Summary of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act (FACA) Subcommittee for Ozone,

Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze

Implementation Programs Meeting

May 30, 1996

Omni Durham Hotel and Civic Center

Durham, North Carolina

Morning Session

Opening Remarks

Bill Hamilton [U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)] opened the meeting by welcoming everyone to Durham and the FACA Subcommittee meeting. He announced that while there were limited handouts available at the meeting, more comprehensive information was available on EPA's electronic bulletin board, the Technology Transfer Network (TTN).

Mr. Hamilton introduced Denise Gerth (EPA OAQPS) as the key staff member available to answer questions about meeting logistics. Mr. Hamilton then asked that all speakers identify themselves and noted that the microphones were on at all times, allowing side comments to be heard by all present. Regarding questions or comments by meeting observers, Mr. Hamilton stated that even though the meeting was open to the public, it was being held to obtain Subcommittee comments; no speaking time was guaranteed for observers.

Mr. Hamilton noted that the draft minutes of the Subcommittee meeting held in March would be available the next day (May 31, 1996). The next Subcommittee meeting was scheduled for July 29, 1996. Work Groups would meet on July 29, 1996 and the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee would meet on July, 31, 1996. Mr. Hamilton asked Subcommittee members to contact Denise Gerth if there were any problems with these dates. He expected that a subsequent Subcommittee meeting would be held in late September.

Introductions and the Role of Economics

Alan Krupnick (Resources for the Future) encouraged everyone to see the "big picture" throughout this process. Mr. Krupnick also asked that everyone move away from defensive positions into a compromise mode to deal with the huge issues that are facing the Subcommittee.

Mr. Krupnick asked the FACA Subcommittee members to introduce themselves. Attachment 1 contains a list of Subcommittee members who attended this meeting. Regarding process, Mr. Krupnick noted that during the Coordination Group meeting on May 29, 1996, views were aired and comments expressed that addressed the overlap among products created by different Work Groups. He indicated that the Coordination Group was considering the best ways to deal with these overlaps. Mr. Krupnick requested input from the FACA Subcommittee to resolve this issue. He noted that if difficult issues of overlap arise, an ad hoc committee could be formed to address the issues and make suggestions for the Coordination Group to consider.

Mr. Krupnick said that an informal core staff of economists had been formed to look at economic analyses associated with the joint implementation of ozone, particulate matter (PM), and regional haze programs. This group currently was composed of EPA staff and Mr. Krupnick; a number of outside economists had been identified as possible members. The designated lead EPA economist was Rosalina Rodriguez, who would coordinate economic input. Approximately $200,000 had been identified for contractor support to conduct economic analyses.

John Seitz (Director, EPA OAQPS) noted that overlaps were being identified and the Coordination Committee was becoming more involved to assist in resolving problems among Work Groups. Mr. Seitz said that everyone was working hard and that the questions that had been expected to arise were coming to the surface, an indicator of progress.

With respect to the day's agenda, Mr. Seitz said that there would be a discussion of some of the Work Group products, especially the products from the Base Programs and Policies (BPAP) Work Group. He expressed hope that the discussion would provide enough information to EPA to develop a document to bring back to the Subcommittee. He requested that everyone listen to what was said. He noted that coordination issues currently were being addressed (e.g., the designations issue needed to be coordinated with another Work Group). Mr. Seitz noted that there was a lot of work to be done in a short time frame. He closed by thanking all of the people involved in the Subcommittee process.

Tribal Participation on Work Groups

Jerry Pardilla (National Tribal Environmental Council) reported that there are ongoing efforts to increase tribal participation in Work Groups. He stated that David Kelly had been selected as a member of the Science and Technical Work Group and Mike Frost had been selected to participate in the National and Regional Strategies Work Group. He also said that Margaret Cook and Les Benedict had been nominated for the BPAP Work Group, but had not yet agreed to serve.

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) Update

Shawn Kendall (Phelps Dodge) presented an update on the progress of GCVTC since its April 1996 meeting. He stated that the Public Advisory Committee (PAC) had prepared a document that summarized information on air quality in the Colorado Plateau from a series of 17 information- gathering meetings. The recommendations covered several areas including prevention; clean air corridors; pollution from stationary sources (e.g., long term reductions in SO2 emissions); monitoring network design; and recommendations on activities in and around Class I areas including mobile source recommendations (both national and regional) and prescribed fire management. On May 2 and 3, the PAC met, reviewed public comments from these meetings, reached a general consensus, and sent the package to GCVTC. The GCVTC Operations Committee would review the PAC recommendations and decide whether they should go to EPA; GCVTC would meet on June 10, 1996, to finalize recommendations from the Operations Committee (see Attachment 2).

Communications/Outreach Work Group Update

Tom Curran (EPA OAQPS) began by stating that the FACA Subcommittee came on-line with a Technology Transfer Network/Bulletin Board System (TTN/BBS) in April 1996, and that it was processing 360 calls weekly related to the FACA Subcommittee. Mr. Curran stated that more than 2,000 files had been downloaded, 662 files in the previous week alone. He said that if anyone was having trouble accessing information on the TTN/BBS, there were EPA staff available at the Subcommittee meeting who could provide assistance. Mr. Curran noted that by mid-July the FACA site on the TTN/BBS will be a part of the Internet's World Wide Web (WWW). He indicated that although the Internet was clearly the fad, the bulletin board might be quicker, as well as more cost- effective, for some users and subjects. He also said that work was being done to develop a Frequently Asked Questions site, as well as a standard receipt/return message system on the WWW. Mr. Curran stated that EPA would post names and addresses, but not E-mail addresses of Subcommittee/Work Group members, on the Internet.

As a way to get information to interested parties, Mr. Curran stated that on July 11, 1996, a CAA satellite downlink meeting was scheduled; the Communications/Outreach Work Group might be able to get one hour to present ozone/on this call to present an update on the FACA process. He noted that EPA staff were beginning to work on a satellite broadcast, scheduled for September 1996, during which topics such as health, environmental effects, and implementation would be discussed in a general presentation to "level the playing field". In addition, Mr. Curran said that the Communications/Outreach Work Group plans to put information packages together as folders containing one-page summaries of key issues, noting that brochures probably were too formal at this stage. The Work Group was taking advantage of material that had already been prepared. The folders would be distributed to key contacts. The Work Group also would like to establish a clearinghouse for pertinent information. Nancy Kruger (STAPPA) and Bruce Carhart (OTC) were working on pilot projects that were being looked at as possible models for a clearinghouse. The Work Group would like to find speakers to make presentations at national trade association meetings, such as the Society of Environmental Journalists meeting scheduled for October, 1996. Mr. Curran indicated that a good spokesperson was needed for this meeting.

Ron White (American Lung Association) added that the Work Group and the FACA Subcommittee must identify who the target audiences should be. The four initial target groups identified were state/local/environmental agencies, affected industries, public interest groups, and the media. Mr. White raised the issue of disseminating information to the general public and noted the need for affected groups to serve as a pyramid for disseminating materials to the public. He added that the materials need to be understandable, user-friendly information and that the Work Group's role was to be pro-active. He said, "We don't want people asking what was the PM/ozone/regional haze issue--we want to tell the public in advance. He also said that they intended to use both print and electronic media to reach the general public. He next noted that one reason the Work Group targeted the media and the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists was to get the word to the general public regarding the FACA process and the joint implementation of the three regulations. Mr. White requested feedback from the Subcommittee on the Work Group's approach and goals for information dissemination.

