U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

       

               Transcript of Public Hearing to Take Comment on 

                         Two Proposed Rules: 

       

          1. Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality  

                  Standards for Particulate Matter 

       

                                 and 

       

         2. Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations 

       

       

                            March 8, 2006 

       

              Courtyard Marriott San Francisco Downtown 

                          299 Second Street 

                   San Francisco, California 94105 

       

       

      Reported by:      

      Alderson Reporting 

      Nancy J. Palmer, CERT 00121; and 

      George B. Palmer, CERT 222 

      

      Hearing Panel: 

       

           LYDIA WEGMAN, HEARING OFFICER 

           SUSAN STONE, Director, Health and Environmental

            Impacts Division 

            Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

            Ambient Standards Group 

           TIM HANLEY, Office of Air Quality Planning 

            and Standards Ambient Air Monitoring Group 

           JOHN HANNON, Office of General Counsel 

        

      S P E A K E R S: 

       

      Carl Pope, private citizen 

      Larry Greene, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

       Management District 

      John Balbus, M.D., Environmental Defense 

      Robert Gould, M.D., Kaiser Hospital, San Francisco Bay 

       Area Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility 

      Bart Ostro, Office of Environmental Health Hazard 

       Assessment, California EPA 

      Lisa Chamberlain, M.D., Packard Children's Hospital 

      Laurie Bauer, Ravenswood City School District 

      Bridgette Tollstrup, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

       Management District 

      S P E A K E R S  continued: 

       

      Gina Solomon, M.D., Natural Resources Defense Council; 

       U.C. San Francisco, Pediatric Environmental Health 

       Specialty Unit 

      Sarah Jackson (for Theodore Schade, Air Pollution Control 

       Officer for the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution 

       Control District) 

      Kevin Hamilton, Asthma Program at Community Medical 

       Centers 

      Jesse Marquez, Coalition for a Safe Environment 

      John Balmes, M.D., University of California 

      Tom Politeo, Sierra Club Harbor Vision Task Force 

      Anthony Gerber, M.D., University of California San 

       Francisco 

      Jonah Ramirez, ten-years-old, American Lung Association 

      Richard Bode, California Air Resources Board 

      Rajiv Bhatia, M.D., Director of Environmental Health, 

       City of San Francisco 

      Michael Lipsett, M.D. 

      John Sakamoto, Eichleay Engineers of California 

      Marcie Keever, Esq., Our Children's Earth Foundation 

      Linda Weiner, American Lung Association of California, 

       San Francisco Bay Area Clean Air Task Force 

      Laura Fultz, private citizen 

      S P E A K E R S  continued: 

       

      Kent Bransford, M.D., Physicians for Social 

       Responsibility 

      Brian Linde, M.D., Northern California Chapter of the 

       American Academy of Pediatrics 

      Mary Cranley, Nurse Practitioner 

      Gordon Fung, M.D., San Francisco Medical Society, UCSF 

       Medical Center 

      Teri Shore, Bluewater Network, Friends of the Earth 

      Dawn Sanders-Koepke, McHugh & Associates, California 

       Manufacturers and Technology Association 

      Tony Hansen, Ph.D. 

      Francisco Da Costa, Environmental Justice Advocacy, Muwek 

       Maohlone 

      Isaac Bloom, Environment California for Northern 

       California 

      Anthony Myers, Environment California 

      Carolina Simunovic, Fresno Metro Ministry, Environmental 

       Health Program 

      Isabella Simunovic, infant daughter 

      Daniela Simunovic, Fresno Metro Ministry, Environmental 

       Health Program 

      Ray Leon, Latino Issues Forum 

       

      S P E A K E R S  continued: 

       

      Sarah Janssen, M.D., San Francisco Physicians for Social 

       Responsibility 

      Mark Oldenkamp, United Egg Producers 

      David Schonbrunn, Transportation Solutions Defense and 

       Education Fund 

      Molly Martin, private citizen 

      Norah Schwartz, M.D., El Colegio de la Frontera Norte 

      Brent Newell, Esq., Center on Race, Poverty, and the 

       Environment; the Center's San Joaquin Valley Air Quality 

       Project 

      Sandy Garcia, San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Project 

      Esther Martinez, San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Project 

      Rolio Martinez, San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Project 

      Santos Valenzuela, San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Project 

      David Pepper, M.D. 

      Blakeman Early, American Lung Association 

      Paul Cort, Esq., EarthJustice 

      Judy Levin, private citizen 

      Elmer Grossman, M.D. 

      Matthew Hodges, National Petrochemical and Refiners 

       Association 

       

       

      S P E A K E R S  continued:  

       

      Eric Meyer, for Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, Chair of the 

       California Assembly Natural Resources Committee 

      David Chatfield, Californians for Pesticide Reform (and 

       for Teresa DeAnda, CPR) 

      Dennis Bolt, Western States Petroleum Association 

      Frances Spivy-Weber, Policy at the Mono Lake Committee 

      Matt Mengarelli, private citizen 

      Patricia Monahan, Union of Concerned Scientists 

      Emily Lee, Pacific Institute 

      Anna Mills, Mono Lake Committee member 

      Kelly Runyan, Mono Lake Committee member 

      Mel Zeldin, California Air Pollution Control Officers 

       Association 

      Seth Silverman, Students for a Sustainable Stanford 

      Kaitlin Sanford, Students for a Sustainable Stanford 

      Samantha Staley, Center on Environment and Energy, 

       Stanford Chapter of the Roosevelt Institution 

      Jonas Ketterle, Center on Environment and Energy, 

       Stanford Chapter of the Roosevelt Institution 

      Marc Geller, Plug In America 

      Jenny Bard, American Lung Association of California, 

       Redwood Empire Branch 

       

      S P E A K E R S  continued: 

       

      Bruce Young, private citizen 

      Karen Robertson Strain, American Heart Association, 

       Health Network for Clean Air member 

      Andy Reimers, private citizen 

      Dennis Ransel, Clark County of Nevada Department of Air 

       Quality and Environmental Management 

      Everett Olsen, retired science teacher 

      Carolyn Casavan, Southern California Rocks Product 

       Association 

      Dorothy Alther, Owens Valley Indian Water Commission 

      Paula Stigler, Air Quality Specialist, Pala Band of 

       Mission Indians 

      Monique Sullivan, Environment California 

      Kirsten Clemmensen, Environment California 

      Mauricio Garzon, Environment California 

      Laura Kowler, Environment California 

      David Wyman, citizen, Environment California 

      Jessica Giannini, CALPIRG 

      Reverend Sally Bingham, Environmental Minister, Grace 

       Cathedral 

      Moira Chapin, Environment California 

      Adam Harper, California Mining Association 

       

      S P E A K E R S  continued: 

       

      Ron Wyzga, Ph.D., Electric Power Research Institute 

      Lee Jones, private citizen 

      Michelle Steele, Environment California 

      John Kisman, Edison Electric Institute 

      Janis Kim, M.D. 

      Douglas Kerr, M.D. 

      Annemarie Donjacour, private citizen 

      Harold Farber, M.D. 

      Kathleen Foree, Social Responsibility Committee at 

       Epiphany Parish, member 

      Tamara Theis, National Cattlemen's Beef Association 

      Scott Nester, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

       Control District 

      Margaret Gordon, West Oakland Environmental Indicators 

       Project 

      Karen Lindholdt, Safe Air for Everyone 

      Larry Alba, private citizen 

      Darrel Sweet, private citizen 

      Gordon Matassa, Mono Lake Committee member 

      Cosette Dudley, private citizen 

      Steve Ziman, Ph.D., American Petroleum Institute 

      Marcie Pinkard, M.D. 

       

      S P E A K E R S  continued: 

       

      Tommaso Boggia, California Public Interest Research Group 

      Diane Vornoli, private citizen, Mono Lake Committee 

       member 

      Mercedes Corbell, M.D. 

      Aubrry Stone, California Black Chamber of Commerce 

      Neal Desai, Nonpartisan National Parks Conservation 

       Association 

      Lauri Tanner, private citizen 

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

                      P R O C E E D I N G S 

                                                   9:09 a.m. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Good morning, 

      everyone.  I think we'll get started with our 

      hearing.  My name is Lydia Wegman.  And I want to 

      thank you all for attending this morning, the 

      Environmental Protection Agency's Public Hearing on 

      our Two Proposed Rules for Particulate Matter. 

                Can everybody hear me all right?  First 

      let's just check that.  Okay, seeing no problem. 

                I recognize many of you have traveled a 

      good distance to come to this hearing and I 

      appreciate the time you have taken and any money you 

      have spent to be here, because we very much 

      appreciate your interest in these proposed rules. 

                As I said, my name is Lydia Wegman.  I'm the 

      Director of the Health and Environmental Impacts 

      Division in the Office of Air Quality Planning and 

      Standards, which is part of the Office of Air and 

      Radiation in North Carolina. 

                I'm going to be the Chair of today's Public 

      Hearing.  And we are obviously here to listen to your 

      comments about the National Ambient Air Quality 

      Standards Proposal for Particulate Matter and also 

      our Proposed Revisions to our Ambient Air Monitoring 

      Regulations. 

                This of course is an opportunity to comment 

      on our proposed rules.  We, the panel, who I will 

      introduce in a minute, may ask you questions to 

      clarify your comments, but we are obviously not here 

      to debate or discuss the proposals.  Our chief 

      purpose in being here is to hear your comments on 

      those proposals. 

                I want to take a moment to briefly describe 

      the proposal that are the subject of today's hearing. 

       As I think most of you know, the proposals were 

      published on January 17th. 

                Particulate matter, also known as particle 

      pollution, includes a mixture of solids and liquid 

      droplets.  They come in a wide range of sizes.  Some 

      are emitted directly and others are formed in the 

      atmosphere when pollutant emissions, such as sulfur 

      oxide, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, or volatile organic 

      compounds react together chemically. 

                Exposure to such particles has been 

      associated with premature death as well as 

      significant adverse cardiovascular and respiratory 

      effects. 

                Our proposed rules address two categories 

      of particles:  First, fine particles or PM2.5 which 

      are 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller; and 

      inhalable course particles, or PM10-2.5, which 

      are particles smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter 

      but larger than PM2.5. 

                We've had National Ambient Air Quality 

      Standards for PM2.5 since 1997 and for PM10 since 

      1987.  And we of course have proposed revisions to 

      these standards and requested comments on a range of 

      alternative standards for both fine and inhalable 

      course particles. 

                The Proposed Revisions address both Primary 

      Standards, which address public health, and Secondary 

      Standards designed to protect public welfare, 

      including visibility impairment. 

                Our proposal with respect to the two 

      Primary Standards, one, our first proposal was to 

      lower the level of the 24-Hour Fine Particle Standard 

      from the current level of 65 micrograms per cubic 

      meter to 35 micrograms per cubic meter.  And we've 

      requested comment on a range of alternatives, 

      including retaining the current level of the standard 

      at 65 and on levels between 25 and 65 micrograms per 

      cubic meter and on alternative approaches for 

      selecting the level of the standard. 

                As far as the Annual Standard goes we have 

      proposed to retain the current level of the Annual 

      Standard at 15 micrograms per cubic meter and are 

      considering and taking public comment on a range of 

      levels from 15 to 12 micrograms per cubic meter. 

                We are proposing to establish a new 

      indicator for inhalable course particles.  And the 

      Proposed New PM10-2.5 Standard has been 

      qualified to include any ambient mix of PM10 minus 

      2.5 where the majority of course particles is 

      resuspended dust from high-density traffic on paved 

      roads and particulate matter generated by industrial 

      sources and construction sources. 

                And we are proposing to exclude any ambient 

      mix of PM1025 where the majority of course particles 

      is rural wind-blown dust and soils and particulate 

      matter generated by agricultural and mining sources. 

       We propose setting a 24-hour standard for these 

      particles at 70 grams per cubic meter. 

                And our Proposed Regulations for 

      agricultural sources, mining sources, and other 

      similar sources of crustal materials shall not be 

      subject to control in meeting this standard. 

                And we have requested comment on a level 

      down to 50 micrograms per cubic meter and on 

      selecting an unqualified PM1025 indicator. 

                We've also asked for comment on whether we 

      should retain the current PM10 standard in place of 

      this Proposed Inhalable Course Particle Standard of 

      PM1025; and on whether or not we should establish a 

      course particle standard at this time, pending the 

      development of a course-particle monitoring network 

      and further research on the health effects related to 

      course particles. 

                With respect to the Secondary Standards to 

      protect public welfare, we propose that the Secondary 

      Standards be identical to the primary health-based 

      standards and have requested comment on setting a 

      subdaily, four-to-eight-hour averaging time PM2.5 

      standard to address visibility impairment within a 

      range of 20- to 30-micrograms per cubic meter. 

                If we were to set a PM1025 standard the 

      question arises as to what happens to our current 

      PM10 standards.  We've proposed that current 

      scientific evidence does not support setting an 

      annual standard for inhalable course particles and 

      have proposed to revoke the current annual PM10 

      standards in all areas. 

                And if we do finalize a 24-hour standard 

      for PM1025, we propose to revoke the current 24-hour 

      PM10 standard except in those areas that have at 

      least one monitor located in an urbanized area with a 

      minimum population of 100,000 people and it has 

      measured a violation of the 24-hour PM10 standard 

      based on the most recent three years of data. 

                That's the summary of our proposal on the 

      PM NAAQS, and then we have a second rule on which 

      we've proposed revisions to the Ambient Air 

      Monitoring Requirements for criteria pollutants and 

      those proposed changes would support proposed 

      revisions to the NAAQS, as I've just described, 

      including new minimum-monitoring network requirements 

      for the PM1025 particles and criteria for approval of 

      applicable sampling methods. 

                These changes would also establish a new 

      nationwide network of monitoring stations that take 

      an integrated multi-pollutant approach to ambient air 

      monitoring.  The proposed amendments would modify the 

      current requirements for ambient air monitors and 

      would focus requirements on populated areas with air 

      quality problems.  

                And the aim of these proposed changes is to 

      enhance our ambient air quality monitoring to better 

      serve current and future air quality management and 

      research needs. 

                We have fact sheets on both of these 

      proposed rules for those of you who would like some 

      additional information. 

                Turning to today's hearing, this is one of 

      three public hearings we're holding today on these 

      two rules.  The other two are in Chicago and 

      Philadelphia.  We will be preparing a written 

      transcript of today's hearings.  And we have two 

      court reporters here working on that, Nancy and 

      George Palmer, who are helping us out.  And we're 

      very appreciative of their efforts.  These 

      transcripts will be available as part of the official 

      record for each of these rules. 

                The comment period on these rules is open 

      until April 17th.  And if you are interested in 

      submitting written comments, we do have a handout in 

      the registration area that will tell you more about 

      what you need to do to get comments to us. 

                The way we're going to work the hearing 

      today is I'm going to call speakers in pairs of two. 

       And when you come forward, please state your name 

      and your affiliation.  And, if you can, spell your 

      name for the court reporters, that would be very 

      helpful. 

                We are asking everyone to please limit your 

      testimony to five minutes.  We have a very full day. 

       At this point we are scheduled to go till 9:30 

      tonight.  And so we are going to be fairly vigilant 

      in ensuring everybody limits their testimony to five 

      minutes. 

                After you've finished your testimony one of 

      our panel members may ask you clarifying questions.  

      And we of course would give you time to answer those 

      questions.  If you do have a written copy of your 

      statement, please give that to the staff at the 

      registration table.  And we will put the full text of 

      your written comments into the docket. 

                We have a timekeeping system here of green, 

      yellow, and red lights.  When you begin speaking the 

      green light will come on.  You have five minutes.  At 

      the two-minute mark the yellow light will come on.  

      And when the five minutes is up, the red light will 

      come on. 

                Let me also say that if you are here and 

      you want to testify please, please, please sign in.  

      We have a system of registration.  It's very 

      important to know who is here, who has come, has 

      signed up.  And if others have arrived who want to 

      speak and you've not signed up, please do go to the 

      registration table.  We plan to stay until everyone 

      is done speaking.  So if you have not signed up and 

      want to speak, please feel free to do that. 

                We have tried to accommodate everyone's 

      request for specific time slots.  Obviously we are 

      not going to match your time slot exactly since we're 

      already running a little late, but please be a little 

      forgiving of us if we're not exactly on time and when 

      you were expecting to speak.  And we do appreciate 

      your patience. 

                The other EPA folks on the panel here are 

      Susan Stone.  She works with me in the Office of Air 

      Quality Planning and Standards.  Tim Hanley, who also 

      works with me in the Office of Air Quality Planning 

      and Standards.  And John Hannon, who is with our 

      Office of General Counsel in Washington, D.C.  

                Again, thank you all for participating 

      today.  And we will now get started.  Our first two 

      witnesses are Carl Pope and Larry Greene. 

                All right, Mr. Pope. 

                MR. POPE:  Good morning. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Good morning. 

                MR. POPE:  I have submitted a formal 

      statement.  I am not going to read it.  I am going to 

      speak from the heart. 

                It is conventional to say that you're 

      pleased and honored to be present at hearings like 

      this.  I am saddened. 

                This rulemaking amounts to a statement by 

      the government of the United States, which is sworn 

      to protect and keep safe the citizens of the United 

      States, that it is willing to sentence thousands of 

      them to unnecessary early death. 

                The Agency's justification for this 

      approach is that it does not know precisely how many 

      thousands of Americans will die as a result of the 

      inadequacies of this rule and that it does not know 

      how to protect those Americans without cleaning up 

      innocent particulate matter as well as guilty 

      particulate matter. 

                The essence of this rulemaking is that the 

      rights of fine and course particles and those who 

      emit them have been allowed to trump the safety and 

      health of thousands of Americans. 

                Let's look at a couple of the problems. 

                First, 46 million Americans apparently do 

      not have lungs or if they have lungs they have lungs 

      which function differently because they live in rural 

      areas.  A course particle standard simply will not 

      apply to these Americans.  The Agency has absolutely 

      no scientific basis for this exclusion. 

                I do not believe there is a single official 

      in the Agency who under oath would say that the 

      scientific justification showing that this exclusion 

      will fully protect the public health of those 

      Americans is stronger than the evidence which the 

      Agency has described as inadequate for promulgating 

      more stringent, more protective standards. 

                Second, the Agency has said that if lead, 

      chromium, asbestos, copper, beryllium, cadmium, 

      pesticides, volatile organics are emitted as 

      particulates from mining operations or agriculture, 

      they are somehow not hazardous to the health of 

      Americans who breathe them. 

                The Agency since 1980 has spent billions of 

      dollars attempting, manfully but often 

      unsuccessfully, to clean up mining wastes.  Suddenly 

      we are told that when these mining wastes, which 

      warranted billions of dollars of public expenditure 

      when they were in the ground, become airborne they 

      are no longer a problem. 

                And, finally, the Agency has declined 

      explicitly and repeatedly to follow the clear 

      statutory language of the Clean Air Act.  There are 

      many aspects of Clean Air regulation in which EPA is 

      asked to balance.  In some cases I would suggest the 

      Agency is often asked to balance so many variables 

      that it cannot reasonably be expected to do its job. 

                But in one area the Agency is given a clear 

      mandate:  When it sets a national air quality 

      standard it is not to protect some of the people who 

      might die from that pollution.  It is not to protect 

      a reasonable percentage of those people or a 

      convenient or cost-effective proportion. 

                Its duty and its only statutory authority 

      in setting such a standard is to fully protect 

      everyone with a margin of error.  And repeatedly in 

      its justification of this rulemaking the Agency has 

      said that it was trying to balance and to ensure that 

      it was neither too stringent nor too lax.  I can't 

      conceive of how the Administrator would explain how 

      that language is consistent with the requirement for 

      a margin of safety for the public health. 

                I am not a scientist.  The Agency has many 

      fine scientists to whom it should listen.  I am not a 

      lawyer.  The statute is clear:  This rulemaking is 

      reckless, it is dangerous, it is in violation of the 

      Agency's moral obligations, and it is illegal. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you, Mr. Pope. 

                Mr. Greene. 

                MR. GREENE:  The mics seem to be facing 

      this direction. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  That's true. 

                MR. POPE:  Facing right. 

                MR. GREENE:  Okay.  Ready to go? 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Yes.  Sorry. 

                MR. GREENE:  Good morning.  My name is 

      Larry Greene and I'm the Executive Director of the 

      Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

      District, and you have this written testimony up 

      there. 

                I appear today on behalf of STAPPA and 

      ALAPCO, the national associations representing air 

      and local air pollution control agencies throughout 

      the country. 

                We have three major concerns with EPA's 

      proposal:  The levels of PM2.5 standards, source-and-

      population exemptions associated with the Course 

      Particle Standard, and the lack of funding for 

      monitoring. 

                First, we find it very troubling that EPA's 

      revisions to the Annual and Daily PM2.5 Standards are 

      outside the ranges recommended by CASAC, a 

      Congressionally-chartered group of outside scientific 

      experts. 

                While CASAC recommended tightening the 

      Annual PM2.5 Standard in conjunction with lowering 

      the Daily Standard, EPA totally ignored this 

      recommendation. 

                With respect to the Annual Standard, the 

      Agency proposed no changes at all, even though CASAC 

      told EPA it did not endorse the option of keeping the 

      Annual Standard at the present level.  Even EPA's own 

      staff paper indicates that more deaths from fine PM 

      are avoided by lowering the Annual Average Standard 

      than by lowering the Daily Standard. 

                With respect to the Daily Standard the 

      CASAC recommended a range of limits.  It made the 

      upper end of the range conditional on tightening the 

      Annual Standard.  Regretfully, EPA has chosen the 

      upper limit of CASAC's Recommended Daily Standard 

      without the important condition of tightening the 

      Annual Standard. 

                Unless EPA strengthens its proposal 

      consistent with the recommendations of CASAC, our 

      associations are extremely concerned we will continue 

      to see significant increased premature mortality and 

      adverse health effects throughout the country. 

                Our second concern with EPA's proposal 

      relates to the Course PM Standard.  While we support 

      the adoption of such a standard, we believe EPA's 

      proposal is seriously flawed in two major respects. 

                We are deeply troubled that the proposal 

      exempts from control major sources contributing 

      significantly to course PM emissions, including 

      agriculture, mining, and other sources of crustal 

      material.  Excluding those sources implies their 

      emissions are not harmful, yet EPA does not present 

      any such evidence. 

                On the contrary, it is likely that course 

      particles from agriculture and mining activities pose 

      risks similar to course urban PM.  These exemptions 

      also pose insurmountable implementation problems for 

      states and local agencies. 

                For example, are mining and agricultural 

      activities that occur in or near urban areas to be 

      exempted from controls, even if they are a dominant 

      source of course PM emissions in that area? 

                We are also extremely concerned that EPA's 

      Proposed Course PM Standard has the practical effect 

      of ignoring the health and welfare of millions of 

      people throughout the country living in areas with 

      populations less than 100,000.  Exempting those areas 

      from monitoring their air quality is an unprecedented 

      action and completely ignores the recommendations of 

      CASAC. 

                Moreover, we do not believe the Clean Air 

      Act makes any provision for selective protection of 

      public health.  Accordingly, we urge EPA to rescind 

      those exemptions from course PM. 

                Finally, while it is critical that EPA 

      establish NAAQS that are fully protective of public 

      health and welfare, it is also vitally important that 

      we have adequate monitoring networks that allow the 

      public to know their air is safe to breathe.  

      Unfortunately, EPA's proposal and the 2007 budget 

      request ignore the important funding issues 

      associated with deploying and operating networks of 

      both PM2.5 and course PM. 

                With respect to PM2.5 EPA has made no 

      provision to increase federal funding to address the 

      expanded monitoring requirements for that new 

      standard.  In fact, the President's proposed budget 

      for FY2007 slashes fine particle monitoring by $17 

      million, which will severely weaken existing 

      monitoring programs and likely result in significant 

      staff cuts throughout the country. 

                Agencies will have serious difficulties 

      rehiring personnel who have been laid off as a result 

      of these budget cuts and who would have been expected 

      to operate these monitoring networks. 

                We urge that the proposed FY2007 budget 

      cuts be restored and that EPA provide funding in 2008 

      to expand the PM2.5 monitoring program. 

                We are also troubled that EPA has ignored 

      our commitment to funding the proposed PM course 

      network scheduled for deployment in FY2008.  EPA has 

      estimated that the capital cost of this monitoring 

      network could easily exceed $14 million, with annual 

      operating expenses of approximately $13 million.  

      State and local agencies will simply not be able to 

      assume those significant cuts.  We urge EPA to 

      provide new funding in 2008 for a course PM 

      monitoring network. 

                In conclusion, we strongly recommend that 

      EPA follow CASAC's recommendations in setting the 

      PM2.5 Air Quality Standards; establish a course 

      particle standard without exemptions; and require PM 

      monitors in rural areas; and, four, commit to 

      providing additional, not reprogram funds for PM2.5 

      and course monitoring. 

                Thank you for the opportunity to testify.  

      I would be happy to answer any questions. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you very much, 

      Mr. Greene. 

                MR. GREENE:  All right. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Any questions? 

