[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 14, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57268-57292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-27820]



[[Page 57267]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



40 CFR Part 50



National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Proposed Response To 
Remand; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2001 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 57268]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 50

[FRL-7099-1]
RIN 2060-ZA11


National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Proposed 
Response To Remand

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed response to remand.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On July 18, 1997, in accordance with sections 108 and 109 of 
the Clean Air Act (Act), EPA completed its review of the national 
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone (O3) by 
promulgating revised primary and secondary standards (62 FR 38856; 
henceforth, ``1997 final rule''). On May 14, 1999, the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) 
remanded the O3 NAAQS to EPA to consider, among other 
things, the alleged beneficial health effects of O3 
pollution in shielding the public from the ``harmful effects of the 
sun's ultraviolet rays.'' 175 F. 3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Today's 
action provides EPA's proposed response to that aspect of the court's 
remand. As explained more fully below, based on its review of the air 
quality criteria and NAAQS for O3 completed in 1997, and its 
additional assessment of the potential beneficial effects of 
tropospheric O3, EPA has provisionally determined that the 
information linking changes in patterns of ground-level O3 
concentrations likely to occur as a result of programs implemented to 
attain the 1997 O3 NAAQS to changes in relevant exposures to 
UV-B radiation of concern to public health is too uncertain at this 
time to warrant any relaxation in the level of public health protection 
previously determined to be requisite to protect against the 
demonstrated direct adverse respiratory effects of exposure to 
O3 in the ambient air. Further, the Administrator notes that 
it is the Agency's view that associated changes in UV-B radiation 
exposures of concern, using plausible but highly uncertain assumptions 
about likely changes in patterns of ground-level ozone concentrations, 
would likely be very small from a public health perspective. As a 
result, the revised O3 NAAQS will remain set at a level of 
0.08 parts per million (ppm), with a form based on the 3-year average 
of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average O3 
concentrations measured at each monitor within an area. The primary 
standard provides increased protection to the public, especially 
children and other at-risk populations, against a wide range of health 
effects directly induced by breathing O3 in the ambient air, 
including decreased lung function (primarily in children active 
outdoors), increased respiratory symptoms (particularly in highly 
sensitive individuals), hospital admissions and emergency room visits 
for respiratory causes (among children and adults with pre-existing 
respiratory disease such as asthma), inflammation of the lung, and 
possible long-term damage to the lungs. The secondary standard provides 
increased protection to the public welfare against effects on 
vegetation, such as agricultural crop loss, damage to forests and 
ecosystems, and visible foliar injury to sensitive species associated 
with direct exposure to O3 in the ambient air. Today's 
action constitutes EPA's proposed response to the part of the remand of 
the 1997 O3 NAAQS by the D.C. Circuit related to whether 
tropospheric O3 has a beneficial effect with regard to 
attenuation of naturally occurring solar radiation. Other issues 
related to the 1997 O3 NAAQS are now before the D.C. Circuit 
for proceedings consistent with the February 27, 2001 opinion of the 
United States Supreme Court in this case, Whitman v. American Trucking 
Associations, 531 U.S. 457 (2001), and are not addressed by today's 
action.

DATES: Comments on this proposed response must be received by January 
14, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments (in duplicate if possible) on this 
proposed response to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center 
(6102), Attn: Docket No. A-95-58, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Electronic comments 
are encouraged and can be sent directly to EPA at: [email protected]. Comments will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 
in 8.0/9.0 file format. All comments in electronic form must be 
identified by the docket number, Docket No. A-95-58.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lyon Stone, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(C539-01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; e-mail 
[email protected]; telephone (919) 541-1146.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Docket

    A docket containing information relating to EPA's review of the 
O3 primary and secondary standards (Docket No. A-95-58) is 
available for public inspection at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket 
and Information Center, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 in room 
M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). This docket incorporates the 
docket from the previous review of the O3 standards (Docket 
No. A-92-17) and the docket established for the air quality criteria 
document (Docket No. ECAO-CD-92-0786). The docket may be inspected 
between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on weekdays, excluding legal holidays. A 
reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

Availability of Related Information

    Certain documents are available from the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, 
Springfield, VA 22161. Available documents include:
    (1) The Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 
Ozone: Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information (``Staff 
Paper'') (EPA-452/R-96-007, June 1996, NTIS #PB-96-203435; $67.00 paper 
copy and $21.50 microfiche). (Add a $3.00 handling charge per order.)
    (2) Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Other Photochemical Oxidants 
(``Criteria Document'') (three volumes, EPA/600/P-93-004aF through EPA/
600/P-93-004cF, July 1996, NTIS #PB-96-185574; $169.50 paper copy and 
$58.00 microfiche).
    A limited number of copies of other documents generated in 
connection with the review of the standard, such as documents 
pertaining to human exposure and health risk assessments and the 
relationships between ground-level O3, ultraviolet-B (UV-B) 
radiation, and health effects, 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 and copying in the EPA docket.

Electronic Availability

    The Staff Paper and documents pertaining to human health risk and 
exposure assessments are available on the Office of Air and Radiation, 
Policy and Guidance Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1sp.html. The O3 NAAQS 1996 proposal and 1997 final rule 
are available at the same Web site, at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pfpr.html.

Children's Environmental Health

    This proposed response to the court's remand, reaffirming the 1997 
8-hour O3

[[Page 57269]]

NAAQS, specifically takes into account children as the group most at 
risk to the direct inhalation-related effects of O3 
exposure, and was based on studies of effects on children's health 
(U.S. EPA, 1996a; U.S. EPA, 1996b) and assessments of children's 
exposure and risk (Johnson et al., 1994; Johnson et al., 1996a,b; 
Whitfield et al., 1996; Richmond, 1997). The 8-hour O3 
primary standard protects children's health with an adequate margin of 
safety from the direct adverse effects associated with inhalation 
exposures to ground-level O3, after considering potential 
indirect beneficial effects of ground-level O3 related to 
its attenuation of UV-B radiation and resultant adverse health effects. 
The public is invited to submit or identify peer-reviewed studies and 
data, of which EPA may not be aware, that assess results of early life 
exposure to the direct effects of breathing ground-level O3 
or to changes in UV-B radiation, and associated health effects, that 
may result from changes in ground-level O3.

Implementation Activities

    When the 8-hour primary and secondary O3 standards are 
implemented by the States, utility, automobile, petroleum, and chemical 
industries are likely to be affected, as well as other manufacturing 
concerns that emit volatile organic compounds (VOC) or nitrogen oxides 
(NOX). The extent of such effects will depend on 
implementation policies and control strategies adopted by States to 
assure attainment and maintenance of the standards.
    The EPA will develop appropriate policies and control strategies to 
assist States in the implementation of the 8-hour primary and secondary 
O3 NAAQS. The resulting implementation strategies will then 
be published for public comment in the future.

Table of Contents

    The following topics are discussed in today's preamble:

I. Background
    A. 1997 Revision of the O3 NAAQS
    1. Legislative Requirements
    2. Review of Air Quality Criteria and Standards for 
O3
    B. Ozone NAAQS Litigation and Remand
    1. Litigation Summary
    2. Remand on Health Benefits Issue
    C. Atmospheric Distribution of O3 and UV-B Radiation
    D. Related Stratospheric O3 Program
II. Rationale for Proposed Response to Remand on the Primary 
O3 Standard
    A. Direct Adverse Health Effects from Breathing O3 in 
the Ambient Air
    1. Health Effects Associated with O3 Inhalation 
Exposures
    2. Human Exposure and Risk Assessments
    B. Potential Indirect Beneficial Health Effects Associated with 
Ground-level O3
    1. Health Effects Associated with UV-B Radiation Exposure
    2. Relationship Between Ground-level O3 and UV-B 
Radiation Exposure
    3. Evaluation of UV-B Radiation-related Risk Estimates for 
Ground-level O3 Changes
    C. Consideration of Net Adverse Health Effects of Ground-level 
O3
    D. Proposed Response to Remand on the Primary O3 
NAAQS
III. Rationale for Proposed Response to Remand on the Secondary 
O3 Standard
    A. Direct Adverse Welfare Effects
    B. Potential Indirect Beneficial Welfare Effects
    C. Proposed Response to Remand on the Secondary O3 
NAAQS
IV. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866: OMB Review of ``Significant Actions'
    B. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health
    C. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    D. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    F. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis/Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    I. Executive Order 13211:Energy Effects
V. References

I. Background

A. 1997 Revision of the O3 NAAQS

    On July 18, 1997, in accordance with sections 108 and 109 of the 
Act, EPA completed its review of the NAAQS for O3 by 
promulgating revised primary and secondary standards (``1997 final 
rule''). These standards were based on EPA's review of the available 
scientific evidence linking direct exposures to ambient O3 
to adverse health and welfare effects at levels allowed by the then 
current O3 standards. The revised primary and secondary 
standards were each set at a level of 0.08 ppm, with an 8-hour 
averaging time and a form based on the 3-year average of the annual 
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average O3 
concentrations measured at each monitor within an area. \1\ The new 
primary standard was established to provide increased protection to the 
public, especially children and other at-risk populations, against a 
wide range of O3-induced respiratory health effects due to 
inhalation exposures, including decreased lung function, primarily in 
children active outdoors; increased respiratory symptoms, particularly 
in highly sensitive individuals; hospital admissions and emergency room 
visits for respiratory causes, among children and adults with pre-
existing respiratory disease such as asthma; inflammation of the lung; 
and possible long-term damage to the lungs. The new secondary standard 
was established to provide increased protection to the public welfare 
against direct O3-induced effects on vegetation, such as 
agricultural crop loss, damage to forests and ecosystems, and visible 
foliar injury to sensitive species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The form of a standard refers to the air quality statistic 
that is used to determine whether an area attains the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Legislative Requirements
    Two sections of the Act govern the establishment, review, and 
revision of NAAQS. Section 108 (42 U.S.C. 7408) directs the 
Administrator to identify certain pollutants which ``may reasonably be 
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare'' and to issue air 
quality criteria for them. 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 * * *.''
    Section 109 (42 U.S.C. 7409) directs the Administrator to propose 
and promulgate ``primary'' and ``secondary'' NAAQS for pollutants 
identified under section 108. Section 109(b)(1) defines a primary 
standard 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, are requisite to protect the public 
health.'' A secondary standard, as defined in section 109(b)(2), must 
``specify a level of air quality the attainment and maintenance of 
which in the judgment of the Administrator, based on [the] criteria, 
[are] requisite to protect the public welfare from any known or 
anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of [the] 
pollutant in the ambient air.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Welfare effects as defined in section 302(h) (42 U.S.C. 
7602(h)) include, but are not limited to, ``effects on soils, water, 
crops, vegetation, man-made 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 109(d)(1) of the Act requires periodic review and, if 
appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria and NAAQS. 
Section 109(d)(2) requires appointment of an independent scientific 
review committee to review criteria and standards and recommend

[[Page 57270]]

new standards or revisions of existing criteria and standards, as 
appropriate. The committee established under section 109(d)(2) is known 
as the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), a standing 
committee of EPA's Science Advisory Board.
2. Review of Air Quality Criteria and Standards for O3
    An overview of the last review of the O3 air quality 
criteria and standards is presented in section I.C of the preamble to 
the 1997 final rule. In summary, the 1997 review was initiated in 
August 1992 with the development of a revised Air Quality Criteria 
Document for Ozone and Other Photochemical Oxidants (henceforth, the 
``Criteria Document''). Multiple drafts of the Criteria Document were 
reviewed by CASAC and the public, resulting in a final Criteria 
Document (U.S. EPA, 1996a) that reflected CASAC and public comments.\3\ 
The EPA also prepared a staff paper, Review of National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards for Ozone: Assessment of Scientific and Technical 
Information (henceforth, the ``Staff Paper'').\4\ Multiple drafts of 
the Staff Paper were also reviewed by CASAC and the public, resulting 
in a final Staff Paper (U.S. EPA, 1996b) that reflected CASAC and 
public comments.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In a November 28, 1995 letter from the CASAC chair to the 
Administrator, CASAC advised that the final draft Criteria Document 
``provides an adequate review of the available scientific data and 
relevant studies of ozone and related photochemical oxidants'' 
(Wolff, 1995a).
    \4\ The Staff Paper evaluates policy implications of the key 
studies and scientific information in the Criteria Document, 
identifies critical elements that EPA staff believes should be 
considered, and presents staff conclusions and recommendations of 
suggested options for the Administrator's consideration.
    \5\ In separate letters from the CASAC chair to the 
Administrator, CASAC advised that the primary standard and secondary 
standard sections of the final draft Staff Paper provide ``an 
adequate scientific basis for making regulatory decisions'' 
concerning the O3 standards (Wolff, 1995b, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 27, 1996 EPA announced its proposed decision to revise 
the NAAQS for O3 (61 FR 65716, December 13, 1996; 
henceforth, ``1996 proposal''), as well as its proposed decision to 
revise the NAAQS for particulate matter (PM). To ensure the broadest 
possible public input on these proposals, EPA took extensive and 
unprecedented steps to facilitate the public comment process, including 
the establishment of a national toll-free telephone hotline and 
provisions for electronic submission of comments. The EPA also held 
several public hearings, participated in numerous meetings across the 
country, and held two national satellite telecasts to provide direct 
opportunities for public comment and to disseminate information to the 
public about the proposed standard revisions. As a result of this 
intensive effort to solicit public input, over 50,000 comments were 
received on the proposed revisions to the O3 NAAQS by the 
close of the public comment period on March 12, 1997.
    The final rule, published on July 18, 1997, presented EPA's 
rationale for its final decision, and addressed the major issues raised 
in comments on the 1996 proposal. A comprehensive summary of all 
significant comments, along with EPA's response to such comments (U.S. 
EPA, 1997; henceforth, ``Response to Comments''), can be found in the 
docket for the 1997 rulemaking (Docket No. A-95-58 \6\). The 1997 final 
rule presented EPA's decision to replace the existing 1-hour primary 
and secondary standards \7\ (each set at a level of 0.12 ppm, with a 1-
expected-exceedance form, averaged over 3 years \8\) with 8-hour 
standards, each set at a level of 0.08 ppm, with a form based on the 3-
year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average 
O3 concentrations measured at each monitor within an area 
(as determined by 40 CFR part 50, appendix I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This docket incorporates by reference the docket from the 
previous O3 NAAQS review (Docket No. A-92-17) and the 
docket established for the Criteria Document (Docket No. ECAO-CD-92-
0876).
    \7\ These 1-hour O3 standards were originally set in 
1979 (44 FR 8202, February 8, 1979) and reaffirmed in 1993 (58 FR 
13008, March 9, 1993).
    \8\ The 1-hour standards are attained when the expected number 
of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations 
above 0.12 ppm is equal to or less than one, averaged over 3 years 
(as determined by 40 CFR part 50, appendix H).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Ozone NAAQS Litigation and Remand

1. Litigation Summary
    Following promulgation of the revised 8-hour O3 NAAQS, 
numerous petitions for review of the standards were filed in the D.C. 
Circuit. American Trucking Associations v. EPA, No. 97-1441 (ATA). Oral 
argument was held on December 17, 1998 and the Court of Appeals 
rendered its opinion on May 14, 1999. American Trucking Associations v. 
EPA, 175 F. 3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999). A divided panel found that 
section 109 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7409, as interpreted by EPA in 
setting the revised O3 (and PM) NAAQS, effected an 
unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. Id. at 1033-1040. 
The court remanded the O3 standards with instructions that 
EPA should articulate an ``intelligible principle'' for determining the 
degree of residual risk to public health permissible in setting revised 
NAAQS. Id. In addition, the court also directed that, in responding to 
the remand, EPA should consider the alleged beneficial health effects 
of O3 pollution in shielding the public from the ``harmful 
effects of the sun's ultraviolet rays.'' Id. at 1051-1053.
    In 1999, EPA petitioned the Court of Appeals for rehearing en banc 
on a number of aspects of the court's decision in the ATA case. 
Although the petition for rehearing was granted in part and denied in 
part, the court declined to review its ruling with regard to the 
potential beneficial effects of O3 pollution. American 
Trucking Associations v. EPA, 195 F. 3d 4, 10 (D.C. Cir. 1999). The 
court did note, however, that it ``expressed[ed] no opinion, of course, 
upon the effect, if any, that studies showing the beneficial effects of 
tropospheric ozone * * * might have upon any ozone standards * * *'' 
Id. On January 27, 2000, EPA petitioned the Supreme Court for 
certiorari on the constitutional issue and two other issues, but did 
not request review of the Court of Appeals ruling regarding the alleged 
beneficial health effects of O3. The EPA's petition for 
certiorari was granted on May 22, 2000; oral argument was subsequently 
held on November 7, 2000; and an opinion was issued on February 27, 
2001. Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 U.S.457 (2001). 
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the D.C. Circuit on the 
constitutional issue, holding that section 109 of the Act does not 
delegate legislative power to the EPA in contravention of the 
Constitution, and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit for proceedings 
consistent with its opinion. Since EPA did not seek Supreme Court 
review of the Court of Appeals' decision relating to potential 
beneficial health effects of O3, EPA is moving forward to 
address that aspect of the lower court's remand independently.
2. Remand on Health Benefits Issue
    The Court of Appeals' ruling concludes that ``EPA cannot ignore the 
possible health benefits of ozone.'' \9\ American Trucking Associations 
v. EPA, 175 F. 3d 1027, 1033 (D.C. Cir. 1999). According to the court 
``[p]etitioners presented evidence that, according to them, shows the 
health benefits of tropospheric ozone as a

[[Page 57271]]

shield from the harmful effects of the sun's ultraviolet rays--
including cataracts and both melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer.'' 
Id. at 1051. In rejecting EPA's interpretation of the Act that it need 
not consider alleged indirect beneficial effects of tropospheric 
O3 in shielding the public from potentially harmful, but 
naturally occurring, UV-B radiation from the sun, the court concluded 
that ``legally * * * EPA must consider the positive identifiable 
effects of a pollutant's presence in the ambient air in formulating air 
quality criteria under section 108 and NAAQS under section 109.'' Id. 
at 1052. As a result, the court directed EPA to ``determine whether * * 
* tropospheric ozone has a beneficent effect and, if so, then to assess 
ozone's net adverse health effect.'' Id. at 1053. Today's action sets 
forth EPA's proposed response in that regard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For the reasons discussed in the Response to Comments (U.S. 
EPA, 1997, pp. 128-135), EPA did not consider in the 1997 review 
adverse health effects caused by the potential increase in UV-B 
radiation that could result from reductions in ground-level 
O3 brought about by control programs implemented to 
attain a revised O3 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Atmospheric Distribution of O3 and UV-B Radiation

