December 8, 2015 Public Hearing Testimony 

Proposed Exceptional Events Rule Revisions 

My name is Dan Johnson. I am the Executi ve Director of the Western States Air 

Resources Council - known to most of you by o ur acronym: WESTAR. WESTAR is an 

organization of 15 western state air quality management agenc ies. Thank you for the 

opportunity to comment on this important rule. 

The WESTAR Council strongly supports EPA 's efforts to improve the effecti veness and 

efficiency of the exceptional events regulation and appreciate EPA ·s willingness to 

consult with the states o n this important matter. Simply put, the purpose of the 

exceptional events rule is to ensure that a state is never required to develop a State 

Implementation Plan to address uncontroll able sources of air poll ution. This is not to say 

that unhealthy air quality caused by exceptional events sho uld be ignored. When air 

quality standards are violated. the air is unhea lthy regardless of the source. and 

appropriate actions should be taken to mitigate public health impacts. The issue is not 

whether action should be taken - it should. The issue is whether the deve lo pment of a 

State Implementation Plan is the best way to address uncontrollable sources of air 

pollution - and clearl y it is not. 

WEST AR supports EPA 's proposed rul e revisions that address many of our longstanding 

concerns. We welcome EPA 's proposal to revise the exceptiona l events regulation rather 

than issuing more guidance that, to the implementing states, has the effect of rules. 

Several important rule changes are proposed inc luding removal of the existing obligatio n 

to show that the exceptional event is associated with a ir quality concentratio ns in excess 

of historical fluctuation and the removal of the existing obligation to show that, but for 

the event there would not have been an air qua lity violation. We also support EPA's 

efforts to streamline the exceptional events process when the circumstances surrounding 

the event are clear, as EPA proposes in the draft wildfire guidance. Streamlining 

addresses our longstanding concern about the extrao rdinary commitme nt of resources 

needed by both states and EPA to prepare and approve an exceptiona l events request. 

WEST AR is developing detailed written comments for submission to the docket for the 

proposed rule revisions. Today. I will discuss two key topics that arc of particular interest 

to the western states. 

The first topic is related to the "not reasonably controllable or preventable"' section of the 

proposal. As a condition for approval of an exceptional event request, states are required 

to demonstrate, to EPA 's satisfaction, that any control measures that could "reasonably" 

have been in place at the time of the event must have been in pl ace, including escalating 

control measures in areas subj ect to recurring dust events and wildfire events. WESTAR 

supports EPA 's proposal to consider relevant control measures included in recent nonattai nment or maintenance SIPs as suffi cient to meet this criteri on. We believe that this 

same concept sho uld apply in attainment areas as well. In an area that is currently in 

compliance with a ir quality standards except on days impacted by uncontrollable events, 

Public Hearing on EPA Exceptional Events Proposed Rule Revisions 

December 8. 20 15 
EPA 's proposal would require a state to implement some unde fined set of emission 

control measures in anticipation of future uncontrollable events in order to be eligible to 

exclude the event-impacted data. While we agree that the implementation of measures 

that would materially provide public hea lth protections against unhealthy levels of air 

pollution make sense, such as those measures outlined in Section VI of the preamble, 

states should not be required to guess what additio nal measures EPA would find 

acceptable to qualify as " reasonable"' under the exceptional events rule. Instead. we 

reiterate our previous comment that if EPA believes a state's SIP is defici ent, it is EPA's 

responsibility to clearly identify the deficiency and the measures they believe are 

necessary to provide for attainment and maintenance of the re levant air qua lity standard. 

The second topic is related to the wild land fires section of the proposal. EPA is proposing 

a number of substantive changes to the exceptional events rul e to add ress air quality 

impacts from fires. In particular, EPA is proposing rule language describing the 

circ umstances under which air quality data effected by emissions from wildfires can be 

excluded from regulatory determinations. While we agree with the concept - that data 

a ffected by wildfires should be excluded from regulatory determinations - we have 

concerns abo ut EPA 's proposal to defer to the entity conducting some prescribed fires to 

declare that the fire is a wildfire, thereby making the resulting air quality impacts eligible 

for treatment as an exceptional event. We also have concerns about EPA"s proposal to 

authorize fire managers, in lieu of air quality managers to exclude air quality data under 

the revised ru le . Our written comments will elaborate on our concerns in this area. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I wo uld be happy to clarify any of my 

remarks. 

Public Hearing on EPA Exceptional Events Proposed Ruic Revisions 

December 8, 20 I S