ENIVRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
PUBLIC
HEARING
FOR
NOTICE
OF
PROPOSED
RULEMAKING
TRANSPORTATION
CONFORMITY
RULE
AMENDMENTS
FOR
THE
NEW
8­
HOUR
OZONE
AND
PM­
2.5
NATIONAL
AMBIENT
AIR
QUALITY
STANDARDS
AND
MISCELLANEOUS
REVISIONS
FOR
EXISTING
AREAS
December
4,
2003
Marriott
Hotel
1221
22nd
Street,
N.
W.
Washington,
D.
C.
2
P
R
O
C
E
E
D
I
N
G
S
1
MS.
RUDZINSKI:
Good
morning.
2
I
am
Suzanne
Rudzinski.
I'm
the
director
of
3
transportation,
regional
programs,
in
EPA's
Office
of
Air
4
Quality,
Transportation
Air
Quality,
in
the
Office
of
Air
and
5
Radiation.
6
I
want
to
welcome
you
all
to
today's
public
7
hearing.
It's
on
the
transportation
conformity
proposed
8
rule,
the
rules
basically
dealing
with
the
new
8­
hour
ozone
9
and
fine
particulate
matter
air
quality
standards.
10
The
proposed
regs,
which
were
proposed
in
November
11
­­
they
were
published
on
November
5th
in
the
Federal
12
Register
­­
are
being
considered
today.
They
were
developed
13
in
consultation
with
the
Department
of
Transportation,
as
14
well
as
with
state,
local,
national
transportation
15
environmental
stakeholders.
16
Basically,
today's
hearing
is
an
opportunity
for
us
17
to
hear
from
you
and
from
others,
as
well
as
for
our
18
colleagues
from
DOT
that
are
here
today
to
listen
and
hear
19
what
the
comments
may
be.
20
We're
going
to
be
very
brief.
We
don't
have
a
huge
21
audience
here,
so
I
think
we
can
do
this.
I
suspect
all
of
22
3
you
are
probably
familiar
with
the
rule
itself,
and
so,
I
am
1
just
going
to
summarize
the
three
main
aspects
of
it.
2
First
thing
that
this
rule
does
­­
it
provides
3
guidance
on
wind
transportation
conformities,
will
first
4
apply
in
the
new
non­
attainment
areas.
5
Secondly,
it
will
describe
the
general
requirements
6
for
conducting
a
satisfactory
determination
for
the
new
7
standards,
such
as
the
conformity
test
that
would
apply
8
before
and
after
the
state
air
quality
plans
for
the
new
9
standards
are
established.
10
And
third,
it
will
clarify
certain
aspects
of
the
11
existing
conformity
regulations
to
help
us
improve
12
implementation
of
those
regs.
13
We
have
a
four­
person
panel
today,
and
I
want
to
go
14
ahead
and
introduce
them.
15
The
presiding
officer
for
the
hearing
is
Meg
16
Patulski,
who
is
on
my
staff.
She
is
joined
on
the
panel
by
17
Sarah
Schneeberg,
who
is
our
attorney
from
the
Office
of
18
General
Counsel
and
handles
all
of
our
state
air
quality
and
19
implementation
issues.
She
is
also
joined
­­
also
from
EPA,
20
we
have
Angela
Spickard,
who
works
also
on
my
staff,
and
then
21
we
also
­­
from
the
Department
of
Transportation,
we
have
22
4
Gary
Jensen,
and
in
the
audience,
we
have
James
Shrouds,
Jim
1
Shrouds,
as
the
rest
of
us
know
him,
but
officially,
he
is
2
the
director
of
the
Office
of
National
and
Human
Environment
3
at
the
Federal
Highways
Administration.
4
So,
anyhow,
we
look
forward
to
hearing
the
comments
5
that
you
may
have
on
the
rule,
and
hopefully,
we're
going
to
6
be
able
to
get
this
rule
out,
final.
Our
goal
is
to
try
to
7
get
it
out
and
done,
if
we're
really
lucky,
hopefully
by
8
April,
when
the
new
designations
go
into
effect.
9
So,
anyhow,
with
that,
Jim,
if
you'd
like
to
say
10
anything.
11
MR.
SHROUDS:
Thank
you,
Suzanne.
I
don't
really
12
have
any
prepared
remarks,
but
I
did
want
to
join
Suzanne
and
13
EPA
in
welcoming
you
to
this
public
hearing
today.
We
14
certainly
appreciate
you
coming
out
and
providing
comments
on
15
this
very
important
rule.
16
I,
for
one,
have
been
around
this
conformity
17
process
for
many,
many
years,
and
I
think
this
is
probably
18
one
of
the
more
significant
revisions
that
EPA
has
proposed
19
since
the
'
93
rule
that
came
out
subsequent
to
the
'
90
20
amendments,
and
that's
because
it
really
does
deal
with
the
21
new
air
quality
standards,
the
new
non­
attainment
areas,
and
22
5
how
those
areas
are
going
to
go
about
doing
their
1
transportation
conformity
process.
2
And
you
have,
no
doubt,
noticed
that
this
rule
has
3
a
lot
of
options
in
it,
and
what
I
would
suggest
or
encourage
4
you,
either
in
your
verbal
testimony
or
maybe
in
your
5
subsequent
written
statements
to
the
record,
that
if
you
6
state
a
preference
for
one
of
those
options,
substantiate
7
that
to
the
best
you
can
based
on
the
state
of
the
knowledge
8
or
research
or
monitoring
data
or
just
your
knowledge
on
9
those
options,
because
I
think
the
more
information
we
get
on
10
those
options,
the
more
informed
decisions
we
can
make
in
the
11
final
rule.
12
So,
rather
than
just
saying
you'd
prefer
one
option
13
because
it's
more
stringent
or
it's
more
flexible,
depending
14
on
what
your
viewpoint
may
be,
try
and
give
us
the
best
15
information
on
those
options
that
you
can.
It
would
be
very
16
helpful
to
us,
I
think.
17
So,
thanks
for
coming,
and
we
look
forward
to
18
hearing
what
you
have
to
recommend.
19
Thanks.
20
MS.
PATULSKI:
Hello.
Today
I'll
be
serving
as
the
21
presiding
officer
of
the
hearing,
and
before
we
get
started,
22
6
I
wanted
to
go
over
some
prepared
statements
about
how
we
1
will
hold
the
hearing.
It's
pretty
standard.
2
We
are
conducting
this
hearing
under
the
Clean
Air
3
Act
in
order
to
provide
interested
persons
with
an
4
opportunity
for
oral
presentation
of
data,
views,
or
5
arguments.
6
The
official
record
of
the
hearing
will
be
kept
7
open
until
December
22,
2003,
for
submission
of
rebuttal
or
8
supplemental
testimony.
9
The
hearing
will
be
conducted
informally,
and
10
formal
rules
of
evidence
will
not
apply.