Questions and Comments Regarding Communication/Outreach Work Group Update

Patrick Raher (Hogan and Hartson) asked whether the Communications/Outreach Work Group had looked at time frames for developing materials or set a schedule for disseminating information to the public. He expressed concern that if the timing did not coincide with EPA actions, then the media would usurp coverage.

Ron White responded that the Work Group had considered timing issues, adding that the Work Group was aware of the schedule and wanted to be ahead of the curve, not behind it. He said that they had identified milestones and were tracking them. Mr. White noted that the Work Group needed contact with the media before EPA issued any policy statements.

Tom Curran noted that the Work Group was trying to keep work products and regulatory announcements up to date, rather than waiting until the end of the process. He noted that the Work Group was beginning to circulate some of its one-page summaries for comments.

John Seitz expressed the need to have a tool for educating State/local officials.

Beverly Hartsock (Texas NRCC) said the package of information released at the last meeting was good. She suggested that the information being pulled together should be basic, beginning with why the standards needed to be changed in the first place. She said most people did not understand that EPA was required by the CAA to review standards every five years. Ms. Hartsock stated that it was important for elected officials to understand what was going on early in the process and asked what plans were being formulated along those lines.

John Seitz said that EPA had started to advise people on Capitol Hill and that there was a need for information from the Subcommittee to support this effort. Mr. Seitz asked whether the Work Group was looking at compiling information for State legislators.

Tom Curran responded that this issue had been raised in Communications/Outreach Work Group meetings. He noted that EPA tended to think first of staff at State and local air agencies but not elected State officials.

Ron White said that one-page summaries might be helpful to elected officials but that the Work Group needs comments on this approach. He agreed that State and local officials were key in the successful implementation of these programs and that more work was needed in this area.

Sandy Stash (ARCO) noted that the new standards would affect many areas not affected by current nonattainment regulations. She emphasized that the group needed to clearly address the impacts of the standards on these communities and how they would affect members of the general public, State legislatures, and local environmental officials.

Georgia Callahan (Texaco) indicated that there needed to be a buy-in from the general public regarding the new standards. She added that EPA would be asking for lifestyle changes and that the public needed to understand they would have to participate in the process for these standards and their programs to be successful.

Bill Becker (STAPPA/ALAPCO) stated that he was sure the Communications/Outreach Work Group was doing a good job, but he urged the FACA Subcommittee to go beyond what currently was being done. He suggested that the Subcommittee hire a public relations firm to come up with a comprehensive strategy, which might include the development of public workshops, public service announcements, and visits with State legislators and county officials.

Pat Raher added that the original charge to the FACA Subcommittee was to look at implementation. If EPA decided it had the basis for changing the current standards and no one challenged the new standards, then communications and outreach would be simple. However, he believed that there might be challenges to the basic levels and forms of the new air quality standards. Mr. Raher suggested people might begin to question the standards development process from a scientific standpoint and not necessarily from an implementation perspective.

Ron White concurred and added that controversy regarding the basic scientific underpinnings of the new standards would complicate the entire process. He asked whether there were any resources available to address this problem.

John Seitz responded that there are various resources that EPA has available, and that there might be a way to mix public and private funds. He requested that the Work Group meet and come back with suggestions to EPA about funding.

Update from Mary Nichols

Mary Nichols (EPA Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation) indicated that EPA was nearing completion of the scientific reviews for ozone and the fine PM National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Based on results of work by the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC), EPA recommended that the NAAQS for these pollutants be revised. There was a consensus in the scientific community that these standards should be changed to protect public health. Highlights of the scientific findings include:

Ozone -- Ground level ozone could affect healthy individuals as well as asthmatics. Levels down to 0.08 ppm could affect outdoor workers and children, causing chest pain and increased responses to allergens. It was definitive that elevated ozone levels were equated with increased hospital admissions. Repeated inflammation of the air passages could lead to premature aging of the lung. In addition, it was estimated that $1 billion to $2 billion dollars of losses in agricultural crops occurred each year, and there was additional damage to forest ecosystems.

PM -- Exposure to fine PM has a number of effects including increased mortality, particularly among the elderly; aggregation of asthma cases; increased hospital visits; and structural and cellular changes. There was continued concern about exposure to PM10 , but there was new concern about exposure to fine PM.

Ms. Nichols stated that, in order to provide adequate protection to the public, EPA believed that the current NAAQS must be reconsidered and revised. She said that the proposed level of the ozone NAAQS would be in the range of 0.07-0.09 ppm averaged over an eight hour period. Ms. Nichols also said that EPA was evaluating new approaches for the form of the ozone NAAQS (e.g., multiple exceedances, range of air quality, population weighted NAAQS, concentration over exceedance). In addition, she noted that EPA was considering a revised secondary ozone NAAQS, which would re-evaluate the benefits of a stricter primary standard.

Ms. Nichols stated that EPA could not start planning the implementation of these standards too soon. The FACA Subcommittee was intended to bring the general public into the process, which it had done. However, it also had changed the regulatory schedules somewhat. Ms. Nichols presented the following updated schedule regarding the proposal and promulgation of the new NAAQS and regional haze rule:

An ANPR addressing the FACA process, both of the NAAQS, and the regional haze program would be published in the Federal Register in early June.

A revised ozone NAAQS would be proposed in Fall 1996.

A fine PM NAAQS would be proposed in Fall 1996.

The Phase I NAAQS implementation program would be proposed in June 1997.

The Phase II NAAQS implementation program would be proposed in June 1998.

Ms. Nichols noted that the FACA process was designed to inform the public now about the state of air pollution in America today. She said it also provided EPA additional time to review both scientific and implementation issues. Ms. Nichols stated that the Clinton Administration was committed to this process and believed that this approach allowed EPA to consider costs and common sense approaches.

Ms. Nichols indicated that EPA believed that fine PM and PM10 should be considered separately. She noted that visibility impairment would be addressed in the new regional haze program, which would be more efficient and less costly to implement than a secondary NAAQS.

Ms. Nichols stated that EPA was encouraged by the approaches being discussed that went beyond conventional means of control. She noted that the FACA process was unprecedented in EPA history and that it provided all interested parties an opportunity to improve both the country's air pollution control regime and public health. She indicated that if organizations involved in the FACA process used information derived from FACA to inform grass roots opposition to the revised standards (e.g., there have been statements from city councils and county commissions opposing potential new standards), it would violate the FACA process and hinder the progress the Subcommittee has made. Ms. Nichols added that she hoped that the participants in FACA were developing working relationships that minimized this type of activity.

Ms. Nichols concluded by thanking everyone for their participation and input. She added that EPA was on a tight schedule and must press forward. Ms. Nichols urged members to bring forward new ideas as quickly as possible when developing new approaches, to tell EPA now, not to wait.

Questions/Comments about Ms. Nichols's Update

Shawn Kendall asked how the schedules for promulgation of Phase I (1997) and Phase II (1998) would affect the FACA process.

John Seitz responded that a proposal of the NAAQS in July would have forced EPA to take a position prior to the completion of the FACA process. He added that the schedule had not changed substantially; EPA's focus would be on the Phase I schedule, with the extra year to iron-out implementation issues.

Shawn Kendall expressed concern about getting a consensus recommendation from the Subcommittee given the regulatory schedule.

