IB10004: Clean Air Act Issues in
the 106th Congress II
CONTENTS FOR THIS SECTION
Regional Haze
On April 22, 1999, Vice President Gore announced a final rule implementing a
much-delayed program to reduce regional haze. (The rule appeared in the Federal Register
July 1.) Under the rule, which was required by Section 169A of the Clean Air Act, states
must develop plans to improve visibility in what are called Class I areas (national parks
and wilderness). Progress must be demonstrated at 10-15 year intervals, but states will
have until 2064 to return visibility to pristine levels.
Regional haze is caused by the presence of small particles in the air. These particles
absorb and scatter sunlight, reducing contrasts, washing out colors, and making distant
objects indistinct or invisible. Because of this pollution, the current visual range in
the eastern United States is only about 20 miles, about one-fifth of the range one could
expect in the absence of air pollution. In the West, visibility is better, ranging up to
90 miles, but even there it is only half to two-thirds of its natural range.
Emissions from utilities, smelters, mobile sources, manufacturing, construction
activities, and prescribed burning of agricultural lands and forests all contribute to the
formation of regional haze and all could be subject to regulation under the program.
Addressing the problem will require planning on a regional basis and will involve measures
in all 50 states.
When proposed in July 1997, the regional haze rule ignited substantial controversy.
Issues included the potential impacts on economic sectors (particularly agriculture and
electric utilities), the choice of methodology for measuring improvements in visibility,
what constitutes the "reasonable further progress" required by the Act, and
whether EPA paid sufficient attention to the recommendations of the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission, an advisory body consisting of the governors of 8 Western
states and 5 Indian tribes which undertook a 5-year study of visibility issues on the
Colorado plateau. A public comment period on the proposed rule expired in December 1997,
but after criticism from a number of governors and congressional sources, EPA reopened the
period for an additional 30 days in September 1998. In the reopened period, the Agency
sought comments on language proposed by Western governors to facilitate the
recommendations of the Grand Canyon Commission.
The final rule is substantially changed from the one originally proposed, and appears
to have resolved much of the controversy. It will require the states to submit revised
State Implementation Plans detailing the steps they will take to improve visibility. In
the proposal, the goal was for each state to improve visibility by one
"deciview" (a measure of visibility) every 10 to 15 years. Environmental groups
and others complained that this measure of progress would leave many areas in the eastern
half of country with impaired visibility for as long as two centuries, while subjecting
areas in the West to more stringent controls. In the final version, the goal has been
changed to give all states until 2064 to return visibility in Class I areas to background
levels. In response to criticism that the proposal ignored recommendations of the Grand
Canyon Commission, the final rule incorporates the Western governors' proposed language
and deems it sufficient to meet the rule's requirements.
Congress may still be interested in the potential impacts of the program on Western
states, particularly the extent to which controls will be required on agriculture,
electric utilities, and industrial sources of pollution. The role to be played by federal
land managers through prescribed burns in national forests and on other public lands may
also be of concern. Several hearings on these issues were held in the 105th
Congress, and more are possible in the 106th.
Risk Management Plans
One Clean Air Act issue that has been the subject of enacted legislation in the 106th
Congress is the requirement in Section 112(r) of the Act that operators of stationary
sources which produce, process, handle, or store certain extremely hazardous substances
prepare risk management plans. The plans are required for facilities that possess more
than threshold levels of any of 77 acutely toxic substances or 63 flammable gases; more
than 64,000 facilities were believed to be covered by the requirement when it was
promulgated. The plans had to be submitted to EPA by June 21, 1999, and the Act requires
that they be made available to the public.
An issue raised by these regulations that generated substantial numbers of complaints
was the inclusion of small businesses that use or store propane among the regulated
entities. Propane users and dealers argued that they were already governed by standards of
the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and that further regulation was
unnecessary. Furthermore, they believe that propane should not be regulated because it is
not toxic. EPA argued, however, that numerous incidents, including the second most deadly
chemical accident in history, have involved propane explosions. Flammable and combustible
liquids, other than gasoline, were involved in more than 128,000 reported accidental
releases from 1987 through 1996, according to federal databases. Further, according to
EPA, NFPA's standards do not cover the full range of requirements under Section 112(r).
EPA has worked with NFPA to coordinate EPA and NFPA standards, and planned to raise the
threshold quantity that would lead to regulation of propane users. In the meantime, the
D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals granted a stay of the rule for all propane
facilities.
