[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 137 (Monday, July 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46663-46664]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16878]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC16-146-000.
    Applicants: Great Plains Energy, Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Joint Application of Great Plains Energy Incorporated
and Westar Energy, Inc. for Authorization of Disposition of
Jurisdictional Assets and Merger.
    Filed Date: 7/11/16.
    Accession Number: 20160711-5204.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/9/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG16-127-000.
    Applicants: East Pecos Solar, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of EG or FC of East Pecos Solar,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160712-5045.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2507-008.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Westar
Energy, Inc.
    Filed Date: 7/11/16.
    Accession Number: 20160711-5205.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2633-025; ER10-2570-025; ER10-2717-025; ER10-
3140-025; ER13-55-015.
    Applicants: Birchwood Power Partners, L.P., Shady Hills Power
Company, L.L.C., EFS Parlin Holdings, LLC, Inland Empire Energy Center,
LLC, Homer City Generation, L.P.
    Description: Supplement to July 7, 2016 Notice of Non-Material
Change in Status of the GE Companies under ER10-2633, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/7/16.
    Accession Number: 20160708-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/28/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1882-000.
    Applicants: Boulder Solar Power, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to June 3, 2016 Boulder Solar Power, LLC
tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 7/11/16.
    Accession Number: 20160711-5201.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2176-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for a
One-Time Waiver of a Generator Interconnection Procedures requirement
in its Wholesale Distribution Tariff (FERC Electric Tariff Volume No.
4).
    Filed Date: 7/11/16.
    Accession Number: 20160711-5200.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2177-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA SA
No. 4461, Queue No. W4-027 to be effective 7/19/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160712-5025.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2178-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SA 781--Agreement with
Montana DOT re Whitehall-South Project to be effective 7/13/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160712-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2179-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Duke Energy Florida, LLC,
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Order No. 827 Compliance
Filing to be effective 9/21/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160712-5038.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2180-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SA 782--Agreement with City
of Bozeman re Story Mill Park to be effective 7/13/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160712-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2182-000.
    Applicants: International Transmission Company, Michigan Electric
Transmission Company, LLC, ITC Midwest LLC, ITC Great Plains, LLC.
    Description: International Transmission Company, et al. submits
Compliance Refund Report per 35.19a(b): [4/19/2016 Letter Order in
FA14-15].
    Filed Date: 7/7/16.
    Accession Number: 20160707-5237.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/28/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2183-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: NYISO filing of LGIA (SA
2276) among NYISO, NYPA and Jericho Rise Wind Farm to be effective 6/
29/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160712-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2184-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amended Letter Agreement
City of Pasadena to be effective 9/11/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160712-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2185-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Cost-Based Tariff Vol. No.
20 to be effective 8/31/2010.
    Filed Date: 7/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160712-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES16-42-000.
    Applicants: Trans Bay Cable LLC.
    Description: Application under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for Authority to Issue Securities of Trans Bay Cable LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160712-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by

clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 12, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16878 Filed 7-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


 1 SUPPORTING STATEMENT 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION ( a) TITLE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION Information Collection Request ( ICR) 1039.11, Monthly Progress Reports ( Renewal), OMB Control No. 2030 0005, covers an Agency requirement for contractors to submit technical and financial progress reports under cost reimbursement, indefinite quantity, time and material, and labor hour types of contracts. The information collection is entitled: Monthly Progress Reports, Submission of Invoices, and Related Information. The current ICR expires on March 31, 2006.

( b) SHORT CHARACTERIZATION Appropriate Government surveillance of contractor performance is required to give reasonable assurance that efficient methods and effective cost controls are being used for various cost reimbursable and fixed rate contracts.

On a monthly basis, the Agency requires contractors to provide the Project Officer with a report detailing ( a) what was accomplished on the contract during that period, ( b) what remains to be done, and ( c) expenditures for the same period of time. This allows the Project Officer to monitor the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the work being performed. These progress reports become part of the contract file.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION ( a) NEED/ AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION FAR 16.301 3( b) and 16.601( b)( 1) require that cost reimbursement, time and material and labor hour contracts be monitored in terms of financial and technical efficiency. Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation ( EPAAR) 1511.011 72 prescribes the clause for progress reports which is used for these types of contracts. EPAAR clause 1552.211 72, Monthly Progress Report, provides the specific requirements of the report.

( b) USE/ USERS OF THE DATA Progress reports will be used by the Project Officer to monitor the contractor's progress under a specific contract. If problems with the contractor's performance arise, the Contracting Officer may also review the progress reports to determine what action may need to be taken.

3. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED ( a) RESPONDENTS/ NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ( NAICS) CODES 2 The majority of respondents fall into one of the following NAICS codes: 511210 for prepackaged computer software, 541511 for computer processing services, 541710 for computer related services, 541620 for environmental consulting services, and 339 for miscellaneous services.

( b) INFORMATION REQUESTED Under this ICR, respondents will be required to provide the following information:

 Progress made during the reporting period including percent of project completed, description of the action of work accomplished, and a schedule of deliverables for the reporting period;

 Specific discussions of difficulties encountered and remedial action taken during the reporting period and anticipated activity during the subsequent reporting period;

 A list of outstanding actions awaiting the Contracting Officer's authorization;

 Cumulative costs at the contract level for: the amount claimed for the current reporting period, the amount obligated, originally invoiced, paid, suspended, disallowed and remaining approved for the cumulative period and contract life;

 Labor hours consisting of a list of employees, their labor categories, and the number of hours worked;

 Labor hours expended and direct labor hours and costs detailed for the current reporting period.

 Labor hours negotiated, expended and remaining, and labor hours and costs detailed for the cumulative contract period and cumulative contract life.

 The estimated labor hours and costs to be expended during the next reporting period.

 The current dollar ceilings, net amount invoiced and remaining amounts in several categories.

 Unbilled allowable costs for the current reporting period and cumulative for the contract.

 Actual average direct labor costs compared with the negotiated average for the current contract period.

 Similar financial status information to that already outlined, but at the work assignment level or delivery order level. 3 4. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ( a) AGENCY ACTIVITIES Once the information is received by the Agency, it is reviewed by the Project Officer against existing financial data, contractor deliverables and agency records for verification. If no discrepancies are noted, the report is placed in the contract file.

( b) COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT Many respondents prepare their reports by computer. Software programs are available which easily track financial data. Submissions are accepted in any format so long as the required data is provided. Various software programs are used by the Agency to monitor contractor activity under contracts requiring progress reports.

( c) SMALL BUSINESS FLEXIBILITY Only the minimum information necessary to ensure the contractor is performing in a technically effective and cost efficient manner is required. Because the information requested is vital to the effective monitoring of Agency contracts, separate or simplified procedures cannot be developed for small businesses.

( d) COLLECTION SCHEDULE Most contractors invoice once a month under service contracts. Progress reports are required on a monthly basis so that charges on the invoice can be reconciled with financial and technical information provided in the report.

5. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATION AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA ( a) NONDUPLICATION Monthly progress reports are unique to each individual contract. Information concerning the financial and technical progress of a contractor under a specific contract is not available from any other source.

( b) CONSULTATIONS For this ICR action, the following firms and individuals were contacted to discuss the use of and the amount of time it takes to complete the information request. Two of the following firms have a significant number of contracts with the Agency, and the other is one of the agency's small business contractors: 4 Name Affiliation Phone Ms. Leigh Roller Eastern Research Group, Inc. ( 703) 633 1678 Mr. Michael Gossner Science Applications International Corp. ( 703) 318 4732 Ms. Norma Eichlin Matrix Env. and Geotech. Services, Inc. ( 973) 240 1800 X15 Individuals consulted indicated the information requested is readily available. The individuals consulted indicated that they understood the need for the information collection and did not find the collection excessively burdensome. Estimated time to complete the information collection was considered in " Respondent Burden Estimate."

( c) EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION Most EPA contracts involve complex services requiring numerous contractor employees and extensive funding. It is imperative that the Agency be aware of the actions the contractor is taking and the amount of funding expended on a monthly basis. Less frequent collection would jeopardize the Agency's ability to determine the reasonableness of costs and to take timely action in the event of technical or cost problems under its contracts.

( d) GENERAL GUIDELINES This information collection follows OMB's general guidelines with the exception of requiring the same information from small entities as other respondents and requiring the information to be submitted more often than quarterly. Monthly progress reports are mandatory for those holding Agency contracts with reporting requirements.

Progress reports are required on a monthly basis. Contracts requiring progress reports generally run from three to five years. Most contractors invoice once a month under these contracts. By submitting the progress report with the invoice the contractor gives the Project Officer, who is responsible for monitoring the contract, an opportunity to review the financial information contained in the progress report, and compare it to the invoice. Monthly review of this information allows the Agency to promptly note when performance or cost problems arise and take immediate action.

This information is required because of the complex nature of the contracts used. Every contractor, even small entities, must provide the information in order for the Agency to adequately monitor the contracts.

( e) Information collected under this request, particularly cost and pricing data, is treated as Confidential Business Information ( CBI). This information is protected from public release in accordance with the Agency's confidentially regulation, 40 C. F. R. Part 2.201 et seq.

( f) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB: The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8( d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on 10/ 20/ 2005 ( 70 FR 61124). No comments were received. 5 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND THE COST OF THE COLLECTION ( a) ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN ( i) Labor Costs Respondent burden is based on historical data and figures provided during the consultations referred to in paragraph 5( b). Collection activity hours have decreased slightly since last clearance received, due mainly to improved tracking software, and increasing familiarity with EPA reporting requirements.

