NEMA Air Quality Bill
COMMENTS BY THE LEGAL RESOURCES CENTRE ON BEHALF OF THE ORGANISATIONS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE A
1.	Introduction
Air pollution can and does have a significant adverse effect on the public health and the environment. South Africa has high levels of air pollution, exceeding internationally recognised health based guidelines for a number of pollutants, in many of its cities and industrial areas caused by a large number of pollution sources and  weather conditions that can make air pollution worse by trapping it close to the ground. Poor communities invariably have the highest levels of air pollution.  Source and ambient emission standards do not exist even though they may have been in existence internationally for up to 30 years and many technology solutions are affordable and readily available.
The economic costs of poor air quality can be multi levelled. Ill health, premature mortality, absence from work and loss of future income can be significant.  Existing high levels of pollution in industrial areas can lead to the slowing  down of licensing and impact assessment processes, due inter alia to the fact that existing health threats need to be considered when assessing cumulative impacts.  This in turn can lead to less investment, due to high cost and investment uncertainties.  These costs are prohibitive of development both at a health and investment level. They need to be addressed by a pollution control law which will have clear measurable goals and time frames, and which will address these concerns.  It is submitted that the Bill fails to do this.
We need an act with teeth and clear standards. The bill is too much of a framework, without the picture inside.

2	Regulatory context.
2.1The constitution guarantees an environment which is not detrimental to health and well being and requires reasonable measures in pollution control to achieve these objectives.
2.2 White Paper on Environmental Management Policy for South Africa (May 1998) sets out the policy framework for the Bill

Goal2  “Sustainable Resource Use and Impact Management” 
refers to the following supporting objectives.

“Integrated pollution and waste management
•	to prevent, reduce and manage pollution of any part of the environment due to all forms of human activity and particular from radioactive, toxic and other hazardous substances
•	to set targets to minimize waste generation and pollution at source and promote a hierarchy of waste management practices, namely reduction of waste at source, re-use and recycling with safe disposal as the last resort
•	to set up information systems on chemical hazards and toxic releases and ensure the introduction of a system to track the transportation of hazardous materials 
•	to promote cleaner production and establish mechanisms to ensure continuous improvements in best practice in all areas of environmental management.

The national legislature has the power to legislate on matters listed in schedule 5 to the constitution where it is necessary to 
•	maintain or establish national or minimum standards; and
•	prevent unreasonable action by a province, or action that prejudices the interests of another province or interests of the country as a whole.

The matter of air pollution is quintessentially an issue which requires the setting of such national minimum standards and prevention of unreasonable action by provinces.  The failure of parliament to set clear goals and minimum overarching standards in the Air Quality Bill constitutes an abdication of its legislative responsibility.

3	Lack of a clear and achievable regulatory goal
The Bill does not have a clear and achievable regulatory goal.  This is required in order for it to be successfully implemented.
While in terms of the constitution the State is bound to protect health, health is not mentioned as the objective of this bill, but rather the improvement of air quality to an undeterminable degree. Even the heading of the bill is neutral as to its intentions, namely to manage air quality, rather than protect and improve the health of its citizens.
The Bill is therefore too vague to protect rights and health and its outcome is uncertain and entirely based on the prerogative of the Minister and Provincial and local authorities.

At local and provincial levels regulators who exercise the discretions permitted in the Bill  are likely to come under significant adverse political  pressures from polluters if they intend imposing standards which will cut into profits. This has  already been experienced! To make implementation more likely to succeed  more of the Bill needs to be made mandatory by parliament.

3.1	The Bill undermines the separation of powers by removing the regulatory role of parliament.  

The Bill is a blank cheque from Parliament to the Minister to regulate air quality entirely as he sees fit with almost no constraints.  (Save that he must draw up a plan with no mandatory requirements, within an undetermined time.)  Discretion is extremely wide to the point that the Bill may never be implemented. For example the word “may” appears in the Bill over 50 times!  The Minister must draw up a framework for setting norms and standards, but its contents depends on his/ her discretion.  The Municipalities must draw up air quality management plans but the content requirements are vague and ambiguous.

