[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 236 (Friday, December 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 75622]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26770]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-4033-002]

Pizarro, Pedro J.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on December 1, 2022, Pedro J. Pizzarro submitted
for filing, application for authority to hold interlocking positions,
pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d (b)
and Part 45.8 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part 45.8.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 22, 2022.

    Dated: December 5, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-26770 Filed 12-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


upon weather conditions from data of the past 100 years in 7 each of those counties? If there exists no data for 100 8 years, then base the calculation on the largest year 9 amount data. Furthermore, what is the probability of 10 triggering a ground level ozone event if the ozone 11 precursors from a point, area or major source were reduced 12 in the ozone transportation region by 70 percent, by 80 13 percent and by 90 percent? Please use the most current 14 data for ozone precursors. 15 The second request: How many premature deaths 16 and asthma attacks would be prevented and what is the cost 17 savings of health expenses due to a 70 percent, 80 percent 18 and 90 percent reduction of ozone precursors in the ozone 19 transportation region if they were implemented in 2005, 20 compared to the proposed implementation timetables of the 21 8 hour standard by the U. S. EPA? 22 The purpose of examining the historical weather 23 216 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 events that would lead to adverse levels of ground level 1 ozone is to back a statement recently published in the 2 Atlanta Journal and Constitution on Thursday, June 26th. 3 The article clearly states that the weather greatly 4 affects the violations of the ozone standard. I quote: 5 Although scientists attribute much of the approvement to 6 favorable weather, the number of days that the area 7 violated the federal smog standard dropped to seven last 8 year from twenty one in 1999. 9 Our position is that the health of the general 10 public is too important to rely on the fickleness of the 11 weather. Therefore, it would be considered an absurd 12 result or absurd basis if attainment solely rested on the 13 weather. For example, if attainment in 2004 can be 14 achieved by the weather and wind direction in previous 15 years in a specific region, then in subsequent years, the 16 weather and wind direction could produce adverse health 17 effects due to ground level ozone being above the 8 hour 18 standard for several years before the same area is found 19 to be in nonattainment status under the implementation of 20 the standard. This is a principle widely understood by 21 the general public and does not protect the health and 22 welfare of the general public. Predicting the weather for 23 217 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 three days in advance is a difficult job for any 1 meteorologist. 2 Since 1998, the lack of action by the federal 3 government to promulgate the 8 hour ozone standard and the 4 lack of good faith efforts by the owners of older 5 coal fired powerplants, the federal government and 6 Congress to retire these facilities or reduce their 7 ground level ozone precursors over the 30 years had had a 8 cost on the general public in terms of health and monetary 9 expenses. 10 My next Freedom of Information request is: What 11 is the estimated effects on the health of the general 12 public and estimated cost of monetary expenses associated 13 with these health costs during the period of 1998 through 14 2007 due to ground level ozone? 15 Furthermore, this proposal states that the local 16 control technologies on industries and control 17 technologies on the electricity generating units are 18 expensive. Could I have the first slide, please? 19 This could be furthest from the truth. The cost 20 of reducing a ton of ozone precursors per ton is the 21 lowest for coal fired powerplants, followed by local 22 controls on industries, then controls on mobile sources. 23 218 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 Figure 1 illustrates the reality. The cost to reduce a 1 ton of NO x on an automobile is between $ 10,000 and $ 20,000 2 per ton. The costs for industrial control technologies to 3 reduce volatile organic compounds, including hazardous air 4 pollutants, ranges from $ 3,000 to $ 5,000 per ton for 5 reasonable available control technology, to roughly $ 4,000 6 to $ 8,000 per ton for best available control technology 7 and MACT technology. The cost of reducing a ton of NO x 8 from an electricity generating unit is between $ 1,500 to 9 $ 2,000 per ton. Clearly, industry and powerplants have 10 the lower cost, with due respect and objectivity to 11 powerplants, especially coal fired powerplants having 12 technology issues when a multi pollutant approach is taken 13 to reduce nitrogen oxides, sulfur and mercury. Being an 14 expert in advance control technologies for VOCs and NO x, I 15 know much about the cost of technologies. 