Exhibit 16
Calendar No. 427

101ST CONGRESS SENATE REPORT

1st Session 1 A 101-228

CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1989

REPORT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STATES SENATE

together with

ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

TO ACCOMPANY

S. 1630

DECEMBER 20, 1989.-Ordered to be printed

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

24-525 WASHINGTON: 1989

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota, Chairman

DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island

GEORGE J. MITCHELL, Maine ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming

MAX BAUCUS, Montana STEVE SYMMS, Idaho

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVE DURENBERGER, Minnesota

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

HARRY REID, Nevada JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont

BOB GRAHAM, Florida GORDON J. HUMPHREY, New Hampshire

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

DAVID M. STRAUSS, Staff Director

ROBERT F. HURLzY, Minority Staff Director

(I)
CONTENTS

Page

G eneral statem ent ........................................................................................................... 1

Discussion of provisions:

Title I-Attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards:

In trodu ction ...................................................................................................... . 5

Designation of areas (section 101) .................................................................. 13

Enhanced monitoring and inventories (section 102) ................. 16

Transportation guidance (section 103) .......................................................... 18

General planning requirements (section 104) ............................................. 19

Federal facilities (section 105) ........................................................................ 23

General provisions for nonattainment (section 106) ................. 23

Additional requirements for ozone nonattainment areas (section 107).. 30

Additional requirements for carbon monoxide nonattainment areas

(section 108) .................................................................................................... 52

Additional requirements for PM-10 nonattainment areas (section

10 9) .............................................................

68

Interstate pollution (section 110) ................................................................... 75

Outer continental shelf activities (section 111) ........................................... 76

Indian tribes (section 112) ............................................................................... 78

Miscellaneous and conforming amendments (section 113) ....................... 80

Secondary standards (section 114) ................................................................. 81

Title II-Mobile source controls:

Introduction ...................................................................................................... . 82

Emission standards for certain motor vehicles (section 201) .................... 88

Carbon monoxide emissions at cold temperatures (section 202) .............. 92

Control of vehicle refueling emissions (section 203) ................. 93

Evaporative emissions (section 204) .............................................................. 94

Onboard emission diagnostic systems (section 205) .................. 96

Emissions of carbon dioxide from passenger cars (section 206) ............... 98

Low-polluting vehicles (section 207) .............................................................. 101

Light duty vehicle useful life (section 208) .................................................. 102

Warranties (section 209) .................................... 102

Non-road engines (section 210) ...................................................................... 103

Prohibition on production of engines requiring leaded gasoline (section 2 11) .......................................................................................................... 105

Motor vehicle testing and certification (section 212) ................................. 106

In-use compliance-recalls (section 213) ...................................................... 107

Fuel volatility (section 214) ............................................................................. 109

D esulfurization (section 215) ........................................................................... 110

Lead phasedow n (section 216) ......................................................................... 112

Fuel quality (section 217) ................................................................................. 116

Oxygenated fuels (section 218) ....................................................................... 118

M isfueling (section 219) ................................................................................... 120

U rban buses (section 220) ................................................................................ 121

Enforcem ent (section 221) ............................................................................... 122

Consideration of Federal transportation and environmental policies

(section 222) .................................................................................................... 127

Title III-Air toxics:

B ackground discussion ..................................................................................... 127

Hazardous air pollutants (section 301) ......................................................... 147

Marine manufacturing (section 302) ............................................................. 202

Dual regulation of radionuclides (section 303) ........................................... 203

Prevention of sudden, accidental releases (section 304) ............................ 205

Municipal waste combustion: Air emissions (section 306) ............ 251

Municipal waste combustion: Ash disposal (section 307) .......................... 257

(III)
IV

Page

Discussion of provisions-Continued

Title III-Air toxics-Continued

Consultation (section 308) ............................................................................... 260

Title IV-Acid deposition control:

Background ........................................................................................................ 261

Acid deposition control (section 401) ............................................................. 302

Repeal of percent reduction (section 402) .................................................... 337

Federal facilities (section 403) ........................................................................ 338

Acid deposition standard (section 404) .......................................................... 341

N ational acid lakes registry (section 405) .................................................... 344

Industrial sulfur dioxide em issions (section 406) ........................................ 344

Sense of the Congress on emission reduction costs (section 407) ............. 345

Continuation of the Acid Deposition Assessment Program (section

408) ............................................................

345

Title V-Permits:

Introduction ....................................................................................................... 346

Title VI-Enforcement and reauthorization:

Introduction ....................................................................................................... 357

Section 113 enforcem ent (section 601) ......................................................... 358

Reviewability of administrative orders (section 602) ................................. 366

Com pliance certification (section 603) .......................................................... 368

Contractor inspections (section 604) .............................................................. 369

Administrative enforcement subpoenas (section 605) ................................ 369

Em ergency orders (section 606) ...................................................................... 370

Contractor listings (section 607) ....................................................................... 371

Judicial review pending reconsideration of regulation (section 608) ...... 372

Citizen suits and petitions (section 609) ....................................................... 372

Enhanced implementation and enforcement of new source review

requirem ents (section 610) .......................................................................... 376

M ovable stationary sources (section 611) ..................................................... 376

Authorizations (section 612) ............................................................................ 376

Title VII-The Stratospheric Ozone and Climate Protection Act:

Introduction ....................................................................................................... 377

H earings ............................................................................................................................ 402

M arkups ............................................................................................................................. 402

Rollcall votes .................................................................................................................... 402

Evaluation of regulatory im pact ................................................................................... 403

Cost of legislation ............................................................................................................. 403

Additional views of:

Senator M itchell ....................................................................................................... 404

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................................. 406

Senator Sim pson ....................................................................................................... 410

Senator W arner ........................................................................................................ 412

M inority views of Senator Sym m s ................................................................................ 415

Changes in existing law .................................................................................................. 489
Calendar No. 427

101ST CONGRESS REPORT

1st Session SENATE 101-228

CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1989

DECEMBER 20, 1989.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. BURDICK, from the Committee on Environment and Public

Works, submitted the following

REPORT

together with

ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

[To accompany S. 1630]

The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was

referred the bill (S. 1630) to amend the Clean Air Act to provide for

attainment and maintenance of health protective national ambient

air quality standards, and for other purposes having considered the

same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

GENERAL STATEMENT

The Clean Air Act is the first modern environmental law to be

enacted. It was first signed into law by President Johnson in 1963,

replacing previous Federal air pollution legislation. In 1965 hearings before the Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution,

the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare testified:

[S]erious air pollution problems aris[e] from the ever-increasing use of motor vehicles, [and] our rising demands

for the energy derived from burning of sulfur-bearing fuels

*.. The national importance of resolving these problems is

beyond dispute. They are among the most significant factors in the growing and worsening air pollution problems

currently faced by thousands of American communities . ..
None of these problems is technologically insurmountable. Our current technical capacity for dealing with them

admittedly varies from one problem to another, but even

where our knowledge and skills are less refined than we

would wish, there exist at least partial solutions which we

would have a responsibility to evaluate as rapidly as possible and to apply where feasible. (Hearing of April 6, 1965,

page 22.)

This statement is still true today. Although some areas of the country have improved their air quality since 1965, a majority of Americans are still breathing air that does not meet the Federal healthbased air quality standards.

Our knowledge about the adverse effects of exposure to air pollution has increased since 1965. Researchers have demonstrated adverse effects at levels of exposure previously presumed to be safe.

Illnesses of no traumatic origin are now linked to air pollution. In

some areas, for example, residents who do not smoke may have

lungs as damaged as the lungs of heavy smokers, due to exposure

to air pollution.