The Constitutional Court has on two occasions reacted sharply to what it calls an “absence of guidance” for the exercise of discretionary powers in the matters Dawood v Minister of Home Affairs 2000(3) SA936 (cc paragraphs 53-58) an Janse van Rensburg v Minister of Trade & Industry NO 2000(1) SA 29 (cc paragraphs 24-25).  In the latter case the court found that the absence of such guidance to be an important factor in reaching the conclusion that the Act violated the right to just administrative action.

The Bill also weakens the powers of officials to regulate by requiring cumbersome and inappropriate consultation and justification when this is not necessary or is covered by the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act anyway. The said requirements  also needlessly expose administrative action to legal challenge by polluters.

Detail is deferred to regulation

The bill is drafted in a framework form leaving much of its detail to later regulation by the Minister and MEC’s.
This leaves much of its implementation open to attack for non compliance with administrative law. An act of parliament is by contrast only open to being challenged on the bases of being unconstitutional.
This may well hamper its implementation.  Pollution abatement can be expensive and polluters may therefore be keen to delay the implementation of this act if possible through litigation.
The core requirements of an air quality management system which will protect  health, including the setting of mandatory standards,  within specified time frames must be included in this Bill in order to ensure that it is implemented.  Detailed implementation can then be left to regulation.

4.	Key features of  a clean air act. 
Parliament  must ensure that the Bill has the following minimum features before it can discharge its constitutional duty to  protect the environment.
The Bill should require:
4.1	A clear  and  achievable overarching goal eg icompliance with health based air pollutant standards within 5 years
4.2	mandatory ambient air quality standards for a comprehensive range of health damaging air pollutants within
•	A specified time
•	Based on criteria which will ensure the protection of health 
•	In order for mandatory ambient air  standards to be enforceable there has to be provision made for air quality management plans at provincial or local level that demonstrate how these standards will be achieved within a specified amount of time as set out in the Bill. Mechanisms for dealing with failure must also be set out eg the NAPCO takes over certain functions.
In order to foster compliance with such ambient air standards the Bill should require the following within a specified time:
4.3	Mandatory emission standards for new and existing large sources, and vehicles based on a specified standard which fosters the protection of health
4.4	Mandatory  fuel specifications for vehicles, home fuels and industrial sources based on a specified standard, which fosters the protection of heath
4.5	Information about air pollutant emissions ie a pollution release and transfer inventory.
4.3	Mandatory measuring and monitoring of emissions and ambient air quality in order to support the objectives contained in the Bill
4.4	Compliance and enforcement provisions. Citizen enforcement is an important way to increase resources for enforcement in a poorly capacitated State such as ours and should be included.
	
5.	The Bill has none of these features. 
It has the discretion to impose these features by administrative action or regulation only.  The public has no entitlement to enforce its constitutional  rights by compelling performance. It is therefore not clear whether or when there will be implementation of its objectives.
The state, itself often a significant contributor to air pollution is exempted from its provisions.

6.	The bill incorrectly focuses on regulating ambient air as the central tool for improving air quality.
Setting standards for ambient air quality is an important part of air quality management.  But  air quality standards, without mandatory plans for achieving compliance, in enforcement terms become meaningless, since it is not clear who the transgressors are.

Even if such plans are mandatory the achievement of improved air quality through this approach as the main strategy is expensive and resource intensive especially for a developing country.  It requires emission and ambient air data collection in all areas with air pollution, over an extended period of time. A system based solely or mainly on ambient air monitoring data is open to challenge – in any one city or region, only a few (expensive) monitoring stations may be available, and the question of the representivity of the monitoring data gathered at a few stations for all areas of the city/ region is always subject to challenge. Furthermore, measured ambient data are greatly influenced by meteorological conditions, thus data have to be gathered over an extended period of time – years – in order to ontain a definitive assessment of air quality in the area.
 
In terms of the Bill priority areas require consultation and justification, which places a consultation and research burden on the state which will turn out to be expensive and time consuming not to mention being capable of being challenged by polluters.  Once declared the NAPCO has  6 months to draw up a plan to comply with the standards. Without ambient and emissions data readily available it will be impossible to draw up a plan that will be effective.  
Collecting this data can be expensive and technically challenging.  Unless  support for this provision is mandated and the information readily available the provision will be unworkable.
This is discussed in more detail in the paragraphs below.