The
presiding
11
officer,
however,
is
authorized
to
strike
statements
from
the
12
record
which
are
deemed
irrelevant
or
needlessly
repetitious
13
and
to
enforce
reasonable
limits
on
the
duration
of
the
14
statement
of
any
witness.
15
Witnesses
must
state
their
name
and
affiliation
16
prior
to
make
their
statement,
and
we
have
this
podium
over
17
here
where
people
can
give
their
testimony
to
the
panel.
18
When
a
witness
has
finished
his
or
her
presentation,
members
19
of
the
panel
will
have
an
opportunity
to
ask
questions
20
related
to
the
testimony.
21
Witnesses
are
reminded
that
any
false
statements
or
22
7
false
responses
to
questions
may
be
a
violation
of
law.
1
Witnesses
will
have
a
chance
later
in
the
hearing
2
to
provide
rebuttal
and
supplemental
testimony.
In
addition,
3
witnesses
can
submit
rebuttal
and
supplemental
testimony
in
4
writing
until
December
22nd
to
the
docket.
5
If
any
members
of
the
audience
wishing
to
testify
6
have
not
already
signed
up,
please
submit
your
name
at
the
7
reception
table
outside
the
room,
and
even
if
you're
not
8
going
to
be
testifying
today,
just
put
your
name
there
for
9
the
record
in
the
docket.
10
Finally,
if
you
would
like
a
transcript
of
the
11
proceedings,
you
should
make
arrangements
directly
with
Pete,
12
our
court
reporter,
during
one
of
the
breaks,
and
maybe
we
13
won't
have
any
breaks.
14
We
only
have
three
people,
I
believe,
at
this
time
15
that
are
signed
up
to
testify.
16
So,
right
now,
as
presiding
officer,
I'm
not
17
expecting
any
breaks,
unless
a
bunch
of
people
come
in
at
the
18
last
minute.
19
Has
anybody
new
signed
up
since
we
started?
20
(
No
response.)
21
MS.
PATULSKI:
Before
we
begin
testimony,
I
want
to
22
8
ask
if
anybody
has
any
clarifying
questions
on
how
we'll
run
1
the
hearing.
2
(
No
response.)
3
MS.
PATULSKI:
Okay.
4
So,
with
that,
we're
just
going
to
go
in
the
order
5
that
people
signed
up,
the
folks
that
are
on
the
agenda.
The
6
first
person
is
John
Zamurs
from
the
New
York
Department
of
7
Transportation.
8
MR.
ZAMURS:
Good
morning.
I've
provided
written
9
testimony
or
comments,
but
I
will
be
departing
from
those
10
comments
in
a
couple
of
locations.
11
My
name
is
John
Zamurs,
and
I
am
employed
with
the
12
New
York
State
Department
of
Transportation.
At
New
York
13
State
DOT,
I
oversee
the
air
quality
activities
for
the
14
department
and
have
been
at
New
York
State
DOT
in
a
15
transportation
air
quality
capacity
for
over
20
years.
On
16
behalf
of
New
York
State
DOT,
I'd
like
to
thank
USEPA
for
17
this
opportunity
to
provide
comments
on
this
rulemaking,
18
which
will
have
a
substantial
impact
on
state
DOT's
in
19
general
and
on
New
York
State
DOT
in
particular
for
many
20
years
to
come.
21
As
such,
it's
crucial
that
USEPA
craft
this
rule
to
22
9
protect
and
improve
air
quality,
as
required
by
the
Clean
Air
1
Act,
and
to
minimize
negative
effects
on
transportation
2
activities,
many
of
which
have
air
quality
beneficial
3
aspects.
4
My
comments
this
morning
will
touch
upon
some
of
5
the
broad
issues
and
questions
raised
by
the
proposed
rule.
6
New
York
State
DOT
anticipates
submitting
detailed
written
7
comments
prior
to
the
close
of
the
rule­
making
period.
The
8
comments
today
have
been
coordinated
with
the
New
York
State
9
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation,
our
state
air
10
agency,
and
represent
a
New
York
view
of
the
proposed
rule.
11
I
anticipate
that
New
York
State
DEC
will
also
submit
12
detailed
written
comments
before
the
close
of
the
comment
13
period.
14
In
general,
New
York
recognizes
and
supports
the
15
priorities
established
in
the
Clean
Air
Act
to
improve
air
16
quality
and
protect
public
health.
Indeed,
in
New
York
and
17
across
much
of
the
nation,
air
quality
has
gotten
better
18
because
of
the
programs
and
requirements
spelled
out
in
the
19
Clean
Air
Act.
20
We
agree
that
transportation
conformity
is
an
21
important
element
in
maintaining
and
assuring
continued
22
10
progress
in
air
quality.
1
New
York
also
appreciates
EPA's
attempts
in
the
2
proposed
rule
to
provide
flexibility
to
states
in
3
implementing
transportation
conformity
requirements
in
areas
4
newly
designated
as
non­
attainment,
whether
for
the
8­
hour
5
ozone
standard
or
for
the
PM­
2.5
standard.
6
We
also
appreciate
EPA's
desire
to
limit
the
cost
7
and
analytical
impact
of
transportation
conformity
8
requirements.
9
As
is
generally
recognized
by
all
practitioners
in
10
the
field,
transportation
conformity
requirements
can
be
11
cumbersome
and
extensive,
often
diverting
resources
and
staff
12
time
from
other
critically
needed
transportation
activities.
13
With
regard
to
the
interim
emission
test,
the
14
selection
of
2002
as
the
base
analysis
year
makes
sense.
New
15
York
also
supports
the
revision
of
the
build­
less­
than­
no­
16
build
test
to
a
build­
no­
greater­
than­
no­
build
test
for
17
certain
areas.
18
While
we
see
limited
applicability
of
the
newly
19
revised
test
to
existing
non­
attainment
maintenance
areas,
it
20
has
potentially
significant
benefits
in
newly
designated
21
areas.
22
11
Finally,
the
regional
emissions
analysis
in
later
1
years
proposal
may
be
based
on
incorrect
assumptions.
2
Typically,
in
future
years
after
the
transportation
system
3
has
experienced
significant
growth
in
demand
is
when
the
4
impact
of
projects
on
the
transportation
system
would
be
most
5
readily
detected
through
route
selection,
speed
changes,
or
6
other
changes
to
the
system.
7
The
premise
that
the
action
and
no­
action
scenario
will
8
result
in
the
same
outcome
may
be
flawed.
9
Now,
this
comment
presumes
that
there
are
no
new
10
projects
in
the
outer
years
of
the
transportation
plan,
with
11
new
projects
coming
into
line
in
the
early
years
of
the
plan.
12
If
the
situation
is
reversed
so
that
no
new
projects
in
the
13
early
years
of
the
plan
and
there
are
new
projects
added
14
later
in
the
out­
years
of
the
plan,
then
the
proposal
may
15
have
some
limited
benefits.
