Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0691-0142
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2016-08-24T04:00Z

IN THE MATTER OF:             ) PRIVATE  

                              )

PUBLIC HEARING:  PROPOSED     )  No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0691

RULE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE     )

NATIONAL AIR QUALITY          )

STANDARDS FOR FINE            )

PARTICLE MATTER               )

Pages:	1 through 11

Place:	Washington, D.C.

Date:		April 29, 2015

	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING & STANDARDS

IN THE MATTER OF:           )

                            )

PUBLIC HEARING:  PROPOSED   )  No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0691

RULE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE   )

NATIONAL AIR QUALITY        )

STANDARDS FOR FINE          )

PARTICLE MATTER             )

			Room 1117A

			William Jefferson Clinton

			  East Building

			1201 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

			Washington, D.C.

			Wednesday,

			April 29, 2015

		The parties met, pursuant to the notice, at 

9:04 a.m.

		BEFORE:  JOSEPH DOUGHERTY, ALAN RUSH and

	              GEOFF WILCOX 

		         Environmental Protection Agency

		Public Speaker:

		TED STEICHEN, Senior Policy Advisor

		American Petroleum Institute

	P R O C E E D I N G S

	(9:04 a.m.)

		MR. DOUGHERTY:  We are here today to listen to your comments on the
proposed rulemaking outlining state implementation plan requirements for
attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for fine particles
for PM2.5.  EPA announced this proposed rule on March 10, 2015, and
published it in the Federal Register on March 23, 2015.

		After EPA revises the National Ambient Air Quality Standard, the
Agency then conducts a process to designate areas as attaining or not
attaining the standard with input from state and tribal governments.
States and tribes with nonattainment areas then have a specific amount
of time to develop implementation plans designed to improve air quality
and meet the standard.

		The proposed PM2.5 SIP requirements rule, when finalized, would apply
to state, local, and tribal air agencies required to develop plans to
demonstrate how nonattainment areas will meet and maintain fine particle
standards, including the annual PM2.5 standard that was revised in
December 2012.  This proposal presents options for how air agencies
would meet state implementation plan requirements under the Clean Air
Act's general planning provisions and PM2.5 specific nonattainment area
planning provisions.

		As part of this action, the EPA also is proposing options for air
agencies to demonstrate that one or more PM2.5 precursors -- gases that
react in the air to form fine particle pollution -- do not contribute
significantly to PM2.5 levels in a particular nonattainment area.

		Updated requirements for issuing permits for the construction of new
major sources or the modification of existing major sources of directly
emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in PM2.5 nonattainment areas and
options for revoking the 1997 primary annual PM2.5 standard of 15
micrograms per cubic meter in the revised 2012 primary annual standard
of 12 is now more protective of public health.

		This proposed rule would replace the EPA's 2007 PM2.5 implementation
rule and parts of the 2008 PM2.5 New Source Review Rule, which were
remanded to the EPA by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in
January 2013.

		I'd like to thank you for taking time out of your day to join us and
share your comments.  We will accept all comments on all aspects of the
proposal.  Before we get started, I'd like to go through a few
housekeeping items and ground rules that will help make today's hearing
run smoothly.

		First, please be sure that you are registered with us even if you are
not planning to speak today.  If you signed up to speak online or by
phone but haven't told us that you're here, please let us know that
you've arrived.

		Here's how today's hearing will work.  When I call on you to speak,
please state your name and spell it for the court reporter over there. 
Your comments will be transcribed and included in the official record of
comments for the docket on the proposed rule.

		Each speaker will have five minutes to give comments.  We have a light
to let you know how much time you have left.  It's up here.  When the
light turns from green to yellow, that means you have one minute
remaining.  When it turns red, it's a signal to wrap up your testimony. 
The light will flash red and beep when you have spoken for five minutes
and as time is up.

		We are here to listen to you today.  However, a panel member may also
ask questions or clarify your comments.  If you have a written copy of
your testimony, please give it to the staff at the registration desk
before you leave today.  We will put any written comments submitted
today in the official docket for the proposed rule.

		If you have additional comments you would like to make, you can submit
them in writing until

May 29, 2015.  Instructions for submitting additional written comments
are available in the Federal Register notice.  Comments can be provided
online at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0691.

		The hearing will continue until 6 p.m. tonight.  We'll take a break
from 12 to 1, and then we'll continue until 6 p.m.  In addition, we may
take additional short breaks throughout the day as needed.  We'll keep
you posted as the day goes on.  If you have any questions during the
day, please see the staff at the registration desk and someone will try
to help you.

		Finally, I want to ask each of you to please be respectful to everyone
who speaks today.  People have a variety of views on these issues, and
we want to hear from all of you.  We ask that everyone listen quietly. 
Thank you again for taking the time today to share your comments on
EPA's proposed rule.

		Let's get started.  Our first speaker is Ted Steichen.

		MR. STEICHEN:  Should I simply leave these at the desk?  They asked
that I give a copy to the reporter.

		MR. DOUGHERTY:  You can give them to us.  We'll take them.  Thank you
very much.

