1

          1

          2

          3            PUBLIC HEARING ON EPA PROPOSED RULE:

          4

          5

          6   Revisions to the Primary National Ambient Air Quality

          7              Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide

          8

          9

         10

         11                    Arlington, Virginia

         12

         13

         14                        August 3, 2009

         15

         16

         17   Reported by:  Frances M. Freeman, Conference Reporter

         18

         19

         20

         21

         22

                                                                         2

          1   APPEARANCES:

          2

          3      ROSALINA RODRIGUEZ, Hearing Officer                      Associate Director for Health and Environmental           4          Impacts Division, Office of Air Quality                      Planning and Standards           5

          6      DAVID ORLIN                      Office of General Counsel           7

          8      LEW WEINSTOCK                      Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards           9          Ambient Air Monitoring Group

         10

         11      SCOTT JENKINS                      Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards          12          Ambient Standards Group

         13

         14

         15

         16

         17

         18

         19

         20

         21

         22

                                                                         3

          1                   P R O C E E D I N G S

          2            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:  Good morning.

          3   And thank you for attending the Environmental

          4   Protection Agency's public hearing on a proposed rule

          5   for nitrogen dioxide, NO2.   I recognize that many of

          6   you have traveled quite a distance to be here, and I

          7   appreciate your efforts.

          8            My name is Rosalina Rodriguez, and I am the

          9   Associate Director for the Health and Environmental

         10   Impacts Division for EPA's Office of Air Quality

         11   Planning and Standards.  I will be chairing today's

         12   hearing.  We are here today to listen to your comments

         13   on EPA's proposed revisions to the Primary National

         14   Ambient Air Quality Standards for nitrogen dioxide.

         15   National Ambient Air Quality Standards, we usually

         16   refer to that as the NAAQS.

         17            As a reminder, this is a hearing, an

         18   opportunity for the public to comment on EPA's

         19   proposed rule.  The panel members here with me today

         20   may answer questions that seek to clarify what we have

         21   proposed.  But the purpose of this hearing is to

         22   listen to your comments, not to discuss or debate the

                                                                         4

          1   proposal.

          2            Before we move to the comment period, I would

          3   like to briefly describe the proposed rule that is the

          4   subject of today's hearing.  The proposed rule was

          5   published in the Federal Register on July 15, 2009.

          6            In the notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA

          7   proposes to make revisions to the primary N02 NAAQS in

          8   order to provide requisite protection of public

          9   health.

         10            Specifically, EPA proposes to supplement the

         11   current annual standard by establishing a new

         12   short-term NO2 standard based on the three-year

         13   average of the 99th percentile, or fourth highest, of

         14   the annual distribution of the one-hour daily maximum

         15   concentrations.

         16            EPA proposes to set the level of this new

         17   standard within the range of 80 to 100 parts per

         18   billion, or PPBs, and solicits comment on standard

         19   levels as low as 65 PPB and as high as 150 PPB.

         20            Also, EPA proposes to establish requirements

         21   for an NO2 monitoring network that will include

         22   monitors within 50 meters of major roadways.

                                                                         5

          1            In addition, EPA is soliciting comment on an

          2   alternative approach to setting the standard and

          3   revising the monitoring network.

          4            Consistent with the terms of a consent

          5   decree, the Administrator will sign a notice of final

          6   rulemaking by January 22, 2010.

          7            Now, let me turn to the comment portion of

          8   today's hearing.  This hearing is one of two public

          9   hearings we are holding.  There will be a second

         10   public hearing to discuss the proposed rulemaking on

         11   August 6, 2009, in Los Angeles, California.

         12            We will be preparing a written transcript of

         13   each hearing.  The transcripts will be available as

         14   part of the official record for each rule.

         15            We are also accepting written comments for

         16   the proposed rule until September 14, 2009.  We have a

         17   handout available in the registration area with

         18   detailed information for submitting written comments.

         19            At this time, I would like to outline how

         20   today's hearing will work.  I will call the scheduled

         21   speakers to the microphone in pairs.  Please state

         22   your name and your affiliation.  It will help our

                                                                         6

          1   court reporter if you also spell your name.

          2            In order to be fair to everyone, we are

          3   asking that you limit your testimony to five minutes

          4   each and to remain at the microphone until both

          5   speakers in a pair have finished.  After you finish

          6   your testimony, a panel member may ask clarifying

          7   questions.

          8            As I mentioned, we are transcribing today's

          9   hearing and each speaker's oral testimony will become

         10   part of the official record.  Please be sure to give a

         11   copy of any written comments to our staff at the

         12   registration table.  We will put the full text of your

         13   written comments into the docket for you.

         14            We have a timekeeping system consisting of

         15   green, yellow and red lights.  When you begin

         16   speaking, the green light will come on.  You will have

         17   five minutes to speak.  The yellow light will signal

         18   that you will have two minutes left to speak.  We will

         19   ask you to stop speaking when the red light comes on.

         20             We intend to stay into the evening until

         21   everyone has an opportunity to comment.  If you would

         22   like to testify but have not yet registered to do so,

                                                                         7

          1   please sign up at the registration table.

          2            For those who have already registered to

          3   speak, we have tried to accommodate your requests for

          4   specific time slots.  We ask for your patience as we

          5   proceed through the list.  We may need to make some

          6   minor adjustments as the day progresses.

          7            Now, I'd like to introduce the EPA

          8   representatives on our panel.  David Orlin to my left

          9   is with the Office of General Counsel.  Lew Weinstock

         10   immediately to my right is with the Office of Air

         11   Quality Planning and Standards Ambient Air Monitoring

         12   Group.  And Scott Jenkins at the end of this table is

         13   from the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

         14   Ambient Standards Group.    Scott is the lead for this

         15   project.

         16            Again, I would like to thank everyone for

         17   participating today.  I think we can get started.

         18            Let me call to the table Paul D'Eustachio and

         19   Bob Bates.

         20            MR. D'EUSTACHIO:  Good morning.  For the

         21   record, my name is Paul D'Eustachio.  I will spell

         22   that, D-E-U-S-T-A-C-H-I-O.  I am a resident of Takoma

                                                                         8

          1   Park, Maryland.  I am on the Board of Directors and

          2   Treasurer of the American Lung Association of the

          3   Atlantic Coast and also on the Board of Directors and

          4   Treasurer of the Washington Area Bicyclist

          5   Association.

          6            I am testifying today as an individual, not

          7   as a formal representative of either of those

          8   organizations, but I mention of those affiliations

          9   because the same interests that bring me to volunteer

         10   for those organizations also bring me here to this

         11   conference room this morning.

         12            That is:  I do like to breathe, I do like to

         13   bicycle, two of the most important things.

         14            Like other residents of the Metropolitan

         15   area, I breathe the air in this city, big lungfuls of

         16   it, since I commute by bicycle on a daily basis from

         17   my home in Maryland to my office here Arlington.  That

         18   ride takes me in rush hour traffic through downtown

         19   D.C., across the 14th Street Bridge and along the

         20   Potomac River on the Mount Vernon Trail.  It is just a

         21   couple hundred yards from here.

         22            Talk about being on ground zero for car

                                                                         9

          1   exhaust.  Even that Mount Vernon Trail, which is, by

          2   the way, ranked among the ten best bicycle commutes

          3   nationally, is a lung health disaster.  Parts of that

          4   trail run within a few feet of the gridlocked traffic

          5   on the GW Parkway, exposing thousands of daily users

          6   for that trail, runners, cyclists, kids, grandparents

          7   to a staggering amount of car exhaust.

          8            I would like to focus today on two parts of

          9   the proposed changes.  First, the current exposure

         10   standards need to be tightened substantially.  And,

         11   secondly, there is a clear and convincing need for a

         12   roadside monitoring program.

         13            Now, I'm not an environmental scientist.  I'm

         14   not a doctor.  I'm really just a middle-aged,

         15   bicycle-riding accountant, as a matter of fact.  But I

         16   do possess a remarkably sensitive instrument for

         17   testing air quality.  And that's my lungs.

         18            Riding across downtown D.C. on any given day,

         19   especially in the summer, my lungs are likely to go on

         20   high alert.   If I had built-in flashing lights or an

         21   audible alarm, everything would be going off at once.

         22            As I said, I'm an accountant.   I'm not a

                                                                        10

          1   scientist.  I can't tell you how many parts per

          2   billion that I'm actually breathing.  But my lungs

          3   will tell you that, whatever it is, it is way, way,

          4   way too much.

          5            And I can tell you emphatically from personal

          6   experience that the Congressionally-mandated

          7   requirement for an adequate margin of safety simply is

          8   not being met.

          9            I'm certain that there will be

         10   representatives from the American Lung Association

         11   testifying at these hearings as to the precise science

         12   of these exposure standards later on today.  In fact,

         13   I think I saw her walk in.

         14            And then I'm sure that they will be telling

         15   you that there needs to be a significant tightening of

         16   those standards.  And I urge you to listen closely.

         17   Their science is good.  They know what they are

         18   talking about.

         19            The second part -- secondly, I would like to

         20   address the need for roadside monitoring.  Again, my

         21   lungs will tell you that the difference between

         22   stepping out my back door in Takoma Park surrounded by

                                                                        11

          1   trees and blocks away from any heavily-traveled

          2   roadways and bicycling across the 14th Street Bridge

          3   from within perhaps a couple feet of the traffic on

          4   I-95 is huge.

          5            Our current monitoring system averages my

          6   backyard with I-95, and produces a number that simply

          7   is meaningless to anyone that's in close proximity to

          8   traffic.   We're trying to make health decisions based

          9   on numbers that just don't make any sense.

         10            Now here I'll bring my professional training

         11   as an accountant to bear.  I can give you an opinion

         12   that using meaningless numbers to make decisions just

         13   doesn't work.

         14            It is like going to the doctor with a high

         15   fever and having him tell you that, well, the average

         16   of all his patients that week was 98.6.  So you are

         17   just fine.

         18            Well, I'm not fine.  The current standards

         19   for nitrogen oxides are not fine.  And the way we

         20   monitor the compliance with those standards is not

         21   fine.  We have to do better.  We must do better.

         22            And I trust, ladies and gentlemen, that you

                                                                        12

          1   will make that right decision.  I appreciate the

          2   opportunity to be here today, and I thank you for your

          3   time and attention.  And if you have any questions

          4   like bicycling across the river, you are welcome to

          5   ask.

          6            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, sir.

          7            Let me ask the panel.  Do you have any

          8   questions for Mr. D'Eustachio?

          9            THE PANEL:  No.

         10            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you.

         11            Mr. Bob Bates.

         12            MR. BATES:  Good morning and thank you.  I

         13   appreciate the opportunity to present testimony today

         14   concerning the need for improved national ambient air

         15   quality standards and monitoring for primary nitrogen

         16   dioxide.