16
Regarding
the
elimination
of
multiple
interim
17
emission
reduction
tests
for
moderate
and
above
ozone
areas
18
and
some
CO
areas,
New
York
agrees
with
the
concept
of
19
reducing
unnecessary
analytical
requirements.
The
test
that
20
should
remain
is
the
one
that
is
more
protective
of
air
21
quality.
The
less­
than­
1990
test
for
these
pollutants
22
12
reflects
improvements
in
vehicle
and
fuel
technologies,
1
rather
than
improvements
in
emission
reduction
from
the
2
transportation
plan
or
program.
3
Regarding
the
flexibility
of
emission
reduction
4
tests
for
newly
designated
areas
before
the
establishment
of
5
an
emission
budget,
the
rule
should
clarify
that
the
various
6
emissions
test
remain
available
to
states
and
MPOs
in
7
subsequent
conformity
determinations
as
long
as
an
adequate
8
or
approved
mission
budget
has
not
been
established.
As
9
written,
the
rule
could
be
interpreted
that
once
an
area
10
selects
a
particular
emission
reduction
test,
it
is
locked
11
into
that
test
until
such
time
as
an
emission
budget
is
12
established.
13
With
regard
to
precursors
in
PM2.5
conformity
14
determinations,
New
York
agrees
with
EPA's
proposed
option
15
that
VOCs
and
NOx
are
appropriate
to
include
in
regional
16
emissions
analysis
for
conformity
determinations
prior
to
17
approved
PM2.5
SIPs.
18
In
New
York,
we
anticipate
that
any
PM2.5
non­
19
attainment
areas
will
overlap
ozone
non­
attainment
areas,
so
20
the
requirement
to
include
these
two
precursors
would
not
21
impose
a
significant
regulatory
burden
and
would
provide
22
13
added
air
quality
protection.
1
New
York
further
agrees
with
EPA's
proposed
option
2
to
not
require
conformity
determinations
to
include
emissions
3
analysis
for
ammonia
and
oxides
of
sulfur
until
such
time
4
that
it
is
determined
that
these
precursors
contribute
5
significantly
to
PM2.5
non­
attainment
and
budgets
for
these
6
pollutants
are
established.
7
New
York
agrees
with
EPA's
proposed
option
to
not
8
include
re­
entrained
road
dust
and
PM
emissions
from
9
construction
sites
on
conformity
determinations
until
such
10
time
it's
determined
that
these
sources
contribute
11
significantly
to
PM
non­
attainment
status.
12
Regarding
PM
hot­
spot
analysis,
the
written
13
comments
do
not
properly
characterize
EPA's
options,
and
we
14
will
correctly
that
in
our
written
comments
that
we
submit
15
before
the
end
of
the
closing
period.
16
We
do
believe,
however,
that
an
approach
that
is
17
reasonable
air
quality
protective
and
does
not
place
undue
18
burden
on
transportation
agencies
can
be
devised.
Similar
to
19
the
transportation
conformity
requirements
at
the
project
20
level
for
carbon
monoxide,
EPA
should
determine
a
simple
21
analysis
trigger,
such
as
level
of
service
for
CO.
Projects
22
14
that
don't
meet
the
trigger
would
not
require
analysis.
1
Projects
that
do
meet
the
trigger
would
do
an
analysis
to
2
determine
if
an
exceedance
of
the
appropriate
PM
standard
was
3
likely
and
consider
mitigation
measures
to
reduce
PM
4
concentrations
below
the
standard,
if
needed.
5
USEPA's
proposal
regarding
areas
with
insignificant
6
motor
vehicle
emissions
seems
sound,
as
does
its
propo0sal
7
for
the
grace
period
for
transportation
modeling
and
plan
8
content
requirements.
9
Once
again,
let
me
thank
USEPA
for
this
opportunity
10
to
present
New
York's
views
on
this
important
rulemaking,
and
11
as
we
continue
to
review
the
proposed
rule,
our
view
on
some
12
provisions
of
the
rule
may
change
from
what
I
have
presented
13
here
this
morning.
14
Thank
you
very
much.
15
MS.
PATULSKI:
I
have
a
question.
Thanks,
John.
I
16
just
have
a
clarifying
question.
17
In
your
comments
on
the
second
page,
when
you
were
18
talking
about
the
options
we
were
proposing
for
moderate
and
19
above
ozone
and
higher
classifications
of
CO
areas
before
20
they
had
set
budgets
for
the
new
standards,
you
said
that
New
21
York
­­
I
wanted
to
just
clarify.
22
15
We
proposed
three
options.
One
was
­­
option
one
1
was
to
retain
the
current
rules
requirements.
Option
two
was
2
to
allow
areas
to
choose
between
a
build­
no­
build
and
a
3
baseline
year
test.
And
the
third
option
was
to
just
have
4
one
test
required
in
the
rule.
5
It
wasn't
clear
to
me
if
you
were
picking
option
6
two
or
option
three.
7
MR.
ZAMURS:
I
think
at
this
point
we're
picking
8
option
three,
to
reduce
unnecessary
analytical
requirements.
9
If
one
test
is
more
protective
of
air
quality,
then,
to
us,
10
it
seems
unnecessary
to
do
a
second
test,
as
the
first
test
11
accomplishes
that
goal.
12
MS.
PATULSKI:
Would
that
test
be
the
baseline
year
13
test?
14
MR.
ZAMURS:
No,
that
test
would
be
a
build­
no­
15
build.
16
MS.
PATULSKI:
Okay.
That's
what
I
wanted
to
17
clarify.
Great.
Thank
you.
18
MR.
ZAMURS:
Thank
you.
19
MS.
PATULSKI:
Does
anyone
else
have
any
clarifying
20
questions?
21
MR.
JENSEN:
I
have
one
clarifying
question.
This
22
16
is
Gary
Jensen,
Federal
Highway
Administration.
1
You
said
that
you
anticipate
that
PM2.5
non­
2
attainment
areas
will
overlap
with
those
in
non­
attainment
3
areas,
so
the
requirement
to
include
these
two
precursors
4
will
not
impose
a
significant
regulatory
burden.
Are
you
5
assuming
that
the
ozone
in
PM2.5
areas
would
be
exactly
the
6
same
­­
have
the
same
boundaries?
7
MR.
ZAMURS:
Well,
at
this
point,
not
knowing
8
exactly
where
the
boundaries
are,
it's
hard
to
say.
We
9
anticipate
that
they
probably
will
have
the
same
boundaries,
10
although
that
may
change
with
time,
but
right
now,
my
11
understanding
is
that
they
will
likely
have
the
same
12
boundaries.
13
MS.
