke presented the following new Recommendation 1 for the economic incentives issue paper: "Both economic incentive programs and traditional programs should be evaluated with a common objective of assuring that the intended environmental results will be achieved."

Alan Krupnick noted that the logic is to keep economic incentives on the same footing. He asked whether there were any objections to this recommendation. He added that the revision makes this issue paper a "1" in terms of consensus.

Beverly Hartsock commented that she thinks this version is more like a "3". She added that the recommendations are more like principles than those presented in other papers and that there is not as much discussion in this paper as ones in the past. Ms. Hartsock said she saw no reason to debate further.

Alan Krupnick noted that in the past, some other papers had recommendations that also were like principles.

Revisions to Chapter 4 -- Harvey Jeffries

Mr. Jeffries distributed a revised Chapter 4 for the final report. He said that he also has a redlined version of the previous draft. He noted that STSWG met at breakfast to discuss the chapter further. Mr. Jeffries then reviewed the changes to Chapter 4 for the Subcommittee. He said that Section 4.3 has been removed although they would like to keep the first two paragraphs of Section 4.3 in the chapter. Mr. Jeffries noted that there were no other substantive changes made. He said that Ted Russell and rest of the work group met that morning and that Mr. Russell developed a paragraph on science concerns and conclusions for inclusion in the executive summary. He said they would provide this to the appropriate persons for inclusion in the report.

Shawn Kendall commented that STSWG was right on the mark with the new version of Chapter 4.

John Seitz asked Harvey Jeffries to gather comments on the text of the report. He asked about the statement for inclusion in the executive summary.

Harvey Jeffries said Ted Russell would provide the statement.

David Hawkins commented that many of these revised paragraphs contain policy related issues. He asked how disagreements on the treatment of these issues will be resolved. He asked for clarification on the work that is to be done on the conceptual model (page 4-3) and who will be doing this work.

Harvey Jeffries noted that references to "preliminary" will be removed. He said that with reference to the conceptual model, a summary document is coming out of the NARSTO review and there will be several other new documents that they want to cite. Mr. Jeffries said that those documents will be integrated into the conceptual model by EPA and its contractor.

John Seitz said that the follow-up changes will be done by EPA and will be an EPA work product.

Harvey Jeffries noted that STSWG will review the product.

Shawn Kendall said that the work actually was done by STSWG.

John Seitz responded that the work would be attributed to the Subcommittee and that there may be a need for further review.

David Hawkins said that if a paper is going to be referenced in the Subcommittee report, the Subcommittee should have an opportunity to review the document.

David Baron suggested that if the new language from Ted Russell is going to be added to the executive summary, it should be circulated to the Subcommittee for review by January 2, 1998.

Ted Russell said that they would have the new language available for distribution later that day.

David Hawkins said that he would like to review some of the policy-related statements found in the new Chapter 4.

John Seitz approved his request.

David Hawkins highlighted the statement on the new page 4-6, commenting that these statements do not reflect the tradeoffs. He said there is no discussion of timing and budgetary issues and asked how much value one would add. Mr. Hawkins continued by highlighting, at the top of page 4-7, 2nd line, the statement on optimization of control options. He asked for identification of the suite of optimization options. On page 4-10, 3rd sentence, regarding "substantive decreases...," he asked how often is this the case. Mr. Hawkins noted that there is a policy statement at bottom of the page in the reference to rigid control requirements. He concluded by saying that this should give them a flavor of things that are imbedded in the document

Shawn Kendall said he did not agree with some of David Hawkins's policy concerns. He added that the statements are accurate in the chapter. He said that the Subcommittee asked STSWG to provide them with objective science adding that the purpose is to show they have a very complex issue here and they need to defer to an objective view. He thought it was dangerous to have any policy here.

David Hawkins commented that when the document moves beyond identification of tools then it moves into policy. He added that decision makers need to assess options.

Larry Feldcamp (Baker and Botts) said that he looked at the introductory paragraph. He suggested that they make it clear that this is not the Subcommittee's policy position but what STSWG recommended. He suggested that maybe it could be clarified here and elsewhere. He did not want to discuss it at the present time nor did he want to water down the discussion.