Collection Activity Hours Per Month Rate Cost 1. Gather information 15.50 $ 90.23 $ 1,398.57 2. Compile and Process 12.50 $ 44.56 $ 557.00 information TOTALS 28.00 $ 1,955.57 In most instances, it is the contractor's project manager who manages effort under the contract and ultimately prepares the progress report. The information gathering is performed by the assistant project manager. Compilation and information processing is performed by a data entry clerk. EPA's Cost Advisory and Financial Analysis Division estimates the loaded rate for an assistant project manager to be $ 90.23 per hour and the loaded rate for a data entry clerk to be $ 44.56 per hour. These figures are consistent with current rates paid under Agency contracts.

EPA currently has 363 active contracts of the type which require progress reports. These 363 contracts each require a monthly progress report ( 363 contracts x 12 months each = 4,356 responses). Respondents take 28 hours per month to complete each response. Therefore, total burden for one year is 121,968 hours. The annual cost to respondents based on the figures shown above is $ 8,518,463 ($ 1,955.57 per response x 4,356 responses). Contractors are reimbursed for these costs under the applicable contract.

( ii) Capital/ Start up Costs Because it will not be necessary for respondents to acquire any capital goods to provide the requested information, EPA has not estimated any capital/ start up costs.

( iii) Operating and Maintenance Costs Operating and maintenance costs consist of postage and photocopying, are estimated at $ 10.00 per response x 4,356 responses = $ 43,560.00. 6 ( b) ESTIMATED AGENCY BURDEN AND COST Agency burden estimates were developed by procurement personnel who work with the types of contracts addressed in this clearance. On the average, the same amount of time is required to review the data for each type of contract. Progress reports are reviewed by the Agency Project Officer and Contracting Officer responsible for the contract. Agency burden is calculated as follows:

Collection Activity Hours Per Month Rate Cost Audit/ review data submissions 2 $ 50.94 $ 101.88 Burden hours for the contracting officer and the project officer are combined for a total of two ( 2) hours. Calculations are based on both these individuals being GS 13s. Estimate includes GS 13 salary at $ 31.84 per hour, multiplied by a factor of 1.6 to reflect benefits, which yields a loaded rate of $ 50.94. Therefore, total annual agency burden is summarized as follows: Total burden hours: 4,356 responses x two hours per response = 8,712 hours. Total burden costs: $ 101.88 per response x 4,356 responses = $ 443,789.

( c) REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN In the last OMB clearance, respondent burden was estimated at 140,940 hours. The current estimate is 121,968 hours for an overall decrease of 18,972 hours. Collection activity hours have decreased since the last clearance, due mainly to improved tracking software, and increasing familiarity with EPA reporting requirements. A comparison of the last OMB approval and the present request is presented below:

Prior Approval Present Request 324 contracts 363 contracts 3,888 responses 4,356 responses 36.25 hours per response 28 hours per response 7. BURDEN STATEMENT The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 28 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete 7 and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA HQ OARM 2005 0002, which is available for online viewing at www. regulations. gov, or in person viewing at the Office of Environmental Information Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Environmental Information Docket is ( 202) 566 1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available at www. regulations. gov. This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select " search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D. C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA HQOARM 2005 0002 and OMB Control Number 2030 0005 in any correspondence.


