John Mack/DC/USEPA/US 

09/07/2006 02:06 PM

	

To

Sherry Russell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

Fw: Revised NAAQS for Particulate Matter (minorfamilyauto@insightbb.com)









Please process accordingly. 

----- Forwarded by John Mack/DC/USEPA/US on 09/07/2006 01:57 PM -----

	Wanda McLendon

09/07/2006 11:15 AM

Please respond to minorfamilyauto		

	To:	ADMB_HQ OAR@EPA

	cc:	

	Subject:	Revised NAAQS for Particulate Matter
(minorfamilyauto@insightbb.com)



Dear  Stephen Johnson:

RE: EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017

I am writing to strongly oppose the EPA's proposal to revise the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter
(PM). Neither current science nor sound public policy justifies changing
the standards at this time. Instead, EPA should continue its current
efforts to implement the existing standards, and give them sufficient
time to take effect. 

Over the last 35 years, the Clean Air Act (CAA) has helped to improve
air quality even as the economy has grown at a brisk pace. Between 1970
and 2004, the U.S. population grew by 40 percent, energy consumption
increased 47 percent, vehicle miles traveled multiplied 171 percent, and
the U.S. gross domestic product swelled by 187 percent. During that same
period, however, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants
regulated under the CAA dropped 54 percent while toxic air emissions
declined a further 30 percent between 1990 and 1999. 

EPA's effort to reduce PM over the last nine years has been
extraordinary. A large part of that success has to do with the efforts
of individual states to develop the specialized tools needed to respond
to local conditions. States have adopted long term development plans and
emission reduction tools to achieve the greatest benefits from EPA's new
programs, and to ensure improvements in and attainment of, air quality
standards. Now, EPA is rendering those efforts moot. 

EPA's proposal will cause significant harm to the economy just as
America is struggling to complete its long economic recovery. The
immediate result of EPA's proposal will be to aggravate the ongoing
energy crisis by ensuring further increases in the cost of electricity
and gasoline. In addition, the proposed revisions will raise the cost of
doing business by placing onerous restrictions on the expansion of
existing facilities and likely send even more jobs overseas. Finally,
EPA's proposal will place at risk the ability of local communities to
develop their economy and fully utilize the federal highway funding that
Congress provides for vital infrastructure improvements. 

The ultimate cost of EPA's efforts though, will be borne by the American
workers and local communities who will shoulder the burden of increased
unemployment and significant increases to the basic cost of living. 

As it reviews the current NAAQS for PM, EPA must be mindful of the
tremendous progress that has been made in improving air quality and all
the costs associated with further revisions to the NAAQS. I strongly
urge EPA to reconsider its proposal and maintain the status quo until an
adequate amount of time to judge its effectiveness has passed.

Sincerely,

Jessica Blankenship

404 W South St

Lebanon, IN 46052-2460