Mary Nichols indicated that while consensus was important, it might not be achieved on everything. She said EPA would stick to the schedule regardless of whether the Subcommittee reached consensus.

Beverly Hartsock stated concerns that including a range of 0.07 to 0.09 ppm as possible standards in the ANPR will raise many questions. She expected that persons would focus on how economics would be used in evaluating the 0.07-0.09 ppm range, i.e., whether cost issues would drive the selection of a higher standard. Ms. Hartsock also wondered how to explain the concept of the range to her constituents.

Mary Nichols stated that as EPA moved forward in the process there would be a concerted effort at public outreach, which would include explanations of how EPA would make its decision. She wanted public hearings/workshops around the country to obtain input from the public on FACA and noted that at these meetings there would be discussion of potential economic impacts of new standards.

Larry Feldcamp (Baker and Botts) asked whether there was a way, through FACA, to affect the way EPA selected the form of the new standards.

John Seitz noted that FACA could make recommendations regarding the form of the standards.

Larry Feldcamp asked whether the Subcommittee was restricted by the present CAA or whether they could consider national and regional strategies that might require amendments to the CAA.

Mary Nichols responded that part of the problem might be confusion about what actually could be accomplished under the CAA and that legal advice might be welcome during the process. She indicated that if there was overwhelming consensus for amending some part of the Act, EPA would listen but really was not interested in seeking new amendments.

John Seitz added that the Subcommittee should not feel inhibited by the CAA, that they were to be creative and then look at the Act for ways to implement new ideas.

Mary Nichols requested that members provide comments to EPA if they find some constraints because of the way the new standard was defined. However, she emphasized that the charge to this group was to address implementation strategies within the Act.

Pat Raher asked what directions would be given in the ANPR and what coordination was being done for the upcoming announcement to help State and local agencies respond to questions about the ANPR.

Mary Nichols responded that the ANPR would go out with a complete information package. She added that the timing of the Subcommittee meeting was fortunate and that she was looking for help from the Subcommittee to get information out to affected parties. Ms. Nichols also noted that EPA would be meeting with State officials the next week and expected that there would be considerable discussion about the ANPR at the State meeting.

Bob Palzer (Sierra Club) wanted to know when EPA's report on the costs and benefits of the CAA during 1970-1990 would be published.

Mary Nichols answered that the Science Advisory Board (SAB) would be finished with its review of this document within the next few weeks, and that EPA would make a major public release of its findings when the SAB review was complete.

John Cabiness (AIAM) asked what EPA was considering for public workshops or hearings on the ANPR.

Mary Nichols responded that EPA was looking for times and sites to hold workshops in Summer and Fall 1996 with high-level EPA staff in attendance. She indicated that EPA would like to hold the hearings while working on the proposed rulemaking.

John Taunton (Exxon) expressed concern that schedule was driving the process to such an extent that innovation in the Subcommittee's input was being constrained. He added that he was concerned about EPA moving forward without consensus of the Subcommittee.

Mary Nichols responded that it was difficult to get consensus from a group of this size and diversity. She said that EPA wanted to bring a large group together to get new ideas, and that FACA was the best vehicle for doing so. She added that if there was not any closure by the court deadline for the proposal, then EPA would move forward with what it had. However, she noted that while EPA had to meet certain deadlines, there was still a considerable amount of time to consider new approaches.

Jim Shrouds (FHWA) endorsed the need for effective public outreach in this effort. He added that he hoped this process would include State Departments of Transportation and metropolitan planning districts. He noted that under the last major transportation bill, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, which was keyed to the CAA, there would be money for states affected by new NAAQS. He asked whether someone could explain multiple exceedances.

Sally Shaver (EPA OAQPS) responded that there was an EPA staff paper available that described the five possible exceedances that are being considered and provided information about spatial averaging and population-weighted exposure. She responded that more detail on exceedances would be given during the afternoon session.

Alan Krupnick asked whether the Subcommittee was constrained by the 3 percent rate of progress requirements under Subpart 2 of the CAA.

Mary Nichols said, "My comment was not to mandate 3 percent, but more to freeze everything as it is now and move through the transition together. We should be able to entertain new ways of stating the RFP."

Alan Krupnick noted that the form of the standard was likely to change; hence, there was a growing tension between slowing progress and going down a path that was not productive.

Mary Nichols noted that the Subcommittee had options when thinking about controls that might affect other standards as well.

Sandy Stash stated that she was encouraged by EPA's comments on efforts to reach political officials. She supported the idea of reaching out to all people who would be affected by the CAA for the first time under these new rules. Ms. Stash added that EPA needed to do an open, honest assessment of achievability and the impacts of these regulations on State and local budgets.

"Good suggestion", responded Mary Nichols. She also said that EPA was aware of the need to look at a range of choices that could be made to achieve compliance with new standards.

David Hawkins (NRDC) stated that this conversation merged into the issue of substitution of control requirements. He asked whether Ms. Nichols could stay for the discussion on substitution.

Mary Nichols answered that she was looking forward to that discussion.

Base Programs and Policies (BPAP) Work Group Update

Alan Krupnick began this part of the meeting by reminding the Subcommittee that the purpose of the next two hour block on the agenda was to reach agreement on as many principles as possible. If agreement was not reached, then the Subcommittee must clearly articulate different opinions and options.

Joe Paisie (EPA OAQPS) announced that the BPAP Work Group met on May 7 and 8 in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, to discuss the Interim Implementation Policy (IIP). Seven packages of comments related to timing, applicability, progress, and substitutions were received. The discussions during this meeting focused on the draft policy issued on March 21, 1996. Mr. Paisie added that the comments range from allowing broad flexibility to not changing any requirements under the current program, not allowing substitutions, and strictly following CAA mandates. Following are the elements of the IIP that were presented and discussed. Attachment 3 contains copies of the slides referenced below, and additional materials provided by the BPAP Work Group:

Slide #1 - Timing. It was the consensus of the Work Group that the existing NAAQS would remain in place until the new NAAQS became effective.

Slide #2 - Backsliding. It was the view of the Work Group that no backsliding would be allowed. The existing programs would stay in place (e.g., OTR) until new SIPs are approved.

Slide #3 - Rate of Progress. The goal was progress toward the new NAAQS. It should be flexible and cost-effective. The Work Group identified a "glide path" based on the current rate of progress required for that area. There would be no ozone bump-ups; PM bump-ups would depend on the new NAAQS.

Slide #4 - Substitutions. There was general agreement at the end of meeting that substitution would be allowed if it achieved equal or greater progress than current rate of progress goals (e.g., 3 percent reductions). It was agreed that substitutions would be available to all states regardless of their status in reaching CAA schedules and that EPA would deal with States that were behind. There was follow-up discussion that modeling might not have sufficient resolution to address issues dealing with substitution. If this situation occurred, then States could substitute on a ton-per-ton basis or demonstrate correct directionality. The environmental sector of the Work Group expressed concern about both the lapse of time that might occur with substitution and the use of modeling analyses. They asked whether substitution would just be a way to delay for a "promise at end of rainbow." The Work Group noted that substitutions could potentially be more cost-effective, founded on better science, provide better health and ecosystem protection, and expand the area of reductions.

Slide #5 - Burden of Proof. The burden of proof regarding transport and substitution issues would rest with States. They should document and review substitutions as part of the SIP process.

Slide #6 - Population Exposure. There was limited sentiment to include population exposure and risk.

