something in the works and the planning process, the application of sanctions is not appropriate.

We think that interpretation is reaching that position probably because of the practical problems that are associated with the application of sanctions as we have learned more about some of the difficulties in meeting the standards.

So while we have empathy for the implications of applying sanctions, we believe that the law requires it. Our opinion is advisory, and ultimately this is something that could be subject to litigation by the courts if we reach that deadline date and there is no revision or change in legislation.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, sir.

The time of the Chair has expired. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Lent.

Mr. LENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Thomas, what is the magnitude of the health risk for people living in nonattainment areas? By this question I don't want to call into question the ozone standard, but I am curious, however, as to the actual health risk that people in the nonattainment areas may be facing.

For example, we discussed that New York City is in nonattainment for 25 hours, or one quarter of 1 percent of all of the hours in the given year. What is your understanding of the actual health risk posed by these nonattainment periods?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Lent, the standard that we set for ozone, like our other ambient air quality standards, is a health-based standard, meaning we set a standard that shouldn't be exceeded in order to protect the health of the public. And in setting that standard, we also set, based on a statistical model, the number of exceedances we would allow in a particular area, and we allow averaging over a 3-year period of time to determine whether in fact we are attaining the standard for this pollutant.

Now ozone causes breathing difficulty in healthy individuals, levels at the standard cause that breathing difficulty, and the higher the levels go, the more breathing problem individuals have when they exercise.

We find that some people are more susceptible to ozone than others. We don't know exactly why. We also find, for instance, in crops and in vegetation that some are more susceptible than others, and we don't know exactly why.

The susceptibility means that when you reach the standard of 0.12 for ozone, individuals exercising will have less ability to breathe deeply than you do without ozone. By that I mean that you will have problems with pain in breathing, coughing, a basic inability to breathe in a normal fashion with the pollutant.

Mr. LENT. Do you see these effects during the 25 hours a year that we are in the exceedance mode?

Mr. THOMAS. We basically make those measurements in chamber studies, in other words, in medical experimental research, to determine at what level there is lung decrement, and to what level is that lung decrement. Also from our medical research, as you indicated, we have discovered a problem with lung sensitivity and increased sensitivity to lung infection.

There also are from animal studies indications of permanent damage to lungs from ozone in the form of scar tissue from ozone levels at and above the standard as we have indicated.

Mr. LENT. Do the scientists who do these tests expose the humans or animals, as the case may be, to a situation where they are exposed only one quarter of 1 percent of the time that they are alive and being tested to an exceedance of over 0.12?

Mr. THOMAS. Expose them to the standard of 0.12 or above, the same periods of time that you have in your presentation. In other words, you may have a 1-hour exceedance, you may have up to a 3hour exceedance. In New York City you have long periods of time in that, and what you find is, fairly quickly, there are lung problems as soon as the standard is reached. Those lung problems increase, as the ozone increases. As the ozone goes back below the standard, depending upon how long it was above the standard, there is recovery. If it was above the standard for a long period of time, we find it takes a long period of time to recover.

In other words, you continue to have breathing difficulty after the standard has been reached and then is reduced, you eventually will recover. Now permanent damage obviously is there for the future.

Mr. LENT. Well, is that everybody, or a certain percentage of the population? For example, I was in New York Harbor on the 4th of July. We know the all-time record for ozone was July 6, of that year. I think everybody who was in the harbor smelled the acrid smell of the firecrackers that had been exploding, the gunpowder, and I suppose if somebody had a measurement device on me, they could have detected high ozone concentrations after that brief period. Perhaps I had some difficulty breathing, but an hour later I was out of town and everything was okay.

My point is what percentage of the population is permanently impaired by an hourly exposure to an incident such as this?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Lent, I don't think we have medical evidence to suggest that there is permanent impairment by a particular part of the population that has experienced ozone exceedances. We know for a fact there is temporary impairment, and for instance, when you are slightly above the ozone standard, you know that in exercising, healthy individuals, there is a 5 to 20 decrease in lung capacity in many of those individuals.

