Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules 29719

fact that an individual served in the

military of an enemy government

following his or her relocation as

evidence that the individual relocated

voluntarily.

The Department will thus require

individuals who apply for redress under

the Act and who relocated to Japan

during the statutorily-defined war

period to provide information as to their

ages and emancipation status upon their

dates of departure from the United

states to relocate to Japan, and to state

whether or not they participated in the

active military service on behalf of an

enemy government, including the

Japanese Government, during World

War II. If such individuals state that

they were 21 years of age or older, or

emancipated minors, as of the dates of

their departures, they will be deemed

ineligible for redress under the Act.

Similarly, if such individuals state that

they participated in the active military

service on behalf of an enemy

government during World War II, they

also will be deemed ineligible. In

contrast, otherwise eligible relocatees

who were under the age of 21 and not

otherwise emancipated upon the dates

of their departures from the United

States, and who did not serve in the

military on behalf of an enemy

government during World War II, will

be eligible for redress under the Act.

III. Regulatory Impact Analysis

The Office of Management and Budget

has determined that this proposed rule

is a significant regulatory action under

Executive Order No. 12866 and,

accordingly, this proposed rule has been

reviewed and approved by the Office of

Management and Budget. Information

collection associated with this

regulation has been approved by the

Office of Management and Budget, OMB

No. 1190–0010. Comments about this

collection can be filed with the

Clearance Officer, Office of Redress

Administration, PO Box 66260,

Washington, DC 20035–6260, and the

Desk Officer, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, New

Executive Office building, Washington,

DC 20503.

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 74

Administrative practice and

procedure, Aliens, Archives and

records, Citizenship and naturalization,

Civil rights, Indemnity payments,

Minority groups, Nationality, War

claims.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble and by the authority vested in

me, including 28 U.S.C. 509 and 510,

chapter I of title 28, part 74, of the Code

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be

amended as follows:

PART 74—CIVIL LIBERTIES ACT

REDRESS PROVISION

1. The authority citation for Part 74

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 1989b.

2. In subpart B, § 74.4 is revised to

read as follows:

Subpart B—Standards of Eligibility

§ 74.4 Individuals excluded from

compensation pursuant to section 108(B) of

the Act.

(a) The Term ‘‘eligible individual’’

does not include any individual who,

during the period beginning on

December 7, 1941, and ending on

September 2, 1945, relocated to a

country while the United States was at

war with that country.

(b) Nothing in paragraph (a) of this

section is meant to exclude from

eligibility any person who, during the

period beginning on December 7, 1941,

and ending on September 2, 1945,

relocated to a country while the United

States was at war with that country, and

who had not yet reached the age of 21

and was not emancipated as of the date

of departure from the United States,

provided that such person is otherwise

eligible for redress under these

regulations and the following standards:

(1) Persons who were 21 years of age

or older, or emancipated minors, on the

date they departed the United States for

Japan are subject to an irrebuttable

presumption that they relocated to

Japan voluntarily and will be ineligible.

(2) Persons who served in the active

military service on behalf of the

Government of Japan or an enemy

government during the period beginning

on December 7, 1941 and ending on

September 2, 1945, are subject to an

irrebuttable presumption that they

departed the United States voluntarily

for Japan. If such individuals served in

the active military service of an enemy

country, they must inform the Office of

such service and, as a result, will be

ineligible.

Dated: June 5, 1996.

Janet Reno,

Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 96–14721 Filed 6–11–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–10–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 50

[AD–FRL–5519–4]

National Ambient Air Quality

Standards for Ozone and Particulate

Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking.

SUMMARY: In accordance with sections

108 and 109 of the Clean Air Act, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

is nearing completion in its reviews of

the air quality criteria and national

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)

for ozone (O3) and particulate matter

(PM). This action announces the

Agency’s plans to propose decisions on

whether to retain or revise the O3 and

PM NAAQS under the same schedule,

by November 29, 1996, with final action

scheduled for mid-1997. Further, this

action announces the Agency’s process

for developing integrated strategies for

the implementation of potential new O3

and PM NAAQS, as well as a regional

haze program. This action reflects the

Agency’s recognition of important

scientific and technical factors with

both these pollutants, associated

standards, and implementation

strategies to meet such standards.

Through this action, the Agency is

providing advance notice of key issues

that are being considered in the reviews

of these standards to allow more time

for the public to develop input and

comments beyond that which will be

provided following the notices of

proposed rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

David McKee on the O3 NAAQS review,

MD–15, Air Quality Standards and

Strategies Division, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711 (919–541–5288); Dr. Jane

Caldwell on the PM NAAQS review,

same address (919–541–0328); and Ms.

Denise Gerth on the integrated

implementation strategy development

process, same address (919–541–5550).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Related Information

A. Documents Related to the O3 and PM

NAAQS Reviews

The Air Quality Criteria for Ozone

and Other Photochemical Oxidants

(EPA/600/P–93–004aF thru EPA/600/P–

93–004cF); Review of the National
29720 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules

1Welfare effects as defined by the Act include,

but are not limited to, effects on soils, water, crops,

vegetation, manmade materials, animals, wildlife,

weather, visibility and climate, damage to and

deterioration of property, and hazards to

transportation, as well as effects on economic

values and on personal comfort and well-being.

