MEETING MINUTES

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

Subcommittee for Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze Implementation

Programs

June 10-11, 1997

Omni Durham Hotel

Durham, North Carolina

Tuesday, June 10, 1997

William Hamilton [Designated Federal Officer at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)] welcomed participants and made opening remarks. He acknowledged Alan Krupnick and John Seitz, co-chairs of the Subcommittee, and the Subcommittee's new member, the Honorable Steven Morse, Senator from Minnesota. He asked participants to use their comment cards if they wanted to make comments and to please identify themselves by name and affiliation before they made a comment. Mr. Hamilton said that the meeting would last until 5:30 pm with a midmorning break and lunch; there would not be an afternoon break because of the fullness of the schedule. While observers were welcome, Mr. Hamilton said there was no guarantee that they would be able to take comments from the floor.

Mr. Hamilton noted that the April meeting minutes were final and would be posted on the TTN (Technology Transfer Network) on Thursday. He announced that the next Subcommittee meeting was scheduled for August 12 through 14 in Portland, Oregon (Tuesday through Thursday), and October 8 through 10 in Chicago (Wednesday through Friday). He asked for those whose travel expenses for this meeting were to be paid by EPA to submit forms as soon as possible.

John Seitz (EPA) also welcomed everyone to the meeting. He then addressed the fact that there was a lot of anxiety about the final ozone and PM (particulate matter) regulations. Mr. Seitz said that the reports about the process that had appeared in the press were greatly exaggerated and contained false information. The process was working quite effectively. There were in fact weekly, often twice weekly, meetings in EPA's administration to review and plan for the upcoming release of the standards. Mr. Seitz expected and said Ms. Browner (EPA Administrator Carl Browner) expected these standards to go out the door on schedule. There had been no final decisions made about the standards; everyone was providing input, and-they were working toward an acceptable solution. Once details were worked out, the rules would be promulgated on schedule. Thus implementation was a key issue on the agenda of the Administrator. Mr. Seitz said that the results of OTAG (Ozone Transport Assessment Group) were under consideration; the need for a (pollution credit) trading program and other items were all being discussed. At this time, the table was open. He said that Ms. Browner wanted flexibility in the system without penalizing people for doing the right thing early. The Subcommittee's efforts should remain focused on implementation issues. The Administrator had asked about the happenings of this Subcommittee many times, and Mr. Seitz was sure she would continue to do so.

Alan Krupnick (Resources for the Future) said that the FACA process had been difficult to love;

it had gotten huge, somewhat bureaucratic, and somewhat frustrating. He wanted to applaud each

member for continuing to struggle with the issues. However, if they did not do the second step, which was integration, then they would not have closure on the process. The Coordination Group was going ahead with an attempt at integration across all disciplines. They were trying to construct a package on which they could get some broad, general consensus. Mr. Krupnick asked them to please look at the issue papers and consider which options they would like to see included or deleted. Once the rules were promulgated, then the Subcommittee could come back together to deal with the issues of implementation. They needed cost-effective and reasonably certain reductions in emissions to reach their goals.

FACA Ad Hoc Group on Monitoring Incentives - Rich Halvey (Western Governors Association)

Rich Halvey made corrections to the proposed final recommendations of the Ad Hoc Group on Monitoring Incentives before presenting them. He said Issues B and E had been discussed but were not recommended by the ad hoc group. They were moved to a new category that depended whether Recommendation 6 was adopted.

Mr. Halvey summarized the group's work, saying it was initiated in response to the monitoring incentives paper submitted by the Base Programs and Policy Work Group (BPAPWG). The group had representatives from States, industry, and environmental groups and was facilitated by EPA. They developed five consensus recommendations that had general group support, and five recommendations that were generally supported by State and industry representatives, but not by the environmental groups. Two of the issues were subcomponents of Recommendation 6, which had been deferred depending on the decision made about it. Five additional issues were considered, but no recommendations were made.

Consensus Recommendations

1.	Provide financial incentives by revising EPA guidance to allow the use of Title V funds for
ambient air monitoring.

Remove impediments

Allow States to decide

2.	Expand mandatory national ambient monitoring requirements via rulemaking and provide
commensurate funding or funding mechanisms to support new activities.

Adequately measure health and environmental impacts

Install additional background and regional transport monitors

Allow national or possibly regional groups of affected parties to work with EPA to	identify deficiencies, establish monitoring network requirements, and identify funding levels and mechanisms

Additional 105 monies must be new, and not just a shifting of existing funds

Avoid unfunded mandates

3.	Allow the use of both public and private monitoring data to clarify area boundaries and to do	chemical analyses of PM.

Use data to define AOI/AOV boundaries

Use non-Federal reference method data to focus on control strategies

4.	Encourage the formation of public/private partnerships.

Help to meet organizational objectives

Use ambient monitoring as a supplemental environmental project in lieu of fines

5.	Accelerate implementation of PM-2.5 monitors to improve data base for making initial
designations.

Need more monitors and sufficient funding

Limited Consensus Recommendations

6.	Decouple the immediate link between a measured violation and mandatory nonattainment

regulatory provisions.*

Provide incentives in those areas that avoided additional monitoring because of a	fear of the nonattainment provisions

Achieve earlier implementation of control measures and earlier attainment of	standards

Ensure that EPA retained authority to designate nonattainment

Ensure attainment occurred at least as soon as it would have under current rules

*Mr. Halvey noted that this was an attempt to look at the upside and the downside; the downside was not thoroughly reviewed.

7.	Allow the use of realistic inputs instead of default modeling assumptions once an area had

installed all required monitors.

Use actual measured inputs, which was superior to using defaults or estimates

Refute excessively conservative assumptions with sufficient monitoring data

8.	Locate monitors in areas of highest population.

Adequately evaluate public health impacts

Give additional consideration to violations measured at population-oriented monitors

Do not use these monitors in lieu of background and transport monitors

9.	Require Federal reference continuous and instantaneous reading monitors for PM sampling
when episodic strategies were employed.

Provide incentives to increase instantaneous monitoring and allow for implementation of episodic controls

10.	Initiate national voluntary partnership program in lieu of command and control requirements.

Give incentives to sources looking to enhance flexibility and efficiency

Meet emissions reductions targets in lieu of command and control

Deferred Issues

11.	Use weather-adjusted data to demonstrate RFP(reasonable further progress).

Increase amount of available meteorological data

Address elements in Recommendation #6

Seemed appropriate for RFP measurements but not for determining attainment

Send to RFP group

12.	Decouple research monitors from the designation process.

Recommendation 6 renders this moot

Research monitors should be used to indicate areas at risk

Research monitors may not be long-term monitoring sites

Incentives Considered, but Not Adopted

These considerations were not adopted for one or more of the following reasons:

Not an incentive for additional monitoring

Not able to reach consensus

More appropriate for consideration by another group.

A.	Use population-weighted monitoring data.

Questionable as an incentive

Seemed appropriate for RFP measurements but not for determining attainment

Referred to RFP group

B.	Base violations on averages of all monitors.

Where monitored violations were occurring, averaging should not be allowed to make it

appear as if the area was in attainment.

Useful for measuring RFP

Referred to RFP group

C.	Link individual sources to monitors.

Question of technical and administrative feasibility

D.	Provide incentives for States that meet all monitoring and attainment considerations.

Not an incentive and not practical

E. Assess compliance with the primary ozone NAAQS using only population-oriented sites on the basis that the primary NAAQS was intended to protect public health.

A violation was a violation regardless of location.

Alan Krupnick asked whether the final paper would go into more detail on the pros and cons of the recommendations. He said that the existing four-page paper was very terse, and that the concerns of the environmental community were not addressed well.

Rich Halvey said they could beef up the paper.

Vincent Brisini (GPU Genco) said he was not sure he agreed with the initial statement about

emissions being traceable back to a stationary point source. -

Rich Halvey said he did not think it should be taken too seriously; it was a very generalized

statement.

Vincent Brisini said he did not think it was an appropriate statement. He then asked whether the

group had given any consideration to sources beyond Title V, such as mobile sources.

Rich Halvey said other sources were discussed but the Federal impediment drove the group toward

Title V fees as the most likely source of funds.

Vincent Brisini said that the essence of Recommendation I was that States should have the option

to use 501 money, not that they should have to do so.

Sarah Peirce-Sandner (Eastman Kodak) said that she noticed that Mr. Halvey's group dealt a number of issues to the RFP group. She said they welcomed all these thorny issues, because they did not have enough already with which to deal. She thought the first statement under Recommendation I was phrased incorrectly and agreed with Mr. Brisini that this statement had to be modified. Sources that were subject to Title V had graciously agreed to jump-start the program; however, they would not underwrite it forever. Ms. Peirce Sandner also addressed monitoring incentives in general, noting that anything that had to do with areas of influence (AOIs) and areas of violation (AOVS) had been controversial.

Susan Stark (Arco) agreed with Mr. Brisini and Ms. Peirce Sandner about Title V funds, noting that the funds were needed by these sources for permitting and other program requirements. She thought they should add a statement about the need for equity from other sources (e.g., vehicle registration fees).

Shawn Kendall (Phelps Dodge) suggested that they change the first four words to "In some cases", instead of "For the most part." He asked what the specific arguments were for moving Recommendation 6 out of consensus and whether someone from the environmental community could speak to this issue.

Bruce Hill (Appalachian Mountain Club) said they originally believed that if there were enough safety nets, decoupling would be possible. However, the environmental community came to view it as a somewhat slippery slope. The adverse meteorological conditions also were problematic. Regarding Recommendation 1, he did not think anyone had a finger pointed at the stationary point sources; it was simply a good starting point and was already in place and operational. Mr. Hill said they wanted to make links between stationary sources; maybe the Title V mechanism could be used in those instances.

Alan Krupnick said perhaps they could add a sentence recognizing that there was no impediment to

using funds other than Title V funds.

Mel Zeldin (South Coast Air Quality Management District) said that the requirements for monitoring would be part of the July promulgation. Some aspects of them might be more important than others. Recommendation 9 spoke to continuous monitors, which he did not think would be supported by EPA. Mr. Zeldin also found Recommendation 5 problematic, saying that vendors might not be able to meet the current demand for PM monitors. His information came from a workshop held in May in Las Vegas.

David Baron (Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest) raised a process question. He asked whether the Subcommittee was being asked to approve this report and its recommendations today, or were they still in the development stage.

Alan Krupnick said he was going to ask for comments and then approval. Everyone had copies of these questions.

David Baron said that on page 2, the thrust of the recommendation was for additional monitors in rural and transport areas and for background monitoring. He wondered if the intent was to limit the recommendation for additional monitors to those areas. If so, Mr. Baron said he would be opposed to it, because there were other areas that needed additional monitoring.

Rich Halvey said that it was absolutely not the Group's intent to limit additional monitors. He said they knew that there were a lot of areas that needed more monitoring, they knew current monitoring was inadequate, and they needed to do something about it.

David Baron said lie would suggest a language change to the first sentence that would not limit them to the examples currently there. He thought the change would help clarify the point. Mr. Baron noted that the last sentence said new funding was needed to implement the new programs; he hoped this funding was not a prerequisite. Mr. Baron said his concern was that if this were the case, one would be relieved of monitoring if Federal funds were not available.

Rich Halvey said that one of the things they were suggesting was that they review the amount of

funding and the sources of these funds.

David Baron said he was not clear on this and asked Mr. Halvey if he were saying that if the Federal

government did not come up with the necessary monies, then the monitoring would not be done.

Rich Halvey said absolutely not.

David Baron referred to Recommendation 4 on the next page, ambient monitoring in lieu of fines. and said that the group needed to clarify this statement. He said that it should clearly indicate that this was supplemental monitoring not required under Recommendation 2. Mr. Baron said that there were several reasons why the environmental groups did not like decoupling, but he had a more fundamental thought than Bruce Hill. If they did not have good monitoring, then the whole system would fall down; it was a fundamental requirement of the air quality management system. Mr. Baron said that monitoring currently was far too subjective, and the rules needed to be strengthened.

Mark Brownstein (Public Service Electric and Gas Company) remarked on Recommendation 2, characterizing regional pollution issues (e.g., transport and rural areas). He said when he began to look at Recommendation 8 and focus on what was highlighted in the italics, there appeared to be a disconnect in philosophy.

Rich Halvey said that the answer was that Recommendation 2 was meant to be the inclusive mechanism: monitoring was inadequate and they needed to do something about it. Recommendation 8 was an add-on at a later date. Mr. Halvey agreed that they might need some clarification.

Mark Brownstein said that the second paragraph of Recommendation 2, low emission density monitoring, was confusing. One could have the reverse scenario with high emissions density and low population density. He would caution against including this statement without some modification.

Beverly Hartsock (Texas NRCC) said that there were two philosophies. First, it was important to have good data to make good judgements. Second, there were limited resources from which to draw funds. She said they were talking about a trade-off between good data and the cost of obtaining good data. For the past 20 years, they had shied away from good monitoring and the design of good monitoring networks because of the cost and the fear of retribution for having good monitoring data.

Alan Krupnick asked Ms. Hartsock whether Recommendation 12 helped her concerns.

Beverly Hartsock said it would certainly help. When State personnel went to talk to someone about a monitor and siting a monitor in their area, they needed to have a hammer to use to put the monitor in place without fearing legal action against them.

Karl Schultz (DuPont) asked whether they should allow Title V funds to be used; he had a real problem with this approach. Mr. Schultz said that Title V fees were set to allow the permitting scheme to be used, not for the use of monitoring. In one sense, something would need to break to allow these funds to be used for monitoring.

John Seitz thought that several meetings ago they had discussed changing the rules to allow the funds to be used for monitoring.

Karl Schultz said yes, but they never decided definitively on it.

Harvey Jeffries (University of North Carolina) said that the Science and Technical Support Work Group (STSWG) was working very hard to characterize the environmental state. In doing so, they needed to characterize the entire atmosphere, especially above 10 meters. They had been discussing this issue from a modeling perspective recently in their work group. Mr. Jeffries said they must have more three-dimensional data, especially for the boundary layer.

Molly Ross (Department of the Interior) wanted to underscore what had been said by several other parties, that monitoring was fundamental to the whole process. She said that what they were striving for in the FACA process was a more flexible program and to accept the responsibility for this flexibility. In DOI's (Department of the Interior) Ecosystem Management Programs like Excel, they were giving companies more flexibility. But what they were struggling with was the need for more resources. They needed rural transport, upper atmosphere data. She said that the question was about the source of funds. Ms. Ross said that they must monitor and must analyze the data. The decoupling issue was sensitive: everyone wanted more monitoring and efficient controls. Local sources had a disproportionate effect on local regions; GCVTC (Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission) had shown this. Ms. Ross said they also needed more information about AOIs (area of influence) and AOVs (area of violation) to determine whether in fact they could decouple properly. Ms. Ross stated that if they did pursue a decoupling approach, they needed to be sure of the consequences.

Alex Johnson (CCCA-LMB) referred to Recommendation 2. He asked whether it meant that there

was no need to expand monitoring in urban areas. If so, then he would disagree with this approach.

