# Exhibit 4

## Calendar No. 427

101ST CONGRESS SENATE REPORT

1stSession 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

Forsale by theSuperintendent ofDocuments, U.S. Government PrintingOffice Washington,DC 20402COMMITTEE 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, StaffDirector
ROBERT F. HURLzY, MinorityStaffDirector

(I)

## CONTENTS

Page General statement

........................................................................................................... 1 Discussion ofprovisions: Title I-Attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards: Introduction

...................................................................................................... . 5 Designation ofareas (section 101)

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

................. 16 Transportation guidance (section103)

.......................................................... 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

109)

................................................................................................................... 68 Interstate pollution (section 110)

................................................................... 75 Outer continental shelfactivities (section 111)

........................................... 76 Indian tribes (section 112)

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

....................... 80 Secondary standards (section 114)

................................................................. 81 TitleII-Mobile source controls: Introduction

...................................................................................................... . 82 Emission standards forcertain motorvehicles (section201)

.................... 88 Carbon monoxide emissions at coldtemperatures (section202)

.............. 92 Control ofvehicle refueling emissions (section203)

................. 93 Evaporative emissions (section204)

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

.................. 96 Emissions ofcarbon dioxide from passenger cars (section206)

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

.............................................................. 101 Light duty vehicle usefullife (section 208)

.................................................. 102 Warranties (section209)

.................................... 102 Non-road engines (section210)

...................................................................... 103 Prohibition on production of engines requiring leaded gasoline (section 211)

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

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

...................................................... 107 Fuel volatility (section214)

............................................................................. 109 Desulfurization (section 215)

........................................................................... 110 Lead phasedown (section216)

......................................................................... 112 Fuel quality (section 217)

................................................................................. 116 Oxygenated fuels (section218)

....................................................................... 118 Misfueling (section 219)

................................................................................... 120 Urbanbuses (section220)

................................................................................ 121 Enforcement (section221)

............................................................................... 122 Consideration of Federal transportation and environmental policies

(section 222)

.................................................................................................... 127 TitleIII-Air toxics: Background discussion

..................................................................................... 127 Hazardous air pollutants (section301)

......................................................... 147 Marine manufacturing (section302)

............................................................. 202 Dual regulation ofradionuclides (section303)

........................................... 203 Prevention ofsudden, accidental releases (section304)

............................ 205 Municipal waste combustion: Air emissions (section306)

............ 251 Municipal waste combustion: Ash disposal (section307)

.......................... 257

(III)IV Page Discussionofprovisions-Continued Title III-Airtoxics-Continued Consultation (section308)

............................................................................... 260 Title IV-Acid deposition control: Background

........................................................................................................ 261 Aciddeposition control (section401)

............................................................. 302 Repeal ofpercent reduction (section402)

.................................................... 337 Federal facilities (section403)

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

.......................................................... 341 N

ational acid lakes registry (section405)

.................................................... 344 Industrial sulfur dioxide emissions (section406)

........................................ 344 Senseofthe Congress onemission reduction costs(section407)

............. 345 Continuation of the Acid Deposition Assessment Program (section

408)

.................................................................................................................. 345 Title V-Permits: Introduction

....................................................................................................... 346 TitleVI-Enforcement andreauthorization: Introduction

....................................................................................................... 357 Section 113 enforcement(section601)

......................................................... 358 Reviewability ofadministrative orders (section602)

................................. 366 Compliance certification (section603)

.......................................................... 368 Contractor inspections (section604)

.............................................................. 369 Administrative enforcement subpoenas (section605)

................................ 369 Emergency orders (section606)

...................................................................... 370 Contractor listings(section607)

....................................................................... 371 Judicialreview pendingreconsideration ofregulation (section608)

...... 372 Citizen suits andpetitions (section 609)

....................................................... 372 Enhanced implementation and enforcement of new source review

requirements (section610)

.......................................................................... 376 Movable stationary sources (section611)

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

............................................................................ 376 TitleVII-The Stratospheric Ozone and Climate Protection Act: Introduction

....................................................................................................... 377 H

earings

............................................................................................................................ 402 Markups

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

.................................................................................................................... 402 Evaluation ofregulatoryimpact

................................................................................... 403 Costoflegislation

............................................................................................................. 403 Additional views of: SenatorMitchell

....................................................................................................... 404 SenatorLautenberg