The achievement of overall compliance with ambient air quality standards must be fostered by the setting of mandatory emission standards as an urgent priority. In areas such as South Durban the setting of emission standards based on affordable modern technology would in all likelihood remove the problem of exceedences of health guidelines for pollutants such as SO2, NOx and  PM.  This would reduce the administrative burden of declaring the area to be a priority area as sketched above. This burden could end up being considerable if one considers how many of areas in the country have exceedences and would probably qualify as priority areas.

In the case of municipalities the presentation of air quality management plans are mandatory.  But they are not as yet linked to achieving ambient air standards and very little guidance is given in the Bill as to what they should contain.  They await the passing of regulations.
The Bill uses vague terminology and sloppy drafting by having provisions  like “management plans must give effect to best practice in air quality management” instead of spelling our exactly what is expected of  municipal government in managing air quality.  What will happen if they fail to do so? Very little according to the Bill.
The resources required of municipal and provincial government to manage air quality  can be substantial not to mention the technical skills.  By pushing air quality management to the most financially weak and poorly capacitated sectors, such as municipalities, it is doomed to fail.
In the interim, before the Minister has drafted the requisite regulations, it is rather vague and unclear what the  extent of reporting required by Municipalities is. This mandatory reporting requirement is likely to be treated as another unnecessary administrative burden with no clear purpose by these spheres of government who often regard air pollution as a low priority.

6.1	The Bill contains no guidance and/or criteria for regulatory agencies to establish ambient air quality standards.

If parliament will not include these standards in the bill, then it should, at least, provide adequate guidance and/or criteria to the regulatory agencies for them to do so.

What follows are some examples of such guidance in legislation from other countries.

In the U.S.: “"National primary ambient air quality standards, prescribed under subsection (a) of this section shall be ambient air quality standards the attainment and maintenance of which in the judgment of the Administrator, based on such criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety, are requisite to protect the public health."  Clean Air Act section 109(b)(1); 42 U.S.C. section 7409(b)(1).

In the Philippines: “The Department, in coordination with other concerned agencies, shall review and/or revise and publish annually a list of hazardous air pollutants with corresponding ambient guideline values and/or standard necessary to protect public health and safety, and general welfare. ... The basis in setting up the ambient air quality guideline values and standards shall reflect, among others, the latest scientific knowledge including information on: a) Variable factors, including atmospheric conditions, which of themselves or in combination with other factors may alter the effects on public health or welfare of such air pollutant; b) The other types of air pollutants which may interact with such pollutant to produce an adverse effect on public health or welfare; and c) The kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of such pollutant in the ambient air, in varying quantities.  The Department shall base such ambient air quality standards on World Health Organization (WHO) standards, but shall not be limited to nor be less stringent than such standards.”  Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999, Section 12.

NOTE: The Philippine legislation makes reference to WHO standards as a starting point for the development of numerical ambient air quality
standards in the Philippines.  The advantage of this approach is that the regulatory agency may take advantage of all the work of health experts at WHO rather than start from the beginning.

6.2	The draft bill lacks adequate guidance and/or criteria for regulatory agencies to develop emission limits for provisional and final licenses as required by s36(1)(f) of the draft bill.
S32(b) of the draft bill contains vague and lenient guidance and/or criteria (e.g “practical measures”).  This will likely cause the following problems:
1) the adoption by regulatory agency of too lax emission limits; and 2) emitters filing lawsuits to challenge emission limits they consider too stringent.

To correct this problem, the new air quality bill should include better guidance and/or criteria for regulatory agencies to develop emission limits for licenses.   To do this, parliament might want to consider amending S32 of the bill so that it specifically includes such guidance and/or criteria.
Some examples of such guidance and/or criteria are:

1) U.S. Clean Air Act section 111(a)(1), in which emission limits for
criteria pollutants must reflect: “the degree of emission limitation
achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which  (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been   adequately demonstrated.”

2) U.S. Clean Air Act 112(d)(2), in which emission limits for hazardous air pollutants must reflect: “the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the hazardous air pollutants subject to this section (including a prohibition on such emissions, where achievable) that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines is achievable for new or existing sources in the category or subcategory to which such emission standard applies, throughapplication of measures, processes, methods, systems or techniques
including, but not limited to, measures which: (A) reduce the volume of, or eliminate emissions of, such pollutants through process changes, substitution of materials or other modifications, (B) enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions, (C) collect, capture or treat such pollutants when released from a process, stack, storage or fugitive emissions point, (D) are design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards (including requirements for operator training or certification) as provided in subsection (h) of this section, or (E) are a combination of the above.”