16 For example, the state of the art of VOC control 17 technologies works as follows: With advanced electric 18 technology, one push of a button will provide a 70 percent 19 reduction in VOCs. This would be BACT technology. A push 20 of another button on the same machine would produce a 21 90 percent reduction in VOCs. Press another button, and 22 the same machine will produce 95 to 99 percent reduction 23 219 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 in VOC precursors. Press another button on the same 1 machine, and the machine allows for an increase in the 2 tons of VOCs to be reduced. 3 This advanced technology was developed through 4 DARPA, the Defense Advance Research Program Agency, under 5 President Bush, President George Herbert Walker Bush, our 6 President's father. This technology is readily available 7 and can be readily produced in mass quantity. In the 8 1994 1995 period, U. E. EPA Administrator Carol Browner was 9 given a highly competitive cost for the earlier technology 10 of advanced electric technologies that used resistive 11 heating elements in add on controls at the first Common 12 Sense Initiative meeting. 13 This newer technology also has that same cost. 14 If the technology is not low enough for competition, the 15 products can be made in China, reducing manufacturing 16 costs by 75 percent. Further cost reductions can be 17 achieved by exploiting cheap labor in third world 18 countries where people work for a dollar. Without a 19 doubt, environmental technology initiatives for hydrogen, 20 solar energy, renewable fuel and conventional energy 21 production under George W. Bush will produce the same 22 rapid advancement most likely within five years. 23 220 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 Statements regarding local controls that affect 1 air quality in this proposed implementation of the 8 hour 2 standard are highly suspect to the nature of these 3 statements. The position of the EPA on reducing ozone 4 precursors locally must be influenced by some other reason 5 besides costs. Quite possibly, money contributions 6 control an oligarchy that greatly influences the U. S. 7 EPA's decision. 8 Free enterprise and market driven trading 9 programs could put a stop to this moligarchy from 10 preventing reductions of ground level ozone precursors in 11 local environments. Free enterprise and free markets will 12 allow the general public and the customers of power 13 companies to influence local air quality by supporting 14 controls on local industry through power companies 15 reducing emissions from their customers. Without a doubt, 16 local communities would rather have the emissions from a 17 plant next door to their community reduced instead of 18 distant reductions controlled by a moligarchy that runs 19 the U. S. EPA. 20 Also, if Congress and the President can provide 21 an 80 percent tax writeoff for the purchase of a Hummer 22 and other heavy duty trucks that produce ozone precursors, 23 221 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 then Congress and the President can provide an 80 percent 1 tax writeoff for local controls that reduce ozone 2 precursors. 3 Furthermore, any implementation that bases 4 nonattainment status on proposed modeling of attainment 5 will be challenged in court. Neither the Clean Air Act or 6 the Clean Air Act amendment allows for this action. 7 Either an area has attainment status or has a 8 nonattainment status. 9 Models and modeling by the U. S. EPA is highly 10 suspect, and input data is highly suspect as well. The 11 validity of the U. S. EPA's modeling is even stated within 12 this proposal. Other proposed ideas for modeling raises 13 questions about the intent of the U. S. EPA. While this 14 proposal  U. S. EPA cites cost for the reasons that the 15 U. S. EPA will perform modeling for candidate marginal and 16 moderate nonattainment areas in order to prove that these 17 area should be given a waiver for nonattainment status. 18 Suspicion is quite warranted. There is reasonable doubt 19 that the cost is the U. S. EPA's primary concern for 20 modeling. 21 In recent months, I have had conversations and 22 contact with South Carolina's Department of Environmental 23 222 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 Health Control, DHEC, and U. S. EPA officials in Research 1 Triangle Park and Region 4 offices. In a meeting with 2 DHEC on March 25, 2003, DHEC officials stated that their 3 models showed it would be doubtful to reach attainment by 4 2007 without further controls on industries and an 5 electricity generating unit. When I spoke with DHEC on 6 June 26, 2003, I was told there would be no problem with 7 all of South Carolina being able to reach attainment by 8 2007 based upon new modeling. 9 Were the results of the new models just tweaked 10 for attainment? Were accurate assumptions made for the 11 new results? Another example of inaccurate data is found 12 in New Jersey by an action known as the Camden sweeps. 13 The Camden sweeps found that reporting of emissions were 14 inaccurate. Another example of data inaccuracies is that 15 data for a court case was lost in the Midwest recently. 