House Hearing, 112TH Congress - H.R. 1633, The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011

H.R.
1633, THE FARM DUST REGULATION

PREVENTION ACT OF 2011
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
OCTOBER 25, 2011
Serial No. 11299
(
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6011
Sfmt 6011
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
H.R. 1633, THE FARM DUST REGULATION PREVENTION ACT OF 2011
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6019
Sfmt 6019
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
H.R. 1633, THE FARM DUST REGULATION

HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
OCTOBER 25, 2011
Serial No. 11299
(
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON
76176 PDF
2012
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 5121800; DC area (202) 5121800
Fax: (202) 5122104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 204020001
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 5011
Sfmt 5011
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas
Chairman Emeritus
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
MARY BONO MACK, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
Vice Chairman
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
PETE OLSON, Texas
DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
SUBCOMMITTEE
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

Ranking Member
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
Chairman Emeritus
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
ANNA G. ESHOO, California
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GENE GREEN, Texas
DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado
LOIS CAPPS, California
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
JAY INSLEE, Washington
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
JIM MATHESON, Utah
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
DORIS O. MATSUI, California
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
KATHY CASTOR, Florida
ON
ENERGY
AND
POWER
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
Ranking Member
Vice Chairman
JAY INSLEE, Washington
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
KATHY CASTOR, Florida
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
GENE GREEN, Texas
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington LOIS CAPPS, California
PETE OLSON, Texas
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
CORY GARDNER, Colorado
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio)
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
JOE BARTON, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
(II)
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 0486
Sfmt 5904
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
C O N T E N T S
Page
Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth

of Kentucky, opening statement .........................................................................
Prepared statement ..........................................................................................
Hon. Mike Pompeo, a Representative in Congress from the State of Kansas,
opening statement ................................................................................................
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois,
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan,
Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas,
Hon. Pete Olson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas,
Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California, opening statement .............................................................................
1
3
9
9
10
12
13
13
13
WITNESSES
Hon. Kristi L. Noem, a Representative in Congress from the State of South
Dakota, opening statement .................................................................................
Hon. Robert Hurt, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth
of Virginia .............................................................................................................
Regina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency ....................................................................................
Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................
Steve Foglesong, Ranch Owner, Black Gold Cattle Company, on behalf of
National Cattlemens Beef Association ..............................................................
Kevin Rogers, President, Arizona Farm Bureau Federation, on behalf of
American Farm Bureau Federation ...................................................................
Pete Lien, President, Peter Lien & Sons, Inc., on behalf of National Stone,
Sand & Gravel Association ..................................................................................
Kurt E. Blase, Partner, Holland & Knight, on behalf of Coarse Particulate
Matter Coalition. ..................................................................................................
Till von Wachter, Associate professor of economics, Columbia University .........
John Walke, Senior Attorney and Clean Air Director, National Resources
Defense Council ....................................................................................................
Gregory Wellenius, Assistant Professor of Epidemiology, Brown University .....
(III)
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 5904
Sfmt 5904
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
15
18
23
25
46
48
354
149
152
357
218
220
363
234
236
366
250
252
367
259
261
265
267
369
327
329
IV
Page
SUBMITTED MATERIAL
H.R. 1633, A Bill to establish a temporary prohibition against revising any
natinoal ambient air quality standard applicable to coarse particulate matter, to limit Federal regulation of nuisance dust in areas in which such
dust is regualted under State, tribal, or local law, and for other purposes,
submitted by Mr Whitfield ..................................................................................
Letters, dated October 3, 2011, October 12, 2011, October 14, 2011, and
October 17, 2011, to committee and subcommittee leadership and Mrs.
Noem in support of H.R. 1633, submitted by Mr. Gardner ..............................
Guide to Agricultural PM10 Best Management Practices: Agriculture Improving Air Quality, Second Edition, 2008, Governors Agricultural Best
Management Practices Committee, State of Arizona, submitted by Mr.
Gardner .................................................................................................................
Report, Livestock Best Management Practices to Reduce PM10, undated,
State of Arizona, submitted by Mr. Gardner .....................................................
Letter, dated October 24, 2011, from Arvin Ganesan, Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, to Mr. Rush, submitted by Mr. Rush .......
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 5904
Sfmt 5904
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
6
37
70
101
143
H.R. 1633, THE FARM DUST REGULATION

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2011
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER,
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in room
2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Sullivan, Shimkus,
Walden, Terry, Burgess, Bilbray, Scalise, McMorris Rodgers, Olson,
McKinley, Gardner, Pompeo, Griffith, Barton, Upton (ex officio),
Rush, Markey, and Waxman (ex officio).
Staff present: Allison Busbee, Legislative Clerk; Cory Hicks, Policy Coordinator, Energy and Power; Heidi King, Chief Economist;
Ben Lieberman, Counsel, Energy and Power; Mary Neumayr, Senior Energy Counsel; Alison Cassady, Democratic Senior Professional Staff Member; Kelley Greenman, Democrat Legislative Associate; Caitlin Haberman, Democratic Policy Analyst; and Alexandra
Teitz, Democrat Senior Counsel, Energy and Environment.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. WHITFIELD. This hearing will come to order.

Today we will discuss H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011. In most respects, this hearing will be similar
to many of the others our subcommittee has held this year. As you
know, we have jurisdiction over EPAs Clean Air Act regulations,
and we have an obligation to the American people to ensure that
new regulations do not impose burdensome costs or obstruct job
creation, particularly at a time when our unemployment is high,
our economy is struggling and uncertainty is widespread.
EPAs unprecedented wave of stringent and inflexible regulations
pose a serious threat to the economy, on job creation, in our opinion, which is why we have held an unprecedented number of hearings on the plethora of regulations issued by EPA. The only difference between todays hearing and most of the others is the target of the EPA regulation at issue. Many of the previous hearings
dealt with rules most directly impacting manufacturing and energy
production. Today, we discuss EPAs particulate matter standards
and their potential impact on family farms and small businesses in
rural America.
(1)
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
2
EPA is in the process of revising its National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter. This includes PM10, which is
coarse particulate matter, also known as dust. Although EPA has
said it will not propose changes to its existing dust standard, there
are several reasons for uncertainty about the outcome of EPAs ongoing review. EPA has discussed further regulation of farm dust
since 1996. Most of us believe that the current PM10 standard of
150 micrograms per cubic meter is sufficient and should not be
changed, especially given the absence of evidence that farm dust
poses a health threat.
In April 2011, EPA issued a policy assessment that recommends
this standard either be unchanged or lowered to 65 to 85
micrograms per cubic meter. The assessment also recommends a
change in the way compliance is measured. Any changes to the current standard would almost certainly force States and localities to
impose additional restraints on farming and other operations in
rural America in order to comply.
It is possible that EPA will ultimately retain the current PM10
standard in its pending review, but it should be noted that the last
time EPA considered revising its standard for PM10 in 2006, the
final version did not adopt an exemption for agricultural dust that
had been on the table at an earlier stage.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:]
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.001
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.002
5
[H.R. 1633 follows:]
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.003
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.004
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.005
9
Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Pompeo, who is a sponsor, I believe, of
this legislation, for 1 minute.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE POMPEO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS
Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this hearing on H.R. 1633.
You know, I represent an agricultural State and my district has
lots of production agriculture. It is part of who we are. The issues
that these folks face are like a lot of other small businessescrushing regulations and tax burdens, but some have a very different
flavor like this one.
The issue we are talking about today, the effort to regulate farm
dust as a particulate pollutant, is one of the most concerning and
potentially most burdensome regulations coming from Washington,
D.C., in my 10 months here so far. Now, the EPAs recent announcement that it currently has no intention of imposing new regulations on dust sounds to me like a purely political and likely temporary decision and frankly doesnt give our farmers in Kansas or
across the country the certainty they need. The fact remains that
EPA staff has suggested tightening this regulation, and that tightening of the regulation would include farm dust.
Like many other sectors in our economy, we need long-term planning. We need the ability for farmers to know what they can and
cant do. That is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Farm
Dust Regulation Prevention Act, and I am pleased to have Congresswoman Noem and Congressman Hurt here this morning to
testify about it. Thank you both for being here.
With that, I yield back my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much, and I will yield back the
balance of my time as well, and I recognize Mr. Rush for 5 minutes
for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also want
to thank all the distinguished witnesses who will be here at todays
hearing and testifying.
Mr. Chairman, we are here to discuss the Farm Dust Regulation
Prevention Act of 2011, even though last week EPA made the decision that it would not propose any changes to the current standard
of 10 PM or 10 micrometers for coarse particulate matter. The
basis of todays hearing is H.R. 1633, the bill introduced by Representative Kristi Noem of South Dakota, who we are pleased to
welcome to the subcommittee for her testimony today.
H.R. 1633 would bar EPA from revising its rules for coarse particulates for 1 year. It would also create a permanent exemption for
nuisance dust from farms and country roads. I look forward to
hearing from Assistant Administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation, Gina McCarthy, as well as other stakeholders testifying to
better understand the impact that this proposed legislation will
have on the Clean Air Act as well as on public health.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
10
In particular, I have concerns over section 3 of H.R. 1633, which
states that the Clean Air Act does not apply to, again, I will quote,
nuisance dust and would eliminate EPAs authority under the
Clean Air Act to regulate anything that constitutes nuisance dust
except narrowly defined circumstances. As currently drafted, nuisance dust is defined as particulate matter that is, one, generated
from natural sources, unpaved roads, agricultural activities, earthmoving or other activities typically conducted in rural areas, or,
two, consisting primarily of soil, other natural or biological materials or wind-blown dust. However, the phrase other activities
typically conducted in rural areas is much too broad and could potentially include industrial activities that are commonly located
outside of urban areas that will be exempt from the Clean Air Act
regulation including power plants, ethanol refineries, mines and
smelters, and pulp and paper mills. Section 3 raises serious concerns over whether EPA could continue to implement fine and
coarse particle pollution programs or whether the EPA could ever
adopt or implement revised fine or coarse particle standards.
However, H.R. 1633 takes certain types of particulate matter out
of the entire Clean Air Act altogether. This bill could potentially
forever prohibit EPA from regulating mercury from coal-fired
power plants based on the argument that mercury is emitted as
particulate matter from coal-fired power plants and burning coal to
generate electricity is an activity typically occurring in rural areas.
Additionally, as written, section 3 is not limited to stationary
sources so H.R. 1633 calls into question EPAs ability to set tailpipe
emission standards for new vehicles or engines to limit their fine
particulate pollution as well as the ability to enforce existing particulate standards for new vehicles or engines.
So I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, to clarify the bills language to avoid unintended consequences to the overall Clean Air
Act.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from all of the panelists
on the merits and necessity of H.R. 1633, and with that, I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Rush.
At this time I would recognize the full committee chairman, Mr.
Upton of Michigan, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Todays hearing looks at a source of major concern to the ag sector and rural America, which is EPAs regulation of coarse particulate matter, otherwise known as dust.
H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011,
provides relief from this regulatory threat, and I welcome two of
the cosponsors of this bipartisan legislation, Kristi Noem of South
Dakota and Robert Hurt of Virginia, who are here today.
The very last thing that our struggling economy needs is new
costs and regulatory burdens on farmers and small businesses
across rural America. They already face indirect consequences from
EPAs costly regulatory agenda, and now they are rightfully concerned about the threat of direct regulation of their operations.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
11
The EPA recently announced that it plans to propose retaining
the existing standard for coarse particulate matter, and I appreciate those assurances. But like the stakeholders that we will hear
from today, I am not at all satisfied with this step for the simple
reason that regulatory uncertainty will remain.
EPAs proposal could change throughout the review process. The
ag communitys concerns may not be fully addressed. And even if
the final standard contains no changes, it is always subject to court
challenge. For these reasons, EPAs insistence that it does not plan
to change the rule is far from a guarantee that such a change
would never come to pass.
In the face of this ongoing regulatory uncertainty, this legislation
makes good sense. The bill is targeted. It prevents EPA from setting a new coarse particulate matter standard for 1 year, and it
also makes clear that State, tribal, and local governments have authority to regulate so-called nuisance dust common across rural
America. The State and local emphasis is appropriate for dust,
which is a local issue.
The bill gives EPA authority to regulate nuisance dust in the absence of State or local action, and after both costs and benefits are
taken into account. That is common sense and it protects the interests of our vital rural economy.
I commend our colleagues for putting together their legislation
on the table. If EPA is serious that it does not intend to regulate
farm dust, it should embrace this legislation.
I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.006
12
13
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. BARTON. Well, thank you, Congresswoman Noem and Congressman Hurt for introducing this and being here. We are beginning to have some dust storms like we had back in the 1930s. We
had a very bad one in Lubbock, Texas, last week. There are differences of opinion as to the cause of the storms but it appears that
we are in a cycle where the weather conditions are such that we
are going to have dryer weather and a little bit warmer temperatures and so we are going to have dust storms.
EPA back in 2006 suggested that we shouldnt regulate farm
dust. I wish the EPA would dust that proposal off and institute it
instead of even thinking about regulating farm dust. As the chairman just said, this legislation is preemptive in nature and I would
hope that we can move it very expeditiously. We dont want to have
a re-creation of the 1930s, and because of farm practices and some
of the dam projects that have been constructed, we shouldnt, but
we also dont want to overreact and regulate something that God
himself or herself cant regulate.
So with that, I would yield the balance of the time to Mr. Olson
of Texas.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE OLSON, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. OLSON. I thank my colleague from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing on H.R.
1633, the Farm Dust Regulation and Prevention Act, of which I am
a proud cosponsor.
This hearing is critically important to my home State of Texas.
Texas has been battling and unprecedented drought. In my hometown of Sugar Land, we are almost 2 feet behind our annual rainfall. In addition, wildfires have burned 3.6 million Texas acres.
Texas farmers and ranchers have been hit particularly hard by the
drought and the fires. And to think that the EPA is attempting to
regulate farm dust now or in the future is simply out of touch with
reality. This move would impose devastating, unjustified and burdensome regulations on farmers and ranchers already struggling in
this economy to provide food for an ever-growing population.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, farmers and ranchers are the backbone of America. We must give them the tools and certainty to plan
for the future so they can succeed.
I welcome all of our witnesses here today, particularly my colleagues from South Dakota and Virginia. I look forward to your
testimony. I yield back.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much.
At this time I recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Waxman of California, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Todays hearing considers yet another bill to allow more air pollution, more asthma and more heart attacks, and once again, it is
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
14
a bait and switch. The bills sponsors say the legislation is narrowly targeted to help farmers. In fact, the bill is drafted broadly
and has sweeping anti-environment effects.
We are going to hear today that we must pass H.R. 1633 to stop
EPA from regulating farming. This isnt just nonsense. It is pure
fantasy. EPA does not regulate farming practices to reduce dust
and has expressed no intention of doing so in the future. EPA has
set standards for the levels of coarse particulate matter in the ambient air because there is scientific evidence that this pollution
causes serious health effects. Coarse particulate matter, or PM10,
is produced by uncontrolled burning of coal and oil, construction
and demolition activities, mining, and unpaved roads, as well as
farm activities. Once EPA sets the standards for ambient levels of
air pollution, it is up to the States and localities to determine how
to meet them. It is the States and localities, not EPA, that decide
which sources must reduce pollution and by how much.
EPA set the current PM10 standards in 1987, during the Reagan
administration. As required by the Clean Air Act, EPA has recently
reviewed the science supporting those standards. Based on that review, the Administrator recently announced that she intends to
propose making no change to the Reagan-era PM10 standards. Now
we are being told that we need to pass this bill because EPA could
change its mind and do something the agency has said it has no
intention of doing.
If we adopt this standard for legislation, there is no end to the
bad ideas we could legislate. Should we pass a law saying the
United States cannot invade Canada? Or one preventing the government from outlawing apple pie?
We are facing real and serious problems that are happening right
now. Millions of Americans are out of work; our economy is stalling; fires, floods and droughts are afflicting our Nation. We need
to spend our time addressing these real challenges, not squandering it on imaginary problems.
But even though this bill stops something that wont happen anyway, that doesnt mean the bill has no effect. H.R. 1633 is so broadly worded, it could invalidate EPAs existing standards for both fine
and coarse particulates. This would have a devastating effect on
clean air requirements and public health.
The biggest problem is in section 3, which is not limited to farm
activities, rural areas, ambient air quality standards or coarse particulate matter. It says the Clean Air Act does not apply to anything that meets the bills definition of nuisance dust, unless a
narrow exception applies, and the definition of nuisance dust is
sweeping. It includes windblown dust, which is undefined and not
limited to rural areas, and it includes any particulate matter generated from activities typically conducted in rural areas.
Well, mining is typically conducted in rural areas, and mining
operations have huge equipment that can generate large quantities
of particulate air pollution. Seventy percent of the Nations power
plants are located in rural areas. The particulate matter generated
by power plants includes not only fine and coarse particulate matter, but also particles of mercury and lead and acid particles that
form from nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides. Children in rural
areas typically take the bus to school, and diesel buses generate
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
15
particulate pollution. Under this bill, EPA could have no authority
to regulate any of this pollution.
Now, the bills sponsors will argue that they dont intend to exempt mines, power plants or school buses from regulation under
the Clean Air Act. But as we have seen with so many other bills
this Congress, the bill language doesnt match the stated intent. It
is the legislative language that matters, and the language could result in a massive increase in dangerous air pollution.
This year, the subcommittee has reported bills to allow more carbon pollution, more air pollution from offshore drilling, more air
pollution from power plants, more air pollution from industrial boilers and incinerators, and more air pollution from cement kilns. Todays bill is more of the same. Americans want their kids to
breathe clean and healthy air, not another bill to let polluters off
the hook.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, and at this time I would like to recognize our members on the first panel, Congresswoman Kristi
Noem from South Dakota and Congressman Robert Hurt of Virginia, primary sponsors of this legislation, and we genuinely appreciate your being here with us today, and I will recognize each of
you for 5 minutes for your opening statement, and Congresswoman
Noem, we will begin with you.
STATEMENTS OF HON. KRISTI L. NOEM, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA; AND
HON. ROBERT HURT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
STATEMENT OF HON. KRISTI L. NOEM
Mrs. NOEM. Sounds great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the
ranking member, who is not with us right now, but the rest of the
committee members, I appreciate you for having this hearing today
and for letting us bring forward H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011.
I introduced this commonsense bill on April 15th of this year
with my colleagues, Representative Robert Hurt, Larry Kissell and
Leonard Boswell, because of the regulatory uncertainty that is facing rural America.
We certainly have challenges in front of us. My bill is a bipartisan approach to ending the EPAs regulation of farm dust in rural
America while still maintaining the protections of the Clean Air
Act to the public health and welfare. It is not a Republican and it
is not a Democrat issue. There is broad bipartisan support with
over 100 colleagues on both sides of the aisle sponsoring this bill.