Air pollution can silently damage our lungs and heart or act

swiftly in the case of exposure to toxic air pollutants. Rigorous regulation of toxic air pollutants is needed to avoid risk of serious, irreversible damage to human health.

We are routinely exposed to thousands of different air pollutants

emitted every day. Exposure to this mix of pollutants can produce

more adverse health effects than exposure to each of the individual

pollutants. These synergistic effects must be considered if we are to

adequately protect public health. In addition, there are many pathways of exposure to hazardous pollutants and contaminants. Exposure to polluted outdoor and indoor air, contaminated water and

soil can combine to produce greater risks than exposure through

only one source.

In testimony before the Subcommittee on Environmental Protection, public health leaders acknowledged the continuing health

threat posed by air pollution. The American Lung Association, the

American Public Health Association and the American Academy of

Pediatrics all testified that we are facing a public health crisis due

to air pollution. Reductions in emissions of sulfur dioxide and

oxides of nitrogen are warranted based on health considerations

alone. This conclusion does not address the myriad of other pollutants of concern. With regard to a graph of ozone pollution in the

Northeast States for 1987 and 1988, one researcher from the American Lung Association stated:

... Most States went up significantly between 1987 and

1988 and Massachusetts tripled its ozone violation days up

to 28 for that particular summer of 1988. Maine and New

Hampshire tripled their violation dates in one year. Vermont appears on the graph for the first time in 1988. I

consider this graph frightening, hair-raising, and truly a

crisis.

A Harvard researcher testified before the Subcommittee that "In

every epidemiologic investigation that we have performed over the
past 6 years, we have repeatedly found a 2 to 5 percent air pollu- tion effect on human mortality and morbidity. We find it very difficult to reject these consistent findings . . ." (June 17, 1987).

In a separate study, the past President of the American Public

Health Association found that ". . . air pollution is one of the

greatest risks to public health in the United States. Its causes, contributes to, or aggravates a long list of disease and dysfunction- chronic bronchitis, lung cancer, nervous disorders and heart disease. As many as 50,000 premature deaths may be caused by single air pollutants or a combination of pollutants.' He further clarified

his points by saying that "If further Congressional action, or voluntary action by polluters, is not taken to reduce human exposure to

a broad range of toxic air pollutants, then we can expect substantial increases in the incidence of air-pollution provoked disease,

dysfunction, and premature deaths. A two- to three-fold (at least)

incease, or 100,000 to 150,000 premature deaths per year would not

be an unrealistic estimate. It is in fact a most conservative estimate."

The health problem is serious and it is pervasive. There is no

choice but to breathe the air, whether it is clean or polluted. Air is

inhaled regardless of its quality. This is a national resource that

should be protected as our parks and national monuments are protected.

To protect this resource a strong national control strategy is

needed. Air pollution recognizes no State or international borders.

Aggressive controls in downwind areas will do little to improve air

quality if the quality of air entering the region is poor. Because

States have limited resources and many additional responsibilities, both the State and Federal Government should work together to

assure implementation of programs that improve air quality.

Recent History.-Since the enactment of the original Clean Air

Act and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, issues relating to

air quality continue to require Congressional action and concern.

Attainment of the health-based air quality standards has proven

more difficult than anticipated in the 1977 Amendments. Although

most areas of the country were to have attained the standards for

ozone and carbon monoxide by 1983, in 1989, over half of the popu- lation of the United States is still exposed to levels of air pollution

considered unhealthful by the Envronmental Protection Agency and medical researchers. New and disturbing evidence on the

health effects of ozone and carbon monoxide indicates that the current standards may not be adequate to protect the public health.

Very little has been done since the passage of the 1970 Act to

identify and control hazardous air pollutants. In the nineteen year

history of the Clean Air Act, just eight substances have been listed

as hazardous air pollutants: asbestos, beryllium, mercury, vinyl chloride, radionuclides, inorganic arsenic, benzene, and coke oven

emissions. NESHAPS (National Emission Standards for Hazardous

Air Pollutants) have been promulgated for sources of only seven of

these pollutants. Meanwhile the States collectively have regulated

over 700 hazardous air pollutants.

There is no credible dispute that acid rain is a major contributor

to the burden of ill health and environmental damage in the

United States. Reputable authorities, publishing their results in
peer-review scientific journals, have concluded that acid rain and

its precursors are responsible for between 50,000 and 70,000 premature deaths per year. In addition acid deposition is responsible for

massive damage to buildings and other man-made structures, poisoning lakes and stream to the extent that they no longer can support fish and other life, altering the chemical composition of soils

and upsetting the natural balance which enables their productive

use, and reducing visibility throughout the United States.

During the last decade, the Committee on Environment and

Public Works has reported legislation addressing all of these issues.

During the 1980's, the Committee continued its efforts to devise

legislation that would reduce acid precipitation levels, bring about

attainment of the air quality standards, and control toxic air pollutants. Bills were introduced and reported by the Committee to

the Senate three times, but none has been enacted.

In 1982, the Committee reported acid rain legislation by a vote of

15-1. The reported bill required an 8 million ton reduction in

sulfur dioxide by 1995. These reductions were required in a 31-

State region east of the Mississippi River.

In 1984, the Committee again reported acid rain legislation

which required a 10 million ton reduction in sulfur dixoide emissions by 1994. As in 1982, the reduction requirement affected only

the 31 States east of the Mississippi.

The last bill to be reported by the Committee was S. 1894 in November, 1987. The five title proposal contained provisions on ozone

and carbon monoxide nonattainment, acid rain and clean coal technology, mobile sorces, ambient air quality standards, hazardous air

pollutants and incinerator standards. The bill's acid title required a

national 12 million ton reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions by 1998. Despite efforts to develop an acceptable compromise, the

Senate did not act on comprehensive clean air legislation before

the 100th Congress adjourned in October of that year.

As with acid, rain, the Committee reported comprehensive legislation on nonattainment and air toxics in 1982, 1984 and 1987. In

November of 1982, after 27 hearings and 33 markups, the Committee reported S. 3041, the Clean Air Amendments of 1982.

In May of 1984 the Committee reported S. 768, the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1984. A total of nine days of hearings was held on

S. 768.

In November of 1987, the Committee reported S. 1894, the Clean

Air Standards Attainment Act of 1987, after 13 days of hearings

and 9 days of mark-up.

S. 1630, the Clean Air Amendments of 1989, reflects the advances

in our knowledge of the health effects, sources, and controls of air

pollution. It builds on over a decade of careful study and consideration of the air pollution problems facing the country. It incorporates new areas of concern, such as chlorofluorocarbons, whose

impact was virtually unknown a decade ago and which we now

know depletes the Earth's protective ozone layer. Its goal is to protect, as a national resources, the very air that all of us rely on for

our daily existence.
DISCUSSION OF PROVISIONS

TITLE I-ATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF AMBIENT AIR QUALITY

STANDARDS

INTRODUCTION

Background.-The goal of the Clean Air Act is to "protect and

enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources." The Act distinguishes between two types of air pollutants (causing death or serious illness at low levels) which are addressed in title III of the bill

and "criteria" pollutants (so-called because under section 108 of the

Act EPA must issue criteria documents identifying the effects of

each pollutant).

Criteria pollutants are defined as those pollutants that come

from numerous or diverse sources and whose presence "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare". Section 109 of the Act requires EPA to establish for each criteria pollutant a national ambient air quality standard that is a uniform,

nationwide standard.