16 These are just some examples of the problems with models, 17 modeling and data that the public is aware of. 18 Further, I had a recent conference call with 19 U. S. EPA officials in the Region 4 office and in Research 20 Triangle Park regarding the concept that South Carolina is 21 a NO x limited area. The U. S. EPA officials, experts as 22 they are, could not provide me with any relationship to 23 223 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 the effect of different ozone precursors on ground level 1 ozone formation which would relate to an exchange of a VOC 2 for NO x emissions. I was assured by the Region 4 official 3 that this was a complicated and difficult thing to do. 4 Further attesting to this same type of accuracy 5 of the U. S. EPA and this type of relationship is given in 6 the proposal for the implementation of the 8 hour 7 standard. Therefore, how can the health and the welfare 8 of the general public be based on these models in a 9 non cautious manner? Models possibly could be utilized 10 similar to the concept in medical practice, cause no harm. 11 Models possibly could be used for cautious predictions 12 that protect public health, but should not be used to 13 predict the future of public health. 14 Also noted is a point from conversations with 15 U. S. EPA officials that these models are not tested or 16 verified in local measurements, near local sources that 17 are away from ozone monitors. 18 Further evidence to the accuracy of the U. S. EPA 19 models and modeling was provided in a June 18, 2003 20 article in the Atlanta Constitution. The 11th Circuit 21 Court of Appeals ruled that the EPA's model for Atlanta 22 was incorrect. The Court held that the independent 23 224 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 modeling proved the U. S. EPA wrongfully accounted for the 1 local effect of ozone precursors on Atlanta's ground level 2 ozone. The U. S. EPA Region 4 experts were wrong again. 3 Can the public actually trust their health and welfare on 4 these inaccurate models, data and modeling? 5 In the opinion of ESTEC Enterprises and myself, 6 implementation should be sooner, rather than later, and 7 free enterprise and free markets should assist in 8 attainment to be as expeditious as practical. 9 ( Whereupon, there was a brief discussion off the 10 record.) 11 MR. DALTON: Figure 2 depicts the NO x SIP call 12 trading region in orange, pretty much east of the 13 Mississippi. The red areas are candidate areas for 14 nonattainment areas of the new 8 hour standard and the 15 blue areas are nonattainment areas for the 1 hour 16 standard. These areas are based upon 1998 predictions by 17 the U. S. EPA. 18 Free enterprise and free markets could be used 19 to expedite healthier air quality to these nonattainment 20 areas. Local controls can improve local air quality by 21 trading local ozone precursors for transport ozone 22 precursors. For example, in the red areas, if there are 23 225 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 coal fired powerplants that are not situated near large 1 communities, they could be used  the local reductions in 2 the red areas could be used to trade off against these 3 transport NO x emissions. 4 VOC and NO x emissions can be traded between each 5 species. This type of trading  apples for oranges, VOCs 6 for NO x  would achieve a reduction in local ozone 7 precursors that is more reliable than reduction of 8 transport ozone precursors, because transport ozone 9 precursors are affected by weather conditions and wind 10 direction. Local communities and industries would use 11 their buying power to make their own choices, instead of 12 the federal government dictating how and when local 13 communities should have healthy air quality. 14 Also, this free enterprise and free market 15 approach prevents the federal government, lobbyists and 16 moligarchies from dictating the health of local air 17 quality, the time frame of reaching healthy air quality in 18 local communities and places control back in local 19 communities. 20 ( Whereupon, there was a brief discussion off the 21 record.) 22 MR. SILVASI: Do you have this in your 23 226 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 testimony? 1 MR. DALTON: Yes. That is the USPIRG data from, 2 I think, 1998 that shows the excess emissions on the right 3 of coal fired powerplants. Then we do a calculation to 4 see what the excess emissions actually do. 5 If you go to the next slide, that is where the 6 actual summation of the data is, right there ( indicating). 7 The Clinton Administration said that it cost about 8 $ 14 billion to clean up these excess air emissions from 9 the powerplants. If you take the typical cost of a piece 10 of pollution control equipment, which is $ 225,000, or a 11 2,500 CFM smokestack, which is about 90 percent of the 12 smokestacks, you go with emissions credits trading, and if 13 the credits trade around $ 3,500, you could pretty much 14 clean up all the stacks, 45,000 of them, in the United 15 States. 16 So Figures 3 and 4 show the abundance of NO x 17 emissions from the coal fired powerplants are readily 18 available. Furthermore, allowance allocations can be 19 greatly reduced in order to have power companies earn 20 allowances by purchasing early reduction credits from the 21 reduction of ozone precursors by local industries and 22 initiatives such as paying people $ 100 to replace older 23 227 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 catalytic converters after 2007. 1 Furthermore, congressional legislation such as 2 the Clean Power Act, the Clear Skies Act and other 3 initiatives by senators from Arizona and Connecticut call 4 for emission credits trading programs. The most effective 5 trading program would be a Cap and Earn program instead of 6 a Cap and Trade. 7 In the end, I support an interpollutant, open 8 market emissions credits trading program, and I believe 9 that the future will show that Ms. Whitman's free 10 enterprise and free market approach of emission credits 11 trading would prove to be the best way to improve air 12 quality as expeditiously as practical and will ultimately 13 empower the people. 