And the committee will see in the record that there is also over 100
agriculture- and research-based organizations who have written in
support of the bill as well.
As this committee knows, there is growing concern that excess
regulations are hampering economic growth and job creation across
the country. In my home state of South Dakota, this is a huge concern for farmers and for ranchers and small business owners who
are struggling to stay afloat in an already stressed economy. One
of the most overwhelming concerns that I hear about from farmers
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
16
every day and ranchers back home is the overbearing regulations
coming out of the EPA, including the regulation of farm dust. Their
concern is certainly not unwarranted.
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is responsible for setting the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for certain pollutants.
This includes particulate matter, which is broken down into both
fine and coarse particulate matter, commonly known as dust. The
Administrator of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, must set the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards that States must meet or be designated as nonattainment areas. The goal of these standards is to
protect the public from harmful pollutants like industrial soot and
car emissions common in urban areas, which I certainly support.
The EPA measures the amount of particulate matter, or dust, in
the air through monitoring devices that are placed throughout the
country. At least every 5 years, the Administrator must review
those standards and decide if they want to keep the current standard, or potentially adopt a more stringent standard. As this committee is aware, the EPA is currently in the process and in the
midst of another review.
Under current law, the EPAs standards include all kinds of dust,
including dust generated from ag activities and the dust that is
typical in rural America. This type of dust is naturally occurring
and includes soil, windblown dust or dust that comes off of dirt
roads. I call it farm dust. This is completely different than the type
of dust typical in urban areas which has been shown to have adverse health effects.
My legislation specifically focuses on rural dust. It allows the
standard to apply unchanged in urban areas. Farm dust is a fact
of life in rural America and, unlike urban dust, has not been shown
to have a significant health concern. Including farm dust in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards regulations causes great concern and uncertainty for farmers and other resource-based industries in rural America.
I would like to clear up the myth that EPA currently does not
regulate farm dust. Farmers and ranchers are already subject to
the standard for dust in nonattainment areas like Arizona. There
are people in Arizona that certainly know the impact that this has
on businesses. It can cost some producers in that State over $1,000
a day to comply with dust standards.
On September 17, 2011, a Des Moines Register story tells the
story of Kevin Rogers, who is going to testify here later today and
tell his personal story. He is a farmer from outside of Phoenix, Arizona. If the wind is blowing too much, he has to park his tractors,
he has to park his combines so that he doesnt kick up too much
dust. As a lifelong farmer and rancher myself, I certainly understand the impact this can have when you have a job to get done
and you have a business to run. And as Kevin puts it, It is a difficult thing when the government is in the middle of every single
thing that we are doing. We need to put an end to regulation of
farm dust and prevent its expansion into the future.
Regulation of farm dust is a problem today and will be more of
an issue if the EPA continues to have opportunities to make more
stringent standards into the future. The inclusion of farm dust in
the EPAs National Ambient Air Quality Standards will continue to
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
17
be a problem until legislation is enacted to ensure that farm dust
is treated differently. EPA is well aware that it cannot under current law differentiate between dust coming from rural areas or
urban areas, and while officials in the EPA continue to say that
they have no intention of regulating farm dust, the EPA does regulate farm dust and has no plan to exempt naturally occurring farm
dust from their regulations.
This bill certainly provides a solution. It gives us the ability to
differentiate between naturally occurring rural dust and that that
is typically occurring in urban areas, and also, what it does is, it
provides immediate relief for farmers in rural areas by preventing
any changes to the current standards for 1 year. Secondly, it provides flexibility for States, localities and tribes to regulate farm
dust and nuisance dust themselves.
I certainly appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today,
and I will certainly stick around and answer any questions that the
committee may have for me.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Noem follows:]
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.007
18
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.008
19
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.009
20
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.010
21
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.011
22
23
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hurt, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT HURT
Mr. HURT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be with

you, and I thank you for the invitation to be here to talk about
H.R. 1633. It is an honor to be here with Representative Noem, and
I appreciate her leadership on this as well.
I represent Virginias 5th District, a primarily rural area which
includes most of central and Southside Virginia, and is larger than
the State of New Jersey. In the 5th District, we have a proud heritage in agriculture, manufacturing and other resource-based industries that provide good-paying jobs for thousands of Virginians.
Dust is a necessary byproduct of the hard work the farmers and
businesses in my rural district perform every day. These are the
people who are struggling to survive, to grow, and to create jobs
during this stalled economic recovery. That is why the EPAs national standard for fugitive dust, which falls under the Clean Air
Acts National Ambient Air Quality Standards for coarse particulate matter is so troubling to the people that I represent. It is yet
another example of the expansion of Federal Government and the
uncertainty that Washington continues to impose upon our family
farms, our small businesses and our rural communities.
That is why H.R. 1633 is necessary. The bipartisan legislation
will help create a better economic environment for job creation by
replacing the current Federal standard for dust that comes from
driving on unpaved roads, working in agricultural fields and similar activities in rural America.
H.R. 1633 provides relief from the more stringent Federal standard for coarse particulate matter recommended in the April 2011
policy assessment prepared by the EPA staff. It also gives States
and localities the flexibility to set a standard for dust if they
choose. More important, it keeps the Federal Government out of
the business of over-regulating naturally occurring dust unless the
EPA can prove substantial adverse public health effects caused by
dust and can provide a rigorous cost-benefit analysis on the need
for such regulation.
While I applaud EPA Administrator Lisa Jacksons recent promise that she will not propose a more stringent standard for coarse
particulate matter, I remain concerned about the uncertainty of the
rulemaking process where these rules can be modified. I am also
troubled by the comments of some officials in the administration to
discredit the issue of Federal dust regulation, including Secretary
of Agriculture Tom Vilsack who wrote that the regulation of farm
dust is another frequently repeated myth. After reviewing the
EPAs 2006 Federal standards for coarse particulate matter, which
by definition includes dust, I respectfully disagree with the statement that this is a myth.
I know that farmers and business owners in the 5th District disagree with this assessment of dust regulation as well. When traveling the 5th District last year, I spoke with a small business
owner who was warned by a State regulator about the amount of
dust that was coming off of his property. When this business owner
questioned further about the regulators concern over fugitive dust,
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
24
the regulator replied that the business needed to take active measures to decrease the dust coming from the dirt driveway leading in
and out of his facility.
It also appears that the Sierra Club would take issue with the
administrations statements that Federal dust regulations are a
myth as well. When discussing a petition it filed with the Virginia
Air Pollution Control Board in my home State, which was ultimately dismissed, by the way, the Sierra Club alleged that the levels of dust it measured on a road in southwest Virginia were above
the national health-based standard promulgated by the EPA. It is
difficult to understand why the Sierra Club would take such action
if the Federal Government mandates for fugitive dust are a myth.
While it is true that the EPA and State regulatory agencies have
not set up monitors at every family farm and every unpaved road,
the Sierra Club has shown one way in which these national standards for dust regulation continue to provide uncertainty for rural
America.
Because of these dust regulations, rural farming and business operations can face the threat of unnecessary harassment, regulation
and litigation by private actors or State and Federal regulators.
Additionally, companies throughout the 5th District and the country are required to comply with the Federal standard for dust in
order to obtain permits, such as those issued by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality as required in its State Implementation Plan with the EPA.
This is why Congress must act in a bipartisan fashion to pass
H.R. 1633 and assure our farmers and our rural industries that
naturally occurring dust will not be subject to expanded Federal
regulation. When it comes to dust, the EPA and the Federal Government should not mandate a one-size-fits-all standard that could
eventually lead to lost production. With unemployment rates nearing 20 percent in some areas of Virginias 5th District, we simply
cannot afford to continue to perpetuate unnecessary regulations
and uncertainty for the farmers and businesses in our rural communities.
I thank the chairman and I thank the ranking member again for
inviting us to appear. I thank the subcommittee for considering our
bill. I appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning and look
forward to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hurt follows:]
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.012
25
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.013
26
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.014
27
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.015
28
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.016
29
30
Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank both of you for your testimony. We
appreciate your taking time to talk about your legislation, and I
was delighted to hear Ms. Noem indicate that you do have bipartisan support. How many cosponsors of this bill do you have?
Mrs. NOEM. Well, there are 100 cosponsors that are signed on to
the bill. There also has been a lot of support shown over in the
Senate side as well. I mean, it is a commonsense bill that we certainly recognize could be addressedthe concerns could be addressed through this legislation.
Mr. WHITFIELD. And has a similar bill been introduced on the
Senate side?
Mrs. NOEM. You know, there has been a bill that has been talked
about. I am not certain if the sponsor is continuing to pursue it.
Mr. WHITFIELD. But when we say that EPA is not regulating
coarse particulate matter, of course, in any nonattainment area, if
the State does not have a State implementation plan, the Federal
Government certainly has the authority to step in. Is that correct,
Mr. Hurt?
Mr. HURT. Absolutely, and I would like to maybe address some
of the concerns raised by Mr. Rush and Mr. Waxman, that section
3, it does allow for the Federal Government to come in but under
circumstances that I think any American would find very reasonable, and that is, when it is proven that there are substantial
health risks and after a cost-benefit analysis that this makes sense,
and I think that from what I have heard across my district, that
is exactly the kind of view that Americans and 5th District Virginians would like to see going on here in Washington. And it is
also important to note that this does nothing to change the particulate matter 10 and PM2.5 standards, the emissions that the ranking member and Mr. Waxman discussed, would still be regulated
under or viewed through those different standards.
Mr. WHITFIELD. You know, it is interesting we find ourselves
here discussing the regulation of dust. I know that there are some
studies that say well, theres some correlation between particulate
matter, coarse particulate matter, and health, and then there are
other studies that indicate there is no causal relationship whatsoever, and yetand I know we have a gentleman from Arizona, I
believe, in the next panel, but it is my understanding that under
the State implementation plan of Arizona, in some instances on
windy days the farmers are literally prevented from farming. Is
that your understanding?
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, yes, it is my understanding, and that
would be the facts that they face every single day, and I think
there is a clear definition and difference between urban dust, which
is the kind of dust that has been proven scientifically to create the
adverse health effects that a lot of the questioning has come from.
There hasnt been that kind of scientific research and data that has
shown the detrimental effects of this nuisance dust, which we are
addressing in this piece of legislation. We are talking about dirt,
soil, matter that occurs naturally through the course. Some of the
concerns that were brought up in previous statements did happen
to come from coal-fired plants, from mining, other situations such
as that, scientific research has proven that that is very different
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
31
than the type of rural dust that we are talking about with this
piece of legislation.
Mr. HURT. If I could just comment on that, I think also one of
the things that I have discovered in working on this legislation is
that at somewe have standards, but at some level at the end of
the day, if you cant abate the dust, the only way to stop it is to
stop production or stop driving on the roads, and what does that
translate to? That translates to lost jobs.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, one thing that I think also is beneficial in
your legislation, my understanding under the Clean Air Act, there
really is no definition of nuisance air so it could be whatever it
could be. At least in this legislation make an attempt to define it,
which may not suit everyone but that would be an area that we
would have an opportunity to work with others to at least have a
definition of that, which I think it is important.
Mrs. NOEM. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would agree. I think this piece
of legislation the EPA should have no problem with. I really do. I
think they should be very supportive of this because it simply says
that they are not going to change their standards for a year, which
they have already said that they are not going to do, and then it
provides that definition. Rural dust and urban dust are not the
same thing, and I think it would be very helpful to them and their
processes and how they evaluate the ways that they approach enforcing the Clean Air Act to have that definition in place because
they are very different, and the research behind them shows that.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, some people make the argument well, EPA
is not going to regulate it anyway so we dont need this legislation,
but we know for a fact that entities file a lot of lawsuits over at
EPA, and whether EPA intends to do something or not, they frequently find themselves in lawsuits and frequently they enter into
consent decrees in many instances agreeing with the plaintiff and
then it becomes a court order and that is another frustrating thing.
We find the court in many of our environmental regulations, their
decisions as we do regulations coming out and initiated by EPA.
Mrs. NOEM. Yes, Mr. Chairman, this bill provides certainty and
it provides certainty to a risky business that a lot of farmers and
ranchers engage in and the people in rural areas are trying to keep
their doors open and provide for their families, and this shows
them that we are going to give them the certainty they need to be
protected from those types of sudden regulations that may come up
because of lawsuits and environmental issues.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you all very much.
At this time I recognize Mr. Rush for 5 minutes.
Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
also thank my colleagues, Representative Noem and Representative
Hurt, for being here today, and I want you to know that my grandfather was a farmer. I was raised in my early years on a farm, and
I am pro-farmer, and I see you are the sponsor of this bill, and I
want to focus my questions on the bill.
Representative Noem, many on the minority side are concerned
with some of the language that is not clearly defined in section 3.
Specifically, the nuisance dust as defined by other activities typically conducted in rural areas is causing concern for me and others because it may exempt many other industrial activities from
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
32
Clean Air Act regulations. You are the sponsor of H.R. 1633, and
is it your intention to provide exemptions for other activities not
associated with standard agricultural practices in section 3, and if
not, would you be amenable to modifying this language in order to
make clear the bills intention?
Mrs. NOEM. Well, thank you for the question, Representative
Rush, and I certainly believe that the title of the bill and the language of the bill is very clear that it means to address farm dust
and nuisance dust throughout the piece of legislation. I think that
some of the interpretation that it goes too far and might include
things such as coal ash and other harmful pollutants is that my bill
simply does not exempt anything from regulations. It simply gives
States and localities the flexibility to regulate dust in rural areas
on their own. Now, if there are no local regulations that address
in this place Federal regulations will certainly apply if the EPA
if the dust proves that it has negative health benefits and if it does
rigorous cost-benefit analysis. So I believe the legislation as it
stands today with the title that it has and with the language it has
within it clearly defines nuisance dust and what is to be regulated
and that the States and local governments certainly have the opportunity to address the concerns that may be particular in one
area.
Mr. RUSH. Well, you feel quite strongly that your bill is necessary
in light of the fact that EPA has already come out and publicly
stated that it would not propose any changes to the current standard of 10 PM or 10 micrometers for coarse particulate matter. Can
you explain why you feel so strongly?
Mrs. NOEM. I feel so strongly because I think the fact that if
there is a piece of legislation out there that guarantees that EPA
will not take any action for the next year, that that is a benefit to
our small farmers and producers across this country. It is not that
they wouldnt trust the EPA, but I certainly think that they would
appreciate knowing that there is a guarantee on no changes for the
next year.
The second part of this bill is that it actually does define the difference between rural dust, nuisance dust and urban dust simply
because of some of the testimony that I gave earlier, that there is
a big difference between the nuisance dust and that it has proven
to not have the negative side effects and health benefits, or detrimental effects that some of the urban dust does that you referenced
when you gave your opening statement. There is a big difference
between those two different types of dust that occur in this country, and that definition and clarity between the two will certainly
help the industry as well.
Mr. RUSH. Is there any, besides industrial dust and particulate
matter, is there any other dust classification that are exempted or
included in your legislation?
Mrs. NOEM. Well, I dont believe so. As far as what this simply
does is to put that definition into place in statute that there is a
nuisance dust definition and what is included in that is the naturally occurring dust particles that would happen and the difference
between urban dust, and this gives clarity to the EPA. This makes
their job easier. They can look at each of these two different types
of dust and know specifically how to define them and what the ad-
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
33
verse health effects are on those, and then it also allows them the
opportunity to come into area if the State and local governments
do not.
Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Rush.
It is the custom of this committee that the chairman and ranking
member will ask other Members questions, so we have completed
that, and I want to thank you all once again for introducing the
legislation and for
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, you are not going to allow other
members to ask questions of this panel?
Mr. WHITFIELD. Would you like to ask some questions?
Mr. WAXMAN. I would like to ask some questions.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection, then I recognize the gentleman for 5 minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. I just want to take issue with some of the things
that have been said because I think you oversimplified it to the
point where I think your conclusions are incorrect. First of all, the
title of the bill has no legislative effect. What has legislative effect
is the wording of the bill. And you made a couple statements, Representative Noem, that I take issue with. You said there is no proven difference betweenthere is a proven difference between urban
and rural dust.
Mrs. NOEM. I saidthank you, Representative Waxman. I appreciate that. What my statement was or should have been was that
the scientific research is very different showing the detrimental effects of urban dust versus rural dust, that there is much different
research data that is available on the detrimental health effects of
urban dust as where
Mr. WAXMAN. The Clean Air Act doesnt regulate dust. The Clean
Air Act regulates harmful pollutants, and in this case, we are talking about two kinds of pollutants. We are talking about fine particulates and coarse particulates. The standard was originally set
when President Reagan was President, and it has been reviewed
but the basic standard has been in place.
Now, you said that there is no proven adverse health effect from
rural dust. If that rural dust is produced by farm machinery, that
could have harmful impact, couldnt it?
Mrs. NOEM. It could, but we could speculate all day. What I prefer to operate with is the facts that we have in front of us.
Mr. WAXMAN. Well, the facts we have in front of us is your bill
defines this nuisance dust which is a new term in law that you
would propose to put in law, and it says particulate matter generated from natural sources, OK, unpaved roads, agricultural activities, earth moving or activities typically conducted in rural
areas, and I mentioned in my opening statement that a lot of
things are conducted in rural areas, which could add to the particulate matter which particularly in the area of fine particulates,
there is a genuine threat to human health.
The point that I am raising is that your intentions seem to be,
both of you, pretty reasonable. You dont want the dust in rural
areas regulated, as Congressman Hurt said. If you are going to try
to stop the dust coming from farms, you would have close down the
farms and lose the jobs. That doesnt make any sense at all. But
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
34
the problem is, nobody is proposing to do the things that you fear
might happen. If you had a 1-year period of time in which there
could be no regulation on coarse particulates coming from dust in
the rural areas, well, that could give somebody certainty for a year.
Nobody is planning to do it anyway. But I fear that your bill is
drafted in a way that goes much further, and it doesnt sound like
that that is your intention.
Representative Noem, I mentioned in my opening statement that
it is a nonexistent problem and we have so many real ones that
should be addressed. There was an editorial my staff brought to my
attention from a newspaper. It is the largest newspaper in South
Dakota, and it said, There are important issues at the Federal
level right now that will have direct impact on our States so it is
disappointing to see Representative Kristi Noem continue her fight
against a made-up problem like the potential for farm dust regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency. Dust has become a
lightning rod for some Republicans, drumming up fear in farming
communities that more Federal Government intrusion and overregulations coming to take money out of their pockets. Noem proposed legislation that would ban the EPA from regulating farm
dust for a year, and similar legislation was advanced by Senator
Mike Johanns. The problem is that the EPA has repeatedly and at
every turn said it has no intention of regulating farm dust. On
Monday it went as far as to write a letter to Congress stating it
would not be regulating dust kicked up by combines. That should
put the issue to rest.
With those multitude of assurances that this is a phantom issue,
what is your response to this editorial?