Alan Krupnick said that there are two approaches that can be taken. Larry Feldcamp suggested that they make it a product of STSWG. However, on the other issues they have been moving the other way (i.e., to a Subcommittee product).

Larry Feldcamp commented that the Subcommittee did not scrutinize the STSWG chapter like they did the other papers.

Alan Krupnick said that the Subcommittee reviewed the Green Book but now there is other information in Chapter 4. He suggested that the Coordination Group take a look at it.

John Seitz agreed and asked the Coordination Group to review Chapter 4, adding that it needs to be looked at as part of the entire document.

Steve Gerritson said he felt more comfortable with the way this was put together adding that he was not nervous about a lot of the statements. He said that some of the information is just sound advice. Mr. Gerritson expressed concern about two areas. He asked how the recommendations will be used by policy makers in crafting future directions for air quality improvements, suggesting that there needs to be a statement added regarding uncertainty. He commended Harvey Jeffries for his objective approach and thorough conclusions.

Glen Cass expressed concern that the report will get diluted and will be released with no serious data. He understood David Hawkins's concerns about the interface of science facts and policy but would rather see these issues set forth than have things swept under the rug. Mr. Cass said that optimization is science-related and recommended an accompanying report with clarifying language.

Alan Krupnick stated that the report would not be gutted.

Ron White said that this is a report developed by STSWG and to have it at the last minute is inconsistent with how the Subcommittee has operated in the past.

Donna Lamb suggested that there is an opportunity to look at the integrated paper and compare it to this draft. She added that they need a statement to balance the report. She suggested that Glen Cass has identified the words. Ms. Lamb concluded by saying that this is the most powerful message coming out of this FACA Subcommittee.

John Elston thought this work should be included. He had some reservations about how uncertainty and degree of responsibility will be addressed in a reasonable way.

Georgia Callahan noted that there is no STSWG representation on the Coordination Group, and this Chapter needs to be reviewed by the full Subcommittee. She added that they need the science input in the document.

John Seitz said that a complete product will be available for review, which will be seen by the Coordination Group. He added that another draft may have to go out again. Mr. Seitz encouraged people to send in comments reflecting this discussion. He said they would wait to see what the comments look like before finalizing the document. He said that they need to move on with the discussion so that Dick Wilson can hear remarks about the FACA process.

Alan Krupnick said that Georgia Callahan has made a suggestion that the changes to the report come out in a redline version. He suggested that the new and revised material be highlighted in some manner. Mr. Krupnick noted that they are a little disorganized in starting out the FACA discussion adding that they were thinking that the co-chairs of each work group could kick things off.

The following presentations were made on the work group process and the accomplishments and shortcomings of the FACA Subcommittee approach.

STSWG and National and Regional Strategies Work Group (NRSWG) Comments on the FACA Process -- Harvey Jeffries

Harvey Jeffries presented the following comments on the accomplishments and process for STSWG and NRSWG.

Slide 1

Strengths

Attempt to integrate three pollutants and processes.

Capability to think "outside the box."

Enhance EPA's objectivity while facilitating the process.

Better understanding of others' views and greater trust.

Slide 2

Areas that Need Improvement

Integration of science and policy discussions.

Initial planning of process and content.

Connection between work groups and the Subcommittee.

Communication with the public.

Subcommittee's indefinite resolution of issues - no closure.

Mr. Jeffries thought the principles should have been written before the work groups started writing issue papers. He said there needs to be more ownership by the Subcommittee to facilitate communication in the work groups and deal efficiently with issue papers. Mr. Jeffries said that adding more people to the task does not always make things easier. He said that humans infrequently do things right the first time, and noted that few things are worth doing a second time.

William Hamilton asked whether this was a joint product.

Harvey Jeffries responded that it was a joint product and that a more detailed report will be made available by EPA.

David Mobley responded that it would be placed on EPA's web page.

Base Programs and Policies Work Group (BPAPWG) Comments on the FACA Process -- Jerry Golden (Tennessee Valley Authority)

Jerry Golden noted that the majority of comments that he wished to make had already been presented by Harvey Jeffries. He said that it was the opinion of BPAPWG that the effort was worth the time and that work group members would do it again. He said that the extent of work group discussions were lost to the full Subcommittee because of lack of participation. Mr. Golden said that Subcommittee members often had not read the issue papers prior to meetings. He commented that the Presidential Directive was a disruption and led to a lack of closure with a void to be filled. Mr. Golden commented that when they got contractors involved in the issue papers the bias went away, the papers were more objective, and time constraints were relieved for work group members. He suggested that professional facilitation at the work group level would improve the process.

