72 



would like to recognize the operational support EPA and other 

 federal agencies have given the Commission. EPA and other 

 agency personnel have been key participants on the Commission's 

 committees. EPA Region 9's participation on the Commission and 

 its support for Mexican inventory work have been excellent. At 

 the same time, research data needed by the Commission to address 

 issues associated with long range transport and the chemistry 

 associated with this transport has not been forthcoming from EPA. 

 Most of the research being performed by EPA, the Park Service 

 and other agencies has focused on the source attribution of 

 sulfates at the expense of other species and source regions. 

 Project Mohave, a Congressionally mandated tracer study, will 

 supply the Commission with important information but it was never 

 intended to fill all information gaps with respect to regional 

 haze. Furthermore, few of the remaining complex chemistry and 

 meteorology ambiguities associated with regional haze will be 

 answered by particulate matter and ozone research projects. 



Some time ago Chairman Symington wrote to then EPA 

 Administrator William Reilly requesting an additional focus on 

 research and the maintenance of its research presents in the 

 west. It is our understanding that research efforts will be 

 reduced in FY 95 and that no research staff will be supported in 

 the west. This action must be viewed as an affront to the 

 Commission and the West and a reflection of EPA's lack of 

 commitment to long term research issues associated with regional 

 haze. 



A third issue interest to the Commission is the timing of 

 the issuance of regional haze regulations by the Commission. The 

 issuance of regulations by EPA prior to the Commission's deadline 

 would be seen as preemptive action by the Commission. 

 Furthermore, the information gleaned from the Commission's 

 process and recommendations and supporting socio economic 

 analysis will provide the major information base for such 

 regulations. Indeed, the concept of reasonable progress is 

 subjective and the criteria for its evaluation should evolve from 

 the negotiation process undertaken by the Commission's Public 

 Advisory Committee as it seeks a consensus recommendation. The 

 Commission should be viewed as a laboratory by EPA and as an 

 opportunity to avoid the costly process of developing regulations 

 in the abstract. 



In addition, the model developed by the Commission should be 

 applicable to regulatory processes for other Class I areas in the 

 east and west. As indicated earlier, the concept of reasonable 

 progress is subjective and thus there will not be a "one size 

 fits all" rate of progress towards the national visibility goal; 

 however, analytical approaches and decision criteria should be 

 generalizable to other areas. Furthermore, the Commission's 



