The Tribal Designation and Implementation Work Group held a conference call on September 25, 2003. The call was held to discuss the upcoming face-to-face meeting in St. Louis, Missouri on November 3-4, 2003, hear about the Work Group web site, and receive a presentation about Early Action Compacts from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Return to Table of Contents

BACKGROUND

The Tribal Designation and Implementation work group (work group) held a meeting on August 23-24, 2001 at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region V offices in Chicago Illinois. The meeting was held to foster communication and establish relationships between EPA and Indian Tribes as the planning process to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) proceeds. Because EPA realizes that the Clean Air Act does not address how the provisions of the Act apply to Tribes, EPA wants to hear Tribal concerns and develop policies to implement the new standards in a way that meets Tribal needs. In addition, the meeting provided an opportunity for EPA to present air program information to the Tribal members of the work group.

Return to Table of Contents

ORGANIZATION OF THIS SUMMARY

This meeting summary consolidates work group discussion held over two days of presentations and discussion on items of concern to the tribes, including funding and previously identified designation and implementation issues. Consequently, the topics are not always in chronological order. Where it made sense, we consolidated information in one place. The summary is still divided into two sections: DAY ONE, section A. 1-9, and DAY TWO, section B. 1-7. You will note in day one, A. 1-9, we included some of the discussion that arose in the course of the presentations, and labeled it as such. Please refer to the action item list presented in part I and the flip chart notes in Appendix B to be sure we covered the essence of the meeting in this summary.

During the first day of the meeting, EPA staff gave informational presentations on a number of air quality program topics. Tribal representatives identified new issues responding to the presented material and these are identified as "Discussion" and "Presentation". Both presentation and discussion topics are captured under the following nine headings:

Return to Table of Contents

1. Discussion: Role of the Tribal Designations and Implementation Work Group

After significant discussion begun by Jill Sherman, Chair, the work group came to these conclusions. The Tribal Designations and Implementation work group is a group of Tribal environmental professionals whose goal is to talk through issues and develop options regarding designations and implementation of the NAAQS in Indian country. It is understood that the work group cannot make designation recommendations as a work group. The work group meets to talk, listen and exchange ideas. The work group may provide information to tribal governments, who in turn may make recommendations to EPA on policies and guidance that may affect them. For example, Tribes could develop a prototype letter recommending a certain course of action that could be used by the individual Tribal governments. The work group will develop options for addressing concerns. At a later point Tribes may make recommendations to EPA about guidance and implementation as a group or individually.

The Tribes expressed confusion regarding what types of recommendations to make to EPA. After a long discussion, the group concluded that the work group will discuss designation process and implementation issues for the new standards which can later be formed into recommendations to EPA by the tribes. A separate matter is the designation recommendation that each tribe can choose to make at a much later date for the 8-hour ozone standard. That recommendation would be based on future EPA policy and guidance and their own unique situation. (Formal designation recommendations are not a requirement of the Clean Air Act and Tribes do not need to make them.) Before EPA designates any area it will discuss the Tribe's recommendation with the Tribe outside the work group process. Tribal representatives asked EPA staff if they had seen the designation recommendations that several Tribes had already prepared and submitted. EPA stated they did, and added that those designations would be revisited.

One Tribal work group member described himself as the messenger who will keep his Tribal government informed about the progress of the work group, and by actions considered by a Tribal caucus.

Tribal members expressed concern that "EPA was going down one track and the Tribes another." EPA wrote guidance last year describing how Tribes can participate in the designation process. This was before the Tribes became involved. The Tribes are just now scrambling to put together air programs. EPA agreed that we failed to coordinate and consult with the tribes in the past. We hope this present effort will help improve our ability to coordinate on future designations and implementation activities. For example, the work group will educate EPA on Tribal needs and concerns and provide an opportunity for the Tribes to meaningfully influence policy decisions, and in turn EPA will educate the Tribes on air programs. Tribal members prepared and distributed a list of issues at the meeting. Included in this list are items that deal with the purpose of the work group (see Issues Developed by the Tribal Caucus in appendix ).

The work group concluded that the Tribes involved in the work group discussions with EPA could later make recommendations to EPA on policy and guidance concerning the designations process and implementation of the standards. EPA said the Tribes can make individual recommendations, but that it might be best to come up with a "tribal opinion" to create maximum impact. The Tribes can also develop a prototype letter that individual Tribal governments can use regarding the designation process and how they would like to see the standards implemented.

Action Item:
Revisit guidance and determine a process for making formal designation recommendations.

Return to Table of Contents

2. Discussion: Tribal Concerns

Designation Process Issues

Tribal members expressed concern that reservations were designated without Tribal consultation or notification. They requested that EPA rethink its approach regarding past designations. EPA said it can look at current designations on a case-by-case basis and possibly take an "error correction" approach. Tribal members asked if EPA is required to make designations for Tribes. EPA said yes. The legislative authority is required by Section 107 (d) of the Clean Air Act. These designations should be made considering the input from the Governor or Tribal Leader. We recognize this was not done on the earlier standards and want to change that for this next round.

One Tribal member asked if EPA could designate an area as "unclassified". EPA responded that there was not a separate unclassifiable designation, but "attainment/unclassifiable" does exist as a designation. Tribes pointed to several examples of counties in certain states which were split into distinctly different designations. They asked if this practice could be applied to a reservation surrounded by a nonatttainment area where the Tribe did not contribute pollution. The work group requested further discussion on this topic by the work group. Tribal members also asked if there were any advantages to having a nonattainment designation. One person thought Congestion, Mitigation/Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds were available for nonattainment areas.

The Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) member said they considered prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permits but decided they could not deal with it. GRIC is concerned that states use tribal lands to dilute pollutant concentrations in their models.

A question arose about non-federally recognized Tribes. Do non-federally recognized Tribes have equal status with Federally recognized Tribes? Is EPA required to consult with non-federally recognized Tribes? The answer is that EPA is bound by the authority in the CAA. EPA can help non- federally recognized Tribes, but can only deal government-to-government with Federally recognized Tribes.

Follow-up Items:
Consider nonattainment, geographic, and reservation boundaries. Review EPA policy on consolidated metropolitan statistical areas (CMSAs). Discuss why some areas (counties) are split into different areas for designation purposes. Can Tribes use a similar approach when considering designation status?


EPA offered the option of revisiting past designations via error correction notices on a case-by-case basis based on air quality and other information.