As defined in the Act, "primary" ambient air quality standards

limit the maximum allowable concentration of each criteria pollutant to the level that "protects the public health" with an "adequate margin of safety", without regard to the economic or technical feasibility of attainment. This means identifying through research the lowest level at which health effects are observed and ap- plying a margin of safety to arrive at the ambient standard. Secondary standards are established to protest against adverse impacts on welfare, including impacts on visibility, vegetation, animals, wildlife, materials and property. The States, together with

EPA, are responsible for ensuring that the primary air quality

standards are met "as expeditiously as practicable", within the

deadlines specified in the Act. The secondary standards are to be

attained in a "reasonable" period of time.

The six criteria pollutants for which EPA has established ambient standards are ozone, lead, sulfur dioxide, particulates, nitrogen

dioxide, and carbon monoxide. Each ambient standard is based on

a detailed review of scientific information contained in the criteria

document that is prepared by EPA and expect advisers.

The lack of a program for regular reevaluation and revision of

the original ambient standards led Congress, in the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1977, to mandate that the standards be, and revised if appropriate, by December 31, 1980, and at five-year intervals thereafter.

Two standards were promulgated before the end of 1980. A new

standard was promulgated for airborne lead in 1978, and a revised
ozone standard was published in 1979. However, both of these actions were stimulated, at least in part, by court litigation. The hydrocarbon (HC) standard was dropped in 1983. In 1985 the 1972

standards for nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide were reaffirmed. A revised particulate matter standard was promulgated in

1987. Final actions on revisions of the 1971 standard for sulfur dioxide are still pending, as are revisions of the 1978 standard for

lead, and the 1979 standard for ozone. The Congressional mandate

to reissue or revise ambient standards by December 31, 1980, and

at five-year intervals thereafter is clearly not being met.

EPA has the authority to set ambient standards for additional

pollutants and is considering establishing a new standard for acid

aerosols. The Agency is currently in the process of preparing a criteria document on acid aerosols and estimates the process will take

five years to complete.

Health effects of ozone.-The adverse health effects of exposure

to ozone are well documented. Ozone is a strong oxidant :formed by

the interaction of hydrocarbons (also called volatile organic compounds, or VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NO.), and sunlight. Ozone

enters the body by way of the respiratory tract. Ninety percent of

the ozone inhaled into the lung is never exhaled. Instead the ozone

molecules react rapidly with the cells, fluids, and tissues that line

the respiratory tract, irritating and inflaming the lungs.

Ozone is fatal at high concentrations. At lower concentrations

found in many urban areas in the United States, extensive research has shown that healthy adults and children begin to exhibit

adverse health effects. These include chest pains, shortness of

breath, coughing, nausea, throat irritation, and increased susceptibility to respiratory infections.

Potentially more troubling and less well understood are the effects of long-term chronic exposure to summertime ozone concentrations found in many cities. Regular out-of-doors work or. play

during the hot, sunny summer months in the more polluted cities

may cause biochemical and structural changes in the lung, paving

the way for chronic respiratory diseases. A growing body of scientific evidence indicates that over the long term, chronic exposure to

ozone may produce any accelerated aging of the lung analogous to

that produced by cigarette smoke exposure. Ultimately, emphysema may result.

New evidence is also accumulating that the current ozone standard may not be sufficiently protective of public health. In one important test recently performed at EPA's research laboratory, 22

healthy individuals were exposed to 0.08 parts per million ozone for

6.6 hours, including five hours of moderate exercise. Respiratory

function decreased with each succeeding hour of exposure. At the

end of the exposure, it decreased by an average of seven percent,

with one individual having a 26 percent reduction..

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed and its

Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee has agreed, that the decreases in respiratory functions become adverse when the magnitude of the change exceeds ten percent. In EPA's study, seven of

the 22 individuals crossed this threshold. EPA's results may indicate that the current air quality standard for ozone does not pro-
tect public health with the adequate margin of safety required by

the Act.

EPA is currently in the process of revising the criteria documents for ozone based on this and other existing data. The adequacy of the one-hour standard and the need for a longer-term standard (six-to eight-hour time average) has been called into question.

EPA anticipates it will take approximately two more years to resolve this issue.

The people most likely to be injured from exposure to ozone include the elderly, people with preexisting respiratory problems,

children (who have a faster respiration rate and are thus more exposed), and approximately 20 percent of the population, called "responders," that has a markedly strong and unpredictable adverse

reaction to ozone. The American Lung Association estimated that

over 28 million pre-adolescent children, 17 million elderly, 6 million asthmatics, and 7 million persons with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease live in ozone nonattainment areas.

Health effects of carbon monoxide.-Exposure to carbon monoxide produces adverse health effects because carbon monoxide is

more readily absorbed into the blood than is oxygen. As carbon

monoxide displaces oxygen, bodily functions which depend on

oxygen are threatened. This means that brain and fetal functions

are particularly at risk.

At high CO levels death by asphyxiation results. At lower levels

carbon monoxide pollution is especially harmful to fetuses and persons with heart disease. The fetal brain has high oxygen requirements. Health studies conducted on animals suggest that even

modest levels of carbon monoxide pollution pose risks to fetal brain

development and possible irreversible neural damages. The American Lung Association estimates that over 1.4 million pregnant

women live in areas which have failed to attain the carbon monoxide standards.

Persons with heart disease are also susceptible to carbon monoxide pollution. A heart already weakened by pulmonary disease is

particularly sensitive to the displacement of oxygen from the bloodstream by carbon monoxide because the circulatory system has limited capacity to transport oxygen throughout the body.

Healthy people may also suffer adverse effects from modest

carbon monoxide exposure. As oxygen levels in the bloodstream decline and carbon monoxide levels rise, persons may suffer reduced

aerobic capacity. As oxygen levels in the brain are reduced, individuals may experience loss of visual perception, manual dexterity,

and cognitive functions.

Those particularly at risk with respect to carbon monoxide exposure are the elderly, fetuses, children, and those with existing

heart disease.

Health effects of particulate matter.-High levels of small particulate matter (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter,

called PM-10) can produce a range of effects from temporary reductions of lung function- and increased respiratory symptoms to

aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease,

cancer, and even premature death.

Certain types of PM-10 pose special health risks. One especially

dangerous component of PM-10 is the carbon-based particles that
result from incomplete combustion of fuel in diesel engines. EPA

has concluded that these particulates, which are emitted in the exhaust of diesel trucks, buses, and other vehicles, may cause as

many as 860 cancer cases annually. Particulates from wood stoves

have similar hazardous characteristics.

Sulfates and nitrates, also called acid aerosols, are another dangerous type of particulates. These particulates are formed from

emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Acid aerosols can

sear sensitive lung tissues when inhaled. According to the Office of

Technology Assessment, they could cause thousands of excess

deaths each year. Even small dust particles can be hazardous, because they build up in the lungs over time and impair breathing

capacity.

Children are especially vulnerable to PM-10 due to their higher

respiratory rates and small lungs. A recent study in Utah found

that hospital admissions for children with respiratory disease

(pneumonia, pleurisy, and bronchitis) were three times higher than

normal during months in which the Federal PM-10 standards were

exceeded. Other vulnerable populations include the elderly, asthmatics, and victims of respiratory disease.

Health care costs.-The American Lung Association estimates

that people in the United States spend $40 billion per year in additional health care costs due to exposure to air pollution. A study by

the University of California released in July 1989 showed that in

Southern California alone, decreased air pollution would save

nearly $10 billion in annual health care costs. The study estimated

that the health-care costs savings from Southern California's plan

to meet the Federal air quality standards by the year 2003 would

more than offset the plan's estimated $2.79 billion in pollution controls.