2The current PM NAAQS addresses particles

with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to

a nominal 10 microns (PM10). The fine fraction of

such particles is generally taken to address particles

with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to

a nominal 2.5 microns (PM2.5).

Ambient Air Quality Standards for

Ozone: Assessment of Scientific and

Technical Information: OAQPS Staff

Paper (EPA–452/R–96–007); the Air

Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter

(EPA/600/P–95–001aF thru EPA/600/P–

95–001cF); and Review of the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards for

Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of

Scientific and Technical Information:

OAQPS Staff Paper (EPA–452/R–96–

xxx) are now available on the Agency’s

Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards’ (OAQPS) Technology

Transfer Network (TTN) Bulletin Board

System (BBS). The telephone number

for the TTN BBS is (919) 541–5742. To

access the bulletin board a modem and

communications software are necessary.

The following parameters on the

communications software are required:

Data Bits-8; Parity-N; and Stop Bits-1.

The documents will be located on the

Clean Air Act Amendments BBS, under

Title I, Policy/Guidance Documents. If

assistance is needed in accessing the

system, call the help desk at (919) 541–

5384 in Research Triangle Park, NC.

Copies of each of these documents are

available for public inspection at the

EPA Air Docket and the EPA library,

both at Headquarters, Waterside Mall,

401 M Street, Washington, DC. EPA Air

Docket hours, in Room M1500 of

Waterside Mall, are 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding

holidays. EPA Library hours are from 10

a.m. until 2 p.m., excluding holidays.

The EPA docket numbers for the O3 and

PM NAAQS reviews are A–95–58 and

A–95–54, respectively.

A limited number of copies of other

technical support documents for these

standard reviews, such as documents

pertaining to air quality, human

exposure, health risk, and economic

analyses, are available and can be

obtained from: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency Library (MD–35),

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,

telephone (919) 541–2777. These and

other related documents are also

available for inspection in the EPA

dockets identified above.

B. Documents Related to the

Development of Integrated

Implementation Strategies

Documents associated with the

development of integrated

implementation strategies are filed in

EPA docket number A–95–38, and are

available from this docket as described

above.

Background and Schedules

The Clean Air Act requires the

establishment, review, and revision of

NAAQS, and directs the Administrator

to identify pollutants which ‘‘may

reasonably be anticipated to endanger

public health and welfare’’ and to issue

air quality criteria for them (42 U.S.C.

7408, 7409). These air quality criteria

are to ‘‘accurately reflect the latest

scientific knowledge useful in

indicating the kind and extent of all

identifiable effects on public health or

welfare which may be expected from the

presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient

air * * *.’’ The Administrator is

directed to propose and promulgate

both ‘‘primary’’ and ‘‘secondary’’

NAAQS for such pollutants. A primary

standard is defined as one ‘‘the

attainment and maintenance of which,

in the judgment of the Administrator,

based on the criteria and allowing an

adequate margin of safety, [is] requisite

to protect the public health.’’ A

secondary standard must ‘‘specify a

level of air quality the attainment and

maintenance of which, in the judgment

of the Administrator, based on [the]

criteria, is requisite to protect the public

welfare from any known or anticipated

adverse effects associated with the

presence of [the] pollutant in the

ambient air.’’ 1

The Act requires periodic review and,

if appropriate, revision of existing air

quality criteria and NAAQS. The Act

also requires appointment of an

independent scientific review

committee to review criteria and

standards and recommend to the

Administrator new standards or

revisions of existing criteria and

standards, as appropriate. This

committee is known as the Clean Air

Scientific Advisory Committee

(CASAC), a standing committee of

EPA’s Science Advisory Board.

The EPA initiated action to update the

air quality criteria documents for O3 in

August 1992 (57 FR 38832) and for PM

in April 1994 (59 FR 17375). As

discussed more fully in the next two

sections of this notice, both reviews

have included a series of peer-review

workshops on the air quality criteria, as

well as CASAC and public reviews of

draft air quality criteria documents and

staff papers. The staff papers evaluate

the policy implications of key studies

and scientific information contained in

the criteria documents; identify factors

relevant to the evaluation of current

primary and secondary NAAQS;

summarize air quality, exposure, and

risk analyses, to the extent possible, of

alternative standards; and present staff

conclusions and recommendations of

suggested options for the Administrator

to consider in her review of the NAAQS.

In conjunction with the reviews of the

O3 and PM NAAQS, the EPA has also

initiated action to address strategies for

the implementation of potential new

NAAQS. This action includes

examining the ramifications of any

changes to the NAAQS on current

implementation efforts, and, if

appropriate, developing new

implementation control strategies. In

addition, the EPA is reviewing options

to ensure a smooth transition for

implementation of any new NAAQS. A

process for providing significant

stakeholder involvement in the

development of such strategies and

options is outlined in the final section

of this notice.