3) Government of Ireland Environmental Protection Agency Act of 1992,
Section 5, which requires that emission limits of industrial licenses be based on the “best available technology not entailing excessive cost.” http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA7Y1992S5.html   For a more complete explanation of how the Government of Ireland applies this standard to emitters, see: http://www.epa.ie/licences/batneec.htm

6.2.1	Amendment of licenses
A further concern : Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of S38 of the draft bill would allow regulatory agencies to amend licenses when it is “necessary or desirable to prevent deterioration of ambient air quality,” “necessary or desirable for the purposes of achieving ambient air quality standards,” or “necessary or desirable to accommodate demands brought about by impacts on socio-economic circumstances and it is in the public interest to meet those demands.”  That is acceptable.  However, paragraph (d) of S38 would allow, it seems, regulatory agencies to amend licenses “at the written request of the license holder” – for any cause and on any basis whatsoever.   This is less acceptable in a system which is attempting to create a rational basis for decision making.

7.	Most of South Africa’s air pollution can be significantly improved by the introduction of emission standards on large (“scheduled”) sources and vehicle emission controls.

The focus of the Bill is around regulating ambient air quality. As has been stated above this is a roundabout way of addressing a problem which is resource and skill intensive and may end up being unworkable.  Huge inroads into the problem of air pollution can be very effectively tackled in the beginning stages by imposing mandatory emission standards on all large and mobile sources. Pollution from domestic coal use can be significantly reduced by the introduction of  mandatory fuel specifications which reduce emissions on combustion.
The Bill fails to set these as objectives or priorities, which are included in the White Paper as set out above

Internationally emission standards have developed around the development of technology. 
Emission standards for all new and existing large sources must be mandated by parliament,  as well as for mobile sources (vehicles) . The basis for these standards must also be made clear by parliament.  There should be mandatory time limits for the setting of these standards.  Proper emission standards on new  sources would have the additional benefit of reducing the number and extent of environmental impact assessments, reducing the cost and burden on the state that these processes have created.

7.1	New Sources
For new sources concepts like “BATNEEC”( best available technology not entailing excessive cost ) and similar formulations have been used successfully in the UK, and USA.  Our APPA had a standard for permitting of scheduled industries called “BPM” ie best  practicable means.  This provision will be repealed by the Bill leaving a regulatory vacuum. The factors setout in s 36 are less detailed and prescriptive than the APPA best practicable means test and modern regulatory strategies for dealing with this issue. There appears to be no good reason for the repeal of this provision.
 It is essential that our existing definition be reassessed and updated in order to comply with reasonable international regulatory trends, and the NEMA best  practicable environmental option.
7.2	Existing sources
These are probably the bulk of the pollution challenge posed by industry in South Africa if not in general in places like South Durban. Unless objectives and a stratehy for achieving these objectives are included in the Bill, emission levels from existing sources will remain for many years, inhibiting or preventing new development because, in areas of poor air quality, any additional emissions (even if the Best Available Technology is used) would place an unacceptable additional burden on the receiving populace and environment. The only long term sustainable solution to poor air quality is to reduce emissions from existing sources, thus allowing for new developments without unacceptable health threatening impacts. 

New concepts like “Best Available Retrofitted Technology” (BART) need to be included as standards in our law  with clear regulatory guidelines in the Bill to address issues such as cost and time frames for implementation. BART should also include the form of energy used by an emission source in the definition. Our current guidelines in terms of APPA need to be retained as an interim measure, and reviewed and upgraded (within a defined timeframe) against concepts such as BAT and BART, with the emphasis on the largest emitters first.

The Bill can allow for explanatory notes and guidelines to explain what BATNEEC, BART etc mean in regard to a specific industry. These standards must be capable of being upgraded as technology improves. Minimum emission standards can be set for certain technologies, and in other cases guidelines can be developed in order to flesh out what is meant by the terms..  In Europe 11 years has been allowed for the retrofitting of all existing large emission sources

8.	Linking emission standards and priority areas
The imposition of proper modern emission standards may well remove much of the need for the declaration  of  priority areas.  However slow implemetation of these standards may result in the need for the declaration of these areas.