Tribal members stated that sufficient funding to perform the tribal program work is not available from EPA. They are concerned that Tribes must compete for funding. Although States also claim to be underfunded, they are guaranteed funding. Tribal representatives said that Tribes must also be guaranteed funding. Tribes are also frustrated that there is no forum to discuss funding issues. Without funding, no work can be done. Tribes need technical and financial support to work on designations and implementation. One Tribal member stated they attended the Chicago meeting specifically to discuss funding issues. Darrel Harmon, 202-564-7416, identified himself as the primary contact for funding concerns.

EPA stressed that, although funding is important, the Chicago meeting was not the correct forum to discuss this issue. The EPA staff responsible for the work group are technical people who deal with designation and implementation issues, not budget issues. However, EPA staff will take the Tribes' funding message to their EPA managers. There are EPA staff who work on the budget at higher levels and are trying to get the Tribes a "bigger piece of the pie." The budget process is complex and much bigger than EPA, as the money ultimately comes from Congress. It was suggested that a better way to address the funding issue may be through the Tribal Operations Council (TOC). Ondrea Barber shared a letter written by the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona to EPA in April 2000. (See attachment: include file from Ondrea)

The effects of a nonattainment designation on transportation money and CMAQ funds was discussed. Tribal members asked how Tribes can get access to CMAQ funds. One Tribal member noted that Tribes can use General Assistance Program (GAP) funds grants for air quality planning and capacity building, but the GAP program is currently short on funds.

The National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC) is establishing a National Tribal Air Committee (NTAC) with a permanent standing committee to address global issues such as funding. NTAC will investigate mechanisms to increase the funding pie, which is the real issue. The structure and issues for NTAC are just now developing, but Tribes will hear more about this in the future. Contact: Bill Grantham at NTEC, 505 242-2175.

Consultation

Formal consultation with Tribes will occur when EPA is ready to do a rule or guidance document. The work group and this meeting are not considered part of the formal consultation process. One Tribal member suggested that EPA should be doing outreach with the tribes on agency policies by making appointments with the Tribes for the purpose of consultation. Presently there is not adequate EPA staff to do this. Another Tribal member pointed out there is no Agency-wide guidance for working with the Tribes. EPA said that AIEO is in charge of an agency wide effort to develop an agency consultation policy with the tribes. Apart from consultation, the work group will keep the TOC abreast of developments, and each tribal representative can keep their leadership aware of what is going on.

Tribal Contact List

Tribal members expressed concern that there is no accurate up-to-date Tribal contact list for use by EPA, the Tribes, and other organizations.

Action item:
Darrel Harmon and AIEO agreed to update and maintain a Tribal contact list.

Tribes requested definitions for several abbreviations. Here they are:

VOC - volatile organic compound - means any compound of carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions. A list of 44 compounds, or classes of compounds, are excluded from being considered VOC on the grounds that they have negligible photochemical reactivity. The definition of VOC, with the list of exempt compounds, is found at 40 CFR 51.100 (s).

NMHC - non-methane hydrocarbons - Generally all organic compounds (even though some oxygenated organic compounds are not strictly speaking hydrocarbons) with methane subtracted out. EPA test method 25 uses an instrument which subtracts out methane and reports non-methane hydrocarbons in a gas stream being tested.

NRHC - non-reactive hydrocarbons - are the organic compounds which are exempted in the definition of VOC because of negligible reactivity.

ROG/ROC b-reactive organic gases/reactive organic compounds - are terms usually used to refer to VOC, or sometimes to NMHC.. Since these terms may be used rather loosely, it is best to see how the person using the term defines it.

Return to Table of Contents

3. Presentation: Monitoring

EPA gave a presentation on air quality monitoring which included information on why ambient monitoring is important; the monitoring program objectives, components, description and federal/state relationship; Tribal monitoring and the TAMS Center; and PM monitoring.

Tribal members expressed concern that Tribal lands were designated without appropriate monitoring. They also expressed a lack of trust in monitoring done by states, and their desire to do their own. Can EPA perform monitoring on Tribal lands that do not have sources? Why are rolling averages (rather than block averages) used for ozone and who makes that decision? EPA decided to use rolling averages because this method catches block averages and values occurring earlier or later, is a true peak 8-hour average, and is generally tighter.

Further explanation from EPA: As applied to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, rolling 8-hr averages allow calculation of the maximum 8-hr average during any given day. That maximum 8-hr average for each day is the only block of time used for that day. Only the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hr average is selected for the entire ozone season. That fourth highest daily maximum 8-hr average is used to calculate whether the three year average is at or above 0.085 ppm, which is used in determining whether an area would be in attainment or not. To the extent that block averages do not capture the maximum daily 8-hr average, a rolling average is more stringent and, thus, provides more health protection than a block average.

Note from Ellen Baldridge: Block averages treat each group of 8 hours as being independent of each other. This assumption overlooks the fact that emissions and precursors accumulate over time in a continuous fashion. Therefore any group of 8 continuous hours is a valid estimate of accumulated exposure. Since the health standards are based on human exposure to poor air quality, rolling averages which reflect continuous conditions are more appropriate for us to use.

Tribal members also expressed concern that there are not enough monitors on Tribal lands. EPA said that resources do not allow monitors in all areas of the country. EPA must rely on other tools such as interpolating data, called "krieging". EPA staff said that some areas don't want monitors because it is a "smoking gun." EPA can also determine if an area is in violation of the NAAQS without a monitor in place. [Note from Ellen Baldridge: Examples mentioned were use of photochemical grid models and statistical models to estimate air quality level between monitoring sites.] Tribal members questioned EPA about the size of the area that an off-reservation monitor represents. The "representativeness" of a monitor is a future issue for work group discussion.

Tribes asked to have more input regarding the placement of monitors and suggested that EPA inform the Tribes about the monitoring strategy in use in the Tribes' State and region. EPA explained that our national monitoring strategy is being reviewed by a national group. It will lay out national priorities for the distribution of monitors and at the same time provide flexibility for states and tribes to monitor in a way that addresses their needs. EPA included Tribes in the committee to develop this strategy, and will discuss it with the Tribes this Fall. EPA staff reported that eight ozone monitors, operated by the Tribes, are on Tribal lands and more monitors are planned. These monitors are clean for ozone. Ozone levels being recorded at these sites are below the level of the NAAQS. [Ellen Baldridge: "clean" might be interpreted as observed levels below natural background.]

Return to Table of Contents

4. Presentation: Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP)

The work group held discussion about the purpose and need for Tribes to develop TIPs. TIPs are not required and there are no sanctions or deadlines imposed. Not all Tribes will need to develop a TIP. Tribal programs are designed to meet the needs of each Tribe. Sections 103 and 105 funding is not dependent upon a Tribe having a TIP.

