97007: Clean Air Act Issues in the 105th Congress

James E. McCarthy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

March 3, 1999

CONTENTS

• SUMMARY
• MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
• BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
• Background
• Legislative Issues in the 105th Congress
• • Revision of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
  • • The Final Rule
    • Oversight
    • Legislation
  • Border Smog
  • Methyl Bromide
    
• Other Issues
• CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
• FOR ADDITIONAL READING
• • CRS Issue Briefs
  • CRS Reports

MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

On October 27, 1998, the President signed H.R. 8 (P.L. 105-286), a bill to limit the entry of foreign vehicles into California unless they have complied with the state's vehicle inspection and maintenance requirements. On October 21, the President signed the Omnibus Appropriations bill, P.L. 105-277, which contained a provision amending the Clean Air Act to delay implementation of a ban on production and use of methyl bromide, an ozone-depleting chemical used in agriculture.

Earlier, on June 9, 1998, the President signed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA 21, P.L. 105-178). Title VI of the bill addressed the most controversial clean air issue considered in the 105th Congress, codifying implementation dates for new ozone and particulate air quality standards that were promulgated by EPA in July 1997, and delaying implementation of a regional haze regulatory program proposed by the Agency July 31, 1997.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

Background

The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to establish minimum national standards for air quality, and assigns primary responsibility to the states to assure compliance. Areas not meeting the standards, referred to as nonattainment areas, are required to implement specified air pollution control measures. The Act establishes federal standards for autos and other mobile sources of air pollution, for sources of 188 hazardous air pollutants, and for the emissions that cause acid rain. It establishes a comprehensive state-run permit system for all major sources of air pollution. It also addresses the prevention of pollution in areas with clean air, as well as protection of the stratospheric ozone layer.

The last comprehensive amendments to the Act, enacted November 15, 1990 (P.L. 101-549), included the program to control acid rain, new standards for emissions of hazardous air pollutants, new requirements for motor vehicles and fuels, and stringent new requirements for nonattainment areas.

Many of these provisions (notably the acid rain and air toxics provisions, and some of the requirements for autos and fuels) were strenuously debated, but most have not been subject to controversy since enactment. The new provisions on acid rain, air toxics, cleaner-burning gasoline, and automobiles have generally been implemented on schedule, in many cases at less cost than anticipated. There have also been noticeable improvements in air quality in recent years: of 98 metropolitan areas not attaining the ozone standard in 1990, more than half now do so. Similar progress has been achieved with carbon monoxide: 28 of the 42 areas not in attainment in 1990 now meet the standard.

Nevertheless, major controversies remain concerning implementation of the Act. One of these -- revision of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards -- was the subject of legislative action in the 105^th Congress; the Act was also amended to deal with two less controversial issues, emissions from Mexican vehicles entering California ("border smog") and the phaseout of production and use of methyl bromide, an ozone-depleting chemical used in agriculture.

Legislative Issues in the 105th Congress

Revision of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA sets national standards for ambient (outdoor) air quality, and is directed to review the standards every 5 years. Over the years, the Agency has not met the review schedules for ozone and particulates, and was sued by the American Lung Association and others over its failure to do so.

On July 18, 1997, the Agency completed its review of the standards and promulgated a new standard for fine particulates (referred to as PM_2.5) and revised standards for ozone and coarse particles (PM₁₀). The Agency reviewed more than 270 studies of health effects over a 3-year period in developing the new proposals. (For a more detailed discussion of the proposals, the issues raised, and congressional options, see CRS Report 97-8, Air Quality: Background Analysis of EPA's 1997 Ozone and Particulate Matter Standards. For a review of the standard-setting process, see CRS Report 97-722, Air Quality Standards: The Decisionmaking Process. EPA's World Wide Web home page for the standards is http://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/naaqsfin/index.htm.)