                MR. HANNON:  Mr. Greene, I have one 

      question.  You mentioned that there would be 

      insurmountable implementation problems with the 

      states in implementing the exclusion on -- or I 

      should say the prohibition on controls by states in 

      ag and mining for purposes of the course PM. 

                In your written comments it would be useful 

      to go into some detail on that, just so we understand 

      exactly what the problems are.  And I think also 

      differentiating, being clear whether the problems are 

      implementation problems or science-based problems.  

      You know, the science behind the prohibition as well 

      as the -- if the science is fine or assuming the 

      science were fine, what are the specific 

      implementation problems. 

                MR. GREENE:  Certainly will do that.  Thank 

      you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you both very 

      much. 

                A couple of details here.  I don't know if 

      it's possible for the person to get rid of their 

      ringing we're getting on the sound system. 

                And also -- well, maybe we'll wait just a 

      minute.  Yeah, can the mic move back and forth 

      or...okay.  Okay, great. 

                Alina, should I wait a minute before 

      calling or... 

                All right.  Next -- I guess we'll work on 

      this.  But I'll ask our next two speakers to come 

      forward:  John Balbus and Robert Gould are the next 

      two speakers.  And we'll take just a minute to try to 

      get the sound system to function a little better. 

                DR. BALBUS:  Is there only one live mic 

      here? 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  No.  There --  

                MR. HANNON:  It doesn't matter. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Those both are live 

      and they are -- they do move, so, yes. 

                Are you hearing all right? 

                THE REPORTER:  We're doing fine.  Thanks. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Okay.  Good. 

                Until the sound system gets set up again. 

                DR. BALBUS:  I'm waiting on you, right, or 

      are we ready to go? 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  We are waiting on the 

      sound system, I think. 

                Are we ready, Alina, to -- okay, good. 

                DR. BALBUS:  We don't have to reset the 

      clock or anything like that?  I can see --  

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  No, no.  That didn't 

      count against you.  Okay, and please do speak into 

      the mic so that the rest of the room can hear.  Okay. 

                DR. BALBUS:  Good morning.  My name is John 

      Balbus.  I'm a physician Board certified in internal 

      medicine and occupational medicine, and I direct the 

      Health Program for the nonprofit Environmental 

      Defense, a group with 400,000 members around the 

      country that's committed to preserving our climate, 

      oceans, biodiversity, and human health. 

                While I'm based in Washington, D.C. it's 

      very appropriate that I make these comments in 

      California.  California is where people suffer from 

      our nation's worst air quality.  It's where some of 

      the most crucial studies have been done, 

      demonstrating the harm that comes from exposure to 

      particulate matter.  And it's where some of the most 

      innovative, collaborative, and positive solutions to 

      air pollution can be found. 

                The cornerstone of our nation's efforts to 

      solve our air pollution problems is to setting a 

      science-based national standards for the most serious 

      air pollutants.  Standards that make clear to the 

      public the types and amounts of air pollution that 

      are harmful to them. 

                The Proposed Particulate Matter Standards 

      fall far short of the mandate and the spirit of the 

      Clean Air Act.  The EPA has diverted from the 

      recommendations of its scientists and advisory panels 

      to weaken public health protections in very serious 

      ways. 

                Specifically, the Annual Standard left 

      unchanged at 15 micrograms per cubic meter is outside 

      of the range recommended by the Clean Air Science 

      Advisory Council, which I'll refer to as the CASAC 

      from here on in, and clearly above the level where 

      exposure can be expected to lead to significant 

      numbers of premature deaths based on scientific 

      evidence. 

                The new JAMA study that was publicized 

      yesterday only is one more study added to hundreds of 

      studies that clearly show harm -- disease, 

      hospitalization, and death at levels below the 

      current standard. 

                Next, the categorical exemptions for the 

      agricultural and mining industries from the Course 

      Particulate Standard are unprecedented and did not 

      come from any official recommendations of EPA staff 

      or the CASAC. 

                Last, the categorical exclusion of most of 

      the country from the Course Particulate Standards 

      with the exception of urbanized areas with 

      populations greater than 100,000 in combination with 

      the shutting off of course particulate monitors 

      outside the urbanized areas, this was not recommended 

      to the Administrator. 

                There are strong science-based reasons why 

      EPA staff and the CASAC did not recommend these 

      provisions.  The written comments that we will 

      provide will give the basis in the scientific 

      literature for concluding that these Proposed 

      Standards and actions are far from adequately 

      protecting the nation's public health. 

                In addition to these unprecedented 

      departures from the recommendations of its 

      independent expert advisors, the EPA has chosen the 

      weakest options presented to it from the 

      recommendations for other measures.  This total 

      package of proposed standards and monitoring 

      guidelines is thus far weaker than what the science 

      dictates is necessary for public health protection. 

                Environmental Defense joins with the more 

      than 100 prominent air quality researchers, 

      physicians, and public health officials, many of whom 

      are the nation's leading scientists who actually 

      wrote the studies that EPA is using to set the 

      standards in recommending the following from their 

      letter of December 2005: 

                An annual average fine particulate standard 

      of 12 micrograms per cubic meter; a daily fine 

      particulate standard of 25 micrograms per cubic 

      meter; a stringent daily course particulate standard 

      that applies equally to all areas of the country -- 

      we believe that the level of the standard needs to be 

      in the range of 25 to 30 micrograms per cubic meter. 

       All Daily Standards should use the ninety-ninth 

      percentile form to reduce the number of days allowed 

      over the level acknowledged to be safe. 

                In addition, we call on the EPA to undo the 

      exemption for the agricultural and mining industries 

      and the don't look-don't tell policy of not 

      regulating or even monitoring course particles in 

      rural areas, and instead continue its traditional of 

      using data and sin to determine appropriate public 

      health protections and implementing truly national 

      course particle standards. 

                All of these points have also been 

      recommended to the EPA in a letter that was received 

      this week from the Children's Health Protection 

      Advisory Committee, a consensus letter from a panel 

      of children's health experts representing multiple 

      stakeholders. 

                Nowhere is the irrationality of the 

      Proposed Course Particle Standards clearer than in 

      the Central and Imperial Valleys of California.  

      People living in these areas do not agree with EPA 

      that contaminated dusts kicked up by tractors and 

      farm animals do not need to be covered by the new 

      standard.  They know their children have 

      astonishingly high asthma rates, as high as one in 

      six children. 

                They know that the dusts inhale contain 

      contaminants that could come from manure or chemicals 

      found on farms, or in the case of the Salton Sea the 

      four carcinogenic metals found in substantial amounts 

      in the crustal particles there. 

                What they may not know is the manner in 

      which EPA and the White House through its Office of 

      Management and Budget applied the arguments of an 

      industry consultant to discredit the results of the 

      Coachella Valley Study.  This study, published and 

      peer reviewed, demonstrated increased mortality from 

      breathing in course particles in that part of the 

      state. 

                The preamble of the Proposed Standards goes 

      to great lengths to characterize the study as 

      unreliable.  Discrediting the study paves the way for 

      the Agency to propose only to monitor and regulate 

      course particles in major urban centers. 

                In conclusion, with these proposed 

      standards the EPA has turned good science into bad 

      policy.  It is unacceptable that EPA's action would 

      allow serious harm from particulate pollution, 

      especially for children, people with heart and lung 

      disease, and families in rural communities. 

                Thank you for this opportunity to provide 

      comments. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you, Dr. 

      Balbus. 

                I don't know if you have a copy of the JAMA 

      study, but we are of course going to consider studies 

      that have come out since the closure of the criteria 

      document, so it would be good if somebody ensures 

      that's in the record for our consideration.  Thank 

      you. 

                Mr. Gould.  When you're --  

                DR. GOULD:  I'll just get this set up. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  When you're ready. 

                DR. GOULD:  Okay.  Can you hear me okay?  

      Is this all right? 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Yes, that's fine. 

                DR. GOULD:  Thank you for having me here.  

      My name is Dr. Robert Gould. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  I'm sorry.  Dr. 

      Gould. 

                DR. GOULD:  Since 1981 I have been an 

      associate pathologist at Kaiser Hospital in San Jose, 

      California.  In addition, since 1989 I have been 

      President of the San Francisco Bay Area Chapter of 

      Physicians for Social Responsibility, or PSR, 

      representing close to 3,000 physicians and health 

      providers throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. 

                In 2003 I served as President of National 

      PSR, a 30,000-member organization dedicated to the 

      protection on environmental and public health in its 

      broadest terms. 

                In pursuit of these objectives I have also 

      personally worked for years within the California 

      Medical Association, or CMA, to help develop sound 

      scientifically-based policies that aim for maximally 

      protecting the health and welfare of our patients 

      from a variety of environmental hazards. 

                In my almost 25 years as a pathologist I 

      have witnessed a deadly toll ultimately wrought by 

      manifold environmental pollutants, including 

      particulate matter.  Whether through the dramatic 

      evidence of arthro thoracic heart disease revealed on 

      postmortem examination or the scores of primary lung 

      cancers that I review under the microscope, I am on a 

      daily basis reminded of the suffering that our 

      patients endure and how much of this preventable if 

      we do our utmost to support stringent environmental 

      safeguards, long known to protect public health. 

                Given that the EPA has over the last decade 

      reviewed over 2,000 peer-reviewed studies firmly 

      establishing the relationship between particulate 

      matter and illness, malignancies, and premature 

      deaths that directly impact tens of thousands of 

      Americans a year, it is unconscionable that EPA has 

      opted to reject the advice of its own Staff 

      Scientists and countless independent researchers that 

      have called for stricter standards than the EPA 

      recommendations. 

                With numerous organizations in the medical 

      and public health community, including the American 

      Public Health Association, the American Thoracic 

      Society, the American College of Cardiology, and the 

      American Academy of Pediatrics, having weighed in on 

      recommending that EPA adopt the most protective PM 

      standards, it is instructive to review the position 

      of the "house of medicine" in our state, as the 

      California Medical Association has consistently 

      called for protection of the public from the harmful 

      effects of air pollution. 

                In 1968, two years before the 1970 Clear 

      Air Act established the National Ambient Air Quality 

      Standards for Particulates, referred to on the EPA's 

      own website as being promulgated to "Protect public 

      health and welfare," the CMA House of Delegates 

      established policy to "Vigorously support all 

      national efforts for the control of air pollution," 

      as well as to "Urge the support of studies and the 

      enactment of laws that will ensure a healthful air 

      supply in the future." 

                In the ensuing almost 40 years the CMA has 

      followed this pioneering step by enacting numerous 

      policies calling for increasingly comprehensive steps 

      to protect the public from the health effects of air 

      pollution, such as:  The Resolution in 1987, air 

      pollution crisis; 1992, health consequences of 

      ambient air pollution; 2001, diesel exhaust in zero-

      emission vehicles; 2002, air pollution energy and 

      health; 2004 reducing sources of diesel exhaust.  And 

      all of this is in my written comments and reference. 

                In the most recent policy statements 

      referenced, the CMA has specifically supported strong 

      steps to curb particulate pollution, particularly 

      diesel, with recommendations including:  Support of 

      "Regulatory efforts by the California Air Sources 

      Board and the Legislature to reduce public exposure 

      to diesel exhaust and increase funding for cleaning 

      up diesel engines," to "Encourage the U.S. EPA to 

      finalize the most stringent feasible standards to 

      control pollution emissions" -- excuse me.  I just 

      lost my -- "the most stringent feasible standards to 

      control pollutant emissions from both large and small 

      nonroad engines, including construction equipment, 

      farm equipment, boats and trains," to "Encourage the 

      State of California to continue to pursue 

      opportunities to reduce diesel exhaust pollution, 

      including reducing harmful emissions from existing 

      diesel vehicles," among other steps. 

                Hence the voice of California physicians is 

      clear in supporting the most stringent possible 

      standards to protect the health of our patients.  

      Accordingly, I and other members of PSR strongly urge 

      EPA to heed the advice of its own scientists, to 

      maximally tighten the Annual Standard for Fine Air 

      Particles, the Daily Fine Particulate Matter 

      Standard, and to guarantee that rural communities are 

      given the same protection from course particles 

      afforded urban areas. 

                EPA needs to stand by its explicit NAAQS 

      mission to "Protect public health and welfare," not 

      the privileges of politically-connected polluters.  

      Are patients' lives are literally in your hands. 

                Thank you for the opportunity to speak. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you, Dr. Gould. 

       One question.  You say "maximally tighten the 

      standards."  Did you have any specific levels in 

      mind? 

                DR. GOULD:  We are in support of the other 

      standards that, for example, Dr. Balbus indicated, 

      down to 12 micrograms per meter squared for those PM 

      standards. 

                Also, as indicated, to make sure that the 

      rural communities are afforded the same protection as 

      urban communities, to reduce down from the 65 

      micrograms per meter squared -- meter cubed, down to 

      the 25 level. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Okay.  Thank you for 

      that clarification. 

                Any questions from anyone else? 

                Thank you both very much. 

                DR. GOULD:  Thank you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Our next folks:  

      Laurie Bauer and Dr. Bart Ostro. 

                MS. BAUER:  We're sharing a testimony.  We 

      are. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Okay.  Dr. Ostro? 

                DR. OSTRO:  So maybe we should...don't 

      start me yet. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  No, don't worry.  Let 

      us know when you're ready. 

                DR. OSTRO:  Okay.  Thank you.  I'm Bart 

      Ostro for the Office of Environmental Health Hazard 

      Assessment, part of the California EPA.  Not to be 

      confused with the U.S. EPA. 

                It is our position that the Proposed -- it 

      is our position that the Proposed EPA Standards 

      ignore the best available peer-reviewed science.  

      Specifically, EPA has overstated the uncertainty and 

      misrepresents the scientific consensus. 

                It is essential that EPA incorporate the 

      findings from the longterm exposure studies on fine 

      particles as well as many new studies on course 

      particles. 

                Also, EPA needs to consider the public 

      health costs of less stringent standards and the 

      delay in attainment, and I want to discuss each of 

      these three points very quickly. 

                In terms of overstating the uncertainty and 

      misrepresenting the scientific consensus, the Federal 

      Register Notice includes many statements not 

      supported by either the EPA staff paper or the CASAC 

      Review.  The Notice minimizes the multi-year, 

      independent Health Effects Institute reanalysis of 

      the American Cancer Society study and the Harvard 

      Sick City Study. 

                And indeed there's many contradictions as 

      well in the Federal Register Notice.  For example, in 

      one part of the document it indicates clearly that 

      education was not a confounder in the American Cancer 

      Society study.  A few pages later they say that EPA 

      cannot use the American Cancer Society to interpret 

      it too rigorously since there is potential 

      confounding or effect modification from education.  

      This is just one small example of many cases of 

      misrepresentation of the existing science. 

                EPA needs to incorporate the findings from 

      these newer longterm studies.  And I'm not going to 

      read this whole thing, but the Administrator does 

      indicate in the Notice that he will rely on evidence 

      provided by these longterm studies and consideration 

      of the ranges of exposures.  So let's talk a little 

      bit about the evidence and the ranges of exposures. 

                Over the last few years there have been 

      several new longterm studies looking at exposures to 

      fine particles on outcomes including mortality.  For 

      example, the American Cancer Society Study now that's 

      been reproduced for the L.A. region, studies that 

      look at disease specific endpoints. 

                There's a new study that just came out 

      yesterday on cardiovascular mortality that's an 

      update of the Six City Harvard study.  Many other 

      studies including one that indicates effects on the 

      carotid artery relating to PM2.5 exposure; and now 

      some animal exposures that clearly indicate 

      biological mechanism, such as the Sun Study and the 

      Mort Litman series of studies that show plaque 

      development and even mortality in animals exposed 

      after six months to current ambient levels of fine 

      particles. 

                What about the ranges of exposures that the 

      Administrator is talking about?  Well, again I'm not 

      going to read all of this, but you can see very 

      quickly that many of the ranges of the studies that 

      we're talking about here are at 15 and below 

      micrograms per cubic meter of PM2.5. 

                And, specifically, the newest study that 

      has come out, this Laden Study, the mean in their 

      follow-up, in their second stage of follow-up, is 

      actually 14.8.  You can see from these numbers that 

      there's no margin of safety from the current Proposed 

      15 microgram per cubic meter.  Instead we should be 

      going to something like 12. 

                By the way, these numbers are indicative of 

      the lower end of the range of the distribution.  I've 

      looked at the mean plus and minus one standard 

      deviation, which includes about 70 percent of the 

      data, so it's a lot of the data that are driving the 

      results.  The numbers I have here reflect the mean 

      minus one standard deviation. 

                More specifically to speak for a second 

      about this new Laden Study, the Harvard Six City 

      Study, I wanted to make three quick points. 

                First, it seems to indicate that more 

      recent exposure, exposure over the previous year or 

      two seems to be driving these mortality effects.  So 

      it's not exposures from 20 or 30 years ago. 

                The exposures from a year or two ago in 

      these studies had an average of under 15 micrograms 

      per cubic meter.  In addition, the monitor sites were 

      specifically selected to be representative of the 

      population.  And, finally, the study had very good 

      treatment for confounders. 

                EPA indicates that the longterm studies are 

      too uncertain to be relied on.  Again, I've indicated 

      there's many new studies that suggest lower 

      uncertainties.  And also I want them to remember the 

      National Academy opinion that the potential for 

      improving decisions through research and reducing 

      uncertainty must be balanced against the public 

      health costs incurred by delays. 

                So what are the costs?  The new studies 

      indicate that with better exposure measurements, that 

      the PM2.5 effects from longterm exposure on mortality 

      may be twice as high as those previously indicated. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Dr. Ostro, your time 

      is up. 

                DR. OSTRO:  Okay. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Can you wrap up, 

      please? 

                DR. OSTRO:  I'll just summarize by saying 

      based on the available science we urge that EPA 

      promulgate lower standards than those originally 

      proposed for both fine and course particles.  Thank 

      you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you, Dr. Ostro. 

       I hope you will ensure that the studies that you've 

      cited, the more recent studies, are in our record. 

                DR. OSTRO:  Right. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  If they're not 

      already there. 

                DR. OSTRO:  I will be, yes. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Okay. 

                DR. OSTRO:  And written comments. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you.  And one 

      question on the Laden Study, what area did that 

      cover, was it --  

                DR. OSTRO:  This is the Six Cities, of the 

      Harvard Six Cities Study, so it's most East Coast and 

      Midwest cities. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  All right.  Thank 

      you. 

                MS. BAUER:  And Dr. Lisa Chamberlain and I 

      will be sharing the next five-minute time period. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you, Dr. Ostro. 

                And you'll introduce yourself.  Okay, 

      great. 

                DR. CHAMBERLAIN:  So good morning.  My name 

      is Lisa Chamberlain, and I appreciate the opportunity 

      to present testimony on behalf of Packard Children's 

      Hospital at Stanford. 

                At Stanford I am a general pediatrician and 

      see patients in the underserved community of East 

      Palo Alto as well as serving on the East Palo Alto 

      Asthma Task Force. 

                I have been working for the past three 

      years in the East Palo Alto community to reduce the 

      unequal burden of childhood asthma that that 

      community bears. 

                I got involved with asthma prevention 

      because it is impossible not to.  Asthma is the 

      number one chronic illness in children and the rates 

      are continuing to rise. 

                As a pediatrician I know that children are 

      not just small adults.  First, they have entirely 

      different lungs.  Eighty percent of the most fragile 

      part of the lungs develop after birth.  And lung 

      development continues through adolescence.  The 

      damage that's sustained in childhood to these lungs 

      is irreversible. 

                Second, children lead different lives than 

      adults.  They spend more time outdoors and they are 

      therefore uniquely sensitive to damaging pollution.  

      In recent studies children most at risk to developing 

      asthma in polluted areas were those that were most 

      involved in sports because they were outside more 

      often. 

                Finally, children just breathe faster than 

      adults, thus they inhale more ambient air pollution. 

       Because of these reasons children are significantly 

      impacted by the decisions that will be made by the 

      EPA in the coming months. 

                I'd like to share with you briefly the 

      story of one of my patients that I'll call Juan.  The 

      first time I met Juan he was a thin, pale eight-year-

      old.  I remember being struck by how dark the circles 

      were under his eyes and how quiet and subdued he 

      seemed. 

                His mother had two concerns.  Number one, 

      he had a chronic cough for two years.  And, number 

      two, he couldn't seem to gain any weight.  He was 

      living with untreated asthma, which we were able to 

      get under control.  His cough disappeared. 

                I've seen this case over and over again, 

      but the reason that I remember and will never forget 

      him is how his appearance and demeanor changed once 

      he was better.  He gained weight.  The circles under 

      his eyes disappeared -- I think it's because he 

      wasn't up at night coughing.  His color and energy 

      level returned.  I honestly did a double take when I 

      saw him two months later. 

                He jumped onto the exam table and on exam 

      he was breathing at ease.  I also expect that his 

      school performance has improved significantly. 

                I'm glad that Juan is better, but I can't 

      help but wonder did he have to get sick in the first 

      place?  Was it the air pollution that tipped the 

      balance and made him develop asthma?  For Juan as an 

      individual I can't say, but from a population 

      perspective the studies and the science are 

      unambiguous.  Particulate matter air pollution makes 

      children sick and it can have lifelong consequences. 

                I concur with the medical and scientific 

      communities that standards should be set at the most 

      protective levels within the EPA's recommended 

      ranges. 

                Thank you for your commitment to protecting 

      the health of our nation's children. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you, Dr. 

      Chamberlain. 

                MS. BAUER:  And my name is Laurie Bauer.  

      I'm the District Nurse for the Ravenswood City School 

      District.  And our school district is located in East 

      Palo Alto, a small urban city approximately two and a 

      half miles in diameter, bordered on one side by 

      Highway 101 and in the path of a major commute route 

      from South Bay to the East Bay across the Dunbarton 

      Bridge. 

                Studies from our local health department 

      have shown that children in East Palo Alto are 

      hospitalized at a rate that is three times higher 

      than children in surrounding communities -- 

      hospitalized for asthma.  Between 10 and 15 percent 

      of our students have asthma.  And in one school it's 

      as high as 20 percent.  The school with the highest 

      report of asthma also happens to share the playground 

      wall with a Highway 101 retaining wall. 

                Our school district is not entirely unique. 

       Nationwide asthma is the most common chronic disease 

      in children and is the leading cause of school 

      absenteeism.  Asthma prevalence and morbidity 

      disproportionately affects children and young adults, 

      especially in poorer urban populations like ours. 

                Our school district's population is 

      composed of 70 percent Hispanic, 20 percent African 

      American, and 10 percent Pacific Islander children.  

      A study published in the Environmental Health 

      Prospectus found that mothers from these ethnic 

      groups experienced higher mean levels of air 

      pollution and were more than twice as likely to live 

      in the most polluted countries compared with white 

      mothers. 

                California children living in close 

      proximity to a freeway have been found to have 

      greater risk of developing asthma than children 

      living away from traffic-related pollution. 

                In closing, I want to tell you about one of 

      our students, a third-grade girl whose teacher 

      contacted me because she had been missing so much 

      school due to her asthma. 

                I thought I would find that she didn't have 

      insurance, didn't have adequate medical care, or 

      wasn't taking her medications.  I didn't find any of 

      these factors to be true. 

                I scheduled a home visit to see if I could 

      help identify some asthma triggers in her home.  What 

      I found was that Rosa lived right next to Highway 

      101.  And because so many people lived in the home, 

      Rosa's bed was in the front room next to the window 

      right next to the highway. 

                My advice to the family was to move away 

      from the highway for Rosa's health.  The sad thing is 

      that most likely any other house they could afford to 

      live in would be near similar environmental 

      pollutants. 

                I speak for the school nurses who can't be 

      here today and from Los Angeles and Central Valley to 

      say please consider our most vulnerable population 

      and those in need of our health, children like Rosa, 

      when determining our nation's air quality standards. 

                Thank you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you both very 

      much for your testimony. 

                Our next witnesses are Bridgette Tollstrup 

      and Gina Solomon. 

                MS. TOLLSTRUP:  Good morning.  My name is 

      Bridgette Tollstrup and I represent the Sacramento 

      Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.  I'm 

      speaking today to express our concerns regarding the 

      lack of sufficient federal funding associated with 

      EPA's proposed revisions to the Ambient Air 

      Monitoring Regulations. 

                EPA's proposed rule includes new monitoring 

      requirements associated with the revisions to the 

      Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality 

      Standards along with recommended changes resulting 

      from the more comprehensive National Ambient Air 

      Quality Monitoring Strategy. 

                The new provisions for the network of 

      course particulate matter monitors will require 

      substantial costs for site selection, installation, 

      operation, maintenance, and daily management.  

      Additional district costs will be incurred from other 

      proposed federal requirements, including the National 

      Air Multi Pollutant Monitoring Stations, increased 

      quality assurance provisions, and more formal and 

      frequent network assessment plans and reports.  Also 

      future resources will be needed for anticipated 

      national security-related air monitors. 