    The focus of the 1997 review of the air quality criteria and 
standards for O3 and related photochemical oxidants was on 
public health and welfare effects associated with direct exposure to 
ambient levels of O3 in the lower troposphere, essentially 
at ground level. People are directly exposed to ground-level 
O3 simply by breathing ambient air; similarly, plants are 
directly exposed through their respiratory processes. Ground-level 
O3 is not emitted directly from mobile or stationary sources 
but, like other photochemical oxidants, commonly exists in the ambient 
air as an atmospheric transformation product. Ground-level 
O3 formation is the result of chemical reactions of VOC, 
NOX, and oxygen in the presence of sunlight and generally at 
elevated temperatures. As a principal ingredient in photochemical smog, 
elevated episodic concentrations of ground-level O3 
typically occur in the summertime. High concentrations may be found in 
and downwind of major urban centers as well as across broad regions of 
elevated precursor emissions. A detailed discussion of atmospheric 
formation, ambient concentrations, and health and welfare effects 
associated with direct exposure to O3 can be found in the 
Criteria Document and Staff Paper.
    Naturally occurring O3 is found in two sections of the 
earth's atmosphere, the stratosphere and the troposphere. The 
demarcation between these two layers varies between about 8 and 18 
kilometers (km) above the earth's surface. As illustrated in Figure 1, 
depicting the vertical profile of O3, most naturally 
occurring O3 (> 90 percent) resides in the stratosphere, 
with the remaining O3 ( 10 percent) in the troposphere. The 
band of O3 between about 15 and 30 km is commonly known as 
the ``ozone layer.''
    Man-made air pollution has significantly perturbed the natural 
distribution of O3 in both layers. It is now widely accepted 
that emissions of long-lived chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other 
compounds can deplete the natural O3 layer in the

[[Page 57272]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14NO01.001

stratosphere. And, as summarized above, much shorter lived emissions of 
VOC and NOX can markedly increase ``smog'' O3 in 
the lowest portion of the troposphere, which is termed the planetary 
boundary layer. This fluctuating planetary boundary or ``mixing'' layer 
of the troposphere can extend as high as 1 to 3 km above the ground. 
Assuming a fairly high summertime O3 pollution reservoir of 
65 parts per billion (ppb) in a typical 1 km mixing layer, Cupitt 
(1994) estimated that pollution would add less than 1 percent to the 
expected total vertical profile of tropospheric and stratospheric 
O3 (i.e., ``total column'' O3) that would occur 
in the natural environment.
    Ozone at ground level and throughout the troposphere is chemically 
identical to stratospheric O3. Stratospheric O3 
occurs far too high to present any threat of direct respiratory-related 
adverse effects to people or plants from ambient ground-level 
exposures, but is known to provide a natural protective shield from 
excess radiation from the sun by absorbing UV-B radiation \10\ before 
it penetrates to ground level. Recognizing that exposure to UV-B 
radiation has been associated with adverse health and welfare effects, 
EPA and international scientific, regulatory, and legislative 
organizations have for some time focused on understanding the effects 
of UV-B radiation and on controlling the man-made pollution that is 
causing the depletion of the O3 layer in the stratosphere, 
as discussed in section I.D below.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ UV-B radiation refers to the region of the solar spectrum 
within the range of wavelengths generally from 280-290 nanometers 
(nm) at the lower end, to 315-320 nm at the upper end.
    \11\ For example, in 1977 and again in 1990, Congress added 
provisions to the Act to address stratospheric O3 
depletion and the resultant increase in exposure to UV-B radiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the 1997 review, EPA recognized that tropospheric 
O3 also absorbs UV-B radiation (U.S. EPA, 1996a, p. 5-79), 
such that ground-level O3 formed by man-made pollution has 
the potential to provide some degree of additional shielding beyond the 
natural levels that would otherwise occur in the absence of man-made 
pollution. The relationship between ground-level O3 and UV-B 
radiation, as well as the health effects associated with exposure to 
UV-B radiation and consideration of the UV-B radiation-related health 
risks associated with changes in ground-level O3 are 
discussed in section II.B below. In response to the remand on the 
health benefits issue, EPA's assessment of the net adverse health 
effects of ground-level O3 is discussed in section II.C 
below, as a basis for today's proposed decision on the primary 
O3 NAAQS, summarized in section II.D below.

D. Related Stratospheric O3 Program

    In the 1970s, scientists first grew concerned that certain 
chemicals could

[[Page 57273]]

damage the earth's protective stratospheric O3 layer, and 
these concerns were validated by the discovery of thinning of the 
O3 layer over Antarctica in the southern hemisphere. Because 
of the risks posed by stratospheric O3 depletion and the 
global nature of the problem, leaders from many countries decided to 
work together to craft a workable solution. Since 1987, over 175 
nations have signed a landmark environmental treaty, the Montreal 
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The Protocol's 
chief aim is to reduce and eventually eliminate the production and use 
of man-made O3 depleting substances, such as CFCs. By 
agreeing to the terms of the Montreal Protocol, signatory nations 
ratifying the Protocol--including the United States--commit to take 
actions to protect the stratospheric O3 layer and to reverse 
the damage due to the use of O3 depleting substances.
    In 1990, Congress amended the Act by adding title VI (sections 601-
618) to address the issue of stratospheric O3 depletion.\12\ 
Most importantly, the amended Act required the gradual end to the 
production of certain chemicals that deplete the O3 
layer.\13\ In addition, the Act requires EPA to develop and implement 
regulations for the responsible management of O3 depleting 
substances in the United States. The EPA has developed several 
regulatory programs under these authorities that include: ending the 
production and import of O3 depleting substances (57 FR 
33754, July 30, 1992) and identifying safe and effective alternatives 
(59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994), ensuring that refrigerants and halon 
fire extinguishing agents are recycled properly (58 FR 28660, May 14, 
1993), banning the release of O3 depleting refrigerants 
during the service, maintenance, and disposal of air conditioners and 
other refrigeration equipment (60 FR 40420, August 8, 1995), and 
requiring that manufacturers label products either containing or made 
with the most harmful O3 depleting substances (58 FR 8136, 
February 11, 1993). Because of their relatively high O3 
depletion potential, several man-made compounds, including CFCs, carbon 
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and halons were targeted first for 
phaseout. The EPA continues to develop additional regulations for the 
protection of public health and the environment from effects associated 
with the depletion of the stratospheric O3 layer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Title VI replaced the provisions regarding stratospheric 
O3 depletion enacted in 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7671.
    \13\ Both the Act and the Montreal Protocol, however, provide 
for limited ``essential use exemptions'' for the continued 
production and import of very small quantities of CFCs and other 
O3 depleting substances needed for certain essential 
uses, for example, for metered dose inhalers used by people with 
asthma and other respiratory diseases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Besides implementing and enforcing stratospheric O3 
protection regulations in the U.S., EPA continues to work with other 
U.S. government agencies and international governments to pursue 
ongoing changes to the Montreal Protocol and other treaties. These 
refinements to the Protocol and other treaties are based on ongoing 
scientific assessments of O3 depletion that are coordinated 
by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World 
Meteorological Organization (WMO), with cooperation from EPA and other 
agencies around the globe (UNEP, 1998; and WMO, 1998).
    In addition to these regulatory and scientific activities, EPA 
maintains several education and outreach projects to help protect the 
American public from the health effects of overexposure to ultraviolet 
(UV) radiation. Chief among these projects is the UV Index, a tool that 
provides a daily forecast of the next day's likely UV levels across the 
United States. \14\ The UV Index, which EPA launched in partnership 
with the National Weather Service, serves as the cornerstone of EPA's 
SunWise School Program, the goal of which is to educate young children 
and their caregivers about the health effects of overexposure to the 
sun, as well as simple steps that people can take to avoid 
overexposure. \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Information about the UV Index is available from the EPA 
Stratospheric Ozone Hotline at (800) 296-1996 or at http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/uvindex.html.
    \15\ Information about EPA's SunWise School Program is available 
at http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Rationale for Proposed Response To Remand on the Primary 
O3 Standard

    Today's action presents the Administrator's proposed response to 
the remand, reaffirming the 8-hour O3 primary standard 
promulgated in 1997, based on: (1) Information from the 1997 criteria 
and standards review that served as the basis for the 1997 primary 
O3 standard, including the scientific information on health 
effects associated with direct inhalation exposures to O3 in 
the ambient air, consideration of the adversity of such effects for 
individuals, and human exposure and risk assessments (section II.A 
below); (2) a review of the scientific information in the record of the 
1997 review (but not considered as part of the basis for the 1997 
standard) on the health effects associated with changes in UV-B 
radiation, the association between changes in ground-level 
O3 and changes in UV-B radiation, and predictions of changes 
in ground-level O3 levels likely to result from attainment 
of alternative O3 standards \16\ (section II.B below); and 
(3) consideration of the net adverse effects of ground-level 
O3, taking into account both direct adverse inhalation-
related health effects and the potential for indirect beneficial health 
effects associated with the shielding of UV-B radiation by ground-level 
O3 (section II.C below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In complying with the direction of the Court of Appeals in 
its remand on the health benefit issue, we have considered the large 
amount of relevant information in the record of the 1997 review, and 
in doing so, have based this proposed response on all the 
information available to the court in reaching its decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Direct Adverse Health Effects From Breathing O3 in the 
Ambient Air

    This section briefly summarizes information on the direct adverse 
health effects from breathing O3 in the ambient air, 
information as to when those effects become adverse to individuals, and 
insights gained from human exposure and risk assessments intended to 
provide a broader perspective for judgments about protecting public 
health from the risks associated with direct O3 inhalation 
exposures.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See the 1996 proposal and 1997 final rule for more complete 
summaries and the Criteria Document and Staff Paper for more 
detailed discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Health Effects Associated With O3 Inhalation Exposures
    Based on information from human clinical, epidemiological, and 
animal toxicological studies, an array of health effects has been 
attributed to short-term (1 to 3 hours), prolonged (6 to 8 hours), and 
long-term (months to years) exposures to O3. Long-
established acute health effects \18\ induced by short-term exposures 
to O3, generally while individuals were engaged in heavy 
exertion, include transient pulmonary function responses, transient 
respiratory symptoms, and effects on exercise performance.\19\ The 1997 
review included substantial new information on similar effects 
associated with prolonged exposures at concentrations as low as 0.08 
ppm and at moderate levels of exertion. Other health effects associated 
with short-term or prolonged

[[Page 57274]]

O3 exposures include increased airway responsiveness, 
susceptibility to respiratory infection, increased hospital admissions 
and emergency room visits, and transient pulmonary inflammation. The 
1997 review also included new information on chronic health effects 
\20\ associated with long-term exposures. This array of effects is 
briefly summarized below, followed by considerations as to when these 
physiological effects could become medically significant such that they 
should be regarded as adverse to the health of individuals experiencing 
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ ``Acute'' health effects of O3 are defined as 
those effects induced by short-term and prolonged exposures to 
O3. Examples of these effects are functional, 
symptomatic, biochemical, and physiologic changes.
    \19\ The 1-hour O3 primary NAAQS set in 1979 was 
generally based on these acute effects associated with heavy 
exercise and short-term exposures.
    \20\ ``Chronic'' health effects of O3 are defined as 
those effects induced by long-term exposures to O3. 
Examples of these effects are structural damage to lung tissue and 
accelerated decline in baseline lung function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Effects of Short-Term and Prolonged O3 Exposures
    (i) Pulmonary function responses. Transient reductions in pulmonary 
function have been observed in healthy individuals and those with 
impaired respiratory systems (e.g., asthmatic individuals) as a result 
of both short-term and prolonged exposures to O3. The 
strongest and most quantifiable exposure-response information on such 
responses has come from controlled human exposure studies, which 
clearly show that reductions in lung function are enhanced by increased 
levels of activity involving exertion and by increased O3 
concentrations. Numerous such studies of exercising adults have 
demonstrated decrements in lung function both for exposures of 1-3 
hours at 0.12 ppm O3 and for exposures of 6.6 
hours at 0.08 ppm O3, providing conclusive 
evidence that O3 levels commonly monitored in the ambient 
air induce lung function decrements in exercising adults. Further, 
numerous summer camp studies provide an extensive and reliable data 
base on comparable lung function responses to ambient O3 and 
other pollutants in children and adolescents. The extent of pulmonary 
function decrements varies considerably among individuals, pulmonary 
function generally tends to return to baseline levels shortly after 
short-term exposure, and effects are typically attenuated upon repeated 
short-term exposures over several days.
    (ii) Respiratory symptoms and effects on exercise performance. 
Various transient respiratory symptoms, including cough, throat 
irritation, chest pain on deep inspiration, and shortness of breath, 
have been induced by O3 exposures of both healthy 
individuals and those with impaired respiratory systems. Increasing 
O3 exposure durations and levels have been shown to elicit 
increasingly more severe symptoms that persist for longer periods in 
increasingly larger numbers of individuals. Symptomatic and pulmonary 
function responses follow a similar time course during an acute 
exposure and the subsequent recovery, as well as over the course of 
several days during repeated exposures. As with pulmonary function 
responses, the severity of symptomatic responses varies considerably 
among subjects. For some outdoor workers or active people who are 
highly responsive to ambient O3, respiratory symptoms may 
cause reduced productivity, may curb the ability or desire to engage in 
normal activities, and may interfere with maximal exercise performance.
    (iii) Increased airway responsiveness. Increased airway 
responsiveness is an indication that the airways are predisposed to 
bronchoconstriction, with a high level of bronchial responsiveness 
being characteristic of asthma. As a result of increased airway 
responsiveness induced by O3 exposure, human airways may be 
more susceptible to a variety of stimuli, including antigens, 
chemicals, and particles. For example, healthy subjects after being 
exposed to O3 concentrations as low as 0.20 ppm for 1 hour 
and 0.08 ppm for 6.6 hours have experienced small increases in 
nonspecific bronchial responsiveness, which usually resolve within 24 
hours. Because enhanced response to antigens in asthmatics could lead 
to increased morbidity (i.e., medical treatment, emergency room visits, 
hospital admissions) or to more persistent alterations in airway 
responsiveness, these health endpoints raise concern for public health, 
particularly for individuals with impaired respiratory systems.
    (iv) Increased susceptibility to respiratory infection. When 
functioning normally, the human respiratory tract, like that of other 
mammals, has numerous closely integrated defense mechanisms that 
provide protection from the adverse effects of a wide variety of 
inhaled particles and microbes. Evidence that inhalation of 
O3 may break down or impair these defense mechanisms comes 
primarily from a very large number of laboratory animal studies with 
generally consistent results. One of the few studies of moderately 
exercising human subjects exposed to 0.08 ppm O3 for 6.6 
hours reported decrements in alveolar macrophage function, the first 
line of defense against inhaled microorganisms and particles in the 
lower airways and air sacs. While no single experimental human study or 
group of animal studies conclusively demonstrates that human 
susceptibility to respiratory infection is increased by exposure to 
O3, taken as a whole, the data suggest that acute 
O3 exposures can impair the host defense capability of both 
humans and animals, potentially resulting in a predisposition to 
bacterial infections in the lower respiratory tract.
    (v) Hospital admissions and emergency room visits. Increased 
summertime hospital admissions and emergency room visits for 
respiratory causes have been associated with ambient exposures to 
O3 and other environmental factors. Numerous studies 
consistently have shown such a relationship, even after controlling for 
modifying factors, as well as when considering only O3 
concentrations 0.12 ppm. Individuals with preexisting respiratory 
disease (e.g., asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) may 
generally be at increased risk of such effects, and some individuals 
with respiratory disease may have an inherently greater sensitivity to 
O3. On the other hand, individuals with more severe 
respiratory disease are less likely to engage in the level of exertion 
associated with provoking responses to O3 exposures in 
healthy humans. On balance, it is reasonable to conclude that evidence 
of O3-induced increased airway resistance, nonspecific 
bronchial responsiveness, susceptibility to respiratory infection, 
increased airway permeability, airway inflammation, and incidence of 
asthma attacks suggests that ambient O3 exposure could be a 
cause of increased hospital admissions, particularly for asthmatics.
    (vi) Pulmonary inflammation. Respiratory inflammation can be 
considered to be a host response to injury and indicators of 
inflammation as evidence that respiratory cell damage has occurred. 
Inflammation induced by exposure of humans to O3 may have 
several potential outcomes: (1) Inflammation induced by a single 
exposure (or even several exposures over the course of a season) could 
resolve entirely; (2) repeated acute inflammation could develop into a 
chronic inflammatory state; (3) continued inflammation could alter the 
structure and function of other pulmonary tissue, leading to disease 
processes such as fibrosis; (4) inflammation could interfere with the 
body's host defense response to particles and inhaled microorganisms, 
particularly in potentially vulnerable populations such as children and 
older individuals; and (5) inflammation could amplify the lung's 
response to other agents such as allergens or toxins. Exposures of 
laboratory animals to O3