293 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1 2 Transcript of Hearing to Take Comment on 3 Two Proposed Rules 4 5 1. Revisions to the National ambient Air Quality 6 Standards for Marticulate Matter 7 and 8 2. Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations 9 10 March 8, 2006 11 12 HEARING held at Hyatt Regency Chicago 13 151 East Wacker Drive, Chicago, 14 Illinois, commencing at 5: 12 p. m. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 294 CONTENTS 1 PAGE 2 3 MS. GENEVA LANIER, PEOPLE FOR COMMUNITY RECOVERY 4 4 MR. CHESTER KOS, CITIZEN . . . . . . . . . . 7 5 MS. CHRISTINE WILLIAMSON, SIERRA CLUB . . . . 9 6 MS. THERESA ROWLEY, CITIZEN . . . . . . . . . 12 7 MR. DICK GLENNIE, PIRG . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8 DR. PETER DRAPER, PHYSICIAN . . . . . . . . . 18 9 MS. BEVERLY BRADLEY, CITIZEN . . . . . . . . 23 10 MR. JOHN FITZGERALD, CITIZEN . . . . . . . . 25 11 DR. MYRTIS SULLIVAN, MD, 12 UIC SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH . . . . . . . . . 26 13 MR. JOHN SHAPIRO, CITIZEN . . . . . . . . . . 29 14 MR. IRA SHAKMAN, CITIZEN . . . . . . . . . . 36 15 MS. LEILA CEPEDA, PERRO . . . . . . . . . . . 40 16 MS. ANITA GIGLIOTTI, CITIZEN . . . . . . . . 45 17 MR. JOEY SANTIAGO, CITIZEN . . . . . . . . . 47 18 MS. REBECCA WIGG, CITIZEN . . . . . . . . . . 48 19 MR. DENNIS NELSON, PIRG . . . . . . . . . . . 50 20 MR. E. JASON GREMLEY, CITIZEN . . . . . . . . 53 21 22 23 24 25 295 PUBLIC HEARING 1 Mr. Burnett: Good afternoon, we're going to 2 start the hearing back up. I'd like to thank for 3 attending this hearing. My name is Jason Burnett, 4 I'm the Senior Policy Advisor, to the Assistant 5 Administrator of EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. 6 I'll be chairing this afternoon's and today's 7 hearing. 8 I'm going to skip over the summary of the 9 proposal. We have fact sheets in the back, and I 10 encourage you to pick up those fact sheets if 11 you're so inclined, and just get into the 12 logistics. To be fair, we're asking throughout the 13 day that you limit your testimony to five minutes, 14 and after you've finished your testimony, we may 15 have some clarifying questions, and ask that you 16 give a copy of any briefing materials you have to 17 the court reporter here and they'll be put into the 18 official record [ inaudible]. 19 There's a timekeeping system where we have 20 these red, green, and yellow lights up from. When 21 you begin speaking the green light will come on and 22 when you have a few minutes left the yellow light 23 will come on, and the red light comes on at the end 24 of five minutes. So you'll need to wrap up your 25 296 remarks. 1 I think with that, I will introduce the other 2 people on the panel. Jay Bortzer is with Region 5, 3 here. Erika Sasser, is with the Office of Air 4 Quality [ inaudible] Standards, Human Health and 5 Impacts Division, and Lewis Weinstock is also with 6 the Office of Air Quality [ inaudible] and the Air 7 Quality Assessment Division. And with that, I 8 would ask that Ms. Lanier, and Mr. Kos come up to 9 the table here, and when you start I would ask you 10 to spell your last name for the court reporter. I 11 would ask if you have any questions before we get 12 started? 13 TESTIMONY OF MS. GENEVA LANIER, PEOPLE FOR 14 COMMUNITY RECOVERY 15 Ms. Lanier: Good afternoon. My name is Geneva 16 Lanier, and I'm with People for Community Recovery. 17 We would like to take this opportunity to thank the 18 United States Environment Protection Agency for 19 conducting this hearing on Air Quality Standards 20 for the City of Chicago. PCR, is located in Argyle 21 Gardens, a public housing development, surrounded 22 by hundreds of industrial plants. 23 With the current technology available, many of 24 these industries can reduce their emissions by 25 297 incorporating carbohydrate economy that has been 1 written by the Institute for Local Self Reliance 2 for the Auto Industry. PCR supports the investment 3 in companies that use plant matter, corn stocks, et 4 cetera, and other agriculture starches for the 5 production of liquid fuels, ethanol and bio diesel, 6 industrial chemicals and construction fiber board. 7 These products greatly reduce the amount of 8 petroleum based chemicals that are used in the 9 industry and consumed, and therefore reduces air 10 pollution. 11 These new products and production techniques 12 are very important for the auto industry. For 13 example, the book Bio Chemicals in the Auto 14 Industry, by the Institute for Local Self Reliance, 15 explains how products made from plant matter are 16 not only safer for workers and their environment 17 but are also cost efficient. In part by 18 eliminating disposal fees and regulations. The 19 Ford Motor Company is still the number 1 polluter 20 in my community and they have failed my community 21 in numerous ways. But the most important that they 22 need to reduce their dependency on chemicals that 23 pollute our environment and adapt to plants  oh 24 oh can't read. Chemicals that can protect their 25 298 workers and my community. Chicago is on its way to 1 becoming the country's first green city, but having 2 a company like Ford Motor Company only inhibit this 3 status, and we cannot let this happen. 4 Another area where these building products can 5 have an immediate impact is in public housing. 6 Chicago is now renovating thousands of public 7 housing units, plant based products do not give out 8 pollution and they last longer. All CHA renovation 9 projects should use carbohydrate based products. 10 PCR has been advocating for the use of these 11 industrial materials to help the environment. We 12 have also been calling for training for workers in 13 these areas, as these skills are needed now, in the 14 economy and the demand for them will grow in the 15 immediate future. 16 If Chicago is to be a green city, it has to 17 have a carbohydrate base to produce from. Thank 18 you. 19 Mr. Burnett: Thanks for you comments. I will 20 mention that EPA has several rule makings that may 21 be of interest to the particular issues that you 22 raised. [ inaudible] the Energy Policy Act, that was 23 passed last year and that may also be of interest, 24 I just mention that in addition to your comments 25 299 being [ inaudible]. Do you have a particular 1 recommendation for the National [ inaudible] Quality 2 Standards, either the [ inaudible] Standards? 3 Ms. Lanier: No, not at this time, I don't. 4 TESTIMONY OF MR. CHESTER KOS, CITIZEN 5 Mr. Kos: Hello there. Thank you for the 6 opportunity to speak, or to testify before the 7 panel. Thank you for your time and your efforts. 8 My name is Chester Kos, I am a resident of Chicago. 9 On the south west side of Chicago. And I would 10 like to start by clarifying a common misperception 11 that Chicago does not stop at the lake front. 12 There's a lot of talk of Chicago being a green 13 city. Chicago continues quite a bit west along the 14 Stevenson Expressway, south west. And the reason I 15 say that is because there's a lot of talk of the 16 greening of Chicago, and many pictures of the 17 wonderful lake front that we have. However as we 18 just saw here with our previous speaker and the 19 communities that I'm unofficially representing, 20 Chicago does go south west quite a bit. 21 I ask the EPA in this situation, I'd like to 22 make two points. First I ask that any standards, 23 any standards that will apply, that they apply to 24 existent coal fired power plants. In my 25 300 neighborhood I have two plants owned by Midwest 1 Generation, previously owned by Commonwealth 2 Edison, and I've lived in this community for at 3 least 35 years, and they are continuing to pollute, 4 visually pollute and it is my understanding, that 5 they do not have to meet the standards specified in 6 the existing Clean Air Act. Something along the 7 terms that they were grandfathered in. Well my 8 concern now is with any proposed standards, that 9 they also apply to existing plants. 10 The second point I'd like to make is any 11 standards that are proposed and put into effect do 12 not allow any regional averaging. What I've seen 13 in my 35 years in Chicago land is that there's a 14 lot of attention being spent on the north and north 15 west sides of Chicago and other places, but 16 continually, the south west side of Chicago has 17 these plants that visually are very disturbing, and 18 I have no way of way of giving you the science 19 behind it but I am sure that they are contributing 20 at least comfort wise to my lifestyle and the 21 lifestyle of my community. 22 So thank you for your time and I would really 23 appreciate that any proposed standards also apply 24 to grandfathered in plans. 25 301 Thank you. 1 Mr. Burnett: Thank you for your comments and 2 we will say that we do [ inaudible] and we will work 3 with the State of Illinois, [ inaudible]. 4 Ms. Sasser: [ Inaudible]. 5 Mr. Weinstock: [ Inaudible]. 6 Mr. Kos: Great thank you. 7 Mr. Burnett: Thank you both for you comments. 8 I'd like to invite up to the table Ms. Williamson 9 and Ms. Rowley. I would ask you [ inaudible] court 10 reporter to spell your last name. 11 TESTIMONY OF MS. CHRISTINE WILLIAMSON, SIERRA CLUB 12 Ms. Williamson: I'm Christine Williamson, my 13 last name is spelled, W i l l i a m s o n, and I'm 14 the conservation chair for the Chicago Group of the 15 Sierra Club. We have about 9,000 members who live 16 in Chicago and near west, and near north 17 communities. Sierra Club is formally, you've heard 18 from us before from our Illinois Chapter 19 Representative, but Chicago Group is part of our 20 club and we're very much in favor or strengthening 21 standards as opposed to leaving them where they 22 essentially are right now. And we're very much in 23 favor of seeing annual standards that are no higher 24 than 12 micro grams per cubic foot as well as daily 25 302 standards that are no higher than 25 micro grams 1 per cubic meter. And I meant meter as well for the 2 annual standards. Part of what I wanted to talk 3 about was my own personal experience. 4 I was a kid who grew up in the suburbs who had 5 absolutely no allergies as a kid, absolutely none 6 whatsoever. I've worked downtown since 1988, I got 7 married in ' 95, my husband dragged me kicking and 8 screaming to the City and I've lived on the north 9 side since 1995. Liked the City, decided I would 10 try cycling and in 1998 I started cycling downtown 11 6 miles every workday, and often at the weekends. 12 In 1999 and year 2000, virtually on the same 13 date I went to the doctor with really bad ear 14 infections. And the doctor said you know what, 15 you've got seasonal allergies. You know, let's 16 start you on the drugs. So I started on some 17 really heavy duty allergy drugs that have  only 18 had to go up over time. So I started in 2000, and 19 now I'm on $ 100 a month of allergy drugs just to 20 live in my City and to do what I like to do, which 21 is commute by bike, and not contribute to 22 pollution. 23 I went to Costa Rica this summer a place 24 that's filled with all sorts of biological 25 303 materials. I'm a bird watcher, my face was inches 1 from the forest floor, and low and behold all my 2 allergy symptoms completely disappeared. I went 3 off the drugs. I had absolutely no problems 4 whatsoever. Came back to Chicago, got in a cab to 5 my north side home where we don't have quite as 6 much impact from industrial pollution, like coal 7 fired power plants, and low and behold I'm back on 8 the drugs again. 9 Went into my doctor, we tested me more 10 specifically for seasonal allergies and my symptoms 11 really aren't allergy related. They're related to 12 particulates. So in my case, if  I went on the 13 drugs at the age of 41, if I live to be 81 I'll 14 have spent almost $ 50,000 dollars and that's 15 because I have insurance. I mean if I didn't have 16 insurance and I didn't have a good job, and I 17 didn't have health care that you know at least 18 covered part of my symptoms. It's a lot of money 19 over time. And so I just think for people like me 20 who like to bird watch in the City and recreate in 21 the City and not contribute to pollution. It's 22 really important to me and to many Sierra Club 23 members, to my family and to my friends that 24 particulate pollution, particularly fine 25 304 particulates are brought under control. 1 That's all I have to say. 2 Mr. Burnett: I appreciate your comments. 