                EPA has assumed that state and local 

      agencies will be able to significantly reduce the 

      size of the current monitoring networks in order to 

      reach the approximate size of the federally mandated 

      networks.  EPA also assumes that these reductions in 

      the existing networks will generate the required 

      savings in order to free up funding for future 

      monitoring projects.  We do not believe these 

      reductions will materialize. 

                In reality state and local monitoring 

      networks collect data for multiple systems.  These 

      include monitoring for state ambient air quality 

      standards and public outreach for programs such as 

      EPA's Air Now Website.  Therefore it's unrealistic to 

      forecast reductions in the size of the current air 

      monitoring networks to the degree that EPA assumes 

      for needed cost savings. 

                The proposed federal 2007 budget cuts will 

      impact certain air monitoring programs and exacerbate 

      the funding shortfalls needed to address the PM 

      course monitoring requirements.  Furthermore, the 

      cost benefit effectiveness of the proposed PM course 

      monitoring network is questionable since many areas 

      of the country will be in compliance with the 

      standards due to population cutoffs and certain rural 

      source exemptions. 

                In conclusion, we request that EPA remove 

      the projected cost savings from the assumed 

      monitoring reductions, as they will not occur in 

      Sacramento and perhaps other areas of California.  As 

      a result, EPA needs to reexamine the monitoring 

      requirements in light of changing budget assumptions 

      and find new sources of funding to support the new 

      monitoring programs. 

                Thank you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you. 

                Did you have any questions, anyone have 

      questions?  I have one question which is I think 

      we're all facing declining budgets.  If in your 

      comments you have any thoughts about other ways that 

      we could address the funding problem or the -- you 

      know, our proposal on what to do with the monitoring 

      system, because we're obviously trying to streamline 

      and make the whole system more efficient.  And so 

      additional thoughts you have besides providing more 

      funding would be helpful.  Thank you. 

                MS. TOLLSTRUP:  Thank you. 

                MR. HANNON:  Lydia? 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Yeah. 

                MR. HANNON:  I had one question.  I wasn't 

      clear whether you were saying there would be no 

      savings or the degree of savings wouldn't be as much 

      as EPA projected? 

                MS. TOLLSTRUP:  Well, the degree of savings 

      surely won't be what's projected.  There may be some 

      ability to make the network more efficient. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you. 

                Yes, Ms. Solomon. 

                DR. SOLOMON:  Good morning.  My name is 

      Gina Solomon and I'm a Senior Scientist at the 

      Natural Resources Defense Council, also an Assistant 

      Clinical Professor of Medicine at U.C. San Francisco, 

      a new Assistant Director of the UCSF Pediatric 

      Environmental Health Specialty Unit. 

                And I intend to focus my comments today on 

      the Proposed 24-hour PM2.5 Standard.  This is really 

      the only aspect of EPA's proposal that might 

      initially appear to be more protective of health 

      because the proposal is to lower the standard from 65 

      to 35 micrograms per cubic meter. 

                Unfortunately both the scientific evidence 

      and the stark reality both demonstrate that the 

      proposal is utterly insufficient to protect human 

      health, and that's for at least three reasons. 

                First, the scientific studies on shortterm 

      exposures to PM2.5 show clear evidence of serious 

      adverse health effects, including death, at levels 

      well under 35. 

                Second, the CASAC, Clean Air Scientific 

      Advisory Committee, recommended a standard 

      significantly more stringent and only contemplated a 

      number this lax if the Annual Standard were 

      significantly strengthened, which EPA has not done. 

                And, third, the current standard appears 

      almost as if it were designed to result in no 

      significant practical changes in nonattainment area 

      designations.  Meaning that air quality for most 

      breathing Americans will not change in any meaningful 

      way if this proposal were finalized. 

                And the implications of failing to protect 

      the public from particulate matter are not frivolous. 

       Finalization of EPA's current proposal would be 

      measured in tens of thousands of premature deaths, 

      cases of lung cancer, mitochondrial infarction, 

      supportable hospitalizations, emergency room visits, 

      missed school days, and respiratory illnesses, along 

      with a difficult-to-quantify number of adverse birth 

      outcomes.  And these implications are extremely 

      severe and often fatal for the individuals who are 

      affected and they're clearly damaging for society as 

      a whole and also represent a drain on the healthcare 

      system that is substantial in any terms. 

                An adequately health-protective standard is 

      needed to mitigate these health problems.  And 

      unfortunately, according to EPA's own analysis, the 

      Proposed 24-Hour Standard of 35, ninety-eighth 

      percentile form, with the current Annual Standard 

      would result in shortterm mortality reductions that 

      range but are clearly well under 30 percent in most 

      of the cities analyzed. 

                And, in contrast, a health-protective 24-

      Hour Standard of, say, 25 micrograms per cubic meter 

      combined with an Annual Standard of 12 would result 

      in decreases in mortality in the range of 86 to 92 

      percent depending on the form of the standard. 

                This is especially important because 

      mortality isn't the only endpoint of concern.  It 

      represents only the tip of the iceberg. 

                I want to focus just for a moment on 

      cardiovascular events, such as mitochondrial 

      infarction and arrhymthias and mortality.  Research 

      indicates that particulate matter triggers abrupt 

      disruption of unstable arthro-sclerotic plaque.  This 

      event is likely the result of transient inflammation, 

      vasal constriction, hyper coagulability following 

      exposure to PM. 

                And a number of major studies have 

      identified increased cardiovascular events at PM2.5 

      levels well below the EPA Standards.  For example, 

      the Peters et al. Study of 772 patients in Boston 

      with mitochondrial infarction was published in 

      circulation in 2001 really needs to be part of this 

      discussion in a serious way, identified a significant 

      association between MI 24-hour PM between the fifth 

      and ninety-fifth percentiles of exposure in the 

      study, but the ninety-fifth percentile of exposure in 

      this study was 24.3 micrograms per cubic meter.  And 

      this exposure level was associated with the 62-

      percent increased risk of mitochondrial infarction. 

                So there's clear evidence a standard of 35 

      will not protect against this serious endpoint.  A 

      major new study of 11 and a half million MediCal 

      enrollees that was published in today's Journal of 

      the American Medical Association showed huge numbers 

      and estimated 11,000 daily hospitalizations as a 

      result of a 10-microgram-per-cubic-meter rise in fine 

      PM. 

                And historically as the health effects data 

      on PM has emerged the evidence has become stronger at 

      lower concentrations.  Each review of the NAAQS it's 

      become clear that the previous standard wasn't 

      sufficiently health protective.  This is again the 

      inescapable conclusion of this round of revisions. 

                So I urge you to heed both history and 

      science, and to make real improvements to the PM 

      Standards rather than effectively heading backwards 

      on perhaps the most important public health issue 

      we're facing today. 

                Thank you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you, Dr. 

      Solomon.  A quick question from me at least.  The 

      percentages you were citing in terms of improvement 

      in the risk-reduction percentages, were those from 

      the risk assessments done by EPA or are those other 

      risk analyses? 

                DR. SOLOMON:  The numbers that I was 

      actually citing for the -- initially about the 35 

      versus 25 --  

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Right. 

                DR. SOLOMON:  -- were from EPA's own staff 

      paper. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Okay. 

                DR. SOLOMON:  Yeah, EPA's analysis. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  And I did just want 

      to ask you.  You said that there were serious adverse 

      effects, health effects below 35, and in your written 

      comments or the written comments of your 

      organization, if you could elaborate on that that 

      would be very helpful as to what your thoughts are 

      there. 

                John. 

                MR. HANNON:  You mentioned various studies. 

       And just to flag that, it would be useful to make 

      sure you identify those studies in your comments, 

      whether they're the ones that are already covered in 

      the CASAC Review and the Criteria Document or the 

      staff paper, or are they subsequent to that. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you. 

                Sarah Jackson and Kevin Hamilton. 

                MR. HAMILTON:  Good morning. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Good morning. 

                MS. JACKSON:  Good morning.  My name is 

      Sarah Jackson.  I'm here on behalf of Theodore 

      Schade, who couldn't make it from Eastern California 

      because of the snow in the Sierra Mountains.  I'm 

      just going to read his statement. 

                "My name is Theodore Schade.  I am an Air 

      Pollution Control Officer for the Great Basin Unified 

      Air Pollution Control District which regulates air 

      quality in the Counties of Alpine, Mono, and Inyo in 

      Eastern California. 

                "The Great Basin Air Pollution Control 

      District has the dubious distinction of being home to 

      two of the largest single sources of course 

      particulate matter air pollution in the country:  The 

      dried beds of Owens and Mono Lakes.  We hope that 

      because of this you will give our comments more than 

      due consideration. 

                "during my testimony I will show some 

      timelapse video" -- which is not showing actually.  I 

      don't know why.  I'm going to keep reading, but it's 

      a good video.  "Every four second of this video" -- 

      if it ever comes up -- "corresponds to one hour of 

      clock time. 

                "The 24-hour PM10 concentrations in this 

      video range from 1300 to over 4,000 micrograms per 

      cubic meter."  There we go. 

                "One hundred years ago Owens and Mono Lakes 

      were two of the largest natural lakes in California. 

       They are both salt water terminal lakes:  Fresh 

      water flows into them, but only leaves through 

      evaporation.  The small amount of chemicals contained 

      in the fresh inflow waters are left behind as water 

      evaporates.  And over thousands of years these 

      chemicals have concentrated and made the lakes very 

      salty, more than twice as salty as sea water. 

                "However, due to water diversions from the 

      Eastern Sierra by the City of Los Angeles that began 

      in 1913, by the mid-1920s Owens Lake was essentially 

      dry and by 1980 Mono Lake was over 50 feet lower than 

      it had been in 1920.   

                "The City of Los Angeles' water diversions 

      caused the lake levels to drop and the sediments on 

      the beds of Owens and Mono Lakes became exposed and 

      subject to wind erosion.  The resulting dust storms 

      are the worst source of particulate matter air 

      pollution in the United States, both in terms of 

      maximum levels of 24-hour PM10 levels and in terms of 

      total tons emitted per year. 

                "The current 24-Hour Standard for PM10 is 

      150 micrograms per cubic meter.  Since 2000 the 

      highest annual 24-hour PM10 values at Mono Lake have 

      ranged from 987 to 10,500 micrograms per cubic meter 

      and from 5500 to 21,000 micrograms per cubic meter at 

      Owens Lake. 

                "These are exceedences of up to 140 times 

      the current federal standard.  The state 

      implementation plans for these two sources estimate 

      that prior to placement of dust controls, Mono Lake 

      emitted 5,700 tons of PM10 annually and Owens Lake 

      emitted over 80,000 tons per year.  Of the 100 

      highest dusty days that occurred in the entire United 

      States during the five-year period, 99 of those days 

      occurred at Owens and Mono Lakes. 

                "Owens and Mono Lakes are located in 

      Eastern California, which is sparsely populated.  An 

      estimated 40,000 people are affected by the PM10 

      emissions, including the residents of five federally-

      recognized Indian tribes.  However, because the dust 

      from the lakebeds is generally course or greater than 

      1.5 microns in size and the exposed population is 

      less than 100,000, the U.S. EPA's Proposed Course PM 

      Standard would simply redefine the extreme dust 

      emissions from Owens and Mono Lakes as not air 

      pollution.  And the Federal PM Standards would not 

      provide the protection intended by Congress as well 

      as the protection that 40,000 people deserve. 

                "The Great Basin requests that the EPA 

      amend the proposed rule to require course PM controls 

      in the Owens Valley and Mono Basin nonattainment 

      areas. 

                "EPA argues in the proposed rule that there 

      is an intrinsic difference between the course dust 

      created in cities with more than 100,000 people and 

      the dust generated in areas with less then 100,000 

      people.  That may very well be true even if the EPA's 

      distinction between urban and rural is completely 

      disconnected from the mechanisms that cause dust.  

      However it is certainly true that there are 

      differences in the chemical compositions of course 

      dust generated in different rural areas. 

                "Because Owens and Mono Lakes are both salt 

      water terminal lake basins, the chemicals naturally 

      found in their sediments are concentrated many times 

      above the natural levels found in upland areas.  For 

      example, the PM10 generated at Owens Lake contains 

      naturally elevated levels of the metals arsenic, 

      cadmium, and nickel.  And it contains extremely 

      highly levels of sulfate salts. 

                "These are precisely the type of particles 

      that the EPA contends can influence health responses. 

       They are also the type of particles that the 

      proposed rule will protect urban residents from.  A 

      rural dust is every bit as toxic and possibly even 

      more toxic than urban dust.  Yet under the U.S. EPA's 

      Standards, because the dust does not directly affect 

      more than 100,000 people and is not caused by urban 

      processes, we would be denied protection provided by 

      the Clean Air Act to more populated areas. 

                "The proposed rule must be amended to 

      require course PM controls in the Owens Valley and 

      Mono Basin nonattainment areas as well as in rural 

      communities threatened by toxic dust regardless of 

      the source. 

                "Thank you for this opportunity to comment 

      on this important issue.  Sincerely, Theodore D. 

      Schade." 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you, Ms. 

      Jackson, and thank you to Ms. Schade.  And tell him 

      we're sorry he couldn't be here. 

                And just please ask him to document the 

      statements about the particles, you know, what they 

      contain. 

                MS. JACKSON:  I submitted his full comment 

      letter. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Great.  Thank you.  

      Thank you. 

                Let me check.  Other questions? 

                MR. HANLEY:  I was going to ask on that 

      note, so do you actually have the chemical species 

      data, not just that it's elevated for the metals, but 

      do you know if you have the metals -- and I'm sure 

      somebody does, but to make sure that it gets in the 

      docket so it can be considered? 

                MS. JACKSON:  Okay.  I don't think that he 

      submitted that with his letter, but I'll pass that 

      on. 

                MR. HANLEY:  Yeah, I would encourage you to 

      do that. 

                MS. JACKSON:  Okay. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you. 

                Mr. Hamilton. 

                MR. HAMILTON:  Hi.  I'm Kevin Hamilton.  

      I'm a Registered Respiratory Therapist and for the 

      past 16 years Director of the Asthma Program at 

      Community Medical Centers in Fresno, California, 

      serving the medically underserved rural and urban 

      population of Fresno County. 

                In listening to your discussion regarding 

      the budget effect on this particular process and what 

      you might do to save money, I was reminded of our own 

      internal struggles with budget and how different 

      sections of the hospital will often look at 

      themselves; and thought the clinic system is 

      individual entities without considering the whole, as 

      our pharmacy continued to try to cut its access to 

      certain medications to save costs at the expense of 

      having our emergency room visits increase because 

      patients were not obtaining their medicine because 

      they couldn't afford it. 

                And that kind of planning unfortunately 

      creates a very negative outcome to the whole entity. 

       In your case, the government as a whole, and the 

      healthcare system that's rapidly collapsing under its 

      cost expansion and failure to be budgeted adequately. 

                This whole concept of creating two areas of 

      regulation, one outside of the urban and core and one 

      within it is ludicrous in the extreme.  Having taken 

      care of patients now for 28 years of my adult life 

      and most of them coming from both areas that are in 

      concern here, I can tell you that these areas 

      significantly overlap. 

                In one week in Firebaugh, a small community 

      about 45 miles west of Fresno, which would fall under 

      your rural classification, I might instruct my 

      patients that almond hulling was about to begin, 

      which will generate a significant amount of air 

      toxins that will trigger the exacerbation of most of 

      my patients' COPD and asthma, and bring them into the 

      hospital emergency room. 

                Since most of them are either migrant 

      workers or folks who are uninsured, agriculture 

      providers who are, people don't know, but many 

      farmers are not insured, we have to recommend 

      precautionary tactics for these folks to protect 

      themselves and we've been very successful with that 

      overall. 

                However, this doesn't mean that they don't 

      need to be protected and that we don't need to 

      understand the gases and the dust that are affecting 

      them and its composition. 

                I'm very concerned that we would consider 

      knowing the data that we do, that the California 

      Regional Particulate Transport Study, CRPTS, that we 

      understand very well know that particulate matter may 

      be ascended into the atmosphere into its source 100 

      to 300 kilometers and travel as far as 100k on any 

      given day in winds of only three to five miles an 

      hour.  The executive summary of that work will be 

      released on May the 18th here in California.  And I'm 

      sure that through the High Desert Institute this 

      panel can access that data early on from Dr. John 

      Watson, who I don't believe could be here today to 

      testify. 

                We're very, very concerned that this would 

      create two classes of citizenship and in not only the 

      battle for air quality but the battle for the health 

      of our patients we would be significantly 

      disadvantaged.  The idea that transport actually 

      doesn't occur in fine and course particulate matter 

      again has been disproved time and time again since 

      the total TSP studies in the mid-'70s showed that 

      fire damage and the residual smoke and soot from 

      forest fires in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania could 

      actually affect infant mortality rates and live birth 

      rates in Pennsylvania and New Jersey at that time.  

      And the government's own economist did those studies, 

      looking at the cost to healthcare. 

                And many people don't realize how far back 

      the literature goes looking at respirable particles, 

      but we've known since the 1930s that particles in the 

      2- to 10-micron range were certainly respirable.  And 

      these course PM particles were our initial bad actors 

      in healthcare and the ones that we were all taught to 

      have our patients avoid no matter the cost. 

                The fact that we've learned much more in 

      the last 10 years to suggest that PM2.5 and fine and 

      ultrafine, even PM.25 are very dangerous actors, and 

      we need to be paying attention to those, certainly 

      doesn't negate the prior literature that suggests and 

      in fact proves that the courser PM is extremely 

      dangerous to human health and continues to be. 

                The primary particles that occur from much 

      of cigarette smoking is, of course, coarse PM as well 

      as aerosols.  The two come mixed together.  And the 

      same thing is occurring in the residual pollution 

      from agriculture, mining, and the oil industry in our 

      rural areas of the country. 

                To suggest that an area like Firebaugh or 

      Rolinda or Biola would -- not all these small 

      communities in the Valley, even larger communities 

      like Tulare, a population of 48,000 people, or 

      Visalia, a population of 86,000, when do we hit this 

      threshold of 100,000 or 500 people per square mile in 

      density?  This is ludicrous in the extreme. 

                To even suggest that there is a fine line 

      that we could draw that would say:  At this point the 

      people's health will not be affected and at this 

      point they will.  At this point I won't have 45 

      patients a day coming through the waiting room and at 

      this point I'll only have 20 patients coming through 

      a day -- I can't make those kind of distinctions and 

      the weather and the air pollution doesn't do that for 

      me.  So I'm very concerned about any regulation that 

      would try to create this artificial distinction. 

                And I think I'll finish earlier.  I thank 

      you very much for allowing me to comment today. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you both.  

      Thank you very much.  And to the extent that you have 

      any specific information you can offer us about the 

      communities and the kinds of health, the things you 

      were talking about that you could submit in your 

      written testimony, --  

                MR. HAMILTON:  Sure. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  -- that would be 

      helpful. 

                MR. HAMILTON:  Absolutely.  Thank you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Okay.  Thank you. 

                Any other questions?  Okay. 

                Jesse Marquez and Bonnie Holmes-Gen.  Have 

      I got that right? 

                Is Bonnie Holmes-Gen here? 

                MR. MARQUEZ:  She is, but she's in the 

      other room downstairs. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Okay. 

                MR. MARQUEZ:  There's a press conference 

      going on. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  I'm sorry? 

                MS. [SPEAKER]:  She's coming. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  She's coming?  Okay, 

      great.  Thank you. 

                Mr. Marquez. 

                MR. MARQUEZ:  My name is Jesse Marquez.  

      I'm Executive Director of the Coalition for a Safe 

      Environment.  We are headquartered in the community 

      of Wilmington in the City of Los Angeles.  The City 

      of Los Angeles is very large and in fact there is 

      actually over 30 different individual communities. 

                We have membership in 21 cities in Los 

      Angeles County and five additional cities throughout 

      the state of California. 

                The Coalition for a Safe Environment is 

      primarily involved in addressing air pollution 

      impacts on the environment and public health.  

      Wilmington is 87 percent Hispanic and over 95 percent 

      minority, low-income people of color. 

                Wilmington is only four miles square.  The 

      Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor communities are 

      over 70 percent people of color.  In the community of 

      Wilmington and near the community of Wilmington are 

      located the following industries.  Many people do not 

      realize that Wilmington may not be a well known name, 

      but what people don't realize is that sometimes 

      communities bear other responsibilities and other 

      industries. 

                And to give you an example, the Port of Los 

      Angeles is located in Wilmington.  Seventy percent of 

      the Port of L.A. is in Wilmington, 30 percent is in 

      our neighboring community of San Pedro. 

                What most people do not know is that the 

      Port of L.A. is the number one stationary source of 

      air pollution in Southern California.  Not L.A., not 

      the region, but the other entire Southern California. 

                The Port of Long Beach is the second 

      largest stationary source of air pollution in 

      Southern California and borders Wilmington on the 

      southeast.  There are over 45,000 diesel truck trips 

      a day in and out of the two ports that border my 

      community.  And this is increasing every year at the 

      rate of 10 percent.  By the year 2020 it is estimated 

      there will be 121,000 diesel truck trips a day going 

      out through the Ports.  

                A Shell oil refinery, a ConocoPhillips oil 

      refinery, and a Valero oil refinery are located in 

      Wilmington.  A BP Arco oil refinery borders 

      Wilmington to the north in the City of Carson. 

                Within five miles of Wilmington is a 

      Chevron oil refinery in Torrance.  And within 10 

      miles is a Chevron oil refinery in the City of El 

      Segundo.  Kinder Morgan fuel storage tank facility 

      borders Wilmington to the north in the City of 

      Carson. 

                These seven petroleum industry companies 

      are the third largest air pollution source in 

      Southern California.  In an inventory taken in 2004, 

      I have some of the data on that.  Now I know today we 

      are here to discuss PM, so I am going to mention the 

      PM data.  But when we're talking about our community 

      we're talking about an Environmental Justice 

      community.  And you have to look at the cumulative 

      impact:  What is the particulate matter impact in 

      addition to some of the other toxics that we are also 

      exposed to. 

                So in the case of the seven refineries we 

      are faced with over 1,361 tons per year of PM alone; 

      7,974 tons of CO2; 5,100 tons of SOx; 4,400 tons of 

      NOx; and over 2,800 tons of your reactive organic 

      compounds or your VOCs. 

                The Alameda Quarter Project is in 

      Wilmington.  There is an off Port of Los Angeles 

      fumigation facility in Wilmington.  There are over 30 

      off-Port container storage tank facilities in 

      Wilmington.  There is an B&SF Railroad Watson 

      railyard in Wilmington. 

                The ICTF Intermodal facility that borders 

      Wilmington and Long Beach.  There are two oil 

      refinery asphalt companies in Wilmington.  There is 

      one asphalt roofing company in Wilmington.  There is 

      a cement company in Wilmington. 

                There is an incinerator at the Port of Long 

      Beach that borders Wilmington.  There are over 600 

      operating and abandoned oil wells in Wilmington.  The 

      Los Angeles I-110 freeway borders Wilmington on the 

      west, the Long Beach 710 to the east, the San Diego 

      Freeway to the north. 

                There are three landfill Superfund sites.  

      And there are at least another 30 toxic air pollution 

      sources in my community. 

                So not only does it affect my community of 

      Wilmington, it spreads throughout the region.  And 

      these are the things that we have to realize. 

                So what do you think is the health status 

      of our community?  We have never had a good day, a 

      good week, a good month, or a good year in the past 

      25 years because there has been continual, nonstop 

      industrial growth. 

                Port and the goods-movement, a growth 

      industry, is predicted to triple in the next 15 to 20 

      years.  So if it's tripling in the next 15 to 20 

      years when are we going to have a good clean day?  We 

      never will, and we never have. 

                According to the South Coast Air Quality 

      Management District May 2 study, Wilmington, San 

      Pedro, and West Long Beach are rated number one for 

      the highest rate of cancer due to diesel fuel 

      emissions.  Our local San Pedro Medical Doctor John 

      Miller calls our communities the "diesel death zone." 

                According to a recently-released report by 

      the California Air Resources Board over 750 people 

      are dying every year right now. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Mr. Marquez, your 

      time is up. 

                MR. MARQUEZ:  Okay. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Do you want to try to 

      wrap up? 

                MR. MARQUEZ:  Yes.  I just want to thank 

      you for this opportunity.  What I have attached to 

      your paperwork are actually color photos.  So I would 

      like you to take your time with this.  There are two 

      photos of the ConocoPhillips refinery, two of the 

      Shell, and two of the Valero as examples of the PM, 

      particulate matter that we are exposed to every week, 

      every month.  Thank you. 

                MR. HANNON:  Thank you. 

                MS. STONE:  Thank you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you very much. 

                Ms. Holmes-Gen.  That mic, yeah.  And if 

      you can, actually both of them.  One's for the court 

      reporter. 

                MS. HOLMES-GEN:  Okay. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you. 

                MS. HOLMES-GEN:  Bonnie Holmes-Gen, 

      American Lung Association of California. 

                For many years the American Lung 

      Association has taken a very strong interest in the 

      development of national ambient air quality standards 

      because of our concern over the respiratory health of 

      individuals with asthma and other lung diseases. 