14 Furthermore, the Early Action Compacts that I 15 represent had poor participation by voting members, 16 unequal representations of society, no Robert's rules of 17 orders for addressing issues, minutes of the meetings that 18 did not actually represent the issues discussed, notices 19 of meetings typically were given in short terms with, on 20 occasion, no notice at all. While some of these actions 21 are due to the speed of progress needed to meet the Early 22 Action Compacts, most are inexcusable. 23 228 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 Finally, Ms. Eldridge left the meeting upset 1 because it was apparent to her that the members that are 2 responsible for forming implementation strategies under 3 the Early Action Compacts were more concerned about doing 4 as little as possible for reducing ozone precursors than 5 ensuring the protection of air quality. 6 Thank you for your time. 7 MR. HELMS: Thank you. 8 Questions? 9 ( No response.) 10 MR. HELMS: I have one clarifying question. You 11 mentioned the magic words several times, Freedom of 12 Information. 13 MR. DALTON: Yes. 14 MR. HELMS: Do you intend this to be a Freedom 15 of Information  16 MR. DALTON: Oh, absolutely. Do I need to 17 submit it to someone else or  18 MR. HELMS: Mechanically putting in the 19 testimony I don't think will do it. He should formally 20 submit it? 21 MS. TIERNEY: I am not a FOIA expert, so I am 22 not positive, but I think you need to submit a letter. 23 229 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 MR. DALTON: All right. That's fine. 1 MR. HELMS: I would send your request in a 2 letter to the Administrator, and it will get sent down to 3 the appropriate person. That would be much more 4 effective. 5 MR. DALTON: Okay. Thank you. 6 MR. HELMS: No problem with you doing it, just 7 do it that way. 8 MR. DALTON: I intended to do that anyway. 9 MR. HELMS: Thank you for your time. 10 ( Whereupon, the testimony of Robert Dalton was 11 concluded.) 12 MR. HELMS: Is there a Heather Quinlan here? 13 You have been sitting very patiently back there. The 14 podium is yours. 15 TESTIMONY OF HEATHER QUINLAN 16 MS. QUINLAN: Good afternoon. My name is 17 Heather Quinlan. I am a fourth year environmental science 18 student at the University of California in Riverside. 19 This summer I am interning in Washington, D. C. with the 20 National Parks Conservation Association, and I thank you 21 for this opportunity to speak in front of you today. 22 I come before you today asking for a more rapid 23 230 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 and strict set of implementation plans for the 8 hour 1 ozone standard. Ground level ozone is bad for the 2 economy, causing a loss of productivity due to human 3 health problems, as well as mounting medical bills. Ozone 4 is a major contributor to a variety of respiratory 5 problems. You have heard about a lot of them already 6 today. 7 According to the American Lung Association, 8 ozone is, quote, one of the most damaging and most 9 pervasive of common outdoor pollutants, end quote. The 10 cost of medical care for these conditions and the lost 11 production from sick days is a tremendous burden on 12 polluted areas. Ozone also negatively affects our natural 13 environment, with consequences ranging from decreased 14 agricultural production and forest damage to diminished 15 aesthetic conditions. Commercial forestry and agriculture 16 experience lower yields and lower profits due to 17 ozone related plant damage. 18 The beauty of our national parks and other 19 natural spaces is obscured behind some of the worst air 20 pollution in the nation. National parks are designated as 21 Class 1 areas that warrant the strictest air pollution 22 protection under the Clean Air Act, yet they continue to 23 231 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 experience forest damage due to elevated levels of ozone. 1 The switch to an 8 hour standard of 80 parts per 2 billion is a step in the right direction; however, it will 3 do little to improve the current state of the air unless 4 it is implemented in a timely and effective manner. The 5 proposal set forth by the EPA allows too much leeway for 6 nonattainment areas. Attainment deadlines need to be 7 enforced and not extended, pushing the heaviest polluters 8 to clean up their systems on schedule. New source review 9 and transportation conformity can not be left out of Early 10 Action Compacts which, if they were, could cause an uneven 11 distribution of air pollution within a region. The Clean 12 Air Act needs to be enforced in its entirety without 13 weakening various provisions at the expense of our health. 14 Before I conclude, I would like to share my own 15 experience with living with ozone pollution. I grew up 16 and still live in San Bernadino County in California, a 17 county with the worst ozone pollution in the country. As 18 a child, my lungs would hurt from swimming in the pool or 19 playing outside. Even now, 15 years later, clear views of 20 local mountains happen only in winter, if we are lucky. I 21 haven't seen the mountains for probably a month now. You 22 just have to trust they are there. Hiking trips into the 23 232 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 hills surrounding UCR are often canceled, due to the dense 1 cloud of particulates and ozone and smog that rest against 2 the hills. In fact, San Bernadino National Forest is 3 primed for one of the largest forest fires there in recent 4 history, in part due to ozone damage of plant tissues. 