Welfare costs.-In addition, there are environmental and welfare

effects of air pollution. Ozone pollution has been shown to cause extensive damage to many types of vegetation. EPA estimates that

ozone pollution levels common in many areas can reduce tomato

yields by 33 percent, beans by 26 percent, and soybeans by 20 percent. Other studies have shown that ozone levels below the Federal

standard can cause wheat yields to drop by 30 percent.

According to the World Resources Institute, if ozone levels in agricultural regions were halved, the annual cost savings in crop loss

would be on the order of $5.3 billion. U.S. wheat production would

be boosted by $650 million (in 1987 dollars), soybean production by

$3.4 billion, corn production by $880 million, and peanut production by $370 million. EPA has concluded that ozone causes annual

crop losses of $2 to $3 billion per year.

Forests can also be damaged by this pollutant, but the damage to

forests has not been quantified. Qualitatively, extensive damage

and mortality from ozone have been demonstrated among pines in

California and in the eastern United States. On high-elevation

mountains in New England, most red spruce that showed significant needle loss in 1982 have since died. Fully 20 percent of the

spruce alive in 1982 are now dead-a mortality rate eight times

that at lower elevations. The stunted growth and 77 percent increase in mortality now showing up in commercial yellow pines in

the Southeast may also reflect ozone air pollution at work.
Although quantification of these damages is more difficult than

ascertaining the costs of pollution control equipment, billions of

dollars each year would be saved from better protection of valued

resources from ozone-induced damage, alone.

PM-10 pollution, especially PM-10 pollution less than 2.5 microns in diameter, impairs visibility. The National Park Service,

for example, has reported that particulate pollution, especially fine

sulfate particles, impairs scenic vistas within the national park

system 90 percent of the time. PM-10 also soils materials and

building surfaces. According to an EPA estimate, the damage is approximately $1 to $2 billion annually.

Clean Air Act history.-The 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments established a partnership between the States and Federal

government. EPA sets nationally uniform air quality standards

and States, with the Agency's assistance, are responsible for meeting them. The requirement that the States develop State implementation plans (SIPs) and submit them to EPA for review allows

for Federal oversight of the States' efforts to achieve and maintain

the required level of air quality. In addition to the SIP process, the

1970 Clean Air Act established two mandatory control programs,

one applying to new motor vehicles and the other to new stationary sources. EPA was responsible for setting standards for new

motor vehicles. EPA also issues regulations for new stationary

sources, called new source performance standards. The 1977

Amendments added three additional control programs, mandating

ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas to require retrofit

controls on existing stationary sources, more stringent emissions

limits on new stationary sources, and motor vehicle inspection and

maintenance programs.

Primary and secondary standards for oxidants were first set by

EPA in 1971. (Photochemical oxidants are a group of chemically related pollutants. From the standpoint of health and welfare effects,

ozone is the most important of these pollutants.) In 1979 EPA revised the standard from total oxidants to the current definition of

ozone only. Both the primary and secondary standards for ozone

are currently defined as a daily maximum, one-hour average concentration of 0.12 parts per million (ppm), not to be exceeded more

than once per year, on average. Areas exceeding this threshold are

classified as nonattainment areas. EPA updates the nonattainment

list annually, as data become available.

Identical primary and secondary standards for carbon monoxide

(CO) were set in 1971 at levels of 9 ppm, 8-hour average, and 35

ppm, 1-hour average, neither to be exceeded more than once per

year. These standards have been reviewed periodically by EPA and

remain in place today.

In July 1987, EPA promulgated a modified ambient standard for

particulate matter shifting the base for measurement from total

suspended particulates (TSP) to particulates that are smaller than

or equal to ten micrometers in size. This new standard is called

PM-10 and replaces the old TSP standard. The modification was

made as recent health effects documented that it is the smaller

particulates, inhaled deeply into the lungs, that cause the primary

threat to public health. Measurements of TSP could not reliably

capture the extent of this threat, since larger particles have been
the overwhelming portion of measured TSP (not the smaller particles capable of penetrating so deeply into lung tissue).

The smaller particles that are 10 micrometers or smaller are

more likely to cause most of the adverse health effects because of

their ability to reach the thoracic or lower regions of the respiratory tract. (One micrometer is one-millionth of a meter, or 1/25,000

of an inch. For comparison, the thickness of a human air is 100-200

micrometers.)

The revised PM-10 measurement establishes a 24 hour primary

(health based) and secondary standard limit of 150 micrograms of

PM-10 per cubic meter of air. In addition, an annual standard was

set at 50 micrograms per public meter. The Agency concluded that

these standards will protect the public health with an adequate

margin of safety.

At the time the new PM-10 standard was established, 97 counties (or parts of counties) in the nation were not meeting the primary TSP standards and had been designated as nonattainment.

Construction bans on new or modified major sources of TSP had

been in place in some of these areas since 1979. EPA lifted those

bans with the promulgation of the new PM-10 standard.

While accurate monitoring data is limited (due primarily to limited Agency and State resources), PM-10 pollution is pervasive.

EPA has developed an analysis that classifies all counties into

three groups based on their probability of not attaining the revised

PM-10 standard. The first group includes, those with a very high

probability of not immediately attaining the new standard (roughly

seventy counties). A second group contains 110 areas where existing air quality data are not sufficient to determine if they are attaining but there is some possibility that they will not reach attainment without additional control measures. The third groups contains the remaining 3,000 counties which the Agency estimates

should be in attainment and will not require additional control efforts.

In the Clean Air Act of 1970, Congress set 1975 as the deadline

for meeting the primary air quality standards. The States were required to develop State implementation plans that would estimate

the emissions reductions required to attain the ambient standards

and establish the control programs to achieve the required reductions. In addition, section 111 of the Act required EPA to promulgate new source performance standards (NSPS) for new or modified

stationary sources. To enforce the NSPS, the States were required

to include construction permit programs in their SIPs.

By 1977, two years after the original deadline, 78 areas were still

violating the ozone standard then in place (no more than one exceedance per year of a one-hour average oxidant concentration of

0.08 ppm). In 1977, the deadline for meeting the ozone and CO

standard was moved back to 1982. Areas could show they could not

meet the 1982 deadline were able to obtain an extension until 1987.

Responding to the failure to meet the goals of the 1970 Clean Air

Act, the 1977 Amendments included a new and more aggressive

control program. New SIPs were to be developed and submitted to

EPA in 1979, and again in 1982, for areas seeking extensions of the

attainment deadlines to 1987. A new schedule was established for

limiting emissions from new motor vehicles. Existing stationary
sources in nonattainment areas would have to retrofit with reasonably available emission controls. A new source could be constructed

in a nonattainment area only if it would operate at the "lowest

achievable emissions rate" and if emissions reductions could be obtained from other sources to offset the emissions from the proposed

source. Transportation control measures would have to be considered. Severe nonattainment areas would have to implement automobile emissions inspection and maintenance programs.

In 1989, two years past the final deadline in the 1977 Amendments for all areas of the country to attain the CO and ozone

health standards, 150 million people still live in areas which exceed

one or both of those standards. The reasons for the failure to

achieve healthy air are many. Among them are the understatement of emissions in inventories submitted by the States and approved by EPA; inadequacies in models used to predict ambient air

quality; failure of States to implement some of the controls they

had committed to in their SIPs; failure of some of the controls to

achieve the projected emission reductions; and failure of EPA or

the States to require additional controls when it became evident

that the attainment deadlines would not be met.

The responsibility for the widespread failure to meet the ambient

standards rests with both States (and local governments) and EPA.