Two bills in the 106th Congress addressed these issues. H.R. 1301 (Blunt) would
have prohibited the listing of liquefied petroleum gas (including propane) under the risk
management planning requirements of Section 112(r); S. 880 (Inhofe) exempts
flammable fuels that are not acutely toxic from the risk management planning provision. S. 880 was reported,
amended, by the Environment and Public Works Committee June 9, 1999 (S.Rept. 106-70).
It passed the Senate June 23. The House passed the bill, with amendments, July 21. The
Senate agreed to the House amendments, August 2, and the bill was signed by the President
(P.L. 106-40)
on August 5.
A second issue is more fundamental. Under Section 112(r), each risk management plan
must include a hazard assessment and an evaluation of worst case accidental releases. EPA
had initially planned to make this information available to the public via the Internet,
but the chemical industry and others, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
raised concerns that terrorists might use such information to identify and target
facilities. EPA subsequently changed its mind concerning Internet access and worked with
the FBI and other security experts to develop a system preventing access to sensitive
information.
Nevertheless, many interested parties, including the FBI, remained concerned that the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) might be used to gain access to information that might
subsequently be posted on the Internet. Environmental groups, on the other hand, are
concerned that the public should be aware of potential risks. Given the wide range of
information already publicly available, some argued that affected industries were using
security concerns as a red herring to avoid wider public disclosure of risks, not to keep
information from terrorists. In any event, under current law, EPA would have little
recourse but to make at least a summary of the information available in some form.
To address the security concerns raised by the Section 112(r) requirements, the Clinton
Administration submitted draft legislation to Congress May 7, 1999. In the House,
Representative Bliley introduced EPA's bill as H.R. 1790. In the
Senate, the Administration's provisions were attached with minor changes as an amendment
to S. 880 and reported
by the Environment and Public Works Committee June 9. Negotiations ensued among the
committee's leaders, producing a manager's amendment that passed the Senate by unanimous
consent June 23, 1999. A slightly amended version passed the House July 21. As noted
previously, the Senate agreed to the House amendments, August 2, and the bill was signed
by the President (P.L.
106-40) on August 5.
As enacted, the bill establishes a one-year moratorium on public electronic release of
detailed information about worst-case accident scenarios. Qualified state and local
officials, including fire fighters, will have access to the data during this period, but
the general public will not. EPA is to use the moratorium period to regulate distribution
of detailed off-site consequence analysis information in order to minimize increases in
risk of terrorist and criminal activity (due to the posting of data on the Internet), the
likelihood of accidental releases, and the likelihood of harm to public health and
welfare. In addition, the bill requires companies that file risk management plans, with
some exceptions, to hold public meetings to discuss their off-site consequence analyses.
(For additional information on the risk management plan requirements and related
legislation, see CRS Report RL 30228, Accident Prevention Under
the Clean Air Act Section 112(r): Risk Management Planning by Propane Users and Internet
Access to Worst-Case Accident Scenarios.)
Sanctions and "Conformity"
Under the Clean Air Act, there are two provisions that can result in denial of federal
highway funding to local areas: sanctions and a lapse in what is called
"conformity." The sanction authority is found in Sections 179 and 110(m) of the
Act. Under these sections, the EPA Administrator is required to impose highway fund and
other sanctions on areas that have not submitted or not implemented adequate plans to
attain air quality standards. Conformity requirements are found in Section 176. This
section prohibits federal departments and agencies from approving, permitting, or
providing financial support to transportation improvements in areas that have not attained
air quality standards, unless such improvements conform with the State Implementation Plan
for achieving air quality.
Sanctions. If the EPA Administrator determines that a state has failed
to submit an acceptable implementation plan for achieving or maintaining air quality
standards, or has failed to implement the requirements of an approved plan, a finding is
made notifying the state of the deficiency. This starts what EPA refers to as the
"sanctions clock." Sanctions must be imposed 18 months after the Administrator
makes such a determination, but they may not be imposed if the deficiency has been
corrected within the 18-month period. It is not failure to attain air quality standards
that leads to sanctions, but failure to submit an acceptable plan or to implement the
measures identified therein.
In such cases, Section 179 of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to use two types of
sanctions: 1) imposing what are called "2:1 offsets" on new or modified sources
of emissions; and 2) withholding certain federal highway funds. Under regulations issued
pursuant to Section 179, the Administrator first imposes the offset sanction. If the
deficiency has not been corrected within 6 months, both sanctions are applied.