Mrs. NOEM. Well, Representative Waxman, that editor of that
newspaper certainly doesnt represent my farmers and ranchers
across South Dakota, and it is clear that he doesnt understand the
bill, because in that editorial he didnt address the fact that it is
going to provide a clear definition between nuisance dust, rural
dust and urban dust. He simply
Mr. WAXMAN. Let me take exception to
Mrs. NOEM. One of the
Mr. WAXMAN. Excuse me. Let me take exception. You state that
as a fact but there is nothing in the law that says this dust is from
rural areas, this dust from urban areas, it is different. The difference is only the amount of particulate matter in the region and
particularly if its nonattainment, which is not attaining what is
the health standard.
When I was a young member of the State assembly in California,
I heard that there might be a freeway coming throughI ask for
30 seconds moreand I went out of my way to make sure that we
fought that freeway and it was stopped. It turned out they never
intended it but the people in my district thought I stopped it anyway. That is a good thing to do politically, but when you change
something like the Clean Air Act, a lot of unintended consequences,
I fear for that. If there is a chance to go through this legislation,
maybe we can change it in some way, but I fear that your bill goes
too far.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Waxman, your questionoh, yes, Ms. Noem.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
35
Mrs. NOEM. Well, I just wanted to make a statement that certainly the people in South Dakota recognize, widespread they recognize the need for this piece of legislation or else I wouldnt be
bringing it, but they have been talking to me about it every single
meeting that I have that people deal with rural industries in South
Dakota. And I think when you hear the personal story of Kevin
Rogers a little bit later you will really
Mr. WAXMAN. But that is another State where there is a nonattainment.
Mrs. NOEM. But certainly right now
Mr. WAXMAN. When people are fearful, you ease the fears.
Mr. WHITFIELD. OK.
Mr. WAXMAN. Whether it is realistic or not.
Mr. WHITFIELD. We all get excited about dust, but let us calm
down here a minute.
Mr. WAXMAN. Settle the dust.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, let us settle the dust here.
But Mr. Waxman raised some dust, and now I would recognize
Mr. Shimkus for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A couple things. Kristi, how far is your home from a paved road?
Mrs. NOEM. Well, my home particularly is not too far. It is about
a quarter of a mile from a paved road. But our farm is about 8
miles from a paved road.
Mr. SHIMKUS. And is that chaff, as I would call it, or is it dust?
Is it a dirt road or is it limestone rock road?
Mrs. NOEM. Oh, it is a dirt road. It is a gravel road.
Mr. SHIMKUS. So it is gravel, and if there is an air monitor
placed on that gravel road, which is 8 miles from a paved road, the
gravel road probably would not be in attainment on the PM10
standard when the big four-wheel-drive hemi pickup truck with the
horse-drawn trailer goes down that road. Isnt that correct?
Mrs. NOEM. I would agree. I would say virtually every single
field during harvest time would be in nonattainment.
Mr. SHIMKUS. And I have a photo that I showed Administrator
Jackson when she first testified, and I will probably pull it up later
on, and it is this time of the year when we are finishing cutting
of beans, and it shows a plume. Now, some people would sayoh,
there it is, right there. That is right outside my hometown just
north of Collinsville. Now, if you had an air monitor right behind
that, it would probably set off. But that is not diesel, that is just
chaff. That is organic. That is leaves, that is stalk, and that is what
we call cutting of beans.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Is that natural dust?
Mrs. NOEM. Yes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. So my point is, in rural America where the air
monitor is could determine it, and the difference between urban
America and rural America is that dust cloud will disperse way before it is in any concentration that would kick off. So a concern,
and so the additional regulation imposed is a severe threat to rural
America. You have how many agriculture groups in support of this
bill?
Mrs. NOEM. Over 100.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
36
Mr. SHIMKUS. Are they just crazy? I mean, are they just meddling? They have nothing else to do than be worried about the
EPA?
Mrs. NOEM. Well, Representative Shimkus, if I could say one
thing that Representative Waxman continued to say over and over
is that dust is not currently regulated, and it is. The EPA does regulate dust, and the staff did recommend tightening those standards. So when he believes there is no concern, there is valid concern in rural America.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Robert, do you want to add anything?
Mr. HURT. Well, I would say a couple of things. You know, when
we were asked whether or not we need this bill, to me, the question
ought to be, why dont we use our legislative prerogative to guide
policy in this country. I think if you talk to the people I represent,
they say for far too long the Congress has wholesale given its legislative prerogative over to agencies like the EPA who are not elected, who are not accountable to the people. So why on earth would
not we take our responsibility as being a voice for the people seriously and what objection could one have to exercising that legislative authority that has been given to us by the people we represent?
Going back again to some of the questions that have been asked
about the actual standard, there is nothing unreasonable about section 3 and the standard that is proposed. It just says there must
be shown substantial health risk and that there is a cost-benefit
analysis that goes through and proves that the benefits outweigh
the costs. So I dont think anybody is suggesting that you have
and I in my district, my rural district, we have power plants. No
one is suggesting that emissions from power plants be exempted in
any way, and this bill would not do that.
And then finally, as it relates to the fear mongering, and I take
issue and I wish Mr. Waxman was here, I take issue with his suggestion that this is somehow politically motivated. I talk to farmers
in my district all the time whose fears of government regulation
are real and they translate to lower productivity and fewer jobs,
and all they are trying to doyou know, I have a farmer in Nelson
County, he is a fruit grower. He says, you know, I get regulated
by the Department of Labor, Department of Transportation, the
IRS, the USDA, the EPA. He said all I am trying to do is grow
peaches, I have been doing that for five generations, how hard can
it be.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me reclaim my time and just recognize Cory
for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. GARDNER. Thank you. And I just would like to ask permission for the record to submit letters of support from well over 100
different organizations that support H.R. 1633: NFIB, chambers of
commerce, ag groups, farm organizations, business groups. Yield
back my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.017
37
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.018
38
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.019
39
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.020
40
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.021
41
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.022
42
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.023
43
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.024
44
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.025
45
46
Mr. WHITFIELD. Once again, thank you all for taking time to be
with us. We appreciate it and look forward to working with you on
this issue. Thank you.
At this time I will call up the Honorable Gina McCarthy, the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Ms. McCarthy, we welcome you back to Capitol
Hill, which I am sure you enjoy coming up here a great deal.
Ms. MCCARTHY. It is always my pleasure, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. STEARNS. Sorry we dont have some refreshments for you
this morning.
We do appreciate your being here very much to testify on H.R.
1633, and at this point I would recognize you for 5 minutes for your
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF REGINA MCCARTHY, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIR AND RADIATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of
2011. This sweeping bill could roll back Clean Air Act protections
and adversely affect public health in urban, suburban and rural
areas.
This bill has been sold as a narrow one. If all this bill is intended
to do is prevent the EPA from tightening the coarse particle standard, the bill is simply unnecessary. Administrator Jackson committed in an October 14, 2011, letter that she is prepared to propose to keep the PM10 standard, or coarse particle. The National
Ambient Air Quality Standard will remain unchanged if the Administrators proposal as intended is moved forward. I am hopeful
that this announcement ends the myth that the agency plans to
tighten the regulation of farm dust.
Whether intended or not, we are concerned that this bill does far
more than its sponsors have indicated. It could prevent EPA from
regulating power plants or other major industrial sources of pollution in urban and suburban areas as well as in rural areas. This
is because section 3A takes away Clean Air Act authority to regulate nuisance dust and then defines nuisance dust very broadly,
and it includes particulate matter generated from activities typically conducted in rural areas. This exemption would cover both
coarse and fine particles emitted from anywhere in the country. It
might include pollutants like NOx and SOx that form fine particles. This would appear to preclude EPA from regulating particle
pollution from activities such as power plants, mining operations,
industrial operations and construction anywhere in the country because those activities are not atypical to occur in rural areas. It
could even call into question EPAs ability to enforce tailpipe emission standards that would limit particle pollution from cars, trucks
and buses because those same cars, trucks and buses typically
drive in rural areas. In other words, the farm dust bill might forever bar the EPA from limiting emissions of coarse particles, fine
particles, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury from power
plants, industrial sources and maybe even motor vehicles.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
47
We are also concerned that H.R. 1633 could block revision of fine
particle standards and implementation of existing fine and coarse
particle standards. Since the existing particle programs did not distinguish between nuisance dust and other particles, the bill raises
the issue of whether the EPA could enforce or maintain existing
fine or coarse particle pollution standards. The term nuisance
dust is not a scientific term, which would make it very difficulty
to incorporate an exclusion of nuisance dust into a scientifically
based program. This could raise practical concerns. It is unclear
how one would design a monitor that measured fine particles except for nuisance dust and it is unclear how the agency could implement particle pollution programs without a scientifically sound
monitoring network, and it is certainly unclear what the costs
would be to States or local communities to put in that type of a
monitoring system could one be designed and developed.
The existing fine and coarse particle pollution reduction programs are important for public health. While nuisance dust sounds
like it is merely inconvenient, it includes particle pollution that is
harmful to public health. When we breathe, both coarse and fine
particle pollution can reach the deepest region of our lungs and
move past our bodies filtering systems. We have a health-based
standard for particles smaller than 10 micrometers since 1987.
That is 24 years. Coarse particles have been linked to a variety of
adverse health effects including hospital visits related to cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and premature death. This is the
standard that the Administrator has announced she is prepared to
propose to retain, not propose to change.
In 1997, EPA added a health-based standard for fine particles,
which cause serious health effects. Nationally, EPA estimates that
exposure to fine particles results in, among other effects, 130,000
to 320,000 excess deaths in adults, 110,000 emergency room visits
by children, 2.5 million cases of exacerbation of asthma, and 18
million lost workdays each year.
I have briefly discussed some of the potential consequences of
H.R. 1633. As written, this bill would significantly weaken EPAs
authority under the Clean Air Act and significantly cause and preclude us from preventing public health protections that are necessary for the American people. If these consequences arent intended, it would be best to revise the bill to avoid the confusion,
litigation and the concerns that I have raised. I hope this information that I presented as well as the Administrators October 14,
2011, letter clarifies EPAs intentions and obviates the need for this
legislation. It is simply not necessary at this time to block the
tightening of the PM10 standard which the Administrator has very
clearly indicated that she has no intention at this time of proposing.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:]
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.026
48
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.027
49
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.028
50
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.029
51
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.030
52
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.031
53
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.032
54
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.033
55
56
Mr. WHITFIELD. Ms. McCarthy, thank you for your testimony.
You heard me say earlier that one of our concerns is that it
doesnt make any difference what EPA decides or doesnt decide.
Outside groups file lawsuits on a regular basis against EPA, and
I think even you would admit and agree that frequently the courts
decisions determine what the interpretation of the EPA act is and
what becomes law. So what our concern is, even though Lisa Jackson says no, are you convinced that a third-party environmental
group or some other entity would not file a lawsuit?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Administrator
has made her intention clear but certainly she cant preclude the
rights and responsibilities she has under the Administrative Procedures Act and the right to listen to comment that is received. I
would, however, say that the Administrator is basing her decision
on a wealth of scientific information. I have the Integrated Science
Assessment right here. She has taken the advice of the Clean Air
Act Science Advisory Committee. She has listened to the staff recommendations and she believes that the law gives her deference in
making these determinations in terms of what the science said and
what
Mr. WHITFIELD. But you do still understand our concern about
how many lawsuits are pending against the EPA right now?
Ms. MCCARTHY. There are a number of lawsuits pending but in
the
Mr. WHITFIELD. There is over 400, I believe, arent there?
Ms. MCCARTHY. In the case of PM10, the administration has
acted a number of times, first under President Reagan, second
under President Bush and this administration. We believe the
science is clear and we believe that the Administrators recommendation will hold true.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, see, we agree with you. We think the
science is clear also and that is why we think that moving forward
with legislation would remove any ambiguity whatsoever. So that
is where we stand on that issue.
Now, as far as coarse particulate matter, does EPA have the authority to regulate coarse particulate matter now?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, it does, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WHITFIELD. And if the State implementation plan of a noncompliant area does not do so, EPA can step in. Is that correct?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, the EPA would have an obligation to step
in if a State implementation plan didnt effectively address attainment in the way the Clean Air Act requires.
Mr. WHITFIELD. And how many States today are regulating
coarse particulate matter because they are in nonattainment?
Ms. MCCARTHY. There are only a very few number of States that
are regulating PM10. It amounts to about 41 counties. It is a very
small area of the country at this point in time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Do you believe yourself from the evidence that
you have read that coarse particulate matter does have an impact
on a persons health?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I do. I do believe that, and I think the scientific
evidence is quite clear, and we have evidence not only that coarse
particles that are emitted in urban areas cause problems but there
is clear scientific evidence that distinguishes what we callwhat
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
57
people have called rural dust, that that also causes significant public health concerns.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, if you do believe that even rural coarse
particulate matter does impact health, why did you all decide not
to strengthen the coarse particulate matter regulation?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, the Administrator has to establish a standard that is requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. The Reagan administration NAAQS standards set in
1987, 24 years ago, that was also revisited by the Bush administration and that is now being reconsidered by this administration, is
actually a very sound standard. It is a standard that we believe is
sufficient to protect public health. We believe that there is scientific uncertainty, which the Administrator has been looking at
and considering that would lead her to retain the standard as it is
proposed but certainly that information is rigorous enough to indicate that we should retain the current standard.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, the current PM10 standard is 150
micrograms per cubic meter. Is that correct? Is that the current
standard?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. And then there is a threshold of 99 percentile.
What does that actually mean?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, that meansand that is one of the
issues that has been most confusing because the Clean Air Act
Science Advisory Committee actually proposed to change the standard and the form or actually ask the Administrator to consider a
change in the standard and the form. The 99th percentile just really means that the area could be in nonattainment if they exceeded
or had events that brought up the level of pollution to a certain
amount just a few times a year and it would trigger National Ambient Air Quality Standards. If you lower that percentile, it means
it needs to be more often and more frequent in order to trigger nonattainment.
Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. So the standard is 150 micrograms per cubic
meter and the form is 99 percentile, so if you exceed that 1 percent
of the time, you are OK, but if you exceed 2 percent of the time
Ms. MCCARTHY. That is right.
Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. You violate?
Ms. MCCARTHY. That is right.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, my time is expired.
I recognize the gentleman, Mr. Rush, for 5 minutes.
Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ms. McCarthy, I want to welcome you again to this subcommittee.
I got a little bit confused during the questioning from the chairman here. It seemed that we were discussing the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act but it seemed to me like he was talking about
the EPA litigation prevention act, trying to keep EPA from being
in court, being litigated in court, and I just dont know, do you
think that is what our legislative powers to keep the EPA out of
court?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Mr. Rush, I think that we actually are authorized to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards. We certainly do that to the best of our ability based on the science and
the law. Without question, it is often challenged, but without ques-
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
58
tion, we win a considerable amount of time because we do our jobs
well.
Mr. RUSH. And I agree with you, you do do your jobs quite well.
We heard earlier from Representative Noem that the scientific
research shows a clear distinction between urban dust and rural
dust, and H.R. 1633 will make it simpler and easier for EPA by
defining what nuisance dust is. Does the scientific research show
a clear distinction between urban dust and rural dust? Also, does
H.R. 1633 make it easier for EPA by defining nuisance dust as it
is defined in this bill?
Ms. MCCARTHY. The definition of nuisance dust in this bill is
very broad, and we are very concerned that it could have significant spillover impact in terms of our ability to regulate pollution
from sources well beyond rural areas and well beyond agricultural
sources, and we are concerned about that impact. I would also say
that there are significant amounts of health studies, and they become more every time we look at the data and every time we visit
that NAAQS that show that coarse particles, whether they are generated in the rural areas or they are generated in the urban areas
have significant health consequences. They deserve to be regulated.
The science demands it. The law requires it. EPA does that.
Mr. RUSH. Well, so let me just ask you, is the matter that is established in 1987 under the administration of President Reagan,
has that standard been a threat to the farming communities in this
Nation or has it been helpful?
Ms. MCCARTHY. We do not believe that there is any evidence
that farming has been in any way significantly disrupted by any
of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. As you know,
when we establish a NAAQS, it is a national standard. It is not
targeted to a specific sector or a specific geographic area. I do know
since 1987 when this was first proposed, there have been identified
by States and local air quality districts when they implement in
nonattainment areas, they implement their requirements to look at
sources and identify what sources contribute to local health consequences. There have been times when they have worked with the
USDA, they have worked with local farmers. They have identified
best management practices, conservation measures that those
farms can put into place that would reduce the amount of dust that
they admit and still allow farming to continue unabated, and there
have been instances where we have worked in a collaborative way
to help that effort and that outcome, and it has been an enormously successful opportunity for all of us and to make sure that
farming can continue, that it can continue unabated and we can
work with them to reduce the amount of dust that is emitted and
maintain the health standards that are required to protect public
health.
Mr. RUSH. I only have a few more seconds. There seems to be
the 800-pound gorilla in the room seems to be the fear factor that
is prevalent or that some have alluded to in previous testimony at
todays hearing. Can you comment on what your understanding of
the fear factor is and how great is it, how significant is it?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we heard quite a while ago, Mr. Rush, that
there was concern in the farming community on the basis of the
recommendations by the Clean Air Act Science Advisory Committee
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
59
that the Administrator consider a change in the standard. What
was misunderstood was they were asking for both a change in the
standard as well as the form. It actually would have resulted in
fewer counties. It would have been a little bit more flexible, not so
much sensitive to the high levels as much as averaging a little bit
in a way that would have provided more flexibility. We did six listening sessions with the agriculture community immediately to explain to them what the process was, that it wasnt the recommendation of the staff, that the Administrator didnt make a decision yet, and we also talked about all of the work that we have
done together on farm dust since 1987 and the collaborative nature
of that process and the impacts that hasnt happened as a result.
And we will continue that effort, and now that the Administrator
has made it clear that she is not intending to propose a change in
that standard, we are certainly hoping that it puts those fears to
rest.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Shimkus, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, and it is great to be with you, Assistant Administrator McCarthy.
Ms. MCCARTHY. Good to see you too.
Mr. SHIMKUS. We have a lot of fun here, and hopefully I will be
kind and courteous, and again, I appreciate all the help that you
have given in the past.
A couple issues. It is true that tier 4 engine regs, which has created additional costs for the agricultural community in diesel engines. Is that correct?
Ms. MCCARTHY. The tier 4 engine rules have been tightened and
it does require that they look at particulate matter and other emissions
Mr. SHIMKUS. So when you have diesel engines operating in
rural America, you cannot say there is no effect on cost and production and operations when you have ratcheted down diesel engine
emissions on the clean air applications.
Ms. MCCARTHY. The engines that we regulate are very large engines.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I mean, large engines are used in agricultural
America.