Joe Paisie noted that Work Group members representing the environmental interest groups disagreed with moving away from the current CAA mandates. He added that they rejected substitution as a tool to meeting regulatory requirements for progress.

Jerry Golden (Tennessee Valley Authority) stated that industry representatives take a "whole cloth" approach on the interim policy. They were willing to agree on the anti-backsliding policy but this agreement was contingent on having substitution available as a tool to help meet control requirements.

John Seitz asked if it was their understanding that substitution would achieve the same concentrations on the same timelines.

Jerry Golden responded that this was his understanding. States would have to prove that their substitutions would meet CAA requirements before the fact and in time to meet mandated improvements.

Mary Nichols asked Work Group members who disagreed with substitution for an explanation of which CAA-mandated measures they would not like to see substituted.

Joe Paisie responded that some of the measures included the 3 percent rate of progress for nonattainment areas, inspection/maintenance programs, and Stage II vapor recovery controls.

David Hawkins stated that environmental groups would like to ensure that progress was being made to improve the air quality and questioned what was meant by equivalent or greater rates of progress.

Jerry Golden clarified the industry position by stating that a modeling demonstration would be completed to show what the concentration of ozone would be if the mandated programs were implemented. This would define the glide path. Then, States would have to maintain at least this level of progress toward meeting the new NAAQS, but could substitute to stay on the path. States would always have the option to implement CAA measures.

David Hawkins asked whether any estimate had been made of the time needed to do the modeling.

Ted Russell (Georgia Institute of Technology) asked Mr. Paisie to address the issue of model resolution.

Joe Paisie responded that if the base level did not show up in the model, states would have to fall back to ton-per-ton approach. This was a concern for Work Group members representing State air agencies.

Jim Shrouds asked Mr. Paisie to identify when revised SIPs would be required once the NAAQS are changed.

Joe Paisie responded that under Section 172 of the CAA, states would have 2 to 3 years to designate, and then SIPs would be due in another 1 to 2 years. In all, this process could take up to 5 or 6 years.

Dan Johnson (WESTAR) asked Mr. Paisie to explain why there would be PM bump-ups.

Joe Paisie responded that in terms of ozone, bump-ups will not occur if the NAAQS was changed. However, PM bump-ups would still be viable.

Ron White asked for clarification regarding substitutions and mandated measures. He asked whether this meant all measures in the SIP or those in the CAA.

Joe Paisie responded that it meant both. It incudes what the States are obligated to do now and in the future, regardless of State statutes. A key question was whether a State that was behind in achieving its SIP should be allowed to substitute.

Vincent Brisini (Pennsylvania Electric) stated that it was his belief that the Work Group was not proposing to do anything that was not an opportunity currently under the CAA.

Joe Paisie noted that under the CAA there was some ability to substitute.

Vincent Brisini added that States could select I/M and Stage II or other programs that could reduce current emissions to meet the required rate of progress.

Christine Shaver (EDF) asked Mr. Paisie to describe how the SIP process would be used to address interstate concerns.

Joe Paisie responded that he was concerned about the SIP process and interstate issues and that his Work Group was expecting to ask the National and Regional Strategies Work Group for help in addressing the issue.

David Baron (Arizona Center for Law) added to Mr. Paisie's response addressing what the Work Group members meant by CAA's mandated measures. He suggested that they meant to include everything that was explicitly required for ozone and PM nonattainment including increased offsets, lower major source thresholds, employee commute options, emissions fees, Best Available Control Measures (BACM) for PM, and the length of time between NAAQS revision and SIP submittal.

Donna Lamb (U.S. Forest Service) noted that, for regional haze, it was unclear how IIP related to the final implementation policy that was used for SIP revision.

Joe Paisie responded that he did not see the IIP affecting regional haze because there was not a haze program in effect.

Alan Krupnick asked whether Subcommittee members had any additions to the principles of the IIP.

Pat Raher added that based on the Coordination Group meeting yesterday and the comments made this morning during the Work Group's presentation, he was proposing that the following principles be changed:

Insert to Principle #2: Since protection of public health and welfare must continue during and after the transition period, there should be no backsliding on emission reduction targets.

Change Principle #4: To more effectively address the issue of transport, new implementation policies must be structured.

Renumber Principles #4, 5, and 6 to #5, 6, and 7.

Add new Principle #8: Any disincentives to early implementation of control measures and additional improved monitoring should be identified and eliminated, and incentives for such efforts should be established.

Add new Principle #9: A comprehensive and sophisticated public education and outreach strategy to enhance public awareness and understanding of issues related to the new NAAQS should be expeditiously developed and implemented.

Mr. Raher suggested that consensus was needed on these changes.

Open Discussion about BPAP Work Group Update

David Hawkins suggested that the Subcommittee discuss the controversial principles first.

Glenn Cass (California Institute of Technology) asked whether the Subcommittee was supposed to reach consensus on these principles or just give opinions. He noted that the last page of the handout stated that environmental groups did not necessarily buy into the principles. Mr. Cass also asked whether the presentation was recommendations of the Work Group or only a work product, and wanted to know how the Subcommittee was expected to react.

Alan Krupnick responded that the Subcommittee did not have to reach consensus and was not going to vote, they just wanted a level of agreement. The purpose was to bring new ideas on the principles to the Work Group.

Joe Paisie stated that the Work Group strove for as much agreement as possible in a two-day meeting. These principles represented where the Work Group got to at the end of the meeting. They were not able to bridge the gaps with environmental groups.

Bill Becker supported Mr. Hawkins' idea and suggested that lunch discussions could facilitate compromise on controversial items.

John Seitz stated that he was confused about where there was controversy. He reiterated the fact that the programs that were in place would remain in place. He added that EPA did not want to see good reductions that are in the bank pulled. Mr. Seitz continued by noting that the timelines are important and the Subcommittee must stick to the schedules even though there would be questions asked.

Beverly Hartsock commented that, from a State perspective, the principles said that the IIP would stay in effect until the new SIPs were approved by EPA. The approval process for a SIP could be quite lengthy even though EPA had put a number of programs in place to speed up the SIP review and approval process. Thus, Ms. Hartsock noted that, during the time between when a State adopted and submitted a SIP until EPA approved the SIP, the State would be working under new rules, with the interim policy also in effect but the old SIP legally enforceable. Ms. Hartsock added that perhaps the problems with this process would prompt the EPA to become more efficient in approving SIPs. She recommended that at the time the new SIP was submitted, it should take precedence over the existing SIP.

Mary Nichols concurred with Ms. Hartsock's comment.

Jerry Golden stated that the BPAP Work Group had extensive discussions about this issue in its meetings. Questions included: What would happen if EPA did not approve the new SIP submittal? What would States and industry have to undo that had already been done? Mr. Golden emphasized that States would need to work closely with EPA to submit a good SIP package and preclude any of these problems.

Larry Feldcamp commented that when the designations are made for nonattainment areas (or whatever they will be called) under the new standards, the focus should be on a new SIP; old standards and mandates should no longer receive attention. As a basic principle, when designations were finalized, the focus should shift to the new standards and SIPs.

Alan Krupnick noted that the language in Principle 3 was progress towards a revised NAAQS. If there was some "wordsmithing" that needed to be done, then perhaps the Subcommittee could do this.

Mary Nichols commented that it sounded to her as if members were asking for a free-for-all during the interim period. She asked what things could occur during the transition period that would take people's attention away from the new standard.