PATULSKI:
Actually,
I
realize
I
have
one
more
14
question,
and
I
think
you
might
have
addressed
when
you
15
deferred
from
your
written
comments,
but
for
the
­­
on
the
16
top
of
your
second
page,
for
the
flexibility
that
we
are
17
providing
for
when
areas
are
doing
the
build­
no­
build
test,
18
if
no
new
projects
or
assumptions
have
changed
in
later
years
19
and
a
new
analysis
is
not
required,
you,
in
your
written
20
comments,
say
that
our
premise
may
be
flawed.
21
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that.
22
17
Is
that
because
there
may
not
be
a
lot
of
areas
in
1
New
York
State
that
would
be
in
that
situation,
thus
not
have
2
new
projects,
for
example,
planned
in
the
future,
or
is
there
3
another
reason?
4
MR.
ZAMURS:
Well,
that
comment
is
based
on
the
5
assumption
that,
as
in
New
York,
most
of
our
new
projects
6
come
on­
line
early
in
the
transportation
improvement
program
7
over
the
plan,
so
those
­­
and
do
not
have
any
new
projects
8
or
committed
projects
in
the
out­
years
of
the
plan.
9
So,
our
comment
is
based
on
the
fact
that
if
we
do
10
modeling
with
those
new
projects
coming
on­
line
early,
the
11
impact
and
the
effect
of
those
projects
will
continue
into
12
the
future,
and
although
you
may
not
have
any
new
projects
13
coming
on­
line
later,
the
impact
in
terms
of
speeds
or
14
diversions
of
those
projects
will
show
up
in
the
modeling
15
later
on.
16
So,
that's
the
basis
of
our
comment,
as
written.
17
Realizing,
though,
that
other
states
may
do
things
18
differently
where
you
have
projects
coming
on­
line
later,
19
then
if
the
early
years
have
no
changes,
then
there
may
be
20
some
benefit
in
not
having
to
look
at
those
years,
those
21
early
years.
22
18
MS.
PATULSKI:
Okay.
Thank
you.
1
The
next
person
is
Tracy
Freuder.
2
MS.
FREUDER:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Tracy
3
Freuder,
and
I'm
a
transportation
and
research
associate
at
4
Environmental
Defense,
a
nonprofit
that
represents
over
5
400,000
members.
6
We
are
concerned
that
EPA's
proposed
transportation
7
conformity
rule
amendments
will
weaken
conformity,
undermine
8
the
Clean
Air
Act,
and
harm
our
health.
9
We
will
be
submitting
detailed
written
comments
10
prior
to
the
December
22nd
deadline,
but
in
today's
11
testimony,
I
would
like
to
focus
on
the
substantial
increase
12
in
emissions
from
motor
vehicles
that
could
result
from
the
13
proposed
rule.
14
I
will
begin
by
giving
a
brief
overview
of
the
15
importance
and
history
of
transportation
conformity.
I
will
16
then
turn
to
why
EPA's
rule
could
result
in
increased
17
emissions
in
areas
already
suffering
from
high
levels
of
18
pollution.
19
Transportation
conformity
is
intended
to
ensure
20
that
actual
emissions
from
motor
vehicles
stay
within
the
21
limits
established
to
meet
health­
based
air
quality
22
19
standards.
1
Conformity
was
strengthened
in
the
1990
Clean
Air
2
Act
amendments
so
that
transportation
would
no
longer
3
routinely
undermine
progress
towards
unhealthful
air
quality,
4
as
it
had
repeatedly
since
the
1970
Clean
Air
Act.
5
In
just
the
past
few
years,
transportation
6
conformity
has
begun
to
operate
fully
with
the
adoption
of
7
motor
vehicle
emission
budgets
as
part
of
the
attainment
8
statement
implementation
plans,
or
SIPs.
9
This
has
spurred
support
for
clean
air
vehicles,
10
fuels,
and
strategies
to
curb
traffic
and
pollution
growth,
11
with
better
travel
choices.
12
It's
gotten
transportation
and
air
quality
agencies
13
finally
talking
to
each
other.
14
By
invoking
the
one­
hour
ozone
standard
in
2005
15
indicating
adopted
motor
vehicle
emissions
budgets
for
one­
16
hour
SIPs,
EPA's
conformity
rule
proposal
threatens
to
17
disable
conformity
for
many
years
in
our
nation's
most
18
polluted
areas.
19
EPA
is
proposing
to
rescind
the
one­
hour
standard
20
one
year
after
the
designation
of
the
eight­
hour
ozone
non­
21
attainment
areas
in
April
of
2004,
thereby
eliminating,
in
22
20
April
2005,
the
related
one­
hour
motor
vehicle
emissions
1
budgets
that
are
a
foundation
of
the
transportation
2
conformity
process.
3
For
many
reasons
spelled
out
in
Environmental
4
Defense's
earlier
comments
on
the
proposed
ozone
5
implementation
policy,
we
believe
this
proposal
is
unlawful,
6
but
even
if
EPA
could
lawfully
revoke
the
one­
hour
standard
7
and
have
the
authority
to
allow
states
to
set
aside
their
8
motor
vehicle
emissions
budgets,
we
believe
EPA's
proposal
is
9
unlawful,
because
it
would
allow
large
increases
in
motor
10
vehicle
emissions
and
thereby
violate
the
statutory
11
conformity
tests.
12
EPA
proposes
to
allow
states
to
ignore
the
motor
13
vehicle
emissions
budgets
in
their
one­
hour
SIPs
for
future
14
years
and
instead
demonstrate
conformity
using
any
of
several
15
alternative
tests.
16
History
shows
that
most
states
will
succumb
to
17
pressure
from
highway
interests
to
use
whatever
test
is
18
available
to
them
that
will
allow
the
greatest
expansion
of
19
highway
emissions
and
therefore
is
the
least
protective
of
20
public
health.
21
Among
the
conformity
tests
that
EPA
is
proposing
to
22
21
substitute
is
a
2002
baseline
test,
using
motor
vehicle
1
emissions
from
2002
as
the
level
not
to
be
exceeded.
2
Application
of
this
test
in
place
of
adopted
one­
hour
motor
3
vehicle
emissions
budgets
would
allow
emissions
to
increase
4
after
April
2005
to
2002
levels
until
new
budgets
are
adopted
5
under
the
eight­
hour
NAAQS.
6
These
new
eight­
hour
budgets
will
not
become
available
7
until
2007,
at
the
earliest,
and
it
is
likely
that
eight­
hour
8
attainment
SIPs
will
not
actually
be
submitted
and
approved
9
for
several
years
after
that
for
areas
that
are
designated
10
serious
and
severe
under
the
eight­
hour
NOx.
11
Under
EPA's
proposal,
areas
could
approve
new
12
transportation
plans
so
long
as
transportation
emissions
13
levels
are
less
than
2002
levels.
14
I've
attached
a
few
charts
at
the
end
of
my
15
testimony
that
demonstrate
emissions
could
rise
to
one­
and­
a­
16
half
times
allowable
motor
vehicle
emissions
that
would
17
otherwise
be
required
under
the
motor
vehicle
emission
18
budgets
of
the
approved
SIP.