COWG Comments on the FACA Process -- Tom Curran

Tom Curran said he would present some highlights because of the material that has already been reviewed. He initially thought closure would come along periodically and not at the end. He said that there was the perception that it was EPA versus the Subcommittee. He added that the one-page summaries had helped the final report.

Joe Paisie (EPA) said that inside EPA this perception of EPA versus the Subcommittee was not an issue, and that the process had made the EPA rulemaking successful in terms of getting out data and having professional facilitation at the Subcommittee level.

Subcommittee Comments on the FACA Process -- Alan Krupnick

Alan Krupnick commented that as co-chair of the Subcommittee he would like to throw out some questions. He was disappointed when the size of the Subcommittee was increased midway through the process and asked whether people thought this had been a good idea. He also questioned the representation and participation in the Subcommittee, particularly by association members.

James Souby said that the value of his participation had been through his staff. He said that participation goes from the working group level up to the Subcommittee level. He commented that he ran a similar process for the GCVTC with many more people. One recommendation Mr. Souby had for future is that EPA should be more forceful about what is needed from the process, which is the requirement for consensus. He said that if EPA defines that up front, consensus will drive the process. He also noted that it is important for all work groups to reach consensus. Deliberations at the Subcommittee are made easier if there is consensus among the work groups on issues. Mr. Souby commented that he thought the increased size of the Subcommittee was manageable and not a constraint. He suggested that composition of the Subcommittee should be as broad as possible.

Alan Krupnick asked for ways on how to prevent actions by those who do not want consensus.

James Souby responded that they must develop relationships during the process. By doing this, people who will not participate effectively are exposed.

Pat Raher identified two additional issues. He said the use of electronic media is extremely useful. By using electronic media, people know what the Subcommittee is doing. He suggested that the EPA do this more often in the future. He said it is the tip of the iceberg but a significant step forward. Mr. Raher commented that a significant decision was that EPA staff actively participate in the work groups. This gave them a clear picture, and the decision to do this up front drove the whole process. He said that reaching consensus is not an issue with him, noting that the work groups and Subcommittee developed issues and options better than EPA could have done internally. He concluded by stating that the Subcommittee identified problems and that decisions to address those problems are better than they would have been otherwise; the Subcommittee should be able to live with "better."

Shawn Kendall addressed the size question. He stated that GCVTC was a similar size and that it came to consensus. He noted the high quality of the people on this Subcommittee and the high level of commitment of members and staff, particularly the staff. Mr. Kendall added that there was good dialogue and an understanding of others' viewpoints. He thought that a broad range of stakeholders was important. He commented that the primary representatives must have the ability to make decisions. Mr. Kendall said that with regard to improvements, if there was an expectation that they would reach consensus on implementation, EPA should have given clear instructions up-front. In the case of GCVTC, Mr. Kendall noted that 95 percent of the people reached consensus. With this FACA process there were only two out of approximately 72 people that reached consensus. He suggested there should be social activities to eliminate cliques; they needed more interaction with each other to build trust. He noted the lack of desire to achieve consensus by some participants and said some of this is understandable. He suggested that the work groups should have been more directed and have had more balanced representation. Mr. Kendall suggested that work products needed to be circulated beforehand with more time to review them. He commented that responsibility, flexibility, and accountability are connected. He suggested that consensus could not be reached on many of the issue papers because other papers were not finalized. There seemed to be no master plan. He suggested that the Subcommittee take another six months to develop an integrated plan, which would be an interesting exercise. He voiced his appreciation for the opportunity to participate and comment.

Vincent Brisini agreed with James Souby that the work group level was the most important level. He said that is where the bonding and formation of relationships occurred. He noted that the assumed role of the Subcommittee resulted in some resentment. Regarding the size versus effectiveness issue, he suggested that this could be answered by EPA in reviewing who showed up and participated. He noted that EPA can do this even for original Subcommittee members. In a large group, people must be committed to the success of the group. He added that professional facilitation can bring out information on nonparticipants also. Mr. Brisini supported Mr. Raher's comments of the usefulness of EPA's website and electronic distribution of material.