5 Presently, I have been living in the Capitol for 6 a week now and, instead of jogging past monuments and 7 museums, I exercise in a building, unable to enjoy the 8 sights of our beautiful capitol. I do this to protect my 9 health because the regulations are not. 10 In conclusion, I would like to say that 11 nonattainment areas have already had too long to fix the 12 ozone pollution problem. The quality and duration of 13 human life are influenced by the decisions that will be 14 made regarding this issue. I ask the EPA to protect human 15 health and the natural environment by implementing and 16 enforcing a more forceful ozone implementation policy. 17 Thank you. 18 MR. HELMS: Thank you very much. 19 ( Whereupon, the testimony of Heather Quinlan was 20 concluded.) 21 MR. HELMS: Rob Sliwinski. Rob, I am not 22 leaving you. I will be right back. 23 233 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 MR. SILVASI: Just while Rob is coming up here, 1 just a reminder to those that may have come late, we are 2 trying to enforce a five minute testimony rule. If you 3 find you are going to need more time, in fairness to the 4 other speakers who have not yet spoken, what we will do is 5 ask you to kind of summarize at that point, and then if 6 you are still around, you can come back and resume your 7 testimony after others have had a chance to testify. 8 Thank you. 9 TESTIMONY OF ROBERT SLIWINSKI 10 MR. SLIWINSKI: Good afternoon. My name is 11 Robert Sliwinski, and I am the director of the Bureau of 12 Stationary Sources in the New York State Department of 13 Environmental Conservation, Division of Air Resources. On 14 behalf of Commissioner Crotty, I want to thank you for 15 providing the Department with the opportunity to testify 16 at this hearing. Among its many mandates, the Department 17 is responsible for the preservation, protection and 18 improvement of the air quality in New York State. Under 19 the leadership of Governor George Pataki, the Department 20 is dedicated not to just protecting our air, but to 21 continuously improving air quality. 22 I am here to present the Department's oral 23 234 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 comments on the U. S. EPA's proposed rule to implement the 1 8 hour ozone national ambient air quality standard. 2 Although it is referred to as a proposed rule, the 3 Department notes there is no regulatory text included, 4 only various options on how to implement the 8 hour 5 standard. The Department is concerned that the current 6 rulemaking notice does not sufficiently describe or 7 explain the substance of the upcoming regulatory text or 8 the subjects and issues that are implicated by all the 9 various options listed. We encourage the U. S. EPA to hold 10 a new comment period on the regulatory text after it is 11 proposed. 12 The U. S. EPA's proposed rule centers on two 13 options for classifying 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas. 14 Option 1 uses the 8 hour design values to classify the 15 areas under the specifications of Subpart 2 of Part D of 16 the Clean Air Act. Option 2 uses the 1 hour ozone design 17 values and allows some areas to be regulated under the 18 more general requirements of Subpart 1 of Part D of the 19 Act. 20 Overall, the Department supports the use of 21 option 1, because it is more consistent with the 22 provisions of the Clean Air Act and the Supreme Court's 23 235 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 direction to U. S. EPA to develop a reasonable resolution 1 of the ambiguity that exists on how parts of Subparts 1 2 and 2 interact with regard to the revised ozone standards. 3 We believe that option 1 will continue well into the 4 future progress that the states are making to provide 5 clean and healthful air through mandatory pollution 6 controls. 7 The Department contends that the mandatory 8 control programs established by Congress in Subpart 2, as 9 implemented by U. S. EPA, the states in the regulated 10 community deserve much of the credit for the decrease in 11 ozone pollution that the EPA discusses in the proposed 12 rule. Subpart 2 has done much to level the playing field 13 by requiring that ozone nonattainment areas all have the 14 same core pollution control programs. 15 EPA's demonstrated preference in the proposed 16 rule for option 2 would place some new 8 hour 17 nonattainment areas under the general requirements of 18 Subpart 1. Choosing this option would obviate 19 congressionally mandated programs in some 8 hour 20 nonattainment areas, denying the public the protections of 21 those programs and making the now level playing field as 22 lopsided as it was before the 1990 amendments were 23 236 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 enacted. 1 The Supreme Court has stated that although gaps 2 may exist in the scheme of Subpart 2, they do not render 3 inoperative the subpart's carefully designed restrictions 4 on U. S. EPA's discretion in implementing an ozone 5 standard. The Court specifically recognized the gap 6 evident in the structure of Table 1 of Subpart 2 as it 7 relates to the 8 hour standard. Instead of resolving the 8 ambiguity created by this gap, the Department believes 9 U. S. EPA is using this gap in its regulatory proposal to 10 jettison entirely Subpart 2' s applicability for many, if 11 not most, nonattainment areas and widening its discretion 12 by relying on Subpart 1. This is just the type of 13 interpretation that the Supreme Court found unreasonable. 