Rich Halvey said that this was not what the Group meant. He noted that there was so much confusion that a re-work obviously was needed. The basic thrust of this statement was that the monitoring network was inadequate, and they were uncertain as to where the funds would come

from.

Elsie Munsell (Department of the Navy) said that she was hearing that there was a high priority for monitoring, so they needed to find a great way to build a monitoring program.

Steve Gerritson (LADCO) agreed with David Baron and some others that the monitoring networks in place now were fundamentally inadequate. There was also the need to keep a sense of continuity so that they did not play games with the monitoring process. They had to keep the core network solid and work toward building as opposed to adjusting. They wanted to protect public health as well as increase their understanding. Mr. Gerritson wanted them to consider monitoring in the broadest sense, both as a network and as a continuous process. They needed a lot of things, and there were a lot of funding sources that had not been discussed. He asked why they could not use highway funds and aircraft taxes to review the impacts on air quality. Additionally, Mr. Gerritson said they needed to do more with the existing data. In the past, data were collected, examined for peaks, and then lost in AIRS (Atmospheric Information Retrieval System) until some researcher decided to write a paper and publish in some obscure journal. Mr. Gerritson said they should not think of this as decoupling, rather as a process for better air quality.

Vincent Brisini said as they got to the decoupling issue in Recommendation 6, he very strongly supported it from the standpoint of designations. However, he did not support it in other aspects. Mr. Brisini thought that the issue was, would they take appropriate measures based on the monitored data. A lot of areas were concerned about what happened if they had a single monitored exceedance. The issue for him was that while he support decoupling in some instances, he did not support all decoupling actions.

Bill Becker (STAPPA/ALAPCO) said he thought that the Ad Hoc Group did a really good job. He wanted to remind the Subcommittee that with respect to funding issues, what they had decided months ago was that the program would fail without adequate resources. Mr. Becker said that no one in the room was opposed to gathering more data and increasing monitoring and increasing data analysis. He did not think the States were asking the Federal government to pay for every monitor; rather, they were asking EPA not to increase monitoring at the expense of other very important Federal initiatives. If this was the case, then they needed to increase their funding pool. On decoupling, Mr. Becker agreed with Steve Gerritson; Recommendation 6 suggested decoupling, not necessarily without controls. There also would be additional controls, just not one-size-fits-all controls. Controls would be applied where necessary, and Mr. Becker thought this item would have waylaid the concerns of environmental groups. There would be additional monitoring and additional controls from a national perspective, and possibly from a local perspective.

Mark Brownstein said they needed to add language about the upper atmosphere data. They found

this to be very effective in the OTAG process. In Recommendation 1, they needed to reference other forms of funding that could be made available or potentially evaluated. In New Jersey, Title V funds were spoken for and then some. Giving States flexibility without Federal resources was the wrong idea. There were both Federal and State interests in having better monitoring, but it needed to be a shared partnership.

John Seitz wanted to echo some of these comments and noted that the Group had done an excellent job. First, Mr. Seitz would like the Group to make changes to its paper overnight and bring it back tomorrow for another round. He said what he was hearing was that there was a fair amount of agreement on some of the principles although consensus was not possible because of the environmental group concerns. He also was concerned about funding. However, from a budget perspective, EPA had a lot of money going into this right now as well. They needed to define some core program, evaluate the efficacy of that program, and then use this evaluation to underpin the need for more monitoring. They needed to take the products of this group, bring it into EPA, and construct a document that could go forward.

Alan Krupnick said he was a little confused and wondered if Mr. Seitz was snatching defeat from

the jaws of victory. He asked whether Mr. Seitz wanted to make the changes first and then seek

general agreement. The proposal was that they had a paper good enough to send to EPA so it could

work out a final version.

Shawn Kendall said that the last two face-to-face meetings had lacked environmental people from which to draw consensus. He thought the paper should go back to the Ad Hoc Group where they would attempt to get consensus; they could not get consensus without a dialogue.

Rich Halvey said that they had gotten comments from environmental group representatives, they

simply had not been at the face-to-face meetings.

John Seitz said he was confused.

Bruce Hill said it was true that they had not been to every meeting but that they had adequate time

to look at the issues, and the paper was pretty much where the environmental groups were.

John Seitz said he would suggest that the paper go to EPA.

Shawn Kendall agreed with him.

Glen Cass (California Institute of Technology) said they had dealt with resources a great deal. He noted that the IMPROVE (Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments) network was successful because of centralization, and he suggested that EPA consider the centralized approach.

Alan Krupnick asked whether anyone had problems with these questions on monitoring incentives. He was saying that no additional effort should be spent on reaching consensus and that he felt that the findings were adequately addressed.

Bill Becker said he was not saying that he disagreed, but he was not sure where they were. Recommendations 1 through 5 could be refined as they had discussed; certain things could be underscored. The one thing that needed to be developed was Recommendation 6. He did not think that they were as far apart as it was made out to be. He thought some of the environmentalists might want to sit down with Mr. Kendall and try and come to some consensus.

John Seitz said he did not disagree with that, but he also did not know whether it was acceptable to

the environmental community.

Bruce Hill said he was willing to do this. There were some new ideas around the table that he thought they should be considering. Mr. Hill said that Mr. Brisini had given him some interesting ideas this morning.

David Baron said they always were willing to talk, but he thought that Mr. Becker was being overly optimistic about the size of their disagreement. Monitoring should be required and mandated, and environmental groups would not back down on this issue. Unless something magical had occurred in recent months, Mr. Baron thought the story was the same.

Alan Krupnick announced that without decoupling, the issue was closed. Anyone who wanted to review the issue this afternoon could do so and if progress could be made, then the paper could come back to the group tomorrow.

John Seitz asked who was interested, naming Bruce Hill, Shawn Kendall, David Baron, Nina

Dougherty, Beverly Hartsock, and Bill Becker.

Beverly Hartsock asked what kind of abilities there were to tap into other existing networks and what other networks were out there to help them look more holistically at the issues.

John Seitz said that when the paper came back into EPA, he thought those questions could be

addressed.

*** BREAK ****

William Hamilton announced that the Ad Hoc Group on Monitoring Incentives would meet. at 4:00

pm in Room 108.

Science and Technical Support Work Group Update -- Harvey Jeffries

Harvey Jeffries said that STSWG was asked to look at questions about meteorological variability, alternative metrics, and data frequency intervals. He said that they still needed some clarification in their papers and would have another meeting to settle final issues. Their work was on paper. About the Modeling and Economic Incentives Issue Paper, STSWG did not make enough progress for this meeting, so they would delay a discussion until the August Subcommittee meeting. There was a joint STSWG/NRSWG meeting in June to address issues of interface issues between the two work groups.

Harvey Jeffries said that they had been meeting with ORD (Office of Research and Development) personnel, including Joan Novak for a Models-3 framework discussion, and Jason Ching and Robin Dennis for Models-3 technical and evaluation discussions, respectively. The prototype of Models-3 was due out in another year. There was some concern that not enough time had been allocated for model beta testing and evaluation. The system was unique; it would allow even John Seitz to sit in his office and play"what if' games with air data. Mr. Jeffries said that the program was incredible, but there were time and resource considerations that needed to be addressed. Mr. Jeffries noted that there would be a Source Attribution Workshop July 16 through 18 that would include a six member peer review panel. It would involve highly technical scientific discussions.

Steve Gerritson said he had a question about one issue on mobile source incentives, specifically wondering what the impacts would be on the atmospheric formation of fine particulates and ozone with a regional and/or national reformulated gas program. He asked whether STSWG would be interested in tackling this question.

Harvey Jeffries asked Mr. Gerritson whether they would want the work group to make a prediction.

Steve Gerritson said yes.

Harvey Jeffries said they would be happy to do this.

Communications/Outreach Work Group (COWG) Update -- Ron White (American Lung Association) and Tom Curran (EPA)

Ron White talked about communications needs related to a promulgated NAAQS (National Ambient Air Quality Standards) and presented summaries of the status of issue paper summaries.

Issue Paper Summaries -- Working Drafts

Group I - Highest Priority

AOI/RAMPs (Regional Air Management Partnership)/Control Regions

AOV Boundaries

Classifications

Institutional Mechanisms

Areas at Risk

Group 2

RFP (reasonable further progress)

Progress During SIP (State implementation plan) Development

Rewards and Sanctions

Group 3

Control Strategies

Control Technology

General Economic Incentives

Group 4

Area Mobile Source Incentives

Meetings, etc.

Transportation Conformity

Group 5

Everything else

EPA s contractor would be the lead on this effort, with internal EPA staff review.

Mel Zeldin asked whether there was a sample of these summaries that they could review to give

them a flavor of what was being done.

Ron White said yes, there was currently a draft document available.

Sarah Peirce-Sandner said that they had a Phase I report, which embodied a number of the Group I

papers. She wanted to know how the summary documents related to the Phase I report.

Ron White said a summary would include a statement of the issue/problem and would reflect the

current status of the issue paper. It probably would be a single-spaced, two-sided document.

Jim Shrouds (Department of Transportation) asked Mr. White if the distribution mechanisms

discussed at the last meeting had changed.

Ron White said the summaries would be relatively simple, low-cost items. They would available

on the EPA FACA site and the TTN. Interested groups should feel free to duplicate and distribute them at their discretion. The work group was looking at a lot of different mechanisms for distribution.

Richard Dworek (U.S. Steel) wanted to know whether they would be requesting comments from

the public in addition to sending out general information.

Ron White said there would be web site addresses and contacts, so the public would have adequate

information to make comments; however, there would not be a direct solicitation of public comment.

Jean Vernet (Department of Energy) asked how these papers would reflect EPA positions that came out during Phase 1, given their timing. She said it was going to be very difficult to separate FACA Subcommittee work from what was going on in the public sector. Some of the Group I issues were in fact Phase I issues.

Ron White said that what EPA was proposing as part of the Phase I rules might or might not be

reflected in the issue paper summaries.

Tom Curran made a presentation on communication issues. He said that the brochure, "Regulating Smog and Particle Air Pollution: An Integrated Report," was put out as an EPA report and response to it had been very positive. As far as communicating about the NAAQS was concerned, there would be EPA's announcement of the new standards accompanied by a press release, lists of counties, fact sheets on standards, the Phase I notice, etc. The web site address was http://www/epa/gov/airlinks/. After the announcement, there would be satellite downlinks on July 24, 1997, to discuss the NAAQS and in September to discuss implementation. Mr. Curran continued with a discussion of communication needs:

As Much Information as Early as Possible

Additional fact sheets

Public health benefits of the new standards

What the new standards mean to an area

What EPA's next steps would be

Timelines

County/area listings

Strong concern over the PM-2.5. counties

Advertise Post-announcement Activities, Web Site Addresses, and Other Information Sharing

Opportunities at the Same Time as the Announcement

Satellite downlinks

Press releases, press conferences. etc.

Beverly Hartsock asked what day the standards were going to be proposed.

Tom Curran replied that the court-ordered date was the 19th of July.

Beverly Hartsock said that from a State agency's standpoint, if the standards were announced on a Friday, then it was weekend news and this was problematic for them. States would like some advance notice to be able to handle the obvious press requirements for quotes, etc.

Tom Curran said that to the extent they had control over the schedule, they would try to be

responsive.

NAAQS Implementation Process - Jerry Golden (Tennessee Valley Authority)

Jerry Golden noted that his presentation was only one approach to implementation, saying that there were many blocks in the chart about which they had not yet reached consensus. Mr. Golden said that the chart was intended to aid in the visualization process. He urged attendees to refer to the issue papers for the details.

Figure 1:

1. Promulgate standards; most likely would include some national measures, so they needed	to define what the national measures were and should be.

2. Identify RAMPS, which they probably could do today if needed.

Figure 2:

1. Monitoring network would be in place; they would be determining areas of violation.	One	could meet the standard, but be very close to the standard with a trend toward violation. Under this scenario, then one should be thinking about introducing some voluntary or mandatory controls.

They should not consider the At Risk category a one-shot evaluation, as it was shown in the flow

chart.

2. Control actions considered here might in fact result in control actions outside the initial	nonattainment area.

3. The chart essentially dealt with pre-SIP progress issues.

4. Development of a regional plan, the RIP. No action was taken in a transport-dominant	area	until all subsequent SIPs in surrounding regions were finalized.

Figure 3:

1. Described local-dominant regime versus transport-plus-local regimes.

2. Also discussed pre-SIP progress.

3. In Phase I they had a good deal of discussion of the too-close-to-call category; there might	be a place for that category in this framework.

4. Most likely some menu of prescribed measures would be generated under this approach;	however, if a substitute were chosen, the flexibility was there to allow this approach.

5. The group had backed off of the notion of flexible attainment dates at this time.

Figure 4:

1. The question of attainability was dealt with here.

2. They were entertaining the possibility that one might not be able to generate a SIP that

demonstrated attainment.

Figure 5:

1. This figure captured the situation when one could not show attainment, but was able	to	show	some progress requirements; the ultimate goal was to move toward attainment.

2. If one did not maintain, there was a set of contingency measures.

3. If one failed, then there was the possibility of Federal intervention.

Mark Brownstein said the charts were a good job, but he could not help feeling a little demoralized

by the number of steps.

Jerry Golden said that the next step was to incorporate Sarah Peirce-Sandner's RFP materials.

Mark Brownstein said he would suggest that wherever they had a 6 (control strategies) and perhaps an 8 (mobile incentives), they should also have a 7 (economic incentives). Mr. Brownstein said they had been harping on economic incentives in this group, and he would strongly recommend that it be taken into account and reflected here.

Jerry Golden thanked Mr. Brownstein.

Glen Cass said that one of the first activities was the promulgation of national measures. He asked how they would set these levels outside of a regional planning process. For example, in Los Angeles, particle nitrates were the largest problem; however, some of the worst violators were vehicles used in national or international commerce.

Jerry Golden said he did not want to answer that and deferred to John Seitz or Sally Shaver for an

answer.

Glen Cass said his question was about defining national measures outside of the regional planning

process and how they planned to do this.

John Seitz said it was a fair question. The national measures were not set in terms of any regional or local controls. However, Mr. Cass was correct that EPA needed to look at what levels of controls would be necessary to meet the goals of the revised NAAQS. It was a very good point that EPA needed to look at the issue right now. Mr. Seitz said he did not have a good answer at this time.

Mark Brownstein said that one of the conversations they had been having in the Control Strategies

Group was that a group of States or regions could come together and decide that some joint action

or perhaps some Federal action might provide the best prescribed measures for controls.

John Seitz said he would agree with this possibility.

Christine Shaver (Environmental Defense Fund) said that the arrow going back from the regional bodies to either regional or national bodies was something that they would talk about in the control strategies discussion later today. What concerned her was that they were halfway down page two before they were implementing any local controls.

Jerry Golden said that there was nothing in this document to indicate the complete chronology. The Interim Implementation Policy (IIP) was an ongoing entity and was running in tandem with these efforts. The IIP obligations would be there from day 1.