TIPs can be built incrementally. TIPs are used to regulate sources within Tribal jurisdictions for the criteria pollutants, i.e. ozone, PM, Pb, S02, CO and NOx. Questions arose regarding TIP contents if an area is clean, if a TIP can be used to control off-reservation sources, and if a TIP in a nonattainment area will have its own emission budget. EPA described the TIP as a tool to keep areas clean and to control on-reservation sources. EPA staff also suggested that in the process of developing the TIP, a Tribe will come to understand off-reservation sources and develop relationships with neighboring regulators.

EPA explained that a TIP is not needed by all tribes or tribal air programs. The tribe should develop their tribal air program based on their own needs and priorities. Tribal air programs can consist of activities that don't require TIPs.

Tribal members were concerned about the timing of EPA's draft TIP guidance document. One Tribal member thought that the TIP guidance would become a rule. EPA said this document is not a rule but is designed to provide general background to tribal environmental professionals in developing a TIP. More specific guidance on designation and implementation needs to be developed in addition to this basic guidance document. The draft document is now available for review on the EPA Tribal web site. The guidance document will be especially helpful for Tribes new to air issues. Since the guidance is not a highly technical document, it could be used as a tool by environmental professionals to explain air programs to the Tribal leadership.

The draft TIP Guidance does not address the transport issue in detail, but it does contain some information on 126 and the Regional Haze rule. EPA described the TIP as a tool to keep an area clean and control sources within Tribal jurisdiction; however, a TIP cannot control off-reservation sources.

Return to Table of Contents

5. Discussion: Transboundary / Transport

Tribal members expressed concern that, although Tribal lands are designated nonattainment, they are not often the source of the pollution. Reservations are often in "defense mode," trying to preserve clean conditions while surrounded by counties in nonattainment. The work group agreed that in many cases, Tribal lands are the "receivers" of pollution from off-reservation sources. Tribes feel they have little or no control over transport from neighboring jurisdictions.

Several avenues for addressing this problem were discussed, including: public comment process on the surrounding SIPs or permits, getting Treatment in a manner similar to State approval (TAS), and the Section 126 petition process. States should also have a plan for pollution transport in their State Implementation Plan (SIP). It was suggested that under Section 505, Tribes can apply for eligibility, which may also help Tribes deal with off-reservation sources. (OAQPS will investigate this.) Also see day-two discussion of Transport of Pollution and Trans-boundary Issues below for more dialogue and Action Items related to this topic.

Return to Table of Contents

6. Presentation: Emission Inventories

EPA gave a presentation about emissions inventories that covered what an emissions inventory is; its role in designations and implementation; how to obtain inventory information; and what the National Emission Inventory is and why Tribes should participate.

The group discussed gathering emissions data from sources on Tribal lands. Tribal members asked if Tribes need to have jurisdiction to get the data. EPA said normally you need jurisdiction in order to have authority over a source. However, one Tribal staff member reported that he was successful getting data informally from off-reservation sources by personally approaching them. Another reported that, while he was initially turned down, facility managers from sources off the reservation now regularly share information with him.

The work group generally agreed that Tribes will need help from EPA to get the needed inventory data and discussed several options. EPA can write letters to facility managers to try and get the data. Title V permits, now on the Internet, are another source of information, and EPA is currently creating a web site for access to Title V permit data. EPA Regional offices may also help deal with regulators to get source information. Scorecard.org has data available, as well as many hyperlinks to other sources of information.

A Tribal member asked if emission inventories contained data from prescribed burning - agricultural and wildland. EPA stated that these emission are handled through the smoke management plan process. Tribal members expressed concern about the effects of prescribed fire and will look to EPA to ensure that Federal agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service is burning appropriately.

Action Item:
Inform the Tribes about prescribed burning issues and policy evolution.

Return to Table of Contents

7. Presentation: Modeling

EPA gave a presentation about air quality modeling. The presentation covered what models are; how models work, their role in the air quality management process; and where to get additional information about models.

The work group discussed "NOx scavenging" and "NOx disbenefit" and the impact on the levels of other pollutants. [EB: EPA encouraged the group to investigate what may initially appear as a "NOx dis-benefits". Look closely at all of the information and consider changes in ozone downwind of sources as well as near sources. Also consider whether or not the increase in ozone causes an exceedance vs elevated levels remaining below the NAAQS. What may appear as a local single cell disbenefit may be a widespread downwind benefit.] One Tribal member asked how models handle mountainous terrain and their effect on deposition and transport. EPA stated that the models account for mountains and their effects. For example terrain height is part of the input data used to develop wind fields. Tribal members asked about training and it was reported that the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) has a modeling center at the University of California- Riverside which provides training and help to Tribes. EPA also provides models training to the Regional Planning Organizations (RPO). Bill Grantham from NTEC Volunteered to coordinate tribal training on modeling. (Check with Bill).

EPA explained the method of assigning a value for an area without a monitor, i.e. "kreiging". The method uses data from surrounding monitors.

Return to Table of Contents

8. Presentation: Particulate Matter (PM), Visibility, and Regional Haze

EPA gave a presentation covering PM, visibility, and the regional haze rule. The presentation explained the PM10 and PM2.5 national standards and basic PM facts; the history of the visibility program, and the regional planning organizations' (RPO) role in helping to develop regional haze plans.

The work group discussed the roles of EPA, Federal Land Managers (FLM), and the States in the regional haze program. Tribal members asked how much influence the FLM will have in denying new sources that will affect visibility in Federal Class I areas. EPA said that FLMs can only make recommendations, not stop new sources from building.

Work group members expressed concern regarding older California power plants which may restart operations because of the energy crisis. Tribal members asked if power plants must aggregate their impact on Class I areas if, for example, several power plants are located in one area. Tribal members noted the lack of guidance to deal with PM. Tribal members asked EPA if the meeting discussion was only ozone focused or also applies to other pollutants. EPA stated that the work group is intended to address other pollutants as well. Action Item:

Action Item:
Gather and distribute available guidance document for criteria pollutants other than ozone.

Return to Table of Contents

9. Presentation: Differences Between States and Tribes / SIPs and TIPs

EPA and Members of the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) gave a presentation which included information about their air quality program, and SIPs and TIPs. The GRIC is currently developing a comprehensive TIP and they shared their experience with the work group. (Gila River: please review; we may not have captured all your issues).