These ongoing reviews and related

implementation strategy activities to

date have brought out important

common factors between O3 and PM.

Several similar health effects have been

associated with exposure to O3 and PM,

including for example aggravation of

respiratory disease (e.g., asthma),

increased respiratory symptoms, and

increased hospital admissions and

emergency room visits for respiratory

causes. Other similarities in pollutant

sources, formation, and control exist

between O3 and PM, in particular the

fine fraction of particles addressed by

the current PM NAAQS.2 These

similarities include (1) atmospheric

residence times of several days, leading

to regional-scale transport of the

pollutants; (2) similar gaseous

precursors, including compounds of

nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic

compounds (VOC), which contribute to

the formation of both O3 and PM in the

atmosphere; (3) similar combustionrelated source categories, such as coal

and oil-fired power generation and

industrial boilers and mobile sources,

which emit particles directly as well as

gaseous precursors of particles (e.g.,

SOX, NOX, VOC) and O3 (e.g., NOX,

VOC); and (4) similar atmospheric

chemistry driven by the same chemical

reactions and intermediate chemical

species which favor both high O3 and

fine particle levels. High fine particle

levels are also associated with

significant impairment of visibility on a

regional scale. These similarities

provide opportunities for optimizing

technical analysis tools (i.e., monitoring
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules 29721

3 In response to a suit filed by the American Lung

Association in February 1994 to compel EPA to

complete the present review of the PM NAAQS, the

U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona has

issued orders requiring publication of proposed and

final decisions by November 29, 1996 and June 28,

1997, respectively.

4Acute effects associated with short-term (1–3 hr)

and prolonged (6–8 hr) exposures to O3 include

transient pulmonary function decrements,

increased respiratory symptoms, and effects on

exercise performance, as well as increased airway

responsiveness, susceptibility to respiratory

infection, increased hospital admissions and

emergency room visits for respiratory causes (e.g.,

asthma), and acute pulmonary inflammation.

5Chronic effects for which evidence suggests

associations with long-term (months to years)

exposure to O3 include structural damage to lung

tissue and accelerated decline in baseline lung

function which could result in decreased quality of

life in later years.

6The last review concluded in March 1993 with

a final decision that revisions to the O3 standards

were not appropriate at that time (58 FR 13008).

networks, emission inventories, air

quality models) and integrated emission

reduction strategies to yield important

co-benefits across various air quality

management programs. This integration

could result in a net reduction of the

regulatory burden on some source

category sectors that would otherwise be

impacted separately by O3, PM, and

visibility protection control strategies.

In recognition of the potential benefits

of integrating the Agency’s approaches

to providing for appropriate protection

of public health and welfare from

exposure to O3 and PM, the Agency

plans to complete these NAAQS reviews

and develop associated implementation

strategies under coordinated schedules.

Thus, the Agency plans to propose

decisions on whether to retain or revise

the O3 and PM NAAQS by November

29, 1996, with final action planned for

June 1997, consistent with the current

schedule established by court order for

the PM NAAQS review.3 Proposal of

various key aspects of integrated

implementation strategies for potential

new NAAQS is planned for June 1997,

consistent with final action on the

NAAQS reviews, with proposal of full

implementation strategies planned for

June 1998.

The EPA encourages involvement of

interested parties in these regulatory

actions and is providing opportunities

for public participation and comment

throughout the processes. The Agency

also recognizes that these schedules are

accelerated relative to past NAAQS

reviews and is thus providing this

advance notice to alert potential

participants in the reviews to the

important considerations and key issues

which the Administrator will take into

account in making decisions in these

actions.

Review of the Ozone NAAQS

The CASAC has completed its review

of the O3 Criteria Document and O3 Staff

Paper, and has advised the

Administrator that the documents

provide an adequate review of the

available scientific data and relevant

studies, as well as an adequate scientific

basis for making regulatory decisions

concerning primary and secondary O3

standards (Wolff, 1995a,b, 1996b). Thus,

the Administrator is primarily focusing

attention on the staff conclusions and

range of staff recommendations

presented in the O3 Staff Paper, together

with specific CASAC recommendations

outlined below for the primary and

secondary standards.

A. Primary Standard Issues

In selecting a primary standard, the

Administrator must specify an averaging

time, O3 concentration (i.e., level), and

form (i.e., the air quality statistic to be

used as a basis for determining

compliance with the standard). The key

factors outlined in the Staff Paper for

selecting these elements of a primary O3

standard reflect an integration of

information on acute 4 and chronic 5

health effects associated with exposure

to ambient O3, expert judgments on the

adversity of such effects for individuals,

and policy judgments, informed by air

quality and human exposure analyses

and quantitative risk assessment when

possible, as to the point at which risks

would be reduced sufficiently to

achieve protection of public health with

an adequate margin of safety. Such an

approach has been endorsed by CASAC

and is consistent with its advice to the

Administrator (Wolff, 1995b) that

‘‘ozone may elicit a continuum of

biological responses down to

background concentrations.’’ In such a

case, CASAC has advised that the

traditional paradigm of standard setting

cannot be applied in the usual way, and

that ‘‘EPA’s risk assessments must play

a central role in identifying an

appropriate level.’’ Thus, the

Administrator is giving preliminary

consideration to the task of selecting a

standard level that will reduce risks

sufficiently to protect public health with

an adequate margin of safety, based on

her understanding that a zero-risk

standard is neither possible nor required

by the Act.

