{
  "id": "97-670",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "97-670",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 100708,
      "date": "1998-03-24",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:55:23.113941",
      "title": "Agriculture and EPA's New Air Quality Standards for Ozone and Particulates",
      "summary": "On July 18, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated revisions of the National\nAmbient Air Quality Standards for ground-level ozone and particulates. EPA's action has elevated\nawareness of possible relationships between agriculture and air quality in the agricultural\ncommunity. Many in agriculture, including the Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Air Quality\nTask Force, have questioned the scientific basis for the new standards. The issues raised also have\nbeen aired at congressional oversight hearings. This report summarizes these issues. \n  In assessing the potential impact of the new standards on agriculture, it is important to note that\nEPA has promulgated new or revised standards for three different pollutants: 1) ozone; 2) the\nrelatively coarse particulate matter already regulated (PM10); and 3) a new category, fine\nparticulates\n(PM2.5). The potential costs and impacts of each of these standards is different.\n  Agricultural production is adversely affected by ozone in the atmosphere, so agriculture should\nbenefit from a strengthening of the ozone standard. EPA estimates these benefits at $1 billion\nannually. The agricultural community agrees that lowering ozone concentrations will improve\nyields, while not necessarily agreeing with the EPA estimate. The vast majority of the emissions that\nform ozone (nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds) originate in urban and industrial areas. \nAgricultural sources of these emissions would not likely be directly targeted by measures\nimplementing the new rule, although regulation of fuels and motor vehicles might have indirect\nimpacts on the agricultural sector.\n  The second standard being revised -- that for PM10, a category that includes fugitive dust from\nconstruction or tilling the soil -- is effectively relaxed under EPA's proposal. The net effect would\nbe that 31 of the 41 counties currently designated nonattainment (many of them rural) would be\nreclassified to attainment. This would benefit agriculture, by eliminating the need for additional\ncontrols in those areas.\n  The third standard, for PM2.5, has been the focus of agriculture's concerns. EPA states that fine\nparticulates include five categories of pollutants, two of which can come from agricultural sources. \nEPA denies any intention to regulate agricultural sources of these emissions, which are not\nwell-characterized, and in the Agency's view are less significant than emissions from power plants\nand transportation. But agricultural interests have not been satisfied by EPA's response, and, in any\nevent, regulatory decisions will be made by the states, not EPA.\n  Legislation has been introduced in both the House and Senate ( H.R. 1984  /\n S. 1084 ) to block implementation of the new standards. Markup of these bills has not\nbeen scheduled. On March 4, 1998, however, the Senate approved  S.Amdt. 1687 , to\naddress a limited set of implementation issues. At the request of agricultural interests, the\namendment includes a requirement that EPA report to Congress on the ability of its sampling and\nanalysis methods to differentiate types of PM2.5 particles.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/97-670",
          "sha1": "ff25d26b5fbf982246f776ecc48bb7beaafe8f5e",
          "filename": "files/19980324_97-670_ff25d26b5fbf982246f776ecc48bb7beaafe8f5e.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19980324_97-670_ff25d26b5fbf982246f776ecc48bb7beaafe8f5e.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Energy Policy"
  ]
}