[[Page 57275]]

for periods 8 hours have been shown to result in cell 
damage, inflammation, and increased leakage of proteins from blood into 
the air spaces of the respiratory tract. In humans, the extent and 
course of inflammation and its constitutive elements have been 
evaluated by using bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) to sample cells and 
fluid from the lung and lower airways. Several such studies have shown 
that exercising humans exposed (1 to 4 hours) to 0.2 to 0.6 ppm 
O3 had O3-induced markers of inflammation and 
cell damage, with the lowest concentration of prolonged O3 
exposure tested in humans, 0.08 ppm for 6.6 hours with moderate 
exercise, inducing small but statistically significant increases in 
these endpoints. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that repeated acute 
inflammatory response and cellular damage is potentially a matter of 
public health concern; however, it is also recognized that most, if not 
all, of these effects begin to resolve in most individuals within 24 
hours if the exposure to O3 is not repeated. Of possibly 
greater public health concern is the potential for chronic respiratory 
damage that could be the result of repeated O3 exposures 
occurring over a season or a lifetime.
 b. Potential Effects of Long-Term O3 Exposures
    Epidemiologic studies that have investigated potential associations 
between long-term O3 exposures and chronic respiratory 
effects in humans thus far have provided only suggestive evidence of 
such a relationship. Most studies investigating this association have 
been cross-sectional in design and have been compromised by incomplete 
control of confounding variables and inadequate exposure information. 
Other studies have attempted to follow variably exposed groups 
prospectively. The findings from such studies conducted in southern 
California and Canada suggest small, but consistent, decrements in lung 
function among inhabitants of the more highly polluted communities; 
however, associations between O3 and other copollutants and 
problems with study population loss have reduced the level of 
confidence in these conclusions. Other epidemiologic studies have 
attempted to find associations between daily mortality and 
O3 concentrations in various cities around the United 
States. Although an association between ambient O3 exposure 
in areas with very high O3 levels and daily mortality has 
been suggested by these studies, the data are limited.
    In a large number of animal toxicology studies, ``lesions'' \21\ in 
the centriacinar regions of the lung (i.e., the portion of the lung 
where the region that conducts air and the region that exchanges gas 
are joined) are well established as one of the hallmarks of 
O3 toxicity. Under certain conditions, some of the 
structural changes seen in these studies may become irreversible. It is 
unclear, however, whether ambient exposure scenarios encountered by 
humans result in similar ``lesions'' or whether there are resultant 
functional or impaired health outcomes in humans chronically exposed to 
O3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Differing views have been expressed by CASAC panel members 
regarding the use of the term ``lesion'' to describe the 
O3-induced morphological (i.e., structural) abnormalities 
observed in toxicological studies. Section V.C.8 of the Staff Paper 
describes and discusses these degenerative changes in more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The epidemiologic lung function studies generally parallel those of 
the animal studies, but lack good information on individual 
O3 exposure history and are frequently confounded by 
personal or copollutant variables. Thus, the Administrator recognizes 
that there is a lack of a clear understanding of the significance of 
repeated, long-term inflammatory responses, and that there is a need 
for continued research in this important area. In summary, the 
collective data on long-term exposure to O3 garnered in 
studies of laboratory animals and human populations have many 
ambiguities. Nevertheless, the currently available information provides 
at least a biologically plausible basis for considering that repeated 
inflammation associated with exposure to O3 over a lifetime 
may result in sufficient damage to respiratory tissue such that 
individuals later in life may experience a reduced quality of life, 
although such relationships remain highly uncertain.
c. Adversity of Effects for Individuals
    Some population groups have been identified as being sensitive to 
effects associated with exposures to ambient O3 levels, such 
that individuals within these groups are at increased risk of 
experiencing such effects. Population groups at increased risk include: 
(1) Active children and outdoor workers who regularly engage in outdoor 
activities; \22\ (2) individuals with preexisting respiratory disease 
(e.g., asthma or chronic obstructive lung disease); \23\ and (3) some 
individuals, referred to as ``hyperresponders,'' who are unusually 
responsive to O3 relative to other individuals with similar 
levels of activity or with a similar health status and may experience 
much greater functional and symptomatic effects from exposure to 
O3 than the average individual response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Exertion increases the amount of O3 entering the 
airways and can cause O3 to penetrate to peripheral 
regions of the lung where lung tissue is more likely to be damaged.
    \23\ While not necessarily more responsive than healthy 
individuals in terms of the magnitude of pulmonary function 
decrements or symptomatic responses, these individuals may be at 
increased risk since the impact of O3-induced responses 
on already-compromised respiratory systems may more noticeably 
impair an individual's ability to engage in normal activity or may 
be more likely to result in increased self-medication or medical 
treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In making judgments as to when the effects discussed above become 
significant enough that they should be regarded as adverse to the 
health of individuals in these sensitive populations, the Administrator 
has looked to guidelines published by the American Thoracic Society 
(ATS) and the advice of CASAC. Based on these guidelines, with CASAC 
concurrence, gradations of individual functional responses (e.g., 
decrements in forced expiratory volume (FEV1), increased 
airway responsiveness) and symptomatic responses (e.g., cough, chest 
pain, wheeze) were defined, together with judgments as to the potential 
impact on individuals experiencing varying degrees of severity of these 
responses.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ These gradations and impacts are summarized in the 1996 
proposal and discussed in the Criteria Document (Chapter 9) and 
Staff Paper (section V.F, Tables V-4 and V-5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In judging the extent to which such impacts represent effects that 
should be regarded as adverse to the health status of individuals, an 
additional factor considered is whether such effects are experienced 
repeatedly by an individual during the course of a year or only on a 
single occasion. While some experts would judge single occurrences of 
moderate responses to be a ``nuisance,'' especially for healthy 
individuals, a more general consensus view of the adversity of such 
moderate responses emerges as the frequency of occurrence increases. 
Thus, EPA has concluded that repeated occurrences of moderate 
responses, even in otherwise healthy individuals, may be considered to 
be adverse since they could well set the stage for more serious 
illness.
2. Human Exposure and Risk Assessments
    To put judgments about health effects that are adverse for 
individuals into a broader public health context, the Administrator has 
taken into account the results of human exposure and risk assessments. 
\25\ This broader context

[[Page 57276]]

includes consideration, to the extent possible, of the particular 
population groups at risk for various health effects, the number of 
people in at-risk groups likely to be exposed to O3 
concentrations shown to cause health effects, the number of people 
likely to experience certain adverse health effects under varying air 
quality scenarios, and the kind and degree of uncertainties inherent in 
these assessments. These quantitative assessments add to our 
understanding of the overall body of evidence linking O3 
inhalation exposures to adverse health effects. The EPA believes, and 
CASAC concurred, that the models used in these assessments were 
appropriate and that the methods used represent the state of the art.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See the 1996 proposal (61 FR 65723-6) and 1997 final rule 
(62 FR 38860-1) for a more complete summary of these assessments. A 
detailed description of the exposure and risk models and their 
application at the time of the 1996 proposal are presented in the 
Staff Paper and associated technical support documents (Johnson et 
al., 1994; Johnson et al., 1996 a,b; McCurdy, 1994a; Whitfield et 
al., 1996). Following proposal, supplemental exposure and risk 
analyses were done to analyze the specific standard proposed and 
alternative standards on which comment was solicited, as well as to 
refine the procedures used to simulate O3 concentrations 
upon attainment of alternative standards (Richmond, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Exposure Analyses
    The EPA conducted exposure analyses to estimate O3 
exposures for the general population and two at-risk populations, 
active children who regularly engage in outdoor activity (i.e., 
``outdoor children'') and ``outdoor workers,'' living in nine 
representative U.S. urban areas.\26\ Exposure estimates were developed 
for a baseline year (e.g., 1993, 1994), using monitored O3 
air quality data (i.e., the ``as is'' scenario), as well as for 
simulated air quality conditions reflecting attainment of the 1-hour 
NAAQS and various alternative standards. The exposure analyses provide: 
(1) Estimates of the number of people exposed in each of these 
population groups to various O3 concentrations, and the 
number of occurrences of such exposures, under different regulatory 
scenarios,\27\ which are an important input to the risk assessment 
conducted for certain adverse health effects (summarized in the next 
section); and (2) estimates of the frequency of occurrences of 
O3 ``exposures of concern,'' \28\ which help to put into 
broader perspective other O3-related health effects that 
could not be included in the risk assessment (summarized below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The areas include a significant fraction of the U.S. urban 
population, 41.7 million people, the largest urban areas with major 
O3 nonattainment problems, and two large urban areas that 
are in attainment with the 1-hour NAAQS.
    \27\ Estimates of ``people exposed'' reflect the number of 
people who experience exposures to a given concentration of 
O3, or higher, at least one time during the period of 
analysis, and estimates of ``occurrences of exposure'' reflect the 
number of times a given O3 concentration is experienced 
by the population of interest.
    \28\ ``Exposures of concern'' refer throughout to O3 
exposures at and above 0.08 ppm, 8-hour average, at moderate 
exertion. Such exposures are particularly relevant to a 
consideration of a number of health effects, discussed in section 
I.A.1 above, that have been observed in controlled human studies 
under these exposure conditions, but for which data were too limited 
to allow for quantitative risk assessment. Exposures at and above 
0.12 ppm, 1-hour average, at heavy exertion, are also of concern; 
however, the focus here is on 8-hour average exposures since 
exposure estimates are higher for the 8-hour average effects level 
of 0.08 ppm at moderate exertion than for the 1-hour average effects 
level of 0.12 ppm at heavy exertion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The computer model used in these analyses, the probabilistic NAAQS 
exposure model for O3 (pNEM/O3), combines 
information on O3 air quality with information on patterns 
of human activity to produce estimates of O3 inhalation 
exposures. This model has been developed to take into account the most 
significant factors contributing to total O3 inhalation 
exposure including: the temporal and spatial patterns of ground-level 
O3 concentrations throughout an urban area; the variations 
of O3 levels within a comprehensive set of 
``microenvironments''; \29\ the temporal and spatial patterns of the 
movement of people throughout an urban area; and the effects of 
variable exertion levels (represented by ventilation rates), associated 
with a range of activities that people regularly engage in, on 
O3 uptake in exposed individuals. The analysis of these key 
factors incorporated extensive data bases, including, for example, data 
from ground-level O3 monitoring networks in these areas, 
data from numerous research studies that characterized the activity 
patterns of the general population and at-risk groups as they go about 
their daily activities (e.g., from indoors to outdoors, moving from 
place to place, and engaging in activities at different exertion 
levels),\30\ and census data on relevant factors such as age, work 
status, home location and type of air conditioning system present, and 
work place location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The five indoor and two outdoor microenvironments included 
in this exposure model account for the highly localized variations 
in O3 concentrations to which people are exposed that are 
not directly reflected in the concentrations measured at ambient 
ground-level O3 monitoring sites.
    \30\ See, for example, Tables V-8 and V-9 in the Staff Paper, 
pp. 83-84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regulatory scenarios examined in the exposure analyses include 
both 1-hour O3 standards, at levels of 0.12 ppm (the 1979 
NAAQS) and 0.10 ppm, and 8-hour standards, at levels of 0.07, 0.08, and 
0.09 ppm, with 1- and 5-expected exceedance forms, i.e., the range of 
alternative 8-hour standards recommended in the Staff Paper and 
supported by CASAC as the appropriate range for consideration in this 
review. These estimates were also used to roughly bound exposure 
estimates for concentration-based forms of the standards under 
consideration (e.g., the second- and fifth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 
average O3 concentration, averaged over a 3-year 
period).\31\ The estimated exposures are based on a single year of air 
quality data and reflect what would be expected in a typical or average 
year in an area just attaining a given standard over a 3-year 
compliance period; additional analyses were done to estimate exposures 
that would be expected in the worst year of a 3-year compliance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ As discussed in section IV and appendix A of the Staff 
Paper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the results of the exposure analyses, children who are 
active outdoors (representing approximately 7 percent of the population 
in the study areas) appear to be the at-risk population group examined 
with the highest percentage and number of individuals likely to 
experience exposures of concern. Estimated exposures of concern varied 
significantly across the urban areas examined in this analysis, with 
far greater variability associated with the 1-hour NAAQS in contrast to 
the more consistent results associated with alternative 8-hour 
standards.\32\ Despite this variability across areas, general patterns 
can be seen in comparing alternative standards. For example, for 
aggregate estimates of the mean percent of outdoor children likely to 
experience exposures of concern within the seven nonattainment areas: 
the range of estimates associated with the 1-hour NAAQS is 
approximately 0.3-24 percent, whereas for alternative 8-hour standards 
(of the same 1-expected-exceedance form as the 1-hour NAAQS), the 
ranges are approximately 3-7 percent for a 0.09 ppm standard, 0-1 
percent for a 0.08 ppm standard, and essentially zero for a 0.07 ppm 
standard. Within any given urban area, these

[[Page 57277]]

differences in estimated exposures of concern between alternative 
standards are statistically significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The observed area-to-area variability reflects differences 
in the shape of air quality distributions and differences in the 
relationships between 1-hour and 8-hour peak concentrations across 
urban areas, as well as differences in the percentage of homes with 
air conditioning (which impacts exposure estimates when individuals 
are indoors) and the frequency of warm versus cool days (which 
impacts exposure estimates because different sets of human activity 
patterns are used for warm versus cool days in the exposure model) 
across the nine urban areas (Richmond, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In looking more specifically at a comparison between 8-hour 
standards at the 0.09 ppm and 0.08 ppm levels, aggregate estimates of 
the mean percentage of outdoor children likely to experience exposures 
of concern are estimated to be approximately 3 percent at the 0.08 ppm 
level (ranging from 2-10 percent in the nine areas), increasing to 
approximately 11 percent at the 0.09 ppm level (ranging from 7-29 
percent in the nine areas).\33\ Thus, based on these analyses, a 
standard set at 0.09 ppm would allow more than three times as many 
children to experience exposures of concern as would a 0.08 ppm 
standard, with the number of children likely to experience such 
exposures increasing from approximately 100,000 to more than 300,000 in 
these nine areas alone. These exposures of concern are judged by EPA to 
be an important indicator of the public health impacts of those 
O3-related effects for which information is too limited to 
develop quantitative estimates of risk, but which have been observed in 
humans at a level of 0.08 ppm for 6- to 8-hour exposures. Such effects 
include increased nonspecific bronchial responsiveness (related, for 
example, to aggravation of asthma), decreased pulmonary defense 
mechanisms (suggestive of increased susceptibility to respiratory 
infection), and indicators of pulmonary inflammation (related to 
potential aggravation of chronic bronchitis or long-term damage to the 
lungs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Based on the supplemental analyses that used the third-
highest concentration-based form of the standards (Richmond, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In taking these observations into account, the Administrator and 
CASAC recognize the uncertainties and limitations associated with such 
analyses, including the considerable, but unquantifiable, degree of 
uncertainty associated with a number of important inputs to the 
exposure model. A key uncertainty in model inputs results from 
limitations in the human activity data base that may not adequately 
account for day-to-day repetition of activities common to children, 
such that the number of people who experience multiple occurrences of 
high exposure levels may be underestimated. Small sample size also 
limits the extent to which ventilation rates associated with various 
activities may be representative of the population group to which they 
are applied in the model. In addition, the air quality adjustment 
procedure used to simulate air quality distributions associated with 
attaining alternative standards, while based on generalized models 
intended to reflect patterns of air quality changes that have 
historically been observed, contains significant uncertainty, 
especially when applied to areas requiring very large reductions in air 
quality to attain alternative standards or to areas that are now in 
attainment with the 1-hour NAAQS.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ A more complete discussion of uncertainties and limitations 
is presented in the Staff Paper and technical support documents 
(Johnson et al., 1996a,b; Richmond, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Risk Assessments
    The EPA conducted an assessment of health risks for several 
categories of respiratory effects considering the same population 
groups, alternative air quality scenarios, and urban areas that were 
examined in the human exposure analyses described above. The objective 
of the risk assessment was to estimate to the extent possible the 
magnitude of risks to population groups believed by EPA and CASAC to be 
at greatest risk either due to increased exposures (i.e., outdoor 
children and outdoor workers) or increased susceptibility (e.g., 
asthmatics) while characterizing, as explicitly as possible, the 
uncertainties inherent in the assessment. While different risk measures 
are provided by the assessment, EPA has focused on ``headcount risk'' 
estimates which include: (1) Estimates of the number of people likely 
to experience a given health effect and (2) estimates of the number of 
incidences of a given health effect likely to be experienced by the 
population group of interest (n.b., some individuals likely experience 
that given health effect more than once in a year). While the estimates 
of numbers of people and incidences of effects are subject to 
uncertainties and should not be viewed as demonstrated health impacts, 
EPA believes they do represent reasonable estimates of the likely 
extent of these effects on public health given the available 
information.
    This risk assessment builds upon earlier O3 risk 
assessment approaches developed during the previous O3 NAAQS 
review. The risk models produce estimates of risk by taking into 
account: (1) Exposure-response or concentration-response relationships 
used to characterize various respiratory effects of O3 
exposure; (2) distributions of population exposures upon attainment of 
alternative standards resulting from the exposure analyses described 
above; and (3) distributions of 1-hour and 8-hour daily maximum 
O3 concentrations upon attainment of alternative standards, 
developed as part of the exposure analyses. The assessment addresses a 
number of adverse lung function and respiratory symptom effects as well 
as increased hospital admissions, as discussed below.
    (i) Adverse lung function and respiratory symptom effects. Risk 
estimates have been developed for several of the respiratory effects 
observed in controlled human exposure studies to be associated with 
O3 exposure for which sufficient quantitative dose-response 
information was available. These effects include lung function 
decrements (measured as changes in FEV1) and pain on deep 
inspiration (PDI).\35\ More specifically, these effects, or health 
endpoints, are defined not only in terms of physiological responses, 
but also the amount of change in that response judged to be of medical 
significance (as discussed in section II.A.3 above). For decrements in 
FEV1 responses, risk estimates are provided for the lower 
end, midpoint, and upper end of the range of response considered to be 
an adverse health effect (i.e.,  10, 15, or 20 percent 
FEV1 decrements), while for PDI responses, risk estimates 
are provided for moderate and severe responses. Although some 
individuals may experience a combination of responses, risk estimates 
could only be provided for each individual health endpoint rather than 
various combinations of functional and symptomatic responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Each of the effects is associated with a particular 
averaging time and, for most of the acute (1- to 8-hour) responses, 
effects also are estimated separately for specific ventilation 
ranges [measured as equivalent ventilation rate (EVR)] that 
correspond to the EVR ranges observed in the studies used to derive 
exposure-response relationships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The exposure-response relationships used to characterize these 
functional and symptomatic effects were based on the controlled human 
exposure studies, and were applied to ``outdoor children,'' ``outdoor 
workers,'' and the general population.\36\ These exposure-response 
relationships were combined with the results of the exposure analyses, 
which provided distributions of population exposures estimated to occur 
upon attainment of alternative standards, in terms of both the number 
of individuals in the general population, outdoor workers, and outdoor 
children exposed and the number of occurrences of exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ While these studies only included adults aged 18-35, 
findings from other clinical studies and summer camp field studies 
in several locations across the U.S. and Canada indicate changes in 
lung function in healthy children similar to those observed in 
healthy adults exposed to O3 under controlled laboratory 
conditions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 57278]]