In the process of preparing their TIP, the GRIC identified a number of key differences between TIPs and SIPs. Tribes have the option to manage air quality or rely on EPA to do it for them. Tribes also have greater flexibility and no schedules. However, the process of TIP development also uncovered a number of unforeseen discrepancies between SIPs and TIPs as outlined below:

• Do Tribes have equal status to regulate air quality?
  • Designations are not based on reservation boundaries
  • Practical enforceability (emission limits)
  • Difficult to impossible for Tribes to get offsets
  • States use Tribal lands to dilute pollutant concentration in modeling domain
• States have control over Tribes (through offsets, economic development, etc.)
• Tribes have no control over transport from neighboring jurisdictions
• EPA uses a large area around violating State/local monitors as the basis for Tribal designations
• Tribes are not treated in the same manner as States for the purpose of designations and redesignations

Tribal members expressed concern that EPA treats Tribes in the same manner as EPA treats States. The Tribal members stressed that "Tribes are not States" and there are key differences in how EPA must work with the Tribes. EPA members are learning that States and Tribes are not the same, and thanked the Tribal members for reminding them.

Tribal members asked how EPA supported the States when the NAAQS were first promulgated. EPA described how Congress provided the grant money, and EPA provided assistance with SIPs and with legal issues involved in developing their laws. It took a long time for the State programs to develop, over a thirty year period. Tribes are just beginning.

The second day's discussion focused on the designation process and implementation issues which Tribal representatives identified. Work group members developed summary paragraphs to describe each identified issue and distributed them prior to the Chicago meeting. (See Appendix A for this document.)

At the Chicago meeting, Tribal work group members named those designation process and implementation issues that they considered particularly important. The issues are listed below in the order of their identified significance:

• Transport of pollution and trans-boundary issues (8 checks)
• Process where no air quality data exists (5 checks)
• Economic impacts (under both implementation issues and designation issues) (4 checks)
• Criteria for nonattainment for Indian country experiencing unhealthy air quality (2 checks)
• Criteria for nonattainment/room for flexibility for Tribes (2 checks)
• Monitoring (1 check)
• Designation of Indian lands (1 check)
• Treatment as state (0 checks)

Return to Table of Contents

The work group's day-two discussion centered around these issues. The following content describes the work group's discussion.

1. Transport of Pollution and Trans-boundary Issues

The central question is will Tribes be able to hold outside parties accountable for pollution? Tribal members are concerned that Indian lands are impacted by nearby urban areas and they have no leverage to deal with this problem. One Tribal member described the transport issue as a "Catch-22 situation" because Tribes are designated as nonattainment and there is nothing, or little, they can do to change the designation. EPA agreed and thought that one of the deficiencies of the Clean Air Act is that it "assumes if you monitor the problem, you are the problem." EPA also discussed how, in the past, EPA identified areas of influence (AOI) and areas of violation (AOV). Transport is a difficult problem to deal with because of the wording of the Clean Air Act.

Tribes can explore the existing tools (for example, Section 126 petitions), previously discussed, to deal with this issue. Section 126 petitions were discussed as a tool for objecting to off reservation pollution problems. Tribal members asked if this was an option for the Tribes and what the legal requirement might be. Some members reminded the group that the TAR entitled a Tribe to "treatment as a state" status. One Tribal member asked if the TAR could be modified to ensure tribes could use 126, but EPA cautioned that the TAR could then be open to new litigation. Could EPA do a Section 126 petition on behalf of a Tribe? EPA thought not, because it creates a situation where EPA is petitioning itself. Who are Section 126 petitions submitted to? EPA explained that the petitions go to EPA and the petitioner must name the sources and counties, define the geographic area, and provide a technical justification. The petitioner must show that the reservation is not the source of the pollution. Tribes without reservations asked if they could make use of 126 petitions.

EPA's trust responsibility to the Tribes was discussed. Tribal members feel it is a fundamental issue for the Federal government to protect the air on reservations. Tribal members are concerned that EPA is not fulfilling its responsibility because the Agency is not stepping in soon enough to deal with the transport issue. Section 110 was also discussed as a possible way to deal with pollution transport. Does it apply to tribes? Section 110 requires that each state must prevent transport of pollutants or take action.

Options:
• Tribes can submit TIPs
• Explore Section 107 (TAS) and the 126 Petition process
• Does TAR entitle Tribes to be treated as states for the purposes of a 126 petition?
• Can EPA do a 126 petition on be half of a Tribe?
• Does EPA's trust responsibility apply to transport of pollution?
• Explore Section 110 and transport
• What does section 505 provide?

Follow-up Item:
Discuss transboundary / transport issues, other options to influence control strategies outside Tribal jurisdiction, and eligibility under Section 110, 126, and 505.

2. Process Where Indian Country is in Nonattainment Area (presumed unhealthy air quality) and No Air Quality Data Exists

Tribal representatives questioned the challenge of assigning a designation in Indian country which lacked actual data. Tribal members stated that Tribal lands are often "eco-environments" in attainment, while the surrounding area is designated nonattainment. They questioned why Tribal lands should be so adversely effected when they have no industry creating the pollution. Tribal members asked how they could prove that their lands are in attainment. Tribal members thought that the burden-of-proof for a designation should be on EPA and not on the Tribe. Tribal members asked that their lands be redesignated. EPA offered to consider making a section 110 error correction notice on a case-by-case basis based on air quality and other information. Tribes questioned if, for future designations, EPA should continue to presume nonattainment until proven otherwise.

Tribes explained a concern about the CMSA concept as applied to tribes. EPA suggested revisiting the tribal guidance reviewing the criteria factors, including the CSMA concept in the Tribal guidance (Tribal guidance, June 2000). Although there is logic to using the CMSA approach in the east, it does not always work with Tribes in some of the western parts of the U.S. Tribal members consider it part of EPA's trust responsibility to fund studies to determine if a reservation is in attainment or nonattainment. They also believe it is EPA's responsibility to develop mitigation approaches for reservations.

Options:
Consider case-by-case approach to granting error correction notices

Action Item:
Revisit Tribal Guidance

Return to Table of Contents

3. Economic Impacts

The work group held discussion regarding the economic effects of air quality designations on Tribes. A balanced implementation approach between the States and Reservations was discussed. Nonattainment designations set-up requirements that might limit economic development and new industry locating on the reservation. One tribe expressed concern that they might not be included in the emissions baseline. Tribes are also concerned about the disincentive for economic development because States were "given offsets", but not Tribes.