Ms. MCCARTHY. I believe that I was referring to dust issues,
so
Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, I am just trying to
Ms. MCCARTHY. There are definitely requirements in the farming
community when you have large farms that are significant individual sources of pollution and they have to achieve the same kind
of engine standards that
Mr. SHIMKUS. Right. Production agriculture is large operations
and large engines, so I just want to put that on the record. There
is an effect. To say there is no effect, that really cant be stated.
You mentioned 41 counties that you know are in this, and I have
one of the maps. There are other counties that continue to regulate
particulate matter on their own. Is that correct? Virginia has fugitive dust regulations in Virginia?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I am sorry, Congressman. I am not familiar with
that, but these are the requirements that are attributable to the
Clean Air Act.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
60
Mr. SHIMKUS. Just placing that into the record that there are
States that are monitoring for dust in States on their own outside
of the SIP and the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
The fear factor that my friend mentioned, one of your statements
in your opening statement said at this time. Using that terminology at this time creates a fear factor in rural America because
tomorrow you may. The importance of legislation is to codify that
to say not at this time, no more PM10. In fact, the letter that the
Administrator sent to Lisa Jackson saysI mean Lisa Jackson
sent to Debbie Stabenow, I am prepared to propose retention with
no revision of the current PM standard and form when it is sent
to OMB for interagency review. Now, the question is, so the Administrator must believe that PM standard as it is currently operated under the EPA, that it protects public health. Is that correct?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, adequate with an adequate margin of safety.
Mr. SHIMKUS. And you would agree with that?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Good. I want to have that on the record because
that is part of this whole debate of the concern of ratcheting it
down. You heard during the opening questioning, and just the difference of concentration. A lot of our experience here on the committee is focusing on concentrated amounts that affect human
health. Do you agree that concentrated particulate matter can be
harmful to human health?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I believe that exposure to particulate matter can
be
Mr. SHIMKUS. In any concentration or in certain concentrations?
Ms. MCCARTHY. It depends on both. It depends on the concentration as well as the size of the particle.
Mr. SHIMKUS. But you just said PM10 is safe.
Ms. MCCARTHY. No, no, I said that the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard was appropriate as a safeguard for public health
protection. That does not mean that I think that it is safe for exposures at all levels. Certainly our goal is to achieve the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard that is required under the Clean Air
Act. I am making no statement about my independent knowledge
of health consequences associated with exposures beyond that.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is expired.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, sir. At this time I will recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. McCarthy, we heard from some people that the Republicans
want to make commonsense changes to the Clean Air Act but in
reality, I fear they may be making some radical changes and you
said in your opening statement the bill does far more than prevent
a change in the coarse particulate standard. We believe it could result in far-reaching damage to the bedrock public health protections in the Clean Air Act.
Now, this includes a broad definition of so-called nuisance dust
that would be exempt from EPA regulation. The bill lists several
examples of what falls under the category of nuisance dust including earth moving. The bill doesnt limit these farms. Ms. McCar-
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
61
thy, could the operations of a large, open pit mine fall under the
category of earth moving?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes.
Mr. WAXMAN. In fact, during the next panel, we are going to hear
from the Coarse Particulate Matter Coalition, an industry association that supports this bill. One of the coalitions members is
Kennecott Copper, which operates one of the worlds largest copper
mines. That company would like to expand its mine with fewer air
pollution controls. So that is one way this bill goes beyond farms.
The bill also includes windblown dust in the definition of what
constitutes nuisance dust. Ms. McCarthy, could all particulate air
pollution be viewed as windblown dust and does the bill distinguish
because particulate matter from a farm or from a factory?
Ms. MCCARTHY. It could, and there is no such distinction in the
bill that you have asked me to comment on.
Mr. WAXMAN. So the dust is undefined in the bill and commonly
applies to small particles, so all particulate air pollution might fall
under this phrase?
Ms. MCCARTHY. It might.
Mr. WAXMAN. The bill further includes as nuisance dust particulate matter that is generated from activities typically conducted in
rural areas. This is extremely broad and could capture a range of
industrial activity that often occurs in less populated areas. Ms.
McCarthy, what activities could be covered by this definition?
Ms. MCCARTHY. The generation of power at a power plant, large
industrial sources like steel plants, gravel operations, mining operations, driving diesel buses to school, diesel engines. A variety of
the same kind of sources that you would find in rural areas can
be found in urban areas as well.
Mr. WAXMAN. The bill is so broadly written that it could prevent
EPA from ensuring that school buses dont spew dangerous air pollution in rural communities across the country. I think that is not
common sense, I think that is ridiculous.
Ms. McCarthy, given these broad definitions, how could this bill
affect EPAs ability to limit emissions of particle pollution from all
sources, not just farms, and what are the public health implications?
Ms. MCCARTHY. This bill, if passed as written, could have serious
implications on the major tenets of the Clean Air Act. It could preclude us from regulating PM fines as well as coarse. It could preclude us from regulating NOx and SO2 emissions from power
plants, from mining operations, from large industries, from mobile
sources. It could have serious unintended consequences.
Mr. WAXMAN. If the Republicans want to reduce or eliminate existing controls on particulate pollution from industrial activities,
they probably have the votes to do that, but if so, let us debate that
on the merits. Let us not pretend that this bill is about stopping
EPA from imposing new regulations on farms.
I hear this all the time, and I have heard it all my career. I have
got a simple bill, totally common sense. It only deals with a problem that is on peoples minds. And then you look at the language
and you find out that it is much broader and has a lot of consequences that we presume are unintended but they might even be
intended. So I think we have to look at legislation as it is written,
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
62
not as how people would say it is intended because their intentions
are not part of the law that EPA enforces. Isnt that correct, Ms.
McCarthy? Does EPA enforce intentions of the authors or the language of the bill?
Ms. MCCARTHY. We have to enforce the language of the bill, Mr.
Waxman.
Mr. WAXMAN. Even if Congress intended something else?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Often times, yes.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield back my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I will recognize Mr. Terry of Nebraska for 5 minutes.
Mr. TERRY. Thank you.
Ms. McCarthy, while listening here and some of the discussion
about whether or not we should even be having this discussion and
EPA has already said they wont enforce the PM10 on agriculture
was the statement I think Lisa Jackson made when I asked her
about that and after she answered, dust happens as the answer,
I thought that was rather flippant and insulting to our farmers.
But the reality is, the fear exists and I do think it is real, not only
because there was a recommendation to regulate dust on the farm
and the roads but there has been a history with this EPA. For example, in the State Nebraska, under a proposed rule for CSAPR,
Nebraska was not even given reasonable notice or opportunity to
revise its implementation plan to react to requirements of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, and it wasnt until August 2011 that Nebraska became aware that a level of emission control necessary to mitigate
interstate transport.
So the point is, those of us in Nebraska have already gone
through a situation where the EPA said basically you werent going
to be covered and then to our surprise we were covered, which resulted in a lawsuit. So there is a history with the EPA of making
promises and then breaking them.
Now, in regard to the specific of nuisance dust and PM10, the
chairperson, Chairman Whitfield, hit on this and it has always
been my saying that we are only one lawsuit away from you being
forced to regulate dust particulates from farming activities or the
roads, and in fact, there is a history with the EPA of their partners, Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council, filing
lawsuits and then you entering into a settlement agreement.
So with that fear that I have that that is the ultimate plan here
is to have one of your partners file suit, therefore it is not Lisa
Jacksons or this Administrators decision but the courts decision.
I used the fictional because that is what happens. You enter into
a settlement agreement. So my question to you is, to your knowledge, has Lisa Jackson, you or anyone with the EPA had any discussions with Sierra Club, the NRDC or any other environmental
group about filing lawsuits on nuisance dust from farming activities and dirt roads?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Absolutely not.
Mr. TERRY. No discussions?
Mr. TERRY. No emails?
Mr. TERRY. OK.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
63
Ms. MCCARTHY. Mr. Terry, we can talk about the cross-state rule
another time. I would really like that opportunity. But what I will
say is that this whole issue arose because people were concerning
about the Administrator going out and making a change in a
standard that had never been brought to her. The rule has not
been proposed. She has indicated what she intends to propose. It
would go through a public process and then it would be finalized,
and without doubt, it will be challenged. There is ample opportunity for this body to see whether the Administrator is actually
going to live up to the letter that she wrote and whether or not the
science and what the final rule looks like.
Mr. TERRY. Listening to the discussions that have occurred so
far, you would agree that basic combining harvest or plant would
create dust that would then in that instance violate the PM10?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, that is not how it works. We actually
rely on monitoring technologies, not modeling from individual
sources, to establish nonattainment areas, and we dont have farm
dust standards.
Mr. TERRY. But we already have an example in Virginia where
the monitoring said that at that particular time of the truck driving over the road violated the standard, and so the reality here is
that we are only one lawsuit away from you being forced to enforce
the rule on farming activities, and my time is up.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. At this time I will recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, for 5 minutes.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
In 1999, the public was outraged to learn that Congressman
Tony Schnell had introduced bill 602P to allow the United States
Postal Service to impose a 5-cent tax on every single email that
was sent. Email action alerts were sent out with alarming instructions to read this if you intend to stay online and continue using
email. Congressional offices were flooded by frustrated constituents. The issue even got raised at campaign debates where candidates predictably came out in opposition to this misguided
scheme. There was just one problem. None of it was real. There
was no bill 602P. There wasnt even a Congressman Schnell in the
House of Representatives. The whole thing was an Internet hoax,
and everyone should have just moved on.
But Republicans forged ahead. They introduced the Internet Access Charge Prohibition Act of 1999, apparently because only by
passing actual legislation to prohibit the goals of the imaginary legislation authored by a fictitious Congressman could we prevent
these horrible surcharges from being imposed in the real world, but
it didnt just do that, that piece of legislation. Then it went on further to actually include provisions which would have hurt poor and
rural Americans to get phone service.
So I am reminded of that legislation as we consider this bill to
prevent the regulation of farm dust. Just like the email tax hoax,
there is no plan to regulate farm dust any more than there is to
regulate fairy dust. There is no attempt to accomplish that goal.
Let me say that again: EPA has made it very clear that the socalled plan to regulate farm dust is a myth, but that hasnt stopped
the Republicans from moving forward with this legislation, and just
like the email tax bill, this bill goes well beyond its stated intent
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
64
because it also blocks EPA from settings standards for the dirty
soot that gets spewed out of coal-fired power plants, incinerators,
refineries and chemical plants. That is the real agenda, not to stop
something that isnt going to happen but to then switch in the middle of their legislation to move over to something that really would
protect the public from public health hazards. This bill should be
relegated to the dust bin of similar urban legends along with Congressman Schnells imaginary email tax bill.
Ms. McCarthy, can you tell me whether EPA has any new plan
to specifically regulate farm dust?
Ms. MCCARTHY. We do not.
Mr. MARKEY. Isnt it true that this legislation goes beyond a simple prohibition on farm dust regulations by also preventing EPA
from regulating any dust that is generated by activities that are
typically conducted in rural areas and any dust that can be blown
in the wind?
Ms. MCCARTHY. That is true, Congressman.
Mr. MARKEY. Even if that dust is actually coming from coal-fired
power plants or other industrial sources?
Ms. MCCARTHY. There is a grave concern that that is part of
what the bill might do.
Mr. MARKEY. And finally, since I am sure that many little girls
all over America care about this deeply, can you commit to me that
EPA will never try to regulate fairy dust or pixie dust? Because if
not, we may just want to amend the legislation in order to protect
us against that threat which could be posed by the EPA or other
regulatory agencies seeking to move into other fictional areas such
as the legislation which is being considered here by this committee.
Ms. MCCARTHY. After we look at the complete scientific review,
yes.
Mr. MARKEY. You will make sure that you do not under any circumstances? OK. Thank you.
So I thank the chair very much and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from
Texas, Dr. Burgess, for 5 minutes.
Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
gentlelady for being here with us today and answering our questions. You brought a lot of material with you there at your left
hand. What is that compendium of documents?
Ms. MCCARTHY. This is the Integrated Science Assessment for
Particulate Matter that has recently been prepared that would underpin the decision of the Administrator in terms of moving forward with updating both the PM10 and the PM2.5 standards.
Mr. BURGESS. And there are health studies included in that?
Ms. MCCARTHY. This is actually a peer-reviewed summary of
peer-reviewed scientific literature that would have an impact and
concern relative to particulate matter.
Mr. BURGESS. So are there available then health studies that
have found that rural dust is a health concern?
Ms. MCCARTHY. There are many, yes.
Mr. BURGESS. And will you leave those behind with us?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Absolutely.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
65
Mr. BURGESS. Has the EPA conducted a quantitative health risk
assessment of coarse particulate matter?
Ms. MCCARTHY. The EPA has not used that tool on coarse particulate matter, no.
Mr. BURGESS. Is the reason for that because you dont have
enough scientific evidence?
Ms. MCCARTHY. The reason for that is because coarse particulate
matter, we dont have the kind of monitoring data that we have
available relative to other pollution so it doesnt seem like it would
be an appropriate tool to use, but we certainly have enough studies
that look at coarse particles so that a linkage has been made in
terms of the emissions of those particles and health impacts that
would result.
Mr. BURGESS. Let me ask you this. There was another subcommittee of Energy and Commerce that asked Administrator to
share with that subcommittee any studies that show a causal or associative relationship between fine particulate matter and deaths
at levels below what the EPA calls the lowest measured level. Now,
apparently that request has yet to be honored so can I ask you
today that you will endeavor to help us receive those materials that
Administrator Jackson promised another subcommittee and this
full committee?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I will assure you that we will provide all of the
health studies that are the basis of these decisions.
Mr. BURGESS. We will get you the details on that, but I think it
is important, and I appreciate your willingness to help us gather
the information.
Let me just ask you a question that is a little bit off topic for
a moment. Now, it seems like Administrator Jackson and the EPA
are very concerned about asthma and asthma deaths. Is that a fair
statement?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes.
Mr. BURGESS. It seems like almost every hearing we have on almost anything, asthma deaths are brought up as one of the
metrics.
Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, air pollution generally the health impacts
of most concern are usually respiratory or cardiovascular, yes.
Mr. BURGESS. Well, one of the things that is just really perplexing to me, I am an asthma patient. I am on a long-term medication, and I also use a rescue inhaler. Now, occasionally, like anybody else, I will forget my medication. I travel a lot. And it is reassuring to know that I can go into any pharmacy in the country and
buy Primatene Mist over the counter. I dont have to go to the
emergency room. I dont have to get a doctors prescription for it.
I can just simply get the medication when needed and self-administer and avert a problem. But Primatene Mist is not going to be
available after January 1st, is it?
Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. If the FDA ban continues, yes,
that is true.
Mr. BURGESS. Well, it is not just the FDA. I mean, EPA is playing a role in this as well because of the propellant, the vehicle, the
CFC that actually propels the medication.
Ms. MCCARTHY. Certainly we have been working closely with
FDA for many years on this issue, yes.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
66
Mr. BURGESS. But the fact remains that because of the EPA, this
medication is no longer going to be available to me after January
1st.
Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, the fact remains, I think that just to clarify, this is an issue where there are CFCs that actually are used
in these inhalers, both in the ones you get by prescription and
there is one remaining that is over the counter that has an impact
on ozone layer, and as part of our obligation with the Montreal Protocol
Mr. BURGESS. I would submit that the volume of CFC that is released into the atmosphere from the contingent of asthma patients
that uses an occasional rescue inhaler that they buy at 2:00 in the
morning is vanishingly small and not responsible for the hole in
the ozone layer. And I will tell you, my own comfort at 2:00 in the
morning takes vastly more precedent than any potential theoretical
enlargement of the hole in the ozone layer. I just have to say, here
is an example of, we come in here and we talk about in lofty terms
that we want to prevent asthma deaths, and yet at the same time
the EPA and the FDA in concert are acting to keep the medication
out of the hands of the patients who so desperately need them. It
is irony to the nth degree, and I thank the chairman for allowing
me the indulgence.
Ms. MCCARTHY. I am happy to have the discussion and bring
back the dialog relative to FDAs determination as to whether or
not this inhaler is an essential use.
Mr. BURGESS. Look, you are not going to get me defending the
FDA. I promise you that. But both Federal agencies are playing a
role in this, and the fact remains, January 1st, patients all over the
country are not going to be able to get access to their medication.
If we are concerned about asthma, we would fix that.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you, Dr. Burgess, and appreciate
your raising that issue of sometimes unintended consequences.
At this time I recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
Scalise, for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you having
this hearing, and I want to thank my two colleagues that were presenting the legislation that we are discussing today. I strongly support the legislation and what we are trying to do is I think bring
some certainty to an area where is tremendous uncertainty, and
unfortunately, the uncertainty has cost jobs. It has cost a lot of
businesses, what we are seeing over and over from businesses in
my district and other districts. When you talk to colleagues all
around the country, you hear the same thing over and over. It is
not only the uncertainty but the actual threats from real regulations or potential regulations coming down from agencies like the
EPA that are impeding their ability to create jobs, that are impeding their ability to invest in their business, and I am looking forward to the next panel because we are going to hear from some
people who are actually on the ground dealing with this, and while
unfortunately some of my colleagues on the other side want to
make fun of this and, you know, want to tell jokes about fairy dust,
this is about real American jobs that are being lost because of these
regulations, you know, and yet some people just want to make fun
of that. They think it is funny that people in middle America, peo-
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
67
ple in rural America are looking at these regulations that are coming down and looking at the threats.
I want to read you to somethis is off of EPAs Web site. You
know, you are talking about some potential diseases coming, respiratory irritation, lung function reduction, asthma, inflamed damage to lungs, aggravated lung disease, permanent lung damage,
and I know you rattled off some other things in your opening testimony. I am not talking about dust particles. I am talking about the
ozone ruling. These were all the same things that EPA said were
threats that you need to have this ozone ruling, and even President
Obama said you are out of control. He pulled it back. And so when
you come before our committee and no matter what bill it is, if it
is Cement MACT or Boiler MACT or dust or ozone, you rattle off
the same things over and over about, you know, if we dont allow
you to go forward with this or we bring a bill to prevent some radical regulation from EPA, it is going to send more people to the
hospital and kids are going to get asthma and, you know. Lung disease, you know, you have been beating that drum for everything,
and even the President said that you are out of line. And so I hope,
you know, when you all come and oppose these commonsense bills
to just put certainty in place, to prevent some regulations from
coming in that arent there now that would put people out of business, when you keep saying the same things over and over about
threats to health, I mean, are you saying that the President doesnt
support public health because the President said you went too far.
Ms. MCCARTHY. I guess I am a little confused because I think
this bill was initiated because the Administrator actually made it
clear that she doesnt intend to propose a change in the PM10
standard at this time.