    Following from the results of the exposure analyses showing outdoor 
children to be the population group experiencing the greatest 
exposures, this population group also has the highest estimated risk in 
terms of the percent of the population, and the numbers of children, 
likely to experience the health effects included in the assessment. As 
expected, the risk estimates exhibit the same general patterns in 
comparing alternative standards as was observed in the results of the 
exposure analyses. Estimated risk varied significantly across the urban 
areas examined, with greater variability associated with the 1-hour 
NAAQS than with alternative 8-hour standards, and, within any given 
urban area, the differences in risk estimated for the various 1-hour 
and 8-hour standards analyzed were statistically significant.
    In looking more specifically at a comparison between 8-hour 
standards at the 0.09 ppm and 0.08 ppm levels, aggregate estimates of 
the number of outdoor children in the nine areas likely to experience 
moderate ( 15 percent) and large ( 20 percent) 
FEV1 decreases and moderate or severe PDI are summarized in the 1997 
final rule.\37\ For example, for large FEV 1 decreases 
( 20 percent), approximately 2 percent of outdoor children 
(58,000 children) would likely experience this effect one or more times 
per year (100,000 occurrences) at the 0.08 ppm standard level, 
increasing to approximately 3 percent of outdoor children (97,000 
children and 220,000 occurrences) at the 0.09 ppm standard level. Based 
on this assessment, a standard set at 0.09 ppm would allow 
approximately 40-65 percent more outdoor children to experience these 
functional and symptomatic effects than would a 0.08 ppm standard, and 
approximately 70-120 percent more occurrences of such effects in 
outdoor children per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Based on the supplemental analyses that used the third-
highest concentration-based form of the standards (Richmond, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In considering these observations, the Administrator and CASAC have 
recognized that there are many uncertainties inherent in such 
assessments, not all of which can be quantified. Some of the most 
important caveats and limitations in this assessment include: (1) The 
uncertainties and limitations associated with the exposure analyses 
discussed above; (2) the extrapolation of exposure-response functions, 
consistent with CASAC's recommendation, that projects some biological 
responses below the lowest-observed-effects levels to an estimated 
background level of 0.04 ppm; and (3) the inability to account for some 
factors which are known to affect the exposure-response relationships 
(e.g., assigning children the same symptomatic response rates as 
observed for adults and not adjusting response rates to reflect the 
increase and attenuation of responses that have been observed in 
studies of lung function and symptoms upon repeated exposures).\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ A more complete discussion of assumptions and uncertainties 
is presented in the Staff Paper and the technical support documents 
(Whitfield et al., 1996; Richmond, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Excess respiratory-related hospital admissions. A separate 
risk assessment was done for increased respiratory-related hospital 
admissions as reported in several epidemiologic studies.\39\ The 
assessment looked only at one urban area, New York City, for which 
adequate air quality information was available to assess population 
risk. Increased respiratory-related hospital admissions for individuals 
with asthma were modeled using a probabilistic concentration-response 
function based on the results of an epidemiologic study in New York 
City (Thurston et al., 1992) and estimated distributions of daily 
maximum 1-hour average O3 concentrations upon attainment of 
alternative standards at various monitors in New York City (developed 
as part of the exposure analysis discussed above).\40\ The resulting 
risk estimates are for excess respiratory-related hospital admissions 
(i.e., those attributable to O3 concentrations above an 
estimated background O3 level of 0.04 ppm) for asthmatic 
individuals over an O3 season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Several studies, mainly conducted in the northeastern U.S. 
and southeastern Canada have reported excess daily respiratory-
related hospital admissions associated with elevated O3 
levels within the general population and, more specifically, for 
individuals with asthma.
    \40\ The model is described in more detail in Whitfield et al. 
(1996) and results from the supplemental analysis are presented in 
Richmond (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the risk assessment discussed above for lung function 
and respiratory symptom effects, reductions in hospital admissions for 
respiratory causes for asthmatic individuals and the general population 
are estimated to occur with each change in the level of alternative 8-
hour standards from 0.09 ppm to 0.07 ppm. In looking more specifically 
at a comparison between 8-hour standards at 0.09 ppm and 0.08 ppm 
levels, a standard set at 0.09 ppm is estimated to allow approximately 
40 more excess hospital admissions of asthmatics within an 
O3 season in New York City for respiratory causes as 
compared to a 0.08 ppm standard, which represents approximately a 40 
percent increase in excess O3-related admissions, but only 
approximately a 0.3 percent increase in total admissions of asthmatics. 
The EPA believes that while these numbers of hospital admissions are 
relatively small from a public health perspective, they are indicative 
of a pyramid of much larger numbers of related O3-induced 
effects, including respiratory-related hospital admissions among the 
general population, emergency and outpatient department visits, doctors 
visits, and asthma attacks and related increased use of medication that 
are important public health considerations.
    In taking these observations into account, the Administrator 
recognizes the uncertainties and limitations associated with this 
assessment. These include: (1) The inability at this time to 
quantitatively extrapolate the risk estimates for New York City to 
other urban areas; (2) uncertainty associated with the underlying 
epidemiologic study from which the concentration-response relationship 
used in the analysis was drawn; and (3) uncertainties associated with 
the air quality adjustment procedure used to simulate attainment of 
alternative standards for the New York City area.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ A more complete discussion of these uncertainties and 
limitations is presented in the Staff Paper and technical support 
documents (Whitfield et al., 1996; Richmond, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Potential Indirect Beneficial Health Effects Associated With Ground-
level O3

    This section is drawn from information in the record of the 1997 
review with regard to the effect of ground-level O3 on the 
attenuation of UV-B radiation and potential associated health benefits. 
All relevant record information was reviewed, including EPA documents, 
published articles, oral testimony at public meetings, and written 
comments submitted during the rulemaking. This section summarizes 
information on the health effects associated with UV-B radiation 
exposure and the relationship between ground-level O3 and 
UV-B radiation, and evaluates estimates of UV-B radiation risks that 
have been attributed to reductions in ground-level O3 
projected to result from attainment of the 1997 O3 NAAQS.
1. Health Effects Associated With UV-B Radiation Exposure
    It has long been recognized that exposure to sunlight has a 
positive effect on health. Sunlight is essential to the human body 
because of its biosynthetic action. More specifically, UV radiation 
induces the conversion of ergosterol and other vitamin precursors

[[Page 57279]]

present in normal skin to vitamin D, an essential factor for normal 
calcium deposition in growing bones.\42\ Sunlight is also an important 
controlling agent of recurrent daily physiological alterations known as 
circadian rhythms. Lighting cycles have been shown to be important in 
regulating several types of endocrine function. However, it is also 
recognized that excessive exposure to solar radiation can result in 
adverse health effects, which are particularly associated with UV-B 
radiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Evidence of this effect is found in Galindo et al., (1995), 
who reported on the increased risk of rickets associated with 
decreased incident UV-B radiation due to air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following summary of information on the adverse human health 
effects associated with exposure to UV-B radiation focuses on the three 
major organ systems whose tissues are commonly exposed to solar 
radiation: the skin, eyes, and immune system.\43\ It is these three 
systems that are potentially subject to damage from increased UV-B 
radiation as a result of the absorption of solar energy by molecules 
present in the cells and tissues of these organs. The biologically 
effective dose of radiation that actually reaches target molecules 
generally depends on the duration of exposure at particular locations, 
time of day, time of year, behavior (i.e., ``sun avoidance,'' which is 
an intentional decrease in exposure, for example, by using clothing, 
sunscreens, and sunglasses to shield from solar radiation; and ``sun 
seeking,'' which is an intentional increase in exposure to solar 
radiation, for example, by sunbathing), and, for the skin, 
characteristics that include pigmentation and temporal variations 
(e.g., changes in the pigmentation due to tanning).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The reference document available in the record for the 
information in this section is the EPA document ``Assessing the Risk 
of Trace Gasses that Can Modify the Stratosphere'' (U.S. EPA, 1987.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Effects on the Skin
    The most common form of solar damage to the skin is sunburn. 
Susceptibility to sunburn and the ability to tan are the basis for a 
classification system of six skin phenotypes. The most sensitive 
individuals (skin type I) are very light-skinned, with red or blonde 
hair and blue or green eyes (U.S. EPA, 1987, ES-33). The most resistant 
individuals (skin type VI) are darkly pigmented even without exposure 
to solar radiation. Susceptibility to sunburn may be a risk factor for 
skin cancer.
    Among light-skinned populations, skin cancer is among the most 
common kinds of cancer. The three types of skin cancer that have been 
associated with exposure to solar radiation include two common types of 
nonmelanoma skin cancers, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and basal cell 
carcinoma (BCC), and melanoma, a far less common form of cancer. 
Various types of evidence support the conclusion that increases in 
solar radiation in general, and UV-B radiation in particular, increase 
skin cancer morbidity and mortality. Epidemiological studies are the 
primary source of information providing evidence of associations 
between UV-B radiation and the occurrence of skin cancer in humans. In 
addition, experimental studies on animals, and animal and bacterial 
cells, have helped define the action spectra for particular biological 
endpoints, which describe how effective radiation of specific 
wavelengths is in causing a biological effect, and also the possible 
mechanisms by which damage can occur.
    (i) Nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC). Based on surveys, particularly 
in the U.S. and Australia, prolonged exposure to the sun is considered 
to be the dominant risk factor for NMSC (U.S. EPA, 1987, ES-33). It has 
been observed that NMSC tends to develop on sites that are most 
frequently exposed to the sun (e.g., head, face, and neck). Outdoor 
workers, who are subject to greater exposure to solar radiation, tend 
to have higher incidence rates of NMSC. A latitudinal gradient exists 
for the flux of UV-B radiation (i.e., the amount of radiation 
transmitted through the atmosphere), with fluxes generally higher in 
lower latitudes. A similar latitudinal gradient is generally seen in 
incidence rates of NMSC. Skin pigmentation provides a protective 
barrier that reduces the risk of developing NMSC, such that light-
skinned individuals, who are more susceptible to sunburn and have blue 
or green eyes, are more likely to develop NMSC. The risk of NMSC is 
highest among individuals with a genetic predisposition to abnormal 
skin pigmentation (e.g., people with xeroderma pigmentosum).
    Both types of NMSC result from the malignant transformation of 
keratinocytes, the major structural cells of the skin. Cumulative long-
term exposure to UV radiation is the exposure of concern for both types 
of NMSC. More specifically, the incremental increase in cumulative 
lifetime exposure to UV-B radiation is the metric used to estimate the 
risk of increased incidence of NMSC (U.S. EPA, 1987, ES-3). 
Epidemiological evidence, however, also indicates that exposure to 
solar radiation may play different roles in the etiology of SCC and 
BCC. In particular, SCC is more likely to develop on sites receiving 
the highest cumulative UV radiation doses (e.g., nose), and the 
development of SCC is more strongly associated with cumulative exposure 
to UV radiation. Relative to SCC, BCC is more likely to develop on 
sites that are not normally exposed to the sun, such as the trunk. For 
a given cumulative level of exposure to solar radiation, the risk of 
developing SCC may be greater than the risk of developing BCC.
    Results from experimental studies suggest that UV-B radiation may 
be the most important component of solar radiation that causes 
variations in the incidence of NMSC. UV radiation has been demonstrated 
to produce nonmelanoma skin tumors in animals, and UV-B wavelengths 
have been shown to be the most effective part of the UV spectrum in 
producing these tumors. Mechanisms by which this damage can occur have 
been demonstrated in laboratory animals. UV-B radiation has been shown 
to cause a variety of DNA lesions, to induce neoplastic transformation 
in cells, and to be a mutagen in both animal and bacterial cells.
    Dose-response relationships for NMSC are generally estimated in 
terms of a biological amplification factor (BAF), which is defined as 
the percent change in tumor incidence that results from a 1 percent 
change in UV-B radiation. While there is considerable uncertainty in 
such estimates, results from several studies have produced an overall 
BAF range that is 1.8 to 2.85 for all nonmelanoma skin tumors (U.S. 
EPA, 1987, ES-34). The BAF estimates are generally higher for males 
than females and for SCC than BCC, and generally increase with 
decreasing latitude. Key uncertainties in these estimates include, for 
example, uncertainties in the actual doses of UV-B radiation received 
and in the underlying baseline incidence rates in populations. 
Additional uncertainty is introduced in estimating the change in 
mortality from NMSC associated with changes in UV-B radiation, 
reflecting in part discrepancies of reporting between death 
certificates and hospital diagnoses. Based on published estimates, 
rates of metastasis among SCCs and BCCs varied by one to two orders of 
magnitude, with rates estimated to be approximately 2 to 20 percent for 
SCC and 0.0028 to 0.55 percent for BCC. The overall fatality rate for 
NMSC has been estimated to be approximately 1 to 2 percent, with three-
fourths to four-fifths of the deaths

[[Page 57280]]

attributable to SCC (U.S. EPA, 1987, ES-34).\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ More recent estimates or mortality rates from NMSC may be 
found on the American Cancer Society's Web site http://www.cancer.org, under cancer type ``Skin, Nonmelanoma,'' then under 
``Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer--Overview.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Melanoma. Melanoma is a serious, life-threatening skin cancer 
that is far rarer and generally much more aggressive than NMSC. 
Melanoma is a malignant cancer of the melanocytes, the pigment 
producing cells in the skin. While the development of melanoma is 
associated with cumulative lifetime exposure to UV radiation, there are 
several histological forms of melanoma that vary in their relationships 
to exposure to solar and UV-B radiation, sites on the body, skin 
pigmentation, and possibly in precursor lesions. Assessment of 
incidence by type is not consistent among registries, thus complicating 
attempts to evaluate the relationship between melanoma and solar 
radiation (U.S. EPA, 1987, ES-36).
    The relationship between exposure to UV-B radiation and melanoma is 
not as clear as the relationship between exposure to UV-B radiation and 
NMSC. The EPA (1987) noted limitations in the evidence linking solar 
radiation to melanoma. For example, no animal models were identified in 
which exposure to UV-B radiation experimentally induces melanoma, and 
no in vitro models for malignant transformation of melanocytes. Despite 
these limitations, EPA (1987) recognizes that a large array of evidence 
does support the conclusion that solar radiation is one of the causes 
of melanoma. Melanin, the principal pigment in the skin, effectively 
absorbs UV radiation, such that darker skin provides more protection 
from UV radiation. Light-skinned races, whose skin contains less 
protective melanin, have higher incidence and mortality rates from 
melanoma than do dark-skinned races. Lighter members of light-skinned 
races, including those who are unable to tan or who tan poorly, have a 
higher incidence of melanoma than do darker members of light-skinned 
races. In addition, as was the case in NMSC, the risk of melanoma is 
highest among individuals with a genetic predisposition to abnormal 
skin pigmentation (e.g., people with xeroderma pigmentosum).
    Sun exposure seems to induce freckling, which is an important risk 
factor for melanoma, and sun exposure leading to sunburn apparently 
induces melanocytic moles, which are also a risk factor for melanoma. 
Additional evidence suggests that melanoma risk may be associated with 
childhood sunburn. However, other evidence suggests that childhood 
sunburn may be a surrogate for an individual's pigmentation 
characteristics or be related to mole development, rather than being a 
separate risk factor (U.S. EPA, 1987, ES-37).
    Most studies that have used latitude as a surrogate for sunlight or 
UV-B exposure have found an increase in melanoma incidence or mortality 
correlated with proximity to the equator. Other evidence, however, 
creates uncertainty about the relationship between solar radiation and 
melanoma. Some ecologic epidemiology studies, conducted primarily in 
Europe or in countries close to the equator, have failed to find a 
latitudinal gradient for melanoma. In addition, outdoor workers 
generally have lower incidence and mortality rates from melanoma than 
indoor workers, which appears to be incompatible with the hypothesis 
that the cumulative dose from exposure to solar radiation causes 
melanoma. Unlike SCC and BCC, most melanoma occurs on sites of the body 
that are not habitually exposed to sunlight. This evidence suggests 
that exposure to solar radiation, or UV-B, is not solely responsible 
for variations in the incidence and mortality from melanoma (U.S. EPA 
1987, ES-37).
    Considering the available evidence, EPA (1987) concluded that UV-B 
radiation is a likely component of solar radiation that causes 
melanoma, either through the initiation of tumors or through 
suppression of the immune system. The EPA (1987) also recognized that 
significant uncertainties exist in characterizing associations between 
solar radiation and melanoma, including the appropriate action spectrum 
to be used in estimating doses, the best functional form for a dose-
response relationship, and the best way to characterize dose (e.g., 
peak value, cumulative summer exposure).
b. Effects on the Eyes
    Evidence suggests that adverse effects on the eye are associated 
with exposure to UV-B radiation. Effects likely include increases in 
cataract incidence or severity and increased incidence of retinal 
disorders and retinal degeneration. Cataracts are characterized by the 
gradual loss of transparency of the lens due to the accumulation of 
oxidized lens proteins. Many possible mechanisms exist for the 
formation of cataracts, and UV-B radiation may play an important role 
in some mechanisms. Epidemiological and laboratory evidence indicates 
that the exposure of concern in the development of cataracts is the 
cumulative lifetime exposure to UV-B radiation.
    Although the cornea and aqueous humor of the human eye screen out 
significant amounts of ultraviolet-A (UV-A) and UV-B radiation, nearly 
50 percent of radiation at 320 nm is transmitted to the lens. 
Transmittance declines substantially below 320 nm, so that less than 1 
percent is transmitted below approximately 290 to 300 nm. However, 
results of laboratory experiments on animals indicate that short-
wavelength UV-B (i.e., below 290 nm) is perhaps 250 times more 
effective than long-wavelength UV-B (i.e., 320 nm) in inducing 
cataracts. Thus, while epidemiological studies indicate that the 
prevalence of human cataracts varies with latitude and UV radiation in 
general (U.S. EPA, 1987, ES-40), significant uncertainty exists about 
the action spectrum to be used in any estimation of dose associated 
with variations in solar radiation.
c. Effects on the Immune System
    Information on the effects of UV-B radiation on the immune system 
comes primarily from laboratory animal studies. High doses of UV 
radiation cause a depression in systemic hypersensitivity reactions, 
resulting in an inability of the animal to respond to an antigen 
presented to the animal through unirradiated skin, whereas relatively 
lower doses cause a depression in local contact hypersensitivity, 
resulting in an inability to respond to an antigen presented through 
UV-irradiated skin. Both of these immunosuppressive effects of UV 
radiation have been found to reside almost entirely in the UV-B portion 
of the solar spectrum (U.S. EPA, 1987, ES-39).
    Information about the effects of UV radiation on the human immune 
system, however, is much more limited. Preliminary studies indicate the 
UV radiation may prevent an effective immune response to micro-
organisms that infect via the skin. Because UV-B can produce systemic 
immunologic change, the possibility exists that changes in UV-B 
radiation exposure could result in effects on diseases whose control 
requires systemic rather than local immunity. Without more complete 
information from laboratory or epidemiological studies, the nature of 
an exposure of concern cannot be estimated. Immunologic studies have 
not assessed the effects of long-term, low-dose UV-B irradiation, such 
that the magnitude of risk from this type of exposure cannot be 
assessed (U.S. EPA, 1987, ES-40).