8.1	Pollution information
It is worthwhile having a provision for priority areas as long as the NAPCO knows where they are.  At this stage it is not clear whether all our large cities and polluted areas collect or model information that will give an indication of whether one or many health damaging pollutants ambient air levels are being exceeded.
The bill should mandate the collection of air quality data in municipalities of population greater than a certain size, or according to other criteria eg the combustion of more than a specified amount of coal or other pollution generating fuels.  Without these provisions in the Bill there will probably be very little air quality monitoring in areas outside of the large metropolitan areas for a very long time.

8.2	Which areas should collect data?
The Bill should also make  provision for monitoring to be made mandatory by the Minister based in other areas,  based on the existence of pollution generating activities (large populations or significant industrial activity) in these areas, or on prima facie evidence that the air quality in that area exceeds the guidelines.  The public should be entitled to apply for this.

8.3	Information on emission levels
The NAPCO will have to do a source apportionment and reduction plan for at least the stationary sources in order to bring pollution levels in priority areas within attainment of air quality standards. He/she may have to suggest other more long term strategies for other sources such as home energy use, dusty roads, diesel users etc.  For large sources he will need accurate information on emission levels and rates.
Therefore in general the Bill should also mandate the accurate reporting of emissions by licenced sources (using a nationally standardised format) as well as reporting by municipalities on other information such as traffic densities and fuel consumption by industries and in the home to enable the NAPCO to have the information immediately available so that he can draw up the plans within 6 months.

8.4	The content of plans.
The basic contents and requirements for what the priority plans should address should be set out in the Bill in order for the NAPCO not to be legally challenged for going beyond his powers.  And of course in order to make the plans effective regulatory tools.  The Bill has no detail on this which may lead to disappointing results

8.5	Delisting
Priorty areas need plans need to enable compliance by a wide margin in order to enable development in the area without causing pollution levels to immediately reach exceedences again.  The Bill allows for the immediate delisting of  priority areas on attainment of ambient standards.  As has already been alluded to, assessing whether or not an area has attained the ambient air quality standards would have to account for the influence of meteorology – data gathered over a 1-year period, for example, would not be sufficient to declare compliance with the standards. Delisting should depend on several years’ data (the period to be specified) demonstrating compliance with the standards in order to ensure that the standards of air quality do not deteriorate in the short term.

As stated above the requirements for declaring priority areas are too onerous and need to be simplified and streamlined to achieve what is reasonable ie at least the attainment of compliance with standards for air pollution which are protective of health.

9.	Problems with the classification of Pollution sources
9.1	Listing and regulating of sources

Listed and controlled activities can be regulated differently in different provinces and according to different standards.  This may lead to injustices such as weaker standards in  less regulated provinces. Since air pollution does not respect provincial boundaries, it say lead to conflict across provincial boundaries.

The test for whether a pollution source must be listed and require a licence is that it has to be “likely to have a significant detrimental effect on the environment”. (Then it also needs an eia) This test is too strict to be practical and will create a loophole for polluters which wish to evade the provisions of this act.  Also a number of small polluters who have a minimal effect can add up to a big impact.  There needs to be a way to cover these cases.  The Bill is in fact more cumbersome and difficult to implement than the APPA which just had a schedule of polluters.

There is  problem with the definition of controlled emitters: they do not have to have environmental impact assessments, even though they may be likely to threaten health and the environment.  Polluters will be trying to get their plants downgraded from listed emitters to controlled emitters to avoid eias.

A futher concern is the cumbersome and demanding requirement of consultation and justification set out in  sections 49 and 50.  Section  50 requires that a public notice be given  “which contains sufficient information to enable members of the public to submit meaningful representations or objections”. The public also includes the polluter. This section is extremely vague, and difficult to interpret. It will invite objections and legal challenges from polluters who will argue that they have been given insufficient information in order to respond to a proposal to require them to be licenced. The State will incur unnecessary costs in trying to fulfil these requirements. This may be even more onerous at poorly capacitated provincal levels.
Sections 49 and 50 are in any event redundant.  The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act  no 3 of 200 in section 3 and 5 provide for fair administrative action in circumstances such as licensing and do not have to be restated in the Bill.  The Constitution and NEMA provide for co operative governance rendering S49 of the Bill redundant.