3 TESTIMONY OF MS. THERESA ROWLEY, CITIZEN 4 Ms. Rowley: My name is Theresa Rowley, the 5 last name is spelled R o w l e y. I'm a resident 6 of Chicago and thank you for the opportunity to 7 speak briefly. Having just heard that story, I 8 have to say that the reason that I'm here is 9 because I understand that even though these 10 particulates are translated scientifically through 11 thousands of pages of research, they essentially 12 translate into values. And the values have to do 13 with whether or not you value the health of 14 individuals, families, cities, whether you think 15 that that has anything to do with responsibility 16 for other cities, and even global realities and how 17 about generations after us. 18 There is not just this particulate matter that 19 is affecting people's health. This is but one of 20 many. And the fact is that this  if it is 21 brought under the strictest control can only 22 contribute to something that's going to be in the 23 future, overwhelmingly challenging. The more that 24 politically the corporations have power the EPA 25 305 standards to lower them in order to increase their 1 profits the greater increase there will be in 2 health problems over generations. I was brought up 3 in Chicago on the south side myself and had 4 allergies and asthma from the time I was very 5 young. It took an enormous amount of exploration 6 in the field of alternative medicine to not go the 7 route of spending so much money on allopathic 8 medicine in order to be balanced. I had to move 9 out of Chicago in the 80s because it was bad, and I 10 actually ended up in Denver in graduate school, and 11 had to move from there because of lung infections 12 from particulate matter. And ended up in 13 California. 14 So I'm back living in Chicago, I have adapted 15 from China, and my baby is now experiencing many of 16 the things that I started with. 17 This is not a question of whether or not one 18 particular matter or another is going to affect one 19 person. I have a relative who works in Exelon and 20 I have been told similarly that my particular 21 sensitivities in terms of statistics are irrelevant 22 in other words, I'm with the 2 percent that would 23 just not be considered important, and if I die 24 that's okay, because it's on the 2 percent that 25 306 they can't afford to cover. And that's true of a 1 lot of people. And that sensitivity and those 2 sensitivities people with those, who may be the 3 people who create  who are more creative, and who 4 can create out of the box solutions to these kind 5 of problems will be the people that will probably 6 suffer the most from the less stringent standards. 7 So I'm just encouraging this panel to consider 8 the value systems about which you are making these 9 decisions and also to translate what you're doing 10 from the standpoint of your results into human 11 terms. How many more people will die based on what 12 you determine and what you've decided to do. And 13 publish those, so that human beings can see, the 14 human results of those decisions. And I thank you 15 for the time. 16 Mr. Burnett: Thank you for you comments. 17 [ Inaudible  away from microphone]. Thank you all 18 for your comments. Mr. Glennie and Dr. Draper, if 19 you would come forward please. 20 Mr. Glennie if you could spell your last name 21 for the court reporter. 22 TESTIMONY OF MR. DICK GLENNIE, PIRG 23 Mr. Glennie: My name is Dick Glennie, the last 24 name is spelled, G l e n n i e. I reside in the 25 307 community of Old Park, in the immediate west of the 1 City. What I would like to convey are just two 2 anecdotes. Back in the mid 60s, when I was fresh 3 out of undergrad school. I became employed by 4 Union Carbide Corporation here in Chicago. And 5 shortly thereafter I was transferred to Cleveland. 6 I consider myself a son of Lake Michigan, I was a 7 swimmer, a lifeguard, a water polo player, a 8 sailor, and I've done all sorts of things aquatic 9 on that lake and love it. And it was quite a shock 10 to go to Cleveland and see that there was no 11 swimming on the beaches of Cleveland. There was no 12 commercial fishing in the lake at Lake Erie. 13 I adapted and at one point we were 14 entertaining some of our customers at restaurant in 15 a spot called short Vincent Street which is 16 comparable to Chicago's Rush Street, it's a little 17 nightclub area. And it's right where the  the 18 river flows down around this spot. And as we sat 19 having dinner, suddenly this huge flame burst forth 20 out of the river and all of us non Clevelanders 21 were shocked. What is this? And the people living 22 there said oh, it's [ inaudible] it catches on fire 23 periodically, there's a lot of chemicals there. 24 I mean somebody tosses a cigarette butt in and 25 308 it bursts into flames. It was an accepted fact of 1 life to those living in Cleveland that periodically 2 the Cyhoga would explode in flames. This one 3 happened to be a particularly big fire and it 4 damaged three bridges to the point they had to 5 close them for a period. 6 I do this for the point of perspective. For 7 them it was  that's the way it is. For us, is 8 was shocking. Now with the scientific knowledge we 9 have at hand, why would we ever lessen the 10 standards we have now. When we know the damages. 11 Some of our actions can be excused by ignorance. 12 We don't have the ignorance now, we have knowledge. 13 And when the scientific body brings the knowledge 14 to the EPA I think that should be listened to and 15 accepted. As I understand it's the first time from 16 an article in the Tribune this morning. The first 17 time in 35 years that this will  with the advice 18 of the committee would not be accepted. 19 Second is a little bit slightly different but, 20 my third son accepted a teaching position in China, 21 in the university in Shenyang Province, which is in 22 the very north east of China, it's  in fact it's 23 north of North Korea, so it's way up there. He 24 went over in mid semester, arriving in January, and 25 309 shortly thereafter he called us and said it's very 1 cold up here, and it's totally covered with snow, 2 and all the snow is black. 3 And he said well at least in America with all 4 of our short comings, when we see a problem, we do 5 correct it. And I'm wondering, is that really the 6 case as we make this decision now. We know the 7 problem, are we really going to correct it. The 8 one comment I'd like to conclude with is, that I  9 an observer once said, I wonder what the resident 10 of Easter Island said as they chopped down their 11 last tree. 12 Thank you. 13 Mr. Burnett: Thank you for your comments. 14 Ms. Sasser: [ Inaudible  away from 15 microphone]. 16 Mr. Glennie: But not to the degree that your 17 committee recommended. 18 Ms. Sasser: That is correct. 19 Mr. Glennie: Okay. That's the point I'm 20 making. So the scientific bodies recommendation is 21 being rejected. Thank you. 22 Mr. Burnett: [ Inaudible  away from 23 microphone]. 24 Mr. Glennie: The Tribune's article today said 25 310 that they would not even consider it below a 1 certain standard. They wouldn't even discuss it. 2 Now that's an article in this morning's Tribune, so 3 I don't know the value  but the Tribune has never 4 been looked upon as a left wing rag, so. 5 Mr. Burnett: [ Inaudible  away from 6 microphone]. 7 TESTIMONY OF DR. PETER DRAPER, PHYSICIAN 8 Dr. Draper: Good afternoon, my name is Peter 9 Draper, I'm an emergency physician and practice 10 here in Illinois, I live in Chicago and have lived 11 here and in another industrial community, Joliet 12 Illinois for my entire life of somewhat over 50 13 years. So I have a lot of experience with air 14 pollution. I  without appearing to be 15 argumentative I just wanted to make a follow up 16 point in regard to what Ms. Sasser just said. I do 17 understand that the revised standard proposed by 18 the Bush administration in December does not 19 represent a loosening of the current standard but 20 my understanding is that there are some proposed 21 lessening of standards in regard to coarse 22 particles and that that is to be accomplished 23 through a definition and that there is a proposal 24 to no longer test the air for particulate 25 311 pollutants in small and medium size communities and 1 also a proposal to exempt two large industries that 2 produce a lot of particle pollutants, mining and 3 agriculture. So aside from the standard in 4 concentrations allowed of fine particular matter 5 per cubic meter, either on an annual or a daily 6 basis. I believe that there are so many other 7 issues in the file that do represent a proposal to 8 lessen protections perhaps you could clarify that 9 at the end of my testimony if I don't have it 10 right. 11 Anyway I'd like to thank you all for the 12 opportunity to testify briefly here today. I was 13 asked to come by the Chicago Branch of the American 14 Lung Association, I'm not their official 15 spokesperson, but I've worked with them on a number 16 of issues and I support their position on this 17 matter. I most recently had the opportunity to 18 work with them in bringing a Clean Indoor Air Act 19 to Chicago, banning tobacco smoking in most indoor 20 locations, although it's been delayed in some 21 locations but eventually we hope to become a 22 completely smoke free city on an indoor basis. But 23 what about the outdoor areas, what everybody is 24 asking now. And indeed it's a big problem. You've 25 312 all heard the facts and figures and different 1 opinions on it. I'm going to limit my testimony to 2 my experience as an emergency physician where on a 3 daily basis I see the effects of acute and chronic 4 respiratory disease, and cardiovascular, and 5 cerebral vascular disease, and as you're aware 6 based on many studies, the effect of particulate 7 matter is worse than once thought it appears that 8 certain particles actually penetrate the lung 9 barrier and enter the blood stream and can cause 10 additional damage beyond the respiratory tract 11 including cancer, [ inaudible] disease, and 12 cardiovascular disease, aka strokes. And I see the 13 effects of these every day in the emergency 14 department and of course I can't say which person's 15 disease or event was caused by pollution, or to 16 what extent contribution of pollution was. But I 17 can tell you that I'm aware the utilization of 18 emergency departments, and acute care hospitals on 19 an impatient basis for respirator ailments is 20 increasing. 21 And while we see the number of people visiting 22 in the emergency department in the United States 23 increasing over the last few years, the number of 24 emergency departments is decreasing so we're 25 313 boarding more and more people in the hallways of 1 emergency departments. And this is a big problem 2 for hospitals, it's not just a gripe by emergency 3 physicians and nurses. You can hear this from 4 hospital administrators and insurers and 5 malpractice attorneys. It's a big problem. And it 6  my experience in practice as an emergency 7 physician over the last 12 years, if anything has 8 taught me that with all our best curative efforts 9 and the things we do to intervene on an emergency 10 basis to prevent someone from dying from a heart 11 attack or to put them on a breathing machine when 12 they can no longer breathe for themselves, as noble 13 and often successful as those efforts are, we 14 really need to do more for prevention. It cannot 15 all be done on a curative basis, and certainly not 16 all on an emergency basis. 17 And you know, we've heard the statistics, tens 18 of thousand of premature deaths in this country 19 from particulate matter. And it seems like so many 20 numbers, but when you have to go tell the family in 21 the grieving room what happened to their loved one 22 it takes on a more concrete character. And again 23 we don't say well, even though your loved one took 24 care of themselves and didn't smoke tobacco and 25 314 tried to actually exercise, they've died 1 prematurely of some lung disease, maybe it's 2 because of the pollution, we don't say that, of 3 course we don't know. But health professionals, 4 public health administrators, do know. They know 5 the numbers. It's been studied on a statistical 6 and epidemiologic basis. If it was clear to the 7 average citizen what pollution was doing to our 8 health, I think there would be no question whether 9 the standards should not only be tweaked, but that 10 they should be improved considerably. 11 But it's not that clear to the average person, 12 it is clear to us as health professionals and 13 environmental stewards what the consequences of 14 particulate pollution is, and it's really incumbent 15 on us to take a stand here. And to do what the 16 scientific community has recommended. I realize 17 there are economic considerations. There are many 18 sectors of the economy that have different special 19 interests. There's a time and a place to consider 20 those interests at the Congressional level. But 21 when it comes to setting the standard, it is 22 supposed to be based, as I understand it on health 23 and science and I urge you too only allow those to 24 be your guiding lights in setting this standard. 25 315 Thank you. 1 Mr. Burnett: Thank you. At the onset you 2 asked us to clarify [ inaudible], directed to the 3 fact sheets. I think my colleague Erika Sasser was 4 referring to the fine particle standards, where 5 they're publishing a significant typing in the 6 daily standard, and [ inaudible] annual standards. 