14 In the documents accompanying the proposed rule, 15 U. S. EPA partly justifies its desire to substitute Subpart 16 1 requirements for the stricter standards of Subpart 2 on 17 a belief that it would benefit many areas of the country. 18 EPA believes that many areas which are currently in 19 attainment of the 1 hour standard but are projected 20 nonattainment for the 8 hour standard will attain the 21 8 hour standard on the basis of existing regional or 22 national control programs. It appears that EPA would 23 237 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 prefer to avoid requiring new control programs for these 1 areas. 2 Although the regional and national control 3 programs established to bring areas into attainment for 4 the 1 hour standard will help those areas attain the 5 8 hour standard and must be implemented, they may not be 6 sufficient to bring about this attainment of the 8 hour 7 standard by themselves. Local control programs may be 8 needed for those areas that had attained the 1 hour 9 standard but not the 8 hour standard. If EPA does not 10 consider local controls in the beginning of its 11 implementation planning, it risks delaying attainment when 12 those controls are later determined to be necessary. The 13 Act requires attainment to come as expeditiously as 14 practicable, and EPA's failure to consider local controls 15 in its planning is inconsistent with the Act. 16 EPA's recognition of the interstate transport of 17 ozone and its precursor pollutants and of the difficulties 18 which downwind states have in meeting their clean air 19 goals because of transport is appreciated. However, the 20 programs developed to address transport, the NO x SIP call 21 and the Section 126 rules, have not been shown to be 22 sufficient by themselves to bring about attainment of the 23 238 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 8 hour standard in all metropolitan areas. U. S. EPA needs 1 to expand these programs to ensure that the ambient levels 2 of background air pollution are low enough for state and 3 local control programs to be effective in completing the 4 task of attaining the 8 hour standard and protecting the 5 public health. 6 On behalf of Commissioner Crotty, I want to 7 thank you again for this opportunity to comment on the 8 proposed 8 hour ozone rule, and the Department will be 9 sending EPA more detailed written comments prior to the 10 end of the comment period. We also look forward to 11 commenting on the regulatory text when it becomes 12 available. Thank you. 13 MR. HELMS: Thank you, Rob. 14 ( Whereupon, the testimony of Rob Sliwinski was 15 concluded.) 16 MR. HELMS: Peter Witzler? 17 ( No response.) 18 MR. HELMS: Dan Grace. Thank you for waiting. 19 MR. GRACE: Thank you for having me. 20 TESTIMONY OF DAN GRACE 21 MR. GRACE: My name is Dan Grace, and I traveled 22 here from Johnson City, Tennessee to, at first, really 23 239 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 just witness these proceedings and to learn a little bit 1 more about air quality standards. After making the long 2 trip, I felt a little bit more compelled to at least offer 3 my comments, so I prepared a really brief and somewhat 4 objective statement. But, after hearing plenty of other 5 people's statements, they sound very similar to mine, so I 6 am just going to sum up really quickly that I think that 7 it is really important that we raise the standards of air 8 quality, and I feel that as an environmentalist, as a 9 participating athlete, outdoor enthusiast and lover of the 10 southern Appalachian Mountains. I also would like to urge 11 you all to please offer a chance at least for the public 12 to comment after you guys come up with your  13 MR. HELMS: The regulatory text? 14 MR. GRACE: Yes. 15 MR. HELMS: All right. 16 MR. GRACE: Thank you very much for having me 17 here, and it was a joy taking part in this. 18 MR. HELMS: Thank you for sitting so patiently. 19 ( Whereupon, the testimony of Dan Grace was 20 concluded.) 21 MR. HELMS: Molly Rooke? 22 ( No response.) 23 240 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 MR. HELMS: Pete Witzler again? Molly Rooke? 1 ( No response.) 2 MR. HELMS: I am going to go through and call 3 out a few names of people that had pre registered but have 4 not shown, or at least our records don't show you are 5 here. 6 Lenny Kohm? 7 ( No response.) 8 MR. HELMS: Matthew Wasson? 9 ( No response.) 10 MR. HELMS: Pauline Kaltsunis? 11 ( No response.) 12 MR. HELMS: Felicia Davis? 13 ( No response.) 14 MR. HELMS: Bahri Aliriza? 15 ( No response.) 16 MR. HELMS: Is there anyone else here that would 17 like to make a statement at this time to offer comments on 18 our proposed 8 hour implementation rule? 19 ( No response.) 20 MR. HELMS: We will remain here until 5: 00, 21 should any of you change your mind. We will go into 22 recess now and we will convene, if not before 5: 00 at 23 241 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 5: 00, to adjourn. 1 Again, I want to thank all of you for taking the 2 time, energy and effort to come here to Alexandria, 3 Virginia to testify. The meeting is adjourned, 4 temporarily suspended. 5 Thank you. 6 ( Whereupon, a recess was taken from 2: 28 p. m. to 7 2: 59 p. m.) 8 MR. SILVASI: We are about to break out of the 9 recess and we will reopen the testimony here at the public 10 hearing. Just a reminder that we have been enforcing a 11 five minute rule here, but in light of the fact that there 12 is no one else behind you, we probably won't actually 13 enforce that at this point. 