10.	Problems with the scope and application of this Act

11.	Pollution trading and transfers
Once listed activities are given licenses they can apply for permission to be able to transfer their permits in terms of section 37.  They can presumably therefore sell the right to pollute.  
Concerns as to this provision are as follows
11.1	the basis for the exercise of discretion is not given and the provision may well lead to inconsistencies nationally as well as undesirable pressure being placed on regulators to grant these rights.  Corruption is a distinct possibility as polluters try to turn their pollution into an asset.
11.2	the conferring of tradable discharge permits should only take place as a mechanism to effect compliance with ambient air standards that protect health by a wide margin. This is how these permits have developed internationally as a pollution control strategy. If polluters gain the right to transfer discharge permits in a context where there is non attainment of air quality standards the extent of air  pollution may be perpetuated and it may be very costly for the state at a later stage to try to bring down pollution levels
11.3	the issue of tradable discharge permits should also only be considered in circumstances where there is certainty as to emissions measurement and ambient air  levels, and adequate regulatory tools are in place to ensure the proper functioning of these administrative aspects of the Bill. This is not yet the case in South Africa. Also adequate ambient air standards need to be enacted before polluters are allowed to transfer their pollution rights, since these provide the context for assessing pollution levels.
11.4	Allowing for transfer of pemits tradable permit outside of the area in which the polluter is situated my result in increases in pollution in other areas. This issue needs to be addressed if one is trying to bring overall pollution levels down as opposed to just moving them around.

12.	Guidelines for scheduled industries under APPA
There is also some uncertainty as to the fate of the guidelines in terms of APPA for scheduled industries. They do not appear to fall neatly under the definition of a “guideline relating to the performance of functions by licensing authorities under s32(g). This provision perhaps needs clarification.

13	PRTR, Right to Information to protect environmental rights
The Bill does not force the government to collect information about air pollution and emissions from polluters. It leaves this up to the discretion of the Minister who has to draft an air quality plan.  The only information which must be collected is emissions from licensed polluters.

At present, the public is effectively excluded from obtaining sufficient data on emissions from industrial and other sources, and has considerable difficulty in accessing air quality data (if these exist). In the absence of this information, the public cannot in fatc exercise their environmental rights provided for under the Constitution and NEMA.

The modern approach to collating information on environmental discharges is the Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR), a publicly accessible database of information on all significant pollution emission sources. The PRTR is a cost effect method of gathering, collating and making available information on pollutant releases. This Bill should enable government to collect the necessary data in a nationally standardised format, by making provision for the compulsory acquisition of this data. 

Eexperience internationally has shown that this type of mandatory disclosure also encourages polluters to reduce their emissions voluntarily.

If it is not provided in another law, the public should be granted  access to all of the documents created under this law -- including  license applications, licenses, priority area management plans, and the annual report on the implementation of the air quality plan.

Public participation should be included in more sections.  For example, section 18 requires preparation of an air quality management plan for priority areas.  The public should be given an opportunity to comment on a draft plan rather that confining participation to before the designation of these areas.

14	Enforcement 
This is slightly better that the APPA but it will depend on capacity. There is concern that as to how  the drawing up of area air quality management plans will be enforced. There should be citizen enforcement provisions [Provide for a separate Inspectorate within the department? (To separate the licencing from the enforcement system?)
The Minister has discretion about whether to publish a list of activities which result in atmospheric emissions.  Section 21 only  limits activities that are listed.

The law should specify the duration of a final atmospheric emission license and the periods at which the license may be reviewed.

if parliament were simply to include numerical ambient air
quality standards as part of the bill, then such standards would not be vulnerable to legal challenges claiming that the regulatory agencies abused their discretion.   For example, the Philippine Congress included a complete set of numerical ambient air quality standards when it enacted the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999.  See Section 12 of that Act: http://www.elaw.org/assets/pdf/philippines.caa.pdf   Section 12 of the Philippine Clean Air Act provides further that regulatory agencies may add numerical ambient air quality standards for additional pollutants and/or review the value and amend the value of the standards contained in the Act.

c:\ejp\memos\airquality. mem2.doc