Christine Shaver said that it might be helpful to the public for them to spell this information out in

the diagrams.

John Seitz said that when they talked about the level of severity, they were discussing classifications.

When they said that severity was low, then the menu of options was minimal. He wondered if they

were trying to introduce a new box.

Jerry Golden said yes, that some statistical test could be used that would allow the region to bypass

the controls completely.

David Baron said that the concept of too-close-to-call had never been agreed to in this group, so he was questioning whether it was appropriate to have it in this chart at all. It had never had a wide range of support. When it was discussed, it was stated that if they were going to allow some waivers, then perhaps it should work the other way (i.e., if one was close to violating the standard, then one should have to strengthen control measures). Also, the substitution of prescribed measures seemed to be a level of detail that was inappropriate for this chart; Mr. Baron would recommend taking this section out of the chart. He had two fundamental issues. First, on page 4, Mr. Baron had a problem with the notion that there would be an option for an area to claim it had implemented all measures and still could not reach attainment. The current law had a tenet that all plans must provide for attainment. If they provided the option, then people would use it. He suggested the removal of it from the chart altogether. Second, on page 5, allowing areas to meet certain progress goals as opposed to attainment also was unacceptable to him.

Jerry Golden said that there was not a lot of consensus on some of these issues-- Mr. Baron was

correct in that statement. However, the Subcommittee had discussed many of these issues in past meetings.

John Seitz said that what Mr. Golden's group had done was stated all the- issues, and there was fairly strong consensus on most of these issues; the Subcommittee had considerable dialogue on these issues.

Harvey Jeffries noted that STSWG had a presentation on too-close-to-call the previous day. They were reviewing the issue at this time and the paper was on the FACA web site. Thus, Mr. Jeffries said, they were still discussing and working on this issue. He said Mr. Baron was correct in that it was a two-way street, whether one was flipping into or out of attainment.

Mel Zeldin responded to page 4 where they discussed the additional progress requirements after one was not able to meet the standard. From a local agency's perspective this ramp was critical. For PM-10, they were given 15 years (i.e., 10 years plus the provision for an additional 5 years). In order for them to meet the PM-10 standards, they had to do everything that was possible within the constraints of the Act. Recognizing that PM-2.5 would be even more difficult, Mr. Zeldin believed that it realistically represented an impossibility for his region to meet the standard in terms of the new NAAQS. Thus, when everything possible was being done, regions need a ramp like this for extended timeframes as long as the demonstrations were being made.

Robert Wyman (Latham and Watkins) said he agreed with Mr. Zeldin. He wondered when exactly the information was going to be submitted to Congress, and which work group was debating the subject of when an area gets some relief under page 4.

Jerry Golden said he thought it most likely would be the RFP group.

Sarah Peirce-Sandner said the RFP paper currently was addressing the need for an off-ramp.

Robert Wyman said he understood that Mr. Baron was concerned that the chart was set in concrete,

when in fact it was not. He said he had little confidence in this approach; it had been tried for 20 years and it had not worked. He would argue for substitution and flexibility in this process. Congress did not expect people to make ineffective cost decisions with respect to emission reductions.

Alan Krupnick said he thought that Mr. Golden's group was being artful when it said all reasonable measures were being considered as opposed to implemented. This approach left room for cost effectiveness.

Cynthia Marvin (California Air Resources Board) said she wanted to follow up on Glen Cass's comment about national measures. She was encouraged to see those measures up front, because EPA needed to do this wherever it was cost effective. They did not need to be knee-deep in the planning process to realize they needed additional EPA involvement.

Glen Cass said he was not complaining about its placement on the chart, rather its lack of integration into the chart.

Jerry Golden said that one reason was that if one looked at the control strategies paper, national measures were independent of local or regional conditions. Once was in a RAMP or RIP, there might be additional feedback that would change national or regional measures.

Beverly Hartsock said she thought this was useful.

Elizabeth Thompson (Clean Air Council) raised a question about page 5, asking whether there

should not be a diamond for mandatory sanctions.

Jerry Golden said he thought that issue would be covered in detail in the sanctions issue paper. This chart simply implied that there might be room for sanctions; the level of flexibility had not been fleshed out at this point.

Elizabeth Thompson noted that the law was still the law, as David Baron had pointed out.

Susan Stark raised a point about national measures. She said that, assuming placement on the chart was a surrogate of time, these measures were occurring at the same time as the implementation regulations.

Jerry Golden said one would not necessarily wait for implementation to implement these measures.

Susan Stark asked whether monitoring plans and emissions plans would follow this policy. She wanted to know what actually was going to happen during the pre-SIP process, and whether all of this information would be analyzed before determining what national measures would be required.

Jerry Golden said that was the concept. His group would work through this and identify where national measures would be beneficial, and EPA could begin to work on those measures immediately. He thought the easiest thing they could do would be to put the process on a time line.

Susan Stark said that the sequence of timing was important; she would envision national measures to be a later step in this process than was indicated.

Dan Johnson (State of Washington) said he thought they were stumbling over definition. National measures were happening over a continuum. Some were happening today, others would go on-line in the future, and others still were in the pipeline being evaluated. Thus, national measures were happening over time, and the question was what they would do and over what timeframe they would be implemented.

William Hamilton announced that a discussion of integrated options with Bill Becker would be held in Board Room #2.

*** LUNCH ***

Progress During SIP Development - Nina Dougherty (Sierra Club)

Nina Dougherty gave background information on this issue paper. It had been referred to a special subgroup at the April 8 and 9, 1997, FACA meeting to address progress issues. Members included Bill Becker, Larry Feldcamp, Steve Gerritson, David Hawkins, Richard Hayslip, and Ms. Dougherty. The subgroup had concluded discussions, and its positions had been shared with the NRSWG and the Coordination Group.

Introduction

The paper addressed issues associated with progress requirements during the period of time after the

new/revised standards were promulgated and up to when SIP was approved.

Links to Other Papers

NAAQS Implementation Diagram (6/3/97)

Reasonable Further Progress (6/5/97)

Control Strategies (6/2/97)

Incentives for Reducing Emissions from Area and Mobile Sources (6/3/97)

Special Applications of Economic Incentives (3/31/97)

Economic Incentives (2/13/97)

Rewards and Sanctions (2/13/97)

Classifications (2/11/97)

Transportation Conformity (6/3/97)

New Source Review (1/15/96)

Working Assumptions

1. Maintained neutrality on whether current nonattainment system was retained or AOI/AOV	concept was adopted.

2. Covered all areas that potentially violated or contributed to a violation of the new/revised standards.

3. Did not address any changes to RFP requirements for current nonattainment areas as

described in the IIP.

Issues Discussed by Subgroup

1. When should progress begin?

2. Where should progress apply?

3. What would progress be?

4. What was the authority for progress requirements?

5. Should progress for PM, regional haze, and ozone be treated the same or differently?

Issue 1: When should progress begin?

Date of new/revised NAAQS promulgation

Date AOVs or nonattainment are proposed

Date AOVs or nonattainment areas are finalized

Date the RAMPs are set up

Date of preliminary AOI designation

Date of final AOI Resignation

It was generally agreed that progress should begin when the NAAQS were promulgated

Issue 2: Where should progress apply?

Nationwide

Within XX miles of monitored NAAQS violation

AOVS, nonattainment areas, and areas likely to violate or contribute to a violation of the new/revised standard

Preliminary AOIS

Final AOIS

It was generally agreed that the need for progress applied nationwide with emphasis on areas that contributed to a violation of the standard

Issue 3: What would progress be?

Nothing additional (IIP, MACT, Acid Rain Program, etc.) National measures (EPA-adopted	measures)

State planning efforts

Encouragement of early reductions through economic incentive programs Extension of IIP	requirements to more areas

Liability for State emission reductions

State emission measure requirements

Time table requirements

It was generally agreed that progress should include State planning activities in conjunction with RAMPS after the NAAQS, are promulgated; and pursuit of appropriate Federal control measures after the NAAQS were promulgated. Consensus could not be reached on State/local control measures. Options included.-

Voluntary or economic incentive measures

Required control measures as soon as designations were made

Required control measures as soon as standards were promulgated and violations
or contributions to a violation were known or suspected

Issue 4: What was the authority for progress requirements?

Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) regulations

Section I 10(a) of the CAA [e.g., (2) (H)]

Section 126 of the CAA

Section 172(c) of the CAA

It was generally agreed that this issue should be referred,) to EPA's's Office of General Counsel.

Issue 5: Should progress for PM, regional haze and ozone be treated the same or differently?

Yes, to have consistency

No, because ozone had more information than PM/regional haze

It was generally agreed that a consistent approach was preferred.

Summary

The subgroup was able to reach consensus on all issues except the timing and nature of State/local control measures. Subcommittee discussion of the options was desired:

a.	Voluntary or economic incentive measures

b.	Required control measures as soon as designations were made

c.	Required control measures as soon as standards were promulgated and violations or

contributions to a violation are known or suspected.

Larry Feldcamp (Baker and Botts) spoke about voluntary or economic incentive measures. He said that the subgroup had looked at whether there were any voluntary measures that could be implemented prior to a SIP being implemented. They could see regions that were borderline having a need to do things in advance of a SIP to keep themselves from slipping into nonattainment. For those areas that probably already had done a lot of things, there would not be much else that could be done. The State and local people had a lot of concerns about doing anything mandatory at this point in the process.

Richard Hayslip (Salt River Project) spoke about required control measures as soon as designations are made. He said that the theory behind this proposal, which almost gained consensus but did not quite get there, was that the pre-SIP period could be divided into two parts: (1) between promulgation and designation; and (2) after designation and prior to SIP approval. The scale of the plan would become more prescriptive locally as one moved through this process. Thus, at the beginning, the plan might consist of more national-type measures and later be defined by more prescriptive local strategies and controls. Mr. Hayslip would propose that under this concept, they would have the same set of menus, i.e., prescribed options that could be selected by a State, based on local situations, once its SIP was in place.

Nina Dougherty talked about required control measures as soon as standards were promulgated and violations or contributions to a violation were known or suspected. She said there could be a long time between promulgation and action. However, they would not be operating in a vacuum. During this time, progress did need to be made.

Elsie Munsell referred to Issue 5 saying she noted that they were saying a consistent approach was preferred. She said, however, that some of the discussions she been a part of would say that a lack of data would make this consistency impossible. Also, Ms. Munsell had a concern about the words "or suspected". The process should be resource intensive, and it was hard for her imagine that an area suspected of a violation was making any significant investments at this time.

Cynthia Marvin asked whether there was consideration given to a performance goal for States for

pre-SIP RFP.

Nina Dougherty said they did not say that it had to go from no prescription to total prescription.

They were really discussing timing; one would be doing something after promulgation and prior to

designation.

Cynthia Marvin said she was concerned about the use of required control measures. About Option 3, if they proceeded with emissions reductions once the standards were promulgated, she thought they were preempting the concept of transport identification, especially in the West, for PM-fine.

Nina Dougherty said, again, this was dealing with regions where there was available information,

where the transport issue had been addressed.

Cynthia Marvin asked whether it only applied to the eastern United States and the OTAG region.

Nina Dougherty said no, it was simply a broad concept.

Larry Feldcamp said that different controls were evaluated and considered in their term "control

measures".

Richard Hayslip said they went through an analysis similar to a SIP. They did not want to distract

from the planning process. Alternative b was intended to be a middle ground.

John Seitz said that one thing was that for ozone, with three years for designation and then another three years, it represented a big chunk of time. A good deal of this data already existed. What they needed was a plan to get early reductions and the incentives to support the plan; he asked if this concept was considered. Mr. Seitz said what they had seemed okay for early progress, but the incentive appeared to be lacking.

Larry Feldcamp said this issue was discussed on the conference calls. A lot of areas did not like the label of nonattainment. What they had tried to do was to envision a plan similar to that of Mr. Seitz, but Mr. Feldcamp said that some people did not agree with it,

John Seitz said that they might not want to get into this discussion today either.

Alan Krupnick suggested that perhaps they would want to split up voluntarily. He noted that

incentives for early reductions were not necessarily economic incentives. A control measure could

be an economic incentive, but they could have performance goals as well.

Richard Chastain (Southern Company) raised a question about Issue 4, asking about the potential legal authority for these actions. He said the issue should be referred to EPA's Office of General Counsel, and asked how long it would take to get an answer from OGC.

David Mobley (EPA) said that they did refer this issue to OGC, and it was dependent on how the Subcommittee came out of this process in determining what progress really was. He did not have an estimate on how much time it would take OGC, but once they defined progress then OGC could give them a timetable.

Nader Mansour (Southern California Edison) asked them to elaborate on Issue 5. He said that

the slides implied agreement on combining ozone, PM, and haze. Mr. Mansour asked whether

subgroup members agreed that progress should be designed similarly for all three pollutants.

Nina Dougherty said that Issue 5 was not extensively discussed. However, in terms of State

measures, both ozone and PM-2.5 were addressed; PM-2.5. got a good deal of individual attention.

Nader Mansour said that the CAA clearly identified the differences between meeting the primary NAAQS and the regional haze goals. He asked whether the subgroup's recommendation was that these two issues be merged into one.

John Seitz said that the haze progress requirement would be defined within the haze rule, and thus

this was referring only to ozone and PM.

Susan Stark asked whether the subgroup tried to determine some type of target for progress. They

had evaluated certain strategies for progress during the review process, and she was interested in

what their findings were as to what constituted achieving progress. If any of these were determined

to be insufficient progress, Ms. Stark wanted to know what the alternatives were.

Nina Dougherty said they were looking at broad principles and not specific targets. They were

talking about new areas that would not attain the standard and thus were talking about additional

controls.

Susan Stark agreed about the IIP, but asked what would happen if the measures already on the books were not sufficient to handle the necessary controls.

Nina Dougherty said that the new nonattainment areas were their focus. They were interested in

what the new standards would mean to those areas.

Sarah Peirce-Sandner said she had two comments. Under number 3, she asked what progress would be. On the selection of Option 2, Ms. Peirce Sandner said that she got hung up on the term "appropriate." To her it implied a process, meaning that a local strategy could be preferred over a national strategy. However, there could be regions where this did not work. Also.. Ms. Peirce Sandner said that Option I implied that not much was going on. A list of all summary national measures was being planned, and she would suggest that the list be attached to this document so that EPA could see what was currently on the list.

John Seitz said that point had been made clear to them many times on this issue. He said he was hearing three groups of areas. First, it was mainly a timing issue as to whether it was PM or ozone. They had areas that would be coming in or going out of attainment and the question was how they ensured that those areas stayed in attainment. Second, the next category was the areas that were really close - they had to do something, but the fact was that they could rather quickly get to attainment. For those areas EPA needed to look at incentives to get the necessary early reductions. Third, there were the regions that were in nonattainment and were going to stay there. In these areas, Mr. Seitz said their time was best spent looking at initiatives that would help begin to move them towards attainment. PM was no different from ozone, it would 'must occur later in the process. If they were talking about progress, then perhaps they should take a crack at this approach and build

incentives and maintenance for all three areas.

