![](https://www.4cleanair.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/nacaa-internal-banner-1024x210.jpeg)
June 8-14, 2019
In this week's issue:
- EPA Seeks Nominations for Panel to Peer Review Draft Report on Techniques for Characterizing Benefits of Reducing PM2.5 at Low Concentrations (June 13, 2019)
- National Compliance Initiatives Finalized, “Defeat Device” Compliance Priority Added (June 7, 2019)
- Emission Control Manufacturers Issue Report Assessing Market-Ready Technologies for Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks to Meet Intermediate Lower NOx Standards by MY 2024 (June 10, 2019)
- EPA Issues Final FY 2020-2021 National Program Guidances and Responses to Comments (June 10, 2019)
- D.C. Circuit Dismisses Sierra Club Challenge to EPA’s PacifiCorp-Hunter Title V Petition Order, Determines Tenth Circuit Is Proper Venue (June 14, 2019)
- Former EPA Administrators Testify Before House Panel on Agency’s Mission (June 12, 2019)
- House Climate Crisis Committee Explores Renewable Energy Generation as a Solution to Climate Change (June 13, 2019)
- House Budget Committee Holds Hearing to Explore Costs of Climate Change (June 11, 2019)
- House Democrats Query State Department and National Intelligence Director on White House Efforts to Influence Congressional Testimony on Security Threats from Climate Change (June 11, 2019)
- EPA Publishes Final Rule Allowing Year-Round Sale of E15, Industry Group Files Judicial Challenge (June 10, 2019)
This Week in Review
![](https://www.4cleanair.org/wp-content/uploads/US-Supreme-Court-1-492x328.jpeg)
EPA published in the Federal Register (84 Fed. Reg. 27632) a notice requesting nominations of scientific experts to be considered for membership on an independent peer review panel being formed to review a forthcoming EPA draft report on two new techniques for understanding, characterizing and communicating the estimated health benefits associated with reducing fine particulate matter (PM2.5) at low concentrations in outdoor air. Those selected for the panel “will assess the accuracy, content, and interpretation of findings of the report, ensuring that they are factual and scientifically sound…. [and] provide input to EPA regarding the merits of the technical approaches.” EPA will release the draft report in July 2019 and make it available for public review and comment. The peer review panel will meet in August or September in Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA plans to release the final report in fall 2019. The agency will accept nominations for the peer review panel until July 5, 2019. Before selecting the final peer reviewers, EPA will publish another Federal Register notice to solicit public comments on an interim list of seven to 10 candidates. Information received will be considered and the final peer reviewers, “who, collectively, best provide expertise spanning the multiple areas listed in [Section] III [of this week’s Federal Register notice} and, to the extent feasible, best provide a balance of perspectives,” will be selected.
For further information: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-06-13/pdf/2019-12487.pdf and https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/2019-external-panel-review-approach
EPA announced its final National Compliance Initiatives (NCI) for Fiscal Years 2020-2023, that will serve as crosscutting priorities for the agency’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) to target its resources to the most serious environmental violations. The six priority areas are 1) reducing emissions of harmful air pollutants from stationary sources; 2) reducing emissions from hazardous waste facilities; 3) reducing “significant noncompliance” with national pollution discharge elimination system (NPDES) permits; 4) reducing noncompliance with drinking water standards at community water systems; 5) reducing risks of accidental releases at industrial and chemical facilities; and 6) stopping aftermarket defeat devices for vehicles and engines. EPA notes that the air NCI will focus on reducing volatile organic compounds (VOC) and hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and, for VOCs, will target significant sources that have a substantial impact on air quality and may affect an area’s ability to meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards, as well as facilities that may “adversely affect vulnerable populations.” For HAPs, the NCI will “focus on sources that have a significant impact on air quality and health in communities.” Some of the NCI priorities – including stationary source emissions, NPDES noncompliance, cutting HAPs from waste facilities and reducing chemical facility accidents – continue efforts from the previous NCI cycle and are largely unchanged. The aftermarket defeat device priority is new and was not included among those in OECA’s draft NCI document. In our March 11, 2019 comments to OECA on the draft NCIs, NACAA recommended that EPA include an NCI “focused on compliance by mobile sources,” with defeat devices as the top priority, and EPA notes in its response to comments on the draft NCIs that it selected to focus on aftermarket defeat devices in response to these comments.