When highway fund sanctions are imposed, not all funding is affected. Projects are
exempt from sanctions when the Department of Transportation determines -- based on
accident or other appropriate data -- that the principal purpose is an improvement in
safety. In addition, despite sanctions, DOT may approve several types of projects geared
toward the improvement of air quality, including transit projects, HOV lanes, breakdown
lanes, projects to improve traffic flow, and park-and-ride lots.
The threat of sanctions is a powerful tool; but, perhaps because the threat is
powerful, the imposition of sanctions is a rare event. EPA has formally notified the
states of its intent to use this tool 858 times since 1990. Actual imposition of
sanctions, which cannot occur until 18 months after formal notification, has occurred 14
times in that time period; in 12 of these cases, the issue was resolved after the
imposition of offset sanctions. Two areas have had highway sanctions imposed. As of March
1999, they were in effect for one small area (East Helena, Montana).
Conformity Lapse. Conformity determinations are also a powerful tool
-- one meant to integrate transportation and air quality planning. Areas in 29 states have
experienced a lapse of conformity at some time since 1993, and 7 areas, the largest of
which is Atlanta, currently have lapsed conformity.
Conformity lapses operate in a fashion similar, in some respects, to highway fund
sanctions. As with sanctions, exceptions are provided for highway projects that will
improve safety or air quality. Further limiting their impact, conformity lapses have,
until recently, been applied only to new projects. In many cases, an area simply waits
until its next revision of its Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) or its State
Implementation Plan to revise the proposed project or through other measures to return to
conformity. Thus, few areas have lost funding despite a conformity lapse.
In Atlanta, for example, the area has continued until recently to receive its full
share of federal highway funding because exempt and grandfathered projects (from
previously approved TIPs) were allowed to proceed. New projects, however, including
Atlanta's Outer Perimeter highway, have been stalled.
One reason that conformity has come to the attention of Congress this year is a recent
court decision: on March 2, 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit ruled that the Clean Air Act limits grandfathering of funding in conformity
situations, overturning EPA's regulations and considerably raising the stakes for Atlanta
and other areas that are subject to a conformity lapse. EPA and the Department of
Transportation subsequently reached agreement on procedures to implement the court's
decision, and the Agency announced on April 16 that it would not appeal the decision.
This decision and another case that awaits trial in Missouri have aroused congressional
interest in the sanctions and conformity issues. Two bills (Senator Bond's S. 495 and Representative
Baker's H.R. 1626)
would repeal the highway fund sanction provisions, and two other bills (Senator Bond's S. 1053 and Representative
Talent's H.R. 1876)
would restore the grandfather provisions of the conformity rule overturned by the March 2
court ruling.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on the conformity
issue July 14 and ordered S.
1053 reported, with substantial amendments, September 29. As amended, the bill would
restore the grandfather provisions in effect prior to the March 2 court decision for a
period of one year while EPA writes new regulations. The bill also stipulates that certain
projects, including any project approved prior to March 2, may be implemented even if
conformity lapses. It establishes new requirements regarding approval of emissions budgets
by EPA, allows the use of non-federal funds for right-of-way acquisition and highway
design during periods of conformity lapse, and delays the application of conformity to
areas that may be designated nonattainment under the pending 8-hour ozone standard. (For
additional background, see CRS Report RL30131, Highway Fund and other Sanctions Under
the Clean Air Act, updated April 12, 1999.)
Ozone Transport Rule
While not the subject of legislation so far in this Congress, another subject of
concern may be the ozone transport rule promulgated by EPA on October 27, 1998. The rule,
a major element of the ongoing effort to reduce ozone concentrations in the Northeastern
states, implements a regional strategy for reductions in emissions of NOx, a pollutant
that combines with volatile organic compounds to form ozone in areas downwind of its
release.
The ozone transport rule grew out of the efforts of the Ozone Transport Assessment
Group (OTAG) to develop a regional strategy for NOx reductions. In June 1997, OTAG (a
group composed of the 37 easternmost states) completed its work, recommending regional
measures to reduce NOx emissions, but specifying only a broad range rather than an agreed
percentage for the targeted reductions. EPA promulgated its regulations implementing the
OTAG recommendations on October 27, 1998, calling for average reductions of 28% in NOx
emissions in 22 Eastern states and the District of Columbia (later revised to 25%). These
reductions would be implemented through State Implementation Plans, beginning in May 2003.