Several Tribal members expressed concern that emissions trading was not in keeping with their Tribal philosophy. The pros and cons of an emissions credit trading were discussed as follows:

Options:
• Tribes want emission credits included in the baseline
• Tribes want the ability to build credits. (Tribal members asked where offsets and credits come from.)
• Tribes want to increase emission credits in baseline - make a credit bank for Tribes (precedent in WRAP)
• "Waive out" of offsets, and state access to the tribal credit pool needs to be addressed. Formula needed for tribes to get credits as they are retired.
• Tribes requested a waiver from offset requirements (LAER would still apply)

Return to Table of Contents

4. Criteria for Nonattainment / Room For Flexibility For Tribes

Tribes in nonattainment areas that have no sources should receive more flexibility from EPA. The effects of a nonattainment designation on transportation money and CMAQ funds was discussed. More funds may be available for nonattainment areas. Tribal members asked how Tribes can get access to CMAQ funds. It was noted that Tribes can use GAP grants for air quality planning and capacity building, but the GAP program is currently short on funds. One tribal member asked about surplus equipment such as monitors for use on Tribal lands. EPA will look into this.

Tribal members expressed hope that the Tribes would have equal status with STAPPA/ALAPCO in developing the implementation guidance for the new NAAQS. EPA stated that STAPPA/ALAPCO has not yet submitted their ideas but will share them with the work group when they are received.

Action item:
Consider the eleven criteria for designations in the Tribal Guidance.

Return to Table of Contents

5. Monitoring

Tribal members expressed concern that some designations are based on information from monitors located many miles from a reservation boundary. They questioned the size of the monitoring area that EPA considers. EPA responded that the area size is decided on a case-by-case basis. Tribal members also expressed concerns about the "representativeness" of the data collected by the states. They asked if their lands were designated nonattainment for the 1-hour standard, will they automatically roll over to an 8-hour nonattainment designation.

Tribal members asked if EPA will train the Tribes to do monitoring. EPA reported that the TAMS center offers training courses. Ozone training is planned for 2002-2003. One Tribal member thought that the States may be willing to help with training and set-up of monitors. Another Tribal member reported that their local agency offered the Tribe spare meteorological equipment. He suggested that Tribes open the door and establish a relationship with state and local people before seeking other avenues of paying for equipment or assistance. Discussion developed about Tribal relations with State and local agencies and accepting help from them. One Tribal member thought that history may be one reason for poor relations with the State and local agencies. Often Tribes must give data to get something in return, and only Tribal governments can approve data exchange. Another Tribal member also reported poor relations with the State agency.

Options:
• used equipment from the states
• get involved in SAMWIG
• TAMS training
• investigate "representativeness" of state monitoring data on tribal lands

Return to Table of Contents

6. Designation of Indian Lands That Fall Outside Norm

Some Federally recognized Tribes are located on lands that fall outside the normal definition of Indian Country or Reservation, e.g. most Tribal lands in Alaska. A large proportion of Tribes do not have Federally recognized lands. Without reservation boundaries many problems develop. How will this designations and implementation process effect Tribes without Tribal lands? Discussion developed how Tribes in Oklahoma are dealing with a similar situation. EPA says that Tribes do have jurisdiction whether or not they have formal reservations. The work group decided that EPA will form a sub-group with EPA Regions 10 and 6, Oklahoma Tribes, Alaskan Tribes, and OGC's Federal Indian Law specialists to discuss Indian land without reservations.

Tribal members expressed concern that there was no EPA Region 10 representative at the meeting. EPA members explained that EPA Region 10 was out of travel funds for this fiscal year.

Options:
• Create unique classification, once designated
• Develop guidance for Alaskan Tribes.

Follow-up item:
Set-up a sub-group with EPA Regions 10 and 6, Oklahoma Tribes, Francis Chin, and OGC's Federal Indian Law specialists to discuss Tribes without reservations.

Return to Table of Contents

7. Treatment-as-State (TAS)

Are there any advantages or disadvantages for Tribes to seek delegated (Treatment -As-State) authority under Section 107? TAS was described as an option for Tribes and a way for Tribes to take a more pro-active approach regarding designations. TAS may be a way for Tribes to access the Section 126 petition process. TAS is specific to a particular program. Tribal program capability should not be seen as a barrier to seeking TAS.

Options:
• Explore the Section 126 process for Tribes
• More flexibility needed from EPA for Tribes without a program and with no contributing sources
• Possible to knock on the door of an off-reservation source to obtain data
• Go to EPA to request back-up assistance to control a problem source
• How to handle agricultural burning?

The work group decided to hold conference calls every other month. The next work group conference call will be held on September 27, 2001 at 3:00 p.m. EDT. The sub-groups will hold conference calls approximately every three weeks. Tribal members asked to consider the time zone difference when setting up the meetings. Work group members agreed that Thursdays are generally a good day to meet.

• Rework work group guidelines
• Prepare and distribute meeting minutes
• Prepare an issue paper that integrates issues and actions for work group review and comment
• Follow-up on parking lot issues
• Form sub-groups to work on issues identified by the work group:
  • Patricia Byrd will head the Designations sub-group
  • Chuck Patterson will head the Implementation sub-group
  • Randy Ashley will head the Resource sub-group
• Form a separate sub-group to discuss Tribes without reservations
• Next work group meeting - conference call on September 27, 2001 at 3:00 p.m. EDT

ACTION ITEMS
The table below contains a list of Action Items developed by the work group during the Chicago meeting. The table indicates who will take the lead to accomplish the item. Similar items are combined and may represent discussion held at different times throughout the two-day meeting.