                In our experience this has been a very 

      comprehensive review of data, but the results are 

      extremely disappointing.  The Clean Air Act requires 

      that EPA pick a new particulate matter standard that 

      protects public health, that fully protects public 

      health, including vulnerable groups. 

                The only thing that EPA is allowed to 

      consider when setting a standard is how it protects 

      public health.  Despite this extremely clear 

      direction from the Federal Clean Air Act, despite a 

      thorough review process, and despite strong 

      recommendations from the Independent Scientific 

      Panel, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, 

      and its own staff, the EPA Administrator proposed a 

      standard that's much higher than the standard 

      recommended by these scientists and leaves millions 

      of Americans unprotected. 

                It is unprecedented for an Administration 

      to reject the recommendations of its own independent 

      Clean Air Science advisors to strengthen both the 

      Annual and Daily Standards.  And this aspect is 

      extremely troubling. 

                The federal EPA has never before picked a 

      standard that allowed more pollution than the Clean 

      Air Scientific Advisory Committee recommended. 

                Our view is that the Proposed Standard is a 

      token reduction, that increases the number of people 

      protected by only 15 percent, from 56 million to 65 

      million, when three times as many individuals live in 

      areas with particulate matter at levels that 

      adversely affect public health, that result in asthma 

      attacks, hospital visits, emergency room visits, 

      premature deaths and other adverse effects. 

                The California Air Resources Board has 

      already led the way in adopting a particulate matter 

      standard at the health-protective level of 12 

      micrograms per cubic meter.  This was in 2002.  And 

      this is the standard level that we advocated for and 

      that hundreds of scientists and leading scientists 

      and medical professionals around the country 

      advocated for before the Environmental Protection 

      Agency.  And we strongly believe that the EPA should 

      follow California's lead. 

                It's very hard to understand how the EPA 

      could ignore the groundbreaking work that was done in 

      California in developing our state standards.  And 

      this work was done four years ago, and the standards 

      were developed in 2002.  And I think you've heard 

      some testimony from our Office of Environmental 

      Health Hazard Assessment on many of the studies that 

      formed the basis of our California standard. 

                It's hard to understand how EPA could come 

      to a different conclusion than California scientists, 

      since there's been even more studies confirming the 

      danger of particle pollution and the unique 

      vulnerability of children, whose lungs are still 

      growing and developing. 

                The more we learn about particle pollution 

      the more we understand how dangerous it is.  New 

      studies are coming out every day.  In fact there is a 

      new study published in the March 8th issue of the 

      Journal of the American Medical Association that 

      compares -- and this study compared air pollution 

      levels to hospitalizations occurring at the same 

      time.  Very, very strong evidence in this new study 

      just published today that daily hospital admission 

      rates for cardiovascular disease and respiratory 

      diseases are much higher when the fine particle 

      levels are increased from one day to the next. 

                This is a very significant study because 

      it's a very large study that reviewed records of more 

      than 11 and a half million Americans who are 65 years 

      and older.  And again confirms the tremendous threat 

      that particle pollution poses to everyone but 

      especially to elderly individuals and those that are 

      especially sensitive. 

                The statute, the Federal Clean Air Act is 

      very clear.  It tells us that the EPA shall adopt a 

      standard for particle pollution that is fully 

      protective of public health with an adequate margin 

      of safety.  Incredibly, the federal EPA proposal for 

      new standards fails this requirement. 

                The level proposed is not fully protective 

      of public health, does not fully protect children and 

      other individuals that are especially sensitive, and 

      there is no margin of safety. 

                The American Lung Association strong 

      supports the most protective standards considered by 

      the EPA staff and scientific advisors.  We support an 

      annual standard no higher than 12 micrograms per 

      cubic meter and a 24-hour standard of 25 micrograms 

      per cubic meter.  Furthermore, EPA should change the 

      form of the standard to the ninety-ninth percentile. 

                In closing, --  

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you. 

                MS. HOLMES-GEN:  -- we implore you to set 

      standards that truly protect public health, 

      especially the most vulnerable like our children.  

      And we are leaving you with some charts that show 

      that if you adopted standards according to our 

      recommendation, there would be 86 percent fewer 

      deaths across the country.  And that millions more 

      Americans would be protected if you adopted the 

      standards according to our recommendations. 

                And we're also leaving you with a petition: 

       99 doctors, nurses, health professionals, 

      respiratory therapists, other medical professionals 

      from around classify have signed this petition saying 

      the science is overwhelmingly clear that your 

      proposal does not protect public health.  And we will 

      leave that with you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Okay.  Thank you very 

      much.  If you would please leave that with our 

      registration desk. 

                Thank you, Mr. Marquez, for taking the time 

      to come. 

                And thank you, Ms. Holmes-Gen. 

                Dr. John Balmes and Tom Politeo.  Did I get 

      that right?  Sorry. 

                Good morning. 

                DR. BALMES:  Do you want me to go ahead? 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Yes, when you're 

      ready. 

                DR. BALMES:  I am John Balmes, M.D.  I'm a 

      Professor of Medicine at the University of California 

      San Francisco and Professor of Environmental Sciences 

      at the University of California Berkeley School of 

      Public Health. 

                I'm an attending physician in pulmonary and 

      critical care medicine at San Francisco General 

      Hospital and I conduct research on the health effects 

      of air pollution. 

                I'm here today presenting comments on 

      behalf of the American Thoracic Society. 

                The American Thoracic Society is a medical 

      professional society with over 13,000 members who are 

      dedicated to the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, 

      and research of respiratory illnesses.  The American 

      Thoracic Society is deeply concerned about air 

      pollution, both as underlying cause of respiratory 

      illness and its ability to cause exacerbations of 

      preexisting respiratory illness. 

                The American Thoracic Society will submit 

      extensive formal comments on several issues in the 

      EPA Proposed Rule.  However, today I will limit my 

      comments to issues surrounding the Proposed Standard 

      for Course Thoracic Particles. 

                This standard is precedent-setting because 

      by focusing on urban areas only it assumes that 

      sources of particles outside of urban areas do not 

      convey any increased risk to health.  The ATS is 

      extremely disappointed that EPA has proposed that the 

      Course Thoracic Particle Standard apply to urban 

      areas only.  We see this as a major flaw in the 

      proposed rule. 

                It is true that there is less research on 

      the health effects of exposure to Course Thoracic 

      Particles than on those of fine particles.  However, 

      there is no research that shows rural particles are 

      safe.  I repeat:  There is no research showing that 

      rural particles are safe. 

                In fact the limited available evidence 

      seems to show adverse health effects from exposure to 

      course particles found in more rural areas.  For 

      example, work done here in California by Cal EPA 

      investigators using data for a 10-year period from 

      the rural Coachella Valley showed a greater 

      cardiovascular mortality risk for course particles 

      than for fine particles. 

                In addition, a series of toxicologic 

      studies by Becker and colleagues, some of which have 

      been supported by the U.S. EPA, have demonstrated 

      greater cytotoxicity -- that's damage to cells -- and 

      proinflammatory effects of course particles than fine 

      particles. 

                We also note that PM10 in rural areas will 

      contain particles from urban type sources:  Diesel 

      engines, highways, power plants, and other industrial 

      facilities.  Limited application of the Daily Course 

      Particle Standard based on geographic population 

      areas is not supported by the available scientific 

      data and will not protect public health. 

                Recommendation:  The EPA Daily Course 

      Thoracic Particle Standard should apply to both urban 

      and rural areas. 

                The ATS is also deeply concerned about the 

      EPA proposal to stop monitoring course thoracic 

      particles in rural areas.  The EPA is correct in 

      recognizing there are limited data on the health 

      effects of course particles in rural areas.  However, 

      the appropriate response to limited data is not to 

      stop monitoring all together.  Rather than addressing 

      the need for more data, suspending monitoring of 

      course particles would ensure that there will be 

      continuing lack of data on the health effects of 

      exposure to course particles in rural areas. 

                EPA's proposal to suspend monitoring in 

      rural areas is the equivalent of the ostrich burying 

      its head in the sand. 

                Recommendation:  EPA should continue 

      monitoring of course particle exposures in rural 

      areas. 

                The ATS is equally concerned about the 

      proposed exemptions of particles emitted from mining 

      and agricultural facilities.  Again there is no 

      scientific basis for saying these particles are safe 

      to breathe.  In fact, mine-generated dust would be 

      expected to contain relatively high concentrations of 

      silica and metals that are known to be toxic. 

                In addition, mines and agriculture both use 

      diesel equipment that generates toxic particles.  

      Excluding mining and agricultural source particles 

      may be good for business, but is not good for public 

      health. 

                Recommendation:  EPA should regulate all 

      course thoracic particles regardless of source. 

                The American Thoracic Society strongly 

      believes that federal air quality standards must be 

      based on a careful review of the available scientific 

      knowledge.  The role of the Clean Air Scientific 

      Advisory Committee and the Air Quality Standard-

      Setting process is critical to ensure such a careful 

      review. 

                In the case of the proposed PM standard, 

      the EPA Administrator has chosen to reject the 

      recommendations of CASAC on the basis that the 

      committee did not adequately review the available 

      scientific data. 

                While the ATS respects the authority of the 

      Administrator, to reject the advice of CASAC for 

      policy reasons, it is a dangerous precedent to do so 

      by impugning the integrity of the committee's 

      scientific review. 

                The review of scientific knowledge 

      conducted through the Clean Air Act process that 

      leads to a CASAC recommendation is the most careful 

      and deliberative review conducted in the field of 

      environmental health.  CASAC members are highly-

      qualified scientists who are thoroughly vetted.  They 

      are the best people that judge the state of 

      scientific knowledge on the health effects of a 

      criteria pollutant. 

                For an EPA Administrator to cast aspersions 

      on the quality of CASAC's scientific judgment is akin 

      to stating that there is insufficient scientific 

      evidence of global warming. 

                Recommendation:  EPA should accept the 

      recommendations of its own highly qualified 

      Scientific Advisory Committee. 

                On behalf of the entire membership of the 

      American Thoracic Society I would like to thank the 

      EPA staff for the opportunity to comment on this 

      important rule. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you very much, 

      Dr. Balmes. 

                Any questions? 

                MR. HANNON:  Dr. Balmes, you mentioned 

      toxicology studies? 

                DR. BALMES:  Yes. 

                MR. HANNON:  And are those in the record?  

      Have those been identified?  Were they part of the 

      CASAC Review already?  Are they -- is it additional 

      or new studies or --  

                DR. BALMES:  I'd have to check to see if 

      they're in the CASAC Review.  I'd be amazed if they 

      weren't. 

                MR. HANNON:  I assume they may be as well. 

       I just didn't know.  The Coachella Valley clearly 

      is, but I just wanted to be clear.  It's very helpful 

      for us to have identified any studies that you're 

      referring to --  

                DR. BALMES:  I can supply a specific list 

      of those references and will be happy to do so. 

                MR. HANNON:  You mentioned diesel emissions 

      a couple of times.  Are you talking about course PM 

      from diesel? 

                DR. BALMES:  Well, the course PM in a rural 

      area where there's mining or agriculture will contain 

      constituents for diesel exhaust. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Understood. 

                I will not attempt to mangle your name 

      again, so I will let you introduce yourself. 

                MR. POLITEO:  That's okay.  My name is Tom 

      Politeo. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Politeo.  Thank you. 

                MR. POLITEO:  Okay.  I live in San Pedro 

      near the L.A. Harbor and I am Co-Chair of the Sierra 

      Club Harbor Vision Task Force which is an entity of 

      the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club. 

                Sometimes when it comes to controlling air 

      pollution we hear about how much it may cost.  And 

      one of the questions we need to ask ourselves of 

      course is how much it costs not to. 

                And you've been hearing a lot of testimony 

      here today about some of the health impacts.  There 

      are also cultural impacts and impacts in terms of 

      human hope if you live in a community which doesn't 

      seem to have any opportunity to have its air cleaned 

      up for at least another generation, and a community 

      which also suffering other issues of blight. 

                And that would describe communities in and 

      near all the goods-movement quarters in the state of 

      California and in many other parts of the nation. 

                In roughly 2000 the Port of Los Angeles 

      published a study indicating that they estimated the 

      economic benefit to the region per container moved 

      through the Port was about $100. 

                Based on Meets 2 data (phonetic) from that 

      same time and subsequent estimates of how much air 

      pollution in Southern California may cost, the air 

      pollution cost per container in terms of public 

      health, lost work and productivity.  Now those 

      estimates range very widely because nobody's really 

      sat down and done a very thorough study, but they 

      range in the 50 to $500 area.  And they've gone up as 

      new studies have shown that there may be even further 

      effects that were not known before. 

                Now that's not enough to say that the Port 

      is operating in a negative cost-benefit ratio to the 

      region, but it is enough to suggest that there ought 

      to be more careful study done of what this equation 

      is and what it really means and more serious 

      attention paid to finding adequate solutions. 

                Some people here have talked about how air 

      particles travel and various studies.  If you live in 

      Southern California all you need to do is wait for a 

      forest fire to find out how they travel and then look 

      at some of the satellite photos that come out that 

      show how the particular plumes travel across the L.A. 

      Basin from the mountains that ring it to the north 

      and east. 

                And you can also see how fickle those 

      plumes are.  If you look at the satellite photos you 

      can, for example, during some of the recent fires we 

      had heavy smoke in San Pedro and Wilmington, which 

      was sufficient to obscure visibility.  But if you 

      move over to El Segundo, which is not far away at 

      all, it'd be perfectly clear.  Then you move a little 

      further on, and it may be smokey again. 

                And this suggests that as we're looking at 

      particulate pollution we need to be considering a 

      variety of atmospheric conditions and where are 

      monitoring stations are placed, because we could be 

      in a position of monitoring for air pollution and not 

      know that a couple miles over there's a serious 

      problem, but because of atmospheric quirks they're 

      not showing up in another location not far by. 

                It's ironic that the largest polluting 

      sources in Southern California, which are the Ports 

      of L.A. and Long Beach, don't have an official U.S. 

      Government Air Quality Monitoring Site in or adjacent 

      to them monitoring the particulate pollution and 

      other forms of pollution that are affecting the 

      nearby communities.  The nearest monitoring site is 

      about seven miles outside of the Ports and a couple 

      of miles from the Long Beach Freeway, which can be 

      far enough way with respect to wind patterns to miss 

      significant events. 

                One of the other things to consider as 

      you're looking at these studies and one of the 

      reasons we recommend and hope that you will do the 

      most stringent standards you possibly can is that 

      there are known to be concentrations of particulate 

      matter particularly close to sources.  It doesn't 

      matter whether it's a dry lakebed in the Owens Valley 

      or a warehousing district in the Inland Empire or 

      facilities down in the Port of Los Angeles, those 

      areas tend to concentrate particulate pollution and 

      it tends to drop off very quickly as you move away 

      from those areas. 

                The way it subsequently scatters from 

      atmospheric effects can bedevil you, but we need to 

      make sure that in these areas, and some of these are 

      Environmental Justice communities, that the way we're 

      approaching monitoring and measuring and setting 

      standards can ensure that all people, particularly in 

      areas that are most likely to be seriously affected, 

      have the opportunity, in fact their right exercised 

      to be able to breathe clean area. 

                Now I'd like to conclude here -- I see my 

      time is running up -- with an invitation.  Everything 

      that we're talking about here is pretty abstract.  

      And if you were to come down -- being glad to invite 

      you all in some fashion -- and arrange it with local 

      officials, like the AQMD, for you to come down and 

      visit our area and to visit some of the people who 

      are affected by the air pollution and these issues, 

      the visit some of the doctors down in that area and 

      see what happens.  With a little luck you'll actually 

      come on a clean air day and see just how nice our 

      region can be and just have to listen to the stories 

      of how bad it can be at other times. 

                Thank you very much for your time. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you very much, 

      Mr. Politeo. 

                Any questions? 

                MR. HANLEY:  I know you brought up some 

      really good, interesting points regarding the use of, 

      I guess, satellite data and so forth.  And then you 

      discussed the idea of monitoring locations.  

                And I'm wondering it would be interesting 

      to know, it's hard to tell from your comments whether 

      you were suggesting that it's inappropriate to use 

      the remote satellite information as a replacement for 

      a local monitoring station or you were suggesting 

      that they do needed complement them, and I just want 

      to understand that. 

                MR. POLITEO:  Yeah.  I don't know that 

      satellite -- I don't know that there's technology to 

      use satellite information to be able to do 

      monitoring.  The satellite images I talk about are 

      from the smoke plumes from fires which are rare 

      events.  And they provide the opportunity to have 

      some very good markers that show how a particulate or 

      a material can travel in a medium, almost as if you 

      had the opportunity to have red dye put into a 

      loquacious liquid to see how it disburses. 

                So that can show you some of the quirks.  

      And understanding and realizing those would give you 

      impetus to saying that on the ground we need to make 

      sure that our monitoring network is capable of 

      detecting the kinds of quirks that we would have seen 

      illustrated by these satellite images. 

                So a point source, for example, that might 

      be near where the fires are may have a particulate 

      plume that follows the course of these fires, 

      depending on the way the wind is blowing, that would 

      parallel a course of fire and impact a particular 

      community that might not be anywhere near a 

      monitoring area.  Whereas a monitoring station might 

      just happen to be a few miles over in a community 

      that because of prevailing wind patterns is not so 

      frequently affected and we may be missing the effects 

      of it.  So that's how I would suggest that those 

      would interplay. 

                MR. HANLEY:  Thank you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  And just one more 

      question for Dr. Balmes, a request.  You talked about 

      the fact that rural particles are contaminated by 

      other sources that make them unhealthy.  Any 

      information you have that you can provide and then 

      any specifics, any studies, anything that can support 

      those statements would be helpful for the record. 

                DR. BALMES:  Okay. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you.  Thank you 

      very much. 

                Dr. Anthony Gerber and Jonah Ramirez.  

      Welcome.  You're John, right?  Thanks for coming.  

      We'll start with Dr. Gerber. 

                DR. GERBER:  Okay.  My name is Anthony 

      Gerber.  I'm a pulmonoligst and I'm an Assistant 

      Professor of Medicine at the University of California 

      San Francisco.  And I'm representing the California 

      Thoracic Society, also known as CTS, and the American 

      Lung Association of California, which I'll refer to 

      as ALAC.  

                In my clinical practice at the San 

      Francisco VA Medical Center I was privileged to 

      provide pulmonary care for veterans from a number of 

      eras ranging from World War II to the First Gulf War. 

       Many of these veterans with chronic lung disease 

      noticed worsening of their symptoms coincide with 

      higher levels of particulate pollution.  On bad days 

      these patients are often unable to leave their home. 

                Physicians approach clinical problems by 

      developing a differential diagnosis that explains a 

      certain condition.  I've tried to apply the same 

      principle to understand why the EPA has recommended 

      only marginally higher standards for particulate 

      matter pollution. 

                Assuming that the process to define clean 

      air standards occurs in a fashion consistent with 

      faithful stewardship of the general welfare there are 

      only two possible explanations for why the EPA has 

      proposed the inadequate standards that we are 

      discussing today. 

                The first explanation is that there are 

      doubts about the science.  However the 

      Administration's own independent science advisors on 

      clean air issues and the EPA Staff Scientists 

      concluded that adverse health effects occur at levels 

      way below the current Fine Particle Standards. 

                Epidemiologic study after study has reached 

      the conclusion that both fine and course particulate 

      matter pollution causes disease.  Unfortunately there 

      is a long traditional of specious criticism of 

      epidemiologic proof of cause and effect in regards to 

      human disease.  Indeed tobacco companies argued for 

      years that the epidemiology showing that cigarettes 

      cause cancer was inadequate. 

                In the case of particulate matter 

      pollution, as is also the case with tobacco, 

      additional molecular mechanistic evidence buttresses 

      the conclusion that particulate matter pollution 

      causes human disease.  For example, numerous studies 

      have shown that particulate matter can induce the 

      synthesis of interluekin-8, a key lung inflammatory 

      protein. 

                The key inflammatory mediator NF kappa B is 

      also induced by particulate matter.  Toll-like 

      receptor 4, a central mediator of the innate immune 

      response, is activated by particulate matter.  Heat 

      shock protein 70, a marker of cellular stress, can be 

      activated by particulate matter. 

                Indeed the mechanistic evidence is clear: 

      particulate matter induces the molecular players that 

      cause lung inflammation.  Therefore a molecular 

      mechanism has been established that explains the 

      clear epidemiologic association between particulate 

      matter and human disease. 

                In the face of this overwhelming data the 

      CTS and ALAC support more stringent air standards 

      than those currently proposed and we urge that the 

      EPA does the same. 

                The other explanation for why only marginal 

      strengthen of the current standards has been proposed 

      despite strong scientific evidence supporting more 

      stringent standards is that a cost-benefit analysis 

      has guided Clean Air decision making. 

                We reject the notion that a price can be 

      placed on the health and life of vulnerable patients 

      with lung disease.  Indeed, what metric can be used 

      to assign cost and benefit to an individual patient 

      who cannot leave his or her home due to ambient 

      pollution?  How is cost assigned to a patient who 

      dies from an exacerbation of chronic obstructive 

      pulmonary disease that was caused by particulate 

      matter?  How is it decided that a veteran should be 

      the de facto payer of the cost of weak air standards? 

                There are 165 million people living in 

      areas with particle pollution at levels that 

      adversely affect public health.  The EPA's proposed 

      standards, even though higher than before, protect 

      only 65 million, leaving 100 million exposed. 

                The CTS and ALAC believe that the cost of 

      not protecting 100 million Americans is incalculable. 

       It is not negotiable. 

                Patients with chronic and incurable lung 

      disease are already faced with enormous difficulties 

      in performing even the most basic activities of daily 

      living:  Walking to the bathroom, getting groceries, 

      going to the mailbox. 

                The CTS and ALAC advocate for air standards 

      that protect these vulnerable patients.  To that end, 

      the EPA should follow the recommendations of ATS and 

      the American Lung Association and adopt the 

      following: 

                An Annual Standard for fine particle 

      pollution no higher than 12 micrograms per cubic 

      meter and a Daily Standard no higher than 25 

      micrograms per cubic meter and a strong course 

      particle standard and Monitoring requirement that 

      protects all Americans in both urban and rural 

      communities. 

                On behalf of the CTS I thank you for your 

      time and attention. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Dr. Gerber, I assume 

      that all studies you mention are in fact in our 

      record, but if there are any of them, molecular 

      studies that you mentioned that are not, we'd 

      appreciate having them. 

                DR. GERBER:  Okay.  I will. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Okay.  Thank you. 

                Any other questions of Dr. Gerber? 

                Jonah, and thanks for coming.  We're 

      looking forward to hearing from you.  Can you reach 

      that okay? 

                MR. RAMIREZ:  I'm Jonah with the American 

      Lung Association.  I am Jonah.  I am 10 years old.  I 

      have asthma.  I wasn't born with it.  I developed it. 

       Why, you ask?  Because I am forced to breathe dirty, 

      polluted air. 

                I have asthma because from the time I 

      learned to walk I have wanted to be outside.  I have 

      always enjoyed playing outside:  Running, skating, 

      just playing like every other kid on the block. 

                I had no idea that playing outside would be 

      in a sense my demise.  You see, kids like me who like 

      to be outside, who live in polluted areas, kids who 

      run around and breathe the dirty, smoggy air are 

      three  times more likely to develop asthma than the 

      kids who just play video games all day.  Go figure. 

                An indoor kid is actually at less risk of 

      developing asthma than an energetic, enthusiastic, 

      crazy outdoor kid, like myself. 

                Strong lungs have nothing to do with it, 

      not in my case anyway.  Dirty air made me sick. 

                When I was asked to testify at this hearing 

      I knew this would be a date that I would remember 

      forever.  Speaking at the same hearing as doctors, 

      executives, clean air experts, political activists, 

      and me.  Well, you get the picture. 

                But then I realized I want this to be a day 

      that all of you remember forever. 

                I want you to remember me every time you 

      are annoyed sitting in traffic because it is going to 

      make you late or if your windows are down, annoyed 

      because you have to roll them up so your suit doesn't 

      small of exhaust. 

                I want you to remember me every time you 

      are stopped for a railroad crossing, irritated about 

      how slow the train is moving.  I want you to remember 

      me every time you notice the poppies in bloom along 

      the country road you are traveling on. 

                I want you to remember me when our local 

      weather issues a high-wind warning or makes us aware 

      of a fire that is burning in our local community. 

                I want you to remember me when you decide 

      it would be fun to look at model homes just to get 

      decorating ideas and you awe at the wonderful scents 

      that are running through the air ducts. 

                I want you to remember me when you decide 

      to paint your house or get new carpet.  I want you to 

      remember me the next time you mow your lawn and you 

      have to take a shower afterward due to the smell of 

      the lawn mower exhaust. 

                I want you to remember me the next time 

      your child's class goes on a field trip to a 

      horticultural museum. 

                All of these irritating, wonderful, simple 

      things are concerns for my family:  Exhaust, black 

      smoke from a train, pollen, dust, ash, fragrance, 

      chemicals, allergens.  These things that alter your 

      schedule or make your suit smell make me sick. 