The SIPs were to be submitted to EPA by September 30, 1999.
The degree to which the regulations impose additional requirements on utilities and
other sources of NOx is the prime area of controversy. The accuracy of the modeling used
to determine the distribution of the needed reductions, the form of emissions trading to
be allowed under the regulations, and the amount (or lack) of flexibility EPA will give to
the states in planning reductions are other issues.
The rule is also a centerpiece of the Agency's implementation plan for the new 8-hour
ozone air quality standard, which was overturned on May 14. The trigger for the ozone
transport rule was the statutory 1-hour standard, not the 8-hour standard. However, it was
coupled with the 8-hour standard in the final rule. Apparently, EPA's commingling of the
standards was sufficient for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to issue an
indefinite stay of the transport rule on May 25 (Michigan v. EPA).
Whether EPA will revise the rule to base it on violations of the 1-hour standard only, or
will await the judicial appeals process on the final rule as promulgated, remains to be
seen.
In a related action, EPA has decided on an approach to what are referred to as the
"Section 126 petitions" in lieu of the court decision. Under Section 126, any
state or political subdivision may petition EPA for a finding that stationary sources in
another state are significantly contributing to nonattainment problems in their state. In
response to petitions from 8 Northeastern states, EPA found in April, 1999, that 19
Midwestern and Southern states (and D.C.) contributed to nonattainment problems in 6 of
the petitioning states with respect to the 8-hour standard, and 12 Midwestern and Southern
states (and D.C.) contributed to nonattainment difficulties with respect to the 1-hour
standard. Implementation of this finding was to be contingent and coordinated with the
state's response to the Ozone Transport Rule. In June, however, in response to the court
decision, EPA stayed that finding and announced its intention to decouple the Section 126
findings with the Ozone Transport Rule, and its findings under the 1-hour standard and the
8-hour standard. This would mean that Section 126 implementation would involve the 12
states (and D.C.) at least until the situation with the 8-hour standard and the transport
rule is clarified. EPA intends to take final action on these changes to the Section 126
implementation process by November 30, 1999.
The transport rule has also come to the attention of Members of Congress from some of
the affected states: in the last Congress, two bills introduced by Representatives Wise
and Ney (H.R. 3690
and H.R. 4136) would
have required additional data collection before promulgation of a final rule and would
have postponed the rule's effective date until no earlier than 2005. No action was taken
on these bills, but Congress is expected to maintain an interest in the issue in the
coming year. (For additional information on the OTAG process and the promulgated rule, see
CRS Report 98-236, Air Quality: EPA's Ozone Transport Rule,
OTAG, and Section 126 Petitions -- A Hazy Situation?)
LEGISLATION
P.L.
106-40, S. 880
(Inhofe)
Amends the Clean Air Act to remove flammable fuels from the list of substances with
respect to which reporting and other activities are required under the risk management
plan program of Section 112(r). Introduced April 26, 1999; referred to Committee on
Environment and Public Works. Reported, amended, June 9, 1999 (S.Rept. 106-70).
Passed Senate June 23, 1999. Passed House, amended, July 21, 1999. Senate agreed to House
amendments, August 2, 1999. Signed into law August 5, 1999.
H.R. 11
(Bilbray)
Amends the Clean Air Act to permit exclusive application of California state regulations
regarding reformulated gasoline in federal RFG areas within the state. Introduced January
6, 1999; referred to Committee on Commerce. Hearing held, May 6, 1999, by Subcommittee on
Health and Environment. Approved, amended, by Subcommittee on Health and Environment,
September 30, 1999.
H.R. 25
(Boehlert)
To reduce acid deposition by requiring additional controls on sources of sulfur dioxide
and nitrogen oxides and to provide for a study and controls on emissions of mercury.
Introduced January 6, 1999; referred to Committee on Commerce.
H.R. 136
(Foley)
Limits the authority of the EPA Administrator to ban metered-dose inhalers. Introduced
January 6, 1999; referred to Committee on Commerce.
H.R. 236
(Rogan)
Amends the Clean Air Act to exempt prescribed burning on National Forest lands from
regulation under the Act for a period of 10 years after enactment. Introduced January 6,
1999; referred to Committee on Commerce.