Allen Schaeffer (American Trucking Association) said that as a late arrival to the process and a trade association member he was offended by the tone of discussion. He did not understand why the comments were made about trade associations because they can make adequate contributions and are not unlike other groups represented here. He added that EPA staff did great job supporting the process and distributing information.

Beverly Hartsock commented that having multiple members of stakeholder groups is important. She thanked EPA for traveling around the country to hold the meetings. She said buying into the process was key. She noted that this makes a difference and changes the dynamics. Contractor assistance helped change the level of participation required by members. Ms. Hartsock thought there was a need to spend more time on developing the charge for the Subcommittee and work groups. In the end, they need an overall product. She suggested that someone needs to write out the good and bad of this process and make it available to other groups inside EPA, particularly Jeff Fox's group, which is thinking outside of the box.

Alan Krupnick said that over past several years he has had discussions about writing a report on the process. He has an interest in doing so.

Steve Pezda commented that STSWG put a lot of work into the process and he was happy they were involved. He noted the need to put more effort into determining how to integrate science into the process.

Richard Chastain (Southern Company Services) agreed with comments regarding trade groups. He thought there should be more flexibility for the stakeholder group to determine how they could be represented in the relationship.

Larry Feldcamp reiterated the need for EPA to address the charge to the Subcommittee. People had different expectations that affected the outcome. He asked whether, given the progress made, EPA was considering continuing this FACA Subcommittee.

John Seitz responded that in terms of the FACA process this will be the Subcommittee's final meeting. EPA will provide a report to the full CAAAC. Each product of this group will be used in the process of developing new guidance and rulemakings contained in the matrix. He hoped to involve members of this group in future advisory groups but he would leave it to CAAAC to decide the future role that this Subcommittee will play. Mr. Seitz added that there are no additional meetings for this Subcommittee planned although participation of individuals is anticipated. All of the comments are very useful especially James Souby's comments on consensus. He originally thought consensus was not possible. He noted that his staff will prepare a document to share this process with the rest of EPA. He thought the feedback was very valuable.

******BREAK******

Wildland Fires -- Sally Shaver

Sally Shaver made the following presentation regarding EPA's policy on wildland fires.

Land Manager Planning Responsibilities:

Notify air quality mangers of plans to significantly increase their future use of fire.

Take appropriate steps to minimize impacts.

Consider appropriate alternatives.

Participate in the development and implementation of State/tribal smoke
management programs.

Air Manager Planning Responsibilities:

Evaluate the potential impacts of fire treatments.

Assure that air quality/visibility concerns are adequately addressed.

Adopt a smoke management program.

Smoke Management Programs (SMPs) Should Include:

Authorization mechanism

Incentives for minimizing emissions

Smoke management components of burn plans

Public education and awareness

Surveillance and enforcement

Program evaluation.

These elements are what EPA will be looking at to ensure that a State has an acceptable program in place.

Smoke Management Component for Burn Plans Technique to minimize new emissions evaluation for smoke dispersion

Public notification.

For States and Tribes with an adequate SMP, if there is a NAAQS violation, States and Tribes must verify air quality problems caused by respective fires.

EPA will:

Call for review of the SMP following the first violation based on three calendar years.

Review again if a second violation occurs.

If a third violation occurs, SMP must be made part of the SIP/TIP.

For States and Tribes without an Adequate SMP

EPA will not give special consideration if prescribed fires cause or contribute to violations of PM-2.5 or PM-10 visibility impairment in mandatory Federal Class I areas, or failure to achieve reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal.

EPA will:

Use data for designation purposes

Require SMP to be adopted into SIP.

Sally Shaver opened the floor for questions.

Mel Zeldin asked how the statutory requirements for PM-10 burns dovetail with this policy.

Sally Shaver asked him to be more specific.

Mel Zeldin identified three areas of prescribed burning where there were specific concerns.

Sally Shaver responded that there is a need to evaluate alternatives, and there is an ongoing effort to develop more tools for smoke minimization.