Beverly Hartsock envisioned a situation where substitution might be included in a new SIP but a State would not be relieved of requirements under the old SIP. She also noted that in 1997, Texas would be required to submit a plan for the year 2007 based on the 0.12 ppm standard for ozone. She questioned whether she should be working on the modeling for this plan, or should the modeling be based on achieving a standard in the 0.07 to 0.09 ppm range.

Mary Nichols suggested that she needed more information along these lines to understand fully all the implications of transition and the transition policy.

Larry Feldcamp asked what parts of the old standard were going to remain under the new standard. He suggested that he was not advocating taking any of the current requirements away, but simply restructuring them. Mr. Feldcamp also recommended forming a smaller group to look at some of the details.

David Baron stated that his advice would be to continue to comply with the law as currently written. He recommended that the existing policy remain effective until new SIPs or FIPs are adopted. He emphasized "adopted" as a means of getting around the finality of approval, which would provide the bridge between the existing law and the new revised standard.

David Hawkins noted that there were lots of transition issues. He suggested that the Work Group attempt to come up with language for the principles that was more abstract. Mr. Hawkins wanted to make sure the principles did not imply that EPA would not do a FIP if necessary. He viewed the interim policy as a bridge to attainment and noted that there might be parts of the new standards that are not different from existing standards.

Alan Krupnick supported the idea of moving the principles up to a higher level of abstraction rather than moving down to detail.

Vincent Brisini suggested that the Subcommittee needs to consider the entire range of options. He noted that EPA could achieve the old goals of the original ozone and PM programs in a way that they become part of the new programs. Mr. Brisini added that we have to provide the mechanisms to achieve emission reductions but they do not have to get the reductions in the same way.

Stephen Gerritson (Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium) commented that there were not only the implementation transition issues to address but also issues surrounding planning and coordinating the transitions, which would affect how SIPs are conceived. He noted that the new standards could represent a paradigm shift in air policy. Mr. Gerritson emphasized the importance of the transport issue and noted that States wanted to start working on transport. He added that the work of the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) and the GCVTC would have an impact on SIP planning.

Afternoon Session

Open Discussion of IIP Principles

Backsliding

Pat Raher made a recommendation that the Coordination Group reword the backsliding policy. He suggested that the language might be too specific regarding emission reduction targets.

David Hawkins expressed concern that there would be no ozone bump-ups.

David Baron agreed with David Hawkins.

David Hawkins said the fundamental reasons for his objections were that, based on historical precedent, tools such as substitution and bump-ups would delay NAAQS attainment. He added that allowing choices between alternatives would only invite delays in improving overall air quality. Substitution with no bump-ups would represent backtracking on existing commitments. He stated that previous administrations had given States more time to improve air quality, but there were required measures that must be met. Through these measures, the CAA ensured that there was an incentive for a rapid attainment period. The longer the States took for attainment, the more prescriptive controls would be. The arguments presented at this meeting showed that now that affected parties had gotten what they wanted, representatives wanted to renegotiate their deal. The process for evaluating substitutions takes time and money. By allowing substitutions without bump- ups, attention would be redirected to responding to requests for extensions to evaluate substitutions.

Transport Issues

John Seitz commented that there were three or four issues that he did not understand:

1)	There were programs currently on the books. Could these programs (e.g., I/M) be pulled and replaced with new measures?

2)	What about future programs?

3)	For those States that were behind schedule, did this create inequities with States that had already done what they were required to do?

Mr. Seitz added that there was flexibility under the current CAA for doing different types of I/M.

Joe Paisie responded that the BPAP Work Group was addressing the question, "What do we do about new planning requirements up until the standards are promulgated?" The response was that States had to continue to meet existing requirements, based on the concept of "equivalent environmental benefit." After promulgation, EPA could substitute new requirements for existing ones. For States that were behind, the questions were asked whether they should have to meet mandated measures and whether they would be allowed to participate in substitution. The answers were affirmative. No backsliding would mean progress towards the new standard and air quality progress/ improvements; the benefit gained from substitution would be flexibility.

John Seitz asked whether Mr. Paisie was talking about adjusting boundary conditions. The response was yes, and Mr. Seitz asked whether that could be done under the current CAA.

Jerry Golden stated that the BPAP Work Group wanted to deal with measures that were cost- effective and moved away from prescriptive controls. Achievement of the required rate of progress under the CAA defined the benchmark. The Work Group did not cover all implementation issues. It did address how to meet the rate of progress requirements in principle.

Shawn Kendall added that it made life difficult for the States when EPA changed requirements. He suggested that the Subcommittee should embrace substitution because there were existing nonattainment areas under current standards. With new NAAQS, EPA might find out that new controls were more effective than originally thought. He noted that ultimately, if EPA wanted to achieve maximum emissions control, then the affected communities would need some flexibility.

David Baron stated that if the discussion was about using the flexibility that was provided by the CAA, then there was no problem. However, he did not think that was what was being discussed. He believed that what the BPAP Work Group envisioned went far beyond the substitution allowed by the CAA. Mr. Baron noted that the presenters seemed to say that everyone agreed that the timelines would remain the same. He did not agree. Mr. Baron said that it was his belief that substitutions would cause serious delays in the process. He noted that there were two NAAQS revisions underway to improve the protection of public health and welfare, but what really was happening was a step back from things that were agreed on in 1990. He requested a firm transitional policy with an option under which a State could address the new NAAQS with substitution but must do so under its existing schedule.

Pat Raher suggested that there was a need to put boundaries around the issue and that more information was needed. The first bullet under Principle #4 should focus on the new NAAQS. Under the current program, States must have I/M, but you might be able to get greater reductions by eliminating emissions from neighboring States. He questioned whether the issue then was that I/M was eliminated or whether there was a real concern about delays.

David Hawkins said that the first bullet under Principle #4 ignored history. The 1977 Amendments relied on very complicated modeling exercises, and did not work. The 1990 Amendments were designed to learn from this mistake. He noted that placing a great degree of faith in models did not achieve progress. Models were tools but their use always prompted debate. Because of this, Congress decided to say what types of controls made sense. The BPAP Work Group threw out the commitments that Congress had made.

Pat Raher suggested that if EPA adhered to Principle #2, the State would have demonstrated attainment and must continue to do so.

David Hawkins responded that there were requirements in the CAA that, by 1994, States needed fully adequate demonstrations of attainment; States were already behind this schedule. There would be further delays to look at substitutions. He also noted that States would need new emissions inventories.

Stephen Gerritson recalled that he did not think that anyone wanted to get rid of I/M. He added that in the face of new NAAQS, they were looking for something that gave greater emission reductions. This point of view was reinforced by OTAG and the Lake Michigan study. Mr. Gerritson stated that the reason what was done in the past did not work was because it was arbitrary. He concurred with Mr. Hawkins that the environmentalists and EPA had been burned in the past. But he added that the Work Group was looking at this differently, that they were not trying to change policy but to make it more flexible.

Gregory Green (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality) suggested that the Subcommittee was talking about two issues - flexibility and timing. He stated that it was unrealistic to think that the only workable strategies were ones that had worked in the past. Mr. Green added that flexibility was needed, that the world was changing and would continue to do so. He felt that the timing issue should be addressed separately.

Vincent Brisini noted that the issue with substitution was how to get to a reasonable timeline with new NAAQS. He emphasized the importance of transport.