14 Would you please state your name and your 15 affiliation? 16 TESTIMONY OF BAHRI ALIRIZA 17 MR. ALIRIZA: My name is Bahri Aliriza. I am 18 the president for Polytrade International Corporation, 19 which is a corporation that emphasizes on reducing air 20 pollution. I am also a member of the Chesapeake Climate 21 Organization, which also emphasizes on reducing air 22 pollution. 23 242 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 My purpose of being here is to emphasize that we 1 need to do everything and anything that we possibly can to 2 reduce air pollution. We should look at every means 3 possible to us. Otherwise, we are not going to have an 4 environment in the long term. There are various avenues 5 available to us. I know one is wind generation, 6 generating electricity with wind power. 7 My company emphasizes on fuel additives. We 8 have a product which will reduce emissions 38 to 9 60 percent, and I encourage everyone to look at our 10 organization. It is on our Web page, under 11 www. polytrade. net. What it will basically do in a 12 nutshell is it will reduce emissions 38 to 60 percent, 13 which I think is very significant, and it will reduce the 14 harmful emissions like your nitrogen oxides, your 15 hydrocarbons and your carbons, and it will not affect any 16 of the operations of anyone that is doing business of 17 driving a vehicle. 18 It is treated directly into the fuel, whether it 19 is for gasoline or for diesel. For gasoline, one gallon 20 will treat up to 2,000 gallons, and for diesel, one gallon 21 will treat 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel. So it is very, 22 very concentrated, and it will get rid of all the black 23 243 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 smoke that is associated with vehicles, with refineries 1 and powerplants, ships. Anything that uses fuel, our 2 product will mix with the fuel and make that fuel burn 3 much, much better, which means that we will all have a 4 much better environment. 5 And for people that are here that are 6 interested, I do have a business card and I do have a 7 flyer. And if anybody has any questions, I would like to 8 keep it short, but I can explain a little bit more about 9 how it works. In a nutshell, when the hydrocarbons burns, 10 it burns as a chain, and the whole chain doesn't burn. 11 This is why we end up getting carbon buildup in our 12 engines. What our product basically does is it coats the 13 hydrocarbons and breaks them down into individual 14 identical sized pieces. And then, almost like magnetic, 15 it draws it towards heat, which is where your combustion 16 chamber is, and that is where you get a full combustion, 17 which is basically a full burning. That's what saves you 18 money on fuel, and that is what allows you to have cleaner 19 air. And it has a lot more benefits, like getting rid of 20 water in your fuel, preventing the rusting of your fuel 21 tank, stabilizing the fuel and lubricating your entire 22 engine, so your engine lasts longer. 23 244 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 The product is very, very cost effective, so you 1 are getting better fuel efficiency as well as a longer 2 lasting and a smoother running engine and you are helping 3 the environment by reducing all the emissions. It doesn't 4 get any easier than that. 5 Thank you. 6 MR. SILVASI: I just have a question. Would you 7 mind leaving your flyer for the record to contribute to 8 the testimony? 9 MR. ALIRIZA: My what? 10 MR. SILVASI: Did you say you had a flyer with 11 you? 12 MR. ALIRIZA: No. I said I have business cards 13 and I have a flyer, which I will be more than happy to 14 leave, yes. 15 MR. SILVASI: Okay. And just as a clarifying 16 question, have you been in contact with our Office of 17 Transportation and Air Quality in Ann Arbor with your 18 product? 19 MR. ALIRIZA: I did make a couple of attempts, I 20 know, at the Department of Transportation in Virginia and 21 there was some interest, and it did go as far as Richmond 22 and then came back to me. But it was very complicated, in 23 245 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 that there was a lot of things that were requested from 1 me. One of those requests was independent testing. But 2 nobody was willing to pay for the independent testing, and 3 we are a small business and we do have a budget. That is 4 one of the problems for us. 5 But the other problem is that the testing is  6 when it is done, it is usually done in a laboratory, and 7 our product is not meant to work in the laboratory. It is 8 meant to work out in the field in real life, real working 9 conditions. And we will provide free samples, whether it 10 is to the Department of Transportation or any organization 11 that is substantial, to prove to them that the product 12 does work. 13 The problems that we have had in the past in 14 labs doing the work is that they would put, like, one drop 15 of our product onto, like, so many drops of fuel, and they 16 would expect miracles under a microscope. Well, our 17 product doesn't exactly work that way. First of all, if 18 you do that, you don't have a mixture, so you have to 19 actually mix the product. The other downfall is that the 20 product needs a little bit of what we call curing time. 21 It is like making wine. It needs to  if it can sit in 22 there for, like, two days maximum, you will get the 23 246 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 maximum benefit, but even if you have a couple of hours, 1 it will show its effects. 