Predicting future air quality based on assumed control programs is

a complicated undertaking that is susceptible to "paper" demonstrations of attainment that bear little relation to the likelihood of

actual attainment. States had the responsibility to use the best

data and analytical methods available in preparing emissions inventories and conducting modeling, and EPA had the responsibility

for providing guidance of what constituted the best methods and

carefully scrutinizing State submissions to assure that assumptions

and analyses were consistent with the guidance.

In a January 1988 report the General Accounting Office (GAO)

found in the three areas it studied-Houston, Los Angeles, and

Charlotte, North Carolina-that assumptions used in models and

inaccuracies in data exacerbated the uncertainties normally associated with models. This led to understating inventories of emissions

and therefore the amount of emissions reductions needed to bring

the areas into attainment. Both the States involved and EPA bear

responsibility for these miscalculations.

In several areas controls that were included in a SIP were not

implemented. For example, in New York and New Jersey Stage II

programs that were called for in the SIPs were not implemented

until courts (not EPA) ordered the States to fulfill the SIP commitments. An American Lung Association analysis conducted in 1986

found that in Los Angeles only three of 31 transportation and

energy measures had been completed on schedule.

In some cases where control measures were implemented, they

proved less effective than predicted, often because of lax enforcement. For example, the GAO study reported that EPA identified 13

plants in the Charlotte area in 1985 that were emitting more VOCs

than regulations allowed. EPA also found that the county had

granted variances to some operations without EPA approval.

Even when EPA identified problems in areas it often did little to

require remedial action. For example, EPA discovered in 1985 that
Houston's demonstration of hydrocarbon emissions reductions

needed for attainment was based on a faulty ratio of NOx to hydrocarbon emissions in the area. Rather than a 41 percent reduction,

the new data showed that Houston needed a 71 percent reduction

in hydrocarbons. EPA took no action to require Houston to revise

its SIP, however, and instead waited to deal with the deficiencies in

its generic nonattainment policy that was proposed in November of

1987.

Lack of resources at the Federal, State and local level has severely hampered implementation of the Act's requirements. During the

decade of the 1980's, while the demands on EPA grew, appropriated funds for the air pollution program, as for other EPA programs, decreased both in nominal and real terms. States, which are

required by the Act to impose permit fees to cover the costs of administering and enforcing permit programs, in many instances

have not complied. Lack of resources led to preparation of inadequate and incomplete inventories, use of less costly-and less accurate-models, less frequent review and updating of inventories

and other data on which control strategies are based, inadequate

enforcement programs, and, at the Federal level, woefully inadequate oversight of, and technical assistance to, the States.

Lack of political will at all levels of government to implement

difficult measures has also meant slower progress toward the attainment of healthy air. This is most clearly seen with respect to

measures to reduce vehicle use in heavily polluted and heavily congested areas. The largest number of SIP provisions that were submitted and approved but that have not been implemented are provisions that call for transportation control measures. EPA's Office

of Transportation and Land Use Policy was eliminated in 1982, and

with its demise came the elimination of the requirement for States

to report on the effectiveness of control measures and the ability of

EPA to evaluate these measures. Federal transportation dollars

have continued to finance programs and projects that have not

been sufficiently reviewed for their potential adverse effects on air

quality.

The nonattainment policy proposed by EPA in 1987 attempted to

address many of the problems illustrated above, primarily by requiring better data and analyses to be used in SIP revisions, inclusion of milestones or interim measures of progress during the

period before attainment, and better tracking and reporting of

progress. EPA has not published a final policy, but many of the

proposals were incorporated in legislation submitted to Congress by

the President.

Nonattainment provisions of the bilL-The nonattainment provisions of the bill are based on more than 17 years of experience in

trying to attain healthy air in all areas of the nation. The deadlines in the bill for attainment are realistic, with the ozone deadlines being the longest in recognition of the complexity of the ozone

pollution problem. The emphasis in the bill, however, is not on the

deadlines but on what happens in the period before deadlines. The

concept of reasonable further progress, which is in the current Act,

is amplified by requiring specific incremental progress over defined

periods for each of the pollutants addressed: ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter (PM-10). Remedial steps are mandated
if an area fails to meet these periodic milestones. The bill also requires periodic updates of inventories and establishes regular reporting requirements for the States and explicit data that must be

prepared by the States and reviewed by EPA.

The bill imposes emissions fees on stationary sources and registration fees for vehicles in order to provide State and local agencies

the resources, from polluters, to conduct effective air pollution control programs, including complying with the more explicit requirements of the bill. Stationary source fees will also provide EPA with

additional resources.

Motor vehicles are the single largest source of ozone and carbon

monoxide pollution. Title II of the bill addresses emissions that

result from the operation of vehicles, but that, alone, is not enough.

Pollution can also be reduced if fewer vehicle trips take place in

polluted and congested urban and suburban areas. Title I contains

several provisions to encourage State and local governments, employers and drivers to plan ahead to reduce vehicle use while maintaining-and in some cases where congestion is a serious problem

actually enhancing-mobility.

The bill reflects an increasing understanding of how ozone pollution is formed and transported. Because ozone is not a local phenomenon but is formed and transported over hundreds of miles and

several days, localized control strategies will not be effective in reducing ozone levels. The bill, thus, expands the size of areas that

are defined as ozone nonattainment areas to assure that controls

are implemented in an area wide enough to address the problem.

For the northeastern United States, the bill establishes an ozone

transport region and requires that sources of ozone-forming pollutants throughout the region-whether the sources are in attainment

or nonattainment areas-install certain controls.

The bill also requires control of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) as a

means of reducing ozone levels. While there remain uncertainties

about the localized effect of NOx reductions on ozone levels, it is

generally accepted that overall levels of ozone are more effectively

reduced by reducing both NOx and volatile organic compound

(VOC) emissions than by reducing VOCs, alone. Oxides of nitrogen

also contribute to PM-10 levels and are a precursor of acid rain.

In summary, the nonattainment provisions of the bill are designed to bring about emissions reductions from all the major

sources that contribute to ozone CO, and PM-10 pollution, to require regular and monitored progress toward attainment, and to

assure that where progress is not what was predicted or needed to

attain the standards, additional steps are taken to keep an area on

the path to attainment by the required deadline.

DESIGNATION OF AREAS (SECTION 101)

SUMMARY

The bill amends section 107 of the Clean Air Act as follows:

A revised section 107(f)(1) of the Act requires that within six

months of issuing a new or revised ambient air quality standard,

the Administrator must designate all areas of the country as either

attainment, nonattainment or unclassifiable. An area that either

does not meet the standard or contributes pollution to another area
that does not meet the standard is to be designated nonattainment.

An area that meets the standard and does not contribute to another area that exceeds the standard is to be designated attainment. An area that cannot be classified on the basis of available

information as meeting the standard is to be designated unclassifiable.

Revised section 107(f)(3) of the Act designated any area that did

not meet the primary ambient air quality standard for ozone or

carbon monoxide as of the last calendar year before the date of enactment of the bill as nonattainment. Revised section 107(f)(4) designates each area that was identified by EPA as a Group I area in

the August 7, 1987, promulgation of the revised particulate standard (PM-10) or which contains a site for which monitoring data

shows a violation of the air quality standard for PM-10 before the

date of enactment as nonattainment.