Mr. SCALISE. But then you should be OK with the bill because
the bill just says that you wont go forward with it. You are saying
you are not going to do it. The thing is, you have said you are not
going to do it on other areas, not you personally but EPA has done
this in the past, and the chairman brought this up. The chairman
of the committee talked about these consent decrees, these consent
agreements that some of these outside groups will come and sue
the EPA, and we have seen it with energy production, we have
seen it with other things, and then you all go into an agreement
with them. It is not a law, it is not even a rule, and yet you can
go into these consent agreements and all of a sudden there is a
new standard on the books that nobody agreed to. It wasnt Members of Congress that agreed to it, the elected representatives of
the people, it was some backroom deal cut either by a judge or,
even worse, some outside group who is a specialist interest that got
together with you all and you all came up with some kind of new
agreement that everybody has got to comply with, and it puts people out of business. It kills jobs in this country. And we are just
trying to say we are going to issue a preemptive strike before you
all are forced in that position. You might not even want to do it,
but if they bring you to court and all of a sudden some judge gives
some ruling, everybody in America, rural Americans, all these
farmers have to comply with this stuff. And I am trying to say, before you cost any more jobs, because you have already cost jobs,
whether you agree with it or not. We can bring in business owner
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
68
after business owner and job creators that can tell you thousands
of jobs in each industry that have been lost because of EPA regulations. We are just trying to say enough is enough before this new
one comes out. Let us stop it. What is so wrong about that when
you look at all the outside groups whoyou are looking at over 100
farmer groups, U.S. Chamber, National Association of Manufacturers, all these farm groups. I mean, I saw a story from the Illinois
Farm Bureau. I mean, do you think they are just making up stuff?
Do you think they are having imaginations about fairy dust, as it
was suggested? I mean, these are people that on the ground trying
to just create jobs and they are scared to death of what is coming
down the pike from EPA.
Ms. MCCARTHY. Congressman, the language in this bill goes far
beyond the interest that you have expressed in making sure that
the Administrators decision to not propose to change the
Mr. SCALISE. All right. So if you dont like the language, then
what you are saying is, you are OK with some kind of prohibition,
you dont like this
Ms. MCCARTHY. All I am suggesting is that this law is not necessary.
Mr. SCALISE. I think a lot of hard-working farmers out there
would
Ms. MCCARTHY. And the only other
Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. Disagree, but I yield back. I am out of
time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlemans time is expired.
I recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Gardner, for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms.
McCarthy for your time here today. I truly appreciate it.
We have talked a lot today, EPA currently has a PM10 standard,
dust standard. Is that correct?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes.
Mr. GARDNER. And that basically means 150 microns per cubic
meter of air at the 99th percentile. Is that what it means?
Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct.
Mr. GARDNER. Which means you get about 3 days over the standard average over a 3-year period and you are still in compliance.
Is that correct?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes.
Mr. GARDNER. OK. Does that standard apply across the country?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes.
Mr. GARDNER. Are there areas of the country that are in nonattainment for PM10?
Ms. MCCARTHY. There are.
Mr. GARDNER. And where are these areas?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I can certainly point them out to you. For
the most part, they are in the western part of the United States.
I would certainly be happy to share this with you. These
Mr. GARDNER. Southern California, Arizona?
Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Are the 45 areas. That is right.
Mr. GARDNER. Thank you. Do any of these nonattainment areas
have any agriculture production?
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
69
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, many of them do. I think there isit is primarily around urban areas where we monitor we most closely.
Mr. GARDNER. What requirements are placed on those producers
if they farm in a nonattainment area?
Ms. MCCARTHY. It all depends. They may not be seen as contributing significantly to the nonattainment, in which case there is no
obligation. In areas where they have been identified, which represent a couple of counties that I know about, there are a number
of best management practices that have been developed with USDA
and the farming community. They tend to choose what is most appropriate off that list and implement those measures.
Mr. GARDNER. Well, I am glad you mentioned that, because in
fact, since there is nobody on this committee from Arizona, I do
have where some of the nonattainment areas are. I would like to
ask that these documents be submitted to the record, Arizonas
mandatory BMPs, best management practices, for rural crop agriculture and mandatory BMPs for livestock producers.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.034
70
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.035
71
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.036
72
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.037
73
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.038
74
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.039
75
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.040
76
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.041
77
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.042
78
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.043
79
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.044
80
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.045
81
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.046
82
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.047
83
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.048
84
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.049
85
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.050
86
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.051
87
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.052
88
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.053
89
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.054
90
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.055
91
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.056
92
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.057
93
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.058
94
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.059
95
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.060
96
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.061
97
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.062
98
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.063
99
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.064
100
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.065
101
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.066
102
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.067
103
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.068
104
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.069
105
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.070
106
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.071
107
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.072
108
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.073
109
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.074
110
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.075
111
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.076
112
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.077
113
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.078
114
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.079
115
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.080
116
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.081
117
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.082
118
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.083
119
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.084
120
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.085
121
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.086
122
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.087
123
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.088
124
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.089
125
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.090
126
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.091
127
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.092
128
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.093
129
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.094
130
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.095
131
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.096
132
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00139
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.097
133
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.098
134
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00141
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.099
135
136
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you.
Mr. GARDNER. And it seems that based on these documents, the
results of the PM10 standard that are set by the EPA that you currently regulate farm dust. That is what these documents are here
for because of the regulations on dust that occurs in agriculture,
farm dust. Now, I understand, I live in Colorado, it is very dry. I
would love to ban dust. It seems like that is all we do is dust. We
have worn the coffee table out with it. But I was just curious, your
statement, and I have heard others say it is a myth that EPA is
trying to regulate dust but you already do. Is that correct?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, we establish health-based standards. It
is up to the States and the local communities to determine what
is most appropriate to regulate.
Mr. GARDNER. But that is on dust, right? You do regulate dust?
Ms. MCCARTHY. We establish National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
Mr. GARDNER. The answer is yes, you regulate dust? I mean, that
is why you have these best management practices here that are
about farm dust.
Ms. MCCARTHY. I believe that that is a regulation in Arizona and
it being
Mr. GARDNER. So Arizona just has this regulation, not because
of the EPA?
Ms. MCCARTHY. No, it is very directly a linkage because of the
health consequences associated with coarse particles, some of
which may be from farms if they determine that there is significant
Mr. GARDNER. Which is farm dust and so you are causing them
to regulate farm dust?
Ms. MCCARTHY. We could probably continue this for a while but
I do notwe do not directly regulate farm dust. We have no farm
dust regulations. What we have is National Ambient Air Quality
Standards that regulate coarse and fine particles, which many
businesses, industries as well as some agricultural
Mr. GARDNER. So let me rephrase my question. Do you regulate
dust from farms? Maybe that is a different question. You know,
farm dust, maybe there is no specific category for defining farm
dust but do you regulate dust from farms?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I really am not trying to be evasive. Let me tell
you how
Mr. GARDNER. But, see, the problem here is that what my district sees. This district is the 11th largest ag-producing district in
this Congress out of 435. It is not fairy dust to them. This is a very
real issue.
Ms. MCCARTHY. I am not suggesting this is not a serious issue.
Mr. GARDNER. EPA also suggested that they werent going to regulate milk from dairies but they had to actually put something in
theremilk spills at dairies but they had to put something in the
Federal regulations saying they werent going to regulate milk
spills. You can see the problem that we face when it comes to the
EPA and how our farmers and ranchers are trying to deal with it.
We have best management practices from States that are dealing
with the regulation of dust from farms. Now, whether that is farm
dust or not, maybe that is a point of distinction.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00142
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
137
Ms. MCCARTHY. In areas where farm dust contributes to nonattainment and imposes health concerns in those communities,
there is certainly both a right and an obligation to take a look at
those issues and to see if there are cost-effective practices that can
be put in place that would reduce the health consequences associated with those emissions. But so I dont see anything wrong with
that. In fact, I see that as a good practice to continue.
Mr. GARDNER. So do you think there should be regulations on
dust from farms?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I believe that there should be regulations on
coarse particles, and coarse particles, no matter where they are
emitted from, can be reduced in areas where they are causing a
health burden that they should be reduced if they can be done costeffectively
Mr. GARDNER. So the answer is yes
Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. And practically.
Mr. GARDNER [continuing]. Dust from farms ought to be regulated?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I did not say that, no.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlemans time is up.
At this time I recognize Mr. Pompeo of Kansas for 5 minutes.
Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. McCarthy, for being here today.
I want to spend time on the statute but first I do want to clarify.
Mr. Markey didnt take this very seriously. He talked about fairy
dust. He talked about myths and fake Congressmen and fictitious
things. Do you agree with him? Is this a myth? Are the 100 folks
who signed that letter in support and everybody who talks to me
back in Kansas, are they irrational, ignorant or just sadly mislead?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I think there are many misunderstandings here,
and there are complexities here that people dont understand. I certainly understand
Mr. POMPEO. So they are ignorant?
Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. That the agricultural community is
concerned. I do recognize the importance of the agricultural community, and we certainly dont want EPA to look like it is adding
burden on the farming community when in essence the Administrator has clearly said she has no intention of proposing a change
in this PM standard. All of that is very real.
Mr. POMPEO. I appreciate that. So you disagree with Mr. Markey? You take this seriously?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I take my job very seriously.
Mr. POMPEO. I appreciate that.
I want to talk about what the proposed legislation does and what
it does not do. Mr. Waxman talked about this eviscerating, gutting
the Clean Air Act. I think that is the 57th time I have heard that
in 10 months. Everything we do guts the Clean Air Act. He talked
about taking away, eliminating regulations. This doesnt eliminate
any regulation. This just gives the States the ability to do it, and
if they dont do it adequately, you can come in and clean up their
mess. Isnt that right? As I read this language, isnt that exactly
what it says? This doesnt deny anybodys ability to regulate this
coarse particulate matter. It just says we are going to give that to
the States, and if you dont get it right, we will come in and make
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
138
an adverse health finding, we will do a cost-benefit analysis and
Ms. McCarthy will come in and clean up the mess, right?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I think that if what you are saying is right, what
you are saying is rolling back national standards, health standards
that are necessary for public health protection. You are talking
about giving those to local communities or States that certainly
dont have the scientific or the resource wherewithal to be able to
make this happen. So I would say in essence you are actually gutting the Clean Air Act.
Mr. POMPEO. Wow. So you think the States are completely incapable of making sure they can take care of the health of Kansas.
My Governor, Governor Brownback and his Kansas Department of
Health and Environment, are incapable of protecting the health of
their citizens?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, I would
Mr. POMPEO. They dont have the resources. You said they dont
have the resources or the scientific knowledge out in flyover country?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I would say that the way in which nuisance dust
is defined here in what you would need to do to regulate it is potentially beyond the wherewithal of EPA and our scientists at this
point in time, and I certainly wouldnt want that burden imposed
on States and local communities.
Mr. POMPEO. Last point. So I think it was Mr. Waxman and you
had a little colloquy about all the horrors that could follow. We
could have school buses killing children, large open pit mining exemptions, and you said that this language might prevent the EPA
from regulating those. This really isnt a question. This is a statement and my observation. You have never let statutory language
get in the way of your efforts to regulate things. We have made
things clear. We make them explicit and you run through stop
signs. And so here we have got language which doesnt talk about
school buses and yet you and Mr. Waxman say that this is going
to allow school buses to do great harm. Do you really believe that
this language would preclude you from doing those kinds of regulation for power sources and for school buses? My question is, do you
believe that this language would preclude you?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I believe that it very well could.
Mr. POMPEO. It very well could?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes.
Mr. POMPEO. So you would sit with your team and you would say
I dont think we can do that?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, one of the issues is, I am trying to understand what it was intended to do. Was it intended to do that?
Mr. POMPEO. Well, you said before, it doesnt matter, right? You
said what does the language do. I think it is very clear what the
language does. This language grants the rights to the States to regulate this and keep their folks safe, and then if there are health
adverse health effects and if a cost-benefit analysis is completed,
you all can go fix it. So I think it is very clear. We are trying to
prevent EPA from doing not what an imaginary Congressman said
they would do and not what some silly email chain that was fraudulent centered on but what your EPA staff said they were considering.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00144
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
139
Ms. MCCARTHY. So this bill is actually intended not just to prevent the Administrator from ever being able to advance or enhance
regulation of farm dust or coarse particles, it is actually intended
to roll back 24 years of history in regulating coarse particles that
started with the Reagan administration, that continued to the
Bush administration, that protects public health today. That is the
intent of this bill.
Mr. POMPEO. My time is up. It is intended to do precisely what
it says it will do. It is intended to stop the EPA from regulating
farm dust, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
All right. Let us get back into this and we will pick up right
where we left off with Mr. Pompeo, because I am trying to figure
it out, and I dont think that the intent of this bill is to do any of
the things that you think it is intended or that you were trying to
imply that Mr. Pompeo was saying it is going to do. I think it is
regulating farm dust. That being said, would you all support this
bill if you changed on line 15, page 3do you have the bill in front
of you, maam?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I do have it in front of me somewhere. Yes, I
have it.
Mr. GRIFFITH. If you changed on line 15and I am not speaking
for the patrons, I am just asking. On line 15, if you change the or
to an and, wouldnt that resolve all of your semantic problems or
all of your language problems?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I am really not prepared at this time to negotiate the bill. What I will say is that I think that in
Mr. GRIFFITH. Just look at the plain language of the bill. If you
put an and there, there is no way anybody on earth could interpret that that would allow mining. Isnt that correct?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I do not know the answer. I can certainly go
back and take a look at it.
Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. Let us talk about this
Ms. MCCARTHY. Could I just point out, one of the confusing
things in the definition, it is
Mr. GRIFFITH. I will take back my time, maam.
Ms. MCCARTHY. OK. I am sorry.
Mr. GRIFFITH. You know, I think most of us over here were offended by the fairy dust comment, and I was concerned about it
enough that I got Representative Hurt to bring me his language,
and apparently in his district, there was a farmer who has already
been warned by a State regulator. Now, you indicated you werent
aware of State regulations in Virginia, and I am happy to share
those with you, if you would like, and these are the regs, not the
underlying law but the regs in Virginia which talk about fugitive
dust, and I guess what I want to know is, is that based on your
earlier testimony, my impression is, is that you have all indicated
to the States that this is the direction that they should go in. Is
that not correct? You have indicated to the States that they should
be regulating fugitive dust from agricultural sites? Is that not correct?
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
140
Ms. MCCARTHY. Not that I am aware of. In fact, even in the
coarse particulate standard, our monitoring that we base our nonattainment decisions on is focused on urban areas. It is both focused on where there is the highest levels of pollution as well as
where there is most population exposed. So we do not focus on
rural areas as we implement that standard. So
Mr. GRIFFITH. But as you have indicated, as time goes by, if
there a coarse particulate matter issue, you all are going to go in
and regulate that. And I guess one of my concerns is, is that in regard to another set of regulations, not this one, back when I served
in the Virginia legislature on the Virginia Joint Commission on Administrative Rules and Regulations, we had an issue that came up
and it looked like it was Virginia enacting something that we just
thought was foolish, and when we pushed on it, they said well, we
have been told by the EPA we have to do this. This was
stormwater management. And we said well, bring them in, and the
EPA came in and basically said that, you know, Virginia didnt
have any rights even outside of the Chesapeake Bay area and that
they were going to force us to do it one way or another. And so I
want to know, are we dealing with the same kind of situation with
dust? Are you all going to tell the States that they have to do this
or youre going to come in and tell them how to do it?
Ms. MCCARTHY. This is a National Ambient Air Quality Standard. That means that when States are implementing the program,
they make their own judgments about what is cost-effective in
terms of an implementation strategy for their States, and to the extent that it is lawful, EPA respects that judgment.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Since this bill at this time only has a 1-year time
limit or time period in it and you all have indicated that you are
not planning to go forward with any new regulations on agricultural dust, why the opposition? Why dont you join in and support
the bill?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, it has two sections. The first one is the
one that talks about a 1-year limit, but it is really not limited to
coarse particles. It really spills into our ability to regulate fine particles. And section 3 really attempts to exempt nuisance dust from
regulation altogether, and because of how broadly that is defined,
it can certainly leak into all areas of the Clean Air Act and prevent
us from being able to maintain the kind of health standards we
have had for decades and the protections that the American people
expect.
Mr. GRIFFITH. But you do understand why people, as Mr. Gardner pointed out and others, why people are a little gun-shy when
it comes to the EPA because we have seen things that dont make
sense and we had had, in fairness, the States have been run roughshod at times by the EPA, and so when we hear some of these
things, we dont always necessarily feel comfortable with it and we
may at some point reach a level of trust but we are always going
to have to verify.
Thank you. I yield back my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time the chair recognizes the gentlelady
Ms. McMorris Rodgers for 5 minutes from Washington State.
Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the time and I appreciate Ms. McCarthy for being here. You
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00146
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
141
know, I too am struggling with the long list of regulations that
have been proposed by the EPA administration this year, and at
a time when unemployment in this country is at a record high, we
continue to face one regulation after another that is making it, if
not difficult, impossible for people to comply. I had someone in my
office just the other day who said Cathy, the only way we can comply with the long list of regulations coming out of EPA is to simply
not operate, and that is the fear that our farmers and ranchers face
right now, and it seems that the administration is moving forward
without the scientific, proven health benefits of many of these regulations.
Now, 5 years ago, EPA concluded that the current PMT standard
was appropriate, and yet today in many regions, they are still
striving to comply with that standard. And that is why it makes
us a little perplexed as to why earlier in the year EPA was recommending a stricter standard, and so in eastern Washington, whether we are working in the fields or herding our cattle or driving
down a dirt road, dust is going to be kicked up, and that farm dust
is a byproduct of American labor, not an air pollutant. So I understand that the Administrator has stated that the current standard,
which has been in effect since 1987, will be continued. However, I
too believe that farmers and ranchers in eastern Washington need
more certainty. So I wanted to ask you, what made EPA go from
earlier in the year proposing to exempt agriculture and mining to
finalizing a standard that does not exempt them?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, that was an action that the Bush administration proposed in 2005 when it was doing its NAAQS review of the PM standard. They did propose to exempt agriculture
from regulation. On the basis of all the comments that the Bush
administration heard, they believed that the science was strongly
indicating that it needed to be included within the definition of
coarse particles and they didnt exempt it. That was not this administration, that was the Bush administration. And EPA has yet
to propose anything. And if and when we do, the Administrator has
made it clear what she intends to propose. When that is finalized
if that is challenged and it goes to court, if we lose that challenge
we re-look at the NAAQS, but you are in no immediate danger of
actually happening.
Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. But earlier in the year, you were proposing different standards, so what made you change
Ms. MCCARTHY. We actually had never proposed anything. What
we were proposing on PM10 was to wait for the Integrated Science
Assessment. The Clean Air Science Advisory Committee did propose that the Administrator consider changing both the standard
and form, which really wouldnt have made the standard more
stringent but it would have changed levels of protection in the
country, and when the staff looked at that, they believed that the
data wasnt certain enough to warrant a recommendation solely to
revise so the staff actually proposed two recommendations, one to
keep it and one to revise it. When the Administrator looked at that,
as she indicated in her letter, her assessment was that the science
wasnt certain enough to warrant a change in the form and standard and that she was going to propose retaining that standard.