2 Then each time you use the product  like 3 carbon with vehicles, it can only get rid of one layer of 4 carbon at a time, so the second time you will notice 5 tremendous power in your vehicle, and you will also notice 6 tremendous savings in your miles per gallon. But the 7 third and fourth time you will notice even more so. So 8 that is kind of how the product works. 9 Thank you. 10 MR. SILVASI: Thank you very much. 11 ( Whereupon, the testimony of Bahri Aliriza was 12 concluded.) 13 MR. SILVASI: There are no more speakers at this 14 point, so we will again recess until another speaker shows 15 up. 16 Thank you. 17 ( Whereupon, a recess was taken from 3: 06 p. m. to 18 3: 28 p. m.) 19 MR. HELMS: We will reopen, reconvene the 20 hearing. Our next speaker is James Lowenstern. 21 MR. LOWENSTERN: That's correct. 22 MR. HELMS: James, if you will identify yourself 23 247 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 with an address, how we can reach you, who you represent, 1 and then the mic is yours. 2 MR. LOWENSTERN: Okay. 3450 Terrace Court, 3 Apartment 1044, Alexandria, Virginia 22302. And do you 4 want the e mail? 5 MR. HELMS: The e mail would be great. 6 MR. LOWENSTERN: Okay. It is zuboguy@ aol. com. 7 I represent myself and the Green Party. 8 TESTIMONY OF JAMES LOWENSTERN 9 MR. LOWENSTERN: Greetings. Thanks for the 10 opportunity to speak before you. This may be slightly 11 different than you have heard before, but it looks like 12 you have had a little break. 13 There is no argument there is a problem with air 14 pollution and there are some nonattainment problems. I 15 think right now in the world and the nation, currently we 16 have the technology and the brainpower to do renewables in 17 non polluting sources of energy and waste disposal. That 18 would mean no more burning of carbon fuels, no more 19 nuclear and no incinerators, so there would be no toxic 20 byproducts. That would be less lung problems, less 21 asthma, less emphysema. 22 We need to bite the economic bullet of the 23 248 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 market economy and take into account the pollution poison. 1 That is the bottom line. Instead of the economic bottom 2 line, the bottom line should be the health. So, again, 3 let's use the brainpower to get these technologies that we 4 already know about on the road so we can have a safer 5 world. 6 Thanks. 7 MR. HELMS: Thank you very much for coming in. 8 We appreciate you taking the time to come back. 9 ( Whereupon, the testimony of James Lowenstern 10 was concluded.) 11 ( Whereupon, a recess was taken from 3: 30 p. m. to 12 4: 20 p. m.) 13 MR. HELMS: We will reconvene the hearing and go 14 on the record. We have another speaker. Sir, state your 15 name. 16 MR. NEWELL: My name is Skipper, legally 17 Frederick, Newell. 18 TESTIMONY OF FREDERICK NEWELL 19 MR. NEWELL: I have, like, two seconds of 20 something to say. I don't drive a car purposely. I ride 21 my bike everywhere, take public transportation. It has 22 been my life. Lately it has been really sad, because I 23 249 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 hate riding my bike because of all the exhaust. I really 1  I choke when I ride my bike, and there is not very good 2 paths, you know, away from main highways and things like 3 that. So any help with emission regulations and things 4 like that would be help on my lungs. But otherwise, I am 5 moving to Charlottesville, where the air is a lot fresher 6 than here. 7 I think that is about it, besides the fact that 8 I do think about air pollution as affecting us all, and I 9 think that we don't even realize that  I am sure you 10 guys do, but most people don't realize that there is  11 what is it  15 million  that's like the average  12 tons of carbon dioxide in the air every day. I mean, 13 except for the fact that trees are loving it, I am not. 14 That's it. Thank you. 15 MR. HELMS: Thank you very much. We appreciate 16 you coming over. 17 ( Whereupon, the testimony of Frederick Newell 18 was concluded.) 19 MR. HELMS: We will recess the hearing now. 20 ( Whereupon, a recess was taken from 4: 21 p. m. to 21 5: 00 p. m.) 22 MR. SILVASI: The public hearing on 23 250 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 implementation of the 8 hour standard proposal is hereby 1 adjourned, being that there are no other speakers, and it 2 is 5: 00. 3 Thank you very much. 4 ( Whereupon, at 5: 00 p. m., the public hearing in 5 the above entitled matter was concluded. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 251 MAUREEN S. BENNIE ( 703) 451 6256 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER I, MAUREEN S. BENNIE, the officer before whom the foregoing proceedings were taken, do hereby certify that the witnesses whose testimony appears in the foregoing transcript of proceedings was taken by me stenographically and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me; that said transcript of proceedings is a true record of the testimony given by said witnesses; that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which these proceedings were taken; and, further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto,

nor financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of these proceedings.

______________________________ Maureen S. Bennie Verbatim Court Reporter