Georgia Callahan commented that she had difficulty reconciling alternative approaches with existing rates of progress. She also stated she felt the Subcommittee was in the laboratory on the substitution issue, that it was being tested right then.

Alan Krupnick noted that the Science and Technical Work Group should address this issue and provide input on the use of models.

Harvey Jeffries stated that the Work Group had discussed the NOx substitution question (see Attachment 4). He added that it was hard for the Work Group to provide answers for an issue that was ill-defined. Most people involved in the Science and Technical Work Group were concerned about mandating a trade that would not make a difference. He continued that, since 1990, EPA had learned that NOx might be the limiting factor for the production of ozone in the United States. Reductions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in areas where NOx was the limiting factor did not make sense. Regarding modeling, Mr. Jeffries noted that he had never seen modeling done for attainment demonstrations that had satisfied most students of modeling. He also noted the difficulty of using modeling with trading because of area noise.

Ted Russell suggested that in the future models would have the capability to discern resolution issues. He added that models should not be used to determine trades.

John Taunton stated that, with regard to the substitution issue, the Subcommittee must get outside constraints of the existing program. He added that they all had to become smarter and needed to develop new approaches. Mr. Taunton suggested that the Subcommittee consider forming an ad hoc group to address substitution.

Conrad Schneider (NRC of Maine) stated that the situation was different than in 1990, and added that states routinely were missing deadlines. Many, but not all, of the deadlines missed were part of alternative attainment demonstrations. He said that if measures were required in SIPs, then States would have backstop measures to go to if substitutions took too long.

Alan Krupnick suggested that the Subcommittee refer the substitution issue back to the Coordination Group and form an ad hoc committee to craft language that would either achieve consensus or identify options.

Mary Nichols asked how regional haze fit into the transition policy. She stated that if the Subcommittee wanted to link regional haze with the NAAQS, then it had to be addressed now and included in policy so that interim measures did not adversely affect visibility.

Other Principles

Alan Krupnick asked if there were any questions on burden of proof, assuming substitution existed.

Bob Shinn (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection) responded that he did not see transport identified. He believed that the burden of proof regarding transport should be on the affected State.

Alan Krupnick asked whether people had ideas on additional principles, other than substitution, that should be submitted to the Coordination Group. This Group will draw up final principles and options and submit them to the FACA Subcommittee, then to EPA.

The question was posed that if there were no ozone bump-ups for states currently in attainment, would they be bumped-up by a new NAAQS.

Joe Paisie responded that these would not be bump-ups but redesignations. The BPAP Work Group did not address this issue directly.

Alan Krupnick noted that the Coordination Group would be addressing the entire set of principles. They would seek out those involved in drafting the principles.

David Baron stated that he believed that the BPAP Work Group was way off of the mark. He hoped that the Subcommittee would think more broadly than just BPAP suggestions.

David Hawkins suggested that the current requirements did not prohibit the areas that were required to achieve 3 percent from considering NOx as a substitute for VOCs if it was a better pollutant to control to get the 3 percent reduction. Whatever pollutant was determined to be the limiting precursor could be controlled.

Beverly Hartsock noted that there was an exception that applied to States that had not yet done anything.

David Hawkins stated that he was confused to about the existence of strategies that discriminated between 1-hour and 8-hour standards. He noted that he was not aware of any other areas where this existed.

Alan Krupnick suggested that the Subcommittee was missing one option. A State might want to meet the 3 percent rate of progress and be more cost-effective, which could be tough to do under the current program since options for its achievement might be precluded by the current CAA.

David Hawkins stated that we would need specific descriptions of these options.

Glen Cass (California Institute of Technology) suggested that EPA needed to shorten the time for which the IIP was needed.

Harvey Jeffries asked that the Subcommittee to please make sure that the Science and Technical Work Group was included in the ad hoc group.

John Taunton endorsed Glen Cass's comments.

Ron White stated that Principle #6 was unacceptable and should not be discussed further.

Alan Krupnick responded that this issue had been forwarded to Coordination Group.

Status of Part 50 Ozone/PM Package

Sally Shaver presented the Ozone NAAQS Revision:

For ozone, EPA would propose that the 1 hour NAAQS be replaced with an 8 hour NAAQS.

The range of ambient concentration for ozone would be between 0.07-0.09 ppm. EPA was looking at several different exceedances, and a new form of standard was under consideration.

Set the Primary Standard by specifying a level (such as 0.08 ppm) and a range of air quality, such that:

- An area would not comply when the 5th highest 8-hour average concentration (averaged over 3 years) was greater than 0.08 ppm.

- An area would comply when the 2nd highest was less than or equal to 0.08 ppm.

Set a Secondary Standard around the 0.08 ppm standard with a cumulative/seasonal standard.

For the PM NAAQS Revision:

Set a 24-hour standard ~ 18-65 ug/m3 (new primary standard).

Set an annual standard ~ 12.5-20 ug/m3 (new primary standard).

Consider a more stable forum for the 24-hour standard.

Consider spatial average and human exposure.

For the Primary PM10 Standard:

Keep the annual standard of 40-50 ug/m3

Keep the 24 hour standard at 150 ug/m3 with more stable forum than current expected forum.

Secondary PM10 Standard:

The regional haze program was more appropriate to address visibility impairment.

Set standards identical to primary to protect against materials damage and soiling.

For PM, Ms. Shaver noted that EPA was considering a primary NAAQS of PM2.5 . In addition, there was a need to keep PM10 to protect against affects on health from coarse particles. The regional haze rule would serve as a new secondary PM standard to address visibility.

Ron White asked whether there were any mandated control requirements.

Sally Shaver responded that the National and Regional Control Strategies Work Group would provide feedback.

Donna Lamb noted that the visibility issue could be more relevant to PM2.5 than to PM10 .

Shawn Kendall asked about the status of the final rulemaking for an equivalency to the IMPROVE monitor network and the Federal Reference Method (FRM).

Sally Shaver responded that EPA was working on a FRM, which would modify current rules. The IMPROVE network potentially could be used and/or expanded and would look at PM2.5 .

Conrad Schneider asked how one would evaluate different forms of the PM standard. He expressed interest in how visibility would be addressed.

Sally Shaver responded that it would be a concentration based approach. She added that the existing staff paper looked only at health impacts, not visibility.

The question was posed, "Will PM10 be reflective of the PM2.5 standard?"

John Bachman (EPA OAQPS) replied that both will be taken into account. PM10 will represent from 10 microns to zero with possibly a more stringent standard in the east and a looser standard in the west.

Alan Krupnick noted that under the current ozone standard of 0.12 ppm, if an area was measured at 0.124 ppm, it still would be in compliance. Then he asked whether an area under a 0.08 ppm ozone NAAQS measured at 0.084 ppm would be in compliance with the new standard.

Mary Nichols responded that it is important that EPA share with the FACA Subcommittee and the public what the choices are, given the science and policy.

Preliminary Designation Discussion

Jerry Golden passed out an issue paper (see Attachment 5) that reflected the BPAP Work Group's views on issues associated with designations. He added that the document did not represent consensus opinion and said that document had been presented to the Coordination Group for review. Mr. Golden stated that the National and Regional Strategies Work Group was also looking at designations, but the BPAP Work Group was looking at designations using a bottom-up approach. The information on designations contained in the BPAP Work Group issue paper on designations is summarized below, as presented by Mr. Golden.

Issues 1a and 1b: Basis for designations.