7 [ inaudible  away from microphone]. But we're 8 focusing on the types of particles for which there 9 appears to be evidence of adverse effects and 10 excluding particles where we don't have that 11 evidence, or we have evidence of [ inaudible]. I'll 12 just leave it at that. 13 Ms. Sasser: [ Inaudible  away from 14 microphone]. 15 Dr. Draper: Thank you. 16 Mr. Burnett: Thank you both, at this point I'd 17 like to ask Ms. Bradley and Mr. Fitzgerald to come 18 forward please. Ms. Bradley would you please 19 spell your name for the court reporter. 20 TESTIMONY OF MS. BEVERLY BRADLEY, CITIZEN 21 Ms. Bradley. Last name, Bradley. B r a d l 22 e y. First name B e v e r l y. Okay. I'm not a 23 doctor, I'm not a scientist, I'm a mother. My 16 24 year old has had asthma since he was 2. Every 25 316 morning he gets up he takes his Zyrtec for all the 1 allergies that he has. Most of them of course 2 outside. We live in Chicago, we live on the south 3 side of Chicago. He takes Advair in the morning, 4 and he has to take Flonase. We do that seven days 5 a week. He is an athlete, he plays football and 6 wrestles, and plays baseball and half of his team, 7 varsity team also are asthmatics. This makes no 8 sense that my son spends at least twice a year in 9 the hospital for three or four days with an asthma 10 attack. 11 It shouldn't happen. You know what needs to 12 be done, the government knows what needs to be 13 done. I just don't understand why it's not being 14 done. I'm also a daughter, 10 years ago my mother 15 was diagnosed with asthma at 70. She also takes 16 Advair, she also takes Zyrtec, and she also has an 17 Ambuterol inhaler for emergencies. She's lived in 18 Chicago for over 50 years. She can't breathe some 19 days, and some days she can't go outside. 20 That again, makes no sense. I'm pretty sure 21 if some of the lobbyists like the utilities, or 22 some of the other interest groups that don't want 23 things changed or modified had siblings or children 24 that couldn't breathe. Or had allergies to the air 25 317 outside. Perhaps something may be done, I don't 1 know. But I do know that we need something done in 2 Chicago and we need it sooner rather than later. 3 Thank you. 4 Mr. Burnett: Thank you for your comments. 5 [ Inaudible]. 6 TESTIMONY OF MR. JOHN FITZGERALD, CITIZEN 7 Mr. Fitzgerald: Do you want me to spell my 8 name? F i t z g e r a l d, first name John, J o h 9 n. I'm here actually on behalf of my mom who is a 10 doctor, much of this stuff is you know kind of self 11 evident. You mentioned that the new proposed 12 standards are a decrease over the current 13 standards, but as science improves I feel that it's 14 not fair to make a comparison to previous 15 scientific standards. You know in the Journal of 16 Epidemiology, they just through some study or 17 whatever, the effects of fine particulate matter 18 are two to three times greater, and I'm sure a lot 19 of people have mentioned that already than 20 previously thought. 21 And let me see what else I have to say. So, I 22 don't have that much left to say. It is rather odd 23 that the administration would choose to reject the 24 findings of its own scientists and I feel that 25 318 there should be  numbers should be set at no 1 greater than 12, which you said earlier for the 2 annual micro grams per cubic meter, and for the 3 daily at 25 that should be the maximum as opposed 4 to a working floor, it should be a working ceiling. 5 And then I'd also just like to ring on the coarse 6 particle matter. It's obviously imperative that 7 that also gets toned down, and the decision to 8 remove reporting in meetings as communities is kind 9 of you know bothersome and strange to me. And so 10 I'll leave it at that, so everyone can break for 11 dinner but thank you. 12 Mr. Burnett: Thank you both for you comments. 13 At this point I'd like to invite Dr. Sullivan, and 14 Mr. Shapiro. [ Inaudible  away from microphone] 15 Just very briefly, we give each speaker five 16 minutes. [ Inaudible  away from microphone]. I 17 would simply ask that you spell your name, and then 18 if you have any written comments to give them to 19 the court reporter, so [ inaudible]. 20 TESTIMONY OF DR. MYRTIS SULLIVAN, MD, UIC SCHOOL OF 21 PUBLIC HEALTH 22 Dr. Sullivan: Good evening, my name is Myrtis 23 Sullivan. My first name is spelled as Myrtis, last 24 name is Sullivan S u l l i v a n. And I'm a 25 319 pediatrician. Also I have a background in public 1 health. I've been a pediatrician for a number  2 since 1978, and I've been in the public health 3 field for over 10 years. I have a special interest 4 in asthma both from a clinical standpoint and also 5 from a public health professional standpoint. I 6 work at  I was the Director of a Children's 7 Hospital, Cook County, formally Cook County 8 Children's Emergency Department and where asthma 9 was our primary diagnosis of children who came  10 unfortunately came to the emergency department. So 11 I saw first hand children  how asthma effected 12 children's lives and the lives of their families. 13 Days missed from school. Parents taking time off 14 from work. Hospitalizations, I mean, daily we had 15  some months we had over 30 children hospitalized 16 for asthma, and in the summer months, in months 17 where and times when air pollution was at its 18 highest and at peak levels with ozone alert days we 19 saw even more children suffering and therefore 20 coming to our emergency department. 21 I'm also a parent of a daughter who also has 22 asthma, she's an adult now, but she also would 23 suffer on those high ozone alert days. So I'm just 24 coming to alert you to  if you make any decisions 25 320 I urge the standards  the air quality standards 1 to be tightened and that before  and I want to 2 underscore the need to listen to all health 3 professionals, not just myself, but others who work 4 in environmental health, pediatrics and also what 5 other vulnerable populations like the elderly. And 6 especially people who spend a lot  a great deal 7 of time outdoors playing, or working and are 8 exposed at very high levels of air pollution. It's 9 imperative to talk to the officials almost anyone 10 that you will speak to that works in a pediatric 11 environmental health specialty unit like I do, 12 that's part of the Great Lakes Centers at the 13 University of Illinois, in a hospital. You ask 14 anybody in the 10 or so pediatric health specialty 15  environmental health specialty units. They will 16 all agree that the standards have to be lowered and 17 they have to lowered drastically and adhered to. 18 You won't find any health professional that would 19 not agree to that. So I urge you to take the time 20 out if possible, individually or just collectively 21 in groups to get this information first hand from 22 public health and clinical specialists. And  23 because our whole country has a stake in this. Not 24 just for families with children with asthma, but 25 321 the whole country, because I mentioned before the 1 consequences of exposure to these [ inaudible] 2 particulate matter and other types of pollutants 3 like this. You have millions of children with 4 asthma and so it effects the children, it effects 5 the workforce and it effects our future, so now's 6 the time. We have an opportunity to act. I think 7 it's imperative that we act. And I think it's 8 totally negligent if we do not act to change these 9 standards. So we want to make our environment as 10 safe as possible for our children. We all have 11 that stake in the future. So again the time is now 12 to act. 13 Mr. Burnett: Thank you for your comments. On 14 days where you see an increase in people coming in 15 for asthma, you mentioned the ozone days, do you 16 also see that in the high [ inaudible] particulate 17 matter base, or is there a [ inaudible]. 18 Dr. Fitzgerald: Both, yes. 19 Mr. Burnett: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. 20 Shapiro. 21 TESTIMONY OF MR. JOHN SHAPIRO, CITIZEN 22 Mr. Shapiro: My name is John Shapiro. J o h 23 n, S h a p i r o. And I appear before you today as 24 a concerned citizen. A concerned member of the 25 322 Chicago area community and perhaps most of all 1 concerned parent. I'm here to lodge my concern 2 about the revised standards for particular matters 3  or matter that the EPA proposes to issue. In 4 short to me it appears that the proposed standards 5 are not sufficiently stringent given the concerns, 6 the practical concerns and issues that physicians 7 and others face everyday, which we have heard about 8 and which I'm sure you have heard much more today 9 in this forum and other forums. 10 I'm here to ask the panel and the EPA a simple 11 question, why. Why aren't the standards that are 12 being proposed more stringent. Based on my 13 understanding of the situation, it appears that the 14 standards are not sufficiently stringent to meet 15 the realities of the situation. And I have to 16 profess that apart from being concerned about the 17 environment, I come to this particular issue of 18 late. In fact somebody alerted to me  alerted me 19 yesterday to this very situation, so I did a little 20 bit of research and decided that I should come over 21 here and express my concerns. Perhaps I haven't 22 been sufficiently vigilant in overseeing those in 23 government who are entrusted to protect our 24 environment, to protect our citizens, and our 25 323 protect our families and children, and that's my 1 fault. But I'm here now. So the gist of my speech 2 is to ask the question, why? You probably have 3 heard these issues previously today, and I'm not 4 prepared to sit here today, nor are you probably to 5 debate them, but I'm going to throw out a few 6 things that I have learned as a citizen by doing a 7 little bit of homework in the last 24 hours. 8 And I want to know why the proposed standards 9 include only what appears to be a token change in 10 the fine particular exposure standard, when as I've 11 heard today and as I've read, the EPA staff itself 12 and the scientific advisory committee convened by 13 the EPA recommended much more stringent standards. 14 I want to know why the EPA is proposing what 15 appeared to be token changes in the standards, when 16 numerous physicians and leading medical groups have 17 all said that the standards must be more 18 substantial, more stringent to protect the public 19 health and the public welfare. I want to know why 20 the standards have only a token change when the 21 scientific studies show that this slight tightening 22 in the exposure standards will have little 23 beneficial impact on the public health. And I want 24 to know why the standards haven't been  aren't 25 324 more rigorous. Where the wealth of scientific 1 studies  what I've read, show that these 2 standards being proposed will leave millions of 3 vulnerable Americans unprotected from these harmful 4 pollutants. I want to know why there are only 5 token changes to these standards where I understand 6 studies are coming out now showing that the effect 7 of chronic exposure to these particulate matters is 8 much worse than we ever previously believed. And I 9 want to know why what appeared to be token changes 10 are being made when the Clean Air Act as I 11 understand it, requires the EPA to promulgate 12 regulations that benefit the public regardless of 13 cost. 14 It seems to me, the EPA is inviting 15 unnecessary litigation over this issue and more 16 important it's inviting unnecessary delay in 17 issuing regulations that will truly benefit the 18 public. I also understand that the EPA itself has 19 determined that the cost benefit analysis. The 20 cost to reducing these particulate matters by a 21 certain amount. The benefit from that far 22 outweighs the cost. And I understand and I've 23 heard a little bit about it today, with respect to 24 coarse particles that the regulations only cover 25 325 urban areas. It seems to me in researching this 1 issue fairly quickly that it's somewhat ironic to 2 be appearing before an agency whose middle name is 3 protection and yet the regulations don't really 4 seem to be protecting the public, and it seems to 5 me that these questions and I'm sure a myriad of 6 other questions which you have probably already 7 faced then, will continue to face in this comment 8 process, require consideration, meaningful and 9 additional vetting and consideration. All right. 10 And all I have to say as a concerned citizen 11 is that I hope my concern, does not take the form 12 of outrage. The outrage that comes from lip 13 service rather than meaningful discourse. And I 14 thank you for allowing me to appear this evening. 15 Mr. Burnett: Thank you for offering those 16 comments, it's an important question and we are not 17 intending to engage in a dialogue here, we just 18 don't have the means. It's not set up for doing 19 [ inaudible] the rational that Administrator Johnson 20 has preliminary made is [ inaudible  away from 21 microphone] is spelled out in the [ inaudible  away 22 from microphone]. And that's really the best place 23 to look for answers, [ Inaudible  away from 24 microphone]. 25 326 Mr. Shapiro: And if he had the citation handy 1 I'd be happy to take it. 2 Ms. Sasser: [ Inaudible  away from 3 microphone]. 