................................................................................................. 406 SenatorSimpson....................................................................................................... 410 SenatorWarner ........................................................................................................ 412 Minority views ofSenator Symms................................................................................ 415 Changes inexisting law

.................................................................................................. 489

## CalendarNo. 427

101STCONGRESS REPORT 1stSession SENATE 101-228

CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1989

DECEMBER 20, 1989.-Ordered tobeprinted

Mr. BURDICK, fromthe Committee on Environment and Public Works, submitted thefollowing



### REPORT

together with

ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

[To accompany S. 1630]
The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was referred thebill (S. 1630)to amend the CleanAirAct to provide for attainment and maintenance ofhealth protective national ambient air quality standards, and for other purposeshaving considered the
same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that thebill asamended dopass.
GENERAL STATEMENT
The Clean Air Act is the first modern environmental law to be enacted. It was first signed into lawby 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, andWelfare testified: [S]erious air pollution problems aris[e] from the ever-increasing use of motor vehicles, [and] our rising demands forthe energy derived fromburning ofsulfur-bearing fuels *..

The national importance ofresolving theseproblems 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 aresponsibility to evaluate as rapidly as possible and to apply where feasible. (HearingofApril 6, 1965, page 22.) This statement is still true today.Although some areas ofthecountry have improved their airquality since 1965, a majorityofAmericans are stillbreathing air that does not meet the Federal healthbased air quality standards. Our knowledge aboutthe adverse effects ofexposure toair pollution has increased since 1965. Researchers have demonstrated adverse effects at levels ofexposure previously presumed to be safe. Illnesses ofno 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 ofheavy smokers, due to exposure toair pollution. Air pollution can silently damage our lungs and heart or act swiftly in the case ofexposure to toxic air pollutants. Rigorous regulation oftoxic air pollutants isneeded to avoid risk of serious,irreversible damage tohumanhealth.

We are routinely exposed to thousands ofdifferent air pollutants emitted every day. Exposure to this mix ofpollutants can produce

more adverse health effects than exposure toeach ofthe individual pollutants. These synergistic effects mustbeconsidered ifwe areto adequately protect public health. Inaddition, there are manypathways ofexposure 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. Intestimony 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 andthe 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 ofother pollutants ofconcern. With regard to a graph ofozone pollution in the Northeast States for 1987 and 1988, one researcher from the AmericanLung Association stated:

...Most States went up significantly between 1987 and 1988 and Massachusetts tripled its ozone violation days up to 28 for thatparticular 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 beforethe Subcommittee that "In every epidemiologic investigation that we have performed over thepast 6 years, we have repeatedly found a 2 to 5 percent air pollu- tion effect on human mortality and morbidity.We finditvery difficultto rejectthese consistent findings

. . ." (June 17, 1987).

In a separate study, the past President ofthe 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 maybe caused bysingle air pollutants or a combination ofpollutants.' He further clarified his points by saying that "Iffurther Congressional action, orvoluntary action by polluters, is not taken to reduce human exposure to a broad range oftoxic 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 butto breathe the air, whether it is clean or polluted.Air is inhaled regardless of its quality. This is a national resource that should beprotected 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 ofprograms that improve air quality.

RecentHistory.-Since the enactment ofthe 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 ofthe health-based air quality standards has proven more difficult than anticipated in the 1977 Amendments. Although most areas ofthe country were to have attained the standards for
ozone and carbon monoxide by 1983, in 1989, over halfofthe popu- lation ofthe United States is still exposed to levels ofair pollution considered unhealthful by the Envronmental Protection Agency and medical researchers. New and disturbing evidence on the health effects ofozone 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 ofthe 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 ofonly 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 inpeer-review scientific journals, have concluded that acid rain and its precursors are responsible forbetween 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 theyno longer can support fish and other life, altering the chemical composition ofsoils and upsetting the natural balance which enables their productive use, andreducing visibility throughout the United States. During the last decade, the Committee on Environment and Public Workshas reported legislation addressing allofthese issues. During the 1980's, the Committee continued its efforts to devise legislation that would reduce acid precipitation levels, bring about attainment ofthe air quality standards, and control toxic air pollutants. Bills were introduced and reported by the Committee to the Senate three times,but none hasbeen enacted. In 1982, the Committee reported acid rain legislationby 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- Stateregion east oftheMississippiRiver.

