illnuurc1Hl uf t11c ~tuitcb ;§tufc.t.i ltlmlllilt~lllHI, D<ir 20515 

Gina McCarthy 

Administrator 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Administrator McCarthy: 

April 10, 2014 

Out~olmlry has seen significant improvements in ah· quality in recent years. According 

to Enviromncnh1l Protection Agency (EPA) data, nationwide levels of pollutants like ozone, 

particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide have fallen dramatically in the last several decades. i 

These reductions came largely at the same time that the population increased by 28% and the 

nation's Gross Domestic Product expanded by some 133%.ii 

As EPA has continued to revise the National Ambient Ail' Quality Standaa·ds (NAAQS) 

for criteria pollutants downward, we are concerned that the availability of offsets needed to attain 

these standards are no longer available in some areas and unallbrdable in others. iii In some areas, 

the market vall1e of Volatile Organic Compound credits has jumped to $230,000 per ton Ol' 

more-a significant dmg on economic development.i'' If reasonably available controls were 

achievnble, prices this high would have spurred efforts to deploy them. 

While areas struggling with compliance must meet stl'ict obligations to reduce locnl 

pollution, events beyond their control sometimes make ntlainment difficult. For example, 

wildfires can increase particulate matter nnd ozone levels. Fmthcr, ozone precmsors from the 

Asian-Pacific region are known to travel on air masses nnd impact the continental United States' 

air quality enough to catise violutions of Clean Ail· Act requirements.'' Likewise, Salumm dust 

has been known to dramatically impact pmticulate matter compliance. vi 

EPA docs, in fact, have 11 long-standing rule to allow the exclusion of ambient air 

monitoring data from being considered when determining compliance with a NAAQS on days 

wherethere were events that ca·cnted nn air quality issue beyond the reasonable control of the 

stftte. Setting aside Stich "exceptional events" is important to prevent an area or regulated entity 

from being punished for forces beyond their control. 

However, it is our undcrstunding that the cmrent rule's implementation is problematic on 

several fronts. For example, we are told that the rule lacks a clear explanation of requirements 

l'lllt;l f() Oil llfC:YCUO PAI'tll 
and involves an unreasonably high bmden of proofto successfully navigate EPA's process. 

Further, EPA has been highly restrictive ofthe events that can be considered for regulatory 

relief, frequently disallowing the exclusion of events caused by biogenic somces m· transport 

from somces outside the United States. 

For that reason, we were pleased to hear that EPA is currently in the process of updating 

the Exceptional Events fmmcwork. Given the heavy bmden placed on states and regulated 

entities under the Clean Air Act and the importnnce of pragmatic regulations, please describe: 

• The limeframe in which EPA expects to fin<~lize a revision to the Exceptional Events 

Rule and associated guidance, and the expected scope of such changes; 

• Whether EPA intends to propose a rule m· guidance that will streamline and simplify 

evidence needed to prove nn "exceptional event" and clarify the burden of proof for each 

requirement; 

• In what circumstances emissions from outside the United States cmrently qualify as 

"exceptional events"; 

• In what circumstances EPA currently considers biogenic emissions as "exceptional 

events"; 

• The number of "exceptional event" petitions submitted to the EPA since 2009 on a stateby-state basis, and a description of the most common events cited; 

• The number of these petitions met by a request from the EPA for additional evidence or 

information; 

• The number of these petitions approved by the Agency, how numy have been withdrawn 

by petitioners, and a description of the bases for any Agency rejections; 

• The number of instances in which EPA has provided an initial review of the petition 

within 120 days ofreceiving the state's submittal; and 

• The length of time each "exceptional event" petition was held at EPA before a final 

decision or withdrawal. 

We appreciate your prompt and thorough responses to this inquiry. 

Very respectfully, 

Pete Olson 

Member of Congress 
Member of Congress 

~o.Jd-.~ Pnul Oosar 

Member of Congress 

Steve Pearce 

Member of Congress 

1 "Air Quality Trends." ErA. Envlronmentall'rotcttlon Agency, n.d. Web. 04 Apr. 2014. <hllQ.JL\:rww (!llil.,.RQUP.ir.lren!ULM!L~ll!l.h!!!m!>. 

""Air Quality Trends." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n·.d. Web. 04 Apr. 2014. ~l!!lQ;ib'@.w.epa r.Qlli.illrtrclldsli!.ffi!llilds.html:>. 11Tmsarrgue, Matthew. "Fort Dencl County Power Plant Looks to Dallas lor Smog Rellel." Houston Chronicle. N.p., 26 Sept. 2012. Web. 04 Apr. 

2014. <!1.!.! rr/ b· \'!•~ .ciJ.!Il!J &QJ.!WL<l~.U!J.Qili\.!llU ~mL ml!:.!~Jl 9!!.: D<.' flc! :C.Qi!!\J.Y · .P.Q\'&.:.1!1!0 I !QPJ;~ to · O.i!Jll!}: I or· 3 89~74 .p hp> 1

' Taylor, Mike. "Alii Need Is the Air That You Cleaned and to Pay You- Will Emissions Costs Choke Pete hem E1Cpanslons1" Element Markets. RDN 

Energy LLC, 19 June 2013. Web. 04 Apr. 2014. <JJ.!.!P.Jil'!.\'!'~Jl!enlmarkNUQW.ll~~~sc 20l~~t~.h9.1 stonR_I}~~!~f&\',ll}!P~ 

• Main, Douglas M. "A New Cast Asian Import: Ozone Pollution." Green A New East Asian Import Ozone Pollution Comments, The New York 

Times, 6 Mar. 2012. Web. 04 Apr. 2014 <I!!!P_://Rr£!'!!,i!JQKHlYli!J.1m,.<; Q.!!1flQJ1JQJ/QJj/Jt:!l'LW.:!'J!tl:i'.il~J!liP Oli·.Q!IWJl : 

1!!1.lW!!9JJ/l pJJP::!U!l!.tl!. JYP.Jl.=.k!.\!R\..!'u::\)2 

'' Murrav. Shannon. "Afrlc~n Oust Creates Haze, Poorer fllr Quality over Austin." KVUE Kvuo.com. N.p., 21 June 2013. Web. 04 Apr. 

2014.<)rt_tp:f/www.~v!rr..con•/rWI' S/Airlc~n \I_Lrl! crl'.!l"~--''''z-~ Jl!l OJ ~! ~.lr.: qv ~. ly py l"l!!~l_r]_-;?.!2~_3_3]]_l" ~tml:~