         17            I'm the chairman of the American Lung

         18   Association for the District of Columbia, the oldest

         19   ALA in the nation.  We started 102 years ago.

         20            The District of Columbia as a jurisdiction

         21   sees more than one million people traveling into and

         22   out of its communities at least five days week.

                                                                        13

          1   District residents are acutely aware of the harmful

          2   impact of exhaust emissions and the need to decrease

          3   or eliminate the release of these emissions into our

          4   ambient air.

          5            In the District, asthma affects more than one

          6   in six children under 18 years of age.  According to

          7   the D.C. Department of Health, there are estimates

          8   that at least 40,000 adults and 13,000 children

          9   currently are asthmatic.

         10            The overall prevalence rate for asthma in

         11   D.C. is ten percent.  But there are two major highways

         12   that cut through D.C. neighborhoods.  The Southeast

         13   Expressway and Interstate 295 run through Wards 7 and

         14   8.  In those wards, the asthma prevalence rate is

         15   12 percent.

         16            Both highways function as pipelines

         17   delivering heavy flows of nitrogen dioxide emissions

         18   to residential neighborhoods from commuters.

         19            The American Lung Association of D.C.

         20   strongly agrees with EPA and with the Clean Air

         21   Scientific Advisory Committee that the current nitrous

         22   oxide standard fails to protect the health of our

                                                                        14

          1   families.

          2            You know that the Clean Air Act establishes

          3   national quality air standards to protect people most

          4   at risk from nitrogen dioxide, including children,

          5   elders and anybody with asthma.

          6            The Act directs EPA to set a standard that

          7   includes an adequate margin of safety.

          8            NO2, nitrogen dioxide, is a widespread and

          9   dangerous air pollutant.  The American Lung

         10   Association supports stronger national air quality

         11   standards to protect District residents from this

         12   pollutant.

         13            We also support setting up a national system

         14   to monitor NO2 along major highways and strongly

         15   recommend including the District's Southeast/Southwest

         16   Freeway and the I-295 corridor in any national program

         17   to monitor nitrous oxide.

         18            There are science, of course, that confirms

         19   the link between living near heavily trafficked

         20   roadways and harm to health.

         21            However, no national network monitors traffic

         22   pollution on major highways where millions of people

                                                                        15

          1   live, work and go to school.

          2            As Chairman of the Board of Directors of the

          3   American Lung Association of the District, I applaud

          4   EPA for moving to improve the air quality standards.

          5   However, we all know that improving standards and

          6   monitoring emissions cannot better public health in

          7   and of themselves.

          8            Rather, these assessments will confirm the

          9   danger and validate the demand to enact effective

         10   changes in our ambient air quality.

         11            We insist that EPA deploy the data compiled

         12   from these studies to launch a campaign for changing

         13   our transportation systems.  Driving in our Nation's

         14   Capital can be hazardous for one's health in many

         15   ways.  Let us eliminate lethal vehicle emissions as

         16   one of those ways.

         17            Our Nation's Capital and the entire country

         18   deserves to benefit from driving cars that burn clean

         19   fuel.  And like other metropolises, our national

         20   capital region deserves enhancements in safety and

         21   efficiency in running its mass transportation system.

         22            We applaud EPA's bold action to collect data.

                                                                        16

          1   And we hope EPA's data collection initiative will

          2   launch an era of health-friendly vehicle designs.

          3            Thank you for this opportunity to convey to

          4   you the importance of this issue on behalf of the

          5   American Lung Association of the District of Columbia

          6   and on behalf of the constituents we serve who suffer

          7   from lung disease and for whom it is critical to have

          8   air to breathe that does not cause further

          9   deterioration of their lung health.

         10            As we say at the American Lung Association,

         11   when you can't breathe, nothing else matters.

         12            I thank you very much for your time.

         13            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:   Thank you, Mr.

         14   Bates.

         15            Questions from the panel?

         16            THE PANEL:  No.

         17            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you.

         18            I have a request for those present here.

         19   Please turn your Blackberry off.  They interfere with

         20   our AV system, audio visual system.  So we need to

         21   turn the Blackberry off.  I don't know if this applies

         22   to cell phones also.

                                                                        17

          1            The next two speakers are Kenton Pattie and

          2   Kenneth Lawrence.

          3            Mr. Pattie?

          4            MR. PATTIE:  Yes.  My name is Kenton Pattie.

          5   I'm a volunteer for the American Lung Association,

          6   Virginia.  And I have been doing that for quite a few

          7   years.  It is an honor to be here.

          8            And I think the strongest reason for having

          9   the hearing is the relationship between nitrogen

         10   dioxide and respiratory problems in our country.

         11   Like the first speaker, I'm also a bicyclist, and I

         12   have been racing for many, many years.

         13            And it is interesting that bicyclists would

         14   be here.  Very appropriate, because we spend a lot of

         15   hours out on the road joining the same road that

         16   trucks and cars are on.

         17            Studies have shown that traffic-related

         18   exposure to pollution are associated with increased

         19   airway inflammation and suggest this negative

         20   influence may be reversible.  Because when children

         21   have been  -- by studies have shown when removed from

         22   the area, they have shown an improvement going away

                                                                        18

          1   from the highways and out of the urban corridor that

          2   we're living in today.

          3            But it is not all about respiratory problems.

          4   We have also read studies that show that IQ score has

          5   gone down as a result of -- by four points for

          6   children who are exposed to nitrogen dioxide.

          7            Parents of over 9.5 US children are counting

          8   on us to do something here today.  And there are 16.2

          9   million adults who are suffering from asthma.  And

         10   they also are looking for a solution.  That's what

         11   we're all about.

         12            The evidence is not clear that nitrogen

         13   dioxide causes asthma, but it is clearly directly

         14   related to causing incidents.  And that's what we're

         15   concerned with.

         16            So the question, science question really is

         17   when is the point where the incidences go down?  When

         18   is it the point that we reverse the inquiries in

         19   respiratory problems among children?

         20            This is the measure where you are going to

         21   put monitors out on the road.  And as a parent

         22   volunteer in many organizations in Virginia, all I

                                                                        19

          1   hear about is the rising number of incidences, the

          2   rising number of children, the rising number of

          3   adults.  This is what we're all about, trying to do

          4   something about it.  To your credit, you are doing

          5   something about it here today.

          6            So I support the recommendations that you

          7   have made.  I don't think they are strong enough.  I

          8   don't think five monitors in Virginia is going to do

          9   it.  I don't think that the levels that you set -- I'm

         10   not a scientist, as the first speaker said, but I

         11   think a stronger restriction should be enforced.

         12            And I encourage you to do that.  Like the

         13   monitoring idea, we have had monitoring on power

         14   plants in Virginia.  But what do you know?  They left

         15   out power plants that are older power plants.  We

         16   don't need to leave anybody out of this.

         17            If we're going to enforce standards, they

         18   need to be across the board.  And somebody that did

         19   something 20 years ago shouldn't be exempted from the

         20   standards.

         21            So I would like just to conclude by saying

         22   that I also represent the fire industry, fire trucks.

                                                                        20

          1   And we are about to go through our second nitrogen

          2   dioxide standard, which is in force next year.

          3   Companies are already making engines for the fire

          4   trucks at my members' cell.

          5            And this industry is among many industries

          6   that are doing something about this problem at our

          7   site.  Monitoring it and responding to the public

          8   concern is back in your court.  Thank you very much.

          9            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:   Thank you, Mr.

         10   Pattie.    I have a question.  Do you have a reference

         11   for that IQ lowering that you associated with NO2.

         12            MR. PATTIE:  Yes.

         13            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:   If it's in here,

         14   it is okay.  It is in your written testimony?

         15            MR. ORLIN:   I was actually curious, because

         16   the written testimony sort of talks about high levels

         17   of pollution.  I guess I was curious if it was

         18   specific to NO2 or if it was traffic pollution.  Which

         19   is it?

         20            MR. PATTIE:  I don't get the question.

         21            MR. ORLIN:   I guess one question would be if

         22   we could look at the study, we could see if the

                                                                        21

          1   problem -- the study was specifically looking at IQ

          2   effects of nitrogen dioxide or IQ effects of all of

          3   the pollutants that are associated with high levels of

          4   traffic.

          5            MR. PATTIE:  Okay.  I can't answer that

          6   question for sure.  But it says in my statement, and I

          7   found this off the internet, so it was from an EPA

          8   study published in the proceedings of the National

          9   Academy of Sciences.  So it may be back in your

         10   marvelous researcher people that can come up with the

         11   answer to that.

         12            But there was a relationship with IQ.  And I

         13   thought that was striking since we talk so much about

         14   respiratory response.  And IQ response, I'm a parent,

         15   it is a serious issue.  Serious issue.

         16            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:   You did allude

         17   to the proceedings of the National Academy of

         18   Sciences.  Our scientist here is going to track that

         19   down.  Thanks.

         20            Any other questions from the panel?

         21            THE PANEL:  No.  Thank you.

         22            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:  Mr. Lawrence?

                                                                        22

          1            MR. LAWRENCE:  Good morning.  My name is

          2   Kenneth Lawrence.  I'll spell, L-A-W-R-E-N-C-E.

          3            I'm here as a volunteer for the American Lung

          4   Association and also as an interested citizen.  I grew

          5   up in the late 30s and during the time of World War

          6   II.  As a school child, I had asthma.

          7            Even now, the memory of the fight for a

          8   breath is very vivid.  Incidentally, though, the

          9   locale was Niagara Falls, New York.  You may recall

         10   that place as the site of the Love Canal.

         11            Others here today will give information on

         12   the health effects, especially as they pertain to

         13   those with asthma or other lung conditions, even to

         14   healthy people.  I won't burden you with repetition.

         15            But I would like to point out that I'm told

         16   there is a rising incidence of asthma among school-age

         17   children.  And that more and more people, including

         18   asthmatics and others with lung conditions, are now

         19   living in urban or urbanizing areas in our country.

         20   Those two points relate to my purpose here today.

         21            Like many others, I have a retirement job.  I

         22   am a planning commissioner in Fairfax County,

                                                                        23

          1   Virginia.  My district includes Tysons Corner.  You

          2   may have read something about the replanning effort

          3   now underway for Tysons.

          4            I'm not here representing the county, but I

          5   believe my personal experience would be of use to you

          6   in EPA's contemplation of a new NO2 standard and of a

          7   new monitoring network to help measure atmospheric

          8   NO2.

          9            As I understand it, the idea for the new

         10   network is to place monitors near major roadways.  In

         11   Northern Virginia, we have many such roadways.  For

         12   example, the Beltway, Route 95, Route 66.  Monitors

         13   near such roads will give measures of NO2 coming from

         14   the road traffic.  The Lung Association supports this

         15   idea.  So do I.

         16            I think that having the new monitoring

         17   network is very much in order if we want to assess

         18   pollution from NO2, particularly in urban areas.