4 Mr. Shapiro: List of requests for comment, how 5 to comment, fact sheets regarding the ambient air 6 monitoring regulations, so I think the various 7 forms that you had out at the front table. 8 Ms. Sasser: The preambles are quite long. 9 [ Inaudible  away from microphone]. 10 Mr. Burnett: [ Inaudible  away from 11 microphone] Page 26, 20. 12 Mr. Shapiro: Thank you for that, and thank you 13 for the opportunity to engage you in what I hope is 14 meaningful discourse. 15 Mr. Burnett: Thank you all for your comments, 16 I will now ask if there is anyone who would like to 17 come up and testify. I think we are scheduled to 18 take a dinner break, and [ inaudible  away from 19 microphone]. Seeing no one, we will suspend the 20 hearing until 7: 30. Thank you very much. 21 THE REPORTER: Going off the record at 6: 08, 22 this is the end of tape one. 23 [ Dinner break 6: 08 p. m.] 24 [ After Dinner session 7: 33 p. m.] 25 327 Mr. Burnett: I want to thank you for attending 1 this evening's portion of the hearing. My name is 2 Jason Burnett, I'm the Senior Policy Advisor and 3 Assistant Administrator of EPA's office of Air and 4 Radiation, and I'm going to make abbreviated 5 remarks about our two proposed rules that we're 6 taking comment on, and we have fact sheets for both 7 rules [ inaudible] in the back. And we encourage 8 you to pick a copy of those up. We're in the 9 middle of the public comment period for the 10 [ inaudible] revisions as well as the [ inaudible] 11 air quality regulations. [ Inaudible  away from 12 microphone] we are proposing to revise downward and 13 make it tighter or stringent. It's currently set 14 at 65 micro grams per cubic meter. We're proposing 15 to revise that down to 35 micro grams per cubic 16 meter. The annual standards we're proposing to 17 retain that at the current level of [ inaudible] 18 micro grams per cubic meter. [ inaudible  off 19 tape]. Panel, we have Erika Sasser, office of Air 20 Quality [ inaudible] Standards, Human Health and 21 Environmental Impacts Division. Jay Bortzer with 22 Region 5, and Lewis Weinstock, with the Office of 23 Air Quality [ inaudible] Standards, Air Quality 24 Assessment Division. With that, I'd like to get 25 328 started, and ask Ms. Shakman and Ms. Cepeda to come 1 forward please. I ask that speakers spell their 2 names for the court reporter. 3 TESTIMONY OF MR. IRA SHAKMAN, CITIZEN 4 Mr. Shakman: My name is Ira Shakman, I r a, S 5 h a k m a n. I live in Chicago and am most 6 familiar with fine particulate matter through the 7 [ inaudible] Power plants. Grandfathered power 8 plants in Chicago. And in November of 2004, I was 9 part of an effort to put an advisory referendum on 10 the ballot, and in our Governor's precinct. And it 11 asked  it was an advisory referendum that asked 12 them to reduce the emissions and Fisk and Crawford 13 by 90 percent. The [ inaudible] and mercury. And 14 it passed by 90 percent of the voters approved it. 15 Nonetheless, our Governor did not listen to the 16 voice of the people with regard to the [ inaudible] 17 and in 2005, we in Chicago experienced 30 days of 18 unhealthy air, unhealthy for people to be active 19 outdoors. And Joseph Stiglitz from the Columbia 20 University. A professor at Columbia University, a 21 Nobel prize winner for economics, and he along with 22 a Harvard budget expert calculated that the cost of 23 the Iraq war is going to be between one trillion 24 and two trillion dollars. And that doesn't include 25 329 the cost to rebuild Iraq. And of course going into 1 Iraq we were told that Iraqi oil would pay for the 2 whole episode. We were also told that we were 3 going to be welcomed with roses, and so far over 4 2,000 American soldiers have been killed and 5 thousands more scared and wounded. 6 And so to be told now by this EPA to doubt the 7 clear scientific consensus that your proposal on 8 fine particulate matter is too weak to protect 9 public health. To be told to ignore the scientific 10 consensus and to believe that it's not worth 11 American industry dollars, to spend for Americans 12 to breath healthy air, is not a surprise anymore 13 from this government and this administration. 14 I offer no special expertise on fine 15 particular matter. I probably said it more times 16 today than the rest of my life combined. But I'll 17 say what strikes me most about what I read, and 18 it's that the long term exposure to fine particular 19 pollution, increases the risk of dying from lung 20 and heart disease. The relationship between fine 21 particles and adverse health effects is linear 22 without a discriminable lower safe threshold. And 23 that particle pollution takes an average of 14 24 years off the life of people who die prematurely 25 330 from particle exposure. 1 So the consensus of scientists in this field, 2 state that the effects occur, these effects occur 3 at levels below the current standards. And the EPA 4 proposal that this hearing is about maintains that 5 the current annual average standard for fine 6 particles at 15 micro grams per cubic meter is not 7 going to change. And I find that troubling from an 8 agency that calls themselves the Environmental 9 Protection Agency. I support the consensus of 10 scientists and health and environmental interest 11 groups that lowers the annual average standard, 12 lowers the daily standard more than what you 13 propose. Creates a secondary standard pursuit, 14 creates a daily standard for coarse particles and 15 closes the various loopholes that weakens your 16 already weak standards. 17 And I have my own proposal, and to support my 18 proposal, I offer five observations. One in 19 February of 2005, the EPA's own inspector general 20 found that you cooked the books, you cook the 21 science to fit the administrations preference for 22 weak limits on mercury emissions from power plants. 23 And the Inspector General stated that your process 24 failed to fully assess the rules impact on 25 331 children's health. Something that's been echoed 1 today in regards to your fine particle standards. 2 Two in October of 2005, the EPA proposed a 3 [ inaudible] whiteout of data points tracking toxic 4 pollution by gutting the toxic release inventory. 5 Three in December non partisan Congressional 6 researchers found that the EPA was over estimating 7 costs and under valuing benefits of cleaner power 8 plants, and the report was issued by the way the 9 same week that an American electric power 10 corporation press release stated that they're 11 modern pollution controls are working better than 12 they expected at the plants where they installed 13 them. 14 Four in support of my proposal is that, your 15 actions, the EPA's actions helping gut the new 16 source review program, a major tool to regulate the 17 raising levels of pollution from grandfathered 18 power plants. And five in January of this year, 19 six former heads of the environmental protection 20 agency, five Republicans and one Democrat said the 21 EPA is neglecting global warming. 22 My proposal is if the EPA continues on its 23 course to implement its weak standards for fine 24 particulates, is to keep enacting them, EPA to make 25 332 it easy for you but change the name to better 1 reflect your position, and I have some suggestions. 2 You may call the EPA, the Environmental Political 3 Agency, or you may call it the Energetic Polluters 4 Agency, you may call yourselves Every Polluter 5 Ambassador, Everyone Pollutes All right. 6 Environmental Protection [ inaudible] anything. But 7 please don't call yourselves the Environmental 8 Protection Agency. 9 Mr. Burnett: I'm going to have to ask you to 10 just close your remarks at this point. Thank you 11 very much for those comments. And [ inaudible], 12 several of the issues that you addressed are the 13 subject of [ inaudible] and there may be other 14 commentary in there as well, but for your comments 15 on the [ inaudible] I appreciate those comments. 16 TESTIMONY OF MS. LEILA CEPEDA, PERRO 17 Ms. Cepeda: My name is Leila Cepeda. L e i l 18 a, last name is C as in Cat, e, P as in Peter, e d 19 a. I didn't plan on speaking, I got a call and 20 said you should go down there, I didn't even know 21 what was going on. But I want you to know how I 22 was effected by what you're trying to keep from 23 happening, which is to give us clean air. 24 In 1998, I was diagnosed with Floydes tumor, 25 333 which is very rare and aggressive cancer. 1 Fortunately I have always thought outside of the 2 box and I did not listen to the doctors, they said 3 to come back in six months. I said no, I want this 4 ball out of me now. If I had waited six months I 5 would have died. And I couldn't figure out why I 6 had gotten this, the doctors couldn't figure it 7 out, you know I don't eat red meat, I've never 8 smoked, drink alcohol, caffeine, none of these 9 things. Now I realize, I live two blocks away from 10 one of the coal plants and Kramer. It's effecting 11 me. I also have an irregular heartbeat which I 12 didn't know why that was going on either, and now I 13 realize that this is the cause also. 14 And there's also other people in the community 15 that have been suffering from rare cancers. My 16 older sister who is a trauma nurse is a cancer 17 survivor. She had a thyroid removed. That's 18 another thing that happened because of this. I 19 don't have all the technical terms. But there's 20 something is going on, and I hope that you take it 21 within yourselves, whatever you have to do to 22 really think about it, there's peoples lives at 23 stake. Not money and business which I know the 24 Bush administration thinks about mostly. But there 25 334 are lives at stake here, you need to raise the 1 standards. It's not about money. Think about the 2 position that you have now. And think about the 3 lives at stake there are children dying, people 4 dying every day. I am a survivor but not because 5 of what the doctor said. I was fortunate because 6 I'm aggressive, and I'm going to be aggressively 7 fighting you now. You will be seeing me again, and 8 I'm going to be prepared, but we want higher 9 standards set. The community of Pilson deserves to 10 have clean air. Just because they are Hispanic, 11 and poor, lower income, does not mean they do not 12 deserve clean air. The Bush administration is 13 going to hear this and he's going to have to change 14 this. It can't continue. And I will be prepared 15 next time. And I just wanted to know one more 16 thing, why is it so difficult to raise the 17 standards. I'm asking you  why is it so 18 difficult to raise the standards. 19 Mr. Burnett: The proposal is tighten the daily 20 [ inaudible]. By that I mean make it more stringent 21 [ inaudible]. [ Inaudible  away from microphone]. 22 Ms. Cepeda: Well that's what I'm saying, I'm 23 not prepared, but there's something that I read 24 just as I walked in that  what was it, that some 25 335 science did a study and they were proposing one 1 thing, but you're not agreeing, you're not going as 2 high as what they're proposing, that's what I mean. 3 Mr. Burnett: [ Inaudible  away from 4 microphone]. 5 Ms. Cepeda: Why don't you raise it, why don't 6 you raise the standard, because it's not working. 7 People are still dying they're still getting sick. 8 Is it just about business, I think that's probably 9 what it is, it's just business, and if it's looking 10 at it in a business sense, these knuckleheads, 11 these companies, they should just go green, they 12 could still make money if that's all their 13 interested in. Maybe you should send somebody to 14 start telling them, just go green you'll make 15 money. I'm planning to make my whole house go 16 green. And I'm sorry to cut you off, but I don't 17 have much time. But I'm asking you please to think 18 about the people that are dying, there are lives 19 here. Human beings, children. Mothers, sisters, 20 brothers, people that could be related to you. 21 Follow your conscience and really really do 22 something, don't do just for political reasons, and 23 I know I'm being naive. I don't know, try within 24 you, if you could just make a difference just 25 336 within yourself. This is something serious, this 1 world belongs to all of us, you're all affected by 2 these plans, it's not just me. You're all 3 effected. You don't know if you're going to find a 4 tumor in your breast, or in your penis, or in your 5 rectum, or in your throat, in your lung, you don't 6 know. It could be you next. You're all affected 7 by it. And just remember that, okay? 8 Mr. Burnett: I have a question [ inaudible]. 9 Ms. Cepeda: The Pilson Community it's very 10 close to here, it's just a little bit south west 11 and the Fisk plant is located in the Pilson 12 community, and H. Kramer is also located in the 13 community and their one of the biggest polluters in 14 the country and they're located there, and it's the 15 highest population of  it's mostly Latinos, the 16 community is going through gentrification so I know 17 once the people come in with the money it will 18 probably change you know, the color changes, the 19 money changes, it all changes, but still it's not 20 right. There's still a lot of people across the 21 street from these plants, they don't have air 22 conditioning, in the summer they have to open their 23 windows to let air in, what are they letting in. 24 It's sad. I have air conditioning, I have the best 25 337 air cleaners and stuff, but it's still not enough. 