179 



areas. The interim findings of that report were due in November 

 1993. Where is that report? 



Ms. Nichols. Well, it is not here; is it? 



Mr. Synar. Did you even do it? 



Ms. Nichols. This was a question that I asked when I arrived 

 at EPA, and the question with respect to the research report 



Mr. Synar. Let me ask it this way; when are you going to start 

 this report? 



Ms. Nichols. I don't think that the report per se is the issue, 

 if I may say so, Mr. Synar. 



Mr. Synar. How about the interim findings? 



Ms. Nichols. I think the interim findings are, if you will, tran- 

 scended or have been superseded as a result of the NAS study. I 

 think what the EPA is doing now is putting the bulk of its research 

 funding on visibility into the work of the Grand Canyon, SAMI, 

 into modeling work under the interagency working group on air 

 quality modeling and under the improved program. 



Project mojave, which is the source of most of the data that is 

 being used for the Grand Canyon project, is being substantially un- 

 derwritten by EPA, and that is where the bulk of that research 

 money is going. I would have to say, by the way, that I can't speak 

 for the research division of EPA. 



Mr. Synar. Let's talk about that. Why did you all eliminate the 

 funds for the atmospheric research for the 1995 budget request? 

 Isn't that exactly the kind of data you are going to need for the re- 

 gional haze regulations? 



Ms. Nichols. I think not. I think that the research money that 

 is continuing is the monitoring money which EPA needs to con- 

 tinue to provide, and that the shift in funds for the 1996 budget 

 will be completing the research that we need to do the regulations 

 in the 1994 fiscal year, and that in future years the money has 

 been shifted into the fine particle work as part of our review of the 

 fine particle standard which is essential. 



Mr. Synar. Let me ask you about that. When are you going to 

 finish the revised PM-10 particulate matter ambient air quality 

 standard? 



Ms. Nichols. Well, I believe we are on track on that one on an 

 expedited basis. You know, Mr. Chairman, we are talking about 

 cleaning up a big backlog of stuff. 



Mr. Synar. You are working on it; right? 



Ms. Nichols. We are actually moving faster than before. We will 

 have it done, I believe, before tne end of 1995. 



Is that correct? 



No, sorry. 



First the review — sorry. Excuse me. I would expect 



Mr. Synar. This is under oath here, I like this. 



Ms. Nichols. I appreciate that fact, and I 



Mr. Synar. No, that is a pretty bold thing, we are looking at 4 

 and 5 years here. 



Ms. Nichols. We are asking for an expedited review on that, and 

 I believe that what I was referencing on the 1995 timeframe was 

 a review of the data. I think the actual air quality standard is a 

 much longer-term process 



Mr. Synar. Is it 4 or 5 years? 