         19            Please consider this:  In Northern Virginia

         20   today, and in many comparable places in our country,

         21   we have heavy road traffic.  And as the urban

         22   population grows, so does the traffic.  In Tysons and

                                                                        24

          1   other places, there are plans and projects to provide

          2   mass transit so that fewer people will need to use

          3   their cars.

          4            But even if half of all people use mass

          5   transit, the other half won't be able to or won't want

          6   to.  Since the population keeps growing, we will

          7   continue to be up to here in cars.

          8            When I say, Up to here in cars, I mean that

          9   the roadways are loaded to levels at or sometimes

         10   beyond their capacity -- traffic congestion on a

         11   Metropolitan scale.  If you drive on Route 66 or the

         12   Beltway or Route 95 during rush hour, you know that

         13   you go slowly at best and sit idling for minutes on

         14   end at worst.

         15            In those circumstances, even well-tuned

         16   vehicles can pollute.  And we have,  of course,

         17   vehicles by the hundreds of thousands every working

         18   day on those roads.

         19            But now, expand your mental image of our

         20   roadways.   It is not just the major roads that are

         21   congested in our area.  It is also the other commuter

         22   routes and the roads that feed those routes.

                                                                        25

          1            I will illustrate that with the example of

          2   Lee Highway, Route 29 in Virginia.  A portion of that

          3   road between Fairfax and Falls Church is used daily by

          4   commuters.  There is a stretch of about a mile or so

          5   between Nutley Road and Cedar Lane that I observe

          6   regularly.

          7            In morning and evening rush hours, which, by

          8   the way, are now much longer than one hour's time, the

          9   queue from the signal at Nutley to the signal at Cedar

         10   Lane is sometimes nearly the length of the roadway

         11   times two lanes.

         12            Allowing 18 feet per car, that's about 580

         13   cars queued up for about two hours twice a day on just

         14   that one little stretch of road inching along in

         15   rhythm to the timing of the signal changes idling in

         16   between.

         17            Traffic congesting in urban areas like ours

         18   is everywhere.  There are routes from home to work and

         19   back.  On weekends, you can substitute destinations

         20   like the shopping mall for the workplace.  But you

         21   will still find congestion.

         22            Your web site says that NO2 levels can be

                                                                        26

          1   much higher near roadways and in vehicles on the

          2   roads.  It also says that 18 percent of the people

          3   live near major roads.  That's as may be.  But I

          4   suggest that a far higher percentage of the population

          5   live near or exercise near or are road workers on or

          6   sit in vehicles on the great proportion of the total

          7   road network that bears the burden of traffic

          8   congestion in our urban areas.

          9            That would include, if you will, the school

         10   children in their buses, the group that shows the

         11   troubling rise in asthma.  It would also include all

         12   those adults sitting in their vehicles that have

         13   asthma or other lung conditions.

         14            We don't know that NO2 emissions alone or in

         15   combination with other pollutants cause asthma.  But

         16   we do know that NO2 emissions exacerbate asthmatic

         17   symptoms.  We need both a standard that gives a margin

         18   of safety against that and a sensor net that gives

         19   good and early warning when problems arise.

         20            Thank you.

         21            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:   Thank you, Mr.

         22   Lawrence.

                                                                        27

          1            Any questions from the panel?

          2            MR. PATTIE:  There was some legislation in

          3   California I think in the last year recommending that

          4   no school be built along an interstate highway.

          5            Mr. Lawrence is referring to our local

          6   interstate highway, the Beltway and I-95 and 66 and so

          7   forth.  So there may be some data in there.

          8            And if there is not data now, if a monitoring

          9   were where these schools are established on an

         10   interstate highway, then you could eventually get data

         11   related not only to respiratory, but IQ, social

         12   behavior and whatever other effects there are from

         13   respiratory attacks such as nitrogen dioxide.

         14            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:   Are we aware of

         15   that legislation?  Any study that we know of going on

         16   there, Scott?

         17            MR. JENKINS:  I'm not aware of that specific

         18   legislation.  But, of course, the agency does have

         19   some initiatives ongoing to monitor pollutants in

         20   certain schools, which will likely include some

         21   schools that are located close to roadways.

         22            MR. PATTIE:  While you are throwing in

                                                                        28

          1   schools adjacent to interstate state highways, I swam

          2   this morning for an hour and a half right next to the

          3   Beltway off of Braddock Road in the open air.  And

          4   there I am, and there is a dozen or so other people

          5   doing the same thing this morning.

          6            MR. LAWRENCE:  Please remember.  It isn't

          7   just the major highways.

          8            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:   Any other

          9   comments?

         10            Thank you, gentlemen.

         11            MR. PATTIE:  Thank you very much.

         12            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:   I would like to

         13   now call Howard Feldman and Thomas Smirniotopoulos.

         14            MR. FELDMAN:  Good morning, everyone.  Thank

         15   you very much for the opportunity to speak here today.

         16   I think you all have a copy of my testimony.

         17            Let me hand you two right now.

         18            Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

         19   I am Howard Feldman,  the Director of Regulatory and

         20   Scientific Areas at the American Petroleum Institute.

         21   API is the primary trade association for the oil and

         22   gas industry.  We have more than 400 members.  As you

                                                                        29

          1   know,  we have been very active in the NAAQS

          2   discussions in the past.

          3            I want to make two points today.  First,

          4   we're hearing a lot of doom and gloom already just to

          5   start with.  It scares me.  I run personally.  I run

          6   along the roads along here.

          7            The air is much cleaner today than it has

          8   been before.  So that's, I think, one point we want to

          9   make very clearly.  And second, that there is no

         10   scientific technical justification for a short-term

         11   NO2 standard in the range which EPA proposed.

         12            So first of all, API would like to thank all

         13   of us as a society for making the air cleaner.  Since

         14   1990, the oil and gas industry has invested more than

         15   175 billion, that's billion with a B, towards

         16   improving the environmental performance of its

         17   products, facilities and operations.

         18            Approximately 57 percent of the industry's 14

         19   billion dollars spent in 2007 was targeted towards air

         20   pollution abatement.  And some of that either met or

         21   surpassed requirements of the Clean Air Act.

         22            We have put in place cleaner gasoline and

                                                                        30

          1   cleaner diesel.  These fuels with the cleaner

          2   equipment that's coming on really has led to and will

          3   continue to lead towards cleaner air.

          4            We have also worked with state and local

          5   governments to reduce the emissions from our

          6   stationary source facilities.  So we have been a part

          7   of this issue as well.

          8            The EPA trends data, which is Figure 1

          9   attached there, which is this famous picture that you

         10   all have seen time and time again --

         11            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:   We're very

         12   familiar with that.

         13            MR. FELDMAN:  --  yes, shows that while

         14   vehicle miles traveled has increased by 163 percent

         15   since 1970, the aggregate emissions of the six common

         16   pollutants is down 60 percent.  So, clearly, things

         17   have gotten better.

         18            And secondly, according to EPA's TRI

         19   inventory, Toxics Release Inventory, since 1988

         20   releases and transfers of toxic chemicals from the

         21   petroleum industry have decreased by 65 percent.  All

         22   this progress is going to continue.

                                                                        31

          1            EPA is now reworking programs that's going to

          2   lead to clean-up of power plants in the eastern US.

          3   And cleaner gasolines in cars and trucks will lead to

          4   77 to 95 percent decrease in emissions.

          5            And going forward, as we have put in ultra

          6   low sulfur diesel, that will effectively -- as those

          7   new diesel engines will come in place, will lead to a

          8   90 percent reduction due to that program.

          9            So this progress is continuing.  But we're

         10   here today to talk about NO2.  So let's also talk

         11   about NO2.

         12            My Figure 2, which is -- and these are all

         13   EPA figures, saved us a lot of time from having to

         14   make figures, shows that since 1990 to 2006, emissions

         15   of NO2 have declined by 29 percent.  So we have seen a

         16   dramatic decrease in NO2 emissions.

         17            And given the control programs I just talked

         18   about, will this trend continue?  Obviously, the

         19   answer is yes.  This is a trend that we're on and that

         20   we'll continue.

         21            So Figure 3 shows that despite all we are

         22   hearing already about negative air quality issues,

                                                                        32

          1   with respect to NO2, there has been no nonattainment

          2   since 1991 -- I guess was the last time there was

          3   nonattainment in the United States of the current

          4   standard.

          5            So clearly, things are working.  And we seem

          6   to have made a lot of progress.

          7            And since 1980 to 2008, the EPA says that

          8   there has been a 46 percent decrease, in my Figure 4,

          9   a 46 percent decrease in the NO2 monitor

         10   concentrations.  So we clearly see that this trend is

         11   continuing.

         12            So the question we have, though -- that's all

         13   very nice, we made a lot of progress.  Air quality is

         14   improving.  NO2 emissions will continue to decline.

         15   And we certainly have met the annual standard.

         16            But the question we're really dealing with

         17   today is whether there is a justification for a

         18   short-term NO2 standard in the range that EPA has

         19   proposed.   That's the question that's in front of us

         20   today.

         21            So, apparently, EPA is relying on an

         22   unpublished meta analysis to support the need for the

                                                                        33

          1   short-term NO2 standard.

          2            We're going to hear from Dr. Seeley of

          3   Gradient a little bit later.  And Gradient has

          4   conducted more rigorous meta analyses and meta

          5   regressions than EPA.  And has included ten additional

          6   studies in the Gradient analyses.

          7            They found that there is no evidence to

          8   suggest that NO2 leads to significant adverse effects

          9   on the response to an airway challenge at any of the

         10   exposures tested in the range of the proposed

         11   standard.

         12            Therefore, there is no reason, no need to

         13   institute a new short-term NO2 standard in the range

         14   proposed.

         15            Second -- another item here.  Also, we're

         16   asking EPA to respond to the points raised in the

         17   June 2nd, 2009  request for corrections that was filed

         18   by the National Association of Manufacturers.

         19            NAM's petition includes eight items

         20   questioning the accuracy, objectivity, consistency and

         21   transparency of the process conducted by EPA.

         22            Specifically, one item NAM requests is that

                                                                        34

          1   EPA prepare and release a report that includes a

          2   detailed description of justification and methodology

          3   for the unpublished meta analysis of the short-term

          4   NO2 exposure that went into the final ISA.

          5            This EPA meta analysis is central to the

          6   whole standard that the EPA is relying on.  And we

          7   haven't seen it, it hasn't been documented, it hasn't

          8   gone through peer review.

          9            Certainly, in this administration that touts

         10   transparency as a calling card, if you will, we would

         11   like to see what is going on and what is supporting

         12   the standard.

         13            One technical point I would like to raise is

         14   on the issue of design of the monitoring network.

         15   With only one or two exceptions, the current monitors

         16   are located in the community, not along major

         17   roadways.  EPA has suggested that many more monitors

         18   are needed near roadways.