Revised section 107(d)(5) of the Act provides that areas may be

redesignated by the Administrator upon the request of the Governor of a State or on the Administrator's own motion. The Adminis

trator must act to redesignate an area not currently designated as

nonattainment as a nonattainment area within one hundred eighty

days of receiving evidence that the area exceeds the national ambient air quality standard for any pollutant. In order to redesignate

an area from nonattainment to attainment, the Administrator

must promulgate the redesignation by rule, must determine that

the area has attained the air quality standard and that attainment

is due to permanent reductions in emissions, must have approved a

maintenance plan, and determine that the State containing the

area has met requirements of the Act applicable to the area. The

Administrator may not redesignate an area from nonattainment to

unclassified.

New paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 107(d) of the Act provide

that the boundaries of an area that is designated nonattainment

for ozone and that is located within a metropolitan statistical area

(MSA) or a consolidated metropolitan statistical area (CMSA) are

the boundaries of the MSA or CMSA, unless the State demonstrates that some portion of the MSA or CMSA does not contribute

to violations of the air quality standard and that there is a geographical basis for excluding the portion. With respect to a serious

carbon monoxide area, the Administrator may, by rule, include the

entire MSA or CMSA in the nonattainment area.

DISCUSSION

This section of the bill restructures and clarifies the process for

designating and redesignating areas of the country depending on

their emissions and ambient air quality. The bill gives significant

authority to the Administrator in order to overcome the deficiencies in current law that have failed to allow the Administrator to

respond to new information about pollution levels and control

needs.

Existing law, as interpreted by EPA, precludes the Administrator from issuing new designations or revising existing ones when

an ambient standard is revised, as occurred with the promulgation

in 1987 of the ambient standard for PM-10. Current law is also
read to prohibit new or revised designations unless requests have

been received by EPA from a State, see, e.g., Bethlehem Steel v.

EPA, 728 F. 2d 1303 (7th Cir. 1983). Questions have also arisen

about EPA's authority to define broad nonattainment boundaries,

Illinois State Chamber of Commerce v. EPA, 775 F. 2d 1141 (7th

Cir. 1985).

The bill requires the Administrator to designate the status of all

areas within six months of the date a new ambient standard is promulgated or an existing standard is revised. An additional six

months is available if sufficient information is not available to

make the designations by the first deadline. EPA may rely for

these designations on sound data that is available, preferably air

quality monitoring data, but in some cases where appropriate and

necessary, the Agency may rely on modeling or on statistical extrapolation from monitored concentrations of another pollutant.

The Administrator is given broad discretion to determine the

boundaries of the designated areas based on air quality, planning

and control considerations, and other appropriate considerations.

The bill explicitly provides that EPA may include within the

boundary an area that may cause or contribute to nonattainment

in another area, regardless of whether pollutant concentrations in

the first area exceed the standard.

The bill by operation of law designates areas as ozone or carbon

monoxide (CO) nonattainment areas if they did not meet the primary standard for these pollutants (or other) as of the last calendar year before the date of enactment. The Environmental Protection Agency's current methods for determining attainment status

with respect to these pollutants are to be the basis for determining

whether an area met the standard as of the applicable date. For

example, for ozone areas this would involve the most recent three

years of data. And for CO, this means use of the most recent two

years of data.

The bill specifies by operation of law, that minimum boundaries

for any zone nonattainment area that is located in a metropolitan

statistical area (MSA) or consolidated metropolitan statistical area

(CMSA) are the boundaries of the MSA or CMSA. If, for clear geographic reasons such as a mountain range that runs through a

CMSA or MSA, emissions from an attaining portion of the area do

not cause or contribute to air pollution in a nonattaining portion,

the Administrator may approve a State's request to exclude the attaining portion from the nonattainment area.

The bill authorizes the Administrator to redesignate an area at

any time, on the Administrator's own motion or on petition from a

State, based on air quality, planning and control, and other appropriate considerations. This provision makes clear that the Administrator does not have to wait for a request from a State before

making a redesignation. As under current law, the submission of a

redesignation petition by a State has no effect on the SIP requirements for the area for which the redesignation is requested, notwithstanding allegations which have been presented in counterclaims to Agency enforcement actions that the pendency of a State

request for a redesignation to attainment is sufficient to render the

current SIP unenforceable unless and until EPA denies the request.
The Administrator may redesignate an area from nonattainment

to attainment only by rule after determining that the area has met

all the requirements applicable to it under part D and section 110

of the Act, including implementation of all stationary and mobile

source controls specified in the Act. As a condition for redesignation, the Administrator must determine that improvement in air

quality is due to permanent reductions in emissions, which means

that control requirements that are in place at the time the redesignation is sought must remain in effect after redesignation. The bill

also requires the Administrator to determine that the maintenance

plan required as a condition of redesignation assures that emissions levels will not rise so as to cuse exceedances of the applicable

standard.

ENHANCED MONITORING AND INVENTORIES (SECTION 102)

SUMMARY

Within six months of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1989, the Administrator must publish guidance on improved air quality monitoring an preparation of emissions inventories for use by the States.

DISCUSSION

Monitoring. -Ozone and carbon monoxide (CO) monitoring networks have been relatively stable since the last major round of

State implementation plan revisions in 1982. Nationally, ozone

monitoring has grown from 610 monitors nationwide in 1982 to 630

at present, while CO monitors increased from 440 to 460. The current network leaves unanswered several important questions about

these pollutants and the most effective ways to reduce ambient

levels. In addition, the PM-10 network, being a relatively new program, will need careful scrutiny as it matures. The guidance required to be issued by the Administrator should address some specific issues with respect to each of these pollutants.

For ozone, there is a need for enhanced ozone monitoring in

rural areas since rural areas are not adequately covered or characterized by existing ozone monitoring networks. The downwind area

affected by ozone transport often extends far past the coverage of

current monitoring systems. Since neither the concentrations nor

the extent of the ozone problem in non-urban areas are fully understood, the rural population may be exposed to high ozone levels

caused by this pervasive urban problem. Additionally, detrimental

effects on agriculture and forestry have been documented in recent

research and point to the need for expanding the area coverage of

the ozone networks.

Also, the complex mechanisms for ozone formation and the

sources of ozone precursors and their interactions remain somewhat unclear. These uncertainties suggest that if realistic, economic, and effective control strategies are to be developed, the establishment of comprehensive ozone precursor (volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides) monitoring in nonattainment

areas is needed. This precursor monitoring should include systems

for both biogenic and anthropogenic VOCs. Nonmethane organic
compound (NMOC) monitoring should be instituted to track and

corroborate VOC emission reductions that are assumed or projected

in SIPs, to identify VOC species that may be having a significant

effect on the ozone problem, and to verify and corroborate emission

inventories.

For carbon monoxide, an effort to review the adequacy of existing CO networks for charaterizing the spatial distribution of the

CO problem and whether an area is attainment or nonattainment

must be initiated. To properly site and evaluate networks, define

critical areas of impact, and to corroborate attainment/nonattainment decision, the use of inexpensive, portable, saturation monitoring techniques is needed. With constantly increasing vehicle miles

traveled in the United States, there is a need for increased deployment of CO monitors and increased oversight of CO monitoring

networks to ensure their adequacy.

In addition to the evaluation of the adequacy of the PM-10 network and its sites, such monitoring should be enhanced for areas

experiencing ambient concentrations from nontraditional sources

such as residential wood combustion, agricultural tilling and diesel

particulates.

Inventories. -Emissions inventories for ozone and CO are generally acknowledged to have major deficiencies which have contributed significantly to undercontrol of emissions and the lack of

progress in many urban areas in attaining the ambient standards

for these pollutants.

The overriding major deficiency is the generally inadequate resources and staffing devoted to emission inventory development

programs at the State and local levels, as well as by EPA of the

Federal level. More specifically, major deficiencies include the following:

-Inadequate quality assurance programs and national oversight by EPA to assure acceptable quality and consistency of

these inventories, including lack of comprehensive and prescriptive guidance on how to develop these inventories and

absence of consistent review procedures that would assure

that requirements are being adhered to.