Christine Shaver said she had concerns based on the early pre-SIP flow chart. She saw a need to have some assurance that early reductions would occur. She said that they had a good deal of information already on these pollutants and wondered why they needed to wait to start implementing control programs. Ms. Shaver said that any responsible environmental official would start implementation now. In that regard, she would suggest that some incentives be allowed for banking and crediting sources that did choose to clean-up earlier. Also, in response to Nader Mansour's comments, she wanted to highlight that EPA had suggested the regional haze program was a surrogate for a secondary standard with its progress requirements.

Beverly Hartsock questioned whether they really needed this paper. First, they were talking about planning prior to a SIP, and the CAA already required States to do that. Ms. Hartsock said she thought the system laid out in this presentation might already be provided for in the CAA. Second, there was a do-nothing approach that she felt was not an accurate portrayal of the current situation. The idea of "no additional controls beyond" the IIP, Acid Rain Program, MACT, and new motor vehicle programs ignored the fact that controls were being implemented under these programs all across the country and were achieving significant reductions, although perhaps not sufficient to comply with the new standards. Finally, Ms. Hartsock asked when they envisioned the pre-SIP period ending. If it ended with approval of the SIP, measures still would have been under implementation in the years leading up to final SIP approval, that is, in the pre-SIP period. Thus, there would tremendous reductions occurring throughout the State planning process in the pre-SIP period.

Vincent Brisini said he was going right to the summary. In the case where one could implement episodic emission controls, then there was probably some merit in it. They might say this was a mechanism to avoid being called an AOV, but he would not characterize it as such. Relative to Option b, Mr. Brisini was concerned that they were presupposing a traditional classification scheme. They would have designations of AOIS and the development of SIPs. It also presupposed that one knew what actions to take. He was not sure that they knew the actions at this time. Mr. Brisini agreed with Elsie Munsell that they were creating control strategies based on suspicions and not hard facts. They really needed to consider giving credit for major reductions that were already on the books. Mr. Brisini said they also needed to consider what had to be done after the SIP was in place. Early reductions were only important when the disincentive for early reductions was alleviated.

David Baron said he thought this paper was very useful. He wanted to respond to the idea of putting money into control measures when they were not sure 100 percent that an area was going to be nonattainment. Mr. Baron said they were talking about areas where they had pretty good evidence that they would be in violation or were contributing to a violation. He asked whether they should err on the side of providing early reductions, or the side of continuing to create bad air and make people sick. If they could get early reductions, and the Subcommittee knew that the potential was out there, then they needed to go and get them. Otherwise, the process was going to drag on for a very long time. Mr. Baron thought the idea of requiring early reductions, as in Option c, would provide some assurance that they were making progress before his lifetime was over. To John Seitz's three categories Mr. Baron would add a fourth, suggested by Issue 3.c, which was areas that were

contributing to downwind areas by transport of pollution.

John Seitz said that he would agree with this assessment; they should go back and look at those areas.

Vincent Brisini said that the area that they described as being suspected, he would classify as being known; perhaps it was the way in which it was worded. If the information was available, then the area was not a suspect any more, it was a known quantity.

Nina Dougherty said that they did discuss this point, especially with regard to PM-2.5. Data should be used, even if it was not the standard reference method. They needed to use all data to help them get their hands around this issue.

Bruce Hill said that they also were talking about regional haze. There were some instances where they could make some progress prior to having all the data.

Patrick Raher (Hogan and Hartson) said that he found this paper to be extremely useful. They needed some type of definition of what progress really was. He said that when he looked at the summary and looked at Option c, then he thought they were breaching a realm where they would not get a great deal of consensus. It did not mean they could not achieve progress; that was why he hoped Option b got included somewhere. Mr. Raher did not think they had many States in this process that were not going to spend some time thinking about how to make more cost effective emission reductions. As Mr. Hill just said, if they had regional haze benefits that would improve PM, then by all means they had to do it. Mr. Raher said he could never recommend or support the approach in Option c. He thought it was why they had failed in the past.

Dennis Lawler (Illinois EPA) said lie thought that developing some of the topics in the paper further could be beneficial. There were some questions raised on the link-age between the IIP and the paper; he thought a further discussion of these issues would help. Also, Mr. Lawler said that a definition of "suspected" would be clarifying.

Molly Ross said the paper stated that they were going to take health and welfare concerns seriously, and that they were going to do something about it. There was some confusion on the legal versus policy standard. They were supposed to make reasonable progress on the haze standard, and they were to make reasonable further progress on the NAAQS. All of these terms suggested moving forward. Ms. Ross said that there was a policy decision that they should be making early reductions to keep the process moving forward. Ms. Ross said she wanted to reiterate the visibility values. The IMPROVE database was a fine database on PM-fine, and it was speciated. It contained a lot of information about the network, and she encouraged them to took at its data reports.

Shawn Kendall had a concern on Page 1 with the word "potentially" in the term "areas that are potentially in nonattainment." He said that requiring control actions without evidence was dangerous business, and he thought it was beyond what States and regional groups would be willing to accept. Mr. Kendall also said that the regional haze standard was different from the secondary standard.

Larry Feldcamp said that performance standards were too numerous to apply a uniform standard across all regions or the country. They needed a voluntary process that each area would take, evaluating information it had available and then going forward with some type of regulation. They would be allowed to come back at some point in the process.

Steve Gerritson said that in their deliberations, one thing that did come up was the question of what form the standard was going to take, in terms of what years would be used to make the designations. He thought perhaps Mr. Seitz could shed some light on this. If the standards were going to be based on historical data, that was fine. However, if EPA was going to do this in a prospective fashion. then all it was going to have was a bunch of lawsuits. The Phase 11 Acid Rain Rules were going to result in significant reductions in NOx and SOx. Additionally, the OTAG process had targeted substantial NOx reductions. Thus, there were going to be significant reductions in both ozone and PM concentrations across the nation. Meanwhile, States could be planning more targeted reductions in their own regions. Control measures on specific sources in areas where designations had not been made would be problematic.

Alan Krupnick said he was hearing a lot of support and a lot of suggestions on how the paper could

be improved. He asked whether another iteration of this paper was possible.

Nina Dougherty said that she needed to defer this to David Mobley at this point.

David Mobley said yes, he thought they could go back and try to respond to the suggestions that had been made. He asked whether they wanted it back before the Subcommittee again.

John Seitz said he thought it needed to be back before the Coordination Group. He wanted to see what was really going to happen. Mr. Seitz suggested that the subgroup take another crack at it, work with the Coordination Group to review it, and then bring it back to the whole Subcommittee.

Control Strategies - Dan Johnson and Jean Vernet

Presentation Overview

Goals of Issue Paper

Background

Key Questions

Options

Sub-Committee Guidance on 3 Questions

Goals of Control Strategy Issue Paper

Recommend a process for allocating control strategy responsibilities between national, prescribed,

and discretionary measures. They attempted to recommend specific national and prescribed measures.

Background

Balance has shifted through the years; in the 1970s there would have been very little flexibility.

Key Questions

In the end, the pieces needed to fit together. The shapes of the individual pieces of the pie could be prescribed and changed.

Questions I and 2: Under what circumstances should EPA mandate control measures as opposed to allowing States and Tribes the discretion to choose measures? It depended.

Should there be Federally required measures?

What were the forms of national and prescribed measures?

What factors should be considered?

What specific measures could be recommended?

What was the appropriate balance between national, prescribed and discretionary measures?

Options for Questions I and 2

1.	Should there be federally prescribed measures'?

Option 1: None

Option 2: No new measures

Option 3: More or different measures

Should Option be an option at all?

2.	Forms of the prescribed measures

Option 1: Direct prescription

Option 2: Responsibility with flexibility

Option 3: Prescribed measures as backstops (discretion, but with a safety net)

Option 4: Limited choice

Option 5: Differential prescription (prescribed measures, just not in all locations)

3.	Factors for prescribed and national measures

Option 1: All factors

Option 2: Only quantitative/objective factors

Option 3: All national categories by cost effectiveness

Option 4: Two step approach

What specific measures could be recommended?

What was the appropriate balance between national, prescribed, and discretionary	measures?

Should the balance or specific measures be determined first?

4. What specific measures could be recommended?

Option 1:	None, only framework

Option 2: Based on factors

4b. What was the balance?

Option 1: Current national + discretionary

Option 2: New national + discretionary, substitution allowed

Option 3:	Current national + prescribed + discretionary National + prescribed = majority

Option 4:	Current national + prescribed + discretionary National + prescribed = nearly all

Option 5:	Current + new national + prescribed + discretionary National + prescribed =
majority

Question 3 - How should -the order of implementation between national, prescribed and discretionary

measures be determined?

Order of Implementation (credit for national measures)

Option 1: Credit on proposed implementation date

Discretionary make up balance

Option 2: Sufficient reductions from prescribed and discretionary Credit for national measures	when implemented

Question 4: What happened when national measures were not implemented-. implemented late, or yielded less than predicted emission reductions?

4a. When EPA failed to develop measures on schedule:

Option 1: Credit at target date

Option 2:	Credit when implemented; RFP requirement reduced by shortfall

Option 3: Credit when implemented; RFI grace period

Option 4: Credit when ]implemented; RFP requirements unchanged

4b. When EPA failed to implemented- a national measure:

Option 1: Shortfall made up by discretionary measures',

RFP requirements for one period reduced by shortfall

Option 2: Shortfall made up by discretionary measures;

RFP grace period allowed

Option 3: Shortfall made up by discretionary measures; Original target date

Option 4: EPA responsible for substitutes

c. Consequence to regulatory agency(s):

Option 1: States not sanctioned if EPA fails

Option 2: States allowed grace period to substitute

Option 3: No grace period

Question 5: What additional Guidelines did multi-jurisdictional planning, bodies need to determine which measures should be prescribed? Should regional planning bodies recommend specific regional control measures?

Guidelines for multi-jurisdictional planning bodies:

Option 1: No guidelines

Option 2: No guidelines besides CAA requirements

Option 3: General guidelines (bottom-up)

Option 4: Specific guidelines (top-down)

Option 5: Federal backstop plan

Option 6: EPA set emissions budgets

Option 7: EPA prescribed measures

Guidance from Subcommittee on 3 Questions

1.	Should "no federally required measures" be an option?

2.	Should the balance, or specific measures, be determined first?

3.	Should regional planning bodies recommend specific re(regional control measures?

Alan Krupnick said he did not think any measure should be taken off of the table including Federal measures. He also did not think that they had a chicken-and-egg problem. Mr. Krupnick said they liked national measures because of the characteristics that they had, e.g., implemented quickly, generally cost effective. Usually they wanted measures because of their characteristics. The balance was derived from a consideration of the characteristics of specific measures. Thus, fundamentally, it went back to specific measures. As for the difference in prescribed and discretionary strategies, Mr. Krupnick said he did not really see this.

Cynthia Marvin said that she thought the existing responsibilities of industry should remain.

However, she thought the additional strategies should be found in the discretionary arena. As to the balance between national and State/local measures, it was nice to consider this balance, but in California, there was no way that they could get the reductions they needed with State and local regulations.

Robert Wyman referenced page 5 of the document, working assumptions. He thought it was important that the group discuss treating Class I areas the same as nonattainment areas. As far as discretion was concerned, Mr. Wyman said he would support the use of presumptions and backstops to ensure that one got where one needed to go. He said that he would strongly oppose taking discretion away from the States. He would advocate that the States be given the discretion to act. and then have backstops if they failed to act.

Richard Chastain said he thought this paper made a primary contribution in identifying and

discussing the processes and factors that were relevant to developing control strategies. He recommended starting with discretionary programs and then moving to increasing levels of

prescription.

Hillary Kitz (City of Tulsa) said she would agree that they needed a lot of emphasis on

discretionary systems. She would strongly support a quick, cost-effective approach to controls.

Sarah Peirce-Sandner referred to Subquestion 2 where there were five options listed, asking what the

difference was between Options 2 and 4 and whether Option 4 was a subset of Option 2.

Dan Johnson said that Option 4 could be a subset of Option 2, but it could be a subset of Option I -

One could have several choices.

Sarah Peirce-Sandner said that she would prefer that the options be discrete entities rather than

subsets of other options.

Dan Johnson agreed that this approach would make it clearer.

Sarah Peirce-Sandner said that they absolutely should not drop existing Federal control measures.

I

The whole purpose of the RAMP was to set up airsheds that had common attributes for air quality

management. To get consensus, they needed to increase their input into the process.

Alex Johnson said that he was unclear because the presentation never really addressed Federal agencies specifically, other than a few casual references to EPA. He asked whether they had addressed transportation planning at all.

Dan Johnson said that he did not intend to leave any options off of the table.

Georgia Callahan (Texaco) said she agreed with using cost effectiveness. However, there also was the principle that control strategies needed to be founded in good science.

Vincent Brisini referred to Question 3, asking when they would take credits. He said that one area of concern was that they had a situation with many options under Option 2 (i.e., all prescriptive, all discretionary, or some type of mix). People needed to pick what worked best for them and be afforded this opportunity.

Shawn Kendall said that the form of the national options should depend on the nature of the sources

being controlled. There was a role for some national measures, and there needed to be a recognition

that some of the regional planning bodies would need to come back to EPA for additional national

measures.

Beverly Hartsock said that because of her planning experience this really was a chicken-and-egg situation. She said that timing was the first issue; planning was done on a legally binding time schedule. Ms. Hartsock also noted that each control measure contained inherent characteristics.

Molly Ross said she liked what Alan Krupnick had said. She thought they were looking at the characteristics of controls that they selected. There were reasons that they looked to national measures, as opposed to local or State controls. Under regional haze rules, they had to plan for Class I areas, ensuring that current visibility was maintained and that future visibility was guaranteed.

Bill Luneberg (GASP) said that qualitative factors such as equity, referred to in the first paragraph on page 10 of the paper, generally should be left to local governments and not to Federal agencies.

Jed Mandel (Neal Gerger and Eisenberg) referred to Table I in the appendix. He said that they needed a summary like this one that included all current and planned national measures; many options were missing there. He had a similar problem with the mobile source paper where there were clearly chunks of information that were missing. It would be helpful to include the details.

David Baron spoke about discretionary measures at the local level. He said that all things being

equal, they should preserve a level of local discretion. However, the Clean Air Act was created because State and local areas could not guarantee clean air. Mr. Wyman's idea of creating a presumption might work in some areas, but was doomed for failure in other regions. A good example was stage 2 vapor recovery; if it were not a prescribed measure in the Title II of the CAA, they would not have it in Phoenix today. Mr. Baron made a second point on page 7 where it asked whether there should be Federal measures, noting that one of the options was Federal measures in addition to the CAA. Mr. Baron said he was wondering if they were talking about a control strategy option, which required not just Subquestion 2.

Dan Johnson said he thought Mr. Baron drew a good distinction and said that they would try and

incorporate that approach.