         19            Careful planning to gather data in the first

         20   generation of monitor locations will be needed to fine

         21   tune the network to properly capture exposures both in

         22   and near the roadways.  Therefore, we're concerned

                                                                        35

          1   that the January 1st, 2013 deadline for the monitoring

          2   locations may be a little bit too aggressive.  And,

          3   therefore, we suggest that EPA build some additional

          4   time into that deadline.

          5            In closing, API wishes to acknowledge again

          6   the efforts of EPA, the states and local communities

          7   in providing cleaner air.

          8            Looking forward, further improvements will

          9   come through current regulations designed to meet the

         10   existing standards such as the cleaner fuels standards

         11   described above.   Of course we all know that the

         12   Clean Air Act mandates that the NO2 NAAQS be

         13   established based solely on science.

         14            Nevertheless, given the dramatic reductions

         15   that we have seen in NO2 already, and which will

         16   continue, the potential impacts of tightening this

         17   standard on control programs and on industry highlight

         18   the importance of getting the science right and not

         19   establishing a new standard in the range proposed.

         20            Therefore, we encourage EPA to reassess the

         21   proposed rule and base it on complete scientific

         22   analysis and to ensure that the public is provided a

                                                                        36

          1   reasonable opportunity to review that analysis.

          2            Thank you.

          3            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:   Thank you, Mr.

          4   Feldman.  Thanks for using our trends report.  It's

          5   one document among many that we're very proud of.

          6   Thanks a lot.

          7            MR. FELDMAN:  We're very pleased with the

          8   data.  I think the data are very indicative.  I hope

          9   you don't lose site of those data today as you hear

         10   about all the doom and gloom that's going on outside.

         11            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:   Good science and

         12   transparency has always been a guiding light for us.

         13            Any questions from the panel?

         14            MR. JENKINS:   I just have one clarification

         15   comment.  And that is with regard to the meta analysis

         16   in question.

         17            Of course, the original basis for that

         18   analysis was published in a peer reviewed journal in

         19   1993 with Follensby (ph) as the author.  What was

         20   included in the most recent update was essentially

         21   that, an update of the analysis.

         22            I just want to make that clear.  That we're

                                                                        37

          1   not talking about something that hasn't been seen by

          2   anyone.

          3            MR. FELDMAN:  It is really the Follensby (ph)

          4   analysis that wasn't sufficient to support a standard

          5   previously.

          6            MR. JENKINS:  I don't think we're going to

          7   get into a discussion of it.  I just wanted to say

          8   with regard to your point about transparency that the

          9   analysis has been published in a peer reviewed journal

         10   and has been updated in the most recent version of the

         11   integrated science assessment.

         12            MR. FELDMAN:  We would love to see the

         13   update.

         14            MR. WEINSTOCK:  Mr. Feldman, just one

         15   clarification.

         16            I got the sense that API may be supporting

         17   from a monitor network perspective a near road network

         18   concept, but that you felt like more time was needed.

         19            So my two questions are is that a correct

         20   interpretation that you do support the near road

         21   network.  And if the proposed deadline, January 1st,

         22   2013, is too soon, what do you think would be

                                                                        38

          1   appropriate?

          2            MR. FELDMAN:  The first answer, Dr.

          3   Weinstock, is that we would say that, yes, that would

          4   be sufficient.  To have a network near roads, I think

          5   that makes sense.  We're very comfortable with that.

          6            In terms of how much time is needed, clearly

          7   that's something the EPA has to work with the states

          8   and locals and so forth.

          9            But we're just concerned that something is

         10   going to get rushed and it just won't be quite right.

         11   And, therefore, it is more important to get it right

         12   than be getting bad data.

         13            I don't know if it needs another year more

         14   than that or if it is two.  I don't know.  But just

         15   because you may want to place the monitors out first,

         16   get some measurements and then -- then set the network

         17   as the official network going forward, as opposed to

         18   just setting it right now and then having those

         19   monitors in place.

         20            You may need to do some iterative process on

         21   it which would probably then be beneficial.

         22            MR. WEINSTOCK:  Thank you.

                                                                        39

          1            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:   Thank you very

          2   much.

          3            Dr. Smirniotopoulos?  Sorry for

          4   mispronouncing your name.

          5            DR. SMIRNIOTOPOULOS:  I'm Dr.

          6   Smirniotopoulos, S-M-I-R-N-I-O-T-O-P-O-U-L-O-S.  I

          7   have to do that every time I make a phone call to

          8   anybody.

          9            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:   Thank you.

         10            DR. SMIRNIOTOPOULOS:  Actually, I was

         11   expecting a Lung Association person sitting next to

         12   me, not a member of the MOD squad.  I don't know if

         13   any of you have seen, Thank You for Smoking, but they

         14   were added on at the end.  But that's okay.

         15            I'm going to read my prepared statement,  and

         16   then I will continue to make comments.

         17            I'm a practicing physician.  I am here,

         18   however, on behalf of the Lung Association.  Reading

         19   from my statement, asthma is a chronic lung condition

         20   that remains a major public health problem in the

         21   United States.   According to the CDC, 16.2 million

         22   adults, which is 7.3 percent of the population, and

                                                                        40

          1   6.7 million children, which is 9.1 percent, of that

          2   population suffer from asthma in this country.

          3            This is approximately 23 million Americans.

          4   Of those, 10.6 million are treated annually in a

          5   clinic.  444,000 are hospitalized for an average of

          6   3.2 days.  And over 3600 of them die annually.  So we

          7   have a big problem with asthma.

          8            And I would add to this that we are not

          9   seeing a decline in asthma rates that might be

         10   associated with the supposed decline in pollution that

         11   is being quoted.

         12            The direct and indirect cost of treating

         13   these asthmatic patients is $14 billion, which is

         14   including indirect and direct costs.  And this has

         15   more than doubled since 1990.

         16            So we're seeing a continuing problem with

         17   asthma that is costing more and more money.  And we

         18   know that nitrogen dioxide, NO2, is a widespread

         19   pollutant.  It does worsen asthma symptoms.  And this

         20   is not actually in question.  It increases the asthma

         21   attack rates.

         22            And it increases the likelihood that the

                                                                        41

          1   patient will seek treatment in an outpatient clinic,

          2   physician's office or be admitted to a hospital or

          3   treated in the emergency room.

          4            The California Children's Health Study found

          5   that long-term exposure to nitrogen dioxide in

          6   addition to exposure to peak levels can reduce the

          7   growth of lung function, which means that, if you

          8   measure lung function over a period of years, you will

          9   see a decrease in the normal growth of lung function.

         10            And we know that people who are living near

         11   roadways, which we have heard testimony here, it is

         12   almost impossible not to live near a roadway in this

         13   Metropolitan area, are exposed to these emissions at

         14   greater degrees and they are more susceptible,

         15   therefore, to worsening of their asthma conditions.

         16            The EPA's draft analysis shows that an hourly

         17   standard of 50 parts per billion would provide the

         18   greatest benefit to public health by reducing asthma

         19   attacks, hospital admissions and emergency room visits

         20   for respiratory causes.

         21            Limiting these emissions by implementing more

         22   stringent air quality standards and monitoring methods

                                                                        42

          1   can improve the lung health in millions of Americans

          2   and lower the adverse economic impact of asthma.

          3            EPA estimates health benefits to be as high

          4   as 1.3 billion using their proposed one-hour standard

          5   of 80 parts per billion, but we would expect that the

          6   savings in terms of healthcare cost would be

          7   substantially greater by reducing those one-hour

          8   standards to 50 parts per billion.

          9            So as a pulmonologist practicing in

         10   Alexandria, treating patients from Arlington,

         11   Alexandria and Fairfax County, I am in support of the

         12   American Lung Association's recommendations.  The

         13   American Lung Association recommends that the current

         14   NO2 standards need to be increased, and that they

         15   currently fall below the standards necessary to

         16   protect the public health.

         17            The ALA supports the proposed one-hour

         18   standard to limit short-term exposure and recommends

         19   that the EPA set the one-hour standard to 50 parts per

         20   billion to provide a margin of safety, which we

         21   believe is necessary to protect the health of persons

         22   with asthma, particularly children.

                                                                        43

          1            And the ALA agrees that an annual standard is

          2   needed to provide protection from long-term,

          3   day-to-day exposures, but recommends a tighter

          4   standard similar to the one in California, which is

          5   30 parts per billion.

          6            The ALA supports the proposed roadside

          7   monitoring network.  I think the comments made about

          8   where these monitors should be placed are valid and

          9   important.  They need to be placed wherever people are

         10   breathing the air so we can determine that they are

         11   not being exposed to excessive amounts of nitrogen

         12   dioxide.  And these monitoring stations should be

         13   implemented regardless of the standard that is set.

         14            I will provide you with this copy.  I gave

         15   another one to the registration desk.

         16            I want to tell you that we had an asthmatic

         17   testify.   Treating asthmatics who are basically

         18   failing to breathe -- I'm also a critical care doctor,

         19   so I have to provide respiratory support, meaning life

         20   support for many asthmatics.  And I have done this for

         21   over 25 years.  This is not a pleasant proposition to

         22   have an asthma flare up for no particular reason that

                                                                        44

          1   the patient may have understood other than breathing

          2   poor quality air and that this accelerated

          3   inflammation of the airways produces a situation where

          4   the person cannot survive.

          5            So a lot of the impact about asthma is

          6   probably loss of school days, loss of workdays.  But

          7   I'm also talking about loss of lives.  And I

          8   personally have to deal with persons who will be not

          9   alive if we don't intervene.  And we happen to be in

         10   an area where access to healthcare is relatively

         11   available.

         12            In other areas, delay in seeking that or

         13   reaching that healthcare can cause premature death.

         14   So this is a real problem.

         15            And I think that a lot of the things that

         16   have happened to improve the air quality probably have

         17   had some benefit.  But I think we can see

         18   realistically and scientifically that tightening these

         19   air quality standards is going to have a positive

         20   impact on the health of Americans, particularly those

         21   with asthma.

         22            And I also would like to add that California

                                                                        45

          1   seems to lead the way in many of these aspects for air

          2   quality.  And we now know that they are allowed to set

          3   some of their standards that are tighter than the EPA.

          4            And I think that perhaps the EPA can look at

          5   some of the California standards as being perhaps

          6   models for the future.   Whether feasibility is the

          7   reason that the slightly looser standards are being

          8   considered is an issue, I can't answer to that.

          9            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:   Thank you,

         10   doctor.

         11            Any questions from the panel?

         12            MR. ORLIN:   I just wanted to clarify that

         13   feasibility isn't permissible criteria under the act.

         14   We don't look at the implementation side of what steps

         15   would be necessary to achieve the standard.

         16            We just look at the health-based criteria of

         17   is it necessary to protect public health with an

         18   adequate margin of safety.

