## 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 ofpollutants 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 ofoffsets needed to attain these standards are no longer available in some areas and unallbrdable in others. iii In some areas, the market vall1e ofVolatile Organic Compound credits hasjumped to $230,000 per ton Ol' 

### more-a significant dmg on economic development.i'' Ifreasonably 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 ofClean 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 ofambient 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 ofthe 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 ofrequirements

l'lllt;l f() Oil llfC:YCUO PAI'tlland involves an unreasonably high bmden ofproofto successfully navigate EPA's process. Further, EPA has been highly restrictive ofthe events that can be considered for regulatory relief, frequently disallowing the exclusion ofevents 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 ofupdating the Exceptional Events fmmcwork. Given the heavy bmden placed on states and regulated entities under the Clean Air Act and the importnnce ofpragmatic 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 ofsuch 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 ofprooffor 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 ofthe most common events cited; • The number ofthese petitions met by a request from the EPA for additional evidence or information; • The number ofthese petitions approved by the Agency, how numy have been withdrawn by petitioners, and a description ofthe bases for any Agency rejections; • The number ofinstances in which EPA has provided an initial review ofthe petition within 120 days ofreceiving the state's submittal; and • The length oftime 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 ofCongressMember of Congress 

# ~o.Jd-.~ Pnul Oosar Member ofCongress

Steve Pearce Member ofCongress

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** .php> 1 ' Taylor, Mike. "Alii Need Is the Air That You Cleaned and to Pay You- Will Emissions Costs Choke Petehem 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 ~!**  **~.l r.:**  **qv ~.**  **ly py**  **l"l!!~l_r]_-;?.!2~_3_3]]_l" ~tml:**  **~**