H.R. 657
(Sweeney)
To reduce acid deposition. Similar to H.R. 25. Introduced
February 9, 1999; referred to Committee on Commerce.
H.R. 888
(Kildee)
Clean Gasoline Act of 1999. Amends the Clean Air Act to limit sulfur concentrations in
gasoline. Introduced March 1, 1999; referred to Committee on Commerce.
H.R. 1367
(Franks)
Amends the Clean Air Act to prohibit the use of the fuel additive MTBE in gasoline.
Introduced April 12, 1999; referred to Committee on Commerce.
H.R. 1395
(Hunter)
Amends the Clean Air Act to prohibit imports of gasoline to California and to suspend the
application of reformulated gasoline and oxygenated fuel requirements of state and federal
law in the State of California when the retail price of gasoline in the state is 20%
greater than its average in the most recent 3-year period. Introduced April 13, 1999;
referred to Committee on Commerce.
H.R. 1398
(Pombo)
Amends the Clean Air Act to prohibit the use of the fuel additive MTBE in gasoline.
Introduced April 14, 1999; referred to Committee on Commerce.
H.R. 1626
(Baker)
Amends the Clean Air Act to repeal the highway fund sanctions. Introduced April 29, 1999;
referred to Committee on Commerce.
H.R. 1705
(Pallone)
Amends the Clean Air Act to waive the oxygenate requirement for reformulated gasoline and
to phase out the use of the fuel additive MTBE in gasoline; requires a study by the
National Academy of Sciences on the health and environmental effects of all gasoline
oxygenates. Introduced May 5, 1999; referred to Committee on Commerce.
H.R. 1755
(Filner)
Border Smog Reduction Accountability Act. Provides for reimbursing states for the costs
they incur in implementing the Border Smog Reduction Act of 1998. Introduced May 11, 1999;
referred to Committee on Commerce.
H.R. 1790
(Bliley)
Chemical Safety Information and Site Security Act of 1999. Limits public disclosure of
accidental release scenario information in risk management plans required under Section
112(r) of the Clean Air Act. Introduced May 13, 1999; referred to Committees on Commerce,
Government Reform, and Judiciary. Hearings held by Commerce Subcommittee on Health and
Environment May 19 and 26.
H.R. 1876
(Talent)
Amends the Clean Air Act to incorporate the grandfather provisions of the transportation
conformity regulations, as in effect on March 1, 1999. Introduced May 19, 1999; referred
to Committee on Commerce.
H.R. 2314
(Whitfield)
Amends the Clean Air Act to exclude beverage alcohol compounds emitted from aging
warehouses from the definition of volatile organic compounds. Introduced June 22, 1999;
referred to Committee on Commerce.
H.R. 2427
(Cox)
Amends the Clean Air Act to remove a provision limiting air pollution grants to individual
states to no more than 10% of the total amount appropriated or allocated. Introduced July
1, 1999; referred to Committee on Commerce.
H.R. 2556
(Wolf)
National Telecommuting and Air Quality Act. Requires the Secretary of Transportation to
make a grant to a nonprofit private entity to design a pilot program on telecommuting as a
means of reducing emissions of air pollutants that are precursors to ground level ozone.
Introduced July 19, 1999; referred to the Committees on Commerce and on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
H.R. 2667
(Allen)
Omnibus Mercury Emissions Reduction Act of 1999. Amends the Clean Air Act to establish
requirements concerning the operation of fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam
generating units, commercial and industrial boiler units, solid waste incineration units,
medical waste incinerators, hazardous waste combustors, chlor-alkali plants, and Portland
cement plants to reduce emissions of mercury. Introduced August 2, 1999; referred to
Committee on Commerce.
S. 171
(Moynihan)
Amends the Clean Air Act to limit sulfur concentrations in gasoline. Introduced January
19, 1999; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works.
S. 172
(Moynihan)
To reduce acid deposition. Similar to H.R. 25. Introduced
January 19, 1999; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works.
S. 266
(Feinstein)
Permits exclusive application of California state regulations on reformulated gasoline in
federal RFG areas within the state. Similar to H.R. 11. Introduced
January 20, 1999; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works.
S. 268
(Feinstein)
Strengthens emission standards for gasoline-powered marine engines. Introduced January 20,
1999; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works.
S. 495 (Bond)
Repeals the highway fund sanction provisions of the Clean Air Act. Introduced March 2,
1999; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works.