         19            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:   Thank you,

         20   gentlemen.

         21            I would like to call now Mary Partridge and

         22   Janice Nolen.

                                                                        46

          1            MS. PARTRIDGE:  Good morning.  My name is

          2   Mary Partridge, P-A-R-T-R-I-D-G-E.  And I'm Chair of

          3   the National Board of the American Lung Association.

          4   I have been a volunteer for the Lung Association for

          5   30 years.  Thank you for the opportunity to share the

          6   position of the American Lung Association on EPA's

          7   proposed national air quality standards for nitrogen

          8   dioxide.

          9            The American Lung Association saves lives

         10   through the prevention of lung disease and the

         11   promotion of lung health.  We are committed to the

         12   fight for healthy air.

         13            Key to that fight has been our work to

         14   support stronger national ambient air quality

         15   standards.  We recognize the critical role that

         16   national air quality standards play -- that these

         17   standards quite literally drive the work we do as a

         18   nation to clean up air pollution.

         19            We are pleased that for the first time since

         20   1971 EPA is recommending providing more protection

         21   from nitrogen dioxide.

         22            The American Lung Association agrees with the

                                                                        47

          1   conclusion reached by both EPA and the Clean Air

          2   Scientific Advisory Committee that the current

          3   standard fails to protect public health.

          4            We are pleased to strengthen that protection,

          5   but we disagree with the proposed range.  The proposed

          6   range, even at the low end of 80 parts per billion,

          7   would allow too much nitrogen dioxide to truly protect

          8   the health of the public.

          9            We recommend EPA adopt a much tighter

         10   one-hour standard of 50 parts per billion set at the

         11   99th percentile.

         12            The Lung Association also urges EPA to set a

         13   much tighter annual standard.  We recommend EPA adopt

         14   the annual standard that California has set, which is

         15   30 parts per billion.

         16            We need greater protection because nitrogen

         17   dioxide is dangerous.  Science tells us that this

         18   noxious gas makes people cough and wheeze and inflames

         19   the lung tissue.  Nitrogen dioxide increases the

         20   likelihood that asthma sufferers will have to rush to

         21   the emergency department or be admitted to the

         22   hospital, and even increases the risk that we could

                                                                        48

          1   catch lung infections such as influenza.

          2            Children who grow up near highways may suffer

          3   long-term health effects from breathing nitrogen

          4   dioxide the constant stream of traffic.  The

          5   California Children's Study found these children grow

          6   up with measurably lower lung function, a hidden

          7   threat that puts them for the rest of their lives at

          8   greater risk of developing a serious lung disease.

          9            Millions of people face higher risk.  EPA's

         10   own proposal noted that 36 million people live near

         11   highways, railroads or ports where they breathe air

         12   pollution that is consistently more polluted than in

         13   other parts of the country.

         14            Neighborhoods near major highways tend to be

         15   home to people with lower incomes as well as

         16   communities of color.  Many busy highways pass through

         17   dense urban neighborhoods or near schools.  Those

         18   communities often have higher prevalence of lung

         19   disease, putting them at an even greater risk from

         20   breathing traffic exhaust.

         21            I know what that is like because for years I

         22   lived near highways I-59 and I-45 in Houston, Texas.

                                                                        49

          1   The pollution was a constant presence in those

          2   neighborhoods.

          3            In addition to those who liver near highways

          4   are those who work on or near them, including truck

          5   drivers, police officers and commuters.  Others at

          6   high risk include children, teenagers, older adults

          7   and any one of the 22.9 million people with asthma in

          8   this country.

          9            We applaud the proposed national network of

         10   nitrogen dioxide monitors located near highways.  We

         11   hope this will only be the beginning of what is truly

         12   needed, a network that will routinely gather

         13   information along our highways, the place in every

         14   community that has some of the highest levels of the

         15   most dangerous pollutants.

         16            However, the Lung Association disagrees with

         17   the option that, in lieu of the nationwide monitoring,

         18   EPA would tighten the one-hour standard to a lower

         19   level than the proposed range.

         20            The American Lung Association does not

         21   believe that the level of the national air quality

         22   standard should depend on the level of monitoring.  We

                                                                        50

          1   need both a strong network of monitors and a strong

          2   standard.

          3            The science is clear.   The law is clear.

          4   EPA has a legal requirement to set the standard where

          5   it protects the health of the public, including

          6   vulnerable people like myself and the members of my

          7   family who have asthma, with a margin of safety.

          8            The proposed nitrogen dioxide standards are

          9   important steps toward that goal.  But they do not go

         10   far enough.  On behalf of the American Lung

         11   Association, I urge you to adopt a substantially

         12   stronger nitrogen dioxide standard.

         13            Quite literally, the health of the members of

         14   my family and my former neighbors in Houston depend on

         15   you.  Thank you for your consideration.

         16            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, Ms.

         17   Partridge.

         18            Any questions from the panel?

         19            THE PANEL:  No.

         20            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:  Ms. Nolen.

         21            MS. NOLEN:  Thank you.  My name is Janice

         22   Nolen.  I'm Assistant Vice President of National

                                                                        51

          1   Policy and Advocacy for the American Lung Association.

          2   I appreciate the opportunity to share more of our

          3   thinking on this standard.

          4            Nitrogen dioxide is one of six air pollutants

          5   that Congress included by name in the Clean Air Act --

          6   A recognition that this is one of the most widespread

          7   and dangerous.  We have treated it for most of the

          8   last decades in its supporting role in forming ozone

          9   and particulate matter.  Now nitrogen dioxide moves to

         10   center stage as we recognize again that it is a threat

         11   by itself and deserves more respect.

         12            Since 1971, the US has had one standard for

         13   this pollutant,  an annual average concentration of

         14   53 parts per billion.   The Lung Association is

         15   pleased that EPA has now proposed a second standard to

         16   protect against shorter, peak exposures.

         17            This important addition moves us in the right

         18   direction.  We need both,  an annual and short-term

         19   standard.  However, we believe that EPA is

         20   underestimating what is needed to protect the health

         21   of the public.

         22            The American Lung Association recommends a

                                                                        52

          1   one-hour standard of not more than 50 parts per

          2   billion set at the 99th percentile and a stronger

          3   annual standard similar to the level that California

          4   adopted of 30 parts per billion.

          5            The meta analysis of clinical studies

          6   provides clear evidence for adults with mild asthma

          7   breathing NO2 at levels within the proposed range,

          8   clear evidence of harm to them.

          9            To protect against harm to these adults, much

         10   less to children, seniors or anyone with more serious

         11   asthma or other lung diseases, requires a much lower

         12   acceptable level.  EPA must take this opportunity to

         13   safeguard them now.

         14            EPA may be making the assumption that the

         15   one-hour standard represents the peak traffic

         16   exposures.  If so, we disagree.  Traffic in far too

         17   many cities has grown into a constant stream.  Thanks

         18   to the just in time business model, industry now

         19   depends on 18 wheelers as their rolling warehouses.

         20   Commuters in this region in D.C. spend up to four

         21   hours each way on the highway.

         22            Peaks don't happen under those circumstances.

                                                                        53

          1   Just heavy loads hour after hour, day after day.

          2            We are especially concerned about the people

          3   who live near or work on or near major highways,

          4   railroads and ports.  Daily, they breathe the exhaust

          5   from cars, trucks, buses and heavy equipment.

          6            Research tells us that the air they breathe

          7   consistently includes higher levels of nitrogen

          8   dioxide than in other parts of our communities.

          9            Neighborhoods near busy highways tend to be

         10   home to those who have lower incomes or are minority

         11   racial or ethnic groups, often because the highways

         12   were built through established communities.

         13            Often these individuals face higher risk of

         14   lung disease and other chronic diseases.   Millions

         15   are children or teenagers or are the elderly.  EPA

         16   estimates that 36 million people live near our

         17   nation's highways, ports and railroads.

         18            We applaud EPA's proposal to expand the

         19   nationwide monitoring system which would allow us for

         20   the first time to accurately and regularly measure

         21   nitrogen dioxide near a major highway in each

         22   Metropolitan area.

                                                                        54

          1            We hope that this is the beginning of what is

          2   truly needed, a comprehensive transportation

          3   monitoring network for other pollutants including

          4   particulate matter.

          5            With these monitors, we can move ahead to

          6   identify the areas with the greatest problems and

          7   ensure that the steps we take will solve those

          8   problems.

          9            We disagree with the proposal that would

         10   trade off monitors in return for setting the standard

         11   in a more protective level.  We need much tighter

         12   standards.   We need the monitoring network.  We need

         13   EPA to take both steps to protect the health of those

         14   most at risk.

         15            My late grandmother was one of those at risk

         16   people.  She lived for years in public housing near a

         17   section of South Nashville where I-40 and I-65 flow

         18   together.

         19            Her front door opened onto a scenic view of

         20   six lanes of cars, buses, trucks and motorcycles hour

         21   after hour, day after day.   She died in the 1980s,

         22   but her unit still stands still home to a family.

                                                                        55

          1            As I travel in the District of Columbia and

          2   along I-95 through Baltimore or ride AMTRAK to

          3   Wilmington, Philadelphia, Newark and New York, I see

          4   hundreds of homes sitting similarly front doors and

          5   windows facing the steady stream of gasoline and

          6   diesel engines.

          7            I know something of what they are breathing

          8   every day.   Each time I pass, I swear to work to get

          9   them air to breath that does not make them sick and

         10   does not threaten their lives.

         11            That is the commitment of the American Lung

         12   Association.  We have worked with EPA to do this for

         13   years.  We welcome the renewed opportunity to continue

         14   that partnership.  Thank you.

         15            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:   Thank you, Ms.

         16   Nolen.

         17            Questions from the panel?

         18            MR. ORLIN:  I was curious on your comment

         19   about how traffic lasts throughout the day.  Were you

         20   suggesting we should use a longer averaging time for

         21   the standard?

         22            MS. NOLEN:  An annual standard that would

                                                                        56

          1   allow or recognize that you are talking about chronic

          2   exposure that happens, often at a lower level, but day

          3   in and day out.

          4            The 53 parts per billion just simply doesn't

          5   capture that well enough to be able to recognize that

          6   this is the exposure that we're seeing.

          7            And the margin of safety requirement would

          8   urge that, if there is a question about where the

          9   standard should be in terms of the uncertainty,

         10   perhaps in existing research, that you accommodate

         11   that by setting a lower, more protective standard.

         12            So far I have yet to see any evidence that we

         13   need to have more pollution.  Usually, we end up

         14   having to catch up to things that we have learned in

         15   the interim.

         16            MR. ORLIN:  Sure.  Thank you.   That point

         17   wasn't for the one-hour standard.  That was for

         18   support --

         19            MS. NOLEN:  Right.  I'm just saying that the

         20   annual standard itself needs to be tighter, but -- I

         21   mean, we need a tighter one hour and a tighter annual

         22   standard.