19
Just
for
an
example,
in
Chicago,
you
can
see
that
20
VOC
would
be
allowed
to
increase
by
44
percent
above
the
21
level
of
emissions
budgets
currently
approved
in
the
one­
hour
22
22
SIPs
in
Chicago's
attainment
date
of
2007,
and
on
the
second
1
page,
you
can
see
that
NOx
would
be
allowed
to
increase
by
56
2
percent.
3
The
other
cities
on
this
chart
show
Mobile
5
data
4
and
a
comparison
of
past
emission
budgets
for
2002
versus
5
attainment
budget,
and
the
chart
shows
that
in
each
region
6
under
proposed
rule,
emissions
would
be
allowed
to
increase
7
significantly
over
attainment
budgets
allowed
in
the
one­
hour
8
SIP.
9
Again,
Chicago
is
the
only
area
on
the
chart
10
showing
Mobile
6
data,
and
it's
the
area
that
clearly
11
demonstrates
the
greatest
increase
in
emissions.
However,
12
it's
well
accepted
that
Mobile
6
more
correctly
reflects
the
13
true
emissions
compared
with
the
Mobile
5
computer
model.
14
An
EPA
analysis
which
I've
attached
to
my
testimony
15
as
attachment
2
shows
that
Mobile
5
significantly
16
underestimated
NOx
and
VOCs
emissions
compared
to
Mobile
6,
17
especially
in
years
prior
to
2007,
with
the
Mobile
5
18
emissions
under­
estimation
problem
becoming
more
acute
the
19
further
back
in
time
it
looks.
20
Therefore,
we
believe
our
preliminary
analysis
21
suggests
the
data
for
Chicago
using
Mobile
6
presents
a
more
22
23
accurate
picture
of
what
the
likely
increase
in
mobile
source
1
emissions
that
will
be
allowable
under
the
2002
baseline
test
2
versus
the
adopted
2005
or
2006
motor
vehicle
emissions
3
budget
test.
4
Motor
vehicle
emissions
represent
a
quarter
to
a
5
half
of
the
source
of
ozone
precursor
emissions
in
most
U.
S.
6
cities
that
are
in
non­
attainment
of
the
one­
hour
standard,
7
as
shown
in
our
table
as
attachment
three.
8
An
increase
in
motor
vehicle
emissions
means
that
9
total
emissions
in
a
air
shed
will
exceed
the
level
needed
10
for
attainment.
11
Based
on
modeling
analysis
that
demonstrates
that
12
SIPs
will
not
attain
the
ozone
NAAQS
without
further
13
reductions
­­
and
the
EPA's
SIP
approvals
are
based
on
weight
14
of
evidence
analysis
that
demonstrate
only
marginal
15
attainment,
with
some
highly
questionable
assumptions,
it
is
16
clear
that
severe
areas
will
not
possibly
attain
the
one­
hour
17
national
ambient
air
quality
standard
if
all
the
emission
18
reductions
assumed
in
the
attainment
demonstrations
are
not
19
achieved.
20
If
motor
vehicle
emissions
are
allowed
to
increase
21
by,
say,
50
percent
in
an
area
where
these
emissions
22
24
represent
40
percent
of
the
total
attainment
year
inventory,
1
it
will
result
in
a
25­
percent
increase
in
total
air
shed
2
emissions.
3
Similarly,
if
motor
vehicle
emissions
are
allowed
4
to
grow
by
50
percent
in
an
area
where
emissions
represent
25
5
percent
of
the
emissions,
it
will
result
in
a
12.5
overall
6
increase
in
total
emissions.
7
In
either
case,
such
emissions
increases
would
8
cause
serious
damage
to
public
health
and
to
the
ability
of
9
state
and
local
officials
to
develop
new
eight­
hour
ozone
10
attainment
strategies.
11
Looking
at
2002
EPA
air
monitoring
data,
we
can
get
12
an
approximation
of
what
future
air
quality
is
likely
to
be
13
as
long
as
motor
vehicle
emissions
are
allowed
to
remain
at
14
2002
levels.
15
For
example,
the
worst
monitor
in
Baltimore
shows
16
that
there
were
four
exceedances
of
the
one­
hour
standard
and
17
21
exceedances
of
the
eight­
hour
standard
in
2002.
This
18
provides
a
rough
idea
of
what
ozone
levels
are
likely
to
be
19
in
years
after
2005
if
motor
vehicle
emissions
are
allowed
to
20
rise
to
2002
levels
instead
of
being
reduced
to
the
levels
21
required
for
2005
in
the
one­
hour
SIP.
22
25
These
significant
increases
in
emission
estimates
1
for
future
years
would
guarantee
that
these
areas
could
not
2
possibly
attain
the
one­
hour
NAAQS
and
will
have
severe,
more
3
frequent
violations
of
the
one­
hour
and
eight­
hour
NAAQS
4
after
April
2005
than
they
would
otherwise
and
would
5
significantly
delay
progress
toward
the
attainment
of
the
6
eight­
hour
NAAQS.
7
In
the
past
decade,
the
science
linking
emissions
8
from
the
transportation
sector
to
public
health
has
confirmed
9
time
and
time
again
the
powerful
link
between
health
and
the
10
environment.
11
The
increased
emissions
that
will
result
from
this
12
rule
could
cause
great
harm
to
those
already
suffering
from
13
health
problems
related
to
poor
air
quality.
14
In
conclusion,
we
feel
it
is
essential
that
EPA
15
keep
in
place
the
motor
vehicle
emissions
budgets
in
the
16
approved
ozone
SIPs
and
control
strategies
for
motor
vehicles
17
under
the
one­
hour
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
18
until
the
one­
hour
standards
are
attained
and
until
new
19
attainment
SIPs
with
motor
vehicle
emission
budgets
have
been
20
approved
for
the
eight­
hour
standard.
Otherwise,
EPA
will
21
authorize
backsliding
towards
dirtier
air
in
America's
most
22
26
polluted
metropolitan
areas,
with
lengthy
delay
in
attainment
1
of
healthful
air
quality.
2
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
3
MS.
PATULSKI:
Thank
you.
I
have
a
clarifying
4
question.
5
Should
the
one­
hour
budgets
be
retained
in
areas
6
that
­­
prior
to
eight
hours
being
submitted
to
areas
that
7
are,
for
example,
one­
hour
maintenance
areas
right
now,
that
8
may
have
budgets
not
in
the
near
term,
like
2005,
2007,
but
9
2015
budgets,
things
like
that?
10
Does
ED
believe
that
the
same
­­
that
EPA
should,
across
11
the
board,
require
one­
hour
budgets
everywhere
or
just
in
12
areas
that
have
not
attained
the
standard?
13
MS.