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 Stateseast ofthe Mississippi. The last bill tobe reported by the Committee was S. 1894 in November, 1987. The five title proposal contained provisions on ozone andcarbon monoxide nonattainment, acid rain andclean coaltechnology, mobile sorces, ambient air quality standards, hazardous air pollutants andincinerator standards.The bill's acidtitle 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 100thCongress adjourned in October ofthat 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 Committeereported S. 3041, theClean Air Amendments of1982. In May of1984 the Committee reported S. 768,the Clean AirAct Amendments of 1984. Atotal ofnine days ofhearings was heldon 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 9days ofmark-up.

S. 1630, theClean Air Amendments of1989, reflectsthe advances in our knowledge ofthe health effects, sources, and controls ofair pollution. It builds on over a decade ofcareful study and consideration ofthe 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 theEarth's protective ozone layer. Its goal isto protect, as a national resources, the very air that all ofus rely on for

ourdaily existence.DISCUSSION OF PROVISIONS

TITLEI-ATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

INTRODUCTION 

### Background.-Thegoal ofthe Clean Air Act is to "protect and enhance the quality ofthe Nation's airresources." The Actdistinguishes between two types ofair pollutants (causing death or serious illness atlowlevels) which are addressed intitle III ofthebill and "criteria" pollutants (so-calledbecause under section 108ofthe Act EPA must issue criteria documents identifying the effects of eachpollutant). 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 ofthe 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 ofeach criteria pollutant to the level that "protects the public health" with an "adequate margin ofsafety", without regardtothe economic ortechnical feasibility of attainment. This means identifying through researchthe lowestlevel atwhich health effects areobserved and ap- plying a margin ofsafety 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" periodoftime.

The sixcriteria pollutants forwhich EPA has established ambient standards are ozone, lead, sulfur dioxide, particulates, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide. Each ambient standard is based on adetailed review ofscientific information contained in the criteria document thatisprepared byEPAandexpectadvisers.

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 ifappropriate, by December 31, 1980, and at five-year intervalsthereafter.

Two standards were promulgated before the end of 1980. A new standard was promulgated for airborne lead in 1978, and arevisedozone standard was published in 1979. However, both ofthese 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 waspromulgated in 1987. Final actions onrevisions ofthe 1971 standard for sulfur dioxide are still pending, as are revisions ofthe 1978 standard for lead, and the 1979 standard for ozone. The Congressional mandate to reissue or revise ambient standards by December 31, 1980, and atfive-year intervals thereafter is clearlynotbeing 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 ofpreparing a criteriadocument on acid aerosols andestimates the process will take fiveyears tocomplete.

Healtheffects ofozone.-The adverse health effects ofexposure 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 bodyby way ofthe respiratory tract.Ninety percent of the ozone inhaled into the lung isnever exhaled. Instead theozone 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 thathealthy adults and childrenbegin to exhibit adverse health effects. These include chest pains, shortness of breath, coughing, nausea, throat irritation, and increased susceptibilityto respiratory infections. Potentially more troubling and less well understood are the effects oflong-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 ofscientific evidence indicates that over thelong term,chronic exposure to
ozone may produce any accelerated aging ofthe lung analogous to that produced by cigarette smoke exposure. Ultimately, emphysema mayresult. Newevidence is also accumulating thatthe current ozone standard may not be sufficiently protective ofpublic health. In one important test recently performed at EPA's research laboratory, 22 healthy individuals were exposed to 0.08parts per millionozone for 6.6 hours, including five hours of moderate exercise. Respiratory function decreased with each succeeding hour ofexposure. At the end ofthe exposure, it decreased by an average ofseven percent, with oneindividual having a26 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 ofthe 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 theAct.

EPA is currently in the process of revising the criteria documents for ozone based on this and other existing data.The adequacy ofthe 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 resolvethis issue.

The people most likely to be injured from exposure to ozone include the elderly, people with preexisting respiratory problems, children (whohave a faster respiration rate and are thus more exposed), and approximately 20 percent ofthe 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 7million persons with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease live inozone nonattainment areas.

Healtheffects ofcarbonmonoxide.-Exposureto 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

areparticularly atrisk.

At high CO levels death by asphyxiation results. Atlower levels carbon monoxide pollution is especially harmful tofetuses and persons with heart disease. The fetal brain has high oxygen requirements. Health studies conducted on animals suggest that even modestlevels ofcarbon monoxide pollution poserisks to fetalbrain 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 thecarbon monoxidestandards.

Persons with heart disease are also susceptible to carbon monoxide pollution. A heart already weakened by pulmonary disease is particularly sensitive to the displacement ofoxygen from thebloodstream bycarbon monoxide because thecirculatory system has limitedcapacity to transport oxygenthroughout thebody.