ISSUES DEVELOPED BY TRIBAL CAUCUS
(This document was developed by the Tribal members of the work group and distributed at the Chicago Meeting on August 24, 2001.)
• Clarification of Work Group purpose:
         What was said, What the interpretation is, What will be done

• Consultation:
         Participation for Tribe's in decision-making process

  Increased Funding for Tribes:
         Non-competitive

• Development of timeframes:
         For responses to Tribes

• Inter-Regional Coordination:
         Standardization of programs

• Re-visit 8 hour Guidance

• Exploration of tribal options of:
         Section 126
         Section 107 Delegation designation

• Consideration of process to expedite "TAS"

• Sensitivity to Tribal Situation/Perspective

• Reclassification of Tribes:
         EPA assist w/ development of data
         Re-Acquire/Transfer "unused" monitors for Tribes

• Non-Attainment status applied to Tribes be dismissed:
         Lack of involvement in Process

Return to Table of Contents

ISSUES FOR TRIBAL DESIGNATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION WORK GROUP

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

1. Monitoring - Lisa Reiner
   Issue: Monitoring on Tribal Lands- validity and representativeness of air quality monitoring data
   

   Discussion:
   It is important that tribes be afforded the opportunity to monitor for air quality on tribal lands. Tribes need to be able to build the capacity of their air quality programs. Monitoring is one aspect of an entire air quality program. Monitoring for air quality involves many different aspects:

   1. Location of the monitor- Where does the tribe want the monitor located? (What aspect of air quality will be monitored?) Is it near tribal housing? Does the air quality effect local tribal members who have questions about the air quality? Is the monitor located near local problem areas for air quality such as nearby freeways, industry, or agricultural lands that are regularly burned? Is the monitor located to address human health issues, or is the monitor located by tribes in order to test the ambient air quality for trans-boundary issues?
   2. Validity of the air quality monitoring -EPA-Region Ten, only. Tribes are asked by the funding agency, the EPA (Region 10), to have a "Quality Assurance Plan" in place, for their air quality monitoring. This asks the tribes to write up a report that shows how and when the machines will be calibrated, if the machines will have air filters, who will analyze the filters, and in what manner, etc., and what outside agency, or group will operate the quarterly testing of the equipment for validity. This gives the tribes, and the funding agency, assurance that the data quality will be valid.
   3. Tribes are considered "sovereign nations", by the EPA. Therefore it is important that they be given the air quality program resources to monitor the air on the Reservation. This is an issue of trust. Historically there needs to be trust between tribal members and governmental agencies. This trust begins when tribes, if they so choose, can be given the opportunity to monitor the Reservation air.

2. Transport of Pollution and Trans-boundary Issues - Bill Grantham
   Issue: Will Tribes be able to hold outside parties accountable for pollution?
   

   Discussion:
   Relationship to NAAQS Tribal Implementation: Many tribes which are potentially in non-attainment areas are subject to transboundary emissions from sources in non-tribal jurisdictions. Assuming that designation issues for a particular tribe are resolved and it is determined that the air quality on the Reservation is not in attainment with the NAAQS, it may be necessary and appropriate to address off-Reservation sources in order to bring the tribal land back into attainment.
   

   Possible Mechanisms:
   

   1. CAA § 126: CAA § 126 (42 U.S.C. 7426) requires states to notify other nearby states prior to permitting sources which may affect those other states. It also provides states with the opportunity to petition EPA to make a finding that another state's sources are significantly contributing to non-attainment in the petitioner state. Tribes may wish to utilize the § 126 process. Potential Issues:

   • Does a tribe need "Treatment as State" status to invoke a § 126 petition? (Clearly a tribe which has received a determination of eligibility could utilize 126, but it is not clear that such a determination is a prerequisite)
   • If a tribe has not yet received a determination of eligibility, could/would EPA make a 126-type determination on its own initiative, under the TAR, specifically 42 U.S.C. 49.11(a) (EPA will promulgate a FIP as necessary and appropriate to protect air quality where tribe does not do TIP). (This may be an issue if the timing requirements for TIP approval are not compatible with the attainment timeline)
   • What are the technical requirements of a 126 petition? Would the lack of tribal monitoring data be problematic?
   
   

   2. Class I Designation: Under CAA § 164(e), a tribe may re-designate its territory to "Class I" status, which has the effect of limiting the amount by which air quality may degrade, notwithstanding attainment with the NAAQS. This provides the tribe with the ability to challenge state permits to new sources which the tribe believes will cause a decrease in the tribes air quality in excess of the allowable amount. This would trigger a dispute resolution process arbitrated by EPA. The resulting agreement, or resolution by EPA if there is no agreement, becomes an enforceable part of the applicable plan (SIP or FIP). Potential Issues:

   • What, if any, bearing would Class I status have on a TIP or FIP for a tribe in non-attainment?
   • If the Reservation is non-attainment, by definition the PSD increment will have been consumed. Thus any emissions reaching the Reservation would contribute to a PSD violation. What are the implications of this?
   • Would tribal class I PSD requirements be subsumed under the NSR requirements for the area (BACT and offset requirements), or could there be additional requirements due to the class I status?

   3. Other Mechanisms?
   Are there other provisions/procedures which can be utilized by tribes and EPA to insure that impacts of off-Reservation sources are addressed, while providing equitable treatment of economic development on tribal lands?

3. Criteria for Nonattainment / Room for Flexibility for Tribes - Chuck Patterson
   Issue:
   Nonattainment criteria and flexibility
   

   Discussion:
   A "nonattainment area" is a geographic area in which the level of a "criteria air pollutant" is higher than the level allowed by Federal standards. A single geographic area may have acceptable levels of one critical air pollutant but unacceptable levels of one or more other critical pollutants. A geographic location can, thus, be both an attainment and nonattainment area. It has been estimated that 60% of Americans live in nonattainment areas and further investigation likely will reveal Indian Reservations are no exception.
   

   Most Reservations, however, have not been monitored for air quality. A survey of Tribes, therefore, indicated that a dire need exists to monitor Tribal lands before they can be classified as nonattainment (or attainment) areas, particularly regarding the implementation process. Perhaps we are putting the cart before the horse and, because we are a relatively new work group, should concentrate more on the designations process. That is, focus on long term goals and objectives, and the means by which be will fulfill our aims.
   

   Nonetheless, regarding implementations, criteria for nonattainment, and room for flexibility:

   • All implementation issues have an impact on classification of nonattainment
   • Monitoring as a means of classification will be essential at some stage of project development
   • Transport of pollutants and boundary issues will be extremely critical and should be a major component in considering flexibility of classification (a good example is Tribal involvement in the EPA Border XXI U.S./Mexico Border Projects)
   • Funding is going to be an issue; where will funds come from when air quality resources are limited.
   Remember, too, individual state regulations will play a role in all of this. California (Region IX) likely is one of the most stringent. Nevertheless, the Tribes will require some flexibility, at least in the initial stages of establishing nonattainment criteria. My suggestion is we congregate in Chicago, conduct a meeting, gather information, and the Tribes can suggest to the EPA how we can best accomplish the goals and objectives set forth during the meeting. The EPA, in turn, can do the same. But, again, at this time regarding nonattainment, focus on designations. I am not attempting to negate any responsibilities and will gladly assist in this area. But all my research and visits with other Tribes indicates this is the area of focus.
   