S. 645
(Feinstein)
Amends the Clean Air Act to waive the oxygen content requirement for reformulated
gasoline. Introduced March 17, 1999; referred to Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
S. 673
(Leahy)
Amends the Clean Air Act to establish requirements concerning the operation of fossil
fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units, commercial and industrial boiler
units, solid waste incineration units, medical waste incinerators, hazardous waste
combustors, chlor-alkali plants, and Portland cement plants to reduce emissions of
mercury. Introduced March 19, 1999; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works.
S. 1037
(Boxer)
Amends the Toxic Substances Control Act to provide for a gradual reduction in the use of
methyl tertiary butyl ether. Introduced May 13, 1999; referred to Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
S. 1053
(Bond)
Amends the Clean Air Act to incorporate the grandfather provisions of the transportation
conformity regulations, as in effect on March 1, 1999. Introduced May 14, 1999; referred
to Committee on Environment and Public Works. Ordered reported, amended, September 29,
1999.
S. 1470
(Lautenberg)
Chemical Security Act of 1999. Amends the Clean Air Act to ensure that adequate actions
are taken to detect, prevent, and minimize the consequences of accidental releases that
result from criminal activity that may cause substantial harm to public health, safety,
and the environment. Introduced July 30, 1999; referred to Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
S. 1521
(Santorum)
National Telecommuting and Air Quality Act. Similar to H.R. 2556. Introduced
August 5, 1999; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Commerce. Subcommittees on Health and Environment
and Oversight and Investigations. Internet Posting of Chemical "Worst-Case"
Scenarios: A Road Map for Terrorists? February 10, 1999.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Commerce. Subcommittees on Health and Environment. H.R.
11. May 6, 1999.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Commerce. Subcommittee on Health and Environment. H.R. 1790, the Chemical
Safety Information and Site Security Act of 1999. May 19 and 26, 1999.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science. Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. Reducing
Sulfur in Gasoline and Diesel Fuel. July 21, 1999.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science. Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
Reformulated Gasoline. September 14 and 30, 1999.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. Conformity
Regulations. July 14, 1999.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. Subcommittee on Clean
Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety. EPA's Risk Management Plan
Program of the Clean Air Act. March 16, 1999.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. Subcommittee on Clean
Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety. Proposed Sulfur Standard for
Gasoline. May 18 and 20 and July 29, 1999.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. Subcommittee on Clean
Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety. MTBE. October 5, 1999.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Issue Briefs
CRS Issue Brief 97003. Stratospheric Ozone Depletion:
Implementation Issues, by Larry B. Parker. (Updated regularly)
CRS Reports
CRS Report 97-8. Air Quality: Background Analysis of EPA's
1997 Ozone and Particulate Matter Standards, by John E. Blodgett, Larry B.
Parker, and James E. McCarthy. Updated June 19, 1998. 32 p.
CRS Report 98-236. Air Quality: EPA's Ozone Transport Rule,
OTAG, and Section 126 Petitions -- A Hazy Situation?, by Larry Parker and John
Blodgett. Updated June 15, 1999. 22 p.
CRS Report RL30298. Air Quality and Motor Vehicles: An Analysis of Current and
Proposed Emission Standards, by David M. Bearden. September 2, 1999. 21 p.
CRS Report RL30131. Highway Fund and Other Sanctions Under the Clean Air Act,
by James E. McCarthy. Updated April 12, 1999. 8 p.
CRS Report 98-290. MTBE in Gasoline: Clean Air and Drinking
Water Issues, by James E. McCarthy and Mary Tiemann. Updated September 3, 1999.
14 p.
CRS Report 96-737. Nitrogen Oxides and Electric Utilities:
Revising the NSPS, by Larry Parker. Updated October 13, 1998. 6 p.
CRS Report RL 30228, Accident Prevention Under the Clean Air
Act Section 112(r): Risk Management Planning by Propane Users and Internet Access to
Worst-Case Accident Scenarios, by Linda-Jo Schierow. June 10, 1999. 8 p.
CRS Report RS20163. Sulfur in Gasoline, by Stephen
Thompson and James E. McCarthy. Updated July 12, 1999. 6 p.
CRS Report RS20228. The D.C. Circuit Remands the Ozone and
Particulate Matter Clean-Air Standards: American Trucking Associations v. EPA, by
Robert Meltz and James E. McCarthy. June 10, 1999. 6 p.
  
|
CRS Reports Home