1 But these poor people in the heat and the sting of 2 Chicago summer they can't  but they're opening 3 them. And just because they're poor it's not 4 right. They deserve the right to breathe clean 5 air. 6 Mr. Burnett: I would like to thank both of you 7 for your comments. [ Inaudible  away from 8 microphone] and at this point I would like to 9 request that  and I apologize [ inaudible]. 10 TESTIMONY OF MS. ANITA GIGLIOTTI, CITIZEN 11 Ms. Gigliotti: Hi my name is Anita Gigliotti, 12 G i g l o t t i. I have been a resident of Chicago 13 my whole life, [ inaudible] suburbs on the first 20 14 years, and downtown area the last half of my life. 15 I'm not really savvy with the proposals that are 16 going on tonight. But I guess my thoughts are, we 17 all live in the world, I know that the EPA is not 18 exempt from  I think that you guys are trying to 19 do, it's baby steps, and maybe I sound flowery, but 20 there's a process to it. And I think you're going 21 in the right direction. I know that it's important 22 that you guys are monitoring the lakes. I know in 23 Chicago here, it's come up lately with you know the 24 lakes are the big buzz and all the little 25 338 reservoirs and how much contamination is going on 1 there. And I think that that's always been going 2 on, but now it's just coming to light. So I think 3 the EPA is trying to be proactive and their trying 4 clean it up, it comes to light and you're 5 addressing it. You know and I guess my other 6 thought process is, if you're not part of the 7 solution then you're part of the problem. And the 8 only thing I have to say, is you know I'm not sure 9 if there's any incentives for  or it was a 10 thought that you know the hybrid cars are coming 11 out now, and I know a lot of the people want things 12 to be done, but a lot of people talk a lot and they 13 don't really give any comments, or you solutions or 14 suggestions. They just want it to be fixed. But 15 my thought was maybe you know if the government or 16 you know the EPA, if somebody gives incentives for 17 people who drive hybrid cars, where you're cutting 18 back on you know, alternatives to gasoline. 19 You know that was just one thought that I had, 20 and you know continue to monitor the food, the 21 water, the air, because I think when you hear the 22 numbers it's a little bit scary, but again I'm not 23 real savvy with all this, so the numbers that I'm 24 hearing, I you know  this is my son Joey and he 25 339 has asthma, and so you know I would just like you 1 guys to continue to address the problems. And I 2 honestly couldn't tell you if I think that the 3 numbers that you're giving tonight are conducive to 4 making a change, but something is better than 5 nothing. It's progression. 6 Mr. Burnett: Would you like to make any 7 comments. 8 TESTIMONY OF MR. JOEY SANTIAGO, CITIZEN 9 Mr. Santiago: My name is Joey Santiago, J o e 10 y, S a n t i a g o. I lived in Chicago for all my 11 life, and I don't know much about the EPA, but like 12 I just think that like, you should announce to the 13 people that the water and the air, is like  isn't 14 doing any much better as it has in the past few 15 years, and about the global warming and everything. 16 And like try to cut back on like using your car 17 every day, maybe you could like walk or something. 18 Mr. Burnett: Can you tell us a little bit 19 about your asthma. 20 Mr. Santiago: Well I got my asthma when I was 21 about two, and ever since then I've had it, and 22 through my whole life, I've had about three asthma 23 attacks. 24 Mr. Burnett: I'm sorry to hear that, and we'll 25 340 [ inaudible]. Thank you all for your comments. Ms. 1 Wigg. [ Inaudible  away from microphone] 2 TESTIMONY OF MS. REBECCA WIGG, CITIZEN 3 Ms. Wigg: Okay. Thank you. It's Rebecca 4 Wigg, R e b e c c a, W i g g. I am here as a 5 concerned citizen, and just wanted to make a couple 6 of statement about the proposed rules. Particle 7 pollution does pose a serious health threat to 8 Americans and it's one of the Nation's most 9 dangerous air pollutants, it can cause asthma 10 attacks, heart attacks, strokes, lung cancer, and 11 causes thousands of deaths, each year here in our 12 country. And in Illinois, we actually suffer from 13 some of the worse pollution in the country. So 14 this rule will have a particular impact here in 15 Chicago and in Illinois. There are a number of 16 scientific studies available that show that the 17 current standards for particle pollution is too 18 weak to protect public health, and that the 19 proposed rules don't go far enough to protect our 20 public health. So I'm actually asking for a 21 stronger standard than what has been proposed. 22 A couple of other things that I wanted to 23 mention, is that the Bush administrations 24 independent science advisors as well as the EPA's 25 341 own scientists have recommended a stronger standard 1 than what has been proposed, and I think that we 2 need to take that into account. The rules that I 3 would support, are an annual standard no higher 4 than 12 micro grams per cubic meter and a daily 5 standard no higher than 25 micro grams per cubic 6 meter. That's as opposed to the current proposal 7 which is 15 annual and 35 I believe. The proposed 8 rules will only protect an additional three percent 9 of the population versus going further would have a 10 much greater impact on our population. 11 And then the final point that I wanted to 12 address is the proposed standard for coarse 13 particles, which would exempt certain parts of the 14 country or certain industries from meeting those 15 standards, and I don't think that's appropriate. I 16 believe that we need to have uniform standards 17 across the country. Regardless of where the 18 pollution is coming from, it's going to effect 19 every one the same way. And so those kind of 20 exemptions for certain industries are 21 inappropriate. That's all I have to say. Thank 22 you. 23 Mr. Burnett: Thank you for your remarks. 24 Throughout the day people have commented on 25 342 [ Inaudible  away from microphone]. 1 Ms. Wigg: I'm in the non profit environmental 2 world, so I got an email from Alissa [ inaudible] of 3 the Illinois Environmental Council, who's someone 4 that I work with. Thank you. 5 Mr. Burnett: Thank you very much. We will 6 take a break, and we'll resume when somebody comes 7 who would like to testify. 8 [ Break 7: 59] 9 [ Back on record 8: 06] 10 Mr. Burnett: Mr. Nelson and Mr. Gremley, if 11 you'll both come up to this table here. I'll just 12 make a few remarks about the process, these are 13 going to be abbreviated from what I've been telling 14 all speakers, if you have any questions let me 15 know. We are here to take your comments on the 16 [ inaudible] quality standards [ inaudible] 17 monitoring regulations. Your comments will be 18 transcribed and put in the [ inaudible  off tape] 19 TESTIMONY OF MR. DENNIS NELSON, PIRG 20 Mr. Nelson: That is D e n n i s, middle 21 initial R, N e l s o n. And I reside at 660 North 22 Deerborne Street, apartment 306, Chicago Illinois, 23 60610. Being one the original modern environmental 24 activists I've pro active since around the first 25 343 Earth Day, April 22nd, 1970 in supporting the 1 passage of tough environmental laws, like the Clean 2 Air Act. B, I have a bachelor science, BS degree 3 in biology and environmental studies from Dana 4 College Blair, Nebraska, although I am a member of 5 the Sierra Club and the Union of Concerned 6 Scientists the views presented in this testimony, 7 are mine. My nearly 36 years of experience has 8 shown me that environmental activists are forced to 9 always be against something bad. But if you are 10 against something bad, you're also in favor of 11 something good. If I am against an ecologically 12 destructive, and economically wasteful pork barrel 13 water project which I have been in the past, then I 14 am in favor of a free flowing river and its 15 biological diversity, plus saving taxpayers money. 16 If I'm opposed to Exelon constructing a second 17 nuclear reactor near Clinton Illinois which I am, 18 then I'm in favor of a statewide renewable energy 19 portfolio standard to require our electric 20 utilities to use more renewable resources like 21 wind, solar, and biomass first. And now getting to 22 the crux of what this public hearing is all about, 23 if I am against the Bush/ Chaney administration's 24 roll back of air quality standards, which I am then 25 344 I definitely support stronger standards under the 1 Clean Air Act to protect our lungs from fine 2 particulate pollution. We should be reducing the 3 unnecessary public health risks, posed by fine 4 particulates being emitted by coal fired power 5 plants, diesel engines and other human made 6 sources. Since our air here in the greater Chicago 7 metropolitan area is so polluted by these fine 8 particulates, it is fitting that one of the U. S. 9 EPA's three public hearings be held today in the 10 windy city. I'll let other speakers recite the 11 litany of specific health problems caused by fine 12 particulate pollution. I'm going to mention the 13 fact that the Bush/ Chaney administration has 14 rejected the recommendations of both its 15 independent scientific advisors and U. S. EPA staff 16 scientists to set tougher fine particulate air 17 quality standards. To those of us who carefully 18 follow and analyze environmental political trends 19 this episode is merely one more chapter of the long 20 ongoing story of the Bush/ Chaney administration 21 deliberately ignoring sound environmental science. 22 Instead this administration has chosen to embrace 23 the anti environmental clap trap junk science being 24 perpetuated by polluting corporations such as the 25 345 electric utility industry and the think tanks, 1 industry front groups and PR firms that are in 2 cahoots with them. 3 That concludes my testimony. Please include 4 my comments in the official hearing record as 5 public input and I've also submitted a set of 6 written comments as well, outside. Thank you. 7 Mr. Burnett: Thank you very much. 8 TESTIMONY OF MR. E. JASON GREMLEY, CITIZEN 9 Mr. Gremley: Hi, I'm E. Jason Gremley, that's 10 G r e m l e y. I'm here, just to testify 11 personally about how I feel about the subject of 12 our environment of clean air. And while it's 13 important to get on a large scale things going in 14 the right direction, and changing the air quality 15 standards I wouldn't count on those things 16 happening. I would count on the change happening 17 first within each every individual in making a 18 conscious choice to do what we can as individuals 19 on our individual level. Recently, this summer I 20 just have given up my automobile. I didn't realize 21 what a big step that is, as an individual living in 22 Chicago I have means of public transportation, so 23 that of course in and of itself is a big step for 24 me. And if my neighbor did that, and everyone in 25 346 my high rise apartment complex did that, so 1 recently I've been thinking on that level. 2 So while it's important once again to do what 3 we can on the large scale. If we're not ourselves 4 practicing it individually, we're never going to 5 reach the point that we need to reach, because the 6 individuals themselves, aren't really supporting 7 their own theory. Basically, practice what you 8 preach. So I mean I'm just using the automobile 9 example, there could be  I mean, you name it. 10 Recycling, what else. I can't think of any off the 11 top of my head, but simple changes. Gardening, 12 greening, personal choices in your life not to 13 maybe buy organic vegetables. Not use cleaning 14 products that you know emit too much pollutants, so 15 those are just some of the things I think that if 16 we can just do that as individuals, and also keep 17 our sight on the you know, federal standards, that 18 things will turn around. But I would count on each 19 individual and the people, the movement of the 20 people, the power of the people to move together as 21 representative of the change. Who said it, be the 22 change you want to see. That's pretty much it. 23 Mr. Burnett: I thank you for making the 24 comments, and if you do have any additional 25 347 comments you'd like to put forward, [ inaudible] and 1 that period is until April 17th, and [ inaudible]. 2 [ Inaudible  away from microphone], I'd like to 3 thank you both and seeing no other speakers, I 4 think that we will take a break and we'll 5 [ inaudible]. Thank you. 6 [ Off record 8: 25 p. m.] 7 [ On record 9: 00 p. m.] 8 Mr. Burnett: Seeing no [ inaudible]. 9 [ Off record 9: 00 p. m.] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