4. Classification of Indian Lands - Francis Chin
   Issue:
   Definition of Indian Country or Reservation
   

   Discussion:
   Some Federally recognized tribes may be located on lands that may fall outside the normal definition of Indian Country or Reservation, e.g. most tribal lands in Alaska and some in the other States. Indian Country therefore, includes lands and places where all and any Native Americans, including Native Hawaiians and Alaska Natives gather, live, work, and subsist.
   

5. Economic Impacts - Lisa Reiner
   Issue:
   What economic impacts will tribes deal with in this air quality designation process with the EPA?
   

   Discussion:
   1. Unemployment is typically high on tribal Reservations. Jobs are important to tribal members. Will the EPA air quality designations stop industry on some tribal lands?
   

   2. How will the effects of a designation such as attainment, non-attainment, or unclassifiable effect the ability of a tribe to bring more industry or jobs into the area?
   

   3. The EPA has established a presumption that where an ozone monitor shows a violation, the entire Metropolitan Statistical Area should be designated as non-attainment. In some cases tribes, who do not themselves have industrial emission sources, are effected by the ozone violations outside of their tribal boundaries. Thus the Tribe not only has bad air to breathe, but their own interests in industrial economic development can be curtailed.
   

   4. Designation of an area as non-attainment triggers requirements for additional measures to bring the area into attainment of the NAAQS. One aspect of this is new source review. It is the requirement that emissions from new sources be offset by reductions from existing sources. Is this fair to tribes who are struggling for economic parity with the larger economy?
   

    

1. Economic Impacts - Dan Blair
   Issue::
   Economic concerns of Tribes designated nonattainment, Gila River
   

   Discussion:
   The major concern that GRIC has concerning the Nonattainment status of the northern 1/3 of the Community deals with the inability to locate industrial facilities within this portion of the Community. In addition, the perception that Air Quality at GRIC is unhealthy based on the current nonattainment designation raises concern for most Tribal Members. The Gila River Indian Community maintains that air quality at GRIC meets the NAAQS and was arbitrarily included in the Maricopa County nonattainment area based solely on political boundaries. No monitoring or modeling has been conducted to support the current nonattainment designation. Additionally, the Community was not consulted during the designation process which resulted in the nonattainment status for the northern portion of the Community. The following bullet items have arisen during the GRIC TIP development process as a result of being designated nonattainment. Tribes that have lands that are designated nonattainment will have to consider these issues in the future.

   • Industrial facilities (major sources) proposing to locate on tribal lands designated nonattainment must comply with NSR pre-construction permitting.
   • Major source status is based on Potential to Emit (PTE) not on actual emissions.
   • NSR permitting is extremely expensive. (May be cost prohibitive)
   • Major source thresholds are lower in a nonattainment area.
   • Major sources in NA must pay for offsets.
   • NSR requirements will prevent development on Tribal lands (e.g., Resorts (boilers),Power Plants, Synthetic Minor Sources etc.)
   • Offsets may not be available.
   • Industrial facilities will not consider Tribal lands in a nonattainment area due to high cost and strict requirements.
   • Facilities must install pollution control equipment equivalent to the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER).
   • Unfair competitive advantage for states and locals with synthetic minor permitting programs.
   • Tribal members may have to submit personal vehicles to emissions testing by neighboring jurisdiction.
   • No CMAC funds for tribal roads - Tribe/BIA will have to maintain roads.
   • Attainment plan may be required.

   Actual GRIC Example: Due to serious power concerns during extremely hot weather a small power plant was being proposed for GRIC. The prime location for the plant was in the Lone Butte Industrial Park which is located within that portion of the Community lying within the Maricopa County nonattainment area. This area is classified as a serious nonattainment area for CO, ozone and PM10. The power plant consist of two 40 MW gas fired turbines that will be configured as a peaking plant. The following is a list of permitting, economic and environmental issues that GRIC was faced with. Emissions based on Potential To Emit (PTE) exceed the major source threshold in the nonattainment area but do not exceed the major source threshold in the attainment area. GRIC does not currently have a permitting program but has started discussions with EPA regarding tribally enforceable emissions limits.
   

    

2. Process Where No Air Quality Data Exists - Janet Travis
   Issue:
   Assigning designations in Indian Country lacking actual data
   

   Discussion:
   Since ozone is a cross-boundary issue covering large areas, assumptions and generalizations are used to classify areas when data is not available. Per the July 2000 8-hour ozone guidance document, the process for assigning designations in Indian Country lacking actual data involves the following criteria.
   

   Aside from having an actual monitor that reports a NAAQS violation within Reservation boundaries, Tribes can also be classified nonattainment if:

   • the Reservation or portion of the Reservation is located within an MSA/CMSA that has a violating monitor (though how large an area the monitor represents is not defined)
   • the Reservation has sources of ozone precursors that contribute to a nearby nonattainment area (contribute not defined)
   • the Reservation is located within an area previously designated nonattainment for the1-hour standard (though in many cases, those designations were made without actual data)
   • air quality modeling show the NAAQS is being violated (have any Tribes done modeling within their borders?)
   The guidance lists 11 mitigating factors that Tribes can address in making recommendations, but how heavily EPA will weigh these factors when making designations is not discussed. MSAs or CMSAs are county-based areas that will be used as a default for assigning designations. In many western states, counties are the size of or larger than some eastern states. If MSA defaults are implemented, one violating monitor in the corner of a county has the power to bring economic development to a halt in rural areas that may need it most, while the areas which contribute almost exclusively to the problem continue to thrive and expand.
   

3. Criteria for Nonattainment for Indian Country Experiencing Unhealthy Air Quality - Pat Byrd
   Issue:
   Nonattainment criteria for Indian Country experiencing unhealthy air quality
   

   Discussion:
   1. Criteria for nonattainment for Indian Country experiencing unhealthy air quality

   • Indian Country experiencing unhealthy air quality is not typically the source of the poor air quality.
   • When setting the criteria for nonattainment, consideration should be made of the Tribe's part in the nonattainment designation.
   • Studies should take place at the Reservation itself to determine the part that the Tribes are playing. The criteria should be set based on the Tribe's current status, corner of a county has the power to bring economic development to a halt in rural areas that may need it most, while the areas which contribute almost exclusively to the problem continue to thrive and expand
   2. Designations for tribal lands
   Tribes should not be restricted or penalized if they seek to develop economically.
   • The emissions credit system would need to be amended to allow for Tribal economic development and Tribes acquiring emissions credits within that system.
   • Tribes should not be saddled with responsibility of preparing a Tribal Implementation Plan if they are not the source of unhealthful emissions.
   • If designations must be based on Metropolitan Statistical Areas, EPA should accept the air pollution management plan that corresponds to the area that includes the Tribal lands.
   • Unclassified designation until monitoring indicates nonattainment status
   3. Presumptive designation status: Appropriate air quality boundaries for tribal lands
   • Disregard the present method of setting designations by using Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Have each Tribal government responsible for their Tribal lands, only.
   • Meteorological data would have to be used to determine of emissions from Tribal lands. This might include air dispersion modeling.
   • Monitoring would have to take place to determine extent of movement from Tribal lands.