That is how it has worked out. And there has been a lot of mis-
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00147
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
142
understanding. So I apologize, but we did notwe have not put out
a proposal in this administration relative to PM10 or 2.5.
Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. It feels like the administration continues to flip-flop, though, on where they are going to be on possibly proposing and when they might come, and so I guess I just
want to alsoit just begs the question, why are you opposing what
is a very simple bill to clarify and send a clear signal to our farmers and ranchers that farm dust that is stirred up while they are
working in the fields will not be regulated?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I tried to make it clear that that is not what this
bill says or does.
Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Would you be willing towould you
give us your recommendations on how we could write that bill?
Ms. MCCARTHY. We would certainly provide any assistance we
can to the committee and that the chairman asks us to provide. I
will tell you that it is a little baffling to me, because generally I
am here because we are proposing to do something that you disagree with. Now we are proposing to do something that you agree
with, and I am still here. There is got to be something we can do
that
Mr. WHITFIELD. We like you, Ms. McCarthy.
Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. It is the fear of what you might do in
this example.
Ms. MCCARTHY. But in one case, the fear is that the Administrator will be proposing something and it is sure to happen. In this
case, the Administrator may be proposing something and you dont
think it is going to happen. The Administrator has been really
clear. She is given this discretion under the law, and she will use
that discretion wisely and she has made it clear the direction that
we are heading.
Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. We have heard you say many times
today at this point in time and we dont know when that might
change.
I yield back.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, on that note, I would, if I could, ask
unanimous consent to enter into the record the EPA technical assistance letter requested by myself and Ranking Member Waxman.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.100
143
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.101
144
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00151
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.102
145
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00152
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.103
146
147
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you so much.
At this time I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
Bilbray, for 5 minutes.
Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I was sort of taken back by comments made by the gentleman
from Santa Monica that somehow there is no regulation on farming
and nobody is proposing regulations on farming and that the whole
concept of regulating farming is a myth, and I would like you to
kind of, you know, bring me back up to speed. It has been a while
since I have been in the clean air, you know, game. Wasnt there
or isnt there an ongoing program to reduce silicone emissions in
the western San Joaquin Valley?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, there is.
Mr. BILBRAY. And that is PM10, maam, and 2.5?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, that is true.
Mr. BILBRAY. OK. So isnt there also an ongoing program to reduce or eliminate the use of gravel or the use of gravel roads in
the Sierra Nevada because of the dust potential with serpentine
being used as the gravel?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I am not aware of that. I apologize.
Mr. BILBRAY. OK. If you could ask your staff to take a look at
that.
And then the Owens Valley is a very rural, very isolated area.
Have they abandoned their concept of particulate management in
the Owens Valley?
Ms. MCCARTHY. No, there are many areas in California that are
out of attainment of those standards and that work with the agricultural and other communities to try to reduce dust.
Mr. BILBRAY. So for the record, there has been historically intervention in a rural area by regulatory agencies to control and regulate both PM10 and 2.5?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes.
Mr. BILBRAY. OK. I just want to make that clear because the reference was like nobody has ever done this, we are not talking
about this, and the fact is, when somebody out in the West starts
talking about this, you know, let me tell you, the gentleman from
Santa Monica is saying in our own State we have had extensive
impact on ag and rural area impacts in our clean air management,
and I think it is disingenuous to tell the rest of the country that
these things havent happened and wont happen and dont be worried about it. I think there is a very real situation that we ought
to be open and frank about and not try to deny the fact that there
is a real potential, either now or in the future, that farming operations, that rural activities will be severely impacted in their traditional historical manner of operation because we are looking at addressing both of these particulate issues. Is that fair to say?
Ms. MCCARTHY. I am sorry. I think I sort of
Mr. BILBRAY. Is it fair to say that from the history of what we
have done in other parts of this country to manage the particulate
issue that it is unfair to tell the people in the rest of rural America
that there is no way they are going to be impacted, no way that
their operations may be modified?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Ever? I certainly would never make that claim
one way or the other.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
148
Mr. BILBRAY. I justfarming has been curtailed in California in
certain areas during certain times of the year. Farming has been
impacted. The use of water and the way the water was distributed
in a State that is dying for water has been impacted through this
management practices on this, and I just think we need to clarify
that, you know, there is this issue of once you justify taking action
on the item, you do not say rural, urban has a different game. You
do not say farming will be protected in our implementation. Everybody is thrown into the pile. There is no guarantee that traditional
agricultural activities will not be severely impacted once you start
implementing the programs, right?
Ms. MCCARTHY. You look at all sources of pollution. I will say in
terms of agriculture that how the States and local air districts have
worked with USDA and the agriculture community has actually be
very collaborative, and in the San Joaquin Valley, as far as I know,
it has been enormously successful.
Mr. BILBRAY. Well, I think that if we see the impact and a lot
of the concerns over there, and the Owens Valley is the other one
that still is a real issue of do we use our water to feed our cities
and our crops or do we use the water to spray over the Owens Valley to reduce the particulate matter. That is the kind of catch-22
that we get into.
Ms. MCCARTHY. One of the reasons why we work with USDA is
there are a number of strategies that the farming community can
employ. Many of them are supported by
Mr. BILBRAY. To interrupt, I want to make it clear. You made a
statement that this impacts urban areas, and I think you want to
correct that. It does not only urban areas. Rural areas are impacted
severely with the PM10 and 2.5 and the potential. A nonattainment
area does not know if it is an urban area or rural area. Nonattainment areas are managed as one proposal.
Ms. MCCARTHY. May I clarify the point I was trying to make?
Mr. BILBRAY. Yes.
Ms. MCCARTHY. I am sorry.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Go ahead.
Ms. MCCARTHY. Very quickly. What I was talking about is how
you identify nonattainment areas. We monitor nonattainment
areas. We dont model them. Our monitoring is focused on areas
where you have both high levels as well as high population density.
So even in the areas that you are talking about, they are surrounding high population density areas, although the rural areas
may come in as part of the nonattainment area.
Mr. BILBRAY. Excuse me, maam. The Central Valley is not an
urban area, and the great majority is nonattainment. I yield back.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Ms. McCarthy, you raised an interesting issue
on the monitors. Would you provide the committee with a list of
where monitors are located by State and how that is determined?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Of course.
It looks like there are no more questions, so Ms. McCarthy,
thanks very much for being with us today. We appreciate your time
and look forward to working with you as we move forward.
At this time I would like to call up the third panel. On the third
panel, we have seven witnesses. First, Mr. Steve Foglesong, who is
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
149
a ranch owner of the Black Gold Cattle Company and immediate
past President of the National Cattlemens Beef Association. We
have Mr. Kevin Rogers, who is the President of the Arizona Farm
Bureau, who is testifying on behalf of the American Farm Bureau.
We have Mr. Pete Lien, who is the President of Pete Lien and
Sons, Inc., who is testifying on behalf of National Stone, Sand and
Gravel Association. We have Mr. Till von Wachter, PhD, Associate
Professor of Economics at Columbia University. We have Mr. John
Walke, who is Senior Attorney and Director of the Clean Air Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. And we have
Gregory Wellenius, who is Assistant Professor of Community
Health at Brown University.
So I want to thank all of you for joining us this afternoon to discuss H.R. 1633 and the regulation of particulate matter. We look
forward to your testimony. Each one of you will be recognized for
5 minutes for your opening statement, and so Mr. Foglesong, we
will start with you and you will be recognized for 5 minutes, and
be sure and turn your microphone on.
STATEMENTS OF STEVE FOGLESONG, RANCH OWNER, BLACK
GOLD CATTLE COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL
CATTLEMENS BEEF ASSOCIATION; KEVIN ROGERS, PRESIDENT, ARIZONA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, ON BEHALF
OF AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION; PETE LIEN,
PRESIDENT, PETER LIEN & SONS, INC., ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL STONE, SAND AND GRAVEL ASSOCIATION; KURT E.
BLASE, PARTNER, HOLLAND & KNIGHT, ON BEHALF OF
COARSE PARTICULATE MATTER COALITION; TILL VON
WACHTER, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY; JOHN WALKE, SENIOR ATTORNEY AND
CLEAN AIR DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL; AND GREGORY WELLENIUS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, BROWN UNIVERSITY
STATEMENT OF STEVE FOGLESONG
Mr. FOGLESONG. There we go. Thank you for the technological

advice. Us ranchers sometimes struggle with that.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, everyone forgets.
Mr. FOGLESONG. Oh, OK. I am feeling more comfortable all the
time.
Good morning, Chairman Whitfield and Ranking Member Rush
and members of the subcommittee. Anybody that knows anything
about cattle ranching and feeding knows that many operations are
located where wind blows, and that makes dust a part of everyday
life. The idea that the EPA may decide to require me and other cattle producers in every part of the country to somehow control that
dust gives me cause to lose a lot of sleep at night. The fact is, farmers and ranchers want and need certainty about this issue.
While I and ranchers across the United States are pleased the
EPA has decided not to propose to lower the standard this year, we
cant be 100 percent sure of that outcome of the rulemaking until
it is final. In fact, in 1996 the EPA proposed to remove the PM10
24-hour standard altogether only to bring it back in the final rule,
and then again in 2006 the EPA proposed to exempt ag dust. That
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00155
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
150
exemption also disappeared in the final rule. In addition, even if
the EPA retains the current dust standard, the opportunity remains for that agency to tighten it in the future. Unless Congress
passes the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, that threat remains.
Now, I know that the EPA currently regulates dust. Cattle operations have found it very difficult and expensive to comply. One operation that I know of in Arizona spent $400,000 to comply with
that current standard. That is $1,000 a day just to control dust.
Most of that is to sprinkle water in those pens, and that is just the
current standard. Just think about how much it would cost if the
EPA were to actually lower that standard in the future. If that
happens, the simple fact is that many farms and ranches may be
forced out of business.
Ranchers have been concerned about that possibility for many
years but most recently the fear surfaced when EPA revealed it is
considering making the dust standard essentially twice as stringent as the current standard. NCBA and the Coarse Particulate
Matter Coalition commissioned a study on the impact of the possible new dust regulation on rural America. The study determined
that vast areas of the Midwest, Southwest and western parts of the
United States would be thrown into the brink of nonattainment if
not completely into that nonattainment altogether.
It would be one thing if there were a good reason to regulate
farm dust, but there is not. The regulation of dust under the Clean
Air Act is supposed to be based on scientific evidence of adverse
health effects. Historically, there has been no such evidence of adverse health effects from dust at ambient levels but EPA has decided to regulate it anyway. Why? In 2006, EPA based its decision
on the precautionary principle. That is right. EPAs dust regulation
is not based on science but on supposition. Let me explain. Particulate matter is separated into two distinct sizes and kinds of matter.
Fine PM is combustion-driven material and the size range of 2.5
microns and smaller, known as PM2.5. That is cigarette smoke.
Coarse particulate matter, or dust, on the other hand, is bigger
particles in the range of 10 microns and smaller down to 2.5 microns. PM10 includes both sizes and kinds of particles. The reason
I mention particle size and composition is because, incredibly, the
EPA is regulating dust using scientific studies that show adverse
health effects that may all be caused by combustion-type fine PM,
not dust. The studies EPA reviewed are studies looking at the
health effects of PM10 from urban areas that are contaminated with
combustion-type fine PM. Any adverse health effects the studies reveal may well be caused by the fine PM, not the coarse PM.
Use of these studies to identify health effects for purposes of establishing a coarse PM dust standard is inappropriate, especially
for rural areas, where urban contaminants are not a concern. Nevertheless, EPA uses a single standard to regulate dust in urban
and rural areas. The contaminant issue I mentioned is just one of
many problems with the EPAs PM10 studies.
I am not a scientist or a medical doctor but I want a confirmation, so we asked Dr. Jonathan Borak, Clinical Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health at Yale University School of Medicine,
to review EPAs health studies. Dr. Borak is a highly respected sci-
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00156
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
151
entist and in fact was one of the founding members of EPAs own
Scientific Advisory Committee. He found many problems with the
studies on which EPA relies and determined that those studies do
not establish risk from a health basis for dust regulation. I have
attached his comments to my testimony for the record.
In an effort to bring a little common sense back into this process,
cattlemen believe that the best solution is for Congress to pass the
Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011. Regulatory uncertainty is unnecessary and unproductive. If EPA follows though and
does not revise the dust standard, this action would to some degree
provide us with certainty but for no more than 5 years. It provides
no relief to producers who are spending over $1,000 a day on dust
control measures right now. We need immediate, permanent relief
from Federal dust regulations on farms and cattlemen believe the
best way to achieve that is by passing the Farm Dust Regulation
Prevention Act.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Foglesong follows:]
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00157
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00158
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.104
152
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00159
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.105
153
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00160
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.106
154
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00161
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.107
155
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00162
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.108
156
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00163
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.109
157
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00164
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.110
158
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00165
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.111
159
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00166
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.112
160
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00167
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.113
161
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00168
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.114
162
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00169
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.115
163
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00170
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.116
164
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00171
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.117
165
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00172
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.118
166
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00173
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.119
167
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00174
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.120
168
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00175
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.121
169
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00176
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.122
170
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00177
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.123
171
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00178
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.124
172
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00179
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.125
173
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00180
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.126
174
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00181
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.127
175
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00182
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.128
176
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00183
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.129
177
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00184
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.130
178
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00185
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.131
179
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00186
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.132
180
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00187
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.133
181
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00188
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.134
182
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00189
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.135
183
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00190
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.136
184
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00191
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.137
185
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00192
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.138
186
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00193
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.139
187
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00194
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.140
188
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00195
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.141
189
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00196
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.142
190
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00197
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.143
191
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00198
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.144
192
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00199
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.145
193
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00200
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.146
194
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00201
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.147
195
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00202
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.148
196
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00203
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.149
197
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00204
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.150
198
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00205
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.151
199
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00206
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.152
200
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00207
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.153
201
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00208
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.154
202
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00209
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.155
203
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00210
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.156
204
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00211
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.157
205
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00212
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.158
206
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00213
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.159
207
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00214
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.160
208
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00215
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.161
209
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00216
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.162
210
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00217
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.163
211
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00218
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.164
212
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00219
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.165
213
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00220
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.166
214
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00221
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.167
215
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00222
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.168
216
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00223
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.169
217
218
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Foglesong.
Mr. Rogers, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN ROGERS
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the subcommittee, my name is Kevin Rogers. I am a fourth-generation
farmer. I farm with my family over 7,000 acres of land in Arizona.
We produce cotton, alfalfa, wheat, barley and corn silage. I am currently the President of the Arizona Farm Bureau and I also serve
on the USDA Air Quality Task Force, which advises the Secretary
of Agriculture on Federal clean air policies that affect farmers.
I am pleased today to testify on behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation in support of H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation
Prevention Act. My farm in Arizona lies in one of the worst areas
for dust PM 10 in the Nation. Within the past couple of months,
four huge naturally occurring dust clouds rose from the desert floor
and swept over Phoenix. Also, some of that happened in Texas as
well. It covered Tucson in southern Arizona as well. This is the
dust that EPA regulates under the coarse particulate matter with
the National Ambient Air Quality Standard. H.R. 1633 provides a
reasonable and commonsense approach to controlling ambient PM
in a way that recognizes the natural occurrence of farm dust while
also recognizing the public health mandate the Clean Air Act requires. By excluding nuisance farm dust from regulation, the bill
allows EPA to continue regulating manmade emissions of particulate matter while at the same time not trying to regulate natural
occurrences. The exclusion focuses EPAs attention on things that
EPA can control rather than trying to regulate nature.
The bill does not roll back any EPA protections afforded under
the Clean Air Act. Rather, it reinforces the idea that regulatory decisions should be based on sound science.
The record here is clear that scientific data on possible health effects of PM10, or dust, is highly uncertain. The bill provides the
necessary flexibility for EPA to step in and regulate if the science
more conclusively shows the naturally occurring farm dust causes
adverse health effects. The bill recognizes the great disparity in the
coarse PM10 ambient air quality levels from one part of the country
to another, from rural to urban areas, by providing for State and
local regulation of rural nuisance dust from farming areas. The bill
allows management flexibility to deal with unique local circumstances.
We do applaud the recent announcement by Administrator Jackson that EPA will not propose changes to the current PM10 standard. That does not mean that farm dust is not or will not be regulated under the Clean Air Act. For those of us in a coarse PM10
nonattainment area, our activities have already been regulated and
will continue to be regulated. The Phoenix area has not been in
compliance with the coarse PM10 NAAQS standard for many years.
Arizona Farm Bureau participated with the State to develop a
coarse PM10 permit to control agricultural PM10 emissions and reduce our agricultural practices that produce PM. The program developed best management practices in three different categories.
The farmers are required to adopt one BMP in each category. The
program was recently amended to require two BMPs from each cat-
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00224
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
219
egory. Now the EPA and the State, because we continue to be in
a nonattainment area, are pushing for more restrictions and mandating restrictions against working the fields when winds reach a
certain speed.
All farms and ranches activities in a nonattainment area are regulated under the Clean Air Act. The program we have is a mandatory program, and all producers must participate. Those who do not
participate in our BMP program must obtain an individual air permit, similar to those required by utilities and factories. BMPs include practices such as tillage based on soil moisture, not working
the fields in windy conditions, modifying equipment to prevent PM
generation, speed limits on unpaved roads, planting wind breaks
and permanent cover crops, just to name a few. All these activities
place restrictions on farming operations and have economic consequences.
I can tell you that if I am required to park my tractor on windy
days or when soil moisture is insufficient, it continues to cost me
time and money in lost labor and productivity, or if I am required
to have my employees drive 15 miles an hour on my farm dirt
roads, it will greatly increase the time we must spend on these
roads, taking time away from engaging in other more productive
activities. Others with similar restrictions suffer similar economic
hardships.
The fact that Administrator Jackson has determined to retain
the current coarse PM10 standard for the next 5 years is very good
news, but it only addresses one part of the dust problem facing
rural America. H.R. 1633, by excluding naturally occurring nuisance farm dust from the Clean Air Act, unless the science is more
conclusive, warrants it, addresses the other.
I thank the committee for your time and look forward to answering questions when it is appropriate.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rogers follows:]
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00225
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00226
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.170
220
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00227
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.171
221
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00228
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.172
222
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00229
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.173
223
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00230
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.174
224
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00231
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.175
225
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00232
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.176
226
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00233
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.177
227
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00234
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.178
228
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00235
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.179
229
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00236
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.180
230
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00237
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.181
231
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00238
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.182
232
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00239
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.183
233
234
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Lien, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF PETE LIEN
Mr. LIEN. Chairman Whitfield and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on behalf of the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association at this hearing on the
Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, which would prevent the
harmful effects of EPAs regulations of nuisance dust.