[[Page 57281]]

2. Relationship Between Ground-level O3 and UV-B Radiation 
Exposure
a. Relevant Atmospheric Factors
    The relationships between ground-level O3 and UV 
radiation occur in the context of a much larger dynamic of the earth's 
atmospheric systems. The sun is, of course, overwhelmingly the main 
source of a wide band of electromagnetic radiation, including the 
ultraviolet. The total atmosphere blocks a significant portion of the 
range of this incoming solar radiation before it reaches ground level, 
including much of the more energetic wavelengths that are shorter than 
visible light. The UV spectrum (100-400 nm) is comprised of UV-C (100-
280 nm), UV-B (280-320 nm), and UV-A (320-400 nm). The most energetic 
component, UV-C, is completely blocked or absorbed by oxygen 
(O2) and O3 in the atmosphere. The middle range, 
UV-B, is efficiently but not completely absorbed by total column 
O3. Ultraviolet-A radiation (320-400 nm) in wavelengths 
above 350 nm is not absorbed by O2 or O3, nor is 
visible light (4000-900 nm) \45\ (U.S. EPA, 1987, ES 35). The 
absorption of UV-B by O3 varies across the spectrum, being 
much stronger for wavelengths of 300 nm and below than for the upper 
region near 320 nm (Cupitt, 1994). Because the amount of atmospheric 
O3 traversed by sunlight varies with the sun angle, 
atmospheric absorption is more complete in winter months and both early 
and late in the day, as compared to the absorption around mid-day near 
the summertime solar zenith. Therefore, a decrease in total column 
O3 from naturally occurring conditions is of greater concern 
during times of higher sun angles, and for the more energetic portion 
of the UV-B range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ The shorter (blue) wavelengths of visible light are, 
however, scattered by atmospheric gases, which is responsible for 
the ``blue'' sky characteristic of days with low pollution and less 
than full cloud cover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The underlying annual and diurnal patterns of UV-B penetration to 
the ground layer are driven primarily by three factors: (1) The change 
in apparent sun angle with the surface that occurs as the earth travels 
around the sun; (2) the diurnal change in apparent sun angle caused by 
the earth's rotation; and (3) the solar/meteorologically driven annual 
change in the amount of O3 in the stratosphere. 
Stratospheric O3 over U.S. latitudes shows a characteristic 
peak in the spring months, falling steadily thereafter through summer 
and fall (Fishman et al., 1990; Frederic et al., 1993). The combination 
of the annual sun cycle and the stratospheric O3 cycle means 
that peak UV-B radiation reaching the troposphere tends to occur in 
late June to early July, and falls steadily thereafter (Frederick et 
al., 1993). The annual peak in ground-level O3 
concentrations, which extends in most areas from May through September, 
generally overlaps the UV-B radiation peak (e.g., U.S. EPA, 1996a, 
Figure 4-23).
    As noted in the EPA's SunWise Program communications, UV-B 
radiation exposure is of most concern between the hours of 10 am and 4 
pm, peaking around mid-day. Ground-level O3 patterns vary, 
but in urban areas, summertime peaks tend to occur between noon and 4 
pm (U.S. EPA, 1996a, Section 4.4). This obviously overlaps with peak 
incoming UV-B radiation. The pattern of vertical mixing in the 
atmosphere is such that morning ground-level measurements probably do 
not accurately reflect ``mixing-layer'' concentrations (U.S. EPA, 
1996a, p. 3-44).\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ The mixing layer (relevant to the vertical ``thickness'' of 
ground-level O3) develops and grows in height through the 
day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The relationship between ground-level O3 and solar 
radiation, including UV-B radiation, is complex and mediated by a 
number of atmospheric factors. It is not limited to the simple 
absorption of energy. At a fundamental level, the variation in apparent 
solar radiation is a primary cause of meteorological fluctuations that 
strongly influence the build-up and transport of anthropogenic air 
pollution. Further, as discussed in Chapter 3 of the Criteria Document, 
UV-B radiation that penetrates the stratosphere to the mixing layer 
plays a key role in the processes leading to the formation of 
photochemical smog, including the formation of ground-level 
O3. In fact, increased penetration of UV-B radiation to the 
troposphere due to stratospheric O3 depletion would likely 
increase ground-level concentrations of O3 in most urban and 
many rural areas of the U.S. (U.S. EPA, 1996a, p. 3-5). The chain of 
indirect events triggered by increased penetration of UV-B radiation 
can result in both increases and decreases in aerosol and acid rain 
formation (U.S. EPA, 1996a; pp. 3-38 to 39), with attendant further 
feedbacks through heterogeneous chemistry and aerosol scattering of UV-
B radiation. All of these complex processes could, under varying 
conditions, increase or decrease the amount of UV-B radiation that 
actually reaches ground level relative to an unperturbed case. The 
reactions can further affect the concentrations of radiatively 
important substances such as methane, ozone, and particles, and could 
affect local, regional, and global climate.
    Setting aside the direction and magnitude of these complex indirect 
effects of UV-B radiation penetration on ground-level air pollution, 
and assuming appropriate sun angles and cloud density, the marginal 
effect of ground-level O3 on the absorption of UV-B 
radiation by the earth's atmosphere can be considered separately. 
Because of increased scattering of incident UV-B radiation by the 
denser layer air molecules, droplets, and particles nearer the surface, 
tropospheric O3 can absorb somewhat more UV-B radiation than 
an equal amount of O3 in the stratosphere (Bruhl and 
Creutzen, 1989). The extent to which this increase in unit effect 
occurs depends on the relative concentrations and character of aerosols 
in the troposphere as compared to the stratosphere.
    A further consideration is the relative effectiveness of ground-
level O3 in absorbing those spectra of UV-B radiation 
wavelengths most likely to cause health effects. The ``effective dose'' 
of UV-B radiation can be expressed as a function of two factors, the 
intensity of radiation (by wavelength) reaching the earth's surface and 
the action spectrum. The wavelength-dependent effect of O3 
on reducing the intensity of radiation in the UV-B range is summarized 
above. The action spectrum describes how effective radiation at 
particular wavelengths is at causing a particular biological effect or 
a response in an instrument. Action spectra allow the estimation of the 
potential effects of simultaneously changing radiation at different 
wavelengths by different amounts, as happens with changing 
O3 levels. Laboratory and field studies have been used to 
estimate and adopt action spectra conventions for various biological 
endpoints (e.g., Madronich, 1992). As noted above, uncertainty exists 
about the action spectra as well as how to specify appropriate dose 
metrics for particular health endpoints. Even estimates of the range of 
wavelengths considered to be generally biologically active vary within 
the UV-B radiation spectrum. These different action spectra have 
different sensitivities to changes in total column O3, which 
are formalized as numerical radiation amplification factors (RAF).\47\ 
In general, a 1 percent change in total column O3 will 
produce greater than a 1 percent change (e.g., 1.1

[[Page 57282]]

to 1.8 percent) in effective radiation dose for particular effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The RAF is defined as the percent increase in effective 
dose divided by the percent decrease in total column zone 
(Madronich, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevertheless, as noted above, typical summertime ground-level 
O3 pollution in the eastern U.S. is less than 1 percent of 
total column O3. Even considering the relative effectiveness 
of ground-level O3 in reducing UV-B radiation and the 
amplification of effective dose, such pollution could add a few percent 
at most to naturally occurring biologically effective UV-B radiation 
shielding.\48\ Viewed from one perspective and holding all other 
factors constant, the assumed typical O3 pollution level is 
providing some ``improvement'' or incremental UV-B radiation shielding 
above the natural conditions that would otherwise exist in the mixing 
layer. It should also be noted that, if typical summertime 
O3 levels were assumed to approximate the estimated 
continental background of about 40 ppb for daylight hours (U.S. EPA, 
1996b, p. 20-21), this too would represent an ``improvement'' over the 
natural conditions that would exist in the mixing layer without the 
influence of international transport of O3.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ For reasons discussed below, any such shielding would vary 
widely from day to day, even in the summer O3 season.
    \49\ This estimated continental background is due in part to 
natural sources of emissions in North America and in part to the 
long-range transport of emissions from both anthropogenic and 
natural sources outside of North America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The extent to which changes in ground-level O3 
concentrations would translate into changes in UV-B radiation-related 
health effects in various locations cannot, however, be adequately 
viewed by reference to uniform assumptions applicable for specific sun 
angle, latitude, time of day, cloud cover, and the presence of other 
pollutants. \50\ In the real world, all of these factors vary with 
location, season, meteorology, and time of day. Moreover, the complex 
causal relationships noted above among all of these factors mean that 
neither static calculations holding other factors constant (e.g., 
Cupitt, 1994) nor simple empirical associations between measured 
ground-level O3 and UV-B radiation (e.g., Frederick et al., 
1993) provide an adequate basis for assessing the ``net'' shielding 
associated with control strategy driven changes in ground-level 
pollution in various locations over an extended time period. Moreover, 
as for the direct effects of O3, the extent of resultant UV-
B radiation-related health effects is also heavily dependent on the 
variation of these physical changes superimposed on the activity 
patterns and other factors that determine population exposures and 
sensitivities to UV-B radiation, and on the extent to which significant 
biological responses can be attributed in part to episodic peak 
exposures as well as to long-term cumulative exposures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Adding to the complexity of understanding this relationship 
are the results of high-dose animal toxicology studies that suggest 
more research is needed into the direct effects of ground-level 
O3 on the skin. Tests by Thiele et al. (1997) suggest 
that long-term exposure to O3 can deplete vitamin E in 
the skin, and this could make the skin more susceptible to the 
effects of UV-B radiation (U.S. EPA, 1997). Therefore, reducing 
long-term ground-level O3 exposure might serve to reduce 
skin problems. Even a relatively small O3 effect here 
could partially or completely offset any small UV-B radiation 
mediated effect estimated based on O3--UV-B interactions 
alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assessing the effective O3 layer shielding is 
considerably more difficult for ground-level O3 than for 
stratospheric O3 because of its far greater spatial and 
temporal variability and the much smaller contribution made by ground-
level O3. Some insights into the relative variability of 
these two layers are provided in Fishman et al. (1990), which compares 
satellite measurements of stratospheric O3 with ``residual'' 
tropospheric O3, a measure that actually excludes the lowest 
portion of the ground-layer O3 in the mixing layer. For the 
summer months, the long-term spatial variability in the amount of ozone 
in the stratosphere across the lower 48 U.S. States is about 7 percent 
(Figure 8c), while the variability in the tropospheric ``residual'' is 
nearly 4 times greater, at about 25 percent (Figure 9c). By comparison, 
the spatial variability in ground-level O3 measurements 
across regions and cities in the U.S. is far greater (U.S. EPA, 1996a, 
Chapter 4) reaching 200 percent and higher for comparable long-term 
measurements. Within an area as small as the Los Angeles basin alone, 
for example, the median ground-level 8-hour O3 values in 
different locations varied by more than a factor of 2 (Table 28; 
Johnson et al., 1996c). The satellite information also shows a marked 
contrast in the seasonal variations in O3 for these two 
layers. The variation in the summer/winter stratospheric O3 
column over the U.S. is only about 2 to 4 percent, while the variation 
in seasonal ``residual'' tropospheric O3 is about 50 to 80 
percent (Figures 8a,c;9a,c; Fishman et al., 1990). Again, the 
variability is even greater for ground-level measurements (e.g., U.S. 
EPA, 1996a, Figure 4-23; Frederick et al., 1993)
    Although Fishman et al. (1990) do not compare daily variations in 
stratospheric O3 above the U.S., it is reasonable to 
conclude that the spatial and annual/seasonal temporal stability 
evidenced by this large stratospheric reservoir would result in far 
more stable day-to-day and diurnal patterns as compared to ground-level 
O3. The high variability of daytime O3 
concentrations for these temporal scales is amply documented in the 
Criteria Document (U.S. EPA, 1996a, Figure 4-23).
    The spatial and temporal stability of the expansive and deep 
stratospheric O3 reservoir means that assessments of the 
effects of long-term declines or restoration can reasonably assume that 
short-term and local-scale variations in important factors such as 
cloud cover, other pollutants, temperature, and activity patterns 
beneath this layer will tend to ``even out'' over time, permitting more 
confidence in the magnitude and direction of such assessments. In 
contrast to the stability of the stratospheric O3 layer, the 
large spatial and day-to-day variability outlined above for ground-
level O3 means that geographical or temporal variations in 
other factors such as weather, other pollutants, and human activity 
patterns may not ``even out'' in particular areas under assessment. 
Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that the variations in ground-
level O3 are not independent of the variations in many of 
these other factors. Such variability may have a substantial impact on 
the outcome of any assessment of the relative effects of a change in 
ground-level O3 strategies or standards. This, combined with 
the many local- and regional-scale interactions among all of these 
factors, would complicate any such ground-level O3 
assessment.
b. Factors Related to Area-Specific Assessment
    An enumeration of factors that would be important in assessing the 
potential UV-B radiation-related consequences of a more stringent 
O3 NAAQS in any geographical area serves to illustrate the 
complexities discussed above. Analogous to the factors that were 
important in the respiratory effects exposure and risk assessments 
discussed above section II.A.2, these UV-B radiation-related factors 
include: the temporal and spatial patterns of ground-level 
O3 concentrations throughout a geographic area where 
reductions are likely to occur, and the variations in O3 
concentrations within a comprehensive set of ``microenvironments'' 
relevant to UV-B radiation exposures; the associated temporal and 
spatial patterns of UV-B radiation flux in such microenvironments; the 
temporal and spatial patterns of movement of people throughout the 
microenvironments within the geographic area; and the effects of 
variable behaviors (e.g., the use of sunscreen, hats, sunglasses) 
within the range of activities that people

[[Page 57283]]

regularly engage in, on the effective dose of UV-B radiation that 
reaches target organs such as the skin.
    While analogous to the respiratory-related factors, there are a 
number of important differences between these sets of factors that 
arise, for example: (1) Due to the indirect nature of the relationship 
between changes in ground-level O3 and UV-B radiation-
related health effects (in contrast to the direct relationship between 
ground-level O3 and inhalation-related health effects); (2) 
the long-term nature of the relevant exposures that are associated with 
UV-B radiation's chronic health effects (in contrast to the short-term 
exposures associated with acute inhalation effects); (3) the different 
types of parameters that are relevant to assessing dermal exposures (in 
contrast to those that are important in assessing inhalation 
exposures); and (4) the importance of skin type in characterizing the 
sensitive populations (in contrast to characterizing sensitive 
populations in terms of activity levels and respiratory health status). 
Further, as was done in EPA's assessment of respiratory effects, it is 
important to characterize the exposure-related factors specifically to 
address the relevant at-risk sensitive population groups. As noted in 
section II.B.1, the sensitivity to UV-B radiation effects varies among 
U.S. demographic groups, such that it could be important to incorporate 
census data on relevant characteristics (e.g., age at time of exposure, 
skin pigmentation) that affect an individual's susceptibility.
    Aspects of each of these factors are discussed briefly below, and 
areas where current information or modeling tools are insufficient to 
address these factors at this time are noted.
    (i) Estimation of area-specific and microenvironment changes in 
ground-level O3. Implementation of a more stringent 
O3 standard would, over time, further reduce O3 
concentrations across the U.S., but would affect various areas in 
different ways. Depending on the strategies adopted, in some locations 
peak concentrations would be reduced significantly during the 
O3 season, while the lower concentrations that occur on far 
more numerous days could increase. In such areas, the long-term 
cumulative effect could be little net change, or even a small increase 
in cumulative shielding. In other areas, the entire distribution of 
O3 could be reduced. The assessment of the acute respiratory 
health effects of O3 appropriately focused on the higher 
portion of this distribution, using a simple roll-back approach 
discussed above (section II.A.2.a) to simulate changes in air quality 
patterns during the O3 season based on available air quality 
monitoring data. For assessment of chronic effects such as those 
associated with UV-B radiation, however, where long-term cumulative 
exposures are of central importance, the mid to lower portion of the 
distribution would also be important. Also the distribution across the 
entire year, for which O3 monitoring data is not generally 
available in many parts of the country, could potentially be important. 
The mid to lower portion of the distribution is much more strongly 
influenced by complex atmospheric chemistry, such that more 
sophisticated, area-specific modeling may be needed.
    In addition, although not relevant to assessing direct respiratory 
effects, the vertical distribution of O3 concentrations up 
through the mixing layer becomes important in assessing the effect of 
O3 in shielding UV-B radiation. The current lack of routine 
vertical profile measurements means that little is known about the 
relative effect of ground-level control strategies on O3 in 
the mixing layer.
    With regard to characterizing changes in O3 
concentrations within microenvironments relevant to UV-B radiation 
exposure, it is clear that this set of microenvironments would differ 
in some respects from the set of microenvironments that were relevant 
for respiratory effects. For example, while indoor microenvironments 
can reduce exposure to both ambient O3 and UV-B radiation, 
outdoor microenvironments that are relevant for inhalation exposure do 
not reflect the characteristics that are important for UV-B radiation 
exposure. For example, while not relevant to inhalation exposure, 
microenvironments shaded by the presence of trees, buildings, and other 
structures in many heavily occupied areas could be important to 
characterize because they would tend to have greatly reduced UV-B 
radiation exposures even when at the same ground-level O3 
concentration as a sunny microenvironment.
    (ii) Estimation of temporal and spatial patterns of UV-B radiation 
flux. Relative to the assessment of respiratory effects, the assessment 
of the effect of O3 shielding on UV-B radiation-related 
health effects requires the additional step of estimating how changes 
in the temporal and spatial patterns of O3 concentrations 
result in changes in the patterns of UV-B radiation. Given a three-
dimensional pattern of O3 levels, a first-order 
approximation of UV-B penetration to the Earth's surface can be readily 
made. The factors that influence radiation flux through the 
stratosphere are fairly well characterized, and most directly related 
to the modest changes in stratospheric O3 and large 
variations in sun angle that depend on latitude, time of year, and time 
of day (U.S. EPA, 1987). Nevertheless, beyond these factors, and in 
addition to changes in ground-level O3, a number of other 
(second-order) factors in the boundary layer and the rest of the 
troposphere can affect the amount of UV-B radiation reaching 
potentially affected populations. One such factor is cloud cover, which 
can reduce UV-B radiation reaching the earth's surface by 50 percent or 
more (Cupitt, 1994). Another such factor is the presence of UV-B 
radiation scattering and absorbing aerosols. Depending on local 
circumstances and the strategy chosen, aerosol-related UV-B radiation 
exposure might increase or decrease as a result of ground-level 
O3 reductions (U.S. EPA, 1996a, Chapter 3). Both 
O3 and aerosols can affect local climate as well as UV-B 
radiation, and this could affect cloud cover as a further indirect 
consequence of a reduction strategy. While any such indirect effects 
might be expected to be small for modest O3 changes, it is 
not currently possible to predict the magnitude or the sign of their 
net effect on UV-B radiation penetration.
    (iii) Estimation of temporal and spatial patterns of movement of 
people throughout microenvironments. While population densities are 
high in areas with the highest ground-level O3 
concentrations, people may not receive their highest exposure to UV-B 
radiation in such locations. Reductions in O3 shielding 
would presumably be most significant in outdoor recreational areas such 
as the beach or rural open areas where many people likely receive a 
disproportionate share of their cumulative sun exposure. Local or 
regional meteorological factors can, however, cause ground-level 
O3 concentrations to be lower in many such areas, 
particularly in the western United States. For example, O3 
concentrations in the heavily populated Los Angeles area tend to be 
lowest at the coast and increase inland; in this case, smog-related 
O3 would be providing the least shielding where the 
potential for exposure to UV-B radiation is the highest. The extensive 
database on human activity patterns, which was used in the assessment 
of respiratory effects, does not include parameters that relate to 
people's movement through the types of outdoor microenvironments that 
are relevant to the assessment of UV-B radiation exposure. For example, 
additional data would be needed to conduct an exposure analysis that 
could account for the fraction of UV-B