   4. New categories of Designations

   • A new category for Tribes could be justified based on the fact that they are not presently a source of emissions.
   • A new category should accommodate the Tribe's economic development desires.
4. Treatment as State - Roger Turner
   Issue:
   Is there any advantage or disadvantage for a Tribe to seek delegated (Treatment-As-State) authority under Section 107 of the Clean Air Act?
   

   Discussion:
   The Guidance on 8-Hour Ozone Designations For Indian Tribes provides that EPA will fully consider any designation recommendation by a Tribe, and further that EPA will provide "consultation" to a Tribe on the process, however for some Tribes this guidance may not be as effective as the law which is provided by delegated authority through the Treatment-As-State process. Also, obtaining delegated authority would not harm a Tribe's ability to receive the benefits outlined in the guidance. We note that the guidance is particularly focused on ozone, and may not cover the other criteria pollutants which impact a Tribe. Also the guidance may not provide a Tribe with the authority to re-designate an area, as is the case of a Tribe with full authority under Section 107.
   &nbs;

DRAFT and FLIP CHART NOTES

ROLE OF THE TRIBAL DESIGNATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION WORK GROUP

• The work group will not make formal designation recommendations to EPA. Each Tribe has individual input.

   

• The work group will meet to discuss, share, and hear a variety of ideas, issues, and options.

   

• The work group will identify common issues and ideas.

   

• Identified new goals will be incorporated into the work group's existing goals.

   

• After a process of education and information sharing, the Tribes will break-off and make designation recommendations individually.

   

• One option for the work group is to make recommendations in a prototype letter to Tribal governments.

IDENTIFIED ISSUES

• ·Tribes' designations requested without knowledge or input.

   

• A Tribal voice is needed in the designation process.

   

• Monitoring / State vs. Tribal.

   

• An updated and maintained Tribal contact list is needed.

   

• Priority precludes activity / resources for prevention vs. cleanup.

   

• Should Tribes submit Eligibility Determinations under Section 107 to do designations? What are the benefits?

   

• What will happen to earlier recommendations?

   

• TIP development can draw tribes into litigation and may impact Tribal sovereignty or jurisdiction.

   

• How do we deal with criteria pollutant other than ozone?

   

• Tribes need backing from EPA to work with sources to get information.
  Partner with States where appropriate
  114 letter
  Public websites
  Scorecard

   

• Need for consistency across EPA Regions.

   

• Equal status of Tribes in the designation process.
  Geographic boundaries do not consider reservation boundaries
  Practical enforceability
  Offset fairness
  Tribal lands used for "dilution" in modeling demonstration

   

• Do TIPs in nonattainment areas need their own emission budget or must they use the nonattainment area budget?

   

• Tribal designations are based on State and local monitors. What is representative?

   

• Impact on precedence can be a high hurdle.

   

• PM2.5 no presumptions on boundaries.

   

• Keep Tribes informed on prescribed burning issues and policy evolution.

DISCUSSION ISSUES
(Based on Summary Paragraphs)

Monitoring

• Additional work related to monitoring, e.g., siting, QA/QC, AIRS
• Is State assistance available?

Transport / Trans-boundary

• Explore existing tools
  • Section 126 Petition
        Open to Tribes?
        What are the legal requirements (OGC)?
        Petitioner's program comes under scrutiny first
  • Tribal Authority Rule (TAR)
  • Could the TAR be modified?
  • Section 110

   

• Tribes and EPA need two-way communication to discuss the problem

Classification of Indian Land

• Sub-group of EPA Regions 10 and 6, Oklahoma Tribes, Francis Chin, and OGC's Federal Indian Law specialists to discuss Indian land with uncertain boundaries

Economic Impacts

• Balanced implementation - State & Reservation
• Economic development for Tribes in a nonattainment areas will be difficult
• Examine impact / location of new source emissions and permits
• Emission credits / offsets
       Tribes were not included in baseline and want emission credits in the baseline / the ability to build credits
      Where do offsets / credits come from?
      Waiver for tribes from offset requirement "Waive out" of offsets
      Address State access to tribal credit pool
      Formula for Tribes to get credits as credits are retired
      Adjust offset ratio

• Micro vs. regional vs. elevated air quality
• MSA fallback in Tribal guidance in West
• EP's trust responsibility to fund study to determine designation and develop mitigation

Criteria for Nonattainment Designation / Flexibility in Implementation

• EPA to think through approach / criteria for past Tribal designations

   

• On forth coming designations, should EPA presume nonattainment until proven otherwise?

   

• List of steps for the designation process is needed

   

• Nonattainment and transportation dollars, how do Tribes get CMAC fimds?

   

• Surplus monitoring equipment

   

• GAP funding for air quality planning

• Share STAPPA/ALAPCO guidelines

   

• Options for dealing with offsets

Treatment as a State

• Treatment as a State (TAS) is an option for 126 and 107 purposes

PARKING LOT ISSUES

 

• Funding for Tribal programs

   

• Guarantee of base funding

   

• Forum for Tribes to discuss funding

   

• EPA Region 10 presence needed at meetings

   

• Coordination on monitoring strategy

   

• Guidance on Sections 103 and 105

   

• Form of consultation

   

• EPA structure / roles of AA, RA, AEIO, OAR, and OAQPS

   

• · Structure of the CAA requiring "treatment as a state"

   

• www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/bluebbook

   

• Work with Forest Service to involve Tribes on smoke management planning

   

• Make recommendation on the form of a consultation policy group

   

• EPA contacts for CMAC funds

   

• Mobile contacts Meg Patulski 734-214-4842 and Laura Berry 734-214-4858

NEXT STEPS

 

• Rework work group guidelines

   

• Prepare and distribute meeting notes

   

• Prepare an issue paper that integrates issues and actions for work group review and comment

   

• Parking lot issues follow-up

   

• · Next Meeting - conference call on September 27, 2001 at 3:00 p.m. EST