1 

STATEMENT OF TED STEICHEN 

ON BEHALF OF THE 

AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE 

TO PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED RULE ON 

TREATMENT OF DATA INFLUENCED BY EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS 

DECEMBER 8, 2015 

 Good morning. My name is Ted Steichen, and I am a Senior Policy Advisor at the 

American Petroleum Institute, or API. API is the only national trade association representing all 

facets of the oil and natural gas industry, which supports 9.8 million U.S. jobs and 8 percent of 

the U.S. economy. API’s more than 625 members include large integrated companies, as well as 

exploration and production, refining, marketing, pipeline, and marine businesses, and service and 

supply firms. They provide most of the nation’s energy and are backed by a growing grassroots 

movement of more than 30 million Americans. 

I am here today to offer preliminary comments on behalf of the American Petroleum 

Institute (API) on the proposed revisions to the Exceptional Events Rule and on the draft 

Guidance on the Preparation of Exceptional Events Demonstrations for Wildfire Events that May 

Influence Ozone Concentrations. API expects to file more detailed comments on these 

documents prior to the January 19, 2016 comment deadline. 

 I would like to express API’s appreciation that EPA has recognized the need for a 

program that effectively excludes air quality data affected by exceptional events when making 

regulatory determinations and that the existing program does not satisfy that need. As EPA 

seems to recognize, recent actions making air quality standards more stringent have heightened 

the need for a policy to address non-anthropogenic sources of these emission; this exceptional 

events policy will address some of those sources. 
2 

 In promulgating more stringent ozone NAAQS this past October, for example, EPA 

recognized in the proposal that events such as wildfires and stratospheric ozone intrusion may 

lead to exceedances of the new 70 ppb air quality standard. 80 Fed. Reg. 65292, 65328 (Oct. 26, 

2015). EPA said that events of these types could be excluded and not result in non-attainment 

designations, because “the state and EPA implementing regulations allow for the exclusion of air 

quality monitoring data” caused by such events. Id. 

At the same time, EPA recognized the inadequacy of its present regulations to ensure the 

exclusion of such data from regulatory consideration. Thus, the Agency stated it planned to 

revise its Exceptional Events Rule “to simplify and expedite the process for states developing 

technical demonstrations and for the EPA to approve exclusions for these types of events,” 

Memorandum From Janet G. McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and 

Radiation, EPA, to Regional Administrators, Attachment at 5 (October 1, 2015). 

 The present proposal is intended to provide that simplification and expedition. See 80 

Fed. Reg. at 72840, 72851 (Nov. 20, 2015). API applauds EPA’s efforts in this regard. 

 In particular, API supports EPA’s proposal to eliminate the requirement specified in the 

present rule that a state demonstrate that there would have been no exceedance “but for” the 

event. Meeting that requirement has been a substantial stumbling-block for states seeking to 

have data excluded from regulatory consideration. It seems to require detailed quantitative 

analysis. Yet, as EPA recognizes, in many circumstances it is obvious that an abnormally high 

concentration is due to an exceptional event. See, e.g., id. at 72850. The “weight of evidence” 

approach to establishing the “clear causal relationship” required by the statute, see Clean Air Act 

§ 319(b)(3)(B)(ii), seems more flexible and appropriate than a requirement for a “but for” 

demonstration. 
3 

 API also supports EPA’s proposal to modify the schedule for exceptional event 

demonstrations. In particular, API agrees with EPA that it makes sense to eliminate the 

requirement that states submit their exceptional event demonstration within 3 calendar years of 

an event occurring. 

 API also appreciates EPA’s recognition that there are concerns about the timeliness of the 

Agency’s own review of exceptional events submittals. 80 Fed. Reg. at 72888. API is 

concerned, however, that the Agency is not proposing to codify any new regulatory language to 

govern the timing of its review of exceptional event demonstrations. A deadline for Agency 

action would provide greater certainty that submissions would not be backlogged. 

 API is concerned that certain exceedances that EPA may not deem an “event” might not 

being addressed. API notes that EPA is not addressing events due to “every day biological 

processes or lightning.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 72849, n. 12. Furthermore, the Agency does not 

provide a means for addressing international transport of either routine natural emissions such as 

windblown dust or overseas industrial activity. Appropriate treatment of these emissions 

remains a concern to API. 

 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. API intends to submit more detailed 

comments on these and other issues raised by the proposed rule, in writing, prior to the comment 

deadline. 

API Public Hearing Statement on Exceptional Events Proposal