[[Page 57284]]

radiation exposure that is incurred during outdoor recreational 
activities in non-shaded microenvironments. EPA believes that reliable 
estimation of the change in UV-B radiation exposure associated with 
reducing ground-level O3 would be hindered by not taking 
such factors into account.
    (iv) Effects of variable behaviors on effective dose of UV-B 
radiation. Another important factor to be considered in assessing the 
potential UV-B radiation-related effects of a change in ground-level 
O3 is that human behavior affects UV-B radiation exposures. 
When people choose to shield themselves from UV-B radiation exposure 
with clothing and sunscreens, and by timing their outdoor activities to 
avoid peak sun conditions, they are affecting a parameter that is 
important in assessing UV-B radiation-related effects. The generally 
well-known risks associated with too much sun exposure are such that 
many people limit their own as well as their children's exposure 
through such measures, regardless of the status of the protective 
stratospheric O3 layer or variable amounts of ground-level 
O3 pollution. While some sun exposure is generally 
beneficial to health, limiting excessive sun exposure would remain 
important for a person's health even if the stratospheric O3 
layer were fully restored to its natural state.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Because of the high baseline risk of effects under natural 
conditions, as well as the increased risk posed by stratospheric 
O3 depletion, medical authorities and governmental bodies 
have developed campaigns to effect such changes in behavior. The EPA 
and the National Weather Service (NWS) developed the UV Index. The 
Index provides a forecast of the expected risk of overexposure to 
the sun and indicates the degree of caution that should be taken 
when working, playing, or exercising outdoors. The EPA also 
developed the SunWise School Program to be used in conjunction with 
the UV Index. This program is designed to educate the public, 
especially children and their care givers, about the health risks 
associated with overexposure to UV radiation and encourage simple 
and sensible behaviors that can reduce the risk of sun-related 
health problems later in life (U.S. EPA, 1995a, b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since sun-seeking or sun-avoidance behaviors can tend to maximize 
or minimize exposure to UV-B radiation, not factoring such behavioral 
data into an area-specific exposure assessment would hinder reliable 
estimation of the increased exposure associated with reducing ground-
level O3. Changes in behavior in the past, specifically 
increases in sun-seeking behaviors, are believed to be the primary 
reason for the increases in skin cancer incidence and mortality 
observed in the U.S. by the 1980's (U.S. EPA, 1987). Conversely, future 
rates of skin cancer could be reduced to the extent that people choose 
to change their behavior by increasing sun-avoidance behaviors.
    Public awareness of the risks associated with overexposure to UV 
radiation seems to be having an effect on behavior. In 1987, EPA noted 
that behaviors causing increased UV-B radiation exposure were 
apparently reaching an upper limit (U.S. EPA, 1987, ES-35). The effect 
of increased awareness of the health consequences of UV-B radiation 
exposure on decreasing the number of harmful exposures is not likely to 
show up, in terms of reducing the incidence and mortality rates of skin 
cancers, for many years. Nevertheless, ignoring its effects would tend 
to bias exposure estimates in an area-specific assessment of the UV-B 
radiation-related effects of smog reduction strategies.
    Based on the discussion of factors above, the Administrator 
believes that more information is needed to address these factors 
before reliable area-specific quantitative assessment of potential UV-B 
radiation-related consequences of a more stringent O3 NAAQS 
would be possible. EPA intends to seek additional information relevant 
to such quantitative assessment. EPA is now requesting comment on the 
factors discussed above.
3. Evaluation of UV-B Radiation-Related Risk Estimates for Ground-level 
O3 Changes
    As should be clear from the discussion above, a full risk 
assessment of UV-B radiation-related effects resulting from a moderate 
change in ground-level O3 would be an extremely challenging 
enterprise that appears to be beyond current data and modeling 
capabilities. Nevertheless, three analyses (Cupitt, 1994; U.S. DOE, 
1995; Lutter and Wolz, 1997) have developed estimates that attempt to 
bound the potential indirect UV-B radiation related effects associated 
with replacing the former 1-hour O3 NAAQS with an 8-hour 
O3 standard. All three analyses essentially reflect a static 
comparison of two separate O3 concentrations on a national 
basis, and include, either explicitly or implicitly, numerous 
assumptions needed while excluding the important area-specific issues 
and factors outlined above.
    The most thoroughly documented calculations are those provided in 
Cupitt (1994), an EPA white paper developed as an initial scoping 
analysis of the issues, in preparation for potential consideration in 
the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) that would accompany the 
O3 NAAQS regulatory package. The paper discusses many of the 
important factors and uncertainties outlined above, summarizes key 
background information to provide perspective, and includes a 
discussion and table summarizing the many simplifying assumptions that 
were needed to permit the development of quantitative estimates. 
Cupitt's analysis evaluates changes resulting from cumulative exposures 
under two scenarios, including one that compares estimates of NMSC 
incidence associated with an assumed reduction of daytime summer 
O3 of 10 ppb in O3 that would occur uniformly 
throughout 30 eastern States and the District of Columbia and within an 
assumed atmospheric mixing layer that ranged up to 2 km in altitude. 
Assuming no other relevant factors changed over the several decade 
exposure period that would be required, the resulting increase in NMSC 
incidence for this extreme scenario was estimated eventually to reach 
``between 0.6% and 1%.'' While these percentages are small--indeed too 
small to be measurable (Cupitt, 1994)--if taken at face value, they 
would not necessarily be judged as trivial because of the large 
baseline of NMSC. For reasons outlined below, however, even these small 
percentage estimates appear to be substantially overstated and cannot 
be considered reliable.
    The Cupitt paper was never formally published, but it was subjected 
to internal agency peer review and commentary by experts at EPA's 
Office of Research and Development (ORD) (Childs, 1994; Altshuller, 
1994). While finding the exposition, including recognition of the 
difficulties in such an approach, to be ``very acceptable,'' the 
reviewers noted substantial uncertainties in basic data and concerns 
about the numerous simplifying assumptions that called the numerical 
results into significant question. Examples of data uncertainties noted 
by the reviewers include: (1) The accuracy of column O3 (in 
Dobson units) and UV measurements used; (2) the fact, recognized in 
Cupitt (1994), that the predicted UV-B radiation flux changes are at 
the ``noise'' level and could not be reliably detected statistically or 
attributed to the change in ground-level O3 concentration; 
(3) data on effects of aerosols are limited, yet ignoring such effects 
in estimating the O3--UV-B radiation relationship was 
``erroneous;'' and (4) data to permit dynamic assessment of the 
feedback between increased UV radiation and increased O3 is 
limited to uncertain models, and this potential feedback mechanism was 
ignored in the analysis (Childs, 1994).
    Reviewers also questioned a number of the simplifying assumptions 
that

[[Page 57285]]

could have ``substantial impact'' on the resulting risk estimates. 
Among these were: (1) The assumed mixing height of 2 km, which 
reviewers considered too high on average, especially for the eastern 
United States (By overstating the thickness of the pollution-related 
layer of the atmosphere that is the focus of the control strategies 
designed to attain the NAAQS, this factor would bias the estimates 
upwards by as much as a factor of 2.); (2) the assumption that the 
ozone mixing ratio is the same at the earth's surface as it is at 2 km, 
when the vertical profile varies through the diurnal cycle (Because 
vertical mixing increases through the day, this assumption would be 
most important in the earlier portion of daylight hours.); (3) the 
assumption that neither aerosols nor O3 production cycles 
themselves exert either positive or negative feedback on UV-B 
penetration (As noted in the previous section, a dynamic consideration 
of these factors could change the direction of the result in particular 
areas.); (4) the assumption that NMSC might result from episodic 
exposures, when, in fact, NMSC results from cumulative doses (This 
assumption affects only separate and far smaller estimates Cupitt made 
for episodic changes, essentially invalidating those results.); (5) the 
assumption that all people would be susceptible based on assumed 
exposure factors; and (6) the assumption that behavioral patterns, 
demographic patterns, and meteorological factors and other factors 
related to actual exposures remain constant over time (Childs, 1994; 
Altschuller, 1994).
    These reviewers capsulized their conclusions regarding the 
quantitative results of this analysis as follows:

    In summary, (1) the numbers resulting from these calculations 
are quite small, and (2) the limitations of the accuracy and 
reliability of the input to the calculations produces numbers that 
cannot be defended, whether large or small. (Childs, 1994).

    As noted in the discussion above, this is not simply a matter of 
uncertain and small risk estimates. On balance, several of the problems 
noted above served to inflate the overall estimates, and, depending 
upon local conditions and the control strategy assumed, could even call 
the direction of the results into question for some locations. Further, 
a significant bias, not highlighted in the cited reviews, is how well 
the assumed 10 ppb change in daytime O3 levels averaged over 
an entire summer season (and over half the U.S.) reflects what might 
occur in response to the revised O3 NAAQS.\52\ In fact, this 
assumed change, as well as the assumptions regarding its spatial and 
vertical extent, are significantly larger than could reasonably be 
expected based on the revisions to the O3 standard 
promulgated in 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Cupitt provides no rationale for the selection for this 
value where it first appears in a Table, which is characterized as 
addressing ``questions from OMB.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To provide a fair comparison, it is necessary to convert the 1-hour 
standard into its nearest 8-hour equivalent. As documented in the Staff 
Paper (U.S. EPA, 1996b), the nearest equivalent 8-hour standard would 
have a level of about 0.09 ppm. Superficially, this might appear to 
support a 10 ppb difference compared to the 0.08 ppm 8-hour standard 
set in 1997, until considering that these standards are stated in 
reference to extreme high values in the distribution (e.g., the average 
of the 4th-highest daily maximum concentrations). Cupitt's analysis 
assumed that a ``mixing layer'' up to 2 km deep over a very large 
geographical region would experience a change of 10 ppb in daylight 
average O3 for an entire O3 season. This scenario 
would require a challenging regional strategy that would, on average, 
reduce each day for the over 150 day O3 season by 10 ppb. 
Yet, the 0.08 ppm 8-hour O3 standard would require that only 
the fourth-highest day of the ozone season be reduced by about 10 ppb, 
as compared to the previous standard. Based on available O3 
trends information, strategies that reduce peak O3 days 
would have far less effect on the far more numerous days toward the 
middle and lower-parts of the O3 season distribution (e.g., 
U.S. EPA, 1996a, Figures 4-2, 4-3). In fact, as reported in the 
Response to Comments document, based on earlier RIA projections of 
long-term O3 reductions that might occur with the 0.08 ppm 
8-hour O3 standard, the magnitude of the assumed average 
change appears to be overstated by more than a factor of 3 (U.S. EPA, 
1997). When considered with the excessively high assumed mixing layer, 
the overly large geographical area requiring reductions (over 30 
States), and the assumption that the entire population would be at the 
same risk as the more sensitive subpopulations, it is EPA's judgment, 
based on the record, that these readily identified biases could well be 
on the order of a factor of 10. EPA solicits comment on the assumptions 
discussed above.
    More subtle are the uncertainties and potential bias inherent in an 
essentially static comparison of two different O3 values 
that are assumed to be uniform over a very large area. Dynamic, real-
world strategies would involve a number of alternative local and 
regional scale approaches that vary significantly in time and space, 
with a variety of possible outcomes with respect to the middle and 
lower portions of the distribution that is most relevant to estimating 
long-term summer averages over a period of decades into the future. An 
example of such local strategy-dependent outcomes would be control of 
NOX emissions across a metropolitan area, which could reduce 
O3 concentrations at downwind peak monitors, but also result 
in localized increases in lower concentrations in the center city area 
(National Academy of Sciences, 1991, Figure 11-2). As noted in section 
II.B.2 above and in Altshuller (1994), the interrelated indirect 
results from reduced O3 and UV-B radiation could trigger 
feedbacks through increased O3, aerosol, or cloud cover that 
could partially or fully offset the initial O3 effects on 
UV-B radiation. Available data and assessment tools do not permit a 
reasonable quantitative assessment of these second-and third-order 
indirect effects (Altshuller, 1994; Childs, 1994).
    Other potential problems associated with ignoring area-specific 
considerations in an O3/UV-B risk analysis summarized in the 
previous section include the assessment of local physical factors 
(e.g., buildings) that reduce UV-B radiation exposure in outdoor 
microenvironments, meteorological conditions (e.g., sea breeze) or 
local emissions patterns that reduce pollution in high UV-B radiation 
exposure microenvironments, behavioral adjustments to information 
concerning UV-B radiation risk over time, and local differences in the 
proportion of sensitive populations. Even Cupitt's assumption that 90 
percent of exposure occurs during the summer O3 season 
embeds an assumption about long-term personal behavior for which little 
empirical evidence exists.
    In summary, the Cupitt (1994) white paper was useful for its 
intended purpose as a scoping analysis to identify the potential issues 
arising in any attempt to assess the potential shielding provided by 
changes in ground-level O3. It established that any effects 
of even fairly large long-term O3 reductions in ground-level 
O3 would be quite small, but as evidenced in the comments of 
the peer review and the discussion above, available data and modeling 
tools fall far short of permitting reliable quantitative risk estimates 
for

[[Page 57286]]

consideration in standard setting or benefits assessments.
    The analysis of this issue by U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) staff 
(1995) is summarized in a statement submitted as a part of public 
comments at a CASAC meeting. The exposition is far less complete than 
that of Cupitt, and it is quite difficult to reconcile the range of 
estimates for NMSC, the lower bound of which are less than Cupitt, 
while the upper bound estimates are more than double his. The analysis 
apparently starts with the same assumptions regarding a constant change 
in summertime O3 of 10 ppb through a 2 km mixing layer, but 
important information about the other assumptions is lacking. In any 
event, the paper does not appear to improve upon the methodology in the 
Cupitt analysis.\53\ Given that the U.S. DOE statement must share the 
limitations outlined above for Cupitt and the fact that the analytical 
approach is not well documented nor peer reviewed, no reliance is 
placed on the quantitative results presented in the U.S. DOE 
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ In addition to estimates for NMSC, the U.S. DOE statements 
also provided estimates for melanoma skin cancers and cataracts. As 
discussed above, the quantitative relationship between cumulative 
UV-B exposure and the latter effects are not as well established as 
for NMSC. Given the lack of documentation and the additional 
uncertainties over those for NMSC, neither the U.S. DOE estimates of 
such effects nor the uncritical reliance on them by Lutter and Wolz 
(1997) should not given quantitative credence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The work of economic analysts Lutter and Wolz (1997) provides a 
``preliminary analysis'' of UV-B radiation screening by tropospheric 
O3. Here, the exposition permits a more direct comparison 
with that of Cupitt, and it appears that many of the same simplifying 
assumptions were used--either explicitly or implicitly. This paper 
relied upon Cupitt's assumption that the NAAQS revision might bring 
about a summertime average of 10 ppb reduction in O3 in 
areas not attaining the standard. As discussed above, based on the 
record, EPA believes this substantially overstates the likely effect of 
the NAAQS revision. Their assumption of a constant mixing ratio for the 
10 ppb change that would extend well above the planetary boundary 
layer, up to 10 km, also introduces upward bias into their upper-bound 
risk estimates. The resultant apparent dose appears to be a factor of 4 
larger than the upper bound used by Cupitt and U.S. DOE staff. The 
other quantitative inputs to the analysis differed to a more modest 
degree from those used by Cupitt. In the end, the upper bound estimate 
of NMSC is more than double that of Cupitt, due largely to the 
unwarranted assumption of a 10 km mixing height.
    Again, because the quantitative assessment shares most of the 
limitations cited above for Cupitt, and actually adds substantial bias 
in a key assumption, EPA has placed no reliance on the quantitative 
risk estimates for NMSC from Lutter and Wolz (1997) or to the secondary 
estimates derived in the U.S. DOE analyses. EPA solicits comment on the 
assessments discussed above.
    At the end of the 1997 O3 NAAQS review, EPA published 
the final RIA, containing, among other requirements, an analysis 
addressing all of the quantifiable benefits of the O3 NAAQS. 
This analysis, which was reviewed by other Federal agencies and 
approved for release by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
concluded that the available scientific and technical information would 
not permit reliable quantitative estimates of any effect of changing 
the O3 NAAQS on UV-B radiation-related effects. Based on the 
present examination of all of the available information in the record, 
the Administrator believes that this remains a sound conclusion.