                We need to be aware of these annoyances in 

      an entirely different way than we have in the past, 

      because these little annoyances can mean the 

      difference between a good day and a trip to the 

      emergency room. 

                In the past I have been quoted for saying 

      that I am a victim of crime because I am forced to 

      breathe air that makes me sick and for stating that 

      we needed to change laws, change guidelines, change 

      our air. 

                Today I would like to leave you with this: 

       It has come to my attention that it has been 10 

      years since a change has been made regarding 

      particulate matter.  And the Standards are supposed 

      to be reviewed every five years.  I am 10.  Huh, 

      makes one wonder.  

                If the EPA would have kept that scheduled 

      hearing back when I was five, would I be standing 

      here in front of you testifying as a child asthmatic? 

                I developed asthma when I was seven.  

      Ponder that one. 

                Thank you. 

                (Applause.) 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Well, thank you very 

      much, Jonah, for coming and reading that to us and 

      telling us about your life story.  We very much 

      appreciate it and we will definitely take it into 

      account.  Thank you very much. 

                MR. RAMIREZ:  Welcome. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  And thank you, Dr. 

      Gerber. 

                Richard Bode and Rajiv Bhatia. 

                MR. BODE:  That's going to be a tough act 

      to follow.  Good morning.  I'm Richard Bode with the 

      Air Resources Board, which is a part of California's 

      Environmental Protection Agency and the state's 

      principal air pollution control agency. 

                And I'm pleased that we can continue our 

      participation in the U.S. EPA's review of the 

      National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

      Particulate Matter. 

                I'm here today to express our concerns 

      about the recently-Proposed National Standards for 

      both Fine Particulates and Course Particulates. 

                First let me state that the Air Resources 

      Board is a public health agency and that our mission 

      is to improve air quality.  And by that improve and 

      reduce the health impacts of air pollutions for all 

      Californians.  Because of our unique role and 

      authority that we have, the Air Resources Board also 

      sets its own ambient air quality standards in 

      California. 

                Because of the serious nature of PM 

      exposures in California, the Air Resources Board in 

      collaboration with the Office of Environmental Health 

      Hazard Assessment conducted an extensive review of 

      the scientific literature back in 2002.  The 

      conclusion of that review was the establishment of 

      the nation's most stringent standards for particulate 

      matter.  Our findings were that the health effects 

      from exposure to PM are significant with including 

      health effects such as premature death, 

      cardiorespiratory disease, and deficits in children's 

      lung function growth. 

                The body of evidence as found in the 

      scientific literature is substantial.  Vulnerable 

      groups include:  Children, asthmatics, the elderly, 

      and particularly those with preexisting heart and 

      lung diseases.  Exposure in California is high, 

      particularly high considering other areas of the 

      nation.  And, finally, the health benefits from 

      lowering PM are substantial. 

                Since the time of the Cal EPA review many 

      new studies have been published which further support 

      our conclusion and also indicate that some of the 

      health effects may actually be two to three times 

      greater than what we had estimated in 2002.  Because 

      of this strong body of literature we believe the U.S. 

      EPA should set equally stringent standards for the 

      National Air Quality Standards. 

                First let me address the finer PM2.5 

      particle proposal.  We believe the U.S. EPA should 

      follow the advice of its own Scientific Advisory 

      Committee, CASAC, and choose a level at the lowest 

      end of the range as found in the Staff Report, at 13 

      micrograms.  However, we also believe that there is 

      substantial evidence to support an annual average 

      standard of 12 micrograms, as the Air Resources Board 

      has established. 

                And this issue is really significant for 

      Californians.  For every additional microgram of 

      particulate matter that's reduced we estimated a 

      thousand additional premature deaths could be avoided 

      annually in California. 

                We're also concerned about the Proposed 

      Shortterm Course Particulate Matter Standard.  We do 

      not agree that the available evidence is adequate to 

      conclude there are no or few adverse health effects 

      associated with course particles originating from 

      rural areas. 

                Overall the scientific literature suggest 

      that both shortterm and longterm exposures to course 

      particles are associated with adverse health effects, 

      including premature death.  And I believe Dr. Ostro 

      earlier today pointed out some of the new studies 

      that have actually been conducted out in California. 

                While the available epidemiologic studies 

      that support the Course Particle Standard were mostly 

      performed in urbanized areas, we don't believe that 

      the absence of data, specifically implicating rural 

      course particles, leads one to the conclusion that 

      there's no adverse effects from rural particles. 

                Therefore we believe that this distinction 

      between particle source is not adequately supported 

      and we caution against EPA's Proposal. 

                We'd also like to point out that 

      historically particulate matter has been regulated on 

      a mass basis without regard for its specific 

      components.  This course has been taken because 

      there's considerable evidence for both PM2.5 and PM10 

      in its role in inducing adverse health effects, but 

      it also recognizes that there's insufficient evidence 

      to target specific subspecies.  We believe this 

      longstanding practice should be continued for course 

      particles and that the U.S. EPA should not set this 

      differentiation between the rural and urban origin of 

      particles. 

                Now we're also concerned about the 

      implication of your Course Particle Standard and how 

      it applies to different levels of protection, 

      depending on where someone lives. 

                Air quality management agencies are 

      responsible for protecting all residents in their 

      area of jurisdiction, regardless of the size of their 

      communities.  If EPA differentiates between urban and 

      rural course PM, large rural areas of California 

      where a significant fraction of the state's 

      population still resides, would be exempt from 

      federal requirements to reduce course particles even 

      though their monitored values could exceed the 

      Proposed Standards. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Mr. Bode, you're out 

      of time so if you could try to wrap up, I'd 

      appreciate it. 

                MR. BODE:  Okay.  Let me conclude by saying 

      that we also are concerned about your proposal to 

      eliminate monitoring, as some of the previous 

      speakers said.  By doing so, it eliminates the 

      ability for future scientists to perform new studies 

      on the health effects of course particles.  And we 

      greatly advise U.S. EPA to adopt standards of 12 

      micrograms per cubic meter for our annual average 

      standards and remove the course versus rural 

      designation.  Thank you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you. 

                As I've said to others, if you do have any 

      additional evidence that you want to have us include 

      in the record as far as studies, anything more on the 

      urban-rural split, that would be helpful. 

                MR. BODE:  Great.  Thank you.  I think Dr. 

      Ostro presented quite a few of those new studies in 

      his testimony. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  He did.  He did, and 

      I've already asked him to please make sure they're in 

      our record, so. 

                MR. BODE:  Great. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you. 

                I need to step out for a minute, so if one 

      of you would take over.  Thank you. 

                DR. BHATIA:  Are you ready? 

                MR. HANNON:  Yeah, go ahead. 

                DR. BHATIA:  Okay.  Hi.  My name is Rajiv 

      Bhatia.  I have a medical degree from Stanford and 

      subsequently completed postgraduate training in 

      occupational and environmental health and 

      epidemiology.  I currently serve as the Director of 

      Environmental Health for the City of San Francisco. 

                Every day we're asked by community members, 

      by residents to deal with air quality problems, and 

      the health consequences of those problems.  So I 

      wanted to try to bring to you a little bit more local 

      perspective and also an Environmental Justice 

      perspective. 

                I know regulatory standards are intended to 

      establish levels that protect health, but the 

      standards are actually compared against averages.  

      And the averages represent a range and distribution, 

      and there's a pretty wide range when we're talking 

      about particulate matter.  And I want to point that 

      out, that when you're changing the standards you're 

      actually changing the range, the whole range.  And -- 

      and when you're thinking about the health studies, 

      you need to look at the number of people who are 

      actually exposed to quite high levels within that 

      range. 

                I'm going to show you this little study.  I 

      don't think this is -- this is a sort of a low 

      tech/high tech study.  We put an air quality monitor 

      on a bicycle and attached a GPS monitor to the 

      person.  And we plotted air quality, particulate 

      matter levels along a street. 

                And San Francisco's a relatively clean air 

      place, but we can see that the range is from 31 

      micrograms to 272 micrograms.  So when you're talking 

      about a 50-microgram current National Standard for 

      particulates you need to look at how wide that range 

      is. 

                And that where you're seeing this little 

      red highlight at the bottom, what we have there are a 

      Post Office distribution center, a waste recycling 

      processing, a lot of truck traffic, and we have 

      residents there.  So I think it's an important thing 

      to keep in mind as you're setting standards and where 

      you're locating monitors. 

                I want to make this point a little bit more 

      generally and I think this issue is very similar to 

      other cites, other urban areas across the country, 

      even though I'm using San Francisco as an example. 

                Here's San Francisco's distribution of 

      vehicle trips.  And we know that vehicle volume is 

      closely related to air quality.  What you see is in 

      the central areas of the city a tremendous variation 

      in the number of vehicle trips.  This is probably 

      pretty consistent. 

                What's important here is that the people 

      who live in that central city, generally lower 

      income, many ethnic minorities, they don't drive 

      cars.  They don't own cars.  They walk.  They take 

      transit.  They are not consumers of the environment 

      as are the people who are driving into these places. 

       And that's going to come up later. 

                The California Air Resources Board has done 

      a lot of studies about the relationship between 

      particulate matter and distance from roadways.  This 

      is an example of how quickly particulate matter drops 

      off away from freeways from Southern California, but 

      the point has been made by international studies that 

      particulate matter is higher around roadways. 

                Another important point.  If we take the 

      California Air Resources Board recent guidance to 

      around where air quality might be harmful around 

      roadways, we can look at this area, this is sort of 

      the central area of San Francisco.  There's a big 

      freeway running through.  You see many areas with 

      high, with intolerably high air pollution levels 

      where we know respiratory disease is going to be 

      caused by living near those levels. 

                Now what's important here about this study 

      is San Francisco's trying to be a smart growth city. 

       It's trying to build housing in these areas so we 

      can limit the further growth of vehicle miles 

      traveled, but the central city's -- but one of the 

      limiting factors here is that air quality is poor in 

      the areas we'd like to build housing.  So when we're 

      thinking longterm, another point for you to take into 

      account. 

                We can look at where asthma rates are high 

      in San Francisco and we can see it fairly well 

      mirrors the distribution of where the traffic is.  

      Most of San Francisco has asthma hospitalization 

      rates below national standards, while the whole 

      southeast quadrant where we have both industry and a 

      lot of traffic, has higher rates. 

                So I want to make a final, a couple of 

      overarching points.  I know you're not supposed to be 

      influenced by economic factors, but let's face it, 

      you know the economy of the country is sort of based 

      on producing things which means energy which means 

      pollution.  And it is going to be a factor whether 

      stated or unstated I think in your decision making. 

                The point I want to make here is that the 

      health costs and the regulatory costs are borne by 

      different people.  We can see the health costs of 

      environmental pollution are often borne by people who 

      are not the users of the causes of those pollution.  

      And the people who are the causers of those 

      pollutions are not necessarily bearing -- they might 

      be bearing economic costs of regulation, but not the 

      actual health costs. 

                Regulatorialy you have Environmental 

      Justice Standards, and I would urge you to look at 

      Environmental Justice law and regulations to make 

      sure these standards are not causing disparate 

      impacts before you publish any final regulations. 

                Ethical and legal issues aside, I strongly 

      concur with the points that your regulations need to 

      be health protective.  The country needs a direction. 

       And the standards that you set may not be 

      immediately-feasible standards, but we need a 

      direction.  We need to know where to go, and strong 

      regulations, health-protective regulations drive 

      feasibility.  They enable technological innovation 

      that make those standards feasible.  Don't lose that 

      point, and please provide the most health-protective 

      regulations you can. 

                Thank you. 

                MR. HANNON:  Thank you. 

                Questions? 

                MS. STONE:  You will submit the study in 

      your comments? 

                DR. BHATIA:  I will leave the file on this 

      computer.  Will that work?  Thanks. 

                MR. HANNON:  Dr. Bhatia, one question.  You 

      were commenting on where people live and where 

      activities occur that lead to higher levels of 

      pollution.  One of our proposals involves where 

      monitors will be sited.  And I don't remember the 

      size, where San Francisco would fit, but at least for 

      larger areas there are minimum monitoring 

      requirements, but for larger areas monitors would be 

      located in different -- have different criteria.  I 

      think one would be at a generally representative of a 

      broad population.  One of the monitors, at least one 

      monitor would be at a higher level of air pollution, 

      but still represented a population. 

                It might be useful to know where that 

      monitoring -- given our monitoring guidance that 

      we're proposing, how that would fit with the maps 

      that you've presented. 

                DR. BHATIA:  I would have a recommendation. 

       And I think it's important to have, as you're 

      saying, the monitors to represent the range of 

      exposures actually being suffered by people.  So I 

      think you need to take into -- I think the first 

      thing is that before we're setting up monitors EPA 

      needs to have some data about the variation and the 

      factors that cause the variation in that particular 

      city or locale. 

                So San Francisco, the air is relatively 

      clean in the west.  But it would take air quality 

      monitoring at the street level and looking at the 

      variation to look to see where exactly those monitors 

      should be set. 

                The second page is you can use the relative 

      sort of burden of exposure, where are population 

      centers and where are vulnerable population centers 

      located in setting the location of those monitors.  I 

      think the monitors need to be representative of the 

      high range of exposures and vulnerable populations in 

      population centers. 

                MR. HANNON:  Well, my question is:  We have 

      proposed certain monitoring requirements.  It would 

      be useful to know whether our requirements as applied 

      to San Francisco meet the goals that you've just 

      identified. 

                DR. BHATIA:  Yeah.  I guess the point I'm 

      trying to make, I will review those and I would 

      provide those comments, but I would say that EPA has 

      probably insufficient local data about the variation 

      in exposure in order to be making any siting 

      decisions on existing data. 

                MR. HANLEY:  Thank you. 

                Is Dr. Michael Lipsett here? 

                And John Sakamoto? 

                Great.  Dr. Lipsett. 

                DR. LIPSETT:  Thank you.  My name is 

      Michael Lipsett.  I am a physician epidemiologist and 

      have spent much of my career developing the Medical 

      and Public Health Foundations for California's Air 

      Quality Standards, including the Particulate Matter 

      Standard in 2002. 

                I'm an Associate Clinical Professor at UCSF 

      School of Medicine and also work for the State of 

      California.  However, I am here representing only 

      myself and not any institution. 

                I'm going to focus mainly on the Course 

      Particle Recommendations from EPA, but I first wanted 

      to mention that there are a couple of omitted 

      studies, omitted relevant studies with respect to 

      course particles. 

                And on page 2657 of the Federal Register 

      Notice, the EPA cites three new U.S. and Canadian 

      epidemiologic studies representing associations 

      between shortterm exposure to course particles and 

      emissions for respiratory disease.  This overlooks 

      two relevant studies.  One in Canada in Toronto by 

      Lynn et al. published in 2002 -- and I have the full 

      citations I have submitted with written comments -- 

      in which the investigators identified strong 

      associations of asthma hospitalizations with course 

      PM. 

                And there's another study from the 

      University of Washington in Seattle published in 1999 

      in which the investigators observed statistically 

      significant risk estimates of comparable magnitude 

      with course and fine particles for asthma 

      hospitalizations. 

                Now throughout the Federal Register Notice 

      the EPA downplays the toxicity of rural relative to 

      urban particles, at the same time indicating that 

      there are few data on which to base such a 

      conclusion.  If the EPA actually believed that its 

      mission were to protect public health, the 

      appropriate course of action would be to treat these 

      categories of particles the same unless and until 

      there are data to support making a principled 

      distinction between them.  Instead the EPA repeatedly 

      prisons misleading generalizations in support of the 

      notion that rural particles are not worth regulating. 

                For instance, the Federal Register Notice 

      cites the relative lack of toxicity of volcanic ash 

      from Mt. St. Helens a couple of times.  Most people 

      understand that this is not characteristic of course 

      particles throughout the rest of the country. 

                This bias is also present when EPA 

      categorizes nonurban particles as "natural crustal 

      dust of geologic origin," completely ignoring not 

      only the biologic constituents of course particles 

      such as endotoxin, but also human contamination of 

      these natural particles by burning crop residues, 

      applying pesticides or herbicides, and by driving 

      tens of thousands of vehicles a day on major highways 

      through otherwise rural factors. 

                In light of these factors it is 

      disingenuous to characterize particles in these areas 

      as -- 

                (Microphone interference.) 

                DR. LIPSETT:  Sorry.  Can I have an extra 

      time? 

                MR. HANLEY:  Yes, you can. 

                (Comments off the record.) 

                DR. LIPSETT:  The mic, is it working right 

      now? 

                MR. HANLEY:  Why don't you test it, Doctor? 

                DR. LIPSETT:  Okay. 

                MR. HANLEY:  Can you hear him in the back? 

                [SPEAKERS]:  Yeah. 

                MR. HANLEY:  Okay.  Continue. 

                DR. LIPSETT:  Okay.  Thank you. 

                I think I had just said, and I'll repeat, 

      it's disingenuous to characterize particles -- 

                (Microphone interference.) 

                DR. LIPSETT:  I'm sorry.  Am I being too 

      harsh; is that what it is? 

                (Laughter.) 

                MR. HANLEY:  Try to keep working through it 

      and I'm keeping note of the time.  Thank you. 

                DR. LIPSETT:  All right.  So, okay, 

      moreover, there is evidence that nonurban particles 

      are assisted with mortality.  While the EPA states on 

      page 2666 of the Notice that all the relevant 

      epidemiologic studies of mortality were conducted in 

      urban areas, this is simply wrong. 

                I think Dr. Ostro testified earlier today 

      about a study in which he and I are co-authors of 

      looking at mortality in the Coachella Valley, a 

      desert resort and retirement area east of L.A. which 

      is also partially agricultural.  Anyone who has ever 

      visited there knows that it is not urban, yet we 

      identified statistical-significant associations 

      between course particles and cardiovascular 

      mortality. 

                Finally, there are no data cited in the 

      Federal Register Notice that justify excluding 

      agriculture and mining.  The EPA notes on page 2667 

      that the limited evidence does not support either the 

      existence or the lack of causative associations for 

      community exposures to thoracic course particles from 

      agricultural or mining industries. 

                Again the dearth of evidence should not 

      mean that inhabitants of mining or agricultural 

      regions should be deprived of regulatory protection. 

                In addition to the human contributions to 

      particle toxicity in agricultural areas, soils 

      throughout the world contain large quantities of 

      endotoxins and other microbial products.  The EPA's 

      own research laboratory has convincingly demonstrated 

      that endotoxin is found preferentially in the course 

      for action and causes pro and inflammatory effects in 

      experimental systems. 

                Moreover, it is well known that endotoxin 

      causes pulmonary inflammation and exacerbates asthma. 

                Agricultural -- okay, I'm going to skip 

      now.  I think I probably have about a minute left 

      here.  That EPA adduces no evidence whatsoever to 

      justify excluding areas near mines from coverage of a 

      course particle standard.  In fact there is no 

      discussion at all about different mining activities, 

      nor are any distinctions made among different types 

      of mining, whether it's coal, copper, gold, iron, and 

      so forth.  

                And the EPA even states on page 2665 that 

      urban particles are likely to be more toxic because 

      of larger relative amounts of iron, nickel, cadmium, 

      and chromium.  Well, all of these metals come from 

      mines or quarries.  While urban aerosols may be 

      enriched with some of these metals, it is not obvious 

      why mine tailings and particles generated in the 

      vicinities of mine would not.  Absent compelling 

      supporting evidence, this exclusion, like that for 

      agriculture, appears arbitrary and capricious. 

                Thank you very much for your time. 

                MR. HANLEY:  Thank you, Doctor, and I 

      apologize for the audio problems. 

                Do we have any questions? 

                Thank you.  Appreciate you offering those 

      extra studies.  And you did say those are and you 

      will have those in the record or submit those for the 

      --  

                DR. LIPSETT:  Well, I have the citations 

      here that were submitted and they're easy to 

      retrieve. 

                MR. HANLEY:  Okay.  Appreciate that. 

                MR. SAKAMOTO:  Good morning.  My name is 

      John Sakamoto.  I am Senior Vice President of 

      Eichleay Engineers of California. 

                As an engineering firm we are often asked 

      to design and construct projects that are driven by 

      environmental-compliance needs.  I applaud many of 

      the projects and have helped to -- that have helped 

      to attend clean air standards and protect public 

      health. 

                I have designed, managed, and built many of 

      these projects that I can say was honestly worth 

      every penny of the cost of their installation. 

                However, new environmental standards must 

      balance the need for improved air quality against the 

      cost of compliance.  It is too simple to state that a 

      regulation will make things better without 

      understanding the physical science, the health 

      science, and the proposed implementation costs and 

      cost-effectiveness of the new regulation. 

                This new standard will impact businesses in 

      California.  It would mean additional controls and 

      capital spending which will increase the cost of 

      doing business in California.  No doubt consumers and 

      the public will pay for this increased cost of 

      business. 

                The new standard will also result in 

      significant portions of California being classified 

      as a nonattainment area, despite the fact that 

      California already has the most stringent industrial 

      and auto emissions standards in the nation and has 

      led the nation in reducing PM for decades. 

                Clearly human health must be protected.  

      Regulations to accomplish this will carry certain 

      economic costs, many of which will be borne by the 

      same persons whose health is being protected. 

                The EPA in adopting this new standard 

      should consider the costs of compliance.  I ask you 

      to weigh the benefit of the public against the 

      expense of these very costly measures, especially 

      when balanced against other pressing needs of U.S. 

      society.  Taken to an extreme there would be an 

      infinite cost to place the public in a sterile 

      bubble. 

                Thank you very much for your time. 

                MR. HANNON:  Mr. Sakamoto, I'm sure you're 

      aware that we're not allowed under the statute to 

      take costs into consideration, implementation costs 

      in setting the level.  At the same time the Agency of 

      course recognizes that there are costs associated 

      with rules.  We did a regulatory-impact analysis that 

      was not part of the rulemaking.  It was not part of 

      justifying the proposal, but just for informational 

      purposes. 

                MR. SAKAMOTO:  I understand. 

                MR. HANNON:  Okay.  And did you have any 

      comments on the costs analysis in that RAA or the 

      comparison to potential benefits? 

                MR. SAKAMOTO:  In going through the 

      analysis I did not see the final cost of the 

      regulation as opposed to the implementation of 

      putting the regulation in effect as opposed to what 

      industry, what businesses, and what the public will 

      ultimately pay to attain each level of the standard. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  We will be doing a 

      final regulatory-impact analysis when we issue the 

      final rule that will address that more fully. 

                MR. SAKAMOTO:  Thank you very much. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you. 

                Laura Fultz and Marcie Keever. 

                MS. KEEVER:  I'm Marcie. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Okay, Marcie. 

                Is Laura Fultz here? 

                Okay.  Is Linda Weiner here?  Okay. 

                MS. KEEVER:  Good morning.  My name is 

      Marcie Keever and I'm a Staff Attorney and Equal 

      Justice Works Fellow at Our Children's Earth 

      Foundation.  OCE is a nonprofit organization 

      dedicated to protecting the public from the harmful 

      effects of air and water pollution. 

                EPA's proposal to make provisions to the 

      Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality 

      Standards for Particulate Matter causes grave concern 

      to our organization and OCE's members throughout the 

      country. 

                EPA's standards as proposed fail to 

      adequately protect public health as mandated by the 

      Clean Air Act.  This would be a complete roll back of 

      more than 30 years of environmental and public health 

      protection. 

                Particulate matter exposure is linked to a 

      series of significant health problems, including 

      aggravated asthma, chronic bronchitis, reduced lung 

      function, irregular heartbeat, heart attack, 

      premature death in people with heart or lung disease. 

       Children are people susceptible to particle 

      pollution because of their developing lungs, because 

      they spend more time out of doors they are often more 

      physically active and breathe more rapidly, inhaling 

      more pollutants in proportion to their body weight. 

                The elderly are also at special risk and 

      constitute most of the premature deaths from particle 

      pollution because in general they are less able to 

      ward off disease. 

                Particulate matter is also the main cause 

      of visibility impairment in the nation's cities and 

      national parks; 13 of these national parks which 

      suffer from poor air quality on a regular basis, as 

      determined by the National Parks Conservation 

      Association.  More 2,000 studies confirm the 

      relationship between particles and illness, 

      hospitalization, and premature death; and that these 

      deaths occur at levels well below the current PM 

      standards. 

                EPA's failure to propose a health-

      protective standard is inconsistent with its mandate 

      to protect public health and the environment under 

      the Clean Air Act. 

                Federal law is clear:  Air quality 

      standards must be set at levels that protect public 

      health with an adequate margin of safety, including 

      vulnerable populations:  Children, the elderly, 

      people with lung and heart disease, and diabetes. 

                While EPA's proposal lowers the 24-Hour 

      Fine Particle Standard, it sets a new 24-Hour 

      Standard for Course Particles.  Neither of these 

      standards are set at a health-protective level. 

                EPA also proposes to retain the Current 

      Annual Fine Particle Standard which again fails to 

      protect public health.  Scientific studies and a 

      significant number of scientists, public health 

      advocates, and medical professionals concur that 

      these proposed standards are not low enough to 

      adequately protect public health and the environment. 