FREUDER:
Without
wanting
to
give
any
false
14
information,
I
am
testifying
today
on
behalf
of
15
Transportation
Director
Michael
Replogle,
who
couldn't
be
16
here,
and
I
would
prefer
to
consult
with
him
and
provide
you
17
a
written
answer
to
that
question,
if
that's
okay
with
you.
18
MS.
PATULSKI:
Yeah.
Include
that
with
your
19
comments.
20
MS.
FREUDER:
Yeah,
we
definitely
will.
21
MS.
PATULSKI:
There's
your
statement
that
says
22
27
that
­­
your
conclusion
statement
­­
there
are
some
areas
1
that
aren't
covered
by
it,
so
it
would
be
helpful
to
hear
2
your
thoughts
on
all
the
different
types
of
areas
that
have
3
one­
hour
budgets,
because
some
are
attaining
the
standard
but
4
are
violating
the
eight­
hour
standard.
5
Will
you
be
submitting
written
comments
on
the
6
other
parts
of
the
proposal?
7
MS.
FREUDER:
Yes,
I
believe
that
we
will
providing
8
detailed
comments.
9
MS.
SCHNEEBERG:
I
had
one
additional
10
clarification,
also,
with
respect
to
other
comments
that
you
11
might
be
submitting.
12
MS.
FREUDER:
Uh­
huh.
13
MS.
SCHNEEBERG:
Obviously,
we
understand
your
14
point
where
there
are
one­
hour
budgets,
where
the
areas
are
15
the
same
size.
You're
obviously
urging
that
we
retain
them.
16
But
we
would
also
like
your
views
on
appropriate
tests
for
17
areas
that
don't
­­
either
don't
have
one­
hour
budgets
or
the
18
area
is
significantly
different
in
size
than
the
one
that
has
19
the
one­
hour
budget.
20
MS.
FREUDER:
Okay.
21
MS.
SCHNEEBERG:
So,
if
your
comments
could
address
22
28
that,
we'd
appreciate
that.
1
MS.
FREUDER:
Yeah,
we'll
be
sure
to
do
that.
2
MS.
SCHNEEBERG:
My
last
clarifying
question
is
3
also
in
your
conclusion,
where
you
would
say
you
would
like
4
the
one­
hour
budgets
to
continue
to
be
used
until
areas
5
attain
the
one­
hour
standard
and
new
eight­
hour
SIPs
with
6
budgets
are
submitted,
and
I'm
wondering
if
you're
saying
7
that,
even
after
the
one­
hour
­­
the
eight­
hour
budgets
are
8
in
place
that
areas
should
also
have
to
meet
the
one­
hour
9
budgets.
10
In
other
words,
there
might
be
two
separate
budgets
11
for
the
same
area,
different
budgets
for
the
eight­
hour
and
12
the
one­
hour,
and
are
you
saying
that
conformity
should
be
13
done
for
both
of
those
at
the
same
time,
and
again,
you
may
14
not
know
the
answer
to
that,
but
I
would
put
that
question
to
15
Michael.
16
MS.
FREUDER:
Okay.
But
I
believe
it's
saying
that
17
even
if
one­
hour
is
achieved
before
the
eight­
hour
budget
is
18
in
place,
it
should
continue
to
maintain
that
level
until
the
19
eight­
hour
budget
­­
20
MS.
SCHNEEBERG:
Not
the
opposite,
that
when
you
21
have
an
eight­
hour
budget,
you
still
keep
that
limit.
22
29
MS.
FREUDER:
I
believe.
But
again,
I'll
clarify
1
it.
2
MS.
SCHNEEBERG:
Okay.
Thanks.
3
MS.
SPICKARD:
I
would
just
add
to
what
Meg
had
4
said
about
clarifying
whether
maintenance
budgets
should
be
­
5
­
you
know,
we
should
maintain
those
for
areas,
one­
hour
6
maintenance
budgets.
7
Also,
areas
that
had
pre­
2002
budgets
­­
for
8
example,
if
they
have
a
1999
attainment
budget,
would
you
9
want
that
to
also
apply?
And
then
there
also
seems
to
be
10
discussion
about
Mobile
5
versus
Mobile
6
budgets,
and
are
11
you
arguing
it
would
be
any
budgets,
whether
they're
based
on
12
Mobile
5
or
Mobile
6
or
just
Mobile
6
budgets?
13
MS.
FREUDER:
I
was
just
showing
that
point,
14
because
for
the
charts,
we
were
unable
to
get
2002
Mobile
6
15
baseline
data
for
most
of
the
cities,
so
I
was
just
16
explaining
why
the
Mobile
6
data
that
we
have
for
Chicago
17
would
be
more
accurate
than
the
Mobile
5.
18
MS.
SPICKARD:
But
you
would
want
both
Mobile
5
and
19
Mobile
6
budgets
to
remain
in
place.
20
MS.
FREUDER:
I
believe
that
the
Mobile
6
budgets
­
21
­
22
30
MS.
SPICKARD:
Okay.
1
MS.
PATULSKI:
I
have
a
few
more
clarifying
2
questions.
3
You
say
in
your
conclusion
statement
that
one­
hour
4
SIP
budgets
should
stay
in
place
until
eight­
hour
SIPs
are
5
approved,
but
what
about
to
the
point
that
eight­
hour
SIP
6
budgets
are
found
adequate
by
EPA
­­
EPA
reviews
submitted
7
motor
vehicle
emissions
budgets
and
finds
them
adequate,
if
8
they
are
adequate,
you
know,
most
likely
prior
to
approval?
9
Basically,
when
you
say
one­
hour
SIP
budgets
should
be
in
10
place
until
eight­
hour
SIPs
are
approved
­­
11
MS.
FREUDER:
Uh­
huh.
12
MS.
PATULSKI:
Are
you
talking
about
EPA's
SIP
13
approval
or
are
you
talking
about
EPA's
adequacy
finding?
14
MS.
FREUDER:
I
sincerely
apologize,
but
­­
15
MS.
PATULSKI:
That's
okay.
I
mean
these
are
16
details
­­
17
MS.
FREUDER:
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I'm
18
providing
you
with
accurate
information,
so
I
could
provide
19
you
with
my
best
guess,
but
rather
than
doing
that,
I
think
20
it
would
be
best
to
get
you
written
responses.
21
MS.
PATULSKI:
I'm
guessing
he's
probably
talking
22
31
about
adequacy,
but
that
would
be
great,
and
throughout
all
1
the
supporting
information,
you
talked
about
the
2002
2
baseline
year
test.
3
Have
you
had
any
thought
into
how
the
one­
hour
4
budgets
compare
to
the
build­
no­
build
test,
because
that's
5
the
other
option
folks
have
for
doing
conformity
for
eight­
6
hour.
7
MS.
FREUDER:
We'll
address
that
in
our
comments,
8
definitely.
9
MS.
PATULSKI:
Okay.
