[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