The net impact of the promulgated standards will be increased stringency. Analyses by interested parties, including EPA, indicate that many areas now considered to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulates may not meet the new standards. The Agency is reluctant to project the number of counties likely to be in nonattainment, since the actual determinations will be made using monitoring data for 1997-1999 or later periods; in the case of PM_2.5, a monitoring network will not be established for several years, so lists of nonattainment counties are even more tentative. Nevertheless, for PM_2.5, EPA estimates that about 150 U.S. counties would not meet the standard now, versus 41 under the current requirement. For ozone, the number of counties out of attainment under the new standard has been estimated to nearly triple, from 106 to about 280.

Such an increase in the number of nonattainment areas has broad implications for EPA, the states, and affected industries. As a result, industry and business interests, led by the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute, have urged that the ozone and PM standards not be tightened, claiming excessive costs, lack of significant demonstrable benefits, loss of competitiveness, and technical infeasibility. An industry-business Air Quality Standards Coalition was formed to contest the stronger rules, and picked up support from the small business community, farm groups, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. At the same time, health and environmental stakeholders either supported the proposals or proposed tightening them further.

Reactions from the states have been less predictable: most Northeastern states and California have been supportive, despite the difficulties most are experiencing in meeting the previous standards. Midwestern states (notably Ohio and Michigan, which are generally in attainment with the old standards and might have to impose new controls under the revisions) have opposed EPA's action.

The Final Rule. On June 25, 1997, the President announced his decision to support revisions similar to those proposed by EPA the previous November. The standards were promulgated July 18. The approved standards are slightly less stringent than EPA's original proposals (except for the PM₁₀ standard), but the President's action was widely viewed as endorsing EPA's intent to tighten controls on air pollution and as rejecting criticisms that the proposed standards were too stringent and would harm the economy. As approved:

• The ozone standard is 0.08 parts per million measured over 8 hours, with the annual fourth highest concentration averaged over a three-year period determining whether an area is out of compliance. (The original proposal determined compliance by averaging the third highest readings.) The old standard was 0.12 parts per million. However, it was measured over a one-hour period and allowed only three exceedances in a 3-year period, the approximate equivalent of an 8-hour 0.09 ppm standard.
• The new PM_2.5 standard will be an annual limit of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m³) and a 24-hour standard of 65 µg/m³. (The original proposal established the 24-hour standard at 50 µg/m³.) PM_2.5 was not separately regulated under the old standards.
• The PM₁₀ standard will remain at the existing maximum annual concentration of 50 µg/m³ and 24-hour concentration of 150 µg/m³ with a revised method for calculating compliance that permits averaging. (The promulgated version is more stringent than that proposed in November, because it allows fewer days of violation before causing nonattainment; but it is less stringent than the old standard.)

In announcing the President's approval, June 25, EPA argued that impacts of the new ozone and PM_2.5 standards will not be as draconian as some critics have suggested, both because of changes to the proposals and because of decisions the Agency has made regarding implementation of the standards. The change to the average fourth highest concentration in the ozone standard, for example, will stabilize the compliance status of areas by requiring more measurements exceeding the standard before noncompliance is triggered. The change in the 24-hour standard for PM_2.5 will increase flexibility for episodic sources of fine particles (e.g., prescribed burning of agricultural fields), allowing such areas to experience relatively high levels of pollution over several 24-hour periods without triggering nonattainment.

The Agency also announced its intention to continue current requirements for ozone nonattainment areas until they reach attainment. For these areas, the new rule will have no immediate impact.

For new ozone nonattainment areas (which the Agency has dubbed "transitional" areas), the Agency has stated that two measures will be sufficient to reach attainment in most cases: regional controls focused on utility emissions of NO_x -- the so-called "cap and trade" program proposed by 32 eastern states, acting as the Ozone Transport Assessment Group; and continuation of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program, which requires new major sources of air pollution to install best available control technology.

Finally, EPA noted that implementation will take several years: the deadline for compliance with the new ozone standard could extend to 2012, while the deadline to meet the PM_2.5 standard could extend to 2016. Meanwhile, both standards will be subject to another round of full scientific reviews in 5 years.

.........