Mel Zeldin commented that in urban areas where managed burns are employed, this could contribute to a violation. He asked who makes the determination regarding how much is attributed to a prescribed burn and whether there was any burden of proof on the State.

Sally Shaver responded that there is some burden of proof on the State.

David Baron followed up on Mel Zeldin's question. He asked if 5 or 10 percent of emissions are attributable to fires and they put an area in nonattainment, whether EPA will designate the area as nonattainment.

Sally Shaver responded that the possibility exists but it depends on the circumstances.

David Baron expressed concern because there is no NAAQS for that.

John Seitz responded that there should be dialogue when establishing the smoke management plan. The Agency cannot require them to do more. He supported a community taking a closer look at the problem.

David Baron said this puts the burden on a community to show that there is nothing more that it can do with respect to the problem.

Sally Shaver responded that what the policy does is encourage communication. Another factor is the issue of using a controlled fire to prevent a catastrophic fire. She suggested that there is a tradeoff in allowing some smoke, and requested more involvement by State and local agencies.

David Baron said that these are all very important issues. He was concerned about where the burden was placed.

Sally Shaver noted that there are some more points to consider. There is not a lot of good information on visibility and EPA will be going back to address visibility. She asked for comments to be sent in and noted that there would be a broader stakeholder meeting held in January with large private landowners.

Ron White asked Sally Shaver to clarify that the plan becomes part of the SIP on the third violation. He asked if an area is on the borderline and it puts them over, there is no requirement to put the SMP in the SIP. Mr. White asked why was there a delay in incorporating the SMP into the SIP.

Sally Shaver responded that one can have the best plan in the world, and then the fire is needed. There may also be changes in the weather. In these cases, EPA does not want to penalize the State. If there is continued failure, EPA may need to reexamine a SIP.

Donna Lamb noted that a lot of these areas where projections are occurring are in attainment areas. SMPs are voluntary and some cases are borderline. She commented that they want to capture those transition areas. Ms. Lamb noted that many areas would stay in attainment.

Ron White responded that smoke management is a best management plan. He asked why this was voluntary. It seemed to him that by putting it into a SIP, it makes the SMP enforceable. He added that there should be more emphasis on alternative treatment and asked if there was any EPA input on evaluating alternatives.

Sally Shaver asked Donna Lamb to summarize public input.

Donna Lamb said that there are several places where alternative treatments can be considered. She noted that two-way involvement by the State and the Federal land management plan is good way to handle the alternatives, adding this is where major reductions are made. They must recognize that SMPs and programs have alternatives for mitigating emissions. There are fewer opportunities once burning is initiated.

Dan Johnson acknowledged the work of the group and said that it was nice to see common sense coming out of EPA. He thought this was an adequate plan and should protect neighboring States and Tribes. It encourages mechanisms to ensure communication between States and Tribes. Referring to Ron White's comments, Mr. Johnson said that a SIP is a statewide document and discusses how to keep an area in attainment. If one does it right, the smoke will go up and out (to Oregon). If done right one will have better dispersion. He asked what are the alternatives to not burning at all, adding that they are not addressed in here.

Sally Shaver asked the Subcommittee to please provide EPA with those comments. She suggested that where there is a need to burn, it should be recognized as an alternative.

Richard Dworek said that several meetings ago he received an emissions inventory of PM. He asked whether they can do speciation of sources as they get into PM-2.5 monitoring.

Donna Lamb responded that USDA has been working with Glen Cass to do this. She said that it is difficult from the IMPROVE data to determine what is smoke from wood or elemental carbon from other sources. From a scientific standpoint, they can collect speciated data but it is still hard to distinguish between sources.

Chris Shaver noted that every State has a visibility plan.

Sally Shaver stated that what is in place now will remain.

John Seitz noted that there is a three-year study to get to baseline.

New Source Review (NSR) Update -- Lydia Wegman (EPA)

Lydia Wegman updated the Subcommittee on NSR. She began with a summary of EPA's concept paper on NSR.

Level the playing field between nonattainment and attainment areas.

Make minor changes to the current NSR program.

Offset pools from regional or local strategies (reductions would come from NOx SIP call); would not be the obligation of a particular source, but would be run by the State.

Enhanced BACT for LAER (environmental impact analysis already done; when NOx is considered a pollutant, regional impacts should be considered.) EPA anticipates BACT would be similar to LAER.