For further information: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-06/documents/2020-2023ncimemo.pdf and http://4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/NACAA_Comments%20_%20EPA%20NCIs%202020_2023%20_%20031119.pdf
The Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA) released a report in which the association offers an assessment of technologies that are market-ready and being commercialized by emission control and efficiency component suppliers for use by heavy-duty (HD) diesel vehicles to meet lower intermediate nitrogen oxide (NOx) standards by model year 2024. Such intermediate NOx standards would serve as a transition to even more rigorous final standards to take effect by MY 2027. Among the conclusions MECA provides in the report is that for intermediate standards there are several advanced technology options that can be deployed on HD trucks to reduce NOx by 75 percent below the current federal test procedure (FTP) NOx standards and, at the same time, meet the 2024 HD Phase 2 greenhouse gas standards and reduce the total cost of truck ownership. In addition, MECA has concluded. “Strategies for reducing emissions during cold start and low load operation, combined with improved engine calibration and control of urea dosing, can be implemented to enable heavy-duty trucks to achieve an FTP NOx emission limit of 0.05 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) and a low-load cycle limit below 0.2 g/bhp-hr. These same technologies will deliver low temperature NOx conversion in the real world as part of the newly proposed moving average windows-based compliance program.” MECA also reports that controlling NOx to 0.05 g/bhp-hr in 2024 and 0.02 g/bhp-hr by 2027 will cost less than emission control technologies cost in 2010 due to the “ingenuity and innovation [that] have downsized emission controls by 60% and substantially lowered their cost” over the past nine years.
For further information: http://www.meca.org/resources/MECA_MY_2024_HD_Low_NOx_Report_061019.pdf and http://www.meca.org/resources/MECA_heavy-duty_low_NOx_fact_sheet_-April_2019-.pdf
EPA issued its final FY 2020-2021 National Program Guidances for its program offices, including the Office of Air and Radiation and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. EPA also provided documents containing its responses to comments the agency received on the drafts. The guidance documents describe the key activities expected for EPA, states, local agencies and tribes, aligning with the agency’s strategic plan and the Administration’s budget request for FY 2020. The guidances will also serve as the bases for negotiations between EPA and state and local agencies and the development of work plans. NACAA submitted comments on the draft guidance documents on May 2, 2019. The response to comments documents provide feedback on each comment EPA received from all commenters, but reveal that EPA made very few changes to the drafts.
For further information: https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/national-program-guidances
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed a Sierra Club case challenging EPA’s denial of its petition for the EPA Administrator to object to a renewed Title V operating permit issued by the State of Utah for PacifiCorp’s Hunter Power Plant. In the order denying Sierra Club’s petition, EPA determined that it would not review the substantive merits of the group’s claim that the plant’s 1997 preconstruction permit, the requirements of which were incorporated into the Title V renewal permit, did not assure the plant’s compliance with applicable requirements, including the requirement to install Best Available Control Technology. In so doing, EPA acknowledged that its decision was based on a different interpretation of the term “applicable requirements,” as used in the Title V regulations, than had been applied by previous Administrators when they substantively reviewed Title I (preconstruction/New Source Review) decisions in later Title V proceedings. When Sierra Club filed its petition for review in the D.C. Circuit it also filed a protective appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (which includes Utah); that case has been held in abeyance pending the outcome of the D.C. Circuit case. In dismissing Sierra Club’s petition, the D.C. Circuit agreed with EPA that venue in the D.C. Circuit is not appropriate because the petition order does not have “nationwide scope and effect,” as is required for D.C. Circuit review under section 307(b) of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition without reviewing the substance of Sierra Club’s claims. The Tenth Circuit will now likely bring the case out of abeyance and proceed with reviewing the case on the merits. Its decision will be binding only within the Tenth Circuit, not nationwide.