Mr. Golden noted that considerable amount of urban ozone monitoring data existed, but there were very few data on regional haze or fine particulates with no FRM approved for fine particulates. Good modeling information was available for ozone. Models for fine PM and regional haze were being developed and were closely linked to one another.

The options considered as the basis for designations were:

Ozone:

1)	Designate immediately.

2)	Designate based on model results (18 months).

3)	Develop monitoring plan and guidance (0-6 months); submittal (12 months); EPA review (3 months, in context of annual monitoring review); and implement (12-14 months).

4)	Follow same steps as in (3) and add modeling.

Fine PM:

1)	Designate immediately with available PM10 data.

2)	Designate based on model results (30 months).

3)	Make PM designations in conjunction with ozone designations.

4)	Follow same designations as ozone.

Regional Haze:

1)	Identify planning regions with currently available data.

2)	Designate based on model results (30 months).

3)	Make PM designations in conjunction with ozone designations.

4)	Follow same designations as ozone.

Jerry Golden pointed out that one benefit associated with Options 3 and 4, synchronization of pollutants, was that they avoided the incrementalism issue EPA would face when implementing three different strategies, i.e., EPA would be able to get to its targets in one round of designations. This approach would prevent the need to make mid-course adjustments as other programs came on line. He then presented the following options for area designations:

1)	Designate areas as nonattainment that do not meet the NAAQS.

2)	Establish the same designation for areas that do not attain and establish influence areas (i.e., both areas have common designation).

3)	Establish different designations for areas that do not attain and for influence areas (i.e., the violation area has one designation and the area of influence has a different designation).

4)	Establish accelerated attainment areas where there have been measured exceedances, but where EPA knows that there are local fixes to the problems. These local fixes should be implemented immediately.

Following are the Work Group's recommended options presented by Mr. Golden:

Basis for designation. Use monitoring and modeling plans as the bases for designations.

Areas for designation. Establish titles for areas that do not attain the NAAQS different from those areas identified as influence areas.

Accelerated attainment areas. For truly local problems, establish accelerated attainment areas where measures are available to reach attainment expeditiously.

Jerry Golden reiterated that these recommendations did not represent consensus for the BPAP work group. He then outlined key dates for the issue papers from the BPAP Work Group:

The first draft of the issue paper had been completed. It was submitted to the Coordination Group for review.

The issue paper addressing "too close to call" areas and using population exposure to weight the placement of monitors would not make the June 6, 1996, deadline for submittal to the Coordination Group.

Alignment of boundaries would be the next big issue for this work group.

The monitoring incentives issue paper was on schedule.

The integration of the implementation programs was on schedule.

The new source review issue paper would be completed by July 12, 1996.

Comments on Preliminary Designation Discussion

George Bluhm (NRCS) asked what was the purpose of continuing to enforce the PM10 NAAQS.

Alan Krupnick noted that CASAC did not say that PM10 is negligible.

John Bachman added that fine and coarse particles were thought of as two pollutants with different potencies and different risks.

David Hawkins noted that PM10 particles could be seen as precursors to PM2.5 . He suggested that a designations option should address the presence of sources of precursors with stratified designations based on the presence of these sources.

Joe Paisie commented that there was a BPAP Work Group issue paper that talked about alignment of boundaries to address this concern. Mr. Paisie stated that the BPAP was trying to identify areas at risk vs. broader control regions.

Stephen Gerritson suggested that it might be a lot more complicated than an "all local" problem or an "all transport" problem. He asked whether the PM10 standard would include particles in the range of 2.5 microns to 10 microns.

John Bachman responded that it could be coarse particles only or those from zero to 10 microns.

David Hawkins asked whether the timelines in the presentation slide were segmented.

Joe Paisie responded that, regarding timing, the Work Group had not had a chance to look at what the timeline means to designations.

David Hawkins expressed concern about the length of time given for designations. He said that it meant there would be more time for submittal and then more time for EPA to review a SIP. He stated that he was unclear whether modeling would add additional time to the timeline. This approach did not give an incentive to areas that do early monitoring.

Joe Paisie agreed, noting that if EPA found early exceedances and designated areas based on those exceedances, there was no incentive to early monitoring. The truly local problems should be taken care of expeditiously but it might take longer for areas affected by transport.

Donna Lamb added that she liked the way some things have been differentiated. However, there seemed to be a heavy emphasis on nonattainment areas. Ms. Lamb noted that the Class I areas got lost in the options that were presented. If Class I areas were considered, it brought a different light to regional control strategies.

Joe Paisie again agreed, noting that there was a link between fine PM and regional haze.

Alan Krupnick asked for comments be given to the Coordination Group on the principles of the IIP by Friday, June 7, 1996. These comments, with additions and deletions, should be sent to Sally Shaver. He stated that the ANPR would be available on the TTN/BBS once it was published.

David Hawkins asked if recommendations for action items should be submitted to the Subcommittee today or at a later date.

Joe Paisie responded that they should be submitted at a later date.

The question was asked whether the NAAQS ANPR would address the designations issue.

Sally Shaver responded that the ANPR discussed the standard only, not issues associated with the implementation of the standard.

Jim Shrouds expressed concern about the designation of nonattainment areas.

Larry Feldcamp asked how overlap issues would be addressed and whether the Coordination Group would deal with them.

Sally Shaver stated that an ad hoc working group would be formed to look at designations issues and to identify future issues where overlap may occur.

National and Regional Strategies Work Group Update

Don Theiler (Wisconsin) began by acknowledging that there was some overlap in the issues addressed by the National and Regional Strategies Work Group and issues addressed by other Work Groups. The issues addressed thus far by this Work Group included:

1)	Identification of control regions

2)	Development of multi-pollutant control strategies

3)	Identification of market based approaches

4)	Establishment of an institutional mechanism for addressing regional strategies.

Don Theiler noted that when the CAA was amended in 1990, EPA did not have the knowledge concerning transport that was available in 1996. He added that many of the old ways of controlling air pollutants had not worked because of the effects of transport. Current nonattainment designations-delineations was an area where the NAAQS were not being met. The CAA presumed that controls in that area would achieve attainment, but this was not always the case. He noted that EPA presently dealt with designations based on political boundaries, e.g., the Wisconsin and Lake Michigan area. Based on these boundaries, it was presumed that there was one area in the Lake Michigan basin that was not meeting the ozone NAAQS. However, there are many areas not in compliance with the NAAQS. Mr. Theiler made the following points.

1)	Identification of control regions. Mr. Theiler noted that the current methodology tried to do two jobs: delineate NAAQS violations areas; and delineate areas for controls with the same designation. There were areas that were not meeting the standard based on monitoring, but no incentives existed to encourage monitoring, only penalties. Mr. Theiler stated that EPA must encourage adequate monitor placement, using models to help site monitors in areas not expected to attain the standard. In addition, modeling and monitoring could be used to identify contributing areas and to determine control requirements. These requirements for control (i.e., modeling, monitoring, emission inventories) should be based on the relative contribution and cost effectiveness of the sources and source categories to pollution levels. Additionally, Mr. Theiler said, EPA should develop multi-state controls, realizing that political boundaries might not reflect the total area or source of a violation. He pointed out that regional haze control regions were not addressed under the nonattainment designation process and were multi-state in nature. Localities may resist air monitoring, Mr. Theiler said, and there should be a campaign to educate the public on health effects associated with these pollutants.