John Seitz said that he kept going back to the discussions about progress they had earlier today. When they talked about control strategies, it inevitably came back to the chart they discussed this morning. Mr. Seitz thought more of the AOI process when they discussed controls. When they looked at an airshed, they first had to look at what was on the plate across the board. Then on top of that, they had to begin to look at what was going on in the intrastate realm. There were definite jurisdictional concerns that needed to be addressed, and there might be a need for a federally mandated backstop. Mr. Seitz said he tended to think that they were making more out of this issue than was necessary. Logically, these airsheds should get together and solve the issues themselves, then they might or might not need federally mandated backstops. He was a little confused as to where this fit, and what the charge was.

Christine Shaver said she thought they needed to get together and look at what they had going

nationally and what this could buy them. She said they needed to investigate whether there were

other national measures they needed to implement up front to jump start the process. The paper was

trying to look at much more than this, however.

Mark Brownstein said he thought they had done a good job. They had examples from GCVTC and

OTAG. They could look at these examples, see what had been handled effectively at the local level, and determine what needed to be bumped back to EPA for a backstop. It was entirely possible that local folks coming together would determine that regional controls were needed, and they should be given the discretion to do so.

Alan Krupnick said that the strategy that was followed in the mobile source paper, which would be presented next, followed a somewhat different strategy. They had provided some concrete examples; perhaps what this paper needed was a similar strategy that would provide some detailed examples giving the Subcommittee an idea of how someone would think through this process.

Dave Millerick ( ) said he agreed with Mr. Krupnick. There were certain types of programs for which national programs were good (e.g., transportation). Individual States regulating transportation simply did not make sense; the CAA recognized this fact. National measures were being thrown around like there were a number of controls that could be easily and quickly implemented, an idea with which he disagreed. Mr. Millerick said there was simply not that much low-hanging fruit out there from which to choose. There were a lot of things happening, but the choices were and would be limited. Additionally, there was the question of legal authority when dealing with these issues as well.

Gay MacGregor (EPA) said that not all national measures for mobile sources were included in

these lists and they would work with the group to correct this.

Carter Keithley (Hearth Products Association) said he shared some of Mr. Seitz's confusion. He felt that discretionary measures should be the emphasis, unlike Mr. Baron. It was very difficult to establish national measures because of local meteorology, topography, etc. The States had long been the laboratory for testing regulations. In recent years there had tended to be a certain reluctance at the State level to adopt innovative measures that were not pre-approved by EPA. Mr. Keithley said that they needed to get beyond this road block.

Susan Stark said that she wanted to go back to the Class I area issue. She agreed with Mr. Wyman, they all agreed that there should be reasonable progress for regional haze. However, haze should not be treated equally with ozone and PM because the latter's standards were health-based

John Seitz said that he understood Mr. Keithley's frustration. They had seen a number of programs

at the State level being implemented over the last three to four years, so he did see promise in this

arena.

Rich Halvey said that some of this had been discussed. First, there were certain source categories that should have national controls applied to them (e.g., something that affects interstate commerce, such as trains, planes, buses, automobiles). Part of the reason was that States wanted to be able to see the residual effects. Second, the timeliness of the Federal requirements and the completion of SIPs were issues. Third, there was probably a dependency on the expected reductions to materialize, and he asked what one would do if the projected reductions did not materialize.

Bill Becker said he found it very difficult to define the balance before determining the actual controls. He said he actually agreed with Mr. Krupnick and would identify every conceivable control measure that had not yet been implemented, then decide who could do it better among local, State, and Federal entities. After that step, Mr. Becker said he would begin immediately and not kick in and take it from wait three or four years. He would allow the existing planning process to kick in and take it from

there to assure accountability in achieving needed reductions. Mr. Becker then moved to the issue of Federal officials saying "oops," and not doing their thing. He said he had a crazy idea that he wanted to explore. States signed a contract called a SIP. Mr. Becker said he wondered why they could not have a Federal contract for which there was a process to identify national measures and an acknowledgment that those controls would achieve a certain level of reductions by a certain date. He was not sure how they would enforce such a contract, but said that they needed this level of up front commitment. If EPA was late, then it was the State and local agencies that had to fill the gaps, and they were left holding the bag. He asked whether Mr. Johnson's group could look at some type of Federal commitment.

Dan Johnson said that they could look at this, but had not addressed it specifically.

John Seitz said that they could go through this process all day long, and asked where they were

going with this paper. He said that yes, they were absolutely correct that the Federal government had a responsibility. As for accountability, EPA was accountable only if it signed a contract with them up front. Mr. Seitz asked what the charge was, and said they seemed to be going in circles with this paper. He did not believe that they were trying to assign responsibility for emissions reductions this paper.

Bill Becker said that one suggestion was to bring EPA into the planning process up front and seek some type of emission reductions right at the start. If EPA did not do its job, State and local entities suffered, and he was trying to get a balance of responsibility on the reduction of emissions.

Gay MacGregor said that the idea was a fine one in terms of Federal commitment. However, when EPA was late, there were often extenuating circumstances (e.g, cost, technology). Anticipated reductions often fell short because of the lack of technology. They were striving to get the maximum reductions allowable by law, and yes, this shortfall did generally fall at the feet of State agencies. However, EPA was working to improve air quality across the board.

John Seitz said that in terms of the concept, everyone must plan in terms of consumption. It was the starting point, and if this was the recommendation of the group, then he was all for this. EPA did not want to hold a State or planning entity in limbo as the result of its failing to do something.

Bill Becker said that as a representative of State and local governments, this was a very plausible response. On the other hand, he thought they were sweeping all these lost opportunities under the rug. He said he was not saying that they would sanction EPA, because this was probably unconstitutional. However, Mr. Becker did not want to miss lost opportunities.

Dan Johnson asked where this paper was going. He said that not every State was going to be in a RAMP that had massive air quality problems. Some of them had home-grown air pollution problems. He asked whether EPA would prescribe a one-size-fits-all approach to solving these local problems. Mr. Johnson said he thought one would answer this question based on where one came from, although they needed to consider all States in making recommendations.

John Elston (State of New Jersey) said there were certain broad delineations that were straightforward. When it came to source controls, then the plan was very prescriptive. When they moved over into products, then it became EPA's problem. Thus, there was a hierarchy of controls, ranging from local governments to EPA. Mr. Elston said that they were just using common sense through case studies to determine where the level of control should flow. They had seen it done in OTAG and OTC. It would not make all the States happy, nor would it always make EPA happy. However, history had shown them who was responsible for what.

Mel Zeldin said that from the Southern California perspective, they levied certain requirements on EPA in certain source categories (e.g., airplanes, trains). EPA said that they could not levy those controls. The question came back to what happened if EPA fell short of its targets. Mr. Zeldin said that it was likely that this would happen; it had happened, and there was no reason to believe that it would not happen again in the future.

Jed Mandel referred to national measures. He said they really were not distinguishing between the programs EPA would implement and programs States would adopt on their own that could eventually become national measures. It might be helpful if they kept those factors separate and did not throw them all in as national measures.

Area and Mobile Source Incentives - Mark Brownstein

Basic Questions

What were the sources of emissions?

What economic incentive mechanisms did they have with which to work?

What considerations must they take into account?

Sources of Emissions (did not imply regulatory action)

Light Duty Vehicles	Consumer Products

Heavy Duty Vehicles	Architectural Coatings

Off-Road Engines	Wood Stoves

Locomotives	Agriculture

Marine Engines	Paved and Unpaved Roads

Aircraft	Silviculture

Fuels

Opportunities for Realizing Emission Reductions from Area and Mobile Source Categories

New Equipment

Existing Equipment

Turnover of Equipment

Activity

Consumable Goods

Behavioral Change

Incentive Mechanisms: Tools Available for Realizing Emission Reduction Opportunities

Trading

Financial Mechanisms

Consumer Information

Trading Mechanisms

Budgets

Open Market

Emissions Averaging

Financial Mechanisms

Fees

Subsidies

Taxes

Time Savers

Consumer Information Mechanisms

Product Certification

Content Disclosure

Public Education

Considerations When Choosing a Tool to Match an Opportunity

Intent Behind Strategy	Equity

Scope of Strategy	Assignment of Responsibility

Quantification	Disbursement of Revenue (Benefits)

Information Available	Environmental Justice

Enforceability	Resources

Geography

Examples Used to Work Through the Analysis

Wood Stoves

On-road Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles

Off-road Gasoline Engines

These three examples were picked because they included mobile sources, off-road, PM and sources of a regional nature.

Primary Question: Did the Subcommittee agree with the analytical framework presented to assist planning bodies in analyzing incentive-based tools available to implement an area or mobile source emission control strategy?

John Seitz said he agreed with the framework, but as Mr. Brownstein gave his examples, he asked that they be linked to the framework. To the extent that these links could be made, Mr. Seitz thought

it would become a very good document.

Robert Wyman said that was his understanding as well. He said that Mr. Krupnick had enough

foresight to get them together, and had done a great deal of coordination on this material.

Elsie Munsell said that this was one of the more interesting papers she had seen. The best way to achieve compliance was to do nothing that was regulated. On their basic questions, she would add a bullet: what emissions was one going to regulate? Ms. Munsell said she had seen some reports that said they should chase NOx reductions as opposed to VOC reductions. With respect to opportunities, they tended to disfavor changes to existing equipment because it was expensive. Activity was a constraint on the use of existing equipment, and "drove [them] up a tree", because they had a limited amount of equipment and resources. Consumer goods and materials, DOD would call process changes, which was part of their pollution prevention process. For natural mechanisms, she would add a bullet for cost reduction; anytime someone could come to them and do something cheaper and better, then they had an incentive to make a change.

Beverly Hartsock said she really liked the idea that they did not limit this to trading. She liked the options and the use of other tools. On the sources of emissions, there was really no place for small businesses like t-shirt shops and small printers. They used a lot of the products under the consumer products or coatings category, but they appeared to be missing. Ms. Hartsock suggested they might consider how these businesses fell into this paper.

Mark Brownstein said they might need to do this. Of the three examples they chose, they could do a fourth and not be repetitive, possibly a dry cleaner or a small body shop. someone who could have a significant impact on the local area. However, one of the equities that must be considered when doing this was the size of the entity they were targeting. This was the reason they tended to go back to the well and target the larger sources.

John Seitz agreed with Ms. Hartsock and said he thought that a small source would be a great

example.

Mark Brownstein said they could easily add one to the paper.

John Taunton said he agreed with Ms. Munsell about bang for the buck and thought this concept had not been adequately addressed. In referring to the financial mechanisms, Mr. Taunton asked how subsidies or taxes got initiated. A subsidy implied to him that someone had to pay and he wondered who it would be.

Mark Brownstein said that they had not addressed that question specifically. When one was doing an economic incentive strategy, it was analogous to any other control strategy; one had to look at the pros and the cons. They did have to be conscious of the cost constraints of anything that was done.

John Taunton asked what process they would go through to make those determinations.

Mark Brownstein said he did not know, but if anyone had suggestions on how this could be factored in, please let him know. They needed a variety of tools, and those was what he and his group had tried to identify. There was no pre-judgment that one was better than the other.

Richard Chastain made a suggestion about where it said EPA was "developing and adopting guidance for pilot projects." He would change this to say "encourages pilot projects." Also, it should encourage inter-sector incentive programs.

Mark Brownstein said he agreed. It had come out the previous day that they were looking too much

at intra-sector programs.

Carter Kelthley said he thought Mr. Brownstein had done a terrific job and had provided a good framework. There were some other good alternatives that could be considered. They were dealing with a tough nut; there were millions of fireplaces, wood stoves, and weed whackers. It was tough to get consumer participation in some of these areas. Mr. Kelthley said that they needed to start with the least onerous, begin consumer education, and appeal to the environmental conscience of the users. This appeal could be limited because of costs to individual consumers. However, they could talk about some incentives, such as a property tax deduction for a new clean-burning unit, sales tax credits on cleaner burning units, lower natural gas rates for homes with new cleaner burners, etc. They probably were talking about public monies to help make this happen, which generally was not a popular option. Thus, the trading mechanism began to rise in popularity. If they could create value in a trading situation, then they would have created an incentive. Mr. Keithley endorsed the recommendation in the paper of encouraging pilot programs and would like to provide some more creating financial mechanisms.

Jim Shrouds referred to the Federal Highway Administration's congestion program saying that FHWA obviously did support economic incentives. They were developing guidance with EPA on reductions related to transportation control measures; the draft probably already had been distributed. The table in this document reflected what John Seitz said several weeks ago in a conference in Washington; however, it contradicted some of Bill Becker's information. Mr. Shrouds asked whether they had any other sources of data on this issue and whether they could identify the key sources of PM-2.5 data.

Mark Brownstein said that the quantification issue was not limited to individual sources; mobile

source strategies also were limited by the quantification issue. They might produce some recommendations on this issue and suggest some guidance to EPA. They put the PM numbers in the table as placeholders, but there were better estimates that could be made. Mr. Brownstein preferred that these numbers simply be removed or that another group deal with this issue, John Seitz said he would agree that they should pull the numbers out.

Gay MacGregor said they were trying to quantify some of these things. They were looking to get the biggest bang for their buck in these scenarios. Additionally, they were trying to identify the types of credits that could be generated from these types of programs. It was not a simple issue, as one could imagine.

Alan Krupnick said in reference to choosing a tool to match an opportunity, another approach would be when discriminating across different tools. The taxonomy was a little bit confusing. They used to think that what one did with revenues was independent of the process that generated them. It was

not enough to return the revenues to those who were putting them in; one also must not affect their

incentive to comply. Some recent literature suggested that this may not be correct.

Mark Brownstein said he would work to incorporate these ideas into the paper.

Christine Shaver spoke about assignment of responsibility. She said that they had not listed a consideration of who would be driving the market and innovation. Whether they assigned responsibility to a private entity or a Federal agency was not clear. The biggest driver was that in order to have an incentive there had to be a value to the emission reduction. Without this value, they had generated no incentive.

Nader Mansour thought it was a very workable framework. Under opportunities. technology advancement should be considered an opportunity. Especially in Los Angeles, they were butting up against the wall of technology limitations and would consider it to be an opportunity.

Alan Krupnick said then it was full speed ahead with this paper.

William Hamilton that the ball game started at 7:00 pm; tomorrow morning they would convene at

8:30 am.

Bill Luneberg said he would like to move transportation conformity up in the agenda.

William Hamilton said they would consider this.

Alan Krupnick said they must realize that it was put last to keep people there!

Wednesday, June 11, 1997

William Hamilton said that they were going to change the agenda and switch transportation

conformity and the Coordination Group report, moving transportation conformity to an earlier time.