For further information: http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Sierra_Club_v_EPA-DC_Cir_Opinion_6-14-19.pdf
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing to address the mission and future direction of EPA. Four former EPA Administrators appeared before the Subcommittee to provide testimony and answer questions: the Honorable Lee M. Thomas, who served as EPA Administrator under President Ronald Reagan from 1985 to 1989; the Honorable William K. Reilly, who served as EPA Administrator under President George H.W. Bush from 1989 to 1993; the Honorable Christine Todd Whitman, who served as EPA Administrator under President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2003; and the Honorable Gina McCarthy, who served as EPA Administrator under President Barack Obama from 2013 to 2017. In her testimony, McCarthy identified a series of ways in which the current EPA “is undermining its own mission to protect public health and our precious natural resources,” including by denying health benefits of pollution reduction; subverting the process of setting health-based air quality standards; misleading on climate science; diminishing public accountability; curtailing high-quality scientists and science, particularly with respect to air pollution; stepping back from air program enforcement; impairing critical information gathering; and politicizing grants. Whitman testified that she has come to know most of her predecessors at EPA and several of her successors and that each “took very seriously EPA’s fundamental mission during their tenure and beyond – to protect our nation’s environment and the public health from the dangers of pollution in all of its many forms. Sadly, and alarmingly, that no longer seems to be the case. Today, as never before, the mission of EPA is being seriously undermined by the very people who have been entrusted with carrying that mission out. Protecting the environment and the public health has never been a partisan issue. Three of the four of us before you today served in Republican administrations. None of us are here looking to score political points. We are here because we are deeply concerned that decades of environmental progress are at risk of being lost because of two misguided beliefs. First, that environmental policy over the years has been driven by ideology instead of by science. Second, that environmental protection and economic prosperity are mutually exclusive goals. In fact, the exact opposite is true in both cases. It is the current administration that is using ideology to drive environmental policy instead of letting science drive policy. And the record clearly shows that environmental protection and economic prosperity do go hand-in-hand.” In his testimony, Reilly stated that “EPA needs to re-establish the Agency’s scientific credibility by appointing well qualified scientists from key disciplines to advisory committees and to consider the full range of peer reviewed research and data bases that are relevant to the questions at hand.” Thomas concluded his testimony by stating his belief that “there is a need for rigorous oversight by the committee of the Agency’s capacity for sound decisions, their efforts at insuring compliance with regulations and the processes they use for interacting and seeking public input.”
For further information: https://energycommerce.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/hearing-on-critical-mission-former-administrators-address-the-direction
The House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis held a hearing to explore how increased generation from renewable resources can be used to address climate change. “The climate crisis is daunting. But the opportunities we have in front of us for good jobs, clean air and a just future are boundless,” said Committee Chairwoman Katy Castor (D-FL) in her opening remarks. Much of the hearing addressed the environmental and economic opportunities associated with renewable energy generation as well as recommendations for incentives and policy changes to accelerate the expansion of renewables. The hearing featured four witnesses: Abigail Ross Hopper, President and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association; Tom Kiernan, President and CEO of the American Wind Energy Association; Katherine Hamilton, Chair of 38 North Solutions; and Christine Tezak, Managing Director of Research at ClearView Energy Partners, LLC.