C. Consideration of Net Adverse Health Effects of Ground-Level 
O3

    In considering the net adverse health effects of ground-level 
O3, EPA has focused on characterizing and weighing the 
comparative importance of the potential indirect beneficial health 
effects associated with the attenuation of UV-B radiation by ground-
level O3 (section II.B above) and the direct adverse health 
effects associated with breathing O3 in the ambient air 
(section II.A above). The same key factors considered by EPA in its 
1997 review of the O3 standard are again considered here in 
characterizing the additional information on potential beneficial 
effects and in comparatively weighing this information relative to the 
direct adverse effects. Beyond quantitative assessments of exposure and 
risk that were central to EPA's 1997 review, these factors include the 
nature and severity of the effects, the types of available evidence, 
the size and nature of the sensitive populations at risk, and the kind 
and degree of uncertainties in the evidence and assessments. In 
recognition of the complexity and multidimensional nature of such a 
comparison, no attempt is made to characterize all the relevant effects 
or associated risks to public health with a common metric.
    The available record information on the potential indirect 
beneficial health effects associated with ground-level O3 
includes information from studies of health effects caused by exposure 
to UV-B radiation and studies that focus on the consequences of 
unnaturally high exposures to UV-B radiation due to depletion of the 
stratospheric O3 layer, as well as analyses that attempt to 
focus specifically on the consequences of assumed changes in 
tropospheric O3 levels. The nature and severity of the 
effects of UV-B radiation exposure on the skin, eye, and immune system 
are discussed above (section II.B.1), as is the nature of sensitive 
populations at risk for these effects. These effects, especially on the 
skin and eye, are generally understood to be associated with long-term 
cumulative exposure to UV-B radiation and to have long latency periods 
from cumulative exposures, especially those early in life. People with 
light skin pigmentation make up the primary at-risk population for 
effects on the skin, especially for NMSC, while at-risk populations for 
other effects are not as well understood. For NMSC, uncertainties in 
the evidence generally relate to uncertainties in the relevant action 
spectra and BAFs, as well as in factors related to characterizing the 
severity of the different types of NMSC. Based on the record 
information, for the other effects, the role of UV-B radiation is less 
well understood (e.g., as to relevant action spectra, BAFs, the nature 
of exposures of concern), although cumulative exposure to UV-B 
radiation is thought to play a causal role. These characterizations are 
derived from the large body of epidemiologic and toxicologic evidence 
that served as the basis for the reference document by EPA (1987).
    The record includes a quantitative assessment conducted by EPA 
(1987, App. E) of the health risks associated with changes in exposure 
to UV-B radiation attributable to changes in the stratospheric 
O3 layer. This assessment models the relationship between 
wide-scale changes in global/regional levels of stratospheric 
O3, resulting from emissions of O3 depleting 
substances with long-atmospheric lifetimes, and changes in UV-B 
radiation flux as a function of latitude for three broad regions across 
the United States.\54\ As discussed above (section II.B.2), because 
changes in the stratospheric O3 layer are relatively uniform 
across broad regions, varying across the U.S. primarily with

[[Page 57287]]

latitude, information on localized spatial and temporal patterns of 
exposure-related variables (e.g., changes in ground-level 
O3, meteorological conditions, human activity patterns) are 
not relevant in producing credible estimates of risk associated with 
changes in stratospheric O3. This is in sharp contrast to 
the nature of the information necessary to produce credible estimates 
of risk associated with changes in exposures to UV-B radiation 
projected to result from changes in ground-level O3 that 
would be associated with attainment of alternative 8-hour standards for 
O3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Since the EPA's 1987 risk assessment on stratospheric ozone 
depletion, numerous changes have been made to the model to reflect 
the commitments made since 1987 by the United States, under 
amendments to the Montreal Protocol, for reductions in production of 
various ozone depleting chemicals and to incorporate more accurately 
the latest scientific information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An evaluation of the available analyses that have produced 
estimates of health risks associated with changes in ground-level 
O3 (section II.B.3 above) identifies major limitations in 
available information that resulted in the need for the analyses to 
incorporate broad and unsupportable assumptions. These limitations are 
particularly important with regard to information on spatial and 
temporal patterns of changes in ground-level O3 likely to 
result from various future emission control strategies, relevant 
meteorological conditions and atmospheric chemistry leading to a 
cascade of broader indirect effects, and human demographic and activity 
patterns likely to result in exposures of concern. For the reasons 
discussed above, these limitations are judged to be of central 
importance in any such analysis. Thus, in light of such limitations, 
the Administrator agrees with internal and external reviewers in 
proposing to conclude that the available scientific and technical 
information would not permit credible quantitative estimates of these 
potential beneficial effects.\55\ Thus, available analyses based on 
such limited information cannot serve as credible estimates of 
potential beneficial effects associated with the presence of ground-
level O3 due to man-made emissions of O3 forming 
substances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ This conclusion was also reached by the Health and 
Ecological Effects Subcommittee of the Advisory Council on Clean Air 
Compliance Analysis, a part of EPA's Science Advisory Board, in 
conjunction with their review of the ``The Benefits and Costs of the 
Clean Air Act 1990 to 2010'' (EPA, 1999b)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, in setting aside the available quantitative analyses, EPA 
notes that our above evaluation of a number of critical factors in the 
analyses provides reasons for believing that the public health impacts 
of any potential beneficial effects associated with ground-level 
O3 are likely very small, albeit unquantifiable at this time 
(section II.B.2). In giving qualitative consideration to the available 
evidence on potential indirect beneficial effects of ground-level 
O3, EPA believes it is appropriate to weigh this information 
in the context of the body of evidence on adverse effects caused by 
direct inhalation exposures to ground-level O3 that formed 
the basis for the 1997 O3 primary standard.
    As an initial matter, as discussed in the 1997 final rule, the 
Administrator focused primarily on quantitative comparisons of risk, 
exposure, and air quality in selecting both the level (62 FR 38867-8) 
and form (62 FR 38869-72) of the 1997 O3 primary standard. 
More specifically, she looked at comparisons of both those risks to 
public health that can be explicitly quantified in terms of estimated 
incidences and the size of the at-risk population (e.g., children) 
likely to experience adverse effects, as well as those for which 
quantitative risk information is more limited, but for which 
quantitative estimates of the number of children likely to experience 
exposures of concern could be developed (as discussed in section II.A.2 
above). In considering these comparisons, she recognized that although 
there were inherent uncertainties in these estimates, the underlying 
assessments took into account extensive data bases on the spatial and 
temporal patterns of air quality and directly relevant human activity 
patterns likely to result in inhalation exposures of concern. Further, 
the Administrator took into account CASAC's advice that the assessment 
methods were appropriate and state-of-the-art, and that the results 
should play a central role in her decision.
    Beyond the quantitative information on direct adverse effects, with 
regard to the qualitative evidence suggestive of potential serious, 
chronic adverse effects on public health associated with long-term 
inhalation exposures, the Administrator judged that such information 
was too uncertain and not well enough understood at the time to serve 
as the basis for establishing a more restrictive 8-hour standard in 
terms of either level (62 FR 38868) or form (62 FR 38871). This 
conclusion was consistent with CASAC's advice that further research 
into potential chronic adverse effects in humans should be continued, 
and the results considered in the next review (62 FR 38871).
    In weighing the available information on potential indirect 
beneficial effects of ground-level O3, the Administrator 
considers this information in the same light as the information on 
potential direct chronic adverse effects associated with long-term 
inhalation exposures to ground-level O3. In both instances, 
the potential health effects are serious and likely to develop over 
many years, with important periods of exposure likely occurring in 
childhood. Different population groups are likely affected, however, by 
these potential adverse and beneficial effects. Urban populations and 
people with impaired respiratory systems (e.g., people with asthma), 
who are disproportionately from certain minority groups, are most at-
risk for the direct inhalation-related effects, whereas fair-skinned 
populations are most generally, but not exclusively, at-risk for the 
indirect beneficial effects related to exposure to UV-B radiation. 
Although different types of uncertainties are inherent in the record 
information on these effects, in both cases, the uncertainties related 
to ground-level O3 are so great as to preclude the 
development of credible estimates of the size of the affected 
population or the probability of the occurrence of such effects. In the 
case of indirect effects related to ground-level O3, EPA 
believes that the use of plausible but unsubstantiated assumptions 
would likely lead to the conclusion that the potential impacts on 
public health are likely very small; no such conclusions have yet been 
drawn with regard to the public health impacts of potential direct 
chronic adverse effects related to inhalation exposures. After 
considering these factors, the Administrator now provisionally 
concludes that, much like the qualitative evidence on direct adverse 
effects potentially associated with long-term inhalation exposures, the 
newly considered available evidence on potential indirect beneficial 
effects is not well enough understood at this time to serve as the 
basis for establishing a less restrictive 8-hour standard than was 
promulgated in 1997. Rather, the Administrator believes that the most 
recent evidence and analyses of potential long-term, indirect 
beneficial effects should be considered in the next review in 
conjunction with the most recent information on long-term, direct 
adverse effects.

D. Proposed Response to Remand on the Primary O3 NAAQS

    After carefully considering the scientific information available in 
the record on adverse effects on public health associated with direct 
inhalation exposures to O3 in the ambient air and on the 
potential for indirect benefits to public health associated with the 
presence of ground-level O3 and the resultant attenuation of 
naturally occurring UV-B radiation from the sun, taking into account 
the weight of that evidence in assessing the net adverse

[[Page 57288]]

health effects of ground-level O3, and for the reasons 
discussed above, the Administrator proposes to respond to the remand by 
reaffirming the 8-hour primary O3 standard promulgated in 
1997. In proposing to leave unchanged the 1997 O3 standard 
at this time, the Administrator has fully considered the available 
information in the record of the 1997 O3 NAAQS review on 
potential beneficial health effects of ground-level O3. 
Based on such consideration, she has provisionally determined that the 
information linking changes in patterns of ground-level O3 
concentrations likely to occur as a result of programs implemented to 
attain the 1997 O3 NAAQS to changes in relevant exposures to 
UV-B radiation of concern to public health is too uncertain at this 
time to warrant any relaxation in the level of public health protection 
previously determined to be requisite to protect against the 
demonstrated direct adverse respiratory effects of exposure to 
O3 in the ambient air. Further, the Administrator notes that 
it is the Agency's view that associated changes in UV-B radiation 
exposures of concern, using plausible but highly uncertain assumptions 
about likely changes in patterns of ground-level ozone concentrations, 
would likely be very small from a public health perspective.
    In the past, the Administrator has been confronted with situations 
where there has been both quantifiable and unquantifiable evidence, and 
has moved forward with a NAAQS decision. The inability to quantify all 
related effects does not preclude the Agency from making a NAAQS 
decision, particularly in situations where there is strong quantifiable 
evidence of significant adverse health effects. Moreover, in this case, 
as noted above, EPA believes the potential beneficial effects are not 
quantifiable at this time and likely very small from a public health 
perspective. Accordingly, the Administrator believes it is 
inappropriate to wait for additional information on such effects prior 
to responding to this remand.
    The 0.08 ppm, 8-hour primary standard is met at an ambient air 
quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-
highest daily maximum 8-hour average O3 concentration is 
less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. Data handling conventions are specified 
in a new appendix I to 40 CFR part 50, as discussed in the 1996 
proposal and 1997 final rule.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Subsequent to the 1997 final rule, EPA has promulgated 
further revisions to 40 CFR part 50 with regard to the applicability 
of the 1-hour O3 standards (65 FR 45182; July 20, 2000). 
In addition, EPA notes that recent legislation addresses the timing 
of future actions on nonattainment designations with regard to the 
8-hour O3 standards (Pub. L. No. 106-377, 114 Stat. 1441 
(2000)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposing to respond to the remand by reaffirming the 1997 
primary O3 standard at this time, the Administrator 
recognizes, however, that relevant information on indirect potentially 
beneficial health effects of ground-level O3 is now 
available that was not part of this rulemaking record. In addition, she 
notes that the next periodic review of the O3 NAAQS has now 
been initiated by EPA's ORD with a call for information (65 FR 57810; 
September 26, 2000). Thus, to ensure that the next review of the 
O3 criteria and standards can be based on a comprehensive 
and current body of relevant scientific information, EPA encourages the 
submission of new scientific information on the relationships between 
ground-level O3, associated attenuation of UV-B radiation 
and other indirect effects of the presence of O3 in the 
ambient air, and effects on public health such as those associated with 
changes in relevant exposures to UV-B radiation.
    In looking ahead to the next review, EPA anticipates that the 
available information may warrant a fuller examination of relevant 
public health policy factors in weighing the net adverse health effects 
associated with ground-level O3. Such factors could include, 
for example, the extent to which the proximate cause of the effects is 
natural or man-made; the extent to which the effects are in excess of 
naturally occurring background levels; the extent to which the 
exposures of concern are affected by human behavior patterns; the time 
course of exposure-response relationships; and environmental justice 
issues that arise in any analysis of risk trade-offs involving 
different sensitive populations. To help inform this aspect of the next 
review, EPA also solicits comments on whether these and other factors 
should be considered to be relevant in weighing the net adverse health 
effects of ground-level O3.

III. Rationale for Proposed Response To Remand on the Secondary O3 
Standard

    This notice also presents the Administrator's proposed response to 
the remand, reaffirming the 8-hour O3 secondary standard 
promulgated in 1997, based on: (1) Information from the 1997 criteria 
and standards review that served as the basis for the 1997 secondary 
O3 standard, including the scientific information on welfare 
effects associated with direct exposures to O3 in the 
ambient air, with a focus on vegetation effects, and assessments of 
vegetation exposure, risk, and economic values and (2) a review of the 
scientific information in the record of the 1997 review (but not 
considered as part of the basis for the 1997 standard) on the welfare 
effects associated with changes in UV-B radiation, the association 
between changes in ground-level O3 and changes in UV-B 
radiation, and predictions of changes in ground-level O3 
levels likely to result from attainment of alternative O3 
standards.

A. Direct Adverse Welfare Effects

    As discussed in the 1997 final rule, direct exposures to 
O3 have been associated quantitatively and qualitatively 
with a wide range of vegetation effects such as visible foliar injury, 
growth reductions and yield loss in annual crops, growth reductions in 
tree seedlings and mature trees, and effects that can have impacts at 
the forest stand and ecosystem level. Visible foliar injury can 
represent a direct loss of the intended use of the plant, ranging from 
reduced yield and/or marketability for some agricultural species to 
impairment of the aesthetic value of urban ornamental species. On a 
larger scale, foliar injury is occurring on native vegetation in 
national parks, forests, and wilderness areas, and may be degrading the 
aesthetic quality of the natural landscape, a resource important to 
public welfare. Growth and yield effects of O3 have been 
well documented for numerous species, including commodity crops, fruits 
and vegetables, and seedlings of both coniferous and deciduous tree 
species. Although data from tree seedling studies could not be 
extrapolated to quantify responses to O3 in mature trees, 
long-term observational studies of mature trees have shown growth 
reductions in the presence of elevated O3 concentrations. 
Even where these growth reductions are not attributed to O3 
alone, it has been reported that O3 is a significant 
contributor that potentially exacerbates the effects of other 
environmental stresses (e.g., pests). In addition, growth reductions 
can indicate that plant vigor is being compromised such that the plant 
can no longer compete effectively for essential nutrients, water, 
light, and space. When many O3-sensitive individuals make up 
a population, the whole population may be affected. Changes occurring 
within sensitive populations, or stands, if they are severe enough, 
ultimately can change community and ecosystem structure. Structural 
changes that alter the ecosystem functions of energy flow and nutrient 
cycling can alter ecosystem succession.

[[Page 57289]]

    Based on key studies and other biological effects information 
reported in the Criteria Document and Staff Paper, it was recognized 
that peak O3 concentrations equal to or greater than 0.10 
ppm can be phytotoxic to a large number of plant species, and can 
produce acute foliar injury and reduced crop yield and biomass 
production. In addition, O3 concentrations within the range 
of 0.05 to 0.10 ppm have the potential over a longer duration of 
creating chronic stress on vegetation that can result in reduced plant 
growth and yield, shifts in competitive advantages in mixed 
populations, decreased vigor leading to diminished resistance to pest 
and pathogens, and injury from other environmental stresses. Some 
sensitive species can experience foliar injury and growth and yield 
effects even when O3 concentrations never exceed 0.08 ppm. 
Further, the available scientific information supports the conclusion 
that a cumulative seasonal exposure index is more biologically relevant 
than a single event or mean index.
    To put judgments about these vegetation effects into a broader 
national perspective, the Administrator has taken into account the 
extent of exposure of O3-sensitive species, potential risks 
of adverse effects to such species, and monetized and non-monetized 
categories of increased vegetation protection associated with 
reductions in O3 exposures. In so doing, the Administrator 
recognized that markedly improved air quality, and thus significant 
reductions in O3 exposures would result from attainment of 
the 0.08 ppm, 8-hour primary standard. In looking further at the 
incremental protection associated with attainment of a seasonal 
secondary standard, she recognized that areas that would likely be of 
most concern for effects on vegetation, as measured by the seasonal 
exposure index, would also be addressed by the 0.08 ppm, 8-hour primary 
standard.