Implementation Strategies for Contingency Measures - Eric Skelton

Background

Purposes of Contingency Measures in a SIP Program:

Assist a nonattainment area in meeting reasonable further progress Assist a nonattainment area in attaining the NAAQS by the applicable date Promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS in a maintenance area Contingency Measures for Current Nonattainment Areas -- Ozone Fully adopted rule or measure

Could be a mix of VOC and/or NOx emission reductions

Need to provide for 3 percent emission reduction from base year

Examples: State 11 Vapor Recovery, enhanced I/M, VOC controls for minor sources

Contingency Measures for Current Nonattainment Areas -- PM- I 0:

Must allow area to remain RFP or attain the standard

Examples: substituting liquid deicer, curtailing residential wood combustion

Contingency Measures for Attainment Areas -- Redesignated Areas:

Two types of contingency measures

Statutorily-mandated control programs not implemented prior to redesignation

Measures not fully adopted but considered an enforceable part of the maintenance plan

Contingency Measures for Attainment Areas -- Areas in Attainment:

No contingency measures required to correct any violation

Issue 1: Should Contingency Measures Be Episodic?

Status Quo:	Contingency measures were required to be real, permanent, quantifiable, and

enforceable. Prohibited by Section 123 CAA.

Exceptions:	residential wood combustion, silvicultural and agricultural prescribed burning.
and open burning.

Pros:	Supplement permanent contingency measures.

Might be more cost-effective than permanent measures.

Might prove effective over time as public attitudes/awareness changes

Cons:	Difficulty in predicting when needed.

Might result in a number of false alarms.

Issue 2: To what degree should voluntary measures be included as contingency@- measures?

Status Quo:	Contingency measures were required to be real, permanent, quantifiable, and

enforceable.

Pros:	Supplement enforceable contingency measures

More cost-effective than mandatory measures

Might prove effective over time as public attitudes/awareness changes

Increase public's understanding of their role in abatement

Cons:	Could not tell ahead of time how effective the measure was

Credit for voluntary measures might not be permissible under the CAA

Window dressing serving to make people feel good.

Issue 3: Time Frame for Adoption

Status Quo:	One year between ozone SIP submittal and contingency.

Option 1:	Allow a longer period of time

Pros:	Allows area to determine what was needed for contingency measures

Allows were sufficient time to determine effectiveness of the measures

Con:	Measures not in place to correct violations or missed RFP milestone.

Option 2:	Allow a Shorter Period of Time

Pro:	Measures ready of immediate correction

Con:	Insufficient or wrong type of emissions reductions.

Issue 4: Backfilling, with Additional Contingency Measures

Status Quo:	Maintenance and nonattainment areas did not have to backfill (EPA guidance from 1993).

Option 1:	The area was required to backfill with additional contingency measures.

Pro:	Contingency measures would be ready if needed by the area.

Con:	Resources would be used to develop contingency measures that might not be needed.

Option 2:	The area was not required to backfill with additional contingency measures.

Pro:	Area could use resources for other attainment issues

Con:	Area might not have had contingency measures available as a fall back position if there	was a violation of the standard or missed RFP milestone.

Measure Be Used to Expand the Area of an AOI and Broaden

Issue 5: Could a Continency Measure Be Used to Expand the Area of an AOI and Broaden the Applicability of Control Measure!?

Scenarios:

Multi-jurisdictional expansion of the AOI

Expansion of control measures within the AOI

Pro:	Expeditious implementation of control measures on applicable new sources

Cons:	Control measures might not be necessary for sources in expanded AOI,

Could delay in implementing initial reductions.

Multi-jurisdictional expansions between two States would require an agreement up front in the RIP development stage.

Issue 6: Would Contingency Measures Be Required for Class I Areas for Visibility P=Poses?

Areas that did not achieve the reasonable progress goal would have specific measures and a timeframe to meet the goal.

Contingency measures might be a means to get the area back on track if it deviated from the implementation plan.

Issue addressed in the Regional Haze Issue Paper.

Issue 7: How Much Reduction was Required for Contingency Measures?

Status Quo:	Ozone - 3 percent emission reduction from the base year; PM - needed to provide continued progress toward attainment.

Option 1:	Unspecified emissions reduction credit

Pro:	Very simple to develop a contingency measure that could claim progress

Con:	No accountability and minimal progress toward attainment

Option 2:	Quantifiable percentage of reduction

Pro:	Progress was real and quantifiable

Con:	Lack of "extra"' measures that would demonstrate quantifiable progress.

Issue 8:	Should There Be a Mechanism to Allow-Substitution of Equivalent Measure(s) in

Lieu of SIP-planned Contingency Measures?

Examples	of potential equivalent measures:

Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) 240 Programs

Title IV Acid Rain Program

Department of Transportation developing new fuel efficiency standards

Issue 9: Should Measures that Were Used by an Area to Bring It into Attainment Be Dropped from the Maintenance Plan?

Roll over as contingency measure if technical demonstration showed the measure was no longer needed.

Issue I 0: Should There Be Federally Prescribed Contingency Measures for-Attainment= and/or

Maintenance Plans?

Pros:	Federally prescribed measures would provide national consistency would level the playing field between nonattainment areas

Cons:	Promulgated measures might not be right for all areas. EPA would need to incorporate the concept of "rebuttable presumption" in each contingency

measure.

Mel Zeldin said he had some fundamental questions. If a contingency measure was a feasible measure, then it needed to be implemented. New technologies should be considered contingency measures, but should be brought online immediately to make all available emissions reductions. He asked whether it would not be more appropriate to use these measures on the front line and not reserve them as contingency measures. If they were expanding the boundaries of an AOI and one was not receiving benefits in the AOV, then one was getting no benefits. This was simply a burden to the AOV, the AOI., and the associated regulatory agencies. Mr. Zeldin would argue that more contingency measures should be placed on the front line and used immediately. He thought that contingency measures would be most suitable for areas that failed to reach attainment or where anticipated regulatory actions fell short of the attainment goal.

John Seitz said that since all of them were not from the South Coast and did not have their backs against the wall, they would be able to put together an attainment plan that contained reasonably applicable control strategies. So he would not agree totally with Mr. Zeldin. Mr. Seitz asked whether it was a function of contingency measures or a function of process and what should be one's first line of action. Once these questions were resolved, he thought one had time then to evaluate his or her individual situation.

Alan Krupnick wanted to address an implication about a nonattainment area, not like the South Coast where they were using everything including the kitchen sink. If one had a nonattainment area moving toward attainment and meeting the 3 percent requirement, he asked why such an area would want to implement high-cost controls to increase its speed toward attainment. He understood the improvement to public health and the environment, however, these measures would be very costly, and there appeared to be no benefit to "beating" the attainment date.

Mel Zeldin said that there would be instances where the least desirable controls were deemed contingency measures; the cost would make them contingency measures. However, there was still a question about whether these measures would ever be implemented because of their cost. He questioned the practicality of implementing this plan in the long run.

Steve Gerritson spoke to Mr. Krupnick's comment, saying that the CAA stated one should attain as expeditiously as possible so there was a legal incentive to attain. Also, the public health costs would far exceed the cost of attaining the standard.

Alan Krupnick said that this was a flawed fact. The A-12 was in the past. and not in the future.

John Seitz said history repeated itself. -

John Elston said that these types of comments were not appropriate for this forum. If they wanted to pursue these types of things, then they needed a separate work group to evaluate them. When they said something like this it was inappropriate.

Alan Krupnick said that was not what he meant at all. His question was, would one use contingency measures to meet CAA goals sooner than legally required. He thought his comments were appropriate.

Robert Wyman said he thought Steve Gerritson raised a fundamental issue by introducing the CAA

notion of, "as expeditiously as possible." In theory, they should shut everyone down if this was what it took to create clean air. He realized this was far-fetched, but asked who would make the judgement on what, "as expeditiously as possible," really meant. Mr. Wyman said they needed to grapple with these tough issues for the new standards. If they thought outside the box and EPA moved forward with the new standards, then EPA needed to provide cost bench-marks for the country. It was not practical to say that one had to do everything that one could, as fast as one could. They could not simply say that the benefits outweighed the costs. They needed judgement and guidance on these issues.

Alex Johnson said that asserting that more costly measures would be contingency measures was not

necessarily correct.

Richard Chastain said he had a couple of questions. He referred to the use of episodic or voluntary measures, saying that obviously there were some legal issues. The fact that they were talking about these as contingency measures might be a way around the problem. With regard to the AOI question, he would agree with Mel Zeldin; if an area belonged in an AOI, then it should have been there since the beginning, and not brought into the fray because the original area could not meet its goal.

John Seitz said he thought he would agree with this concept.

Richard Chastain said that as long as there was new information- that would suggest that a source

should have been there since the beginning, then he would agree with it.

Pat Raher said that he was looking at the concept of permanent language here. When something was

a required and permanent control for a SIP it was different from an episodic control. Mr. Raher said that episodic controls could be in fact permanent requirements. On Issue 8. the examples used were good examples except for the national measure of DOT setting fuel economy standards. These standards involved a vehicle mix nationwide and could never be verified in any given locality.

John Seitz noted that this presentation had brought up several episodic control issues. He asked

whether these issues should be referred to a legal group or the Coordination Group.

Dennis Lawler had comments on three issues. On Issue 4, backfilling, it sounded like one needed

a contingency for a contingency for a contingency. He would agree with Mr. Zeldin that there were

not many contingency measures out there. On Issue 5, broadening AOIs, he agreed with the group; if the initial AOI was set properly, then it was a moot point. However, if new information was learned, then the AOI should be flexible enough to accommodate it. On Issue 8, keeping options open, Mr. Lawler said that if something better was found in the future, then they should allow States to make substitutions wherever it could be done.

Nader Mansour said that Mr. Raher's point on episodic and voluntary measures was good; these

measures should be available, brought to the front, and not relegated to contingency measure status.

About measures deemed to be technologically not feasible, he asked why they should be put it in contingency measures at all. About measures not economically feasible, Mr. Mansour said they really needed to follow Robert Wyman's approach and discuss this. He also said they should not put something in the contingency measure category that was publicly not feasible. Mr. Mansour did not want to make contingency measures a recycle bin; they should put only viable, useful measures in this category.

Bill Luneberg said that he was old-fashioned; enforceable, quantifiable measures were the way to go. This concept appeared in numerous other papers they would discuss today or discussed the previous day. If something could be a contingency measure, then it could be a core measure. They needed a regulatory process that had some degree of integrity. Also, accountability must be included in the process. The FACA Subcommittee should approve regulations that were quantifiable and enforceable for all measures, trust contingency measures. This would achieve the best emission reductions at the best cost. With regard to this paper, the idea that episodic and voluntary measures might be appropriate seemed to contradict the RFP paper. If one fell off the RFP curve or slipped into nonattainment, then this should be stronger reason for enforceable and quantifiable reductions.

Jim Shrouds said he would support episodic control measures as both contingency measures and core measures. With regard to Issue 8, he would strongly support substitute measures. Mr. Shrouds also would agree with Mr. Raher's comment that the fuel efficiency issue should be dropped from Issue 8, primarily because fuel efficiency had no correlation with emission rates. He was not sure that they knew the correlation between emission rates and fuel efficiency. Finally, he asked whether they were debating controls that were seasonally episodic or truly episodic.

Eric Skelton said that at this point, they had not really attempted to pin it down. To date, they had limited their discussions to true episodes, that was, the days when exceedances were occurring.

Gay MacGregor said they had been looking at a lot of episodic controls. If one called a program seasonal and operated it seasonally, then they could circumvent some of the legal loopholes. She said they were also trying to look at the credit issue here; just because it was seasonal and episodic did not mean that it could not be quantifiable. Ms. MacGregor said she would like to participate in any further group discussions on this subject.

Alan Krupnick asked Mr. Skelton whether he had been made aware of what Ms. MacGregor's group had been doing.

Eric Skelton said he had not.

Gay MacGregor said that they had a lot of concepts that they were in the process of quantifying, and she would make this information available.

Sarah Peirce Sandner remarked that throughout the paper, contingency measures were measured as a percentage reduction in terms of RFP. She would remind them that the jury was still out on whether the RFP group would propose a percent annual reduction scheme as a viable metric. Also, flexibility was very important, and they needed to allow flexibility for mid-course corrections; they needed to know up front what the available contingency measures were. They might want to have federally prescribed contingency measures as a backstop.

David Baron said he wanted to revisit Mel Zeldin's point; it was an excellent one. The State would submit a SIP that did not reach attainment but contained contingency requirements. He thought there should be a heavy burden on the States to provide SIPs that reached attainment as expeditiously as possible. The inclusion of contingency measures in a SIP that did not demonstrate attainment was not very practical. Mr. Baron also referred to Robert Wyman's point about how they defined, "as expeditiously as possible." EPA decided that there would be a burden placed on the State to rebut the use of control measures being used somewhere else. He agreed that there should be further dialogue on this issue. For episodic measures, there was a need for enforceability and clarity; they needed to clarify the difference between episodic controls on stationary sources (work on good days, curtail production on bad air quality days) and the overall population's behavior (e.g., wood burning). They did not want to limit contingency measures to meeting attainment shortfalls and preventing backsliding. On substitutions, planning failures should not be used as an excuse to drop federally prescribed measures. They had this situation in Phoenix: it was okay to replace one measure with an equivalent measure.

Tom Godar (American Lung Association) said they were there because of human health effects: they did not have enough science, it was very complex, and they did not understand it well. Glen Cass had stated time and time again that they needed more particulate information, especially with regard to health effects. Mr. Godar said that they could not wait for science to establish policy. The reason they were there was to improve public health because a 35 percent increase in asthma, morbidity, and mortality was occurring. Although asthma appeared to be episodic, it was becoming chronic in adults; airways disease in adults tended to be permanent. Odds were, as one got older, one would have increased costs incurred from airway-related disease. Thus, in spite of good science, they were not making good progress. The cost was enormous and some of the costs could be prevented. Mr. Godar emphasized that pollutants did affect people; they might not be the major problems, but they were the major aggravates. Pollution caused attacks as a chronic irritant, and also cranked up the allergic immune mechanism. Thus, pollution had a dual effect. The problem was larger than the ALA had thought, it was not less. Mr. Godar wanted them to consider-human health effects here and to do so as expeditiously as possible.

Molly Ross said it seemed timely to add the environment side of this issue. When they talked about being able to emit more on clean days or emit more in certain areas because one could get by with it, these emissions went somewhere. As they thought about contingency measures, she was not averse to them if used properly, but said they could not use them as a substitute for required measures.

Cynthia Marvin offered the California perspective on the contingency measure issue. They would like to be in a situation where they had feasible, cost-effective measures for contingency measures. In California, unfortunately, they did not have this luxury. She was sensitive to this group and to EPA as they were trying to accommodate both California and other less severe areas. Regarding substitution, the presentation laid out a number of Federal measures, but they were not the only options. State and local agencies might be able to define alternatives; flexibility was important. Federal prescription was not feasible. EPA could not define a list that would be workable for all areas of the country; they recognized the difficulties of the issues.

Vincent Brisini said that they were talking about accountability here: how much value did they have in terms of emissions controls and in terms of episodic and voluntary controls. They were going to be asking people to do things that up to this point they had not done. They had an opportunity to involve the public and make them aware of their value in these individual events. The public should be part of the core program and not contingency measures. Mr. Brisini said he thought they were talking about emitting less on certain days, not more on other days; it was how one looked at it. They needed to address the primary versus secondary pollutant issues. On Issue 8, substitution measures, he said he got confused because contingency measures were only going to be implemented under certain attainment scenarios, such as slipping back, or one did not meet plans. Rather than substituting for contingency measures, they were taken advantage of existing programs that had been included in a SIP. One simply wanted to take credit for what one had already put in the SIP. Substitution required that the credit be consistent with the particular program. Economic issues must be related to the control effectiveness of the measures.