My name is Pete Lien. I am President of Pete Lien and Sons of
South Dakota, which was started in 1944 by my grandfather. Representative Noem is my Congresswoman, and I am pleased to express NSSGAs support of her legislation.
My associations members produce more than 90 percent of the
crushed stone and 70 percent of the sand and gravel consumed annually in the United States. There are more than 10,000 construction aggregate operations nationwide. Aggregates are the chief ingredients in asphalt, concrete and used in nearly all residential,
commercial and industrial building construction and in most public
works projects including roads, highways, bridges, dams, airports,
water and sewage treatment plants, and tunnels
The aggregates industry has experienced the most severe recession in its history. Production of aggregates has gone from 3 billion
metric tons valued at $21 billion in 2006 to 2 billion metric tons
valued at $17 billion in 2010, a drop of $4 billion. Of particular importance to this hearing is 70 percent of NSSGA members are considered small businesses and many are located in rural area.
NSSGA members are committed to full compliance with all pertinent environmental laws and regulations and emphasize sustainable practices. I am proud to say my own family business has reserves and plans for 200 years of operation into the future. We
have also won numerous awards including a letter of commendation from the Bureau of Land Management for reclamation before
reclamation was even required by law. We are the winner of the
NSSGAs Environmental Steward Award, and the only quarry ever
to win EPAs Earth Care Award, which was presented by Robert
Redford.
Like agriculture, resource-based industries such as aggregate
producers have limited opportunities to reduce dust. To meet the
current standard for dust, or PM10, aggregate facilities are required
to have permits with State environmental agencies which seem to
control dust by limiting production and requiring control technologies to limit dust on crushers and other equipment and road
maintenance. Some dust is generated at an aggregates operation by
crushing stone and truck traffic. However, most of it is from uncontrollable sources such as from roads and windblown dust, particularly in our rural areas.
There is no practical way to control natural dust sources in the
West and Southwest and reduce the PM10 ambient air concentration. Nevertheless, EPA continues to promulgate unworkable
standards that hurt job growth without any health benefits. For example, in Utah, if EPA would have reduced the standard by as
much as a half, 23 of the 29 counties would go into nonattainment,
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00240
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
235
which would result in extreme limits on production and/or facility
closures and further threaten much-needed highway funding.
One NSSGA member has calculated that in order to meet a lowered standard as contemplated by EPA, a typical facility would
have to reduce production by more than two-thirds. This would
substantially change the business model and lead to plant closure
and the loss of 50 jobs or dramatic increase in the price of the product. Given the over 10,000 operations in the United States and virtually every Congressional district is home to an aggregates operation, this could result in significant job losses.
Taken further, a cut in aggregates production would lead to a
shortage of stone, concrete and asphalt for State and Federal road
building and repair, commercial and residential construction, which
in turn would cause an increase in the price of materials for those
projects ranging from 80 percent to 180 percent and further suppress employment in the construction industry. Given that infrastructure investment is essential to economic recovery and growth,
any change in the PM10 standard would impose an additional burden on the aggregates industry that is unwarranted and would adversely impact aggregate supply and vitally important American
jobs.
NSSGA appreciates this opportunity to speak on the devastating
effects of over-regulating nuisance dust on the aggregates industry.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be glad to respond to questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lien follows:]
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00241
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00242
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.184
236
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00243
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.185
237
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00244
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.186
238
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00245
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.187
239
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00246
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.188
240
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00247
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.189
241
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00248
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.190
242
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00249
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.191
243
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00250
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.192
244
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00251
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.193
245
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00252
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.194
246
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00253
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.195
247
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00254
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.196
248
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00255
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.197
249
250
And Mr. Blase, we appreciate your being with us. I failed to state
that you are representing the Coarse Particulate Matter Coalition.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KURT E. BLASE
Mr. BLASE. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Whitfield,

Ranking Member Rush and members of the subcommittee. Thanks
for inviting me to testify this morning. My name is Kurt Blase, and
I am Counsel to the Coarse Particulate Matter Coalition.
The coalition is an organization of industry groups with an interest in scientifically sound regulation of coarse PM and air. The current members of the coalition are listed in my written testimony.
The past two reviews of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM10 have focused increasingly on road dust as a potential
public health threat. The theory has been that dust by urban roadsides can become contaminated by other materials that render
them more toxic. In contrast, dust composed primarily of crustal
material has been reported to be harmful only at ambient levels
much higher than the current Federal standard.
Our coalition consistently has supported retention of the current
PM10 standard while exploring avenues of relief for natural dust
emissions. The current standard limits production and therefore
employment by imposing stringent dust emission limits in permits
and State plans. Compliance with the current standard is very difficult to maintain at our operations. We have been surprised by recent contentions that the regulation of dust is inconsequential.
There is one extra point I would like to make here with respect
to permits. We have talked a lot this morning about the effect of
nonattainment areas where the monitors are placed. A couple of
things there. I mean, even if you are in an unmonitored area now,
if the feds change their monitoring criteria, their siting criteria,
you can be monitored. If a private party such as the Sierra Club
story that Mr. Hurt told wants to come and monitor you, they can
do that. And more importantly, for our group, really nonattainment
and monitoring is almost not an issue because we have to have permits and our permits have to show attainment of the standard at
the fence line regardless of the attainment status of the area in
concern. I mean, it is these permits even more than the nonattainment or attainment designation that are limiting our ability to
produce right now on the basis of this standard.
It is widely recognized that coarse PM concentrations vary widely
on a local and regional basis. A recent study commissioned by our
coalition, which was mentioned earlier, sheds further light on this
issue. A copy of the report is attached to my testimony. I would like
to emphasize several of the conclusions here.
There are great differences in both the quantity and quality of
coarse PM emissions throughout the United States. For example,
PM10 in the West, Southwest and Midwest is composed primarily
of coarse particulate matter while PM10 in the East is composed
primarily of fine particulate matter. In the West, Southwest and
Midwest, the variations among PM10 within single counties are
very high. By contrast, the within-county differences in the East
are much smaller.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00256
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
251
The localized nature of dust impacts leads to a great disparity in
the effects of a single Federal standard on the different areas of the
country. Our study focuses on the impacts of a potential new standard recommended for consideration in EPAs PM policy assessment.
The potential new standard would be set somewhere within the
range of 65 to 85 micrograms per cubic meter with a change to the
98 percent statistical form. The policy assessment concludes that a
standard of 85 with a change in the form would be roughly equivalent to the current standard, and I heard the Assistant Administrator repeat that several times this morning. However, our study
concludes that such a standard would be much more stringent than
the current standard, particularly in the West, Southwest and Midwest as a result of the nature of the PM10 emissions in those areas.
Under the potential new standard, localized areas in virtually all
of the West, Southwest and Midwest would be vulnerable to
exceeedances. This is depicted in a map taken from our report,
which is attached to my testimony, and I dont have it handy but
it coversoh, there it is. OK. You can see the extent of the country
that it covers these. In these vulnerable areas, farmers, owners of
dirt roads and operators of material storage and handling equipment will have few, if any, reasonable options to reduce emissions.
Employment and businesses generating fugitive crustal dust will
be impacted negatively. This impact would occur despite the conclusion in the policy assessment that the current Federal standard
can reasonably be judged to provide sufficient public health protection.
Given the choice between the current and the potential new Federal standards, we have consistently supported retention of the current standard. In that respect, we are encouraged by the Administrators recent letter indicating that EPA will propose to retain the
current standard. However, the reasons I have discussed, we believe that State and local regulation is a much more efficient and
effective means of protecting public health against dust emissions
that have a very localized impact. Accordingly, we strongly support
H.R. 1633 and we urge the subcommittee to adopt it.
I would be glad to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blase follows:]
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00257
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00258
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.198
252
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00259
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.199
253
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00260
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.200
254
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00261
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.201
255
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00262
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.202
256
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00263
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.203
257
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00264
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.204
258
259
[Additional information for the record is available at http://
www.beefusa.org/CMDocs/BeefUSA/Issues/
PM%20Final%20PM10%20Report%200711.pdf]
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Blase.
Dr. von Wachter, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TILL VON WACHTER
Mr. VON WACHTER. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking

Member Rush and members of the subcommittee. It is a great
honor to be with you today.
Existing evidence suggests that air regulation provides important
benefits in terms of improved air quality, improved health outcomes and improved housing values. However, it is also widely acknowledged that air regulation carries potential cost in terms of
lower employment and lower productivity in regulated sectors. In
my testimony, I will focus on current estimates of these costs and
in particular on the costs for those workers most affected by the
regulation, which are workers displaced when they are previously
stable jobs.
So current best estimates of the effect of the Clean Air Act suggest that the economic costs for workers present in regulated sectors at the time of regulation are non-negligible. Existing research
has shown that employment and productivity in regulated sectors
declines, at least in the short run. In addition, there are large and
persistent wage reductions for workers induced to leave regulated
firms, especially those who end up working in a different sector.
Whether the costs of air regulation are of the same order of magnitude as the benefits in terms of improved health or housing values is likely to depend on the regulation and the environment
which takes place. So for example, the most comprehensive study
of the effects of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments suggests that
there was a loss in wages over the next 10 years of workers who
went through nonattainment of about $9 billion. Now, that is relative to the estimated benefits of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. These losses appear to be temporary.
However, it is important to keep in mind that the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments may have represented a best-case scenario. Why
would that be? Well, this is because the amendments came into
force not long before the high-pressure labor market in the mid to
late 1990s, and this matters, because the cost of regulation in
terms of lost wages and employment tends to mostly accrue to
workers who are actually displaced due to the regulations, so it is
job losers that lose their jobs as a consequence of regulation who
bear most of the costs and job losses, especially for job losses for
workers who had found a stable job at a good, stable firm can lead
to very long-lasting large earnings losses. These earnings losses
can least up to 10 to 15 to 20 years, and job loss is also followed
by extended periods of job instability and earnings instability, and
during these periods, job losers can experience decline in health.
For example, in severe downturns, these health declines can lead
to significant reduction in life expectancy over the next 20 or 30
years after a job loss.
The consequences of job loss are also felt by workers children,
who can suffer from the consequences even as adults and by their
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00265
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
260
families, and job losses have also been associated with a higher
rate of entry into potentially costly public programs such as Social
Security disability insurance or early claiming of retirement benefits.
The earnings costs of job displacement, and this is important,
has found to be substantially higher in recessions than in booms.
While we know that even displacement in good economic periods
can lead to lasting earnings losses, the one exception is the mid to
late 1990s where even job losers tend to recover a big chunk of
their earnings losses. So workers displaced from the firms as a consequences of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments were placed in
an ideal case scenario because a few years down the road a very
high-pressure economy pushed up their earnings.
To conclude, while many workers affected by air regulations are
likely to be sufficient mobile to find a new job without major losses
in employment and warnings, a subset of workers induced to move
from their job due to the regulation either voluntarily or by layoff
are at risk of experiencing quite large and lasting losses of earnings. Existing research suggests that these earning losses may be
substantially larger in difficult economic environments.
Based on these findings, the economic costs of air regulations are
likely to depend very much on the economic circumstances in which
the regulation is enacted. Hence, a case-by-case assessment of
these costs and their dependence on the economic environment, the
type of regulation and the type of workers affected are important
aspects when considering the net gain of air regulation.
Now, since I have a few seconds left, let me say, the results I
quoted from the scientific studies mainly pertain to any reason the
county could go into nonattainment that includes the PM10 standard, but it is not focused on this like PM3 to PM10 thus it could
be due to coarse particulate matter. It could be just due to fine particulate matter or any other of the other criteria.
Now, the question you are asking, namely, has coarse particulate
matter differential effect in rural areas that are engaging in agricultural production, or where there is a power plant or mining, as
opposed to urban area is a very important question that academics
potentially can answer, but it is a very difficult question that requires, as you can imagine, a very large amount of data. So this
is sort of a call in my last seconds to provide this detailed amount
of information so we can actually answer that important question
you were asking.
[The prepared statement of Mr. von Wachter follows:]
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00266
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00267
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.205
261
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00268
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.206
262
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00269
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.207
263
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00270
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.208
264
265
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Dr. von Wachter.
Mr. Walke, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN WALKE
Mr. WALKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is John Walke. and I am Clean Air Director
for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
As the hearing today has shown, H.R. 1633 is premised on a
problem that does not exist, that is, nonexistent EPA limits on
farm dust. However, the devilish details of this poorly drafted bill
actually create more real problems that the imaginary problems
the bill purports to solve.
The bill is sweepingly overbroad and it creates numerous damaging consequences that appear to be unintended but that would
in fact harm Americans. The result would be increases in harmful
soot pollution, not just coarse particulate matter but deadly fine
particulate matter, and across the country, not just in rural America but urban and metropolitan areas too. The legislation
inexplicably weakens, eliminates or blocks Federal Clean Air Act
authority over overwhelmingly industrial pollution from power
plant, manufacturing facilities, mines and the like, again as a result of very overbroad and poor drafting.
Before you consider voting for a bill under the misconception that
you are just addressing so-called farm dust, I urge your staff to examine closely the testimony by Assistant Administrator McCarthy
and my own testimony to see whether you find fault with any of
this legal analysis or factual implications of the bill. I will note that
none of the other witnesses here today have contradicted those
legal interpretations in their written testimony.
Finally, I urge your attention to a careful reading of the written
testimony of most of the majority witnesses and Representative
Noems opening statement. Each time that testimony complains of
existing regulations of farm dust, they are talking about State regulation, not EPA regulation, for example, in Arizona or Illinois.
Isnt it paradoxical then that this bill does not eliminate State regulation of farm dust or its monitoring? By the same token, some
have criticized the temporary relief provided by Administrator
Jacksons pledge yet this bill provides a 1-year period of relief
whereas Administrator Jacksons pledge provides a 5-year period of
relief, equally paradoxical.
H.R. 1633 has been presented under the legislation guise of
blocking nonexistent and unplanned EPA regulations of farm dust.
I invite any witness or member to identify an EPA regulation in
the Code of Federal Regulations where EPA imposes limits on farm
dust. There are none.
Since Mr. Terry, who is not with us now, mentioned NRDC earlier, I invite him or any other member to identify any statutory authority to compel EPA to impose limits on farm dust. There is no
such authority from me or any other environmental group to invoke.
Finally, I invite any member to identify any job in America that
has been eliminated due to EPA limits on farm dust. There is none.
If Congress truly wants to address so-called farm dust with a
simple bill, all it would take is a single sentence that says EPA
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00271
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
266
shall not limit farm dust if States are doing so already yet this legislation does far more and far worse. As Mr. Pompeo correctly
reads the bill, it removes Federal Clean Air Act over deadly soot
pollution from power plants, mines and the like if States if doing
so already. Mr. Griffith does not read the bill that way, and I think
it creates some genuine confusion about what the bill does, but Mr.
Griffith does helpfully start to put his finger on things by pointing
us to page 3 in line 15 of the bill where you could at least begin
to address some of these problems in overdrafting with the addition
of the word and. However, I would like to note that this would
still allow the exemption of pollution if an activity typically occurs
in a rural area. As Mr. Waxman said, 70 percent of power plants
do so. I dont think that is what the committee intends. By the
same token, it would allow the exemption of pollution if it is windblown. I hope that we can agree that all pollution is windblown,
and we dont want to eliminate Federal regulation by virtue of that
fact.
Section 3 really is the most problematic feature of the bill. I
think my written testimony and Assistant Administrator
McCarthys testimony covers that, so I am not going to repeat that
now. But I do have to say that this bill does produce what appear
to be unintended consequences that I think could be corrected but
not based upon the existing structure of the bill. I notice that elsewhere in the House this week the Judiciary Committee is considering the REINS Act, which purports to address and rein in excessive delegation of Federal authority to Federal agencies, and yet
again, paradoxically, H.R. 1633 engages in excessive delegation of
sweeping and vague authorities to deregulate industrial pollution
across America. I dont think that is what the bill intends to do,
and I would urge you not to pass H.R. 1633 in its present form.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walke follows:]
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00272
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00273
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.209
267
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00274
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.210
268
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00275
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.211
269
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00276
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.212
270
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00277
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.213
271
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00278
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.214
272
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00279
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.215
273
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00280
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.216
274
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00281
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.217
275
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00282
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.218
276
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00283
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.219
277
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00284
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.220
278
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00285
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.221
279
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00286
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.222
280
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00287
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.223
281
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00288
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.224
282
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00289
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.225
283
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00290
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.226
284
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00291
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.227
285
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00292
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.228
286
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00293
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.229
287
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00294
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.230
288
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00295
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.231
289
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00296
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.232
290
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00297
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.233
291
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00298
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.234
292
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00299
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.235
293
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00300
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.236
294
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00301
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.237
295
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00302
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.238
296
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00303
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.239
297
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00304
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.240
298
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00305
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.241
299
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00306
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.242
300
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00307
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.243
301
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00308
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.244
302
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00309
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.245
303
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00310
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.246
304
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00311
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.247
305
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00312
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.248
306
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00313
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.249
307
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00314
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.250
308
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00315
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.251
309
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00316
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.252
310
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00317
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.253
311
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00318
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.254
312
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00319
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.255
313
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00320
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.256
314
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00321
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.257
315
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00322
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.258
316
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00323
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.259
317
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00324
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.260
318
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00325
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.261
319
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00326
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.262
320
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00327
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.263
321
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00328
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.264
322
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00329
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.265
323
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00330
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.266
324
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00331
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.267
325
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00332
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.268
326
327
Dr. Wellenius, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY WELLENIUS
Mr. WELLENIUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is
Dr. Gregory Wellenius. I am Assistant Professor of Epidemiology at
Brown University.
I earned my doctorate in environmental health and epidemiology
from the Harvard School of Public Health. I previously served on
the faculty at Harvard Medical School. I have been conducting research on the health effects of air pollution for more than 10 years.
I have authored or coauthored more than a dozen original studies
in this area and contributed as an author for the EPAs 2009 Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter. My research has
focused on the effects of ambient air pollutants on cardiovascular
disease, and it is my pleasure to provide testimony in this area
today.
There is a broad consensus in the scientific and medical communities that ambient particles are harmful to human health. For example, after reviewing the scientific evidence, the American Heart
Association recently stated that exposure to fine particles, or
PM2.5, is a modifiable factor that contributes to cardiovascular
morbidity and mortality.
The external panel of independent scientists that make up the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, or CASAC, and EPA scientists concluded that a causal relationship exists between ambient
fine particles and both mortality and cardiovascular effects and a
likely causal relationship between ambient fine particles and respiratory effects. This conclusion has been endorsed by a number of
scientific organizations including the World Health Organization,
the National Research Council, the American Medical Association,
the American Lung Association, and the American Thoracic Society, to name a few.
As has been pointed out, the coarse and fine fractions of particulate matter differ in their size, sources and composition. In my
written testimony, I provide further details regarding the well-established health effects of ambient fine particles. While fewer studies have looked specifically at the health effects of coarse particles,
the existing evidence suggests that these particles can also be
harmful to peoples health.