                More than 100 leading air quality 

      scientists and physicians called on EPA to propose 

      substantially more protective air quality standards 

      for particulates.  The scientists urged EPA to adopt 

      an Annual Average Fine Particle Standard of 12 

      micrograms per cubic meter, a 24-Hour Average Fine 

      Particle Standard of 25 micrograms per cubic meter at 

      the ninety-ninth percentile, and a stringent 24-Hour 

      Average Course Particle Standard applied equally to 

      all areas of the country. 

                EPA's proposal to limit monitoring for 

      course particles to communities with populations 

      greater than 100,000 people is irresponsible and 

      violates the Clean Air Act.  Any PM standard must be 

      set to protect all Americans, as the Clean Air Act 

      mandates. 

                EPA hasn't demonstrated that urban course 

      PM isn't present in many communities with populations 

      less than 100,000.  And since the same sources and 

      processes, for example, traffic, road dust, and 

      industrial sources can affect communities of all 

      sizes, a protective standard must be established and 

      applied across the country. 

                EPA's proposal which grants a blanket 

      exception to agriculture and mining industries from 

      regulation under the proposed course particle 

      standard is also unprecedented and illegal. 

                Again EPA has not provided evidence that 

      course particles somehow are not emitted by 

      agriculture and mining operations, and in turn should 

      not be regulated. 

                OCE joins public health and environmental 

      groups across the country in urging EPA to adopt the 

      most health-protective and stringent NAAQ Standards 

      for course and fine particulate matter.  EPA should 

      set a 12-microgram per cubic meter annual standard, a 

      25-microgram per cubic meter daily standard for fine 

      particulates, and the most stringent standard for 

      course particulates for all areas of the country. 

                OCE asks EPA to err on the side of 

      protecting public health and the environment for all 

      Americans and adopt the most stringent particulate 

      matter standards recommended in its final rule.  

                Thank you for the opportunity to provide 

      comments. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you.  And I 

      just want to say if you are going to provide any 

      additional written comments, anything that you want 

      to offer us concerning health effects in rural areas 

      or studies in rural areas, if you are aware of any, 

      would be helpful to help us further understand your 

      testimony.  Thank you. 

                Linda Weiner. 

                MS. WEINER:  My name is Linda Weiner.  And 

      I represent the American Lung Association of 

      California.  I also represent the San Francisco Bay 

      Area Clean Air Task Force.  This is an organization 

      of over 25 environmental public health and 

      transportation groups working collaboratively to 

      shape regional air quality policy with a focus on 

      Environmental Justice. 

                Many of the groups represented in the Task 

      Force have also spoken today as individual 

      organizations:  The Sierra Club, the Natural 

      Resources Defense Council, Union of Concerned 

      Scientists, Our Children's Earth, many others and a 

      lot of community groups. 

                I may repeating some of the things you've 

      heard today but perhaps in a different way. 

                The science is clear seems to be a theme, 

      and I would like to reiterate that.  There has been 

      some indication that part of the reason the EPA 

      proposed such weak standards is because there was 

      some thinking that the science was biased, that it 

      was political. 

                Considering there are more than 2,000 peer-

      review studies linking the dangerous connection 

      between particle pollution and lung disease this 

      seems to be, on the face of it, unacceptable.  If 

      there were five studies, maybe 10.  But a body of 

      2,000 studies from reputable scientists all pointing 

      in the same direction seem to indicate that, yes, the 

      science is clear, indeed even clearer since the 

      recent article appeared in Epidemiology highlighting 

      that new research indicates the chronic effects of 

      fine particles may be two to three times greater than 

      previously believed. 

                The Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

      Committee, not exactly a wild-eyed radical bunch, is 

      comprised a wide range of reputable scientists of 

      different political persuasion, conservative, 

      liberal.  And they have all agreed that the science 

      supports strengthening the proposed standards, so the 

      science seems to be clear. 

                I remember well and not long ago, having 

      been involved in public health for a number of years, 

      when research on tobacco was called junk science by 

      the industry and by front groups for the industry.  

      And this was after reams of scientific studies had 

      clearly shown tobacco was harmful. 

                History has proved them wrong.  And, as 

      history will do, I'm guessing, as many others, with 

      these proposed standards, because it appears the 

      science is clear, the law is clear.  As you are well 

      aware, as others have said, the Clean Air Act states 

      that air quality standards must be set at levels that 

      protect public health with an adequate margin of 

      safety, including vulnerable populations. 

                The only thing EPA is allowed to consider 

      when setting a standard is how it protects public 

      health.  It takes political will, but the bottom line 

      is that the goal of the Clean Air Act is to ensure 

      the air is healthy, period.  So it seems the law is 

      clear. 

                These Proposed Standards impact real people 

      on a day-to-day basis.  Policies at every level of 

      government obviously impact hundreds of thousands of 

      people.  In this case it's been estimated that there 

      are 165 million people living in areas with particle 

      pollution at levels that adversely affect public 

      health.  But it's been estimated that EPA's Proposed 

      Standards, even though higher than before, protect 

      only 65 million, leaving 100 million exposed. 

                This is particularly troubling for those 

      communities already impacted by multiple sources of 

      pollution.  I don't live in an Environmental Justice 

      community, but I have taken toxic tours.  And when 

      you see the pollution from diesel bus yards, from 

      sewage plants, industrial factories, cement 

      factories, power plants, ports, refineries, 

      construction sites, and railroad yards all in one 

      small geographic area spewing particle pollution, you 

      can understand why these communities are concerned 

      and why we all are about these weak standards. 

                And most of these communities are low-

      income communities and communities of color, which 

      already have a higher proportion of lung disease and 

      particularly asthma.  So the point is these Proposed 

      Standards affect real people on a day-to-day basis. 

                No person should be excluded from these 

      laws and no industry should be exempted.  There is no 

      precedent for EPA's proposal to limit standards for 

      course particle pollution to urban areas and exclude 

      populations under 100,000. 

                Additionally, to provide a blanket amnesty 

      for pollution from the mining and agricultural 

      industries is unacceptable.  As we understand it, air 

      quality standards are set to protect all Americans 

      and not selected areas or selected industries. 

                The science shows that course particles, 

      like fine particles, do penetrate into the lung and 

      pose serious health risks.  The Administration's 

      proposal to eliminate pollution monitoring in small 

      and mid-size communities and to categorically exempt 

      agriculture and mining from control requirements is 

      unprecedented and unjustified.  No person should be 

      excluded from these laws and no industry should be 

      excluded. 

                And, finally, this may be the only chance 

      in a decade to change these standards.  Even though 

      EPA is required every five years to review the 

      standard, it has never kept to that schedule.  Often 

      a lawsuit forces the government to the table, 

      followed by the review process, followed by more 

      lawsuits from industry.  So this is our chance now 

      and may be the only chance we have in a decade to 

      ensure standards protective of public health. 

                And, finally, I will reiterate what I my 

      colleagues have said, that EPA should follow the 

      recommendations of the American Thoracic Society, the 

      American Lung Association, and other respected 

      medical and scientific leaders from across the 

      country and adopt the following:  An Annual Standard 

      for Fine Particle Pollution no higher than 12 

      micrograms per cubic meter; a Daily Standard no 

      higher than 25 micrograms per cubic meter; and a 

      strong Course Particle Standard and monitoring 

      requirement that protects all Americans in urban and 

      rural communities. 

                And I thank you for the opportunity to 

      speak. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you very much.  

                Any questions? 

                MS. STONE:  You will include the citation 

      of the Epidemiology study? 

                MS. WEINER:  Thank you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Yes, please. 

                MS. WEINER:  Thanks very much. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Is Linda Fultz here? 

                MS. FULTZ:  Laura. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Laura.  I'm sorry.  I 

      misread that.  Laura Fultz and Kent Bransford. 

                MS. FULTZ:  Good morning. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Ms. Fultz, good 

      morning. 

                MS. FULTZ:  Or good afternoon. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  I think we're still 

      morning here. 

                MS. FULTZ:  Okay.  I'm Laura Fultz and I'm 

      from Fresno, California.  I've lived there for over 

      25 years.  I am a member of the Central Valley Air 

      Quality Coalition and a Contracted Field Organizer 

      with Environmental Defense, but I am here speaking 

      for myself as a private citizen. 

                Why I'm here is because I live in a severe 

      nonattainment PM10 and PM2.5 area, aka the Central, 

      San Joaquin Valley.  I suffer from breathing problems 

      along with my twin sister, my mom, dad, niece, and 

      nephews.  These I was not born with, nor were my 

      family members.  They have developed by living in 

      this -- the poor air basin and the air quality there. 

                I have longtime friends who have moved from 

      the Valley due to their children having asthma.  Of 

      course they're the lucky ones who can move away.  

      Many people are not able to because their work is 

      there and they can't move, or their family. 

                Also doctors are encouraging anyone who can 

      move away who have breathing problems to do so. 

                These young professionals who are moving 

      away or those who consider moving to the Valley but 

      don't because of our poor air quality has increased 

      our brain drain.  We have a limited number of people 

      with bachelor's degrees in the Valley.  This puts a 

      strain -- it affects our culture.  It affects our 

      economy in the Valley. 

                And I just want to urge you and other 

      Valley citizens urge you to strengthen the PM10 

      standards, not keep the status quo, or wipe out 

      totally in the mining and farming areas, which we 

      have both of in the Valley, this wipe those out in 

      these areas.  We need the standards strengthened now. 

       And the Central Valley cannot afford losing their 

      young professionals nor the cost it has on our 

      healthcare system and those who have to stay in the 

      Valley. 

                Thank you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you very much. 

                I'm sorry.  Go ahead. 

                MR. HANLEY:  I have a question.  I just 

      want to clarify.  You did say do not keep the status 

      quo.  And you might know that in the proposal we 

      actually offer the idea of keeping the existing PM10 

      standard, if that's even possible legally due to the 

      court challenges earlier, but is that what you were 

      referring to, is don't keep the existing PM10, that 

      you do support --  

                MS. FULTZ:  To strengthen it. 

                MR. HANLEY:  To strengthen it, okay. 

                MS. FULTZ:  Yes.  Yes. 

                MR. HANLEY:  Thank you. 

                MS. FULTZ:  Um-hum. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Mr. Bransford. 

                DR. BRANSFORD:  Thank you.  Appreciate the 

      opportunity speaking with you this morning.  Do I 

      need to have the mic here? 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Yes, you do. 

                DR. BRANSFORD:  Okay. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  You need to have both 

      mics. 

                DR. BRANSFORD:  My name is Kent Bransford. 

       And I am here today because I have patients that are 

      dying and some of them are dying unnecessarily.  I'm 

      a medical oncologist, hematologist, cancer and blood 

      specialist. 

                And in addition to practicing medicine I 

      also serve as the National President for Physicians 

      for Social Responsibility, which is a group of about 

      26,000 members nationwide representing doctors, 

      nurses, public health officials, concerned citizens, 

      the business community.  We shared the Nobel Peace 

      Price in 1985 and our work really tries to use a 

      medical perspective and expertise to address threats 

      to public health. 

                So I'm here today because we have a 

      definite threat to public health, as you have heard 

      from the folks who have come before me, a threat from 

      particulate matter, soot, air pollution.  I have come 

      over 100 miles and devoted this day at my expense 

      because of the importance of this issue to my 

      patients.  And I'm heartened to see other doctors 

      across the country, Philadelphia and Chicago, at 

      these hearings today doing the same thing. 

                So we're taking our time away from buys 

      hospitals and our practices because it's crucial that 

      the EPA enact and enforce regulations that are 

      protective of public health.  We're here because the 

      proposed standards for fine particulate matter, in 

      particular, will lead to up to tens of thousands of 

      excess deaths compared to a more health-protective 

      standard. 

                It's EPA's responsibility, as you know, to 

      protect the public's health using sound scientific 

      and medical evidence.  And in the case of particulate 

      matter the evidence is overwhelming, as you have 

      heard this morning.  And the Clean Air Act mandates a 

      health-protective standard. 

                Many sources for fine PM, including burning 

      wood, diesel engines, generating electricity at power 

      plants, we have the technology to adequately control 

      these emissions.  And adequate standards and timely 

      enforcement of those standards are really crucial to 

      protect the nation's health. 

                I'd just like to tell you about one patient 

      of mine with lung cancer.  I'll call him Steve.  

      That's not his real name.  And, as you know, 

      breathing elevated levels of particulate matter can 

      increase the risk of developing and dying from lung 

      cancer. 

                Steve went to an emergency room because of 

      chest pain and coughing up blood in his sputum.  He 

      had a host of tests and was subsequently found to 

      have cancer that had spread to his bones and liver. 

                Now lung cancer at this advanced stage is 

      almost always fatal.  Typical life expectancy without 

      treatment is less than a year.  Recent advances have 

      extended quality of life and length of life a few 

      months, maybe a couple of years at best, definitely 

      not a cure. 

                Well, Steve was 56 when he was diagnosed 

      with lung cancer.  He survived for 19 more months, 

      which was long enough to see his daughter graduate 

      from high school, long enough to play golf for an 

      extra year, most of that time on treatment.  Not bad 

      for someone who otherwise wouldn't have lived a year, 

      but terrible when you're 56 and you think your best 

      years are ahead of you. 

                Now contrast Steve's struggle for those few 

      extra months with the effect of particulate matter, 

      those that are unfortunate enough to live in areas 

      where they're breathing high levels of particulate 

      matter may have their life shortened by one to three 

      years, depending upon the length of time and the 

      degree of pollution they're exposed to. 

                So what does my patient have to do with EPA 

      standards?  As I mentioned, PM, particularly fine 

      particulate matter increases the risk of developing 

      lung cancer as well as dying from heart and other 

      lung conditions.  And in fact many Americans live in 

      cities with high PM levels where their risk of dying 

      from cancer is at least eight percent above what it 

      would be if they were breathing cleaner air. 

                All the EPA must do is to enact a health-

      protective standard for PM to lower the lung cancer 

      risk of by eight percent or more for everyone exposed 

      to those elevated levels. 

                So, as you've heard, we're really talking 

      about a standard that was recommended by the Clean 

      Air Advisory Scientific Committee that advises EPA a 

      standard that's been endorsed by the American Lung 

      Association, the American Thoracic Society, American 

      Academy of Pediatrics, American Association -- it 

      goes on and on, College of Preventive Medicine, a 

      standard that would lower not only the risk of dying 

      from lung cancer, my specialty, but also a standard 

      that would reduce the risks of dying from heart 

      disease, developing and suffering heart attacks, 

      asthma attacks, and hospitalizations in children, and 

      the risk of premature birth, as well as reduced lung 

      development in adolescents. 

                So we're talking about a health-protective 

      standard that could save tens of thousands of lives 

      and reduce the risk of heart attacks, up to 40,000, 

      every year.  So it's unprecedented that the EPA would 

      ignore the recommendations of its own scientists in 

      the advisory panel. 

                And I would like to, with the other 

      speakers, urge the EPA to adopt a health-protective 

      standard of a maximum of 12 mics per cubic meter and 

      a maximum of 25 --  

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Dr. Bransford, your 

      time is up, so if you could just wrap up please. 

                DR. BRANSFORD:  Thank you. 

                And the only thing I was going to add, 

      because I was wrapping up there, was on the way here 

      this morning, and I have not read it in detail, but 

      in the Journal of American Medical Association today 

      is a new article basically addressing the MediCare 

      population and the effects of PM and why the proposed 

      standard is not health protective. 

                Appreciate your time. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you.  We 

      appreciate your time.  Thank you both very much. 

                MS. FULTZ:  Thank you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Brian Linde and Mary 

      Cranley. 

                Mr. Linde, do you want to... 

                DR. LINDE:  Yeah.  The good news is I won't 

      need five minutes to say what I have to say. 

                My name is Brian Linde.  I'm a pediatric, 

      hospital-based specialist, and I work at Kaiser 

      Hospital in Oakland.  I'm a Board Member of the 

      Northern California Chapter of the American Academy 

      of Pediatrics, on which I have served for the past 

      six years. 

                Today I speak on behalf of this group which 

      is formally known as the American Academy of 

      Pediatrics, California Chapter 1.  The American 

      Academy of Pediatrics is the largest and most 

      respected nonprofit organization in our country to 

      advocate for the health and well being of all 

      children. 

                The AAP is judicious and even conservative 

      in the creation of its recommendations and policies. 

       Every policy is carefully reviewed and almost all 

      are created with the input and collaboration and 

      approval of representatives from other respected 

      organizations. 

                So the AAP Policy Statement on Ambient Air 

      Pollution published 15 months ago had such 

      collaboration from representatives from the CDC and 

      NIH.  Why is the AAP so cautious in the development 

      of its policies? 

                To answer that I would say I have worked as 

      a pediatrician for the last 13 years at a variety of 

      private and public hospitals, children's hospitals, 

      private community hospitals, a county hospital, and 

      now at a large HMO.  And I can tell you that each of 

      these hospitals and clinics and every pediatric 

      office I have been associated with that provides care 

      for children will set its own policy based on the 

      recommendations of the American Academy of 

      Pediatrics. 

                If you have children or grandchildren or 

      nieces or nephews I say this on behalf of the 

      professionals in whom their health is entrusted.  As 

      you've heard from so many other presenters, this 

      issue has significant implications for the health and 

      well being of children.  So the American Academy of 

      Pediatrics, in line with the above-mentioned policy, 

      endorses fully the U.S. EPA Staff Scientists' 

      Proposal for stronger health standards for PM2.5 and 

      the establishment of standards for PM10 to 2.5 in 

      order to protect the health of infants and children. 

                Specifically, the AAP supports the 

      establishment of tighter Annual Average and 24-Hour 

      Standards for PM2.5 and stringent new Standards for 

      PM10 to 2.5. 

                Given the many studies indicating health 

      effects at the lower ends of the ranges proposed, we 

      urge EPA to adopt an Annual Average PM2.5 Standard of 

      12 micrograms per meter squared combined with a 24-

      Hour PM2.5 Standard of 25 micrograms per meter 

      squared. 

                Would you want anything else for your 

      children? 

                Thank you for your time. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you, Dr. Linde. 

                Ms. Cranley. 

                MS. CRANLEY:  Hello.  My name's Mary 

      Cranley.  I've been a Nurse Practitioner for the last 

      13 years.  And before that I was an Oncology Nurse, 

      working with cancer patients for four years in a 

      hospital setting. 

                I am currently working in an outpatient 

      adult medical clinic about 25 miles south from San 

      Francisco. 

                In the medical clinic where I work seeing 

      20 to 25 patients per day I have noticed that I've 

      had to prescribe an increasing amount of asthma 

      medications to help my patients breathe better. 

                I've come to learn that California has one 

      of the highest concentrations of fine particulate 

      matter.  This most certainly explains the 

      exacerbation of asthma in my patient population.  

      That is the bad news. 

                The good news is that scientists have 

      discovered a means to help my patients.  Through 

      numerous studies we now know that exposure to 

      particulate pollution has an associated increased 

      risk of death from all cause mortality, 

      cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, lung 

      cancer, diabetes, and among persons over 65. 

                We also know that diabetes has become an 

      epidemic, and the population is aging.  Both of these 

      will contribute further to associated deaths from 

      particulate matter exposure. 

                Data from the American Cancer Society 

      Cohort estimated that for each 10 micrograms per 

      cubic meter increase an average exposure to fine 

      particulate matter, longterm cause mortality 

      increased by four percent, cardiopulmonary mortality 

      increased by six percent, and lung cancer mortality 

      increased by eight percent.  Premature death from 

      exposure to particulate matter pollution is estimated 

      to shorten lives by one to three years on average. 

                A study was released today, as you've 

      heard, in the Journal of American Medical Association 

      showing a shortterm increase in hospital admission 

      rates associated with fine particulate matter. 

                The healthcare industry is already in 

      crisis.  We do not need to exacerbate it with higher 

      hospital costs by ignoring recommendations to reduce 

      exposure to particulate matter. 

                On behalf of the Physicians for Social 

      Responsibility I'm asking the EPA to adopt an Annual 

      Average Fine Particulate Matter of 12 micrograms per 

      cubic meter and 25 micrograms per cubic meter for the 

      24-Hour Standard.  These actions will reduce 

      particulate matter related mortality by 86 percent.  

      That is the good news. 

                Additionally, I'm asking the EPA to adopt a 

      Daily Average Course Particulate Matter Standard in 

      the range of 25 to 30 micrograms per cubic meter, 

      that it applies this standard uniformly across both 

      urban and rural areas and that it does not exempt 

      agriculture and mining from controls aimed at meeting 

      this standard. 

                As I prescribed stronger and stronger 

      asthma medications for my suffering patients, I don't 

      tell them that this will help only so much.  I don't 

      tell them that their government, who is legally 

      required to protect their lives and health as 

      outlined in the Clean Air Act, is ignoring the good 

      news evidence that we know will help them breathe 

      better. 

                Today I ask you, I am doing all that I can 

      to reduce my patients' risk of dying.  Are you?  

                I would like to give them that good news.  

      Thank you for listening. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you, Ms. 

      Cranley. 

                Thank you, Dr. Linde. 

                Any questions anyone has? 

                Okay.  Thank you very much. 

                Gordon Fung and Teri Shore. 

                DR. FUNG:  Hi.  My name is Gordon Fung and 

      I'm President of the San Francisco Medical Society.  

      And I'm speaking on behalf of the over 1,000 

      physicians in San Francisco.  I'm also Associate 

      Clinical Professor of Medicine in Cardiology at UCSF 

      Medical Center here.  And I want to discuss a few of 

      my own personal experiences as a cardiologist and 

      urge that the EPA strengthen its standards to be in 

      line with the American Lung Association 

      recommendations, to reduce the morbidity and 

      mortality of problems presented by the current 

      standards. 

                In my practice as a cardiologist over the 

      past several years I've seen marked improvements in 

      the reduction of cardiovascular disease as we manage 

      critical cardiac risk factors:  Diabetes, 

      hypertension, sedentary lifestyle, and smoking. 

                And then as we do a better job and we see 

      that the mortality is decreasing, there is now an 

      emerging group of patients who are having heart 

      disease without any of these risk factors apparent.  

      And a read of the literature suggests that the air 

      quality is contributing to this problem. 

                I've had very difficult times explaining to 

      patients and their families why they might be 

      suffering a heart attack or a stroke, and they have 

      absolutely no other cardiac risk factors to explain 

      it.  And even then things that we can do to manage 

      their risk factors better, it would be difficult in 

      the face of this literature to have them go out and 

      exercise and get a good slug of clean air when we 

      know that the air is having a problem. 

                And we know at least in emergency rooms, 

      and I'm constantly asked to evaluate patients who are 

      having exacerbations of their asthma, to 

      differentiate it from an exacerbation of congestive 

      heart failure.  And so we spend a fair amount of time 

      in that. 

                The data from the medical literature 

      certainly suggests that if we can improve the air 

      quality standards that we would see a reduction in 

      death.  And I think that we need to work together, 

      the medical care community with the EPA, to optimize 

      the health of the public.  Certainly the public 

      health, society has considered cardiovascular disease 

      one of the major crises of the current-day society 

      and it remains the number one killer of adult 

      Americans.  And I think that we're going to be ending 

      up fighting a losing battle if we don't work together 

      to help out the public in this manner.  And I urge 

      your support for the changes. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you very much. 

                Ms. Shore. 

                MS. SHORE:  Yes.  Good morning.  My name's 

      Teri Shore.  I'm representing Bluewater Network and 

      Friends of the Earth, an international environmental 

      advocacy -- advocacy organization.  Sorry about that. 

       I guess I'm a little nervous. 

                Anyway, I'm here to urge the U.S. EPA to 

      adopt the strongest and most health-protective 

      standards for particulate matter and air quality.  

      And this should apply to all communities, all sizes, 

      and all people. 

                And we very much support the comments 

      previously today that we've heard from the public 

      health community and the medical community.  They're 

      really the experts on this.  And it's pretty clear 

      that the science is in and the law is clear, that the 

      EPA and the Bush Administration need to act to 

      protect people's health and to put people before the 

      profits of industry, specifically. 

                In terms of the actual standards, we do 

      support the 12 micrograms Standard for Fine 

      Particulate matter, the Annual Standard and 25 for 

      Annual, and to go lower than that, if at all 

      possible. 

                I experienced the results of weak 

      regulations and poor air quality both professionally 

      and personally.  Professionally I advocate for 

      cleaner emissions from particularly ships, ports, and 

      marine vessels.  And we are disappointed that the 

      U.S. EPA so far has failed to regulate foreign 

      flagship engines, which contribute significantly to 

      diesel exhaust and PM emissions in our country. 

                And here in the Bay Area where I'm based I 

      hear a lot of stories from people who live close to 

      ports and close to the goods-movement corridors who 

      are suffering from asthma or suffering from cancer.  

      Recently at an Oakland hearing we heard from a woman 

      who said there was a railroad engine that was idling 

      behind her home for five days.  There was another 

      woman there who was experiencing cancer from lifelong 

      exposure to diesel exhaust. 

