[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29719-29725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14912]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 29720]]
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Welfare 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 combustion-related 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
[[Page 29721]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Acute 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.
\5\ Chronic 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 health-based 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 29722]]
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
concentration-based air quality statistics, the specification of a
range of air quality rather than a single measure, and the use of some
form of population-weighted measure of air quality combining data
across monitors. In particular, the Agency is examining potential
advantages of a concentration-based form over an expected-exceedance-
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 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
[[Page 29724]]
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.
[[Page 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