Healthy people may also suffer adverse effects from modest carbon monoxide exposure. As oxygen levels in thebloodstream decline and carbon monoxide levels rise, persons may suffer reduced aerobic capacity. As oxygen levels in thebrain 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.

Healtheffects of particulatematter.-Highlevels ofsmall 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 ofPM-10 pose special health risks. One especially dangerous component of PM-10 is the carbon-based particles thatresult from incomplete combustion offuel in diesel engines. EPA has concluded that theseparticulates, 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 similarhazardous characteristics. Sulfates and nitrates, also called acid aerosols, are another dangerous type of particulates. These particulates are formed from emissions ofsulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Acid aerosols can
sear sensitive lungtissues 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, andbronchitis) were threetimes higher than normal during months inwhich theFederal PM-10 standards were exceeded. Other vulnerable populations include the elderly, asthmatics, and victims ofrespiratory disease.

Health care costs.-The American Lung Association estimates that people in the United States spend $40 billionper year inadditionalhealth care costsdue to exposure toair pollution. A studyby the University ofCalifornia released in July 1989 showed that in Southern California alone, decreased air pollution would save nearly $10billion 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. Welfarecosts.-Inaddition, there are environmental and welfare effects ofairpollution. Ozone pollutionhasbeen shownto causeextensive damage to many types ofvegetation. 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 levelsbelow the Federal standard can causewheat yieldstodrop by 30percent.

According to the WorldResources Institute, ifozone levelsin agricultural regions were halved, the annual costsavings 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 croplossesof$2 to$3 billionper year.

Forests can alsobe damaged by thispollutant,butthe 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 ofthe 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 upin commercial yellow pines in theSoutheastmay alsoreflect ozone air pollution atwork.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 ofvalued

resources fromozone-induced damage, alone. PM-10 pollution, especially PM-10 pollution less than 2.5 microns in diameter, impairs visibility. The National Park Service, forexample, 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 toan EPA estimate,the damage is approximately $1 to $2 billion annually. CleanAirAct history.-The 1970 and 1977 CleanAirAct 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 ofthe States' efforts to achieve and maintain therequired level ofair 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 torequire 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 groupofchemically related pollutants. From the standpoint ofhealth 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 of0.12 parts per million (ppm), not to be exceeded more than once per year, on average. Areas exceeding thisthreshold are classified as nonattainment areas. EPAupdates the nonattainment list annually, asdatabecome 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 periodicallybyEPA 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 beenthe overwhelming portion ofmeasured TSP (notthe smaller particlescapable ofpenetrating sodeeplyinto lungtissue).

The smaller particles that are 10 micrometers or smaller are
more likely to cause most ofthe adverse health effects because of theirability to reach the thoracic or lowerregions ofthe respiratory tract. (One micrometer is one-millionth ofa meter, or 1/25,000 ofan inch.For comparison, the thickness ofa human airis 100-200 micrometers.)

The revised PM-10 measurement establishes a 24 hour primary (healthbased) and secondary standard limit of 150 micrograms of PM-10 per cubic meter ofair. 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 ofsafety.

At the time the new PM-10 standard was established, 97 counties (or parts ofcounties) in the nation were not meeting the primary TSP standards and had been designated as nonattainment. Construction bans on new or modified major sources ofTSP had been in place in some ofthese areas since 1979. EPA lifted those bans withthepromulgation ofthe newPM-10 standard. While accurate monitoring datais 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 ontheir probability ofnot attaining therevised PM-10 standard. The first group includes, those with a very high probability ofnotimmediately attaining the new standard (roughly seventy counties). A second group contains 110 areas where existing air quality data are not sufficient to determine ifthey are attainingbutthere is somepossibility that they will notreach 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 ofthe Act required EPA to promulgate new source performance standards (NSPS)for new ormodified stationary sources. To enforce the NSPS, the States were required toinclude construction permitprograms intheir SIPs. By 1977, twoyears 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 movedback to 1982. Areas could show theycould not meetthe 1982deadline were able toobtain anextension until 1987.