10
Sarah,
did
you
ask
the
comment
about
when
the
11
boundaries
are
different?
12
MS.
SCHNEEBERG:
Yes.
13
MR.
JENSEN:
I
have
one.
14
MS.
PATULSKI:
Okay.
15
MR.
JENSEN:
For
your
supporting
material,
if
you
16
could
provide
sources
with
that
in
the
written
material,
in
17
the
written
comments,
that
would
be
helpful
and
valuable.
18
MS.
FREUDER:
Sure.
19
MS.
PATULSKI:
Especially
the
table.
I
think
the
20
Mobile
6
presentation
is
something
you
gave
me
in
the
2001
21
report.
I
think
you
took
it
off
our
web­
site.
Thanks.
22
32
MS.
FREUDER:
Thank
you.
1
MS.
PATULSKI:
I
think
Dr.
John
Balbus
is
next.
2
DR.
BALBUS:
Good
morning,
and
thank
you
for
the
3
opportunity
to
present
my
comments.
4
I
apologize
in
advance
for
some
redundancy,
since
I
5
am
with
the
same
organization
as
Tracy.
I'm
representing
the
6
public
health
community,
though,
and
as
you
see
in
my
7
comments,
I'm
representing
organizations
in
addition
to
8
Environmental
Defense,
which
is
my
employer.
9
My
name
is
John
Balbus.
I
am
director
of
the
10
environmental
health
program
for
Environmental
Defense,
a
11
leading
environmental
non­
profit
organization
with
400,000
12
members.
13
I'm
a
physician.
I'm
board­
certified
in
internal
14
medicine
and
occupational
and
environmental
medicine.
I
15
received
my
M.
D.
degree
from
the
University
of
Pennsylvania,
16
my
Master's
in
public
health
from
Johns
Hopkins
University,
17
and
my
undergraduate
degree
from
Harvard
University.
I'm
18
also
on
the
board
of
directors
of
Physicians
for
Social
19
Responsibility,
an
environmental
health
advocacy
organization
20
representing
nearly
30,000
physicians,
nurses,
scientists,
21
and
other
health
care
professionals,
and
I
offer
my
comments
22
33
today
on
behalf
of
both
Environmental
Defense
and
Physicians
1
for
Social
Responsibility.
2
As
a
public
health
professional,
I'm
appalled
at
3
how
the
EPA
is
abandoning
its
public
health
responsibilities
4
in
its
implementation
of
the
eight­
hour
ozone
standard;
in
5
particular,
with
its
proposed
rules
for
transportation
6
conformity.
7
The
facts
on
the
harmful
effects
of
ozone
are
8
clear.
Asthmatics
and
others
with
lung
diseases
are
sickened
9
by
exposures
to
elevated
ozone
levels.
When
ozone
levels
are
10
high,
more
people
suffer
asthma
attacks,
more
children
are
11
transported
to
emergency
rooms,
and
more
asthmatics
are
12
hospitalized.
13
When
ozone
levels
go
down,
as
was
shown
in
the
14
study
of
Atlanta
during
the
summer
Olympics
of
1996,
fewer
15
people
suffer
asthma
attacks,
fewer
asthmatic
children
wind
16
up
in
emergency
rooms
and
hospitals.
17
A
recent
study
has
documented
that
ozone
sickens
18
asthmatic
children
at
levels
well
below
the
new
eight­
hour
19
standard
of
80
parts
per
billion.
That
study
showed
effects
20
with
an
average
level
of
59
parts
per
billion
in
southern
21
Connecticut.
22
34
Ozone
impairs
lung
development
in
healthy
children,
1
as
well.
Several
studies
have
documented
poor
lung
2
development
in
children
from
high
ozone
areas
compared
to
3
those
from
low
ozone
areas.
4
The
obligation
of
the
EPA
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
5
is
similarly
clear.
The
act
directs
EPA
to
set
standards
6
solely
on
the
basis
of
protecting
the
health
of
all
7
Americans,
including
those
who
are
more
susceptible.
8
Is
this
the
spirit
in
which
the
EPA
is
implementing
9
the
new
eight­
hour
standard
with
regard
to
conformity?
No,
10
it
is
not.
11
Children
with
asthma
certainly
don't
care
whether
12
the
current
standard
is
for
one
hour
or
eight
hours.
They
13
and
their
parents
only
care
that
the
government
is
doing
all
14
that
it
can
to
protect
them
and
make
their
air
safe
to
15
breathe.
16
Has
the
EPA
done
its
best
to
ensure
that,
in
17
transitioning
from
the
one­
hour
to
the
eight­
hour
standard,
18
that
children
and
their
parents
have
the
cleanest
air
19
possible?
Unquestionably,
it
has
not,
and
I
will
briefly
20
outline
how
the
EPA
has
abandoned
its
charge
to
protect
the
21
public's
health.
22
35
The
purpose
of
the
transportation
conformity
1
provisions
is
to
ensure
that
the
actual
emissions
from
motor
2
vehicles
stay
within
limits
established
in
air
quality
plans
3
that
should
allow
a
region
to
meet
clean
air
standards.
4
I'm
going
to
skip
some
of
this,
because
this
is
5
redundant
with
what
Tracy
has
said,
but
­­
6
Despite
considerable
improvements
in
automobile
7
technology
that
have
lowered
emissions
per
mile
driven,
8
emissions
of
nitrogen
oxides
have
declined
little,
and
9
reductions
in
VOCs
have
been
insufficient
to
attain
ozone
10
standards.
11
As
a
consequence,
ozone
pollution
has
remained
a
12
difficult
problem,
with
over
120
million
people
exposed
to
13
air
that
violates
the
one­
hour
ozone
standard
that
has
been
14
in
effect
since
1979.
15
Mobile
source
pollution
accounts
for
one­
third
to
16
one­
half
of
the
ozone
problem
in
many
regions.
In
almost
all
17
non­
attainment
areas,
motor
vehicle
emissions
from
within
the
18
area
are
the
single
largest
contributor
to
ozone
formation.
19
Only
in
the
past
three
years
have
transportation
20
conformity
rules
begun
to
operate
fully.
The
adoption
of
21
motor
vehicle
emission
budgets
as
part
of
the
state
22
36
implementation
plans,
or
SIPs,
is
spurring
innovative
1
measures
to
produce
real
reductions
in
motor
vehicle
2
emissions.
3
By
revoking
the
one­
hour
standard
in
2005
and
4
negating
the
requirements
that
motor
vehicle
emissions
5
conform
to
existing
budgets
for
the
one­
hour
SIPs,
the
EPA
is
6
removing
vital
incentives
for
controlling
ozone
pollution
at
7
just
the
time
those
incentives
are
beginning
to
have
an
8
effect.
9
The
abandonment
of
conformity
to
the
one­
hour
ozone
10
SIPs
will
push
back
the
time­
frame
in
which
control
of
motor
11
vehicle
emissions
must
occur,
essentially
condemning
areas
12
with
high
ozone
to
greater
suffering
from
ozone's
health
13
impacts
for
yet
another
generation.