1. Consideration of New 8-Hour Primary

Standard

The Administrator is giving strong

preliminary consideration to the

unanimous recommendation of CASAC

‘‘that the present 1-hr standard be

eliminated and replaced with an 8-hr

standard’’ (Wolff, 1995b). This

recommendation reflects the consensus

CASAC view that an 8-hr standard is

more appropriate for a human healthbased standard since 8-hr average

exposures to O3 are more directly

associated with health effects of concern

at lower ambient O3 concentrations than

are 1-hr average exposures. In

considering an appropriate level for a

possible new 8-hr standard, the

Administrator notes that during the last

review of the O3 criteria and standards 6,

CASAC concluded that the existing 1-hr

standard, set at a level of 0.12 parts per

million (ppm) O3, provided ‘‘little, if

any, margin of safety’’ (McClellan,

1989). The Administrator also notes the

CASAC consensus that 0.07 ppm to 0.09

ppm is an appropriate range for

consideration for a new 8-hr standard,

and further, that none of the CASAC

panel members have expressed an

opinion that such a standard should be

set at a level below 0.08 ppm (Wolff,

1995b). In addition, a number of CASAC

panel members have recommended that,

since there is no apparent threshold for

responses and no ‘‘bright line’’ in the

risk assessment, a pollution warning

system be initiated to allow particularly

sensitive individuals to take appropriate

action, potentially building upon the

Agency’s Pollutant Standards Index or

on infrastructures already in place in

many areas of the country for

designating days when voluntary

emission reduction measures may be

encouraged locally.

2. New Approaches to Defining the

Form of the Primary Standard

In giving preliminary consideration to

the form of a possible new 8-hr

standard, the Administrator is aware

that since promulgation of the current

NAAQS in 1979, a number of concerns

have been raised about the current 1-

expected-exceedance form. These

concerns include, in particular, the

year-to-year stability of the number of

exceedances and, thus, the stability of

the attainment status of an area; data

handling conventions, including the

procedures for adjusting for missing

data; and the evaluation of air quality on

a site-by-site basis rather than some

form of population-weighted averaging

across monitoring sites within an area.

The CASAC has advised that such

concerns should be addressed by

considering a more robust,

concentration-based form to ‘‘provide

some insulation from the impacts of

extreme meteorological events.’’ (Wolff,

1995b) In particular, all CASAC panel

members who expressed their opinions

in this area favored a form of the

standard that allowed for multiple
29722 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules

7 Vegetation effects that have been associated with

O3 exposures include visible foliar injury, growth

reductions and yield loss in annual crops, growth

reductions in tree seedlings and mature trees, and

ecosystem level impacts.

exceedances within the range of 1 to 5

exceedances recommended in the Staff

Paper.

In light of historic concerns and

recent advice from CASAC, the Agency

is evaluating new approaches to

defining the form of the primary

standard. Such approaches include the

use of less extreme and concentrationbased air quality statistics, the

specification of a range of air quality

rather than a single measure, and the

use of some form of populationweighted measure of air quality

combining data across monitors. In

particular, the Agency is examining

potential advantages of a concentrationbased form over an expectedexceedance-based form. A principal

advantage is that a concentration-based

form is more directly related to the

ambient O3 concentrations that are

associated with health effects; that is,

the degree and extent to which public

health is affected is related to the

concentration of O3 in the ambient air,

not just whether that concentration is

above or below some specific level.

Further, a concentration-based form has

greater temporal stability than the

expected-exceedance form, and, thus,

would facilitate the development of

more stable implementation programs

by the States. The specification of a

range rather than a single value may

facilitate individual and/or regulatory

agency efforts to provide additional

safeguards against responses that may,

in a small number of particularly

sensitive individuals, occur at levels

even below the level of a standard that

protects public health with an adequate

margin of safety.

Any consideration of some form of

population-weighted measure of air

quality raises issues about

environmental equity, the adequacy of

the current monitoring network, and the

specificity of monitoring siting

requirements. On the other hand, such

a conceptual approach may better reflect

population exposure and risk. As part of

its review of the primary standard, the

Agency will be interested in particular

in analyses that inform questions about

appropriate criteria for using data from

multiple monitors in developing

population-weighted measures of air

quality and the distribution of public

health protection that would result from

such an approach.