Responding tothe failureto meetthe goals ofthe 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 ofthe attainment deadlines to 1987. A new schedule was established for limiting emissions from new motor vehicles. Existing stationarysources in nonattainment areas would have to retrofit with reasonably available emission controls. Anew source couldbe constructed in a nonattainment area only if it would operate at the "lowest achievable emissions rate" and ifemissions reductions could be obtained from other sources tooffset 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 ofemissions in inventories submitted by the States and approved by EPA; inadequacies in models usedto predict ambient air quality; failure of States to implement some of the controls they had committed to in their SIPs; failure of some ofthe controls to achieve the projected emission reductions; and failure of EPA or the States to require additional controls when it became evident that theattainment deadlines would notbe met. The responsibility for the widespread failure to meetthe ambient standards rests with both States (andlocal governments) and EPA. Predicting future air quality based on assumed control programs is

a complicated undertaking that is susceptible to "paper" demonstrations ofattainment thatbear 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 theresponsibility for providing guidance ofwhat constituted the best methods and carefully scrutinizing State submissions to assure that assumptions and analyses were consistent with theguidance.

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 ofemissions and therefore the amount of emissions reductions needed to bring the areas into attainment. Both the States involved and EPAbear responsibility for thesemiscalculations.

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 (notEPA)ordered the States tofulfill the SIP commitments. An American Lung Association analysis conducted in 1986 found that in Los Angeles only three of 31 transportation and energymeasures 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 thatwere 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 thatHouston's demonstration of hydrocarbon emissions reductions neededfor attainment wasbased ona faulty ratioofNOxtohydrocarbon 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 waitedto deal withthe deficiencies in its generic nonattainment policy thatwas proposed in November of 1987.

Lack ofresources at theFederal, State and locallevel has severelyhampered implementation oftheAct'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 bothin nominal and real terms. States,which are required by the Act to impose permit fees to cover the costs ofadministering and enforcing permit programs, in many instances have not complied. Lack of resources led to preparation ofinadequate and incomplete inventories, use ofless 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 ofgovernment to implement difficult measures has also meant slower progress toward the attainment ofhealthy air. This is most clearly seen with respect to

measuresto reduce vehicle usein heavily polluted and heavily congested areas. The largest number ofSIP provisions that were submitted and approved but that have not been implemented are provisions that call for transportation control measures. EPA's Office ofTransportation and LandUse Policy was eliminated in 1982, and withits demise came the elimination ofthe requirement for States toreport onthe effectiveness ofcontrol measures andthe 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 proposedbyEPA in 1987 attemptedto address many ofthe 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 inlegislation submitted toCongress by thePresident.

Nonattainment provisionsofthe bilL-Thenonattainment provisions ofthe bill are based on more than 17 years ofexperience in trying to attain healthy air in all areas ofthe nation. The deadlines in the bill for attainment are realistic, with the ozone deadlines beingthe longest inrecognition ofthe complexity ofthe 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 ofreasonable further progress, which isinthe currentAct, is amplified by requiring specific incremental progress over defined periods for each ofthe pollutants addressed: ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter (PM-10).Remedial steps are mandatedifan 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 preparedbythe States andreviewedbyEPA. The bill imposes emissions fees on stationary sources and registration fees for vehicles in order to provide State and local agencies theresources, from polluters, toconduct effective air pollution controlprograms, including complying with the more explicit requirements ofthebill. Stationary source feeswill also provide EPAwith additional resources.

Motor vehicles are the single largest source ofozone and carbon monoxide pollution. Title II of the bill addresses emissions that result from the operation ofvehicles, butthat,alone,isnot enough. Pollution can also be reduced if fewer vehicle trips take place in polluted and congested urban and suburban areas. Title Icontains 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.

Thebill reflects an increasing understanding ofhow ozonepollution is formed and transported. Because ozone is not a local phenomenon butis formed and transported overhundreds ofmiles and several days, localized control strategies willnot 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 ofozone-forming pollutantsthroughout the region-whether the sources are in attainment

ornonattainment areas-install certain controls.

The bill also requires control of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) as a
means ofreducing ozone levels. While there remain uncertainties about the localized effect of NOx reductions on ozone levels, it is generally accepted that overall levels ofozone are more effectively reduced by reducing both NOx and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions than byreducing VOCs, alone. Oxides ofnitrogen also contribute to PM-10 levels and are a precursor ofacid 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 thatwhere progress isnot what was predicted or needed to attain the standards, additional steps are taken to keep an area on thepath to attainment bythe required deadline.