-Lack of completeness in inventories. Area source inventories

for small, but ubiquitious sources, for example, consumer solvents, were not compiled in many areas. Also, newly identified significant sources were not included.

-Lack of periodic inventory updating that would allow credible tracking of reasonable further progress.

To assure that future ozone and CO SIPs are based on inventories that are complete, current and accurate, the bill provides for

substantial increases in funding (sections 106, 107, 108 and 109) to

carry out improvements through emission fees that will provide resources at all levels of government.

The greatest deficiency in current efforts to develop good PM-10

inventories is the incomplete set of emission factors needed to estimate emissions from point sources and, more importantly, from

area sources-mostly fugitive dust sources-that are dominant in

arid areas of the western United States. To develop these emission

factors, field testing needs to be conducted. Some field testing and

engineering efforts also need to be devoted to developing reliable
control efficiency information relative to control of PM-10 for

many of the control devices and practices that have been used to

control total particulate matter. Presently, rough default approximations of PM-10 control efficiencies are being used in estimating

PM-10 emissions from controlled sources.

Area source emissions estimating procedures for PM-10 also provide only rough approximations of PM-10 emissions and need improvement that will take several years to achieve. Area source procedures apply, for example, to paved and unpaved road dust reentrainment, storage piles, construction activities, residential wood

burning, road salting and sanding.

The bill, in this section and section 109 (pertaining to PM-10), requires the Administrator to publish guidance to address the deficiencies enumerated.

TRANSPORTATION GUIDANCE (SECTION 103)

SUMMARY

The bill amends section 108(e) of the Act and requires the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation

and State and local officials, to revise the Transportation-Air Quality Planning Guidelines issued in 1987. The Administrator is also

required, by an amendment to section 108(f) of the Act, to publish

updated information on a specified list of transportation control

measures, including information on the emissions reductions potentials of each measure.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of the amendment to section 108(e) is to provide updated guidance to State and local officials on how best to coordinate air quality and transportation planning in an area.

The purpose of the amendment to section 108(f) is to require the

Administrator to take a strong role in providing assistance to State

and local agencies regarding transportation control measures.

States containing areas classified as severe or extreme for ozone

and serious for carbon monoxide will be required to consider these

measures as part of their State implementation plan. The intent of

revisions of section 108(f) is to give States the information they will

need to implement measures that have the potential of decreasing

emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or improving

traffic flow.

Transportation control measures are needed because the VMT

nationwide is projected to increase by 2 to 3 percent per year from

now through 2005, resulting in a cumulative increase of about 40 to

60 percent, according to the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Average nationwide motor vehicle exhaust emissions are

projected to decline through the late 1990s as an increasing percentage of vehicles on the road meet new standards, but to rise

after that due to the increase in VMT.

Because of these projected emission trends, in many nonattainment areas it will be necessary to implement transportation control measures which can bring about reductions in future VMT

growth, but at the same time provide enhanced mobility to serve
increasing travel demands. The intention of the requirements in

the bill related to transportation planning and control measures is

to direct air quality and transportation planning toward optimum

use of all potential alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle,

ranging from highway facilities dedicated to moving high occupancy vehicles, to providing carpool, vanpool services and improved

public transit.

The 1977 Amendments to the Act required areas that would not

be able to meet the ozone or carbon monoxide standards by 1982 to

implement transportation control measures (TCNs) as necessary to

attain the standards, and some areas included these measures in

their State implementation plans. However, OTA reports that the

effect of these measures has not been evaluated at the Federal

level because EPA's Office of Transportation and Land Use Policy

was eliminated in 1982 and EPA has not required any reporting

from the states.

In contrast, the South Coast Air Quality Management District

and the Southern California Association of Governments completed

in 1987-8 an assessment of the effectiveness of TCMs for the Los

Angeles area. The study concluded that implementation of a wide

range of TCMs would reduce highway vehicle VOC emissions by a

total of 30 percent by 2010, compared to levels projected without

TCMs. Total reductions in highway vehicle emissions of NO,

carbon monoxide and particulate matter based on the TCM measures are also expected to be about 30 percent, compared to emissions levels projected for 2010 without the measures.

These studies indicate that in order to reduce or even avoid increases in vehicle pollution, it is not enought to control the pollution each car emits; the use of the car must be examined as well

because growth in VMT threatens to overwhelm what can be

achieved through tailpipe standards. These provisions, coupled with

others in the bill, give EPA and the States the power to pursue a

wide range of transportation demand management efforts.

GENERAL PLANNING REQUIREMENTS (SECTION 104)

SUMMARY

This section of the bill makes numerous revisions to section 110

of the Clean Air Act, many of which are technical, to eliminate

outdated material. Substantive changes include the following:

States must submit State Department implementation plans

(SIPS) within no more than 24 months after the promulgation of a

national ambient air quality standard, rather than within nine

months as in existing law.

Areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for a pollutant

may be required by the Administrator to submit a SIP that shows

how the area will maintain compliance with the ambient air quality standard for a 20-year period. States required to submit maintenance plans must update them every ten years. Any attainment or

unclassified area that contains all or part of on MSA or CMSA

must submit maintenance plans to the Administrator.

Provisions in existing law requiring SIPs to take into account the

effect of emissions on other States are strengthened.
The bill requires the Administrator to issue minimum criteria

that any SIP submission must meet and sets up timetables and procedures for EPA to determine whether or not to approve a SIP.

If a State fails to submit an appropriate SIP within two years

after being sanctioned for failure to submit such a plan, as required by subpart D of the Act, the Administrator must promulgate a Federal implementation plan. The initial Federal plan must

require reductions in emissions but does not have to provide for attainment. Within three years after proposal of the initial plan, the

Federal plan must be revised to so provide.

The bill makes clear that provisions of an approved SIP stay in

effect and are enforceable until a revision is approved by the Administrator.

DISCUSSION

Submission and review of plans. -Experience since passage of the

Clean Air Amendments of 1970 has shown that nine months is not

adequate time for States to prepare and submit implementation

plans for new or revised ambient air quality standards. The bill extends the period to twenty-four months. This period applies to submission of maintenance plans, which are required for every MSA

or CMSA that is contained in or contains an area designated attainment or unclassified with respect to a criteria pollutant, and to

plans for every area designated nonattainment for any such pollutant, as well as to any other area the Administrator determines

must submit a SIP.

Revisions to section 110(a)(2).-The bill replaces provisions currently in section 110(a)(2) of the Act with provisions that appear in

paragraphs (1)-(12) of rewritten section 110(c) of the Act. The

changes are as follows:

Paragraph (1) of rewritten section 110(c) combines and streamlines existing section 110(a)(2)(B) and the enforceability requirement of section 172(c) of current law.

Paragraph (2) rewrites existing section 110(a)(2)(C).

Paragraph (3) rewrites and streamlines current section

110(a)(2)(D), deleting the reference in that section to the preconstruction review program in section 110(a)(4) of existing law.

Paragraph (4) is described below in the interstate pollution discussion.

Paragraph (5) rewrites and expands current sections

110(a)(2)(F)(i) and (vi). The new provision requires that where a

local authority, to which a State has granted authority to implement a SIP, fails to do so, the State will have the means and authority to implement the plan. EPA can hold the State responsible

for any implementation failure caused by local action or inaction,

or choose to exercise its existing authority to implement the SIP

itself or act directly against the local authority. In addition, the

State is required to manage and keep up-to-date information on implementation by local authorities so that EPA only has to rely on

the State agency when it wishes to track implementation of measures throughout the State.