Nina Dougherty referred to behavioral measures, which she said needed to be viewed as more permanent measures, as opposed to episodic measures. These controls needed to be permanent in order to be successful; people were not likely to change behavior patterns only on high ozone days. Also, she asked why they would not prevent high ozone days by having permanent behavioral controls.

Alan Krupnick said that there were two basic types of contingency measures, controls that displaced emissions (i.e., moved them to another season, day, time) and controls that simply eliminated emissions. He asked Mr. Skelton to pull together some recommendations before the next time his group came to the committee.

*** BREAK ***

Small Business Issues - Ben Cooper (Printing Industries of America)

Small businesses and NAAQS implementation

Generally, small businesses wanted to comply with environmental regulations; however, they might be afraid to ask for help. When non-threatening assistance, such as the Small Business Technical Assistance program, was available, small businesses were eager to take advantage of the services, because it helped increase their chances of survival and profitability.

Section 507 of the CAA and small businesses

What were the States required to do to comply with the small business provisions of the Act? The primary elements of a small business assistance program SIP revision must include: I ) establishment of a small business assistance program; 2) designation of a State office to serve as a small business ombudsman; and 3) appointment of a seven-member compliance advisory panel to determine the effectiveness of the program.

Why was a special small business program needed'? Small businesses lacked environmental staff or an individual whose primary responsibility was environmental management, so responsibility often fell to the owner of the company. Primary sources of information included newspapers, trade

associations, and suppliers.

How effective had the small business assistance program created under the 1990 Amendments been? In the first year of monitoring the small business assistance programs, more than 75,000 small businesses had been reached directly and more then 2,000 on-site consultations had been conducted.

What Federal permit requirements applied to small businesses? Relatively few small business sources were covered by Federal environmental permit requirements, although many were covered by State regulations. Questions from small business owners on whether they were covered by environmental regulations were common.

Small business concerns about implementation

1.	Changes in the designation of attainment- and nonattainment to areas of influence and areas of violation could be particularly complicated for smaller companies. Emissions data for many small sources were not readily available.

2.	Lack of resources often did not permit EPA to evaluate technical differences between large and small sources within an industry. The result in some cases had been inappropriately application of control guidance suitable for one industry segment to an entirely different segment.

3.	Permit applications, modifications, and potential-to-emit calculations were more dramatic for small businesses than large sources.

Recommendations

1.	States should receive specific emission reduction credits for successful educational and technical assistance programs.

2.	EPA should encourage and promote innovative State programs that incorporate
multimedia pollution prevention programs in revised SIPS.

3.	EPA should promote an adequate share of funding for technical and educational
assistance. development of guidance documents, and development of evaluation tools or educational programs.

4.	An aggressive effort to publish additional control technique guidance documents was strongly recommended to assist States in working with small sources.

Jeb Stuart (Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition) said he would second Robert Wyman's comment on dealing with areas like the South Coast region that would not be able to attain by the deadline. Many businesses in this region had developed something like a mini-SIP to address attainment issues in the 2010 to 2012 timeframe. CARB had in theory addressed this idea, and they would be meeting later this month to discuss it further. As to small businesses, Mr. Stuart agreed that the new standards would bring hundreds of thousands of small businesses under the regulatory frame\vork. They would include all types of sources, and sources that required all types of controls (e.g., printers, dry cleaners, body shops, bakeries, restaurants). Many of these businesses did not have people to send to the District to attend environmental seminars or to file an emissions permit. If they were going to have this technical assistance program work, then they needed to work together on it. They needed to work with the ombudsman on this process. The last point was that when they talked about cost effectiveness and the ability to pay; these terms did not mean a lot to a small business. Most of these businesses could not afford these controls; most would not even have the funds to file a permit application. He thought EPA needed to develop guidance along these lines. Mr. Stuart recommended that some thought be given by the government about how far and deep it would require small businesses to go.

Steve Gerritson said that there was kind of a tension here among the needs of small business and major industries and the need to clean the air. Proportionally, small businesses contributed more to air problems because they were so numerous and for the most part were not regulated. He thought the recommendations fell short. They needed to consider low-interest loans and other more innovative concepts. Financial as well as technical assistance was needed.

Bill Luneberg said he was sympathetic to small businesses. Perhaps there were some innovative ways to come up with controls to help small businesses. However, he thought there was the possibility of double-counting here, with respect to credits for reductions and educational programs.

Shawn Kendall said he tended to disagree with that statement, because there were a lot of those sources that were not regulated, and by educating them, perhaps they could get a better head count, They really had no realistic estimate of what small business emissions were. Mr. Kendall thought that a head count would be useful and could be done through an educational program.

Alex Johnson asked whether rule effectiveness could be considered in Recommendations 1 and 3.

They could take these credits through RFP and perhaps in other places.

Jeb Stuart said that the rule was adopted and that was the last that they heard from it. He thought, especially for small businesses, that any rule should be reevaluated within one year. Normally, environmental staff said it would work and not cost too much, and often small businesses would simply shut down.

Ben Cooper said there were some rules and options that would apply to both large and small businesses. With regard to double counting, there was not a deliberate effort to get into this type of situation. One of the most effective emission control programs in a small business would be called Best Management Practices. Simply put, better management of a facility would generally reduce a small business's emissions. Currently, the system did not reward those kinds of reductions. Measurement problems were central to the success of any program. Mr. Cooper did not think they were double-counting. Instead they might be missing many of the emissions they were trying to count, regulate, and reduce.

Beverly Hartsock said they had been very supportive of the Small Business Technical Assistance program in Texas. Mr. Cooper mentioned that suppliers were a good conduit of information; she wondered whether he had suggestions for national programs of how they could improve the information businesses got from suppliers. Also, trading programs might be an option for small businesses. Ms. Hartsock asked whether small businesses would be interested in playing in this ball game, or were there other factors that they should look at under economic considerations.

Karl Schultz said DuPont supplied materials to small business and provided a great deal of information to small businesses with regard to environmental compliance. He said however, that they could take a horse to water, but they could not make it drink; this was a big problem with the supplier side of the equation. Suppliers tried very hard, but they could not make individual small businesses comply. There needed to be some regulatory support to back up this effort.

Ben Cooper said they had been fortunate in the printing industry, because their suppliers had been very good in relating this information. If uniform guidance was not available, then the specific guidance that was required might simply be unavailable to the supplier. Often this was the case. However, they needed effective communication with their suppliers. With regard to specific programs on enhancing supplier information, at this time he was not sure how they go about doing this. It was very difficult to convince every small business that it was in their best interest to come forward and comply.

John Seitz said that in terms of what he had heard in the past two days, particularly with respect to the expansion of AOIs, it seemed to go back to one of the first issues, which was the effectiveness of the 507 regulations. He asked whether there was adequate recognition of these programs. Second, to the extent that these areas were being expanded, large industry had given a great deal to the smaller business, and small businesses might simply choose not to participate. He asked whether they could provide credits through Section 507 to large industries and small business for being environmentally smart. Mr. Seitz wanted to know whether Mr. Cooper believed that the small business community would work collectively with large industry to create incentive packages that would be attractive to both groups. He said it probably required more guidance and adequate funding of the 507 programs.

Ben Cooper said that one of the flaws in the 507 program was that it was dependent on environmental permit fees. The Small Business Assistance Program had trouble lobbying with large industry for these fees. Mentoring programs would be another option; a large printing company had done mentoring for a small printing company. This approach would work in many industries. There were other incentives of this type. Trading programs could exist in small business, however, he had not explored them in enough detail to discuss them.

Jeb Stuart said South Coast had developed rules recently to link small and large businesses for the purpose of information exchange.

Alan Krupnick said that trading in small quantities was not foreign to industry. A lot of companies could aggregate their shares and then be able to compete with large industry.

Alex Johnson they did not have to assume that the only way to provide incentives was through SIP credits. Just because they had successful programs, these should not be linked solely to the SIP process. There were a lot of economic and financial incentives they could build into the system that did not have to be linked explicitly to a SIP. They wanted to support these programs, and they wanted small businesses to gain from these programs.

Robert Wyman said that in Southern California they had some excellent examples of large industry working with small business. Southern California Edison was a perfect example. The aeronautical industry had also worked very hard to control their use of solvents, etc. They had a good deal of experience in this region with creating incentives.

Richard Hayslip said that they did need to attempt to quantify the credits. and he thought large companies like the Southern Company, Southern California Edison, and his company would be willing to do these things for small credits. They were increasing the strength of their relationships with their customers during a period when they would have choices about the vendor for electric power. Alan Krupnick asked the Subcommittee where it wanted to go with this paper. They were going to add a small business portion to the area and mobile source paper; however, they did not have a specific recommendation. Perhaps they should fold it into the economic incentives group.

Mark Brownstein said he thought they discussed a fourth option for area and mobile sources; and one of the largest sources was the small business community. The previous day when they were discussing wood stoves and the small lawn/garden equipment industry, he thought they were in fact discussing small businesses.

Alan Krupnick said they would fold this topic into the area and mobile source issue paper. John Seitz said that they did need to discuss the resource issues of the small business group. Alan Krupnick said that they might need a special paper, but for now they were going to leave it in the area and mobile source paper.

William Hamilton noted that the small business presentation for FACA had been done that day, and a similar presentation would be made at a CAAAC meeting, possibly in August. He said EPA would include a small business/small entities section in each of the issue papers, and the small entity caucus was encouraged to participate in discussions of all issue papers.

Report from the Ad Hoc Monitoring Group - Rich Halvey

Rich Halvey presented alternatives to Recommendation 6 from his presentation of the previous day. They suggested wording that included, "Redefine the action necessary when a violation was measured." Mr. Halvey said that they needed to work through what constituted a research monitor, or what parameters or constraints would be used. He said that they also had re-worked the term "decoupled". As far as the replacement for Recommendation 6, everyone was fine with the language, but it was a little too bland for some people. They needed to run these things through a broader constituency before reaching a final consensus. This activity would occur in the next couple of weeks.

Transportation Conformity -- Elizabeth Bartlett

Issue 1: Where should transportation conformity apply?

Where should transportation conformity apply given the purposes of conformity and planning requirements for AOIs and AOVS?

Who should make decisions about where transportation conformity applied?

Should decisions about where transportation conformity applies be made separately for	ozone and PM-2.5?

Where should transportation conformity apply given the purposes of conformity and	planning requirements for AOIs and AOVS?

1. AOVs Only

2. Everywhere in an AOI

3. Parts of an AOI

Areas where mobile source emissions potentially effect attainment or maintenance

one or more NAAQS

Areas having fully integrated transportation systems where transportation decisions impact air quality (conformity could apply uniformly or variably throughout an area)

Who should make decisions about where transportation conformity applies?

1. EPA

2. States in consultation with EPA, local authorities, and transportation agencies	based on general data

3. RAMPS, AOI-level planning bodies, or States adhering to Federally-established criteria

4. RAMPs or AOI-level planning bodies, adhering to criteria developed by EPA in

consultation with DOT

5. States in consultation with MPOS, DOT, and EPA

6. States and local authorities

7. Agencies involved in interagency consultation processes, following guidelines set by Federal agencies.

Should decisions about where transportation conformity applies be made separately for ozone and

PM-2.5 areas?

1. Decisions should be made separately because of differing characteristics of pollutants and sources of emissions

2. Decisions should not be made separately

Issue 2: How should transportation conformity be implemented if applied to areas that were

much larger than metropolitan areas?

How should SIP budgets be allocated?

Would the metropolitan transportation planning process still be the most appropriate focus	of	transportation conformity?

If transportation conformity- was applied in rural areas, in view of the limitations on	analytical tools.

How could it be applied?

In view of the multiple political jurisdictions likely to be covered by AOIs. how should	interagency consultation and conflict resolution for transportation conformity be structures?

What role should Tribes have in the transportation Conformity- process after promulgation	of new/revised NAAQS?

How should SIP budgets be allocated?

1.	SIP budgets allocated on subregional basis

2.	Regional air quality institutions or states determine details of developing subregional

budgets

3.	Rural budgets allocated by each state through interagency process

4.	Regional mechanism might be needed to allocate budgets across multiple	jurisdic
tions

Would the metropolitan transportation planning process still be the most appropriate focus of transportation conformity?

1. Within metropolitan areas, metropolitan transportation planning process could be

appropriate focus

2.	Metropolitan planning process was not appropriate focus for areas much larger than

metropolitan boundaries

If the transportation conformity was applied in rural areas, in view of limitations on analytical tools, how could it be applied?

1. Emissions analyses performed at level of detail and sensitivity appropriate to available

data

2. Guidance could not be provided

3. Possible approaches:

Develop State/regional self-certification processes

AOIs Compare transportation plans to SIPs/RIPs

Establish de minimis levels for emissions

Less rigorous, more qualitative goals or performance measures

In view of the multiple jurisdictions likely to be covered by AOIs, how should interagency consultation and conflict resolution for transportation conformity be structured?

1. Existing process might be adequate

2. Require States and other stakeholders to develop processes for consultation and conflict

resolution

3. Call in highest ranking officials of organizational structure that parallels how inventories

were structured and budgets were allocated to resolve disputes.

What role should tribes have in the transportation conformity process after promulgation of new/revised NAAQS?

New issue

Issue 3: When should transportation conformity be required for new/revised standards?

1.	Do not require transportation conformity before SIP approval.

2.	Require transportation conformity before SIP approval

Date of preparation of emission inventory showing mobile sources to be contributors

to air quality problem

Date of RAMP creation

Date of final AOI designation

Date of RIP preparation

Date of control-strategy submittal

Date of SIP approval

Options for interim conformity test

Build/no-build test

Freeze motor vehicle emissions

Reduction from baseline

Issue 4: Should the scope of transportation conformity be expanded to facilitate more comprehensive intermodal planning, e.g., interplay between rail and truck transportation?

1.	Scope of transportation conformity should not be expanded.

2.	Comprehensive intermodal planning should be facilitated as much as possible

Issue 5: Should transportation conformity relate to reasonable progress requirements under

a regional haze rule?

New issue.

*** LUNCH ***

Elizabeth Bartlett began the discussion on transportation conformity issues by asking the Subcommittee whether her group had identified all of the issues and associated options for this topic.