DESIGNATION OF AREAS (SECTION 101)

SUMMARY Thebill amends section 107ofthe Clean Air Act asfollows: A revised section 107(f)(1) of the Act requires that within six months of issuing a new or revised ambient air quality standard, theAdministrator must designate allareas ofthe country as either attainment, nonattainment or unclassifiable. An area that either does not meet the standard or contributes pollution to another areathat does not meet the standard istobe 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 asmeeting the standard is tobedesignated unclassifiable. Revised section 107(f)(3) ofthe Act designated any area that did not meet the primary ambient air quality standard for ozone or carbon monoxide as ofthelast calendar year before the date ofenactment ofthe bill as nonattainment. Revised section 107(f)(4) designates each area that was identified by EPA as a Group Iarea in the August 7, 1987, promulgation ofthe revised particulate standard (PM-10) or which contains a site for which monitoring data shows a violation ofthe air quality standard for PM-10 before the date ofenactment asnonattainment.

Revised section 107(d)(5) of the Act provides that areas may be redesignated by the Administrator upon the request ofthe Governorofa State or on theAdministrator'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 ofreceiving 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 topermanent reductions in emissions, must have approved a maintenance plan, and determine that the State containing the

area has met requirements ofthe 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 ofthe MSA or CMSA does not contribute to violations ofthe 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 orCMSA in thenonattainment area.

DISCUSSION This section ofthe 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 isrevised, as occurred with the promulgation in 1987 of the ambient standard for PM-10. Current law is alsoread 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, IllinoisState ChamberofCommerce v. EPA, 775 F. 2d 1141 (7th Cir. 1985).

The billrequires the Administrator to designate the status ofall

areas within six months ofthe date a newambient standard ispromulgated 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 monitoredconcentrations ofanother pollutant. The Administrator is given broad discretion to determine the boundaries ofthe 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 ofwhether pollutant concentrations in the first area exceed the standard. The billby operation oflaw designates areas as ozone or carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment areas ifthey did not meet the primary standard for these pollutants (or other)as ofthe last calendar yearbefore the date ofenactment. The Environmental Protection Agency's current methods for determining attainment status with respect to these pollutants areto be thebasis for determining whether an area met the standard as ofthe applicable date. For example, for ozone areas this would involve the most recent three years ofdata. And for CO, this means use ofthe most recent two years ofdata.

The bill specifies by operation oflaw, 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 ofthe MSA orCMSA. If,for clear geographic reasons such as a mountain range that runs through a CMSA or MSA, emissions from an attaining portion ofthe 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 oron petition from a State, based on air quality, planning and control, and other appropriate considerations. Thisprovision 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 ofa 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 Agencyenforcement actions thatthe pendency ofa State request for a redesignation to attainment is sufficient to renderthe current SIP unenforceable unless and until EPA denies the request.The Administrator mayredesignate an area from nonattainment to attainment onlyby rule after determining that the area has met all the requirements applicable to it under part D and section 110 ofthe Act, including implementation ofall 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 atthe time theredesignation is soughtmust remain in effect after redesignation. The bill also requires the Administrator todetermine that the maintenance plan required as a condition of redesignation assures that emissions levelswill not rise so as tocuse exceedances ofthe applicable standard.

ENHANCED MONITORING AND INVENTORIES (SECTION 102)

SUMMARY Within six months ofenactment ofthe Clean Air Act Amendments of 1989, the Administrator must publish guidance on improved air quality monitoring an preparation ofemissions inventoriesforuse bythe 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 hasgrown 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 issueswithrespect toeach ofthese 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. Thedownwind 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 maybe 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 theozone networks. Also, the complex mechanisms for ozone formation and the
sources of ozone precursors and their interactions remain somewhat unclear. These uncertainties suggest that ifrealistic, economic, and effective control strategies are to be developed, the establishment ofcomprehensive 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 organiccompound (NMOC) monitoring should be instituted to track and corroborate VOC emissionreductions that are assumed orprojected 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 ofexisting 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 ofimpact, and to corroborate attainment/nonattainment decision, the use ofinexpensive, portable, saturation monitoring techniques is needed. With constantly increasing vehicle miles traveled in the United States, there is a needfor increased deployment of CO monitors and increased oversight of CO monitoring networks toensure their adequacy. In addition to the evaluation ofthe adequacy ofthe PM-10 network and its sites, such monitoring should be enhanced for areas experiencing ambient concentrations from nontraditional sources such asresidential woodcombustion, agricultural tilling and diesel particulates.