B. Secondary Standard Issues

The Agency’s review of a secondary

O3 standard has focused on effects on

vegetation 7, including agricultural crops

and native vegetation, recognizing that

such effects can indirectly impact

natural ecosystem components such as

soils, water, animals, and wildlife. The

key factors outlined in the O3 Staff

Paper for selecting a secondary standard

include vegetation effects information in

the O3 Criteria Document, including

information on biologically relevant

measures of exposure; analyses of air

quality, particularly in rural areas; and

rough estimates of vegetation exposure

to ambient O3 and potential risks in

terms of the extent of impacts and,

where possible, the economic values

associated with such risks. The Agency

is also considering the potential degree

of vegetation protection that may be

afforded by a possible new primary

standard.

The Administrator is giving strong

preliminary consideration to the

unanimous conclusion of CASAC ‘‘that

damage is occurring to vegetation and

natural resources at concentrations

below the present 1-hr national ambient

air quality standard,’’ and to its

unanimous recommendation ‘‘that a

secondary NAAQS, more stringent than

the present primary standard, was

necessary to protect vegetation from

ozone’’ (Wolff, 1996b). Further, CASAC

recognizes that vegetation response to

ambient O3 is cumulative, suggesting

that a secondary standard with some

cumulative, perhaps seasonal, form

would better reflect biologically relevant

measures of exposure than a short-term

average concentration form. The

Administrator also recognizes, however,

that there remains a diversity of views

within the scientific community in

general and the CASAC panel members

in particular as to an appropriate level

and measure of exposure for such a

standard. This diversity of views is

consistent with the consensus view that

significant uncertainties remain in

understanding the nature, degree, and

long-term patterns of responses to O3

exposures across the large number of

species of annual and perennial plants

and trees that are part of the commercial

and native vegetation to be addressed by

a national O3 standard.

In light of the consensus that the

current secondary standard is not

sufficiently protective of vegetation, as

well as the diversity of views with

regard to an appropriate level and form

for a new standard, the Agency is giving

preliminary consideration to two

approaches to selecting a standard. The

first approach is to consider the degree

of protection that may be afforded by a

possible new primary standard, while

recognizing that such a form would be

only a surrogate for more biologically

relevant cumulative exposure measures.

Alternatively, the Agency is also

considering cumulative forms and

seasonal averaging times within the

ranges of options presented in the Staff

Paper to identify a reasonable policy

choice for such a standard, recognizing

that no one form could reflect all

biologically relevant factors across the

broad range of species being addressed.

These alternative approaches are

consistent with the range of views

expressed by the CASAC panel

members (Wolff, 1996b).

CASAC has also provided the

Administrator with its insights as to

why there are such divergent opinions

on the selection of a new secondary

standard, citing the lack of sufficient

rural O3 data and the lack of relevant

plant exposure studies under field

conditions as the main reasons (Wolff,

1996b). The Agency recognizes the

importance not only of additional

vegetation effects research, but also of

enhancing the existing O3 monitoring

network to provide better coverage in

more rural areas of agricultural and

ecological importance, regardless of the

regulatory approach taken in this

review. Thus, the Agency will be

interested in information and analyses

that would inform future decisions as to

how to enhance the O3 monitoring

network on an appropriate spatial scale

and in a cost-effective manner. Based on

such information, consideration could

also be given to spatially integrating O3

concentrations across multiple monitors

in conjunction with establishing a form

for a secondary standard that could

provide a more representative

indication of relevant vegetation

exposures over appropriate spatial

scales.

Review of PM NAAQS

CASAC has completed its review of

the PM Criteria Document and is

nearing completion on the PM Staff

Paper. CASAC has advised the

Administrator that the PM Criteria

Document included an excellent

integrative summary of the state of

knowledge about the health effects of

airborne PM, and that, as revised to

reflect CASAC’s final comments, the

document provides an adequate review

of the available scientific data and

relevant studies of PM and scientific

basis for regulatory decisions on PM

(Wolff, 1996a). The schedule calls for

CASAC to complete its review and

advice to the Administrator on the PM

Staff Paper and recommendations on
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules 29723

possible new or revised PM standards

by mid-June.

A. Primary Standard Issues:

Consideration of Fine Particle

Standards

Based on CASAC’s review of the PM

Criteria Document, the Agency is

focusing on the primary conclusions

highlighted in that document as a basis

for its preliminary consideration of

possible new PM primary standards. In

particular, the PM Criteria Document

concludes that newly emerging studies

of the effects of community air pollution

provide reasonably consistent results

indicative of increased mortality and

morbidity effects, including hospital

admissions and respiratory illness,

associated with short- and long-term

exposures to ambient air containing PM

concentrations currently found in many

U.S. urban areas, including areas which

comply with the current 24-hr and

annual PM standards. Further, the PM

Criteria Document concludes that

analyses of the epidemiological

evidence suggest stronger associations

of mortality and some morbidity effects

with fine particles than with the coarse

particles within PM10. For this and other

reasons, the PM Criteria Document

concludes that fine and coarse fraction

particles, which together comprise the

mix of particles in PM10, should be

considered as separate pollutants. This

conclusion was supported by many

CASAC panel members (Wolff, 1996a,

Shy et al., 1996), with others noting

important uncertainties to be addressed

in using this conclusion as a basis for

selecting possible new fine particle

standards. The PM Criteria Document

also concludes that coarse fraction

particles have been more directly

associated with some morbidity effects.