                                                                        57

          1            MR. ORLIN:  Thank you.

          2            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:   Anyone else?

          3            Thank you.

          4            I would like to call Heather Grzelka and

          5   David DeBiasi.

          6            MS. GRZELKA:  Good morning.

          7            My name is Heather Grzelka.  You have to

          8   pardon my voice this morning.   I have been taking

          9   care of sick kids for the past week.  I think I caught

         10   their cold.

         11            I'm here today not only as a representative

         12   of the American Lung Association, but also as a wife

         13   and mother and resident of Northern Virginia.

         14            I see the negative impact of poor air quality

         15   it has on the region firsthand.  My stepdaughter's

         16   school is sandwiched between busy Route 7 and I-66.

         17   Our home is also located near both of these major

         18   roadways.

         19            For the past year and a half, my once healthy

         20   and vibrant stepdaughter has struggled with chronic

         21   cough that countless doctors and specialists cannot

         22   resolve.

                                                                        58

          1            She has endured numerous tests and has been

          2   prescribed a litany of asthma and allergy medications

          3   that have done little to improve her cough.  She has

          4   since become more susceptible to colds and upper

          5   respiratory infections.  This is an example.

          6            This change in her health seemed to coincide

          7   with my daughter's move from a quiet town in Texas to

          8   our home here in Northern Virginia just two years ago.

          9   My husband is active duty military, so we have to move

         10   around a bit.

         11            There is a tremendous amount of pollution

         12   here in the Washington Metropolitan area.   The

         13   American Lung Association state of the year report

         14   finds that the air quality where my family lives,

         15   works and plays to be so unhealthy that it received a

         16   failing grade in its annual report.

         17            I believe the connection between my

         18   stepdaughter's current health and the air quality

         19   where we live to be closely intertwined, and that is

         20   why I am here today.

         21            I want to urge the EPA to help protect the

         22   health of my family by strengthening the air quality

                                                                        59

          1   standards for nitrogen dioxide.

          2            This is a dangerous and widespread pollutant

          3   right here in our community.  The traffic along the

          4   highways that surround my home and my stepdaughter's

          5   school are among the primary sources of this toxic

          6   pollutant that are threatening the health and

          7   well-being of my family.

          8            I firmly disagree with EPA's current proposal

          9   to enforce the one-hour standard ranging from 80 to

         10   100 parts per billion.  Current science indicates

         11   this range goes to protect the health of school-aged

         12   children like my stepdaughter not to mention older

         13   adults and people living with lung disease.  To best

         14   protect public health, EPA needs to set the one-hour

         15   standard at 50 parts per billion.

         16            EPA must also set an annual standard for

         17   nitrogen dioxide that sufficiently protects public

         18   health.  The current standard of 53 parts per billion

         19   leaves both children and adults with asthma and other

         20   lung diseases at risk.

         21            I urge the EPA to implement an annual

         22   standard of 30 parts per billion or lower in order to

                                                                        60

          1   align the new standard with current science which

          2   finds exposure to any higher levels of this dangerous

          3   pollutant to worsen asthma symptoms and to affect

          4   respiratory function in even healthy individuals.

          5            As mentioned earlier, the California

          6   Children's Health Study found that long-term exposure

          7   to nitrogen dioxide stunts lung function growth in

          8   children.

          9            This is a particular concern for me and my

         10   family based on our proximity to heavily-congested

         11   roadways.  It is critical that EPA put in place a

         12   roadside monitoring network to identify where nitrogen

         13   dioxide levels are the highest to effectively monitor

         14   the effectiveness of new control measures.

         15            I want to thank you for hearing my testimony

         16   today and putting up with my voice and for considering

         17   the health of not only my family but our entire

         18   community as these new air quality standards are

         19   considered.  Thank you.

         20            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:   Thank you for

         21   being here, Ms. Grzelka.

         22            Any questions from the panel?

                                                                        61

          1            THE PANEL:  No.

          2            MR. DEBIASI:  Good morning.  My name is David

          3   DeBiasi.  Last name is spelled D-E, capital B as in

          4   Baker, I-A-S-I.

          5            And I'm the Director of Advocacy in Public

          6   Education for the American Lung Association in

          7   Virginia.  I'm also a registered nurse, and have been

          8   a health educator for about 25 years.

          9            My first thought about testifying is just to

         10   give from the health educator perspective a sense of

         11   what the lungs do.  I know we all know that.

         12            But if we can appreciate that, our bodies

         13   have such a defense system with very few orifices and,

         14   obviously, our skin covering us, but our airway leads

         15   to our lungs, which  has the surface area of the size

         16   of a tennis court.   And that surface area is there to

         17   greet the gasses and to exchange oxygen over an

         18   incredibly thin barrier where, obviously, oxygen can

         19   get into the bloodstream and carbon dioxide can leave

         20   the bloodstream.

         21            That gas, thus, can get into the bloodstream.

         22   Particulate matter can get into the bloodstream.

                                                                        62

          1            One of the human vulnerabilities is the fact

          2   that our lungs are so porous and are asking for things

          3   to diffuse in.  And we breathe 20,000 times a day.  So

          4   healthy lungs are what feeds a healthy body.  But it

          5   all starts with healthy air.

          6            So as you know, nitrogen dioxide is a

          7   widespread and dangerous air pollutant.  I support

          8   stronger national air quality standards to protect our

          9   lungs from this pollutant.

         10            I also support setting up a national system

         11   to monitor NO2 along major highways.  I agree with the

         12   EPA and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee

         13   that the current standard fails to protect public

         14   health, including the health of our families.

         15            Nitrogen dioxide threatens our lungs in many

         16   ways.  EPA found that NO2 worsens coughing and

         17   wheezing, increases asthma attacks, increases the

         18   likelihood of being admitted to the ER or the hospital

         19   and increases the likelihood of causing lung infection

         20   such as the flu, pertinent in this upcoming H1N1

         21   season.

         22            In addition, NO2 harms the lungs in less

                                                                        63

          1   obvious ways, including increasing lung inflammation,

          2   and increased lung inflammation is what contributes to

          3   exacerbations of asthma.

          4            Breathing NO2 can have great long-term

          5   consequences by decreasing lung function in children,

          6   making them more susceptible to lung disease

          7   throughout their lives.

          8            Children, teens and older adults are at

          9   greatest risk, especially those with asthma.  In

         10   addition, people who live near or work on or near

         11   major highways also face a high risk because the

         12   exhaust from cars, trucks and buses creates high

         13   levels of NO2.

         14            I support EPA's proposal to set a one-hour

         15   standard to limit short-term exposure to NO2.  The

         16   short-term standard is needed to protect the health of

         17   people with asthma and other respiratory diseases from

         18   spikes in NO2 levels.

         19            However, I disagree with EPA's proposal to

         20   select a one-hour standard in the range of 80 to 100

         21   parts per billion.  That range fails to protect the

         22   health of millions of children, adults and people with

                                                                        64

          1   lung disease.  I recommend that EPA set the one-hour

          2   standard at 50 parts per billion to provide the margin

          3   of safety needed to protect the health of those most

          4   at risk.

          5            I agree that an annual standard is needed to

          6   provide protection for long-term, day-in-and-day-out

          7   exposures to NO2.  However, I recommend a tighter

          8   standard such as what the state of California adopted

          9   at 30 parts per billion or lower.

         10            The California Children's Health Study found

         11   that long-term exposure to NO2 stunted lung function

         12   growth in children.

         13            In addition, I support EPA's proposal for

         14   roadside monitoring to identify where levels are

         15   highest and to monitor the effectiveness of control

         16   measures.   The proposed roadside monitoring network

         17   should be installed regardless of the level of

         18   standard selected.

         19            Hundreds of recent studies have reported

         20   associations between living near heavily trafficked

         21   roads and harm to health, but no national network

         22   exists for monitoring traffic pollution.

                                                                        65

          1            Evidence shows that the current network does

          2   not accurately monitor traffic pollution along these

          3   major highways where millions of people live, work and

          4   go to school.

          5            EPA and the states need to take every

          6   opportunity to expand the monitoring of pollutants

          7   from traffic.

          8            In addition, to this proposal, an excellent

          9   opportunity is coming up in the rule-making for the

         10   particulate matter national air quality standard.

         11            We reject the alternative that would set a

         12   tighter standard only if EPA does not adopt the

         13   monitoring network.  The standard should be based

         14   solely on what is needed to protect public health, not

         15   whether a monitoring network exists.   We need both,

         16   protective standards and a national monitoring

         17   network.

         18            Thank you.

         19            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you.

         20            Questions from the panel?

         21            THE PANEL:  No.

         22            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:  I would like to

                                                                        66

          1   call Frank O'Donnell and Mara Seeley, please.

          2            MR. O'DONNELL:  Good morning.  My name is

          3   Frank O'Donnell.  O-'-D-O-N-N-E-L-L.  I'm president of

          4   Clean Air Watch, a nonprofit,  non-partisan clean air

          5   watchdog organization.

          6            Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

          7   I'll be very brief and, I hope, to the point.

          8            Some of you may recall that Clean Air Watch

          9   has long praised the diligent efforts of EPA's

         10   professional staff, even when the staff appeared to be

         11   hamstrung by political appointees from the prior

         12   administration who all too frequently appeared to put

         13   politics ahead of science.

         14            We're glad today to renew our praise for the

         15   career staff even as we welcome an administration that

         16   is willing to listen to science and to EPA science

         17   advisors.  It doesn't mean we agree entirely with what

         18   has been proposed.  I'll get into that in a second.

         19            Let me put the issue first into a bit of

         20   context.   The news has been dominated in recent weeks

         21   by healthcare reform.  The need to protect more

         22   people.  To reduce costs.  To cut down on emergency

                                                                        67

          1   room visits.

          2            Dirty air is the forgotten topic when it

          3   comes to healthcare reform.  It would cost a lot less

          4   to keep people out of the emergency rooms.   And one

          5   way to do this is to reduce dangerous nitrogen dioxide

          6   pollution.

          7            There has also been a lot of prominent news

          8   recently about the flu and the flu shots.  Nitrogen

          9   dioxide can make you more susceptible to the flu.  So

         10   one way to help with the flu issue is to reduce

         11   dangerous nitrogen dioxide pollution.

         12            And, of course, many of us remain anxious

         13   about the economy.  As we know from history, cleaning

         14   up dirty air is good for the economy because it

         15   creates jobs.  An obvious way to continue this is to

         16   reduce dangerous nitrogen dioxide pollution.

         17            Now, this issue is a test for how the Obama

         18   administration's EPA is going to deal with national

         19   clean air standards. The  Bush administration failed

         20   miserably.  All too often it ignored the science and

         21   the agency's own science advisors.