Inventories. -Emissions inventories for ozone and CO are generally acknowledged to have major deficiencies whichhave contributed significantly to undercontrol of emissions and the lack of progress in many urban areas in attaining the ambient standards forthese 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 byEPA to assure acceptable quality and consistency of these inventories, including lack ofcomprehensive and prescriptive guidance on how to develop these inventories and absence of consistent review procedures that would assure thatrequirements are being adhered to. -Lack ofcompleteness in inventories. Area source inventories

for small, butubiquitious sources, for example, consumer solvents, were not compiled in many areas. Also, newly identified significant sourceswere not included. -Lack ofperiodic inventory updating that would allow credibletracking ofreasonable 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 thatwill provide resources atall levels ofgovernment.

The greatest deficiency in current efforts to develop good PM-10 inventories isthe incomplete set ofemission factors needed to estimate emissions from point sources and, more importantly, from

area sources-mostly fugitive dust sources-that are dominant in arid areas ofthe 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 reliablecontrol efficiency information relative to control of PM-10 for many ofthe control devices and practices that have been used to control total particulate matter. Presently, rough default approximations ofPM-10 control efficiencies are being used in estimating PM-10 emissions fromcontrolled sources.

Area source emissions estimating procedures for PM-10 also provide only rough approximations ofPM-10 emissions and need improvement that will take several years toachieve. Area source procedures apply, for example, to paved and unpaved road dust reentrainment, storage piles, construction activities, residential wood burning,road salting andsanding. Thebill, in this section and section 109 (pertainingto 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 ofTransportation 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) ofthe Act, to publish updated information on a specified list of transportation control
measures, including information on the emissionsreductions potentialsofeach measure.

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

The purpose ofthe amendment to section 108(f) is to require the Administrator totake a strong role in providing assistance toState 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 aspart oftheir State implementation plan. The intentof revisions ofsection 108(f) istogive States the information theywill need to implement measures that have the potential ofdecreasing 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 2to 3percent per year from

nowthrough 2005, resulting ina cumulative increase ofabout40to 60 percent, according tothe Congressional Office ofTechnology 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 tothe increase inVMT.

Because ofthese 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 serveincreasing 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 orcarbon 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 ofTransportation 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 ofGovernments completed in 1987-8 an assessment of the effectiveness ofTCMs for the Los Angeles area.The study concluded that implementation of a wide range ofTCMs would reduce highway vehicle VOC emissions by a total of30 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 for2010without themeasures.

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 oftransportation demand management efforts.

GENERAL PLANNING REQUIREMENTS (SECTION 104)

SUMMARY
This section ofthe bill makes numerous revisions to section 110 of the Clean Air Act, many of which are technical, to eliminate outdated material. Substantive changes includethe following: States must submit State Department implementation plans (SIPS)within no more than 24 months after the promulgation ofa national ambient air quality standard, rather than within nine months as in existinglaw.

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 theAdministrator.

Provisions inexisting law requiring SIPs to take into account the effect ofemissions on other States are strengthened.The bill requires the Administrator to issue minimum criteria that any SIP submissionmust meet andsets uptimetables and procedures forEPA to determinewhether ornotto 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. Theinitial Federal plan must require reductions in emissions but doesnot have to provide for attainment. Within three years after proposal ofthe initial plan, the Federal plan mustberevised toso provide. The bill makes clear that provisions ofan approved SIP stay in effect and are enforceable until a revision is approved by the Administrator.

DISCUSSION Submissionandreviewof plans. -Experience since passage ofthe Clean Air Amendments of1970 has shown that nine months isnot adequate time for States to prepare and submit implementation plans for newor revised ambient air quality standards. Thebill extends the period to twenty-four months. Thisperiod applies to submission ofmaintenance plans, which are required for every MSA
or CMSA that is contained in or contains an area designated attainment orunclassified with respect to a criteria pollutant, and to plans for every area designated nonattainment forany such pollutant, as well as to any other area the Administrator determines mustsubmit a SIP.

Revisions to section 110(a)(2).-The bill replaces provisions currently in section 110(a)(2) ofthe Actwith provisions that appear in paragraphs (1)-(12) of rewritten section 110(c) of the Act. The changes are asfollows: Paragraph (1) of rewritten section 110(c) combines and streamlines existing section 110(a)(2)(B) and the enforceability requirement ofsection 172(c)ofcurrent 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 insection 110(a)(4) ofexistinglaw.