[Federal Register: March 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 55)]
[Notices]
[Page 13807-13808]
[DOCID:fr23mr10-118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2010-0088]

Pipeline Safety: Information Collection Activities

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA
invites comments on an information collection under Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Control No. 2137-0614, titled: Pipeline
Safety: New Reporting Requirements for Hazardous Liquid Pipeline
Operators: Hazardous Liquid Annual Report. PHMSA will request approval
from OMB for a renewal of the current information collection with no
revisions.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
May 24, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted in the following ways:
    E-Gov Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov. This site allows the
public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice issued by any
agency.
    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20590-001.
    Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

    Instructions: Identify the docket number, PHMSA-2010-0088 at the
beginning of your comments. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. You should know that anyone is able to
search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). Therefore, you may want to review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or visit http://www.regulations.gov before
submitting any such comments.
    Docket: For access to the docket or to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to Room W12-
140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. If you wish to receive confirmation of receipt
of your written comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped
postcard with the following statement: ``Comments on PHMSA-2010-0088.''
The Docket Clerk will date-stamp the postcard prior to returning it to
you via the U.S. mail. Please note that due to delays in the delivery
of U.S. mail to Federal offices in Washington, DC, we recommend that
persons consider an alternative method (Internet, fax, or professional
delivery service) of submitting comments to the docket and ensuring
their timely receipt at DOT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cameron Satterthwaite by telephone at
202-366-1319, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by mail at U.S. Department of
Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., PHP-30, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public
and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information
collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies an
information collection request that PHMSA will be submitting to OMB for
renewal and extension. This information collection is contained in the
pipeline safety regulations at 49 CFR parts 190-199. The following
information is provided for each information collection: (1) Title of
the information collection; (2) OMB control number; (3) type of
request; (4) abstract of the information collection activity; (5)
description of affected public; (6) estimate of total annual reporting
and recordkeeping burden; and (7) frequency of collection. PHMSA will
request a three-year term of approval for each information collection
activity.
    PHMSA requests comments on the following information collection:
    Title: Pipeline Safety: New Reporting Requirements for Hazardous
Liquid Pipeline Operators: Hazardous Liquid Annual Report.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0614.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a currently approved information
collection.
    Abstract: Operators of hazardous liquid pipelines must prepare and
file annual reports regarding the condition of their systems. The data
provides the basis for more efficient and meaningful analyses of the
safety status of hazardous liquid pipelines. PHMSA uses the information
to compile a national pipeline inventory, identify and determine the
scope of safety problems, and target inspections.
    Affected Public: Operators of hazardous liquid pipelines.
    Estimated number of responses: 447.
    Estimated annual burden hours: 5,364 hours.
    Frequency of collection: Annually.
    It should be noted that this information collection, which includes
the Hazardous Liquid Annual Report (PHMSA F 7000-1), is being revised
in a rulemaking titled: Pipeline Safety: Updates to Pipeline and
Liquefied Natural Gas Reporting Requirements (One Rule). The Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for the One Rule was published in the Federal
Register on July 2, 2009 (74 FR 31675) and comments were submitted to
Docket No. PHMSA-2008-0291. The purpose of this notice is only for an
extension of the currently approved referenced information collection
with no revisions.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 18, 2010.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2010-6360 Filed 3-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P