         22            By contrast, we think this proposal is on

                                                                        68

          1   track for a passing grade, though it is a long way

          2   from an A plus when it comes to protecting kids from

          3   asthma and other breathers.   We think it is probably

          4   more in the range of a B or a C right now depending on

          5   the range that's been put forward, and we would like

          6   you to get that grade up.

          7            We think kids with asthma deserve no less

          8   than A plus public health protection.  Specifically,

          9   we do agree with the positions advanced by the

         10   American Lung Association.  We believe that EPA should

         11   set a one-hour standard of 50 parts per billion or

         12   below.

         13            We think a short-term standard of that level

         14   would better protect kids with asthma and keep them

         15   out of hospital emergency rooms.

         16            We think you should threaten the annual

         17   average standard to protect from against harm from

         18   long-term exposure.

         19            We agree that you should adopt the California

         20   annual average air quality standard which is 30 parts

         21   per billion.

         22            We also agree of the vital importance of a

                                                                        69

          1   roadside monitoring network to detect the problem

          2   where it is likely most serious.  And we urge you to

          3   keep that regardless of the level of the standard.

          4            We agree that the standard must depend on

          5   what is necessary to protect public health, not on the

          6   existence of a monitoring network.  Thank you very

          7   much.

          8            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, sir.

          9            Any questions?

         10            THE PANEL:  No.

         11            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:  Dr. Seeley?

         12            DR. SEELEY:  I would like to thank you for

         13   the opportunity to provide comments on EPA's proposed

         14   revisions to the revisions to the national ambient air

         15   quality standards for nitrogen dioxide.

         16            I'm Dr. Mara Seeley, toxicologist at Gradient

         17   Corporation, which is an environmental consulting firm

         18   with recognized expertise.  Although the American

         19   Petroleum Institute has sponsored my appearance here,

         20   the views that I'm going to be expressing represent my

         21   own opinions and not -- they don't necessarily reflect

         22   API's views.

                                                                        70

          1            Supporting evidence for the proposed

          2   short-term NO2 standard comes in part from the

          3   analysis that EPA conducted with these short-term

          4   controlled exposure studies for NO2 and individuals

          5   with mild to moderate asthma.

          6            EPA concluded that short-term exposure to NO2

          7   concentrations of 100 PPB and possibly lower can cause

          8   small but statistically significant increases in

          9   response to nonspecific airway challenges such as

         10   sulfur dioxide or pharmacological agents.

         11            As Dr. Feldman referred to you, Gradient

         12   conducted a more rigorous analysis including ten

         13   additional studies.   And we found no evidence to

         14   suggest that NO2 leads to a significant adverse effect

         15   on the response to an airway challenge at any of the

         16   exposures tested up to 600 parts per billion NO2.

         17            Furthermore, according to EPA's risk and

         18   exposure assessment for NO2, the current annual NO2

         19   standard protects against short-term exposure of

         20   400 parts per billion and higher.  Therefore, data

         21   from the controlled human exposure studies do not

         22   support the need for an additional short-term NO2

                                                                        71

          1   standard.

          2            The primary reason that we reached a

          3   different conclusion than EPA is that EPA evaluated

          4   only the fraction of study subjects with an increased

          5   response to an airway challenge.  But they didn't

          6   evaluate whether the magnitude of the response

          7   increased as the NO2 concentration increased.

          8            EPA also did not examine other measures of

          9   response such as FEV 1 following an airway challenge

         10   or the provocative dose of an airway challenge.

         11            We did evaluate whether the airway response

         12   was related to the NO2 exposure concentration.  First,

         13   we analyzed whether the NO2 had any effect at all

         14   irrespective of magnitude for exposure increments of

         15   100 parts per billion.   Then we analyzed the

         16   magnitude effects across all exposure concentrations.

         17            In addition to the fraction of study subjects

         18   affected with an increased response to an airway

         19   challenge, we also looked at the difference in FEV1

         20   following an airway challenge and the provocative dose

         21   of an airway challenge.

         22            Finally, in addition to analyzing nonspecific

                                                                        72

          1   airway challenges such as sulfur dioxide, we also

          2   analyzed the effects of specific airway challenges

          3   such as house dust mites or tree pollen.

          4            When we compared NO2 exposures with the

          5   control exposures from all studies, our analysis

          6   showed statistical significance for all effect

          7   measures.

          8            For some effects, we also observed

          9   statistical significance for individual exposure

         10   categories, particularly at the lower exposure

         11   concentration, but not necessarily at the higher

         12   exposure concentrations.  Yet it is not clear that the

         13   effects are related to NO2 exposure.

         14            First, it does not seem biologically

         15   plausible that lower exposure concentrations cause an

         16   increased response to an airway challenge while higher

         17   exposures do not.

         18            Second, we found that the response to an

         19   airway challenge did not increase as the NO2

         20   concentration increased.

         21            Specifically, although effects following

         22   exposure to 100 PPB were statistically different from

                                                                        73

          1   exposure to air,  the observed effects were not

          2   significantly different from each other for NO2

          3   concentrations between 100 and 600 PPB.

          4            Finally, in cases where an increased response

          5   to an airway challenge was observed, the increase was

          6   very small and would likely not be considered adverse.

          7            For example, the average change in FEV 1 for

          8   individual studies ranged from a decrease of

          9   5.3 percent to an increase of 1.5 percent with an

         10   average decrease for all studies of 1.6 percent.

         11            This is much lower than a 15 percent decrease

         12   in FEV 1, which is considered adverse.

         13            We also evaluated whether responses differed

         14   depending on whether study subjects were exposed  to

         15   NO2 using a mouthpiece or in a chamber.

         16            When we looked just at studies that assess

         17   exposures by chamber, there were no statistically

         18   significant effects for the fraction subjects affected

         19   or for FEV 1.

         20            This suggests mouthpiece exposures may have

         21   contributed to the statistically significant findings

         22   in the analyses with all studies that included both

                                                                        74

          1   chamber and mouthpiece exposures.

          2            In contrast to mouthpiece exposures, chamber

          3   exposures allow subjects to breathe naturally through

          4   both the nose and mouth.   The finding that airway

          5   response is not statistically significant for the

          6   studies that used chamber exposures is important

          7   because, unlike chamber exposures, mouthpiece

          8   exposures have been shown to alter breathing patterns

          9   in ways that could increase the total amount of NO2

         10   delivered to the airways and can also -- mouthpiece

         11   exposures can also cause a response independent of

         12   exposures to NO2.

         13            In summary, data from the controlled human

         14   exposure studies do not support the need for a

         15   short-term standard, as this data indicates that the

         16   current annual standard already protects against

         17   concentrations that cause adverse effects including in

         18   sensitive individuals such as those with asthma.

         19            Thank you again for the opportunity to

         20   provide comments.

         21            MR. JENKINS:  I'm assuming you will,  but,

         22   obviously, we would like to see the re-analysis, the

                                                                        75

          1   meta analysis.

          2            DR. SEELEY:  Sure.

          3            MR. JENKINS:  I have a question.  Are you

          4   planning to publish that in a peer reviewed journal?

          5            DR. SEELEY:  Yes, we are.  After we submit it

          6   for publication, we will be.

          7            MR. JENKINS:  Thank you.

          8            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:  Any question from

          9   the panel?

         10            For now, we have one more speaker signed up.

         11   And we just wanted to check that we have everyone that

         12   wanted to speak sign up.

         13            If not, if there is anyone in the audience

         14   that has not registered and wants to do so, please see

         15   the folks in the table outside this door.

         16            At this point I would like to call Ms.

         17   Deborah Shprentz.

         18            MS. SHPRENTZ:  Good morning.  I'm Deborah

         19   Shprentz, S-H-P-R-E-N-T-Z.

         20            And I serve as a technical consultant to the

         21   American Lung Association.  I follow the NAAQS review

         22   process for NO2 and several other pollutants.

                                                                        76

          1            Two of the key issues are the need to limit

          2   short-term concentrations and the need to monitor near

          3   roadways where pollution gradients are the highest.

          4            I want to talk about the type of evidence EPA

          5   considers when reviewing an air quality standard and

          6   how multiple lines of evidence point to the need for a

          7   stronger standard than proposed.

          8            First, EPA conducts a critical review of the

          9   health studies.   In the case of NO2, two main types

         10   of studies were considered, clinical studies and

         11   epidemiological studies.

         12            In the clinical studies, human volunteers,

         13   typically college students, are exposed to known

         14   concentrations of nitrogen dioxide in an air pollution

         15   chamber.

         16            EPA conducted a meta analysis of the clinical

         17   studies in which they combined the data from all

         18   available studies and found that 66 percent of the

         19   subjects experienced heightened airway responsiveness

         20   at one-hour exposures of 100 PPB.  This was the lowest

         21   level tested.

         22            Increased airway responsiveness has the

                                                                        77

          1   potential to increase asthma symptoms and to worsen

          2   asthma control.   The subjects in these studies are

          3   generally adults with mild asthma.  Children, the

          4   elderly and those with moderate or severe asthma are

          5   excluded.

          6            So, clearly, the standard must be set well

          7   below 100 parts per billion to protect these sensitive

          8   populations with a margin of safety as required by the

          9   Clean Air Act.

         10            The epidemiological, or community health

         11   studies, point to more serious health effects

         12   occurring at much lower concentrations of NO2.  Over

         13   50 new epidemiological studies were evaluated in this

         14   review.  There is an increased risk of emergency

         15   department visits and hospital admissions for

         16   respiratory problems at maximum -- mean maximum hourly

         17   NO2 concentrations between 25 and 75 parts per

         18   billion.

         19            The EPA also considers a variety of

         20   supplemental analyses -- an exposure assessment,  a

         21   risk assessment, and an air quality analysis.  Like

         22   the interpretation of the health studies, these

                                                                        78

          1   analyses are subject to extensive peer review by the

          2   outside science advisors, the Clean Air Scientific

          3   Advisory Committee.

          4            All of these analyses showed that, of the

          5   options considered, only a 50 part per billion hourly

          6   standard would provide improvements in public health

          7   protection.

          8            These are the factors that led the majority

          9   of members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory

         10   Committee to recommend a range of 50 to 100 parts per

         11   billion for the one-hour standard.

         12            These considerations also led the American

         13   Thoracic Society to recommend a one-hour standard in

         14   the range of 50 to 75 parts per billion.

         15            With respect to enforcement of the standards,

         16   it is clear that an upgraded monitoring network is

         17   needed.  Paradoxically, EPA recently dropped

         18   regulatory requirements for monitoring ambient

         19   concentrations of NO2, just when it appeared likely

         20   that more stringent standards would be needed as a

         21   result of this review.

         22            It is apparent that ambient NO2

                                                                        79

          1   concentrations are highest on or near roads, where

          2   very little monitoring occurs.

          3            Monitoring roadside NO2 is a start, but it is

          4   clear that a more comprehensive approach to monitoring

          5   traffic-related air pollution is urgently needed.