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 toimplement 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 Stateis required to manageand keep up-to-date information on implementation by local authorities sothat EPA only has to rely on the State agency when it wishes to track implementation ofmeasures throughout theState. 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 1l0(a)(2)(H). Paragraph (9) replaces current section 110(a)(2)(I) with a simple cross-reference topart D, deleting the construction ban in theexisting section. Revised construction ban provisions appear elsewhere inthebillin revisions topart 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 bythe Adminstrator to ensure that States perform the technical work necessary to provide the basis forpollution control strategies.

Paragraph (12) rewrites current section 110(a)(2)(K) with minor revisions to be consistent with new permit fee requirements in titlesI and V.

SIP provisions addressing interstate pollution. -Section 1l0(a)(2)(E) ofthe Act is replaced by new section 110(c)(4), which, together with changes made to section 126ofthe Act by section 110 ofthe bill, improve the effectiveness ofthe Act as a means ofdealing with interstate air pollution. Where prohibitions in existing section 110(a)(2)(E) apply only toemissions from a single source, the amendment includes "any other type ofemissions activity," which makesthe 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,thebillchanges "prevent attainment ormaintenance" to "contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenanceby," thus clarifying when a violation occurs.

Under existing section 110(a)(2)(E), interstate pollution that isto be prohibited under a SIP is that which leads to a violation ofthe 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 bythe Act, for example, the effect oftoxic pollutants on health or the environment. The amendment in new section 110(c)(4) makes aninjury to interests that maybe identified by States but that are not explicitly listed inthe statute-described

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

EPAactiononplansubmissions.-TheEnvironmental 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 criteriathat 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 therequired submission forpurposes ofthe sanctions provisions of the Act.

New section 110(d)(2) requires EPAto acton each SIP submission within twelve months ofthe date EPA determines (oris deemed to have determined) that the submission is complete. The four-monthperiod 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 itin full, or approve it inpart anddisapprove it in part, depending on the extent to which it meets the requirements ofthe Act. This provision overrules the portion of the decision Abramowitz v.EPA, 832 F.2d 1071 (9thCir. 1987), which held that EPA could not approve individual measures in a plan submission withouteither approving ordisapproving the plan as awhole.

New section 110(d)(4) provides that a finding by the administrator of the inadequacy of a SIP could renew previously applicable requirements, even ifthose requirements contained fixed, elapsed deadlines. The Administrator is given the authority to adjust the statutory deadlines consistent with the time originally allowed in thelaw forcompliance withthe requirements.

Federalimplementationplans.-The bill in a rewritten section 110(f) ofthe 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 tobe in accordance with requirements ofthe act, orthe State fails to revise itsplan as requiredby the Act. In several instances EPA has been compelled by court orders toprepare FIPs.

The success ofair pollution control under the Clean Air Act is premised on strong State and local control programs. Preparation by EPA ofcontrol plans applicable to specific areas within a State should be a lastresort, butit is animportant 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 isnot adequate. The Administrator is required to propose a FIP only after a State has been sanctioned for failure to submit aplan or portion ofa 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 ofthe two-year sanction period, unless the State has submitted a plan that meets the requirements ofthe Act. Ifthe State's plan or portion ofa plan was required to demonstrate attainment ofan ambient standard, the FIP must demonstrate attainment, but notin 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.

Applicableimplementationplanprovisions.-Thebill adds a new subsection 110(k)to theAct to clarify that aprovision ofa 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 theirinterpretation ofthe Act's requirements.FEDERAL FACILITIES (SECTION 105)

SUMMARY The bill amends section 118 ofthe 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 Districthave filed suit challenging the District's authority to require payment offees, including permit fees. Similar suits have been filed in Federal District Court in New York, and there have been other challenges to the authority ofState orlocal 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 ofthe bill designates sections 171-178 ofthe 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 ofpart D ofthe 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 attainingthat standard five yearsfrom the date the nonattainment designation was made. TheAdministrator may extend the deadline forupto an additional five years.

All major stationary sources in nonattainment areas are required to have operating permits, beginning three years after the date ofenactment ofthe Clean AirAct Amendments of1989. 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 ofthe direct and indirect costs ofdeveloping and administering the permit program. A permit application must be submitted to the Administrator who has sixty days to object toits issuance. Sources of volatile organic compounds, oxides ofnitrogen, PM10, and carbon monoxide are required to payanemissions fee ofno less than $15 per ton, which will be available to be appropriated to EPAtocarry out itsresponsibilities under theAct.

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 ofthe SIP.

# Pages omitted due to document size. Available upon request.