In selecting a primary standard or

suite of standards for PM, the

Administrator must specify an indicator

or indicators to define the pollutant in

terms of which particles, within the

broad class of chemically and physically

diverse substances that comprise

airborne PM, a given standard

addresses. Based on the conclusions and

CASAC advice outlined above, the

Agency is giving preliminary

consideration to the task of selecting a

suite of standards that would focus risk

management approaches so as to

provide appropriate public health

protection across the range of effects

that have been associated with both the

fine and coarse fraction particles within

the particle mix that comprises PM10.

The Agency is interested in information

and analyses that will inform decisions

as to the most effective and efficient

suite of standards for providing the

requisite degree of health protection.

Further, new approaches to defining the

form of short-term primary standards, as

discussed above in the section on the O3

primary standard, are also of interest to

the Agency in considering alternative

PM standards.

B. Secondary Standard Issues

The Agency’s review of a secondary

PM standard is focusing on visibility

impairment that has been associated in

particular with fine particles. The PM

Criteria Document notes that the level of

this impairment varies greatly from

eastern to western U.S. regions as do

background levels of fine particles and

other factors that are associated with

visibility impairment. Because of

significant regional variations in

visibility conditions and the problems

this presents in establishing a uniform

national standard, the Agency is giving

strong consideration to addressing

visibility impairment through a new

regional haze program, under section

169A of Act, rather than through a

secondary NAAQS.

Development of Integrated

Implementation Strategies

The Agency has initiated a process

designed to provide for significant

stakeholder involvement in the

development of integrated

implementation strategies for possible

new or revised O3 and PM NAAQS and

a new regional haze program. As

described below, this process involves a

new subcommittee of the Agency’s

Clean Air Act Advisory Committee

(CAAAC), established in accordance

with the Federal Advisory Committee

Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App.2).

A. Background

The FACA was enacted in 1972 to

open the advisory committee process to

public scrutiny and to protect against

undue influence by special interest

groups over government decision

making. Federal Advisory Committees

may be established by statute, the

President, or by the head of a Federal

Agency. An advisory committee or

subcommittee is established under

FACA to obtain advice or

recommendations from advisory groups

established by or closely tied to the

Federal Government.

The CAAAC was established to

provide independent advice and

counsel to the EPA on policy and

technical issues associated with the

implementation of the Act. The CAAAC

advises EPA on the development,

implementation, and enforcement of

several of the new and expanded

regulatory and market-based programs

required by the Act.

The CAAAC advises on issues that cut

across several program areas. The

programs falling under the purview of

the CAAAC include those for meeting

national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS), reducing emissions from

vehicles and vehicle fuels, reducing air

toxic emissions, issuing operating

permits and collecting fees, and carrying

out new and expanded compliance

authorities. The CAAAC holds

meetings, analyzes issues, conducts

reviews, performs studies, produces

reports, makes recommendations, and

undertakes other activities necessary to

meet its responsibilities. Comments,

evaluations, and recommendations of

the CAAAC and responses from the EPA

are made available for public review, in

accordance with Section 10 of FACA.

A new subcommittee of the CAAAC,

the Subcommittee for Ozone, Particulate

Matter, and Regional Haze

Implementation Programs (the

Subcommittee), was established in

August 1995 to address integrated

strategies for the implementation of

potential new O3 and PM NAAQS, as

well as a regional haze program. The

Subcommittee is composed of

representatives selected from among

state, local, and tribal organizations;

environmental groups; industry;

consultants; science/academia; and

federal agencies. Recommendations

made by the Subcommittee will be

submitted to EPA through CAAAC. To

facilitate communication between the

Subcommittee and CAAAC, some

members of CAAAC are on the

Subcommittee.

B. Purpose of the Subcommittee on

Integrated Implementation Strategies

The Subcommittee is charged with

providing advice and recommendations

to EPA on developing new, integrated

approaches for implementing potential

revised NAAQS for O3 and PM, as well

as for implementing a new regional haze

reduction program. The Subcommittee

is expected to examine key aspects of

the implementation programs for O3 and

PM, to provide for more flexible and

cost-effective implementation strategies,

as well as to provide new approaches

that could integrate broad regional and

national control strategies with more

localized efforts. In addition, the

Subcommittee will consider new and

innovative approaches to

implementation including market-based

incentives. The focus of the

Subcommittee will be on assisting EPA

in developing implementation control

strategies, preparing supporting

analyses, and identifying and resolving
29724 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules

impediments to the adoption of the

resulting programs.

Issues involved in possible revision of

the O3 and PM NAAQS, such as the

averaging time, level, and form of any

revised standards, are being addressed

in accordance with the NAAQS review

process described in the above sections,

including review by CASAC, and are

not within the Subcommittee’s charge.

