Revised Ozone and Particulate Matter Standards Implementation Act of 1998
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 19, 1998
Revised Ozone and Particulate Matter Standards Implementation Act of 1998 - Amends the Clean Air Act to provide that all requirements of such Act regarding the implementation of a revised national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) shall apply to the eight-hour ozone and revised particulate matter (PM) standards, except as specified in this Act. Defines the "eight-hour ozone standard" as the NAAQS (primary and secondary) for ozone as revised on July 18, 1997. Makes existing additional provisions relating to ozone nonattainment areas inapplicable to areas that have attained air quality meeting the one-hour ozone standard. Defines the "one-hour ozone standard" as the NAAQS (primary) for ozone existing prior to July 18, 1997. Provides that States shall not be required to prepare maintenance plans for areas that have attained such standard. Directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to authorize States to establish cap and trade programs to control regional transport of oxides of nitrogen under which a regional limitation is set on pollutant emissions and sources are allowed to trade emissions credits to achieve required reductions. Authorizes States that establish such programs by December 31, 1999, to extend the term of air pollution control permits by up to two years. Provides for a transitional classification for areas attaining the one-hour standard by December 31, 1999, but not attaining the eight-hour standard, subject to certain State implementation plan (SIP) submissions. Sets forth additional requirements for areas ineligible for transitional classification and allows such areas, after December 31, 2000, to petition to be subject to the eight-hour standard in lieu of the one-hour standard. Authorizes the Administrator to exempt transitional areas from specific ozone requirements on a case by case basis. Continues the application of the existing PM-10 NAAQS (primary) to areas that have not attained such standard as of July 18, 1997. Makes the new PM standards inapplicable until the Administrator completes a rulemaking for the existing standard relating to backsliding. Applies the new standards to States that submit approved SIPs for the attainment and maintenance of such standards. Provides for the establishment of: (1) a comprehensive monitoring network to determine ambient fine particle concentrations across the country; and (2) a nationally consistent monitoring network to measure and analyze PM-2.5. Requires the Administrator to fund 100 percent of the costs of purchasing and installing monitors. Authorizes States which complete deployment by June 30, 1999, to extend the length of air pollution control permits by up to one year. Requires the Administrator to request the National Academy of Sciences to: (1) review the new PM-2.5 standard, recommend research to reduce scientific uncertainties regarding the standard, and identify the most cost-effective means of achieving it; and (2) recommend, by June 30, 2002, whether to revise such standard. Directs the Administrator, by June 30, 1999, to designate all areas of the country as unclassifiable for PM-2.5. Establishes additional deadlines for the designation of PM-2.5 nonattainment areas by State Governors and the Administrator and for the submission of SIPs. (Sec. 3) Requires the Administrator to permit SIPs for nonattainment areas to reward sources of any air pollutant for which a national standard is in effect if such a source makes, and reports consistent achievement of, significant reductions in emissions of such pollutant below the benchmarks set by SIPs. Encourages States to design market-based strategies for attaining standards that focus on obtaining low cost reductions for all sources. Requires the Administrator to revise the rules relating to new source review and conformity so that States may comply with such rules with only minor revisions to SIPs for transitional ozone areas. (Sec. 4) Directs the Administrator to carry out certain requirements with respect to research on PM and tropospheric ozone. (Sec. 5) Authorizes appropriations.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jun 3, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.3505 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.3505 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.3505 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.3505 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.