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 th e 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 in clude large integrated companies, as well as exploration and production, refining, marketing, pipeline, and marine businesses, an d 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on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute (API) on the proposed revisions to the Exceptional Events Rule and on the draft Guidance on the Preparation of Exceptional Events Demonstrations for Wildfire Events that May Influence Ozone Concentrations.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 expect s to file more detailed comments on these documents prior to the Janua ry 19, 2016 comment deadline. I would like to express AP I’s appreciation that EPA has recognized the need for a program that effectively excludes air quality da ta 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 mo re stringent have heightened the need for a policy to addre ss non-anthropogenic sources of thes e emission; this exceptional events policy will address some of those sources.2 In promulgating more stringent ozone NAAQ S 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 co uld be excluded and not result in non-attainment designations, because “the state and EPA implemen ting 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 consider ation. Thus, the Agency stated it planned to revise its Exceptional Events Rule “to simplify and expedite the proce ss for states developing technical demonstrations and for the EPA to a pprove exclusions for these types of events,” Memorandum From Janet G. McCabe, Acting A ssistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, EPA, to Regional Administrato rs, Attachment at 5 (October 1, 2015). The present proposal is intended to provi de that simplification and expedition. See 80 Fed. Reg. at 72840, 72851 (Nov. 20, 2015). API appla uds EPA’s efforts in this regard. In particular, API supports EPA’s proposal to eliminate the requireme nt specified in the present rule that a state demonstrate that th ere would have been no exceedance “but for” the event. Meeting that requirement has been a s ubstantial stumbling-block for states seeking to have data excluded from regulat ory consideration. It seems to require detailed quantitative analysis. Yet, as EPA recognizes, in many circ umstances 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 appr opriate 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 w ith 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 th ere 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 pr oposing 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 th at EPA may not deem an “event” might not being addressed. API notes that EPA is not ad dressing 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 transpor t of either routine natu ral 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