		MR. STEICHEN:  Good morning.  My name is Ted Steichen,
S-T-E-I-C-H-E-N, and I'm a senior policy advisor at the American
Petroleum Institute.

		API represents over 625 oil and natural gas companies, leaders in a
technology-driven industry that supply most of America's energy,
supports

9.8 million U.S. jobs, 8 percent of the U.S. economy, and, since 2000,
has invested nearly $2 trillion in U.S. capital projects to advance all
forms of energy, including alternatives.

		API members engage in all aspects of the oil and gas industry and
operate facilities and produce products that are regulated by the
adopted National Ambient Air Quality Standards under the Clean Air Act. 
The oil and gas industry has made significant contributions to cleaner
air.

		A combination of cleaner gasoline and diesel fuels, modernized
equipment and facilities, and more fuel-efficient vehicles have helped
reduce air pollution by 69 percent between 1970 and 2013 even as vehicle
miles traveled have gone up by 160 percent.  The oil and natural gas
industry has invested more than $175 billion in improving its products
and processes.

		America's abundant supply of natural gas has also contributed to lower
emissions and, as you know, we've been very active in the NAAQS process
throughout the years.  API is pleased to offer these comments on the
PM2.5 NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule Proposal.

		There is a growing need for an efficient and streamlined SIP process. 
For example, recent comments from the Acting Assistant Administrator
McCabe suggested that states should voluntarily withdraw Clean Air Act
state implementation plans still pending in order to help clear a
backlog of hundreds of compliance plans.

		The quote reported by InsideEPA in an

April 9, 2015, story stated, "There are hundreds of SIPs pending; some
of these are decades old."  The same article pointed out that 655 SIP
submissions have undergone initial review at the EPA and are pending
final action.  Furthermore, the article indicated that states says that
the SIP planning requirements are increasingly burdensome at a time of
shrinking resources and that EPA's own resource limits mean it has
limited ability to quickly review the SIPs.

		This backlog, in addition to the late release of the recent 2008 Ozone
Implementation Rules, highlights yet another reason that the
Administrator should exercise her policy discretion and reaffirm the
current ozone NAAQS and not trigger another regulatory wave of SIPs that
will further exacerbate this problem.

		EPA has signaled that they understand the complexity and problems with
the current implementation process, but understanding the problem is not
enough.  The Agency needs to deliver.  For example, in the most recent
NAAQS rulemakings, EPA has stated its plan to provide the implementation
rules along with the standards, but this implementation proposal is
responding to a PM NAAQS rule signed by the Administrator in 2012.

		Regarding this proposal, API will provide detailed comments on many of
the specific points requested in the proposal.  In the brief time
available, I will offer four example points that we will include in our
comments.

		First, as a general matter, API supports flexibility for the states in
developing SIPs.  For example, in moderate areas, states should be
allowed to use any of the three options listed for PM precursor
exemption demonstrations, and API can support a 3 percent significant
contribution threshold with some ability for the states to support a
higher value in certain circumstances.

		Second, the scope of the SIPs should be limited.  Again, the backlog
argues for this approach.  As an example here is a need to analyze
unmonitored areas.  To provide some priority to the program, this should
not be required.  Looking at unmonitored areas would be an unwarranted
burden to states, especially due to the short time allowed for SIP
preparation.

		Third, EPA should offer transition provisions when additional
requirements are being added.  In line with previous actions, the Agency
should exercise its discretion to minimize the burden on states and
those operators requiring permits.

		And, fourth, API supports the revocation of the 1997 NAAQS throughout
the nation given that the NAAQS are to apply nationally and that the
1997 standard is essentially replaced by the new one.

		In closing, this proposal on implementation requirements highlights
the complexity and burdens associated with any new NAAQS, and for that
reason API again strongly urges the Administrator and EPA to affirm the
existing NAAQS for ozone.  Thank you.

		MR. DOUGHERTY:  Thank you very much.

		Greg Johnson?

		MALE VOICE:  Not with us.

		MR. DOUGHERTY:  Then since we have no speakers left, we will take a
brief recess.

		(Whereupon, at 9:13 a.m., the public hearing in the above-entitled
matter was concluded.)

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

	REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

DOCKET NO.:	EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0691

CASE TITLE:	Public Hearing:  Proposed Rule For Implementing the National
Air Quality Standards for Fine Particle Matter

HEARING DATE:	April 29, 2015

LOCATION:		Washington, D.C.

		I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully
and accurately on the tapes and notes reported by me at the hearing in
the above case before the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning & Standards.

				Date:  April 29, 2015

				                             

				Judy Grill

				Official Reporter

				Heritage Reporting Corporation

				Suite 206

				1220 L Street, N.W.

				Washington, D.C.  20005-4018

 

 

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION

Official Reporters

1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 206

Washington, D.C.  20005-4018

(202) 628-4888

contracts@hrccourtreporters.com

	 page \* arabic 1 

	Heritage Reporting Corporation

	(202) 628-4888