The Early Action Compact (EAC)

Frequently Asked Questions - Part Two

Is the EAC just a way to avoid nonattainment?

No. The EAC Protocol does not delay a region's nonattainment designation, but defers its effective date. That means that EPA recognizes the region has met the criteria to be declared nonattainment, but will delay the effects of designation as long as all EAC terms are met. If a region fails to meet any of the milestones in the EAC, the region's nonattainment status takes effect immediately. That safeguard in the agreement shifts the region immediately to the standard nonattainment timeline, without penalty and with credit given for strategies implemented under the EAC.

Isn't nonattainment meant to protect public health and the environment?

Yes, the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) created the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to ensure healthy air for all citizens. Nonattainment is the method of enforcing the NAAQS. The EAC is aligned with the intent of the CAA; its ultimate goal is to achieve clean air as soon as possible. In fact, the EAC has an even more expeditious timeline than is expected under EPA's 8-hour nonattainment rulemaking.

Will the EAC really achieve clean air faster than standard nonattainment?

Yes. Under the anticipated EPA rulemaking, a region would be unlikely to implement emission reduction strategies prior to 2007 and would not be expected to monitor clean air before 2009. Under the EAC, however, all emission reduction strategies must be fully implemented by 2005, with clean air achieved by 2007. That's a minimum of two years faster than is expected under standard nonattainment.

If the region misses a milestone and reverts to standard nonattainment, hasn't the EAC delayed the process?

No. In fact, if we start the EAC process but end up in standard nonattainment, we'll still be ahead of the game. Technical and modeling work performed for the EAC would obviate the need for those analyses during SIP development under standard nonattainment. Even if we default in the EAC, we will get credit for strategies put in place under that agreement -- no work is lost. If we shift to standard nonattainment, we don't go back to "square one." The region would assume the place in the nonattainment timeline where we would have been without EAC participation.

Since the State Implementation Plan (SIP) mandated in nonattainment areas must comply with specific federal requirements, isn't the EAC weaker?

The plan developed under the EAC will be incorporated into the SIP and will therefore be state and federally enforceable. As such, the EAC will comply with the same federal requirements as any other SIP. The EAC protocol also includes SIP provisions more stringent than in the standard nonattainment process (semi-annual tracking and reporting, maintenance for growth). In addition, the EAC will result in a local clean air plan three years earlier than expected under standard nonattainment (2004 versus 2007).

Nonattainment areas also have to comply with transportation conformity requirements, which set limits for emissions from on-road vehicles. Will the EAC limit motor vehicle emissions?

Yes. Transportation conformity requires a nonattainment area to demonstrate that the estimated emissions from long range transportation plans do not exceed the estimated emissions level needed to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The EAC requirements for maintenance for growth and a continuing planning process also monitor the estimated emissions from long range transportation plans and require additional emission reduction strategies if needed to attain and maintain the NAAQS.

What about Build/No Build analyses for specific planned roadways?

Build/no build (baseline/action) analysis is one method of conducting the transportation conformity analysis; not a separate requirement. It is only required in some of the more polluted 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas during the time before their SIP is completed. All transportation conformity analysis methods for ozone require a regional analysis, not a roadway specific analysis.

The standard nonattainment process requires New Source Review (NSR) -- that could be good for Central Texas. Why doesn't the EAC require it?

NSR is already occurring in this area as new "major sources" apply for permits. The standard nonattainment process would likely add an offset ratio component to NSR. New emissions from existing or new major facilities would have to be offset by reductions in existing pollution.

The EAC does not specifically require NSR because the EAC is designed to offer maximum local flexibility in emissions reduction strategy selection. When we do the modeling analyses, we may find that NSR is not the most efficient way to control pollution. Or we may choose to extend NSR to cover "non-major" sources. The key to the EAC is finding the combination of strategies that work best for Central Texas.

Who decides which control emission reduction strategies measures are selected? Who approves the final plan?

Elected officials are ultimately responsible for all decisions. The final plan must be approved by each jurisdiction before adoption into the SIP. Staff of signatories and supporting agencies will develop the plan based on technical modeling analyses, with a concerted effort to solicit input from a variety of stakeholders (e.g., business and environmental groups) and the general public.

What (and who) will be involved in the EAC's public participation component?

A successful public participation effort is critical to the success of the EAC. While specific details of the public outreach component are pending, we anticipate a broad, interactive program that affords opportunities for environmental groups, neighborhood associations and other interested citizens to provide input. Radio, newspaper and other media will be used to communicate information and raise interest in public forums and other avenues for comment in Travis, Hays, Williamson, Caldwell and Bastrop the area bounded by counties.

Given financial and time constraints, signatories welcome the outreach assistance and resources of interested area organizations. CLEAN AIR Force of Central Texas, Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce, and Clean Air Partners have already pledged their support.

If the strategies in the EAC do clean up our air, why don't we just proceed without signing the EAC?

Air quality would improve, and we would no longer be in nonattainment. It would be difficult for a region to implement the serious emission reduction strategies anticipated in the EAC outside of such a compact. Without state and federal support in technical analysis and enforcement (provided for in the EAC), local governments would not have the resources to identify and implement defensible, technically sound and effective pollution reduction strategies.

Further, nonattainment designations are based on a "design value" using three years of data. Therefore it takes some time before actions that are actually improving the air are reflected in a region's design value. Once an area does become eligible for redesignation, the process is often difficult and lengthy. The process is simplified in the EAC. When a region meets all milestones, monitors clean air, and demonstrates ongoing compliance, it regains attainment status.

Why can't we pursue the EAC without delaying the effective date of nonattainment designation?

Actually, it's the deferral of the effective date of nonattainment that allows the localized planning integral to the EAC. Once standard nonattainment requirements begin, the state assumes control of the process and flexibility is limited. TCEQ determines the emission reduction strategies implemented in our region --most likely a "cookie-cutter" approach applied statewide. Since the solutions to ozone problems in Dallas and Houston may not be the best solutions for Central Texas, the EAC remains our best option for locally-appropriate strategies.