2)	Multipollutant control strategies. Mr. Theiler said that there are a number of common pollutants that contribute to the formation of ozone, fine PM and regional haze. He suggested that EPA integrate the control of these pollutants where it was environmentally and economically beneficial, emphasizing performance based control strategies. Mr. Theiler said that combined controls should be based on the ambient impact of the pollutants and the cost-effectiveness of controlling these pollutants together with EPA using broad-scale, spatially integrated strategies, where appropriate to improve air quality. Mr. Theiler noted that EPA should focus on pollutant and control strategy interactions, both positive and negative. He said that EPA should review all of the above strategies and implement mid-course corrections if control strategies were not achieving their goals.

3)	Market-based approaches. Mr. Theiler said market-based approaches could improve the cost effectiveness of emission reductions. These approaches often would foster flexibility in regulatory programs. Some of the possible market-based approaches he named included emission trading, fees assessed for emissions, taxes, and rebates. Where it was economically beneficial and where environmental objectives could be maintained, Mr. Theiler said EPA should allow market-based alternatives to command and control requirements. He stated that they would prevent backsliding and provide transition; include point and area sources; recognize effects of differing temporal and spatial impacts of controls; allow performance to be evaluated and verified; provide consistency across source types; offer social equity; prevent delays in compliance; and allow trading across jurisdictions.

4)	Institutional mechanisms for regional strategies. Mr. Theiler said that it was clear that the current approach to nonattainment areas was not suited to long range transport problems. Rather, EPA should draw on existing institutional mechanisms (e.g., OTAG, GCVTC) to guide it in developing transport groups and commissions to address regional aspects of air pollution. He noted that stakeholder involvement must be explored and ensured, and that participation of State, local, and tribal governments was critical. These regional groups should complement, supplement, or replace existing institutions and ensure a broad spectrum of input. Mr. Theiler said that EPA must recognize that the primary responsibility to develop regional control strategies lies with the States and tribes. To enhance the existing institutions and create effective new ones, EPA must foster and promote effective communication; develop and use improved tools and databases; and ensure effective management of regional market-based systems.

Draft issues papers are included in Attachment 6.

Questions and Comments about the National and Regional Strategies Work Group Update

Shawn Kendall commented that, with respect to market based program, GCVTC was driven by voluntary participation. It must use the market as a backstop.

Bob Palzer asked Mr. Theiler whether the work group had been coming up with different incentives to get people to buy into early monitoring.

Don Theiler responded that they were just trying to remove the disincentives associated with monitoring. They had not yet addressed monitoring. One incentive could be if modeling shows nonattainment, then the States must put a monitor in that area to demonstrate attainment or nonattainment.

Science and Technical Support Work Group Update

Harvey Jeffries stated that a combined policy has led to a need to combine science. By combining the programs, it was an up-front assumption that there was a coupling of the science related to these pollutants. He continued by saying that part of task of the Science and Technical Support Work Group was to identify areas where the science could be linked. Some of the Work Group members were experts in PM, some in regional haze, and others were experts about ozone. Thus, it made it hard to get a single view from the Work Group. Mr. Jeffries said that it was the first task of the Work Group to understand what the base of knowledge for these pollutants looked like. There was a marked difference among the states of knowledge with much more known about ozone, less about fine PM and regional haze.

The Work Group had developed a conceptual model that depicted going from one environmental state to another environmental state. The conceptual model addressed different environmental processes, such as changes caused by horizontal/vertical/emissions transport, deposition, and formation. The purpose of the conceptual model was to educate Work Group members and provide a basis for determining the state of the science. The Work Group also was progressing in assisting other Work Groups with their science-based questions. Mr. Jeffries expressed frustration because the Science and Technical Support Work Group had not been involved with the development of other Work Group's products. His Work Group was asked to assist the BPAP Work Group, but the framework generated more questions. Mr. Jeffries stated that the Science and Technical Work Group needed more interaction with the other two Work Groups.

Regarding models, Mr. Jeffries commented that there was both a celebration and condemnation of models. If the process representations were inaccurate, then one could misrepresent process magnitudes and model results. He added that more observations were needed to confirm the models. Field studies were expensive, but collecting data was not the only thing needed to be done; the data also must be analyzed.

Mr. Jeffries showed slides from Robin Dennis's RADM runs for areas east of the Mississippi River. The ozone area bounded the area for other pollutants. Mr. Jeffries noted that one could use tools such as this one to identify the sources that were influencing the one's region.

Mr. Jeffries concluded that the National Academy of Science was right in 1991: the ozone problem needed new attention. The geographical spatial scales were much larger than once thought and vertical distribution of ozone and its precursors was more complicated than originally conceived. Policy-relevant time scales also were larger and pollutant chemical species more numerous than once believed. At this point it was unclear how SIPs could be useful in achieving attainment given the transport phenomenon. Mr. Jeffries noted that to understand the transport problem better, more information aloft was needed. The coordination and cooperation of stakeholders was definitely required.

Questions and Comments - Science and Technical Support Work Group Update

David Hawkins indicated that these analyses showed that there was value in more communication and coordination between the BPAP Work Group and the Science and Technical Support Work Group. There was a recognition on the part of Coordination Group that there needed to be more interaction between these groups.

Bob Palzer asked whether Robin Dennis had RADM runs for other parts of the United States.

Robin Dennis answered that a move to the west was part of the development of Models 3.

Shawn Kendall supported the need to develop good inventories for model runs on fine PM and regional haze.

David Hawkins asked whether the plots would change if they had been based on a typical ozone episode rather than on an annual basis.

Robin Dennis answered that the plots would be skewed much more. He mentioned that he was still looking at how one could run the models based on episodic data.

Karl Schultz (DuPont DeNemours) asked whether it would be possible to verify the model runs. He questioned whether one could tag VOC and then measure it.

Harvey Jeffries noted that another analysis of observational data by S.T. Rao supported the RADM runs presented by Mr. Dennis.

Shawn Kendall commented that as the Subcommittee was looking at future strategies centered around fine PM, a fundamental question must be answered: did the measurement technique adequately measure nitrates?

Harvey Jeffries responded that there was a lot of concern about measurement techniques.

John Bachman added that a monitoring advisory group had stated that a negative artifact would exist, that one could not depend on regulatory monitoring for all the science that was needed.

Donna Lamb suggested that the Science and Technical Support Work Group consider coupling air with land effects because of the nitrification of soils and ozone damage in plants that were being observed.

Bill Hamilton adjourned the meeting, announcing that the next FACA Subcommittee meeting was scheduled around July 28-29, 1996.

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ALAPCO	Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials

ANPR	Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

BACM	Best Available Control Measures

BPAP	Base Programs and Policies

CAA	Clean Air Act

CASAC	Clean Air Science Advisory Committee

EPA	Environmental Protection Agency

FACA	Federal Advisory Committee Act

FIP	Federal Implementation Plan

GCVTC	Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission

I/M	Inspection/Maintenance

IIP	Interim Implementation Policy

NAAQS	National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NOx	Nitrous oxides

OAQPS	Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

OTAG	Ozone Transport Assessment Group

OTC	Ozone Transport Commission

PAC	Public Advisory Committee

PM	Particulate matter

ppm	Parts per million

SAB	Science Advisory Board

SIP	State Implementation Plan

SO2	Sulfur dioxide

STAPPA	State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators

TTN	Technology Transfer Network

VOC	Volatile organic compounds

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3

ATTACHMENT 4

ATTACHMENT 5

ATTACHMENT 6