Major source size.

Other nonattainment requirements (e.g., alternative siting requirements).

EPA would like to get comments on the following:

Does the concept paper go in the right direction?

Does it create an incentive to acquire a transitional designation?

What is the best way to address the fairness issues between traditional attainment and traditional nonattainment areas?

For States, what are the resource implications of developing and managing an offset pool?

Should interstate trading be allowed and how would such trades be managed?

Is substitution of NOx for VOC a good idea?

Ms. Wegman noted that a group from the Subcommittee will continue to work on NSR issues.

John Dege said he would like to be involved in the continuing discussion. He noted that it is not the offsets that pose a problem, it is that the process takes too long. The big issue is the time and paperwork. He supports interstate trading. Mr. Dege suggested that to streamline the process, MACT and BACT should be equivalent.

Steve Gerritson said he spoke with Lydia Wegman last week and agreed that the overall concept holds together well. He was concerned about using surpluses from OTAG SIP calls to create offsets.

Lydia Wegman said that offsets and growth will be managed by each State.

Larry Feldcamp commented that it is good to provide the States with options.

William Becker said that State and local air agencies feel strongly that this program should be voluntary. There are some that are pushing for this program to be mandatory. If this is mandatory, it will clearly become problematic. If it is voluntary, many of the issues will go away.

Transportation Conformity -- Mark Wolcott (EPA)

Mark Wolcott gave the following update on transportation conformity.

Slide 1

Conformity: 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments focused conformity for the purpose of the SIP.

Eliminate/reduce other violations of the NAAQS.

Attain the NAAQS expeditiously.

Slide 2

Transportation Conformity

Coordinate transportation and air quality planning.

Better understand transportation/air quality linkages.

Consider and address motor vehicle emissions increases.

Slide 3

Conformity: Where Are We Now?

New flexible and streamlined conformity rule published August 15, 1997.

Respond to stakeholder concerns.

Slide 4

Transportation Conformity and the New NAAQS

Transportation continues to apply in nonattainment and maintenance areas.

It also will apply for the 8-hour ozone or PM-2.5 NAAQS once areas are designated	nonattainment.

Slide 5

Transportation Conformity in Transitional Areas

Primary goals

- Minimize changes to existing planning processes

- Minimize analysis burden

- Reduce likelihood of disruption to transportation planning process.

Preliminary direction

- Require tiered test

- VMT and emissions targets from SIPs.

Slide 6

Transportation Conformity in Transitional Areas

FACA subgroup providing advice

Conference calls this month with STAPPA and AASHTO

Aiming for proposal in April 1998

Public comment

Expect to finalize in December 1998.

Slide 7

Transportation Conformity Equity Issues

Comprehensive stakeholders amendments finalized in August 1997

Conformity pilot program

Final rule will be published this year

Applications being accepted

Opportunity for innovative conformity procedures tailored to local
conditions.

Slide 8

Transportation Conformity Equity Issues

Conformity Assessment Project

Harvard study of 15 cities

Baseline report expected early 1998

Final report expected in 2001

Will identify remaining needs for flexibility.

Slide 9

Mobile Source Measures

National low-emitting vehicle standards

2004 heavy-duty vehicle standards

Federal test revisions

Federal small engine standards. Phase 2

Federal marine engine standards

Federal locomotive standards

Tier 2 light duty standards.

General Conformity -- Tom Helms (EPA)

Tom Helms commented that a work group had just been established with other Federal agencies and that there is a meeting that day. He said that success would be to look at how to improve the rule and streamline the process. He said that other agencies will be asked to evaluate how conformity affects their programs; then EPA will evaluate possible changes.

There were no questions on general conformity.

John Seitz noted that this was the final presentation of the day. He asked participants to stay tuned to follow-ups on NSR and conformity. He thanked everyone for their time and recognized Alan Krupnick's contributions of his time and effort. He also recognized the EPA staff for their efforts and wished everyone happy holidays.

Alan Krupnick thanked Mr. Seitz for his kind comments. He said the big surprise of this process was the development of personal and business contacts and relationships. Mr. Krupnick said he has learned a tremendous amount and looks forward to future interactions with members of the Subcommittee.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 p.m.