14
Similarly,
the
use
of
significantly
higher
2002
15
emissions
levels
as
a
baseline
weakens
the
existing
16
requirements
considerably.
17
Since
many
areas
­­
as
Tracy
has
pointed
out,
18
Baltimore
is
one
of
them
­­
already
violated
one­
and
eight­
19
hour
ozone
standards
during
2002,
this
decision
essentially
20
locks
those
areas
into
non­
attainment
for
another
nine
years
21
or
more.
22
37
Were
these
choices
to
abandon
the
one­
hour
1
conformity
requirements
and
to
use
2002
emissions
levels
as
2
the
baseline
made
by
the
agency
in
order
to
better
protect
3
the
public's
health?
I
assure
you
they
were
not.
4
We
have
estimated
the
impact
these
weakened
5
emission
limits
will
have
on
emissions
on
ozone
precursors
in
6
various
U.
S.
cities
when
compared
to
current
EPA
approved
7
limits
on
motor
vehicle
emissions.
These
weaker
measures
8
will
allow
ozone
precursor
emissions
to
increase
between
10
9
and
50
percent
by
2005
to
2007.
10
Surely
this
increase
in
pollution
was
not
what
the
11
agency
had
in
mind
six
years
ago
when
it
promulgated
the
new
12
standard.
13
Surely
this
increase
in
pollution
was
not
what
the
14
Supreme
Court
had
in
mind
when
it
unanimously
upheld
the
new
15
stricter
standards
in
2001
and
held
that
the
EPA
must
16
continue
to
implement
the
act's
provisions
that
require
17
continued
progress
towards
attainment,
and
most
surely
this
18
increase
in
pollution
will
result
in
higher
levels
of
ozone,
19
which,
in
turn,
will
send
more
children
to
the
emergency
20
rooms
and
hospitals
in
those
cities.
21
It
is
also
likely
to
significantly
increase
22
38
exposure
of
millions
of
Americans
to
hazardous
mobile
source
1
air
toxics,
which
recent
studies
show
result
in
significantly
2
higher
cancer
risk
for
those
living
close
to
busy
highways,
3
as
well
as
other
adverse
health
effects.
4
It's
not
difficult
to
envision
how
the
transition
5
into
the
new
more
protective
standard
could
be
made
in
such
a
6
way
that
the
public's
health
is
optimally
protected.
As
a
7
physician,
if
I
heard
that
a
new
improved
blood
pressure
8
medicine
was
soon
to
be
released,
I
wouldn't
stop
current
9
treatments
for
my
patients
and
allow
their
blood
pressures
to
10
soar
until
the
new
medicine
could
be
started.
That
would
be
11
malpractice.
12
Similarly,
it
is
only
sensible
that
the
EPA
13
continue
to
require
that
transportation
plans
and
programs
14
conform
to
adoptive
one­
hour
SIPs
until
an
area
has
15
demonstrated
that
it
has
attained
and
will
maintain
the
one­
16
hour
standard
and
until
new
attainment
SIPs
with
motor
17
vehicle
emission
budgets
have
been
approved
for
the
eight­
18
hour
ozone
standard.
19
Abandoning
these
measures
prematurely
will
not
20
protect
the
public's
health
but
will
harm
it.
21
Thank
you
again
for
your
attention
and
the
22
39
opportunity
to
give
this
testimony.
1
MR.
JENSEN:
I
have
one
clarifying
question.
2
Earlier
you
said
that
the
adoption
of
motor
vehicle
3
emission
budgets
as
part
of
state
implementation
plans
is
4
spurring
innovative
measures
to
produce
real
reductions
in
5
motor
vehicle
emissions.
Do
you
have
examples
that
you
could
6
give?
7
DR.
BALBUS:
Some
of
those
examples
are
fuel
8
changes,
transit
­­
public
transit
projects
that
have
reduced
9
traffic.
10
MR.
JENSEN:
I
guess
what
I'm
asking
for
is
maybe
­
11
­
12
DR.
BALBUS:
In
the
written
testimony,
we
can
be
a
13
little
more
specific.
14
MR.
JENSEN:
Can
you
be
specific
as
far
as
15
including
the
areas,
the
types
of
projects
that
you're
16
talking
about,
the
type
of
innovations
that
you're
talking
17
about,
as
well
as
the
reductions
that
they're
achieving?
18
DR.
BALBUS:
Some
of
these
are
only
coming
in
in
19
the
last
couple
of
years,
so
I'm
not
sure
that
the
actual
20
reductions
in
emissions,
you
know,
can
really
be
estimated
at
21
this
point,
but
certainly
there
are
programs
we
can
point
to.
22
40
MS.
PATULSKI:
Similar
to
any
written
comments
that
1
you
submit
or
Environmental
Defense
submits,
just
like
we
2
asked
Tracy
for
clarification
on
if
you're
asking
for
one­
3
hour
SIP
budgets
to
stay
in
place
until
eight­
hour
SIPs
are
4
approved
­­
5
DR.
BALBUS:
Exactly
at
what
point
would
we
6
recommend
a
transition
or
a
turnover,
yes.
7
MS.
PATULSKI:
And
if
you're
talking
about
focusing
8
on
all
areas
that
have
one­
hour
SIP
budgets
or
those
that
are
9
not
attaining
that
standard
or
those
that
have
SIP
budgets
10
within
the
eight­
hour
attainment
dates
or
overlapping
one­
11
hour
and
eight­
hour
boundaries,
all
those
issues,
any
details
12
that
you
have
on
those,
or
Environmental
Defense
has,
in
your
13
written
comments
would
be
helpful.
14
DR.
BALBUS:
The
devil
is
in
the
details,
and
we
15
will
provide
you
with
the
exact
details.
16
MS.
PATULSKI:
Does
Environmental
Defense
plan
to
17
submit
any
health
information
on
the
PM2.5
proposals?
18
DR.
BALBUS:
Not
at
this
point,
but
I'm
sure
that
19
we
will
have
them
in
our
written
comments.
20
MS.
PATULSKI:
Okay.
21
DR.
BALBUS:
Thank
you.
22
41
MS.
PATULSKI:
Thank
you.
1
MS.
PATULSKI:
Is
anybody
else
presenting
testimony
2
today?
3
(
No
response.)
4
MS.
PATULSKI:
Well,
then
I
think
we're
done.
I
5
think
we
can
adjourn.
6
Again,
if
anybody
wants
copies
of
the
transcript,
7
you
can
contact
our
court
reporter,
Peter,
and
we
have
copies
8
of
the
testimony
that
people
presented
on
the
table
outside.
9
Thanks
for
attending.
10
(
Whereupon,
at
10:
23
a.
m.,
the
hearing
was
11
concluded.)
12
*****
13