Now the permanent impairment, permanent damage to the lungs, that evidence is largely from animal studies. We don't have human data to indicate the consequences of the permanent damage which we think is taking place in the human lung by repeated exposure to exceedances of the ozone standard. We think it would probably mean susceptibility to lung infection or respiratory disease would go up, but I don't think we have conclusive evidence to that point from human studies.

Mr. LENT. I'm advised by the Chairman my time is up.
Thank you.

Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Eckart.
Mr. ECKART. I thank the Chairman.

Let me pick up on one of the points, Mr. Nikkila, that my colleague, Mr. Lent, was making. We have heard it argued that when we exceed the standard for ozone, which is set at 0.12, adverse

health effects occur. It has also been stated that a day may be recorded as being in nonattainment if for 1 hour during that day the 0.12 standard has been exceeded. But the claim is made that that 1 hour could occur between 3 and 4 a.m. in the morning, and thus the risk to human health of exceeding the standard should be minimal. But in your testimony, on page 2, you made a suggestion that I would like to have you comment further on.

According to the EPA, all of the 80 million people residing in nonattainment areas are at risk of experiencing reduced function of the lungs and respiratory infection. This is true not only while ozone levels are at or above the standard, which my colleague claims may only be for 1 hour of 1 day, but you go on to say, when they are below the standard as well.

Are you claiming that the standard is incorrect, that even if the ozone level peaks for a brief period during the day and remains below the standard throughout the rest of the day, there may still be risk of lung impairment, whether or not they are above the standard?

Mr. NIKKILA. What I am reporting is that EPA has provided us with information through the Scientific Advisory Council and others that at the standard-at and below the standard, discernible adverse health effects are observed.

Now we are not health effects experts at the State and local level. We have to rely upon EPA in the standard-setting process, but that is the information we have received.

Mr. ECKART. Mr. Thomas, would you like to comment on that? Mr. THOMAS. Congressman, as you know, we have a continuing review of our standards. We have seen a decreased lung function in subjects, when tested, slightly below the standard. There also is ongoing review as to whether there should be a longer term standard. In other words, the measurement of the impact of ozone on individuals for say an 8-hour period of time, as opposed to a 1-hour period of time, and that is an ongoing review in our program.

There has also been some testimony by medical experts that they feel that would be warranted. In other words, possibly a lower standard.

Mr. ECKART. So 0.12 is not a magic off-on switch under which there is no danger or damage at all; above which the situation becomes very perilous?

Mr. THOMAS. It is not. I must say, though, that by law we are required to set a standard with a margin of safety where in the judgment of the Administrator there is an adverse health effect.

Obviously here you are talking about what constitutes an adverse health effect, and what should be the margin of safety. We currently have under review the ozone standard, and I have indicated in previous testimony that I believe when that standard is finally reviewed again by the Administrator, there is the potential that it may have to be tightened.

Mr. ECKART. So it may not be fair to say that it's insignificant if 0.12 is exceeded only 1 hour a day?

Mr. THOMAS. That is correct.

Mr. ECKART. Mr. Thomas, let me ask you about some activities in my home State. What is the status of Ohio's SIP?

If I could help you here, your chart says somewhere in here that it's in the mill. I just don't know what "in the mill".

Mr. THOMAS. If it's in the mill, that means it's currently under review, Congressman, at one stage or another.

Mr. ECKART. And perhaps by the end of the millennium, it will be out of the mill.

Mr. THOMAS. And I believe it's specifically Cleveland and Cincinnati, are the areas that we have outstanding issues on.

Mr. ECKART. Of the other States in Region V, how many have an approved SIP and how many are not approved?

Mr. THOMAS. I believe the only State with an approved SIP is Wisconsin.

Mr. ECKART. One of the concerns raised is that it's difficult for the States to regulate facilities, other than those for which the USEPA has promulgated reasonably available control technologies (RACT). And you elucidate (RACT) for the benefits of the State by using the control technique guidance documents.