For further information: https://climatecrisis.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/solving-climate-crisis-ramping-renewables
The House Budget Committee held a hearing, entitled “The Costs of Climate Change – Risks to the U.S. Economy and Federal Budget,” to hear testimony on the current and projected costs of climate change. Committee Chairman John Yarmuth (D-KY) opened the hearing with a statement emphasizing the broad challenges presented by climate change. “[It’s] an environmental issue. It’s a public health issue. It’s a national security issue. And, as we’ll talk about today, it’s increasingly an economic and fiscal issue.” In his prepared remarks, the Chairman illustrated the fiscal significance of climate change by noting that the U.S. spent an average of $36 billion annually on responses to extreme weather and fire events between 2005 and 2014 and by citing estimates that, in the future, the U.S. could suffer more than $500 billion in annual economic losses without addressing climate change. “It is my hope that when faced with the data and the testimony of our esteemed witnesses, we can separate opinion from fact and acknowledge that as a governing body we must plan for the consequences of a changing climate if we are to avoid future catastrophe.” The Committee’s Vice Ranking Member, Representative Bill Johnson (R-OH), spoke first on the minority side and targeted the “Green New Deal” climate resolution introduced earlier this year. “We’re supposed to be the Committee of fiscal discipline – the Committee that’s responsible for managing and addressing our nation’s debt. But instead of talking about a Budget – something Democrats were unable or unwilling to produce – we’re here to discuss a $93 trillion proposal that has been hailed on the Left as ‘a massive transformation of our society.’ ‘Transformation’ in this case should be replaced with ‘upheaval’ to make the description more accurate.” The hearing featured testimony from four witnesses: Katharine Hayhoe, a Professor in Texas Tech University’s Department of Political Science and Director of its Climate Science Center; Solomon Hsiang, the Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley; J. Alfredo Gómez, Director of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Natural Resources and Environment Division; and Oren Cass, a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
For further information: https://budget.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairman-yarmuth-opening-statement-hearing-costs-climate-change; https://republicans-budget.house.gov/speeches-statements/vice-ranking-member-bill-johnson-r-oh-opening-remarks-at-hearing-on-climate-change/; and https://budget.house.gov/legislation/hearings/costs-climate-change-risks-us-economy-and-federal-budget
Democrats on the House Select Committee on Intelligence sent separate oversight request letters to the U.S. Department of State and National Intelligence Director Dan Coates to investigate whether the White House sought changes to expert testimony from Dr. Rod Schoonover, a senior analyst in the Office of the Geographer and Global Issues at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), at a congressional hearing on the national security implications of climate change that took place last week. In the letter to the State Department Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) references reports from The New York Times and The Washington Post that the White House sought “politically-motivated” changes to Dr. Schoonover’s testimony before it was released to the committee. “An apparent draft version of Dr. Schoonover’s testimony posted online by the New York Times is rife with politically-driven comments and deletions from personnel from the Executive Office of the President, including National Security Council staff. These reports raise profound concerns that White House officials abused the interagency process in an effort to manipulate, remove, and ultimately suppress the independent, objective analysis State INR planned to present before the Committee on a matter of national urgency,” wrote Schiff. The oversight letter to National Intelligence Director Dan Coats is substantially similar but is signed by Schiff and the other twelve Democrats who serve on the Intelligence Committee. Both letters request responses by June 21, 2019.
For further information: http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Schiff_Schoonover_Oversight_Request_11_June_2019.pdf and http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Intelligence_Dems_Schoonover_Oversight_Request_11_June_2019.pdf
EPA published in the Federal Register (84 Fed. Reg. 26980) a final rule authorizing the year-round sale of E15 – gasoline blended with up to 15 percent ethanol. Under the agency’s previous interpretation of the Clean Air Act the 1-pound-per-square-inch (psi) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) waiver for E10 during the summertime ozone season (May 1 through September 15) could not be extended to E15, therefore, the sale of E15 has been restricted during the ozone season. However, EPA has adopted a new statutory interpretation and this final “interpretive” rulemaking makes the corresponding regulatory changes; EPA now defines gasoline blended with up to 15 percent ethanol as “substantially similar” to the certification fuel used for Tier 3 motor vehicles and, therefore, E15 is now eligible for the 1-psi RVP waiver and may be sold year round. Also in this action, EPA makes changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard compliance system that the agency says are intended to improve how the renewable identification number market functions and prevent market manipulation. On the same day this final rule was published in the Federal Register the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging EPA’s action. The petroleum refiners’ group has been outspoken in its objection to the year-round sale of E15.
For further information: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-06-10/pdf/2019-11653.pdf and http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Litigation-AFPM_Challenge_of_EPA_E15_Rule-061019.pdf