[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
E-M:/ John Dingell backs public intervention dealing with Clean Air Rollback
- Subject: E-M:/ John Dingell backs public intervention dealing with Clean Air Rollback
- From: "Alex J. Sagady & Associates" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 13:09:48 -0500
- Delivered-To: email@example.com
- Delivered-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- List-Name: Enviro-Mich
- Reply-To: "Alex J. Sagady & Associates" <email@example.com>
Enviro-Mich message from "Alex J. Sagady & Associates" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
January 23, 2003
The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460-0001
Dear Administrator Whitman:
On July 17, 2002, I wrote to you regarding the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) plans to revise the New Source Review (NSR) regulations
promulgated pursuant to sections 165 and 173 of the Clean Air Act. At that
time, I urged you to provide an opportunity for public comment on the
specifics of your plans before such changes were made with finality, in
order that all interested parties could better understand the impacts of
these changes, both in terms of public health and improved regulatory
Unfortunately, EPA chose not to follow my advice and on December 31, 2002,
without further process, EPA published a set of final revisions to the NSR
rules (67 Fed Reg. 80186 (Dec. 31, 2002)). That same day, EPA also proposed
additional changes to the NSR program relating to the definition of
"routine maintenance" (67 Fed. Reg. 80290 (Dec. 31, 2002)).
I believe the public interest would have been better served by providing a
reasonable measure of additional process for the final NSR rules and I
regret that you chose not to do so.
Although it will now be up to the courts to determine the legal sufficiency
of the final NSR rules and process, I am writing to urge, once again, that
you provide the fullest opportunity for public comment on any further
changes to the NSR rules, including your current proposal to amend the
definition of "routine maintenance."
Given the highly controversial nature of these rules, I believe it is in
EPA's interest, and in the public interest, that there be ample opportunity
for comment beyond the 60-day comment period set forth in the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (67 Fed. Reg. 80290 (Dec. 31, 2002)). I would
also request that there be public hearings held in each major region of the
Nation and that all forms of comment remain acceptable for inclusion in the
rulemaking record in the same manner as EPA has previously allowed.
Finally, because significant aspects of the NSR proposal remain unsettled,
I would request that you publish an additional supplemental proposal once
key figures relating to industry-wide maintenance costs are submitted to
EPA as part of the rulemaking process. Such a proposal will help to ensure
that any additional changes to the NSR rules will be promulgated in a
manner that comports fully with the applicable substantive and procedural
requirements of the Clean Air Act.
As you know, EPA's proposal to revise the definition of routine maintenance
will have widespread consequences for the utility industry and other major
industry sectors subject to NSR. Although the routine maintenance issue has
been in the public eye for more than a decade, EPA's recent proposal itself
is almost entirely new. It is also relatively complex and technical, and
its ultimate effect on both public health and on improved regulatory
efficiency is not yet fully understood. It is likely that both
environmental and industry sources (as well as state and local governments)
will require additional time to complete their analyses of the proposed
rule and to submit comments that adequately reflect the best available
The current proposal requires that comments be submitted within 60 days of
December 31, 2001, (by March 3, 2003) (67 Fed. Reg. 80290 (Dec. 31, 2002)).
That time period seems unnecessarily short (especially given the
end-of-the-year publication of the proposal) and therefore I would request
that the comment period be extended by an additional 90 days. That should
provide sufficient time for interested parties to produce quality
information for submission to the agency as part of the rulemaking record.
In the NPRM, EPA indicates that, upon request, a hearing will be held
regarding the proposed NSR rules (67 Fed. Reg. 80290 col. 2. (Dec. 31,
2002)). I understand that EPA is considering holding a single large
hearing, probably in North Carolina, close to EPA's Office of Air Quality,
Planning and Standards. Although this may be convenient for EPA staff, it
is unlikely that all interested parties in the United States will find it
equally convenient to attend. I urge you to schedule a series of hearings
in each region of the country where a request has been received (including
the Midwest), so that everyone with an interest may reasonably attend and
It is equally important that all comments receive the same weight,
regardless of their form or source, and that a variety of means of comment
remain acceptable. In 1997, EPA issued a proposed rule revising the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter and ozone.
EPA received upwards of 50,000 comments on each rule and established a
variety of means by which interested parties could comment.
Although these standards were highly controversial and subject to extensive
litigation, no procedural challenges were successfully pursued regarding
EPA's acceptance and consideration of public comment. That same standard
should apply in regard to comments and comment procedures for the proposed
NSR rules. All means of comment that were acceptable with regard to the
1997 NAAQS rulemaking should remain acceptable for the December 31, 2002,
Finally, the NPRM proposes a cost trigger for determining whether
particular plant changes will fall within the definition of "routine
maintenance" and therefore do not need to be considered "modifications"
that subject a facility to NSR requirements (See, e.g., 67 Fed. Reg. 80290,
80298 (Dec. 31, 2002)). According to EPA, appropriate annual cost
percentages would "be in the range of 0.5% to 20% depending upon the
industry." Id. EPA goes on to indicate that "to the extent we have data, we
intend in the final rule to set different percentages for specific industry
categories [and i]n selecting appropriate percentages, it would be helpful
if further information is made available to us during the public comment
period....Substantiated claims and estimates will be given greater
consideration than information not supported by actual data." Id. EPA
concludes by noting that "if there is a lack of information with which to
set industry percentages, we may elect to set a default value." Id.
As these statements make clear, EPA currently lacks reliable information on
the amount that particular industries typically spend on routine
maintenance, despite the centrality of these numbers in setting the level
of the cost trigger. As a result, it is difficult to see how informed
public comment can be provided on this issue until EPA actually proposes a
particular figure (or range of figures) for each industry.
Accordingly, I would urge EPA to issue a supplemental proposal once it has
received sufficient reliable information, since this will enable commentors
on all sides of the issue to fairly assess the validity of particular cost
trigger numbers and their ultimate impact on the economy and on public
health.1 Doing so will better enable informed public debate, and will help
to ensure that any final NSR rule is consistent with the existing law, both
substantively and procedurally.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me or have
your staff contact Michael L. Goo, Committee on Energy and Commerce
Minority Counsel, at 202-226-3400. I look forward to working with you on
this important issue.
JOHN D. DINGELL
cc: The Honorable W. J. "Billy" Tauzin, Chairman
Committee on Energy and Commerce
The Honorable Joe Barton, Member of Congress
The Honorable Rick Boucher, Member of Congress
1 EPA is also requesting information regarding an appropriate cost
percentage for its equipment replacement exemption ( see 67 Fed. Reg.
80290, 80301, col. 3, (Dec. 31, 2002)) and should also provide a similar
additional proposal once it receives further information in that regard.
Alex J. Sagady & Associates http://my.voyager.net/~ajs/sagady.pdf
Environmental Enforcement, Technical Review, Public Policy and
Communications on Air, Water and Waste/Community Environmental Protection
PO Box 39, East Lansing, MI 48826-0039
(517) 332-6971; (517) 332-8987 (fax); email@example.com
ENVIRO-MICH: Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action. Archives at
Postings to: firstname.lastname@example.org For info, send email to
email@example.com with a one-line message body of "info enviro-mich"