Mr. Nikkila has claimed that there has been a serious shortfall in EPA's promulgation of these, thus denying to them and perhaps States like mine the ability to effectively implement and go forward.

How do you react to Mr. Nikkila's punting to you that it's partly your fault?

Mr. THOMAS. The issue is an example, I think, of the tension that has been built into the Clean Air Act about the requirement for Federal standard-setting versus the opportunity for State flexibility in determining which sources should be controlled.

When you look at the issue of stationary sources and as I indicated, you've basically got two types; either big point sources or small area sources-they may contribute to a larger or lesser extent, depending upon the city you're trying to look for a control plan in.

EPA has gone forward over the years to develop control technique guidelines for 28 source categories. Those are largely small source categories and large source categories, and we have used those as RACT requirements, reasonably available control technique requirements.

Once we do that, that means that regardless of how much of a contributor that source is in your city, you are required to put that control technology on that source. So by doing that, we not only provide the technology to the city or the State for a regulation, but we've taken away their flexibility to determine whether that particular source should be controlled versus another source.

We picked off what we felt were the biggest sources. We've got another 22 source categories under review. How many of those we'll go forward with is still a matter of review in the Agency.

I must say, though, that I feel like going forward to require further control technology guidelines that are RACT across the country is very problematic, in that if I took all 22 of those source categories, put them all together, put them out as mandated controls, I would only achieve about a 4 percent nationwide reduction in volatile organic compounds. Obviously it's different for different places in the country. Obviously it is not the big answer that we're looking for, as far as ozone attainment is concerned.

I would like to provide as much technology information as I can to the local States in those categories, so they can decide which ones of the additional ones they want to control. I would like to take my resources and put them on larger regulations like the volatility regulation, like an enhanced inspection and maintenance regulation, so I can get the greatest amount of reduction from our overall control program, where I think there's a rationale, a stronger rationale, for uniformity and consistency nationwide with the controls.

Mr. ECKART. Mr. Chairman, I assume my time has expired. As long as we can return to ask Mr. Thomas some additional questions about the use of this discretion, I'd be happy to defer to my colleagues.

Mr. DINGELL. The Chair will advise the gentleman, we will be having a number of rounds here.

The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cooper?

Mr. COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to ask some questions about the imminence of the sanctions. It seems to me that even if the EPA were to impose or were to propose such a disapproval by August of this year, as a practical matter, no State would really face a sanction until, what, 1988 or 1989. There seems to be a variety of reasons for this, including the long period of time for notice and comment procedures.

Is this an accurate prediction?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Cooper, the process the Agency will be following in the short term is to review the ability of States' plans to demonstrate attainment by the end of this year, and there are a number of them that we feel cannot demonstrate attainment.

Next month, May, I will be proposing final action on the plans for a number of those areas, which will include a proposal for sanctions in some areas, because I feel that's mandatory under the law. Going through a comment period will probably require 6 to 9 months, which means that I will probably not take final action on sanctions in those areas until October to January of this year-in other words, by the end of 1987 will probably be the earliest date when an area will have sanctions, and it will be the construction ban sanction, the mandatory sanction under the law more than likely.

Non-implementation-that is, how aggressive the States have been in implementing their plans-is something that is under review in a number of areas, and I think you will find us proposing sanctions in that area on a later timeframe.

So your point about when they will go into effect and the process for putting them into effect is correct.

Mr. COOPER. Let me make sure I understand. A non-implementation situation would probably mean a State sanction levied in 1988 or 1989, but a construction ban could go into place in what situations?

Mr. THOMAS. In an area where we have yet to be able to have a plan, a plan-

Mr. COOPER. No plan at all.

Mr. THOMAS. That demonstrates attainment. So if they havethe South Coast air basin of California is an example where they have not yet been to develop a plan to demonstrate attainment by