                So I see that on a day-to-day basis and 

      it's very urgent that you adopt the strongest 

      standards, otherwise it sends a message to industry 

      that they can maintain the status quo.  Business as 

      usual.  And for the shipping and maritime industries, 

      that basically means that they do as little as 

      possible, they don't want to do much.  And if you 

      don't adopt stronger standards they're not going to 

      be prompted to do anything more than they're doing 

      now. 

                For example, the Port of Oakland has huge 

      shipping emissions and absolutely no plan at all to 

      try to reduce those at any level.  So it's very 

      critical, and EPA definitely does set the example for 

      the country and lead the way, as someone else 

      mentioned. 

                On a personal level I like to get out into 

      the out of doors myself and backpacking is one of my 

      passions.  I get out there as much as I can.  I go to 

      the national parks.  And I think that's probably one 

      of the healthiest things that I can do for myself.  

      But I'm very shocked to learn that the air pollution 

      and the air quality in some of these parks like 

      Sequoia Kings Canyon are degraded by the air quality 

      that's coming in from industry that's being blown in 

      from the Los Angeles Basin. 

                So the thing that I'm doing that I think is 

      the most healthy for me could actually be 

      compromising my health by breathing unhealthy air.  

      And I recall on at least one occasion being in 

      Sequoia Kings Canyon being up on the Silliman Bench 

      and looking down into the Central Valley and it was a 

      beautiful orange-and-brown sunset, but it was very 

      disheartening because the orange and the brown is 

      coming from the bad air quality and the smog and the 

      air pollution. 

                So, once again, we urge you to please adopt 

      the strongest, most health-protective standards that 

      you can, and implement them as soon as possible. 

                Thank you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you. 

                I just want to check, are there any 

      questions.  Just one for Dr. Fung, if there are any 

      studies of cardiovascular effects associated with air 

      pollution that are not in our record already, any 

      other literature you're aware of we would appreciate 

      knowing about that. 

                DR. FUNG:  Sure thing.  Thank you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you. 

                MS. SHORE:  Okay.  Thank you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Dawn Sanders-Koepke, 

      I no doubt mispronounced, and Dr. Anthony Hansen. 

                MS. SANDERS-KOEPKE:  Good morning.  My name 

      is Dawn Sanders-Koepke.  I'm with McHugh & Associates 

      on behalf of California Manufacturers and Technology 

      Association, also known by their acronym of CMTA. 

                CMTA understands the importance of clean 

      air and protecting public health, however they 

      strongly encourage the essential notion that EPA 

      balance the need for air quality protection and the 

      economy. 

                New costs of regulations will drive 

      businesses out of business for little or no 

      environmental benefit.  Further reducing emissions to 

      achieve the proposed PM2.5 Standards in California 

      will impose substantial costs on California 

      businesses and residents, preventing economic growth 

      in California while effectively providing incentives 

      for economic activity to expand in or relocate to 

      other states. 

                This is of particular concern when the 

      implementation of the current standard is just 

      beginning and despite the fact that CMTA believes 

      that key uncertainties remain regarding underlying 

      science. 

                Complex federal new source review 

      requirements for new and modified PM2.5 standards 

      emissions sources will add delay and costs to the 

      permits needed for businesses to locate or expand in 

      nonattainment areas by increasing the stringency of 

      required controls and requiring that emission offsets 

      be provided. 

                The existing shortage of PM10 and PM2.5 

      offsets in California could then block some proposed 

      projects if the required offsets are not available. 

                Lastly, CMTA would like to note that EPA's 

      own cost-benefit analysis shows that the proposed 

      change to the PM2.5 standard has more cost than 

      benefit in certain areas. 

                Lastly, on behalf of CMTA, I ask that you 

      seriously reconsider adopting this more stringent 

      standard.  With that, thank you for the opportunity 

      to present on behalf of the California Manufacturers 

      and Technology Association. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you. 

                One quick question.  Well, first, as you 

      know, we don't consider costs in setting these 

      standards.  But I just wondered, you said the 

      Proposed Standard had more cost than benefits.  And 

      what were you -- what document or literature were you 

      referring to? 

                MS. SANDERS-KOEPKE:  I'd be happy to have 

      that provided to U.S. EPA. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Okay.  Thank you. 

                MS. SANDERS-KOEPKE:  Absolutely. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Dr. Hansen. 

                DR. HANSEN:  Do I need both of these? 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Yes.  One is for the 

      court reporter. 

                DR. HANSEN:  Good morning.  My name is Tony 

      Hansen.  I just recently retired as a Staff Scientist 

      from the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory of the 

      University of California, where I spent my entire 

      career developing instruments and making measurements 

      of black carbon particles, otherwise known as diesel 

      exhaust. 

                What I'd like to say today is a commentary, 

      as some scientific commentary.  I am not an expert on 

      health effects.  My expertise lies in the global 

      disbursal of black carbon and its possible climatic 

      consequences. 

                The more famous Professor James Hansen, who 

      shares a last name with me but is also Director of 

      NASA Goddard, has estimated that black carbon 

      particles could have a climate-forcing effect as 

      large as 50 percent of that due to increased CO2.  In 

      other words, black carbon particles in the atmosphere 

      are important. 

                The direct solar absorption, brown air, 

      absorbs sunlight.  Less sunlight reaches the ground, 

      the atmosphere heats up.  The deposition of black 

      particles to snow and ice leads to premature melting. 

       Dirty snow melts quicker. 

                And the presence of particles in the 

      atmosphere can subdivide the available water in 

      clouds that are trying to condense into raindrops and 

      inhibit the formation of drops large enough to fall 

      as rain. 

                In other words, the presence of these 

      particles in the atmosphere can have quite serious, 

      direct, and indirect climatic consequences. 

                Black carbon particles don't disappear in 

      the atmosphere.  Once they're released from the 

      diesel engine, they don't go away, they're not 

      consumed by reactions in the atmosphere.  Some of my 

      instruments, for example, are on the West Coast of 

      Ireland, sampling air that's coming across the 

      Atlantic Ocean.  When the wind comes directly from 

      the East Coast of the U.S., the black carbon numbers 

      increase. 

                Right now, today, March the 7th, the 

      concentration of black carbon particles over the 

      atmosphere of Greenland is between three and ten 

      times higher than the concentration of black carbon 

      right here in San Francisco.  If you descend in a 

      plane over Barrow, Alaska and look out the windows 

      you see brown bands in the sky.  All of that brown 

      stuff ends up on the snow and ice.  When the sun 

      comes up in the spring, it melts. 

                If you draw enough air through a filter at 

      the South Pole you can make a black spot.  I was 

      there a month ago, one of my instruments is there.  

      That black stuff doesn't come out of the snow. 

                So the possible effects of these particles 

      on global climate is undisputable.  As I say, 

      Professor James Hansen has published by far the 

      largest body of work on this.  Although that doesn't 

      fall within a public health perspective, if you're 

      killed by a hurricane you're still dead. 

                And so that's all I would like to say, is 

      that for the sake of protecting the health of the 

      climate, I urge the adoption of the strongest 

      possible standards.  Thank you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you very much, 

      Dr. Hansen. 

                Thank you, Ms. Koepke. 

                I'm sorry.  I apologize.  One of my 

      colleagues has a question. 

                MR. HANNON:  A question for Dr. Hansen. 

                There hasn't been much attention today to 

      our Secondary Standards.  There's been some mention 

      of visibility, but climate is one issue that was 

      discussed both in a criteria document, and I think 

      black carbon is discussed there as well as climate 

      effects of other kinds of PM.  And our proposal was 

      to not base the Secondary Standard on climate effects 

      as well as a variety of other secondary effects, 

      based on an inability to quantify it, et cetera. 

                So any comments you have that are 

      specifically aimed at the discussion in the proposed 

      rulemaking about Secondary Standards would be useful. 

       I guess I would suggest you focus your comments on 

      the rulemaking, on --  

                DR. HANSEN:  Yes. 

                MR. HANNON:  -- what we've specifically 

      said about climate change and particulate matter. 

                DR. HANSEN:  Okay.  Thank you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you. 

                Francisco Da Costa and Isaac Bloom. 

                Mr. Da Costa, do you want to go first? 

                MR. DA COSTA:  My name is Francisco Da 

      Costa.  I'm the Director of Environmental Justice 

      Advocacy, but more importantly I represent the First 

      People of this area, the Muwek Maohlone, M-u-w-e-k 

      M-a-o-h-l-o-n-e, the Muwek Maohlone. 

                I've been paying attention to the experts 

      and what I do not see addressed here are the experts 

      thinking outside the box.  And, secondly, what I see 

      missing in this rather meaningfully deliberations is 

      a holistic approach to this Earth. 

                We are placed on this Earth as caretakers. 

       And if we came here to San Francisco 300 years ago 

      we would see pristine rivers, the air would be clean, 

      and so on and so forth.  But today we see a lot of 

      pollution.  And in order to address the health of the 

      human beings and also to address the lifespan of the 

      frogs, insects, birds, and fish, we have a tendency 

      in our own guilty way to have some standards.  And so 

      we have state and federal agencies that are supposed 

      to protect us. 

                And again and again we see that it takes a 

      lot of time for these state and federal agencies to 

      really work and preserve, protect and defend the 

      rights of the constituents not only of the United 

      States of America, but all over the world. 

                I have relatives all of the world, some of 

      them very educations, some of them scientists, and 

      they will always ask me why is it that this very so-

      called powerful nation contributes so much to global 

      warming. 

                You've heard many experts here in their own 

      way try to convince all of us that there are many 

      factors that adversely impact all of us.  It's a fact 

      that global warming is going to impact us, and we see 

      the rise in the oceans.  But I haven't heard it 

      discussed today that global warming will melt huge, 

      huge areas of ice blocks in which are trapped very 

      dangerous gases. 

                So in the future this air that we breath 

      will be a commodity.  Thirty years ago most people 

      did not drink bottled water, but in the future it's a 

      possibility that we will have to buy clean air to 

      survive. 

                You've heard a young child today or a young 

      boy testify.  And I deal with children daily, daily 

      in San Francisco, and they ask me, "Why is it that we 

      suffer from asthma?  Why is it that our mothers 

      suffer from cancer?"  And I have no answer. 

                Daily you have heard cite officials like 

      Dr. Bhatia, for example, come here and make some very 

      general statements about what they are doing in San 

      Francisco.  We call ourselves a green city, but yet 

      very recently we clearcut over a thousand trees, 

      4,000 trees in Parcel A. 

                Some experts say one tree is worth a 

      $162,000 because of the role it plays in producing 

      oxygen, in neutralizing carbon dioxide and creating 

      nitrates. 

                I thank you very much for giving this 

      opportunity on behalf of the youth to express some of 

      the very many ideas and sentiments that I could have 

      if I was given more time.  Thank you very much. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you very much 

      for taking the time to share your views with us. 

                MR. BLOOM:  Good afternoon.  My name is 

      Isaac Bloom.  I am the Lead Citizen Outreach Director 

      with Environment California for Northern California. 

       I am here both in my official capacity and as an 

      individual.  Thank you for taking the time to talk 

      with us. 

                I'm originally from Cleveland, Ohio.  We 

      have some of the worst air quality in the country.  I 

      was not born with asthma, but by my fifth grade year 

      I missed 35 days of school due to lung-related 

      illnesses. 

                In terms of what I do professionally what I 

      do professionally is organize a staff of people to go 

      out and talk to people door to door about issues just 

      like these.  I've been doing it for about four years 

      now.  There is no equivocation among the people of 

      this country that clean air needs to be a priority. 

                California has some of the worst air 

      pollution in the country and that is a fact that is 

      on record.  And the Clean Air Act clearly states that 

      air quality standards must protect public health. 

                The EPA needs to strengthen, not weaken 

      clean air standards for particulate pollution.  It is 

      the job of the Environmental Protection Agency to put 

      the health and welfare of our nation's most 

      vulnerable, our sick, our youth, and our elderly over 

      the bottom line of the Bush Administration corporate 

      campaign contributors. 

                Thank you very much for your time. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you very much. 

                Any questions?  Okay, thank you both very 

      much. 

                Anthony Myers and Carolina Simunovic.  I'm 

      sorry.  Simunovic?  Thank you. 

                Well, at last we get to meet her there. 

                Would you like to go first?  What's best 

      for you?  Yeah. 

                MR. MYERS:  Okay. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Mr. Myers. 

                MR. MYERS:  Yes.  My name's Anthony Myers. 

       I'm the Lead Field Manager for Environment 

      California here in San Francisco.  And my capacity is 

      much like Mr. Bloom's, go out door to door and talk 

      to people about issues like this.  And I think he's 

      definitely right:  People unequivocally agree that 

      clean air is a priority. 

                I'd just like to say that, you know, I am 

      here both professionally and as a person who lives 

      here in the Bay Area.  I have a friend, former co-

      worker and boss who both had asthma.  And they both 

      had prescription medicine for it.  They both had 

      inhalers.  One of them had prescription, like 

      medication, like pills that he had to take for his 

      asthma, it was so bad.  They both had asthma attacks 

      like every single week.  You know I would hear about 

      it. 

                They don't know that I'm hear today, but 

      they probably don't even know about the standards 

      that exist that the EPA has control over, but they're 

      intimately acquainted with particulate pollution in 

      the atmosphere. 

                Particle pollution is the most dangerous 

      air pollutant that there is.  And even at levels 

      below the current standards the damaging health 

      effects are well known and documented.  Here in 

      California it causes strokes, lung cancer, asthma 

      attacks.  

                So I'd just like to say that before 

      finalizing the Air Quality Standards later this year, 

      the Bush Administration must strengthen the standards 

      and help protect public health instead of maintaining 

      the status quo and rejecting its own science advisors 

      and EPA staff and issuing blanket exemptions for 

      agriculture and mining sectors. 

                That's it.  Thank you. 

                MS. STONE:  I have a question.  Mr. Myers, 

      --  

                MR. MYERS:  Um-hum. 

                MS. STONE:  -- does Environment California 

      have specific recommendations about the levels of the 

      Standards, the Fine Particle or Course Particle 

      Standards? 

                MR. MYERS:  Yeah.  We want to endorse the 

      American Lung Association's recommendations. 

                MS. STONE:  Yeah.  It's helpful if you're 

      specific.  Thank you. 

                MR. MYERS:  Thank you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you very much. 

                Ms. Simunovic. 

                MS. CAROLINA SIMUNOVIC:  Thank you very 

      much.  My name is Carolina Simunovic.  I'm with the 

      Fresno Metro Ministry.  This is Isabella and I had to 

      bring her for logistical feeding reasons, but I think 

      it's important actually today for you all to see us, 

      see her because what makes me the most scared right 

      now as a mother is thinking how old will my daughter 

      be before the air where we live is clean.  How much 

      pollution will she have to breathe?  How much can her 

      little lungs take? 

                Those are the fears that I have along with 

      millions of other mothers that are living in rural 

      areas across the country and especially in the San 

      Joaquin Valley, which is where we call home. 

                I put together a few of these pictures for 

      you quickly.  And usually I'm very polite, but this 

      is my only chance to talk to you and I think I have 

      to be very frank. 

                I think that's what's happening here is a 

      crime against the San Joaquin Valley.  I think the 

      EPA Proposals are irresponsible and unethical, almost 

      designed to harm the people that you need to protect 

      the most, people living in poor communities, rural 

      communities that are exposed to pollutants, exposed 

      to course particulate matter, fine particulate matter 

      on a daily basis and need this protection. 

                The rural definition that is in these 

      proposals will leave almost half of the Valley's 3.2 

      million people without these important air quality 

      protections.  And as you know, we are one of the 

      dirtiest and largest air basins in the country.  It 

      almost seem like these rules either forgot about the 

      San Joaquin Valley or were designed purposefully to 

      make getting clean air there more difficult. 

                Big cities that we consider like Visalia, 

      Clovis, Madera are considered rural here, according 

      to your definitions.  And contrary to what is assumed 

      in the proposals, rural dust is contaminated dust 

      here.  As you can see here, pesticide use in the San 

      Joaquin Valley is the highest in the nation. 

                I have recently learned from friends we 

      have hazardous waste dumps, I mean I have known that 

      before, but we have hazardous waste ash that is 

      coming off of refineries that is being piled up in 

      our agricultural fields near where people live.  

      Hazardous waste, designated hazardous waste put there 

      illegally, and I can get you that information. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Good. 

                MS. CAROLINA SIMUNOVIC:  But people exposed 

      to that will not be protected.  Hazardous waste 

      permitted in Buttonwillow, California.  I mean that 

      is the San Joaquin Valley.  We have become the toilet 

      bowl for the nation's waste.  And the people here 

      have to breathe it. 

                This is what happened in Westley 1999, four 

      million tires burning for months.  That is in a rural 

      area.  The people had to use windshield wipers to 

      clear the ash from their cars. 

                These are the faces of people trying to 

      breathe in the San Joaquin Valley.  Little kids have 

      to use medication in order to play.  Our asthma rates 

      are on the rise. 

                These are our rural families.  This is near 

      Allensworth State Park.  These are our athletes that 

      need to use inhalers in order to compete.  These are 

      our families that are trying to take action to clean 

      the air in their neighborhoods.  We're at the 

      footsteps of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

      Control District there.  People want clean air.  

      People in the Valley deserve clean air. 

                We went to the Capitol again and again, and 

      we will go to wherever it takes to demand clean air 

      for the people where we live.  I think we're scared. 

      we need the strongest protections in our Valley.  

      We're making some gains.  We've been working with the 

      Air District to make significant gains, but this 

      would be a major setback. 

                What we need are stronger standards, like 

      those adopted by California for particulate matter, 

      those that are endorsed today by the American Lung 

      Association and many others.  What we need are more 

      monitors, not less.  Please do not remove any one of 

      our nine monitors that we have in the San Joaquin 

      Valley.  We need to know what is in our air.  If you 

      take those away it's like we won't know what's 

      killing us. 

                Please help us.  Thank you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you very much 

      for coming and for bringing Isabella. 

                MS. CAROLINA SIMUNOVIC:  Thank you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  And thank you, Mr. 

      Myers. 

                Daniela Simunovic and is Leo Pedretti here? 

                MS. DANIELA SIMUNOVIC:  No.  He was unable 

      to make it today from Fresno. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  All right.  Let me 

      just see. 

                Ray Leon? 

                Great.  Thank you. 

                MS. DANIELA SIMUNOVIC:  Hello.  My name is 

      Daniela Simunovic and I too work along with Carolina 

      at Fresno Metro Ministry with the Environmental 

      Health Program there.  And I am also a 15-year 

      resident of the San Joaquin Valley of Fresno and an 

      asthmatic. 

                And my daily reality is that if I don't 

      medicate myself twice a day using my control inhaler, 

      my lungs are at risk for inflammation.  That puts me 

      at higher risk for asthma attacks that are aggravated 

      by the pollution that's in our air, in particular the 

      particulate matter pollution. 

                You know part of our job is going out into 

      the community and giving a presentation that we've 

      entitled "Pollution 101," explaining the problem that 

      we have in our Valley.  And I go out there and I talk 

      to people about the ozone problem. 

                I go out there and when I get to the 

      particulate matter, that's when people get scared 

      because smog is something people have been familiar 

      with, but particulate matter, it's kind of the silent 

      killer.  In the Valley there have been studies that 

      have proved, statistics that have shown longterm 

      exposure to PM2.5 to fine particulate matter has led 

      to an estimated of 1300 premature deaths in our 

      Valley in the eight counties that comprise the San 

      Joaquin Valley. 

                So when you tell people the statistic and 

      people become aware of the particulate matter that 

      we're exposed to, people get scared.  And so my 

      concern is I'm going to go back into these 

      communities, many of which are rural communities, we 

      travel to the cities, small rural cities which will 

      be exempt for your regulation, like here or even the 

      communities of Clovis, which are right next door to 

      Fresno which for us are considered huge cities, large 

      cities that actually -- Clovis and Fresno, I'm not 

      sure if you're familiar with the Valley, but have 

      actually kind of blended and can often be confused as 

      kind of one large city. 

                But under this regulation Clovis with its 

      population of 80,000 people will be exempt from these 

      regulations.  So how will that affect Fresno? 

                But, anyway, my point is when I go out to 

      these small communities, that will be exempt.  How am 

      I going to tell them that this Environmental 

      Protection Agency, who's been tasked with the duty of 

      passing regulations that will be protective of public 

      health of everybody, has said that:  Well, here in 

      this rural area because there's not enough of you, 

      you don't count and they're not regulating for these 

      pollutants. 

                And I don't know with what good conscience 

      I can go to do that.  And I'm here today asking you 

      and urging you to not create a second class 

      citizenry. 

                Here in California one of hugest problems 

      is that the San Joaquin Valley was long forgotten on 

      numerous levels, and one of those issues was air 

      quality.  In the recent years we've been fighting.  

      There's been a growing movement of Environmental 

      Justice advocates, regular community members that 

      have been educated on the problem and are speaking up 

      and are going to the Air District meetings.  And 

      those are really important people.  Many of those 

      people are the people who will be exempt from 

      regulations if the current proposal passes. 

                So I'm asking you when you go -- you're 

      tasked as EPA to create regulations that are 

      protective of public health and everybody, and to 

      take into account those voices.  Because what kind of 

      public accountability will this Administration have 

      with those people.  How will you have credibility in 

      the community?  So I urge you again. 

                One of the other issues too is as I was 

      reading one of the fact sheet of our local colleagues 

      I realize that -- I'm a former resident of Douglas, 

      Arizona, a small border community who is in 

      violation.  They're nonattainment for PM10. 

                Douglas was also a rural, small community 

      on the border with many social justice issues in 

      economic and environmental due to the presence of the 

      mining industry there years back.  And this community 

      of mainly Latino, low social-economic people will be 

      exempt from your regulation as well. 

                I'm asking you to take into account that 

      because these hearings were held in Philadelphia, in 

      Chicago, and in San Francisco, not really rural 

      areas, many people were unable to be here to give 

      voice to their concerns and to their communities. 

                So I'm asking you next time that maybe the 

      hearings like this are taken into account that will 

      so severely affect rural areas, that maybe you 

      consider having one here and giving those people 

      opportunity. 

                But as somebody who was able to come here 

      and to talk on behalf of -- here speaking on behalf 

      of my friends in Douglas, Arizona; I'm here talking 

      on behalf of my family in Fresno, California and my 

      nieces and my own lungs, you know there's a myth that 

      PM10, course particulate matter is bigger and it's 

      not affecting our lungs and it's PM2.5 we have to 

      worry about. 

                But the reality is the PM10 is still 

      smaller than the width of a human hair.  And our 

      lungs are kind of like filters and the PM10, while 

      it's not getting to my deepest organs, is still 

      clogging my lungs.  As an asthmatic, longterm 

      exposure to that is affecting me. 

                One in six children in our Valley have 

      asthma.  That's not just me, and now we're seeing 

      this medical phenomenon with adult-onset asthma, 

      which is not common.  And which is something that's 

      just being now seen in studies in the San Joaquin 

      Valley. 

                These are important health issues that need 

      to be addressed in your regulatory policy, and I urge 

      you to make policy based on conscience and not just 

      conscience but science.  The science is there 

      supporting. 

                You've heard numerous people come here and 

      talk about the different studies that support, that 

      show there is a link between exposure to particulate 

      matter, pollution, and health risks.  And we're 

      living those on a daily basis in the Valley.  We 

      don't need a study to show us that. 

                So I urge you just again to consider these 

      people and to not let voices go unheard. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you very much. 

                MR. LEON:  Hello.  Good afternoon.  Buenos 

      tardes.  My name is Ray Leon with the Latino Issues 

      Forum, Senior Policy Analyst.  I'm also a native of 

      the San Joaquin Valley, born in Fresno, raised in the 

      farmworker community of Huron which is on the west 

      side of the Valley. 

                And the west side of the Valley, just in 

      respect to monitoring, there currently aren't any 

      monitors that have -- that exist on the west side to 

      monitor PM10, PM2.5, or any of the gaseous toxins 

      that exact and on daily basis harm the community. 

                And if I may share a little bit about 

      Huron, Huron is a population of 6,000.  It's an 

      incorporated community, farmwork, 98 percent Latino. 

       It is one of ten of the poorest communities in the 

      state. 

                The lettuce season comes twice a year.  And 

      what that means is that diesel pollution, diesel 

      trucks come in which are NAFTA trucks, from Canada, 

      from down south, also from across the nation, 

      Florida.  I've met truck drivers from all over the 

      country and the continent. 

                But what that means is diesel pollution, 

      it's a big issue.  I mean that is on top of the past 

      decades in respect to pesticide drift, pesticide-

      laden dust.  We have a creek nextdoor up the way, 

      there is an Acme Rockery.  They do a lot of 

      excavation.  And of course as you know, asbestos is 

      naturally released and therefore concentrated in the 

      soil.  So there's asbestos all around the country.  

      So in the summer you can't have a car that is clean 

      for more than two days. 

                With my youth group in Huron we take heed 

      and have car wash fundraisers, but just to show the 

      dust with asbestos, with pesticides, and the diesel 

      toxins, it's harming everybody. 