          6            The recent review by the Health Effects

          7   Institute reported that the evidence is sufficient to

          8   infer a causal relationship between exposure to

          9   traffic-related air pollution and the exacerbation of

         10   asthma.

         11            In the public comment period to follow, the

         12   American Lung Association will be making the case for

         13   strengthening the proposed hourly standard as well as

         14   the proposed annual average standard and improving the

         15   proposed network to monitor emissions from traffic

         16   pollution.  Thank you.

         17            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:   Thank you.

         18   Comments or questions from the panel?

         19            MR. WEINSTOCK:  In terms of improving the

         20   monitoring network, do you have some sense right now

         21   what your comments might be in addition to what was

         22   proposed?

                                                                        80

          1            MS. SHPRENTZ:  We would certainly like to see

          2   the monitors stationed at locations that are likely to

          3   capture the highest expected concentrations.

          4            For example, the agency is asking for

          5   comments on whether there should be a requirement that

          6   the monitors be stationed upwind or downwind of the

          7   roadways.

          8            So we would certainly like to see that

          9   decision go in the favor of capturing the maximum

         10   expected excedences.

         11            We would like you to examine the depth and

         12   breadth of the network.  We noted that there were some

         13   states with high populations and heavily-traveled

         14   roadways like Delaware, for example, which were not

         15   expected to get any monitors under the proposal.

         16            We would like to see you establish a platform

         17   that's going to be sufficient to accommodate

         18   monitoring of other traffic-related air pollutants.

         19   Clearly, we're looking at ultra fine particles here,

         20   diesel pollution, fine particulate air pollution,

         21   carbon monoxide, air toxics, other things that are

         22   happening near the roadways.

                                                                        81

          1            It is not sufficient just to look at nitrogen

          2   dioxide.  There may be some issue of what nitrogen

          3   dioxide species are appropriate to monitor as well as

          4   you begin to put this network together.

          5            And one suggestion that we have is actually

          6   that you convene the monitoring subcommittee of CASAC

          7   to examine some of these issues in more detail and to

          8   provide their expertise on the many particular issues

          9   where you had a request for comment.

         10            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you.

         11            David?

         12            MR. ORLIN:  I was wondering.   Did I hear

         13   that the range of levels in epidemiological studies

         14   was 25 to 75 PPB?

         15            MS. SHPRENTZ:  Right.  EPA in its analysis is

         16   looking at the 98th percentile concentration in those

         17   studies.

         18            In those studies, the adverse effects are not

         19   just occurring at the very high end that was monitored

         20   in those studies.  The adverse health effects are

         21   occurring at the mean that occurred in those studies

         22   and also above and below that mean.

                                                                        82

          1            We believe that's what should be used as the

          2   benchmark for standard study.  And the interpretation

          3   of those studies should derive from the mean

          4   concentration in those studies.

          5            And then you should set a standard that

          6   limits occurrences of that level to no expected

          7   excedences or very few expected excedences.  That's

          8   with the 99th percentile form of the standard.

          9            We believe it is incorrect to interpret those

         10   studies by just sort of comparing the air quality

         11   levels that occurred at the highest concentrations in

         12   those studies because that's not what is driving the

         13   statistically significant reported adverse health

         14   effects in those studies.

         15            MR. JENKINS:  Can I ask a follow up?  You are

         16   recommending essentially to take the mean

         17   concentrations from the studies and use that and

         18   essentially make those levels into a 99th percentile,

         19   take the mean level and convert that directly to a

         20   98th or 99th percentile type standard?

         21            MS. SHPRENTZ:  Actually, we have recommended

         22   looking at one standard deviation below the mean.

                                                                        83

          1   That would be even a more precautionary approach.  But

          2   we think that your interpretation where you are just

          3   saying, We have this Delfino study that's finding

          4   effects at 50 parts per billion and that seems to be

          5   an outlier, that that's incorrect.

          6            You should be looking at all of the relevant

          7   epi studies and the mean and the concentrations around

          8   the mean and using that to derive some kind of

          9   99th percentile exposure.

         10            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:   Thank you very

         11   much, Ms. Shprentz.

         12            I just want to check that there is no one

         13   else that wants to register and testify here now.

         14   Our next speaker is not scheduled until 11:05.

         15            If we don't have anyone else, we'll take a

         16   break.  We'll be back at 11 o'clock.

         17            (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

         18            HEARING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ:   Good morning

         19   again.  We're ready to resume this public hearing.

         20   This is a public hearing on EPA's proposed rule

         21   revisions to the primary national ambient air quality

         22   standards for nitrogen dioxide.

                                                                        84

          1            National Ambient Air Quality Standards, we

          2   call that NAAQS.  Nitrogen dioxide,  we call that NO2.

          3            My name is Rosalina Rodriguez.  I'm the

          4   Associate Director for the Health and Environmental

          5   impacts Division for EPA's Office of Air Quality

          6   Planning and Standards.

          7            I have here on the panel with me David Orlin

          8   to my left.  He is with the Office of General Counsel.

          9             Immediately to my right is Lew Weinstock.

         10   He is with the Office of Air Quality Planning and

         11   Standards Ambient Air Monitoring Group.

         12            And Scott Jenkins, he is the lead for this,

         13   lead scientist for this project.  And he is also with

         14   the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

         15   Ambient Standards Group.

         16            Thank you all for participating in this

         17   public hearing today.

         18            Let me just go through the logistics here for

         19   the benefit of those who are just joining us.

         20            In order to be fair to everyone, we're asking

         21   that you limit your testimony to five minutes each and

         22   to remain at the microphone table until both speakers

                                                                        85

          1   in the pair have finished.  We're calling two persons

          2   at a time except that for the next segment.   We only

          3   have one registered person.

          4            After you finish your testimony, a panel

          5   member may ask clarifying questions.  We are

          6   transcribing today's hearing, and each speaker's oral

          7   testimony will become part of the official record.

          8   Please be sure to give a copy of any written comments

          9   you have to our staff at the registration table or

         10   here.  We will put the full text of your written

         11   comments in the docket for you.

         12            We have a time-keeping system of green,

         13   yellow and red lights.  When you begin speaking, the

         14   green light will come on.  You will have five minutes

         15   to speak.  The yellow light will signal that you have

         16   two minutes left.  And we ask that you stop your

         17   testimony when the red light comes on.

         18            We intend to stay here until the evening

         19   until everyone has an opportunity to comment.  If you

         20   would like to testify but have not registered to do

         21   so, please sign up at the registration table just

         22   outside this door.

                                                                        86

          1            I would like to now call to the table Bryan

          2   Brendle.

          3            MR. BRENDLE:  Thank you.

          4            Good morning.  My name is Bryan Brendle.

          5   I'm the Director for Energy and Resources Policy of

          6   National Association Manufacturers.  The NAM is the

          7   largest industrial trade association in the United

          8   States.

          9            We have 11,000 members nationwide

         10   representing small, medium and large-sized

         11   manufacturers.  And we're the leading voice in

         12   Washington, D.C. for the manufacturing sector.

         13            Our sector employs more than 13.4 million

         14   Americans.  And our jobs that we provide for Americans

         15   pay more than 20 percent higher than the average.

         16            The NAM is directly and indirectly impacted

         17   by proposed revisions to the NAAQS for all criteria

         18   pollutants including NO2.

         19            Not only do our members -- are they actually

         20   regulated directly as entities, but since our sector

         21   is one about one-third of the nation's total energy

         22   supply or the nation's whole energy consumption, that

                                                                        87

          1   is, we're also impacted indirectly by those entities

          2   which provide us with energy sources as industrial

          3   consumers.

          4            The industrial sector does consume more than

          5   one-third of all the energy consumed in the United

          6   States.  And in that regard, our members have

          7   important interest in EPA's proposed revisions to the

          8   NO2 standard, and we appreciate the opportunity to

          9   comment on this issue this morning.

         10            Because we're still reviewing the details of

         11   the actual proposal, our comments this morning will

         12   focus on the methodology by which EPA developed its

         13   current proposal rather than the details of the draft

         14   regulation.

         15            In early June, we filed a request for

         16   correction pursuant to the Information Quality Act

         17   with federal regulators.

         18            In that letter, we specifically raised eight

         19   key issues and requested that EPA correct significant

         20   errors and omissions in their scientific and exposure

         21   analysis documents that are currently being used to

         22   support the proposed recommendations for a short-term

                                                                        88

          1   air quality standard for NO2.

          2            I won't go into all eight issues raised in

          3   our petition, which has been filed to the docket.

          4   Actually, I have a copy of the petition with me this

          5   morning.   But the NAM raised two key issues that it

          6   would like to bring to the public's attention at this

          7   time.

          8            The NAM agrees with one of the key policy

          9   rationales  underlying the Information Quality Act,

         10   which is to assure the transparency of a regulatory

         11   process.

         12            As noted in our letter, EPA is relying on an

         13   unpublished, nonpeer-reviewed assessment documents

         14   called the meta analysis that was prepared late in the

         15   review process for which neither the public, regulate

         16   community nor any external scientists have seen, let

         17   alone conducted a comprehensive review.

         18            It is critically important that there is

         19   transparency on any and all information in data that's

         20   ultimately used as a basis to support revisions to air

         21   quality standards.

         22            In the case of NO2, this document is being

                                                                        89

          1   used as a basis for recommending a short-term one-hour

          2   standard.   In that regard, we urge EPA to release as

          3   soon as possible the meta analysis document in order

          4   to allow the public to review and understand the basis

          5   for EPA's proposed recommendations in the draft rule.

          6            We also requested in our petition that EPA

          7   correct several sections in the scientific and

          8   exposure analysis which include several inconsistent

          9   conclusions from a variety of EPA documents, all

         10   involved in the same studies.

         11            We believe such inconsistencies undermine the

         12   need to ensure that there is an objective analysis

         13   conducted as part of the scientific exposure analysis

         14   process.

         15            Additionally, our letter cited several

         16   studies used by EPA's basis for their proposed

         17   recommendation.   However, there are many examples

         18   where EPA arrived at different conclusions, which,

         19   again, raises objections regarding whether analysis

         20   was conducted in a clear and objective manner.

         21            Because air quality standards impact all

         22   manufacturers either directly as regulated sources or

                                                                        90

          1   indirectly by regulating our sources of energy, we

          2   expect the EPA to abide by its own data quality

          3   guidelines in order to be able to weigh in on the

          4   regulatory process in a productive and meaningful

          5   manner.

          6            The NAM members support clean air, have

          7   driven the nationwide improvement, the nation's

          8   overall air quality during the past three decades.

          9   However, we cannot help a short climate of business

         10   certainty while our members make important decisions

         11   with respect to capital expenditures for pollution

         12   abatement strategies without a transparent and

         13   rationale process.

         14            The NAM supports the Obama administration's

         15   commitment to transparency and views the current