Jim Shrouds said he had noticed that they put off the legal constraint issue to another paper. If they were going to have a legal group then that was fine; otherwise, it needed to be included and addressed here. In addition, maintenance was not included in the viewgraphs. Mr. Shrouds was concerned that it was stated EPA would develop a new conformity rule for attainment areas; Congress had stepped in and said that this action could apply only to nonattainment areas. Second, he thought the mismatch between SIPs and transportation plans needed to be evaluated; this problem was not unique to changes in the standards. Mr. Shrouds also wanted to point out that the title was really a misnomer because it only applied to roads and highways and not to airlines, boats, or trains. While EPA and DOT put out a lot of guidance, they basically agreed to disagree on conformity. He thought this paper needed to be expanded, and he thought DOT and EPA needed to be in sync on the issues. Mr. Shrouds noticed that there was a comment that conformity needed common databases in air quality management; he would agree with this only in certain situations. Models and ambient data often were out of kilter with each other, which often created difficulties and needed to be rectified. He did not think that the question of where transportation Conformity should apply had been adequately answered and needed further expansion. Mr. Shrouds questioned whether conformity was the most efficient and effective way to handle mobile emissions in rural areas. They had enough problems in urban areas making this work. His final comment was that the interim implementation policy indicated that conformity would not apply until SIPs were approved; however, they had an option that said conformity could be in use prior to the SIP approval. Mr. Shrouds suggested that this issue should be addressed.

Alan Krupnick said he needed a clarification. He did not think that the paper discussed the concept

of the IIP conformity process and how it was going to change. They had a moving target.

Elizabeth Bartlett said the current thought was that transportation conformity would not be in effect until a SIP was approved. What they were discussing here were pre-SIP issues. They were looking for options that might have been missed.

Alan Krupnick asked whether there was there going to be a big change in the way conformity was currently structured.

John Seitz said that when the standards were promulgated, the final IIP also would be promulgated.

Thus, if the IIP was going to finalized and published on July 19, then they needed to come to

consensus on implementing transportation conformity.

Sally Shaver (EPA) said that Jim Shrouds was right, they did need to work the timing on this issue.

They had received a number of comments on that aspect of the IIP.

Bill Becker said he was aware of the IIP and transportation conformity. This had been a fluid process, and they had been called to adjust and readjust. The pre-SIP group was reaching consensus and making good progress on these very issues; they needed immediate progress soon after the new standards were implemented. Mr. Becker said he was afraid that they would be asking small businesses to do things right off the bat. He did not mean they should restructure the IIP, but they could not ignore the potential inequity that they could be generating here.

Mark Brownstein had comments pertaining to economic incentives. He had not looked carefully at

the transportation conformity paper, but had not seen economic incentives mentioned in the day's proceedings. It should be inserted as a budgetary process. Once the budget was set, there was a incentive to stay within budget. However, he would suggest that they take it one step further and outline ways to stay within a budget. They could do this by looking at pulling reductions from other mobile source areas within the budgeted domain. One could pull emission reductions from other source categories, or at least provide incentives that might be support the mobile source budget. One example was in Connecticut where the expansion of the casino was going forward, while the casino had to find projected emission reductions in other areas through mass transit provisions and stationary point source reductions. This idea needed to be investigated and incorporated into the Conformity discussion.

Cynthia Marvin raised the question of where and when transportation conformity should apply. The application of conformity should be determined within the context of the planning process, which would be the California experience and recommendation. This was when they worked out the relationships and responsibilities between areas. They would suggest that for areas with existing emission budgets, it made sense to allow new emission budgets to take effect when the new SIPs were applied. So for existing areas, they proposed that conformity apply upon submission of the SIP; for new areas, it would apply upon approval of the new SIPS.

Bill Luneberg said he thought there was incomplete coverage of this paper; general conformity

appeared to be a particularly sensitive issue. Second, the paper focused on how conformity should

apply to areas that violated the standards, which meant that it was not dealing with conformity as part of maintenance plans. He disagreed with that concept. The paper did mention maintenance, but it needed to be strengthened. Finally, conformity would be a perfect pre-SIP RFP measure, and he did not see this mentioned in the paper. Mr. Luneberg said he would like to see transportation conformity as a pre-SIP measure.

Elsie Munsell said the paper raised the issue of general conformity. She thought they needed an ad

hoc committee among Federal agencies to explore general conformity issues.

John Seitz said he had no objections, but he would like to discuss this with them further, before the

conformity issues got out of control.

Nina Dougherty had three comments. First, she said this paper should expand to include-general conformity; it was senseless to exclude rail and aircraft traffic. Second, about where conformity should apply, conformity often acted as a stimulant for a more balanced transportation system. Third, Ms. Dougherty commented on looking at transportation conformity for SIP approval. She said this was an important area and they needed to investigate it. Decisions were being made on both said prior standards and new standards.

Harvey Jeffries had a comment about Item 3 on page 14. He had tried to merge transportation information with modeling tools and found it was very difficult. The existing transportation data were very difficult to use in air quality analyses. They needed to do spatial and temporal disaggregation of mobile emissions to make them effective in air quality analyses, which could be done with transportation demand modeling. Also, the VMT (vehicle miles traveled) growth calculations were problematic. They were often in the realm of guessing when it came to working with transportation data. The ability to respond rapidly was present; however, they needed to do a better job of capturing some of these data and integrating them into air quality analyses. Thus, Mr. Jeffries encouraged to expand data gathering.

Beverly Hartsock said that she had a request. The next time this issue was brought back to them, she would like to have a summary of the status of the ICET program; this would let them know what was possible with the monies they had available.

Alan Krupnick noted that this paper was obviously in a very preliminary stage and there were a number of issues that needed to be addressed. They would talk with Elsie Munsell about coordinating a general conformity conference call.

Areas at Risk - Richard Chastain

Treatment of Areas at Risk of-Violating the NAAQS

Premise:	For any area that was not violating a NAAQS but could be identified as tending
toward becoming an AOV, that area and the area that could become an associated AOI should be encouraged to initiate planning to avoid a possible violation.

Questions Originally Considered

How should areas at risk be identified? (Technical Question)

Who should be responsible for identifying areas at risk? (Policy Question)

What was the appropriate response for an area at risk? (Policy Question)

Areas at Risk

Voluntary Approaches

No new regulatory requirements

Gives maximum flexibility

Bright line not critical

Areas could ignore potential problems

Mandatory Approaches

Ensures areas recognize potential problems

Forces involvement of contributing areas

Limits local flexibility

Appearance of tightening standard

Voluntary Approaches

Option I a:	No new programs

Did not mean no action (areas were acting now)

Act unilaterally or with EPA Potential AOI had incentive

Option lb:	Programs to encourage and guide Guidance on assessing risk Information on trends

Provide incentives

Mandatory Approaches

Option 2a:	Partial mandatory program

Example: contingency plan

Action not required (but might be taken)

Option 2b: Fully mandatory program

Precise methods for determining risk

Identify AOI

Control required

Conclusions

States had an obligation to maintain standards.

Majority favored Option I b, or some slight variation of I b (voluntary).

Environmental members favored mandatory action, and the obligation to maintain standards	would require mandatory actions; however, State representatives disagreed with this approach.

All agreed most of Option I b was an improvement. Option I b, as included in the paper, offered	some incentives for early reductions. Some environmental groups did not feel that lb with the incentives was much of an improvement; however, without the incentives, they were not too dissatisfied.

Mr. Chastain asked, Were the proposed final recommendations acceptable? Were they sufficiently described? Had all the issues been addressed?

David Baron wanted to clarify the environmental group position. They felt that the voluntary approach would be an improvement, but only a very slight improvement because States already had the option to voluntarily implement programs to avoid nonattainment. Mr. Baron thought it would be more improvement if EPA would formulate some type of guidance that would inform States that they were at risk of nonattainment. In some areas voluntary controls were helpful; however, there were areas where this process was not useful. These areas would require mandatory controls to avoid becoming nonattainment.

Hillary Kitz said that they agreed with Option I b essentially and the incentive for them was decoupling, which meant they could stay away from being redesignated. They had a tremendous awareness of ozone exceedance, and she would support the voluntary approach.

Elsie Munsell said it implied some type of monitoring. She thought perhaps the group should

determine how monitoring could support responsible voluntary actions.

Beverly Hartsock said the State of Texas had seen some good response to voluntary programs. They

needed to explore all possible avenues. They did not want create disincentives for early reductions.

Shawn Kendall said that the monitoring incentives proposal had some reference to this process.

Mark Brownstein said that if there were areas around the country who wanted to know what it was like to be in nonattainment, he would ask them to come and talk with him. He thought there was a role here for EPA to help areas that were at risk, either on a regional, State, or local level. EPA could be a partner in encouraging voluntary efforts and needed to afford the flexibility necessary for this approach.

Shawn Kendall said that one of the things that would be helpful would be a forecasting tool for areas to use in determining when they were going in/out of attainment. They could benefit from some simplistic model to make these types of predictions, perhaps on the basis of an emissions forecast model.

Beverly Hartsock said she agreed with what Mark Brownstein said about nonattainment areas talking with areas at risk.

John Seitz said that it seemed that the paper covered a lot of issues and that the conclusions were fairly solid. They had heard comments for expansion, but he thought this paper was ready to go through the Coordination Group, through EPA, and then back to the Subcommittee for final approval. It appeared to him that there was consensus.

David Baron said that there was no consensus on Option I b.

John Seitz said that it was time for the Coordination Group report from Pat Raher.

Pat Raher said that every Friday afternoon they were coordinating away. The two issues that they did have to discuss were the establishment of a legal work group, and how they would deal with the comments on the IIP. Mr. Raher said he had provided them with a revised draft of the principles set before the legal work group; most those who had the misfortune of going to law school were in this group! They tried to specifically define the work product, but would not issue legal opinions. They would identify the pertinent legal issues and define them so that EPA could look at them in more detail. They would outline the boundaries and discuss how these outlines applied to Work Group efforts, and how they affected the work of the Subcommittee. Mr. Raher said they also would try to make this work timely and allow the Subcommittee's input from time to time. He said that people did get nervous when lawyers started talking. Therefore, they identified two issues that were different, the AOI/AOV Concept and NSR (new source review). These would be the first two issues that they tackled, and they hoped to have these completed by the August Subcommittee meeting in Portland. If this material was useful, then they would adopt additional issues to review. The Subcommittee would see drafts.

Comments on the Interim Implementation Policy

The IIP was put in the Federal Register. EPA received significant comments. They recognized that they would need to take a slightly different approach; the goals were similar, but the approach would be slightly different.

John Seitz discussed the IIP. He said the original concept of the IIP was as a glidepath toward meeting the standard, with no backsliding. The comment they got on this approach was, wait a minute, they spent a lot of time putting together the 1990 CAA and were in fact successful. Why were they all of sudden throwing away some good legal jargon? Substitution was one of the major issues under Subpart II. There was a lot of modeling data out there; comenters said EPA should simply look at these data and determine whether one was on the proper glidepath. Mainly this approach would affect the I/M program. So in the context of responding, Mr. Seitz said he advised the ad hoc committee and the Coordination Group that the Agency was proceeding as outlined in the IIP, with the exception of bump- ups and the provisions under Subpart II. They needed to state whether substitutions were valid under Subpart II and how they could be done. Mr. Seitz said the EPA Administrator did believe in the concepts of Subpart II, substitutions, and flexibility. EPA was on track to meet the scheduled promulgation date of the standards, but would not meet this deadline for the IIP. It would come back through the ad hoc group and the Coordination Group before appearing in the Federal Register.

David Baron raised the issue of bump-ups.

John Seitz said there would be bump-ups.

David Baron asked what would govern if the standards were promulgated in July and there was no

IIP.

John Seitz said that under SBRIFA law the standards had to go through Congress. When the standards were put out, there would be guidance. The existing standard, including Subpart II, would remain in tact throughout. However, with these new standards, there would be language to keep the existing standard in place in the interim.

David Baron asked whether this meant that there would be no change in law during the IIP revision.

John Seitz and Lydia Wegman said the current standard and Subpart II would remain in place for

60 calendar days.

Bill Becker asked whether the IIP also had to go through SBRIFA if it came out a few months after

the standards.

John Seitz said no, it did not, it was not a notice of a ruling. EPA was maintaining parts of Subpart

II; they would be saying what elements they would be maintaining and cutting out.

Bill Becker said he was just thinking like Congress and thought that if the IIP was important enough

to be put in the Federal Register, Congress might want a shot a it.

John Seitz that since it was not a rulemaking, it would not go to congressional review.

Beverly Hartsock said that EPA should be very aware of the difficult situation that this transition would put States in. As EPA developed the nuts and bolts of this policy, she asked that they please keep the States in mind. They needed an exchange of information to help it flow more smoothly.

John Seitz said the one that worried them the most was the attainment demonstration; he could hear them all coming. He wanted to get a group together very soon, including his monitoring, modeling, and policy people, and answer these questions very quickly. With the exception of some western areas, Mr. Seitz said he thought there was sufficient modeling done already to support this.

Sarah Peirce-Sandner noted that Mr. Seitz had said regardless of the fact that the standards were promulgated, Subpart II would still be in effect. She asked whether there would not be a time in which parts of Subpart II would be superseded.

John Seitz said that the new NAAQS SIP schedule would be governed by the new standards. What they had to deal with was the current SIPs and the new schedules, under the old subpart. This was what Ms. Hartsock was getting at. The requirements of the new NAAQS would be governed by the new standards, and were not affected by the current Subpart II.

Sarah Peirce-Sandner asked when Subpart II would go away.

John Seitz said that until the 2005 era, Subpart II would remain in place for certain regions. The glidepath would be related to the constraints currently in this section. It was the attainment demonstration that was changing under the new standard.

Larry Feldcamp said they proceeded with a rule once it was adopted and wondered whether they had to wait for EPA approval to transition from SIP approval for the 1-hour standard to the 8-hour standard.

John Seitz said if Mr. Feldcamp meant that if they put something in place would it be credited

towards the new attainment demonstration, then yes, that was in the language.

Larry Feldcamp asked about when they adopted some things at the State level and started implementing them immediately, and EPA took several years to approve them. He wanted to know what would be the key date.

John Seitz said he was going to be looking toward the glidepath as a way of achieving the new standard. If this was consistent with their 2007 glidepath, then he would say that this was okay. It was not inconsistent with what David Hawkins wanted; it was true to that intent.

Bill Becker said he did not understand the glidepath concept. For example, if he had a 2005 deadline and was a nonattainment area, he had to show that he would meet the 0.12 standard by 2005 and meet a new standard under the new NAAQS. He asked whether there were not then two glidepaths.

John Seitz said that in reference to the discussion yesterday, one needed to look at the existing standard. For example in 2005, based on OTAG modeling, he asked if they believed New Jersey would remain on track. The first questions were what did one mean by meeting the 0.12 standard and what did the State have to prove to EPA. He thought this could be done by information that existed from monitoring and OTAG modeling. Mr. Seitz said that a determination about whether this glidepath was different than the 0.08 path needed to be addressed. The ultimate goal was achieving the 0.08 standard.

Bill Becker asked whether the 0.12 standard was really a rate of progress on the way to the 0.08

standard.

John-m Seitz said that was a good way of putting it.

Pat Raher said that this concluded the Coordination Group's report.

William Hamilton asked whether there were any comments from the general public. Hearing none, he announced the next meeting of the Subcommittee- in Portland, Oregon, August 12 through 14, 1997. The meeting was adjourned.