CASAC is charged with providing

advice and recommendations to the

Administrator on all matters pertaining

to the review of and possible revisions

to the NAAQS. Similarly, selection of

the appropriate indicator or units of

measurement for quantifiable changes in

visibility are being addressed through

an independent, scientific peer-review

process and, thus, will not be a subject

for recommendations by the

Subcommittee.

C. Subcommittee Structure

The organization of the Subcommittee

includes a coordination group and four

work groups that will address specific

issues. The coordination and work

groups consist of members of the

Subcommittee, as well as others

recommended by the Subcommittee.

1. Coordination Group

The coordination group is responsible

for assuring that the outputs of the

various work groups are coordinated

and support the overall project goals.

This group serves as the communication

link between the full Subcommittee and

the work groups. It sets the agendas for

the Subcommittee meetings and

coordinates presentations of key issues

and related options to the full

Subcommittee. The coordination group

provides direction to work group chairs

in determining priority issues to be

considered by the full Subcommittee

and in setting time frames for

addressing issues and options with the

Subcommittee. This group serves as a

‘‘sounding board’’ on potential work

group products, resource needs, and any

potential impediments to the progress of

the work groups. It ensures that

adequate progress is made by work

groups and that issues are appropriately

identified and addressed in accordance

with established time lines. Finally, the

coordination group provides a forum for

determining the extent to which work

groups address similar or related issues.

2. Base Program Analyses and Policies

Group

The Base Program Analyses and

Policies Group is responsible for

conducting a reexamination of the

existing base regulatory program to take

into account the potential new NAAQS,

as well as the regional haze program,

and to better integrate broader-based

regional and national control programs

including the perspective of both

receptors and generators of emissions.

This includes reexamination of the

designation and classification process to

better reflect the associated health risks

and definition of air quality problems.

An important component of this group’s

assignment is the development of

recommendations that will facilitate

moving from existing to new programs.

3. National and Regional Strategies

Group

The National and Regional Strategies

Group is responsible for development of

broad regional and national strategies

for addressing transport issues. This

group examines broad-based market and

trading approaches and other innovative

strategies for achieving emission

reductions. To do this, the group has to

consider the technical, policy, and

institutional issues associated with

these types of approaches from the

perspective of both generators and

receptors of emissions.

4. Communications and Outreach Group

The Communications and Outreach

Group is responsible for developing a

focus on the education of the general

public to the nature and extent of air

quality problems and the associated

health and welfare impacts. This

includes providing explanations of the

measures being taken now and in the

future to address these problems and

summaries of associated costs and

benefits. The initial focus of the group

was to explain the current

understanding of health and welfare

effects information. This includes the

steps EPA is taking to address health

and welfare effects through possible

new NAAQS and the regional haze

program. Finally, this group describes

how EPA, through the Subcommittee, is

developing new integrated approaches

to assure that public health and

environmental objectives are attained as

effectively and efficiently as possible.

5. Science and Technical Support Group

The Science and Technical Support

Group is responsible for preparing an

assessment of the current state of the art

with respect to emission inventories, air

quality models, meteorological models,

and analysis of air quality monitoring

data to provide a scientific basis for

decisions on integrated implementation

strategies. These efforts are coordinated

with the ongoing work of the Ozone

Transport Assessment Group (OTAG),

the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport

Commission (GCVTC), the Southern

Appalachian Mountains Initiative

(SAMI), and the North American

Regional Strategies for Tropospheric

Ozone (NARSTO). The Science and

Technical Support Group assessment is

expected to be a short-term effort to

provide baseline information to the

other working groups. In the longer

term, this group will provide scientific

and technical support to the other

groups as requested.

D. Ongoing Process and Schedule for

Addressing Issues

The work groups will develop options

and recommendations, and present

these to the Subcommittee for further

consideration. When consensus is not

obtained on recommendations, minority

and majority options will be presented

to the Subcommittee via the

coordination group. The Subcommittee

will then forward its recommendations

to the CAAAC for consideration and

recommendation to EPA.

The integrated implementation

programs for O3, PM, and regional haze

will be developed in a two-phased

approach. In Phase I, the Subcommittee

and work groups will address air quality

management framework issues. EPA

plans to propose the resulting Phase I

strategy in June 1997. Phase II of the

integrated implementation strategy will

focus on more detailed control strategy

development. EPA plans to propose the

Phase II strategy in June 1998.

Generally, Phase I implementation

issues include: (1) designations for new

NAAQS and regional haze planning

areas, (2) mechanisms to address

regional strategies, (3) integration of

NAAQS and regional haze

implementation programs, (4) regional

haze program definition, (5) new source

review, and (6) dates for potential new

NAAQS and regional haze programs.

Phase II implementation issues include:

(1) classifications, (2) control

requirements, (3) economic incentives,

(4) State implementation plan

requirements, (5) overall control

program integration, (6) measure of

progress, and (7) institutional process.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 50

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules 29725

Dated: May 31, 1996.