B. Potential Indirect Beneficial Welfare Effects

    This section is drawn from the limited information in the record of 
the 1997 review with regard to the effect of ground-level O3 
on the attenuation of UV-B radiation and potential associated welfare 
benefits.\57\ While this information suggests the potential for effects 
on plants and aquatic organisms, EPA (1987, ES-40--ES-43) recognizes 
that relevant studies are limited and the uncertainties are great due 
in part to problems in study designs, such that quantitative 
conclusions cannot be drawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ The information in this section is drawn primarily from the 
EPA document ``Assessing the Risk of Trace Gasses that Can Modify 
the Stratosphere'' (U.S. EPA, 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to effects on vegetation, while some plant cultivars 
tested in the laboratory were determined to be sensitive to UV-B 
radiation exposure, these experiments have been shown to inadequately 
replicate effects in the field, such that they do not reflect the 
complex interactions between plants and their environment. The only 
long-term field studies of crops involved soybeans, producing 
suggestive evidence of reduced yields under conditions simulating 
changes in total column O3 over an order of magnitude 
greater than those projected to occur as a result of changes in ground-
level O3 associated with attainment of the 1997 
O3 NAAQS. Beyond the limited studies of crops, EPA (1987, 
ES-41) notes that little or no data exist on UV-B radiation effects on 
trees and other types of natural vegetation, or on possible 
interactions with pathogens. While it is noted that changes in UV-B 
radiation levels could alter the results of competition in natural 
ecosystems, no evidence is available to evaluate this effect. Further, 
it is recognized that UV-B radiation may both inhibit and stimulate 
plant flowering, depending on the species and growth conditions. 
Recognizing that interactions between UV-B radiation and other 
environmental factors are important in determining potential UV-B 
radiation effects on plants, EPA (1987, ES-42) notes that extensive, 
long-term studies would be required to address these interactions.
    With regard to effects on aquatic organisms, EPA (1987, ES-42) 
notes that while initial experiments show that increased UV-B radiation 
has the potential to harm aquatic life, difficulties in experimental 
designs and the limited scope of the studies prevent the quantification 
of potential risks. Some study results suggest that most zooplankton 
show no effect due to increased exposure to UV-B radiation up to some 
threshold exposure level, with exposures above such threshold levels 
eliciting notable effects. For species under UV-B stress, such effects 
could include reduced time spent at the surface of the water, which is 
critical for breeding in some species, possibly leading to changes in 
species diversity. It is also noted that, as do all other living 
organisms, aquatic biota cope with exposure to UV-B radiation by 
avoidance, shielding, and repair mechanisms, although uncertainty 
exists as to the extent to which such mitigation mechanisms would occur 
(U.S. EPA, 1987, ES-43). It is recognized that determination of UV-B 
radiation exposure in aquatic systems is complex because of the 
variable attenuation of UV-B radiation in the water column, and that 
further research is needed to improve our understanding of how UV-B 
radiation exposure affects marine species, particularly given their 
world-wide importance as a source of protein.

C. Proposed Response To Remand on the Secondary O3 NAAQS

    After considering the scientific information available in the 
record on adverse welfare effects associated with direct exposure to 
O3 in the ambient air and on the potential indirect benefits 
to public welfare related to attenuation of naturally occurring UV-B 
radiation, the Administrator provisionally concludes that there is 
insufficient information available on UV-B radiation-related effects to 
warrant any relaxation in the level of public welfare protection 
previously determined to be requisite to protect against the 
demonstrated direct adverse effects of exposure to O3 in the 
ambient air. Thus, the Administrator proposes to respond to the remand 
by reaffirming the 8-hour secondary O3 standard promulgated 
in 1997, which is identical to the 8-hour primary O3 
standard.
    As recognized above in section II.B.4 with regard to consideration 
of health effects, the Administrator also recognizes that relevant 
information on indirect potentially beneficial welfare effects of 
ground-level O3 is now available that was not part of this 
rulemaking record. In addition, as previously noted, the next periodic 
review of the O3 NAAQS is now being initiated by EPA's ORD 
with a call for information. Thus, to ensure that the next review of 
the O3 criteria and standards can be based on a 
comprehensive and current body of relevant scientific information, EPA 
encourages the submission of new scientific information on the 
relationships between ground-level O3, associated 
attenuation of UV-B radiation and other indirect effects of the 
presence of O3 in the ambient air, and effects on public 
welfare such as those associated with changes in relevant exposures to 
UV-B radiation.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: OMB Review of ``Significant Actions''

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Agency must determine whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to OMB 
review and

[[Page 57290]]

the requirements of the Executive Order. The order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another Agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations or recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    In view of its important policy implications, this proposed action 
has been judged to be a ``significant regulatory action'' within the 
meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA has submitted this proposed 
action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions 
or recommendations will be documented in the public record and made 
available for public inspection at EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and 
Information Center (Docket No. A-95-58).
    Since today's proposed response to the remand is a reaffirmation of 
the revisions to the O3 NAAQS previously promulgated in 
1997, no new RIA has been prepared. The RIA (1997) prepared in 
conjunction with the 1997 revision to the O3 NAAQS is 
available in the docket, from EPA at the address under ``Availability 
of Related Information,'' and in electronic form as discussed above in 
``Electronic Availability.''
    The Clean Air Act and judicial decisions make clear that the 
economic and technological feasibility of attaining ambient standards 
are not to be considered in setting NAAQS, although such factors may be 
considered in the development of State plans to implement the 
standards. Accordingly, although a RIA was prepared for the 1997 
decision to revise the O3 NAAQS, neither that RIA nor the 
associated contractor reports have been considered in issuing this 
proposal.

B. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health

    Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), requires Federal agencies to ensure that their policies, 
programs, activities, and standards identify and assess environmental 
health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. To 
respond to this order, agencies must explain why the regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the agency.
    Today's proposed response to the remand, reaffirming the 1997 
primary O3 NAAQS, specifically takes into account children 
as the group most at risk to the direct inhalation-related effects of 
O3 exposure, and was based on studies of effects on 
children's health (U.S. EPA, 1996a; U.S. EPA, 1996b) and assessments of 
children's exposure and risk (Johnson et al., 1994; Johnson et al., 
1996a,b; Whitfield et al., 1996; Richmond, 1997). The 1997 revision to 
the primary O3 NAAQS was promulgated to provide adequate 
protection to the public, especially children, against a wide range of 
direct O3-induced health effects, including decreased lung 
function, primarily in children who are active outdoors; increased 
respiratory symptoms, primarily in highly sensitive individuals; 
hospital admissions and emergency room visits for respiratory causes, 
among children and adults with respiratory disease; inflammation of the 
lung and possible long-term damage to the lungs. This proposed response 
to the remand affirming the 1997 primary O3 NAAQS maintains 
the level of protection of children's health established by the 
standard set in 1997. Therefore, today's proposed action does comply 
with the requirements of E.O. 13045.

C. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Today's proposed response to the remand does not have federalism 
implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. 
The proposed response to the remand only reaffirms the previously 
promulgated ozone standard and would not alter the relationship that 
has existed under the Clean Air Act for 30 years, in which EPA sets 
NAAQS and the states implement them through submission of SIPs, in 
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive 
Order 13132 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive 
Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications 
between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits 
comment on this proposed action from State and local officials.

D. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed response to the remand does not have tribal 
implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal 
governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. This is because this proposed response to the 
remand leaves unchanged the 1997 final rule. Thus, Executive Order 
13175 does not apply to this rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million

[[Page 57291]]

or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a 
written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires 
EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory 
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The 
provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with 
applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an 
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least 
burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final 
rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government 
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected 
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to 
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    As noted above, EPA cannot consider in setting a NAAQS the economic 
or technological feasibility of attaining ambient air quality 
standards, although such factors may be considered to a degree in the 
development of State plans to implement the standards. Accordingly, and 
for the reasons discussed in the 1996 proposal and 1997 final rule, EPA 
has determined that the provisions of sections 202, 203, and 205 of the 
UMRA do not apply to this proposed action. The EPA acknowledges, 
however, that any corresponding revisions to associated State 
implementation plan requirements and air quality surveillance 
requirements, 40 CFR part 51 and 40 CFR part 58, respectively, might 
result in such effects. Accordingly, EPA will address unfunded mandates 
as appropriate when it proposes any revisions to 40 CFR parts 51 and 
58.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis/Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
EPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact 
of any proposed or final rule on small entities. Under 6 U.S.C. 605(b), 
this requirement may be waived if EPA certifies that the rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and governmental entities with jurisdiction over 
populations less than 50,000 people.
    Today's proposed response to the remand, reaffirming the 1997 
primary O3 NAAQS, does not establish any new regulatory 
requirements affecting small entities. On the basis of the above 
considerations and for the reasons discussed in the 1996 proposal and 
1997 final rule, EPA certifies that today's proposed action will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities within the meaning of the RFA, as affirmed by the D.C. Circuit 
in American Trucking Associations v. EPA, 175 F. 3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 
1999). Based on the same considerations, EPA also certifies that the 
new small-entity provisions in section 244 of the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) do not apply.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Today's proposed response to the remand does not establish any new 
information collection requirements beyond those which are currently 
required under the Ambient Air Quality Surveillance Regulations in 40 
CFR part 58 (OMB #2060-0084, EPA ICR No. 0940.15). Therefore, the 
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act do not apply to today's 
proposed action.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 
Today's proposed response to the remand does not involve technical 
standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary 
consensus standards.

I. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects

    This proposed response to remand is not a ``significant energy 
action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning 
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy. This is because this proposed response to the remand leaves 
unchanged the 1997 final rule. Thus, Executive Order 13211 does not 
apply to this rule.

V. References

Altschuller, A.P. (1994) Memorandum to L.T. Cupitt re: Addendum to 
My Review of Your Manuscript ``Calculations of the Impact of 
Tropospheric Ozone Changes On UV-B Flux and Potential Skin Cancers'' 
EPA Docket A-95-54, IV-D-2694, Appendix B 17.
American Thoracic Society. (1985) Guidelines as to what constitutes 
an adverse respiratory health effect, with special reference to 
epidemiologic studies of air pollution. American Review of 
Respiratory Disease. 131: 666-668.
Briihl, C. and Creutzen, P.J. (1989) On the Disproportionate Role of 
Tropospheric Ozone as a Filter Against Solar UV-B Radiation. 
Geophys. Res. Letters, 16:703-706. Docket A-9-54, IV-D-2694, 
Appendix B 10.
Childs, N. (1994) Memorandum to L. Grant re: Relationships of 
Reductions in Tropospheric Ozone to UV-B Penetration to Earth's 
Surface, EPA Docket A-95-54, IV-D-2694, Appendix B 16.
Creutzen, P.J. (1992) Ultraviolet on the Increase Nature 356:104-
105. Docket A-95-54, IV-D-2694, Appendix B 11.
Cupitt, L.T. (1994) Draft memorandum, Calculations of the Impact of 
Tropospheric Ozone Changes on UV-B Flux and Potential Skin Cancers, 
EPA ORD/AREAL Docket A-95-54, IV-D-2694, Appendix B 2.
Fishman, J.; Watson, C.E.; Larsen, J.C.; and Logan, J.A. (1990) 
Distribution of Tropospheric Ozone Determined From Satellite Data J. 
Geophys. Res. 95:3599-3617. Docket A-95-54, IV-D-2694, Appendix B 1.
Frederick, J.E.; Koob, A.E.; Weatherhead, E.C. (1993) Empirical 
Studies of Tropospheric Transmission in the Ultraviolet: Broadband 
Measurements. J. Applied Meteorology 32:1883--1892. Docket A-95-54, 
IV-D-2694, Appendix B 13.
Galindo, I.; Frenk, S.; Bravo, H. (1995) Ultraviolet Irradiance Over 
Mexico City J. Air and Waste Manage. Assoc. 45:886-892. Docket A-95-
54, IV-D-2694, Appendix B 14.
Johnson, T. (1994) Letter report: Enhancements to the pNEM summer 
camp methodology. Prepared by IT/Air Quality Services for U.S. EPA, 
OAQPS; Research Triangle Park, NC, March.
Johnson, T.; Capel, J.; Mozier, J.; McCoy, M. (1996a) Estimation of 
ozone exposures experienced by outdoor children in nine urban areas 
using a probabilistic version of NEM. Prepared by IT/Air Quality 
Services for U.S. EPA, OAQPS; Research Triangle Park, NC, August.

[[Page 57292]]

Johnson, T.; Capel, J.; McCoy, M.; Mozier, J. (1996b) Estimation of 
ozone exposures experienced by outdoor workers in nine urban areas 
using a probabilistic version of NEM. Prepared by IT/Air Quality 
Services for U.S. EPA, OAQPS; Research Triangle Park, NC, August.
Johnson, T.; Capel, J.; McCoy, M. (1996c) Estimation of ozone 
exposures experienced by urban residents using a probabilistic 
version of NEM. Prepared by IT/Air Quality Services for U.S. EPA, 
OAQPS; Research Triangle Park, NC, April.
Liu, S.C.; Mckeen, S.A.; and Madronich, S. (1991) Effect of 
Anthropogenic Aerosols on Biologically Active Ultraviolet Radiation 
Geophysical research Letters 18:2265-2268. Docket A-95-54, IV-D-
2694, Appendix B 3.
Lutter, R. and Wolz, C. (1997) UV-B Screening by Tropospheric Ozone: 
Implications for the National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Envir. 
Sci. Technol. 31:142A-146A. Docket A-9-54, IV-D-2694, Appendix B 7.
Madronich, S. (1992) Implications of Recent Total Atmospheric Ozone 
Measurements for Biologically Active Ultraviolet Radiation Reaching 
Earth's Surface, Geophys. Res. Letters 19:37-40. Docket A-95-54, IV-
D-2694, Appendix B 8.
National Academy of Sciences (1991) Rethinking the Ozone Problem in 
Urban and Regional Air Pollution, National Academy Press, 
Washington, District of Columbia.
Richmond (1997) Supplemental ozone exposure and health risk 
analyses. Internal memorandum from Harvey M. Richmond to Karen M. 
Martin, U.S. EPA, AQSSD/OAQPS/OAR, RTP, NC, dated February 11, 1997. 
Docket No. A-95-58 Item IV-A-1.
Seckmeyer, G. and McKenzie, R.L. (1992) Letters to Nature Increased 
Ultraviolet Radiation in New Zealand (45 deg. S) Relative to Germany 
(48 deg. N) Nature 359:135-137, Docket A-95-54, IV-D-2694, Appendix 
B 12.
Thiele, J.J.; Traber, M.G.; Tsang, K.; Cross, C.E.; Packer, L. 
(1997) In vivo exposure to ozone depletes vitamins C and E and 
induces lipid peroxidation in epidermal layers of murine skin. Free 
Radical Biol. Med. 23:385-391.
Thurston, G.D.; Ito, K.; Kinney, P.L.; Lippmann, M. (1992) A multi-
year study of air pollution and respiratory hospital admissions in 
three New York State metropolitan areas: results for 1988 and 1989 
summers. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental 
Epidemiology. 2:429-450.
UNEP (1998) Environmental Effects of Ozone Depletion; Elsevier 
Science S.A., The Netherlands.
U.S. DOE (1995) Statement of Marvin Frazier at Clean Air Scientific 
Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ozone Review Panel, Public Meeting, March 
21, 1995, at 203-218 transcript. Docket A-95-54, IV-D-2694, Appendix 
B 9.
U.S. EPA (1987) Assessing the Risk of Trace Gases That Can Modify 
the Stratosphere. Volume 1 Executive Summary, Docket A-95-54, IV-D-
2694, Appendix B 4.
U.S. EPA (1995a) Fact sheet: Health Effects of Overexposure to the 
Sun, EPA 430-F-95-003, Office of Air and Radiation Docket A-95-54, 
IV-D-2694, Appendix B 5.
U.S. EPA (1995b) Fact sheet: UV Radiation, EPA 430-F-95-003, Office 
of Air and Radiation, Docket A-95-54, IV-D-2694, Appendix B 18.
U.S. EPA (1996a) Air quality criteria for ozone and related 
photochemical oxidants. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Health 
and Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment 
Office; EPA report nos. EPA/600/AP-93/004a-c.
U.S. EPA (1996b) Review of the national ambient air quality 
standards for ozone: assessment of scientific and technical 
information. OAQPS staff paper. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office 
of Air Quality Planning and Standards; EPA report no. EPA-452/R-96-
007. Available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB96-203435.
U.S. EPA (1997) Responses to Significant Comments on the 1996 
Proposed Rule on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 
Ozone, Office of Air and Radiation, Docket A-95-54, July 1997.
U.S. EPA (1999a) Science Advisory Board Committee: Advisory Council 
on Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis (Council) Health and Ecological 
Effects Subcommittee (HEES), Summary Minutes of Public Meeting, 
Date: June 28-29, 1999.
U.S. EPA (1999b) The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990 to 
2010; Office of Policy Analysis and Review; EPA report no. EPA-410-
R-99-001.
Whitfield, R.G.; Biller, W.F.; Jusko, M.J.; Keisler, J.M. (1996) A 
probabilistic assessment of health risks associated with short-term 
exposure to tropospheric ozone. Report prepared for U.S. EPA, OAQPS. 
Argonne National Laboratory; Argonne, IL.
Wolff, G.T. (1995a) Letter from Chairman of the Clean Air Scientific 
Advisory Committee to the EPA Administrator, dated November 28, 
1995. EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-002.
Wolff, G.T., (1995b) Letter from Chairman of Clean Air Scientific 
Advisory Committee to the EPA Administrator, dated November 30, 
1995. EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-002.
Wolff, G.T., (1996) Letter from Chairman of Clean Air Scientific 
Advisory Committee to the EPA Administrator, dated April 4, 1996. 
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-006.
WMO (1994) Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1994, Global 
Ozone Research and Monitoring Project--Report No. 37, published in 
1995; Office of Air and Radiation Docket A-95-54, IV-D-2694, 
Appendix B25.
WMO (1998) Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998, Global 
Ozone Research and Monitoring Project--Report No. 44, published in 
1999.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 50

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: October 31, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 01-27820 Filed 11-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P