Paragraph (6) incorporates and expands current section

110(a)(2)(F)(ii)-(iv).
Paragraph (7) rewrites current section 110(a)(2)(F)(v).

Paragraph (8) rewrites current section 1 l0(a)(2)(H).

Paragraph (9) replaces current section 110(a)(2)(I) with a simple

cross-reference to part D, deleting the construction ban in the existing section. Revised construction ban provisions appear elsewhere

in the bill in revisions to part D.

Paragraph (10) rewrites current section 110(a)(2)(J).

Paragraph (11) adds a new provision to the Act requiring air

quality modeling as prescribed by the Adminstrator to ensure that

States perform the technical work necessary to provide the basis

for pollution control strategies.

Paragraph (12) rewrites current section 110(a)(2)(K) with minor

revisions to be consistent with new permit fee requirements in

titles I and V.

SIP provisions addressing interstate pollution. -Section

1l0(a)(2)(E) of the Act is replaced by new section 110(c)(4), which,

together with changes made to section 126 of the Act by section 110

of the bill, improve the effectiveness of the Act as a means of dealing with interstate air pollution. Where prohibitions in existing

section 110(a)(2)(E) apply only to emissions from a single source, the

amendment includes "any other type of emissions activity," which

makes the provision effective in prohibiting emissions from, for example, multiple sources, mobile sources, and area sources.

For interstate pollution to violate current law, it must "prevent

attainment." Since it may be impossible to say that any single

source or group of sources is the one which actually prevents attainment, the bill changes "prevent attainment or maintenance" to "contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance by," thus clarifying when a violation occurs.

Under existing section 110(a)(2)(E), interstate pollution that is to

be prohibited under a SIP is that which leads to a violation of the

Act's specifically protected interests-attainment of the ambient

standards, prevention of significant deterioration, or visibility.

There are many legitimate State interests that are not spelled out

and explicitly protected by the Act, for example, the effect of toxic

pollutants on health or the environment. The amendment in new

section 110(c)(4) makes an injury to interests that may be identified

by States but that are not explicitly listed in the statute-described

as "an adverse effect on public health or welfare or the environment"-a violation of the Act.

EPA action on plan submissions.-The Environmental Protection

Agency reports that in recent years a substantial number of SIP

submissions have been incomplete or so deficient that they have

not warranted further review. Newly rewritten section 110(d)(1) of

the Act requires EPA to issue minimum completeness criteria that

any SIP submission must meet and provides that the Agency need

not review submissions that fail to meet the criteria. Where the

Administrator finds that a SIP submission does not meet the minimum criteria, the State shall be treated as having failed to make

the required submission for purposes of the sanctions provisions of

the Act.

New section 110(d)(2) requires EPA to act on each SIP submission

within twelve months of the date EPA determines (or is deemed to

have determined) that the submission is complete. The four-month
period provided in current section 110(a)(2) has proved insufficient

to allow EPA to conduct the necessary analyses and rulemaking

proceedings.

New section 110(d)(3) authorizes EPA to approve a plan in full,

disapprove it in full, or approve it in part and disapprove it in part,

depending on the extent to which it meets the requirements of the

Act. This provision overrules the portion of the decision

Abramowitz v. EPA, 832 F. 2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1987), which held that

EPA could not approve individual measures in a plan submission

without either approving or disapproving the plan as a whole.

New section 110(d)(4) provides that a finding by the administrator of the inadequacy of a SIP could renew previously applicable

requirements, even if those requirements contained fixed, elapsed

deadlines. The Administrator is given the authority to adjust the

statutory deadlines consistent with the time originally allowed in

the law for compliance with the requirements.

Federal implementation plans.-The bill in a rewritten section

110(f) of the Act, changes existing law (section 110(c) of the Act)

with respect to the preparation of Federal implementation plans

(FIPs). Current law requires the Administrator to prepare a FIP

whenever a State fails to submit an approvable implementation

plan, the plan is determined not to be in accordance with requirements of the act, or the State fails to revise its plan as required by

the Act. In several instances EPA has been compelled by court

orders to prepare FIPs.

The success of air pollution control under the Clean Air Act is

premised on strong State and local control programs. Preparation

by EPA of control plans applicable to specific areas within a State

should be a last resort, but it is an important one to have available

in cases where a State fails to take the required steps to achieve a

health-based ambient standard.

The bill authorizes, but does not require, the Administrator to

promulgate a FIP whenever a State fails to submit a plan or submits a plan that is not adequate. The Administrator is required to

propose a FIP only after a State has been sanctioned for failure to

submit a plan or portion of a plan that meets the requirements of

the Act and has not submitted an approvable plan or portion

within two years after the sanctions were imposed. The Administrator must promulgate a FIP within one year after the end of the

two-year sanction period, unless the State has submitted a plan

that meets the requirements of the Act. If the State's plan or portion of a plan was required to demonstrate attainment of an ambient standard, the FIP must demonstrate attainment, but not in the

original promulgation. The original promulgation must require effective emissions reductions, but an additional two years are provided the Administrator to revise the original FIP to provide such

a demonstration.

Applicable implementation plan provisions.-The bill adds a new

subsection 110(k) to the Act to clarify that a provision of a SIP that

has been approved by the Administrator remains in effect and is

enforceable until a subsequent revision is approved by the Administrator. Current law on this issue is not clear, as courts have differed in their interpretation of the Act's requirements.
FEDERAL FACILITIES (SECTION 105)

SUMMARY

The bill amends section 118 of the Clean Air Act to make clear

that Federal facilities are subject to fees and charges levied by

State or local agencies to the same extent as nongovernmental entities.

DISCUSSION

Military installations in California's South Air Quality Management District have filed suit challenging the District's authority to

require payment of fees, including permit fees. Similar suits have

been filed in Federal District Court in New York, and there have

been other challenges to the authority of State or local agencies to

impose fees on Federal facilities. The bill clarifies existing law to

make explicit what section 118 already requires: Federal facilities

are subject to the same fee requirements that are applicable to

nongovernmental entities.

GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS (SECTION 106)

SUMMARY

This section of the bill designates sections 171-178 of the Act as

subpart 1 of part D, adds new sections 170 and 179, and makes

changes in sections 171-176 as follows:

A new definition is added to section 171. "Major stationary source" or "major emitting facility" is, for the purposes of part D

of the Act, defined as including "each discrete operation, unit, or

other activity and each combination thereof". The definition of "nonattainment area" is also clarified.

The plan for an area that has been designated nonattainment

with respect to an ambient air quality standard must provide for

attaining that standard five years from the date the nonattainment

designation was made. The Administrator may extend the deadline

for up to an additional five years.

All major stationary sources in nonattainment areas are required to have operating permits, beginning three years after the

date of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1989. Operating permits must be issued for no more than five years, and applications for a permit must be accompanied by a fee sufficient to

cover the source's share of the direct and indirect costs of developing and administering the permit program. A permit application

must be submitted to the Administrator who has sixty days to

object to its issuance.

Sources of volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen, PM10, and carbon monoxide are required to pay an emissions fee of no

less than $15 per ton, which will be available to be appropriated to

EPA to carry out its responsibilities under the Act.

States with ozone or carbon monoxide nonattainment areas and

local elected officials of those areas are required to review and

update, as necessary, planning and implementation procedures

that specify the State, local, or regional agency or agencies that

will develop, adopt and implement each element of the SIP.
Pages omitted due to document size. 

Available upon request.