Mary D. Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

References

McClellan, R.O. (1989) Letter from Chairman

of Clean Air Scientific Advisory

Committee to the EPA Administrator

concerning ‘‘closure’’ on the Ozone

Criteria Document Supplement and the

Ozone Staff Paper, dated May 1, 1989.

Shy, C.; Lippmann, M.; Stolwijk, J.; and

Speizer, F. (1996). Letter to

Administrator Carol M. Browner

regarding Supplement to the Closure

Letter from the Clean Air Scientific

Advisory Committee. March 20, 1996.

Wolff, G.T. (1995a) Letter from George T.

Wolff, Chair, Clean Air Scientific

Advisory Committee (CASAC) to

Administrator Carol M. Browner. Closure

letter by CASAC on the Air Quality

Criteria for Ozone and Related

Photochemical Oxidants. November 28,

1995.

Wolff, G.T. (1995b) Letter from George T.

Wolff, Chair, Clean Air Scientific

Advisory Committee (CASAC) to

Administrator Carol M. Browner. Closure

letter by CASAC on the Primary

Standard Portion of the Staff Paper for

Ozone. November 30, 1995.

Wolff, G.T. (1996a) Letter from George T.

Wolff, Chair, Clean Air Scientific

Advisory Committee (CASAC) to

Administrator Carol M. Browner. Closure

letter by CASAC on draft Air Quality

Criteria for Particulate Matter. March 15,

1996.

Wolff, G.T. (1996b) Letter from George T.

Wolff, Chair, Clean Air Scientific

Advisory Committee (CASAC) to

Administrator Carol M. Browner. Closure

letter by CASAC on the Secondary

Standard Portion of the Staff Paper for

Ozone. April 4, 1996.

[FR Doc. 96–14912 Filed 6–11–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 014–0003b; FRL–5464–5]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, Five

Local Air Pollution Control Districts

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) which

concern the control of volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions from

graphic arts operations.

The intended effect of proposing

approval of these rules is to regulate

emissions of VOCs in accordance with

the requirements of the Clean Air Act,

as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

In the Final Rules Section of this

Federal Register, the EPA is approving

the state’s SIP revision as a direct final

rule without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

revision and anticipates no adverse

comments. A detailed rationale for this

approval is set forth in the direct final

rule. If no adverse comments are

received in response to this proposed

rule, no further activity is contemplated

in relation to this rule. If EPA receives

adverse comments, the direct final rule

will be withdrawn and all public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received in writing by July 12,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to: Daniel A.

Meer, Rulemaking Section (A–5–3), Air

and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the rules and EPA’s

evaluation report of each rule are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region 9 office during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted rules are

also available for inspection at the

following locations:

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Divison, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812

El Dorado County APCD, 2850 Fairlane

Court, Placerville, CA 95667

Kern County APCD, 2700 M. Street,

Suite 290, Bakersfield, CA 93301

Placer County APCD, 11464 B. Avenue,

Auburn, CA 95603

Santa Barbara County APCD, 26

Castilian Drive, B–23, Goleta, CA

93117

South Coast AQMD, 21865 E. Copley

Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765–4182

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erik

H. Beck, Rulemaking Section (A–5–3),

Air and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901, Telephone:

(415) 744–1190, Internet E–Mail:

beck.erik@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

action concerns: El Dorado County Air

Pollution Control District (EDCAPCD)

Rule 231 ‘‘Graphic Arts Operations’’;

Kern County Air Pollution Control

District (KCAPCD) Rule 410.7, ‘‘Graphic

Arts’’; Placer County Air Pollution

Control District (PCAPCD) Rule 239

‘‘Graphic Arts Operations’’; Santa

Barbara County Air Pollution Control

District (SBCAPCD) Rule 354, ‘‘Graphic

Arts’’; and South Coast Air Quality

Management District (SCAQMD) Rule

1130.1, ‘‘Screen Printing Operations’’.

These rules were submitted by the

California Air Resources Board (CARB)

to EPA on the following dates in

respective order: November 30, 1994;

May 30, 1991; October 13, 1995; July 13,

1994; and November 18, 1993. For

further information, please see the

information provided in the Direct Final

action which is located in the Rules

Section of this Federal Register.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: April 13, 1996.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–14785 Filed 6–11–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–W

40 CFR Part 62

[TN–115–01–9616b; FRL–5519–7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Tennessee; Approval of Revisions to

Process Emission Standards for Total

Reduced Sulfur Emissions From Kraft

Mills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve

the State implementation plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the State of

Tennessee for the purpose of revising

the current regulations for Total

Reduced Sulfur (TRS) from Kraft Mills.

In the final rules section of this Federal

Register, the EPA is approving the

State’s SIP revision as a direct final rule

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

revision amendment and anticipates no

adverse comments. A detailed rationale

for the approval is set forth in the direct

final rule. If no adverse comments are

received in response to this proposed

rule, no further activity is contemplated

in relation to this proposed rule. If EPA

receives adverse comments, the direct

final rule will be withdrawn and all

public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. The EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this document. Any parties

interested in commenting on this

document should do so at this time.