                I always hear talk in the community, 

      currently we have a leadership institute in the 

      community of Huron of older folks talking about their 

      friends, their relatives have cancer.  Of course 

      unfortunately there aren't any resources that are put 

      in to really identify what the problems are in these 

      communities, to effectively assist the impact of 

      asthma or other respiratory illnesses on children or 

      adults to really map out where the disease are 

      prominent or the cancer clusters exist.  Those 

      resources don't exist for us and that is a huge 

      problem. 

                To weaken the standards, I mean if I was 

      coming in from another planet I would see all of this 

      taking place without knowing the politics and the 

      economics playing into and I would say that there was 

      a low-intensity chemical warfare going on against 

      working families. 

                It's unfortunate to say or to even see it 

      that way because, I mean, there are people suffering. 

       I know there's a lot of folks up in D.C. that are 

      doing some good things, but then there are some folks 

      that think they're doing good things and they're 

      really harming and really creating a hazard for the 

      public health of folks, especially the working 

      families. 

                In California 40 percent of Latinos do not 

      have health insurance -- a huge problem.  If you have 

      a children with asthma, and such as on the west side 

      of Fresno we're working with a community, the Adams 

      community, at 3:00 p.m. today, 3:00 to 5:00, they 

      will be having a rally in front of a concrete company 

      because while their community does not have a park, 

      does not have a youth center, does not have a clinic, 

      the city council and the government allows a concrete 

      company to come in across the street from the Adams 

      Elementary School, which is third highest in the 

      asthma rates where one out of seven children have 

      asthma, and they allow a concrete company to come in 

      to increase diesel traffic. 

                This is an elementary school that is 

      surrounded by two distribution centers, Freeway 99, 

      and the railroad track, so it doesn't make sense.  

      The cumulative health impacts are creating chaos with 

      the lungs and the health of our communities in the 

      Valley in the rural parts and also in the urban parts 

      where -- I mean have you guys heard of the Brookings 

      Institute Report?  Fresno was number one in respect 

      to the highest concentration of clusters of poverty. 

       Well, rural communities in the Valley are as bad if 

      not worse.  But of course they're never researched 

      and never really identified.  So how is the fact that 

      their health access is not as accessible as it should 

      be in this great nation and this grand democracy, and 

      the fact that industry is mega industry. 

                Let me just show this last example.  Tulare 

      County, number one in terms of ag revenue, yet it's 

      the county with the highest rates of poverty in the 

      state of California.  Why is that so?  Why are 

      working class people, low-income people put to the 

      ends of our focus in respect to public health and 

      human rights? 

                There's a huge problem going on.  We need 

      you to help us to strengthen the standards and not 

      weaken them because it will further just compromise 

      our health and our community stability and the 

      economic development of our Valley.  Thank you very 

      much. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you both very 

      much for taking the time to talk with us today. 

                Sarah Janssen and Mark Oldenkamp. 

                DR. JANSSEN:  Mr. Oldenkamp first? 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  I'm sorry? 

                DR. JANSSEN:  Is Mr. Oldenkamp first? 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  No, you. 

                DR. JANSSEN:  Okay.  My name is Sarah 

      Janssen.  I'm a physician here in the San Francisco 

      Bay Area and I'm speaking on behalf of San Francisco 

      Physicians for Social Responsibility. 

                In addition to being a practicing physician 

      in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, I'm also 

      an asthma patient.  And I was the first in my family 

      to be diagnosed with asthma, but my younger two 

      sisters were also diagnosed with it. 

                And although genetics might play a small 

      role in it, I can't also help but wonder if the fact 

      that we grew up in the middle of rural Illinois near 

      a highway that had a lot of stop-and-go diesel truck 

      traffic, near the farm fields with a lot of blowing 

      dust, and near a lot of industries that produce soot 

      might have also played a role in us developing 

      asthma. 

                So I'm here speaking on behalf of myself 

      and my sisters and also my patients who I take care 

      of who have asthma, other chronic lung disease and 

      heart disease who are affected by the Particulate 

      Matter Standard. 

                So beyond my own personal experience with 

      asthma I see many patients who have asthma and we're 

      the sensitive and the vulnerable populations who the 

      Clean Air Act Standard is supposed to be protecting. 

                I have to carry my inhaler with me wherever 

      I go just in case I need it.  I have a very mild form 

      of asthma so I don't need it very often.  I think I'm 

      lucky, but a lot of my patients aren't able to work. 

       They're not able to go outside and enjoy the 

      beautiful surroundings of the Bay Area because of 

      their asthma.  They have to use an inhaler or an 

      Nebulizer machine every day to help them breathe and 

      they often end up in our local emergency rooms and in 

      our hospitals. 

                I'm concerned that those of us with asthma 

      are not going to be protected by this new standard.  

      Under the Clean Air Act the EPA has to set Air 

      Quality Standards that protect the public health and 

      update them as needed.  And I think all of the new 

      evidence that's come out in the last 10 years, 

      there's a good consensus amongst the medical 

      community, the scientific community, and the public 

      health community that the Current, Daily, and Annual 

      Average Standards for Fine Particles are not 

      protective of public health, especially those of us 

      who are in the sensitive and vulnerable populations. 

                And we also need a new standard for course 

      particles. 

                The Current Standard puts myself and my 

      patients at a higher risk for more asthma attacks, 

      requiring more medication, and possibly more 

      hospitalizations.  It also puts young children at a 

      risk for developing lifelong asthma.  A more 

      stringent standard would protect these vulnerable 

      populations. 

                There's an overwhelming amount of peer-

      reviewed scientific evidence that a stricter standard 

      would be more protective and EPA is ignoring the 

      calls of its own Staff Scientists and the Clean Air 

      Scientific Advisory Committee to strengthen the PM 

      Standards. 

                The proposed revision would leave the 

      Annual Standard unchanged and would reduce the Daily 

      Standard by only a token amount and will have little 

      impact on public health. 

                I think that it's a very dangerous 

      precedent, to disregard the recommendations of your 

      own science advisors and to not improve our nation's 

      air quality.  So therefore I concur with the 

      consensus in the medical and scientific community 

      that the standards should be set at the most 

      protective levels, specifically the Administration 

      should adopt a Annual Standard no higher than 12 

      micrograms per cubic meter and a Daily Standard no 

      higher than 25 grams [sic] per cubic meter when you 

      finalize the standards in September. 

                In addition, the Administration should 

      issue standards and monitoring requirements for 

      course particles that protect all Americans.  There 

      should be no exemptions for communities less than 

      100,000.  And the 24-Hour Course Particulate 

      Standards should be 25 micrograms per meter cubed.

            

                The Administration's proposal to eliminate 

      monitoring in small and mid-size communities and to 

      categorically exempt agriculture and mining from 

      control requirements is unjustified and it's not 

      protective of public health.  It's not protective of 

      the young children who grow up in rural areas, like I 

      did.  And it's going to result in more young children 

      developing asthma. 

                I think the current EPA proposal misses the 

      opportunity to do what's necessary to prevent disease 

      and premature death and I urge the EPA administration 

      to follow sound science and strengthen this proposal 

      to truly public health and vulnerable populations. 

                Thank you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you, Dr. 

      Janssen. 

                Any questions? 

                Mr. Oldenkamp. 

                MR. OLDENKAMP:  Good afternoon.  My name is 

      Mark Oldenkamp.  I'm here today representing the 

      United Egg Producers, a trade association whose 

      members represent over 90 percent of U.S. egg 

      producers. 

                I believe we have representatives speaking 

      at the other two hearings today also. 

                I am egg producer and I have operations 

      that I am involved in in the western United States.  

      We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments. 

                I want to first say that United Egg 

      Producers is proud to have many of our members along 

      with other animal species representatives who already 

      subscribe to the consent agreements.  We have agreed 

      as an industry to fund monitoring studies that are 

      soon to start.  And we have formed a scientific panel 

      to seek science-based answers to the unquantified 

      emissions that come from animal-production 

      facilities, in the belief that science will lead us 

      to the answers that we seek. 

                First with regard to PM Course.  UEP 

      strongly supports your position not to establish 

      agricultural dust PM Course Health Standards under 

      the rules at this time.  We do that because science 

      is not currently available to indicate that the 

      standard is needed.  Urban PM Course Standards should 

      be questioned to whether they are prudent or 

      practical. 

                The scientific monitoring that is about to 

      begin we hope will provide the data to determine 

      whether urban PM Course Standards are really needed. 

       We must do this research first, in our opinion, and 

      great care should be taken to do this right and to 

      make sure before determinations are made. 

                With regard to PM Fine.  UEP has previously 

      submitted comments regarding the proposed rules that 

      states could implement their own rules, and some 

      states are. 

                We have concerns that state-by-state 

      rulemaking could present problems in particular as it 

      relates to regulating ammonia as a precursor to PM 

      fine. 

                EPA must review each of those proposals 

      state by state and case by case, and for that reason 

      we object to state-level programs because, first, the 

      sound science does not currently exist today to offer 

      states clear evidence to support the proposed rules 

      as it relates to ammonia as a precursor PM fine; and 

      the scientific community does not yet understand the 

      fate and transport of ammonia or VOCs as potential PM 

      fine formation precursors.  Adequate science simply 

      does not exist today. 

                Under circumstances commonly found in field 

      conditions fundamental questions remain as to when, 

      how, why, and generally what circumstances emissions 

      of these substances from livestock operations do in 

      fact lead to PM fine formation. 

                We believe that focus on this science will 

      lead to answers on how to reduce ammonia or VOCs that 

      will reduce PM fine emissions. 

                Secondly, we object because EPA needs to 

      first propose in the public forum standards and 

      guidelines that they will use to review specific 

      state-level plans.  We believe that this is a major 

      challenge to EPA because the science is still lacking 

      in this area.  And we are concerned that without a 

      predefined credible process for decisions to be made 

      on state-level plans the decisions could be arbitrary 

      and inconsistent. 

                In a separate point, UEP expresses concern 

      that crustal matter is being considered under the PM 

      fine context.  At this time we believe these 

      materials probably should be considered under PM 

      course, and we plan to further comment on this with 

      our staff working on this. 

                We, in summary, strongly urge the time to 

      be allowed to let the science tell us more what we 

      need to do.  We're in support of following whatever 

      that science leads us to as an industry.  UEP 

      believes the science is critical and that's why we've 

      supported it. 

                We thank you for the time to make comments 

      here today and UEP plans and reserves the right to 

      provide further comment and details. 

                MR. HANLEY:  Thank you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you. 

                Yeah, questions? 

                MR. HANNON:  I'm wondering with regard to 

      ammonia, is your concern on behalf of your 

      association or is the concern the lack of the 

      connection of ammonia in the chemistry or is your 

      concern that at the end of the day if states were to 

      include in these their SIPs, ammonia in their SIPs 

      regarding emission inventories from agricultural 

      sources that you guys might be inappropriately 

      impacted when your contributions are not significant?  

                I'm wondering if it's a scientific argument 

      or an argument under the emission inventory. 

                MR. OLDENKAMP:  As I understand it, we 

      believe that animal production does emit ammonias and 

      we are working on mitigation measures for that.  

      That's why we formed a scientific panel, so we do 

      believe that we will need to learn how much is there. 

       But we don't know, based on the science that we've 

      seen and what our professionals have told me, whether 

      it truly is a precursor that's going to be involved 

      in PM fine at the levels that we need to be concerned 

      about or whether the mitigation efforts that we're 

      working on will take care of the problem. 

                MR. HANNON:  Thank you for answering that. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  And one question.  

      You talk about wanting clarity on the process by 

      which EPA will approve state plans or act on state 

      plans.  We have a proposed rule on PM implementation 

      plans.  Are you familiar with that?  Because --  

                MR. OLDENKAMP:  I personally am not. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Okay. 

                MR. OLDENKAMP:  But I will certainly refer 

      that to our staff and --  

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Yeah. 

                MR. OLDENKAMP:  -- to see if they need that 

      information. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Okay.  Yeah, because 

      we do have a proposed rule and I just wanted to 

      clarify if you're saying that rule is inadequate or 

      --  

                MR. OLDENKAMP:  Yeah.  There --  

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  -- something else is 

      intended. 

                MR. OLDENKAMP:  The concern that was 

      expressed to me is that there needs to be clear 

      guideline by which any state proposal would be 

      evaluated and approved.  And apparently our staff is 

      not sure that that exist at this time, but if it does 

      we'd like to see that. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Okay.  My counsel 

      here is just reminding me, and I don't know if you 

      intend to do this, but we do have this proposed rule 

      out there concerning implementation of the current 

      Particulate Matter Standard.  And if you are 

      interesting in commenting on that rule, I don't know 

      if your comments concerning this process were 

      intended to be on that rule since you weren't aware 

      of that rule. 

                MR. OLDENKAMP:  It's my understanding that 

      UEP, who I'm just a member of and was asked to come 

      here today, plans to be engaged in this process all 

      the way through, including the volunteer effort on 

      behalf of members to participate in developing the 

      science.  And we will be engaged all the way. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Okay.  All right.  

      Well, you might just check about this --  

                MR. OLDENKAMP:  Yes. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  -- proposed rule in 

      case they did want to comment on that.  Okay. 

                Thank you both very much. 

                MR. OLDENKAMP:  Thank you. 

                DR. JANSSEN:  Thank you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  David Schonbrunn and 

      Molly Martin. 

                MR. SCHONBRUNN:  Good afternoon.  I'm David 

      Schonbrunn.  I'm President of Transdef, the 

      Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund. 

       We're a San Francisco Bay Area environmental 

      advocacy organization focused on smart growth and 

      sustainable transportation.  We have sued EPA three 

      or four times on air quality issues. 

                Since you have heard so much today about 

      the science of setting Air Quality Standards and 

      since the proposed NAAQS have nothing to do with 

      science, I'm going to speak on the politics of the 

      proposal. 

                This proposal is blatantly political.  It 

      cannot be said with a straight face that the proposal 

      is derived from existing science.  Like so many other 

      policies coming out of this Administration it's 

      obvious that the Proposed Standard was written by 

      industry lobbyist.  It's obvious that cost had a lot 

      of to do with this proposal, despite the denials that 

      we've heard here today. 

                It's also obvious that those same lobbyists 

      would object vehemently if their own communities were 

      subjected to PM pollution acceptable under the 

      proposed NAAQS.  They obviously could care less about 

      environmental justice and the health of minority and 

      low-income communities who live in PM hotspots. 

                Our nation is facing an epidemic of asthma. 

       It is beyond obvious that a principal intervention 

      needed to combat this epidemic is a reduction in the 

      PM NAAQS.  Your Administrator has demonstrated 

      something close to criminal negligence in his 

      indifference to the asthma epidemic.  He is at the 

      only place in our nation that there can be a very 

      substantial impact on asthma and other respiratory 

      illnesses.  And this proposal is, as I said, close to 

      criminal negligence. 

                It's his job to protect the health of 

      Americans.  Instead he is protecting the status quo 

      for business.  The Proposed Standards are polluter 

      protective rather than health protective. 

                Numerous of your colleagues have resigned 

      from EPA because they were unwilling to allow their 

      professional skills to be used to dismantle 

      environmental protection.  I ask EPA staff here today 

      if you are comfortable serving an Administration that 

      is asking you, in effect, to sign the death sentences 

      for many thousands of Americans. 

                Will you be willing to look back in 30 

      years and acknowledge your personal role in 

      finalizing this proposal.  The justification that I 

      was just following orders didn't work at Nuremberg 

      and won't work here either.  These are real lives 

      you're dealing with.  It's not a video game. 

                This proposal is bad policy and worse 

      science.  That said, should this policy and the 

      proposal nonetheless go forward, on a practical level 

      I need to tell you that the Inhalable Course Particle 

      Standard is completely unworkable. 

                First of all, the name is unworkable.  Can 

      you imagine how tedious and painful it would be the 

      type out the term "PM10 to 2.5" dozens of times a 

      day?  It's a ridiculous term. 

                The very definition of inhalable course 

      particle is unworkable as written.  The definition 

      depends on the term high-density traffic, which is 

      not a term of art in the transportation profession. 

                As a transportation professional myself, I 

      can tell you I have never seen the term "high-density 

      traffic."  What average daily traffic levels are 

      expected to be encompassed by that phrase?  That's 

      the term that's used in transportation, "average 

      daily traffic," and that means a specific number. 

                How can it practically be determined 

      whether the majority of particles has come from busy 

      roads rather than from nonbusy roads? 

                I don't think it will be possible to define 

      nonattainment areas for this Proposed Standard 

      because of the unworkability of the definition.  EPA 

      needs to go back to the drawingboard with this 

      standard and eliminate the source distinctions and 

      exemptions.  Keep it simple and health protective. 

                We recommend you adopt the science-based 

      standard suggested by the American Lung Association. 

                Thank you very much. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  One question from me 

      at least.  On the average daily traffic, if you could 

      in your -- if you do give us written comments, give 

      us some more information about that term and why that 

      would be the correct term assuming we do go forward 

      with this standard as proposed. 

                MR. SCHONBRUNN:  What I'm suggesting to you 

      is I don't see how you can differentiate it, because 

      your language says "Where the majority of particles 

      comes from these high-density traffic zones," so how 

      can you tell where the particle came from?  All you 

      can tell is what its species is. 

                So, again, I don't see how you get there 

      from here.  I think this is completely something you 

      can't go anywhere with. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you. 

                Ms. Martin. 

                MS. MARTIN:  I'm Molly Martin and I'm a 

      citizen of San Francisco, California and the United 

      States of America and I guess I should also say the 

      world. 

                I do care about -- I'm here because I care 

      about air quality everywhere.  I'm an asthmatic and I 

      don't have any studies, but I do have some anecdotal 

      evidence about what you're calling large particulates 

      in rural areas causing and contributing to poor 

      respiratory health. 

                I grew up in Yakima, Washington.  It's a 

      very beautiful place.  It's a small agricultural town 

      east of the Cascade Mountains.  And if I had to think 

      of what it reminds me of, more than anything it 

      reminds me of the Central Valley.  I think they're 

      very much the same. 

                Yakima, oh, gosh, when I was growing up it 

      might have been 30,000, probably even less people 

      than that.  My mother lived in Yakima all her life.  

      And she contracted asthma or was diagnosed with 

      asthma when she was in her fifties. 

                She had gone out to the Yakima Firing 

      Center on a windy day.  And I think that the culprit 

      was dust.  She was out at an outdoor event for a 

      World War II buddy of hers.  And she came back and 

      had an asthma attack.  And that's when she started 

      having asthma. 

                Of course I think we could point to dust 

      that day, but because we lived in a rural area, we 

      lived in the country, many things triggered her 

      asthma.  And one -- I remember a big one was haying. 

       When they were haying, she had to say inside.  And 

      even then had a very difficult time breathing. 

                Crop dusting.  Crop dusting was going on 

      all around us and all kinds of, who even knows what 

      chemicals were sprayed then.  I don't even want to 

      know, but that made her very allergic. 

                Tilling the soil.  I think smoke from wood-

      burning stoves, which is the way we heated our house, 

      was a big problem.  And I can add the dust, the ash 

      from Mt. St. Helens because Yakima was right in the 

      path of Mt. St. Helens when it blew up. 

                Well, it's not surprising that my mother 

      when she learned she had asthma became a clean-air 

      activist and an anti-smoking activist, because that's 

      what happens to us when we start getting sick.  We 

      really, really appreciate, start to appreciate good 

      air or air quality.  And so I think I could consider 

      myself representing her today. 

                Her health began to deteriorate immediately 

      and she finally died in 1983.  So I suppose she had 

      asthma for 15 years.  In the midst of a coughing fit, 

      which she would have every morning, finally she just, 

      I don't know what caused her death, maybe it was a 

      heart attack, but certainly it was asthma.  It was 

      respiratory illness. 

                And I believe that her life was cut short 

      by poor air quality.  That's what killed her and I 

      think -- 

                (Microphone interference.) 

                MS. MARTIN:  -- I think it killed her long 

      before she should have died.  And that was the 

      primary reason for her death. 

                So now I'm also an asthmatic.  I've been 

      diagnosed with asthma.  I suppose in my thirties I 

      was diagnosed.  You know I've tried to do what I 

      could to -- you know I was desperate to help her and 

      I didn't know what to do for her.  And I was, I have 

      to admit, desperate to keep from finding myself in 

      the same situation with the same fate. 

                I've done things like I moved from Yakima. 

       I don't live there anymore and I think the air is 

      better in San Francisco, honestly.  It's kind of 

      ironic that I moved from this rural location to a 

      city and the air is better.  I stopped driving and 

      public transportation is good here.  You don't have 

      to have a car.  Actually it's quite pleasant. 

                I tried to buy an electric car, but they 

      were smashed.  And I wish we had that option.  I 

      don't feel like do have the option of buying the kind 

      of a car that really is not a polluter. 

                I think when we're talking about needing 

      studies, I think we all know this is common sense, 

      that breathing in these particles, big or small, 

      makes us sick.  No one has mentioned this today, but 

      I've known about farmer's lung for my entire life or 

      most of my life and carpenter's lung.  I suppose it's 

      the same thing, but that's what we called it, 

      farmer's lung.  You got farmer's lung if you were out 

      there on a tractor.  I'm sure that's been true for a 

      century. 

                Anyhow, all I'm saying is we know what to 

      do.  We know what to do to make our air cleaner and 

      keep from being ill and that is to adopt stronger air 

      quality standards. 

                I think my mother would be very 

      disappointed that things haven't improved any more 

      than have.  She would expect my generation, and I'm 

      getting a lot older, to help improve things.  So I 

      hope that my testimony will help.  Thank you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you very much 

      to both of you for taking the time.  Thank you. 

                I think we have one more person, Norah 

      Schwartz. 

                DR. SCHWARTZ:  Thank you.  Hi.  I'm Norah 

      Schwartz, Senior Research Scientist at El Colegio de 

      la Frontera Norte.  A little hard to pronounce, but 

      it's "colegio."  I am testifying as an individual. 

                I want to start off by saying that I'm 

      going to urge you to listen to the sound science that 

      is being presented here as well as the extremely 

      concerned public. 

                I am not asthmatic myself, however I do 

      work in the San Joaquin Valley.  I want to say that 

      the air in the San Joaquin Valley is unbreathable.  

      It is simply unbreathable and no one should be 

      submitted to breathe it.  They should not be forced 

      to breathe that air. 

                Professionally I am a medical 

      anthropologist.  I conduct open-ended interviews is 

      Spanish-speaking families in rural communities in 

      both Mexico and the United States, families whose 

      children have asthma. 

                Like many of the people here I see asthma 

      every day.  One of the first questions I ask these 

      families is, "What causes asthma?  What is making 

      your children sick?" 

                I spent years in Mexico asking this 

      question and the answer I come up with down there, 

      because of lack of education or whatever, is these 

      families don't know what causes asthma. 

                When I started doing my work in the San 

      Joaquin Valley I expected the same answer.  That's 

      not what I found.  Everyone there knows that the air 

      is causing the children to be sick. 

                I interview physicians, pharmacists, and 

      families.  The answer is in consensus:  It's the 

      quality of the air here.  This is rural America.  

      It's a travesty that people have to deal with this on 

      a daily basis. 

                You've already heard that families are 

      leaving the Valley because of the quality of the air. 

       We has not have families leaving their homes because 

      their children cannot breathe. 

                The poor families that I work with do not 

      necessarily have this option.  They are stuck there. 

       And they want to live there.  We live in a bowl, 

      they say.  The air just stagnates.  We live in a bowl 

      and we cannot breathe. 

                While these families appreciate the 

      benefits that they receive, many of them are seeing 

      their children's health decrease.  One of the 

      questions I ask is, "Does asthma run in your family?" 

       In Mexico what I see is that there's a genetic 

      component here.  If the mother, the father, or the 

      brother, the sister has asthma, oftentimes the child 

      has asthma. 

                What I'm finding in the San Joaquin Valley 

      is that this is the first generation of children to 

      have asthma.  What is causing them to have asthma 

      other than the air?  It has to be the air.  We all 

      know that. 

                As I myself drive into the Valley to 

      conduct my research I have decided that I cannot 

      spend more than two or three days in that place.  I 

      do not have asthma.  I cannot breathe.  My eyes start 

      tearing and I start having allergies.  I cannot 

      determine whether I see the air first or I smell it 

      first. 

                Children are unable to play.  They're 

      unable to go to school because of asthma. 

                I urge you two things.  I urge you first of 

      all to go and see the air and to small it yourselves 

      and see if you disagree with me.  I urge you to adopt 

      the strongest possible standards so that all of our 

      children can breathe whether they live in a rural 

      area, whether they live in an urban area, whether 

      they're rich, whether they're poor, whether they're 

      immigrants, whether they're born here, they deserve 

      the right to breathe. 

                The last thing I want to say is that I work 

      closely with the American Lung Association and I 

      strongly support you to adopt their recommendations. 

       Thank you. 

                THE HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you very much. 

                We're going to take a break now and we will 

      resume the Public Hearing at about 2:00 p.m.  Thank 

      you. 

                (Luncheon recess taken at 1:05 p.m.)