In the 2009 Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter, CASAC and EPA scientists concluded that the available evidence is suggestive for a causal relationship between coarse particles and mortality, cardiovascular effects and respiratory effects.
The available science indeed supports an association between
coarse particles and cardiovascular hospital admissions. For example, a recent study in 112 U.S. cities found that coarse particles
were linked with higher risk of premature death from all causes,
stroke and respiratory causes, even after accounting for levels of
fine particles. Taken together, the existing evidence suggests that
exposure to higher levels of coarse particles may increase the risk
of death, cardiovascular hospitalization and respiratory effects.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00333
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
328
Now, most epidemiologic studies on coarse particles have been
conducted in urban settings. However, agricultural dust can also be
harmful to people. Field workers exposed to minimal dust from agricultural sources experience more acute and chronic bronchitis,
chronic obstructive airway disease and interstitial lung disease. Agricultural workers exposed to organic dust have been found to have
a higher risk of allergic reactions, asthma, hypersensitivity pneumonitis and organic dust toxic syndrome. A studying examining the
lungs of California farm workers found that their bronchioles had
accumulation of dust particles and thickening and inflammation in
the respiratory tissues.
Sandstorms and other dust events typically increase the concentration of coarse particles much more than fine particles. Studying these events provides information on the potential health effects of coarse particles of non-urban origin. For example, Asian
dust storms in Taipei, Taiwan, have been associated with increased
rates of hospital visits for ischemic heart disease such as heart attacks. Other studies have linked dust events in Spain and Cyprus
with increased risk of hospitalization or death. These studies add
to the evidence of health effects of coarse particles and highlight
that even coarse particles from nonurban environments can have
important health effects.
In conclusion, Congress built into the Clean Air Act an orderly
process for the regular review of the scientific evidence on health
effects of air pollution. This process includes multiple rounds of scientific peer review including by CASAC and other scientists and
the public. I strongly urge you to preserve the authority of the EPA
to periodically review the available scientific evidence and when
appropriate update the air quality standards including for PM10
and coarse particles. This process is essential if we are to adequately protect the publics health.
I thank you for your time and would be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wellenius follows:]
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00334
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00335
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.269
329
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00336
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.270
330
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00337
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.271
331
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00338
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.272
332
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00339
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.273
333
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00340
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.274
334
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00341
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.275
335
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00342
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.276
336
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00343
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.277
337
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00344
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.278
338
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00345
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.279
339
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00346
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.280
340
341
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much for your testimony.
I will recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions. Mr. Walke, you
heard me in the very beginning talk about this concern about the
lawsuits being filed and so forth, and has the Natural Resources
Defense Council ever sued EPA over the Clean Air Act?
Mr. WALKE. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, we have.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Do you know how many times?
Mr. WALKE. You probably do if you have researched the question.
I have not, though, sir.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, I havent either but
Mr. WALKE. No, I dont know.
Mr. WHITFIELD. And have you all been reimbursed for legal fees?
Mr. WALKE. When we win, yes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Would you provide us with the number of times
that you all have filed suits against EPA and the number of dollar
value of the reimbursement for the legal fees?
Mr. WALKE. I will do so the best of my ability. NRDC was formed
in 1970 or 1971, so
Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, let us just say within the last 10 years.
Mr. WALKE. OK.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, will you yield?
Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. It would also be good to find out what was their
compensation out of the judgment fund that paid their attorney
fees.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, the amount of the legal fee reimbursed. It
comes out of judgment fund, though, doesnt it, or the agency
funds?
Mr. WALKE. Sure. I mean, Mr. Chairman, I would just say that
the law only provides our ability to go to court and regain fees
when the government is breaking the law.
Mr. WHITFIELD. No, I understand.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I just think we should have those.
For whatever reason, we want those dollar amounts.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. We wont get into a discussion.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes?
Mr. RUSH. I would also like, if I might, ask the gentleman if he
would include what his win-loss ratio is, the number of times he
sued, the number of times he lost and the number of times he won
against the EPA.
Mr. WHITFIELD. You want to know how many he won and how
many he lost?
Mr. RUSH. Yes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. He wants to know how many you have won and
how many you have lost.
OK. Anyway, so if you wouldthe number of lawsuits in the last
10 years, the amount of money that you have been reimbursed in
legal fees when you have won, and how many cases you consider
you won and how many you consider you lost.
Mr. WALKE. OK. It might take some time to do that, sir, so I will
just ask your indulgence.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, sir.
Mr. RUSH. Is it OK if we give him 5 years?
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00347
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
342
Mr. WHITFIELD. You and I may not be here in 5 years. Thank
you so much.
Mr. Foglesong, now, you represent the National Cattlemens Association. Is that correct?
Mr. FOGLESONG. The National Cattlemens Beef Association, yes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. And are there cattle producers that are struggling with meeting the current coarse particulate matter standard?
Mr. FOGLESONG. You know, in particular, there are some of
those, you know, in the Southwest. Arizona is a good example of
that, you know, where they have got feed yards, and the expense
that they incur to try to complex is just enough to break them.
They just cant keep it going. But I thinkand that what sticks in
your mind, but understand that it can happen anyplace in the
country. We had a map up there earlier that shows those places
that are at risk, but I am from Illinois and we get 40 inches of
rainfall but I will guarantee you that last week I was in that position because it hasnt rained there in 2 months and the wind was
blowing and we are all doing work. So I think that is one of the
things that is a challenge. Our outfit in Georgia, it was the same
thing. We had the worst drought there in 100 years this spring.
Driving up and down our country dirt roads, every one of them was
out of compliance. So all across the country you run into that, yes,
sir.
Mr. WHITFIELD. And there was great concern about the strengthening of this emission standard on coarse particulate matter because that would have changed the standard around the country
and then there would have been areas in nonattainment and then
there would be more enforcement mechanisms, and Mr. Rogers,
you have experienced that personally, it sounds like. Is that correct?
Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir, that is correct. We farm in Maricopa County in a nonattainment area.
Mr. WHITFIELD. So what enforcement mechanisms must you comply with as a result of being in a nonattainment area in this coarse
particulate matter issue?
Mr. ROGERS. Agriculture in Maricopa County was deemed
through modeling to be about 3 percent of the problem of the Maricopa County area, which is probably a 75-square-mile county. It is
a very large county. We only have 15 counties in Arizona. And so
we were deemed to be 3 percent. You know, you come to the table
with EPA being the 500-pound gorilla because what they hold over
the States head is the Federal tax dollars, the highway dollars
coming back to the State, so there is motivation through your local
government to come to the table and participate and so that is
what we have done. We have had to come to the table and design
a program with EPA looking over our shoulder to make sure that
every step of the way they agree with what you are doing to put
together your SIP.
Mr. WHITFIELD. And could you just quickly go through a couple
of
Mr. ROGERS. Sure. We developed a best management practice
program that is mandatory. Farmers do get to choose between
practices under three different categories, diligent harvesting, cropland, non-cropland, so every part of my operation I have to be
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00348
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
343
doing something and so it could include watering roads, it could include parking your tractors during high wind events where the
wind gets to 26 miles an hour, speed limits on your farm roads
where you have to regulate your own roads that you are in control
of, waiting until there is moisture in the soil before you do tillage,
waiting for rain to bring that moisture, or if you choose to irrigate,
that is your option as well, but there is probably 40 best management practices that we had to come up with to help agriculture
come to the table, to keep EPA happy and to keep our State happy
because at 3 percent of the problem, they determined that we need
to participate.
We do have a county just south of Phoenix, Pinal County, which
has been recently designated as nonattainment. That is where the
livestock operation is that we talked about before. That particular
livestock operation has taken it upon themselves to figure out what
they can do to get into attainment. It takes 4 gallons of water per
day per cow to meet the standard, and it is going to be very costly
for them to do that.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Forty gallons per cow per day?
Mr. ROGERS. Four gallons.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Four?
Mr. ROGERS. Four gallons, but it is a large operation so it is
going to cost a lot of money, and with four gallons per day, they
were able to bring that under control and so they are going to
as we move forward with bringing livestock into our program, they
are actually working with EPA and the State and that will probably be a mandatory number.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Rush, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Walke, in your written testimony, you take issue
with using the phrase farm dust as H.R. 1633 is named and say
this bill is really an attempt to force EPA to ignore harmful soot
pollution emitted overwhelmingly by industrial pollutants like coalburning power plants, incinerators, chemical plants and diesel vehicles. Can you explain why you view this bill as a cover for abolishing the review of health standards for industrial pollution?
Mr. WALKE. Certainly, Mr. Rush. It is notable that the word
farm dust doesnt actually appear in the bill other than its title.
The operative legal term of the bill in its most harmful bill is in
section 3 in the definition of nuisance dust, and it is simple so I
will just tell you the highlights. Nuisance dust means particulate
matter from activities typically conducted in rural areas or windblown dust. Now, I just selected out some of those from a string.
You know, as I showed in my testimony, activities typically conducted in rural areas include power plants, incinerators and manufacturing facilities and diesel vehicles, and, you know, by this very
short, crisp and overbroad definition, all of those activities will be
defined as particulate matter that could not be regulated by the
Federal Government if the States are doing so, and the States are
doing so, so this bill would deregulate from Federal Clean Air Act
authority those activities. That has sweeping, sweeping implications that certainly arent suggested by the farm dust title and
dont even appear to be intended by some of the members from
their statements here this morning.
Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00349
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
344
Mr. Chairman, earlier there was a line of questioning that I
thought was quite interesting, and it covered areas of legal fees
and the amount of money recouped through legal representation,
and in fairness and in full disclosure, I want to ask the same question of all the members of the panel. Please, if you will, provide the
lawsuits brought against the EPA by the American Farm Bureau
Federation, the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association and
the National Cattlemens Beef Association, and the fees that were
obtained as a result of those legal actions. And also, I understand
that Mr. Blase is being paid by the Coarse Particulate Matter Coalition, and would you provide to the committee the full amount that
you are being paid to represent them?
Mr. Chairman, I think that that is for full disclosure, and would
you please provide those amounts for the record?
Mr. OLSON. [Presiding] Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. FOGLESONG. Sir, point of clarification. Do you want to know
also what we spent?
Mr. RUSH. No, I want to know the fees that you were provided,
and I think that would cover the same territory that was requested
of Mr. Walke. We just want to make sure that there is full disclosure and there is fair disclosure in terms of fees that organizations
are able toor remunerations from the EPA and the matter of lawsuits.
Mr. BURGESS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RUSH. I dont know if I have any time.
Mr. BURGESS. Well, I would be interested in what they spent. If
we are going to compile that information, let us be complete.
Mr. RUSH. Well
Mr. BURGESS. I would be interested in what you spent. I will add
that to Mr. Rushs request.
Mr. RUSH. And so we will also add that to Mr. Walkes request,
what is the amount that your organization spent, the amount that
you spent in terms of court action.
Mr. WALKE. On the litigation?
Mr. RUSH. Yes, on the litigation.
Mr. OLSON. Everybody follow that? Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. RUSH. I yield back.
Mr. OLSON. The gentlemans time is expired, and the chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. It is great to have the panel.
Can anyone define for me what at this time means? Mr.
Foglesong, do you know what at this time means?
Mr. FOGLESONG. At this time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. I am making my point. The point is, when the
Assistant Administrator was here, in her testimony she saidI
read the letter and of course Administrator Jackson said I am prepared to propose a retention with no revision of the current PM10
standard form when it is sent to OMB for interagency review, and
her response was, we are going to abide by this at this time. At
this time means today, right? And there could be tomorrow would
not be at this time. Tomorrow would be tomorrow. Isnt that, for
Mr. Foglesong and Mr. Rogers, Mr. Lien, isnt that part of the risk,
the uncertainty that you are dealing with?
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00350
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
345
Mr. ROGERS. That is completely part of the risk, and as the monitoring network is developed across this country where there may
not be that intense monitoring network today, as those monitors
are enhanced, that is where at this time comes into play. There
may be a speed limit across this country but if there is not an officer there to pull you over, he doesnt know if you went five over
or not. It is a monitoring issue.
Mr. SHIMKUS. And if you could pull up Mr. Blases map on the
proposal? Half of the country under a proposedthat is additional
risk to agricultural America.
Everybody knows in this country jobs are impacted, and one of
the major impacts is risk, is uncertainty. That is why we are doing
this today, to at least give the agriculture sector some certainty.
Now, Mr. Lien, you are from the sand and gravel. Two weeks
ago, I read, you know, the only sector in this country that created
jobs over the last quarter? You should.
Mr. LIEN. I would say that
Mr. SHIMKUS. It was the mining industry.
Mr. LIEN. The mining industry.
Mr. SHIMKUS. The mining industry was the only sector in this
country that created jobs, and just yesterday, Caterpillar gave its
quarterly report, and Caterpillar did well. You know what Caterpillar sells? Mining equipment. So there is a debate on rules and
regs and the cost of doing business based upon uncertainty and job
creation, and all this is about is providing certainty. I would agree
with Mr. Hurt that we can we are legislators. We sure can legislate when it has harm to job creation in parts of the country. If she
would pull up my harvester cutting beans? Those are coarse particulates. They are probably bigger than the PM10. Does anyone know
how far those coarse particulates travel?
Mr. ROGERS. It depends on if there is wind activity or not, but
those coarse particulates that you can see normally will settle back
down within several hundred feet.
Mr. SHIMKUS. And that is all part of the rural debate because
there are not people around. In rural America, it is not like a city.
It is not a metropolitan area. In my new Congressional district,
parts of 33 counties, I think my biggest community is going to have
33,000 people in it. It is one-third of the State of Illinois. So if we
are farming in my district, which we do, and we are cutting beans,
those coarse particulates are going to fall to the ground way before
they reach any exposure, especially with the air conditioned cabs
these guys have now, so even the person on the harvester is not
going to be affected.
Let me go to Mr. Walke real quick. Administrator Jackson in essence said that the PM10 standard really by this protects human
health, the standard today. That is why she is not going to submit
to OMB. Is that the NRDCs position?
Mr. WALKE. We are prepared to accept that when she proposes
the rulemaking to not change the standard if
Mr. SHIMKUS. So your testimony is that you will not sue if this
continues to be promulgated and the Administration keeps this as
the standard?
Mr. WALKE. Mr. Shimkus, that is the first time that word has
come out, and it was your mouth, not mine.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00351
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
346
Mr. SHIMKUS. At this time?
Mr. WALKE. At this time, today, now, I am not going to discuss
litigation before I
Mr. SHIMKUS. So you might bring this.
Mr. WALKE. Mr. Shimkus, if you wantif this is going to be
a
Mr. SHIMKUS. No, I am just asking
Mr. WALKE. Let us talk about speculation
Mr. SHIMKUS. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Walke, you are very cavalier with the lives of rural America and agricultural America, saying in respect to the testimony received that the PM10 standard affects their jobs and their economy so I am just addressing the point
that the NRDC is not on record as saying whether they will or will
not
Mr. WALKE. If I may, Mr. Shimkus, this bill removes Federal
Clean Air Act authority
Mr. SHIMKUS. And I yield back my time.
Mr. WALKE [continuing]. Over 80 percent of America. Eighty percent of America has Federal
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back his time.
At this time I recognize the
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WHITFIELD. For what purpose does Mr. Rush
Mr. RUSH. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Regular order?
Mr. RUSH. Regular order. Mr. Shimkus asked the gentleman a
question.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I did not, Mr. Rush.
Mr. RUSH. Will the reporter please read the last question that
Mr. Shimkus asked?
Mr. WHITFIELD. Can we just stipulate that Mr. Shimkus did ask
a question
Mr. RUSH. But he
Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. His time expired and then he decided he didnt want to
Mr. RUSH. No. He cut him off in the middle of
Mr. SHIMKUS. No, that is not true.
Mr. RUSH. He cut him off in the middle of the answer.
Mr. SHIMKUS. That is not true.
Mr. RUSH. Will you please give the witness the courtesy of answering the question? We do that as a formality in this subcommittee.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, if you will yield to me, I will yield
the witness 30 seconds to respond.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, Dr. Burgess, I am going to recognize you
for 5 minutes for questions and you can do what you want to do
with it.
Mr. BURGESS. The committee has a long history of treating its
witnesses well. I want to recognize the gentleman for 30 seconds
to respond.
Mr. WALKE. Dr. Burgess, thank you for your professional courtesy. I will only take 30 seconds of your 5 minutes.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00352
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
347
The point I wanted to make in responding to Mr. Shimkus was
that in contrast to imaginary problems or imaginary lawsuits that
no one has any intention of bringing, this bill, if adopted into law,
would remove Federal Clean Air Act authority over 80 percent of
America, which is defined as rural by any number of government
metrics. That has nothing to do with farm dust but it does have
to do with deregulating industrial pollution from power plants that
causes premature deaths and heart attacks, and that is the only
thing I was trying to say.
Mr. BURGESS. OK. Reclaiming my time.
Can we go back to that map that had half the country in blue?
Can we recall that slide? You know, I listened to the testimony of
Dr. Wellenius, and in your written testimony, you talked about
most existing epidemiologic studies in coarse particles have been
conducted in urban settings. Most of the urban settings actually,
though are removed from that map that is covered by the footprint
of the coloration. Is that correct?
Mr. WELLENIUS. So we do the studies where we have monitor
data existing primarily and the EPA sites those monitors. From the
research side, we dont have a say as to where those monitors are
sited. So there are parts of the country that
Mr. BURGESS. The real hot spots for cardiovascular disease, lung
disease, interstitial lung disease, industrial pneumoconiosis, if you
were to color those in on the maps, they likely would be for the
most part outside the blue footprint. Is that not correct?
Mr. WELLENIUS. So there are several areas that are in blue there
that do have high air pollution. There are parts of Texas, parts of
Arizona, parts of southern California that do have high air pollution.
Mr. BURGESS. Texas is a huge State. Houston has a problem. It
is miniscule. It can be ignored most of the time as we in the DallasFort Worth area know well.
But I just would make the point, is there a cost-benefit analysis
you have done? I mean, you want to implement something on vast
swaths of relatively low density population. Have you done a costbenefit analysis on how this would affect peoples livelihoods and
the status of people overall, the overall health of people, and how
can we be sure sitting here on this committee that you are not double counting some of these people that are saved in your studies?
How can we be sure you are not double counting those individuals?
Mr. WELLENIUS. Right. So
Mr. BURGESS. So there are people that might have been saved
anyway by the effects of the Clean Air Act where this additional
regulation would have only miniscule positive or negative effect.
Mr. WELLENIUS. Yes. Thank you. You asked me first the question
of have I done a cost-benefit analysis, and the response is, I have
not. The scientific committee is large and there are those of us that
deal with the health effects of air pollution, doing the health side,
and there are people in the cost-benefit business that certainly take
those effects that we estimate and also incorporate the costs of regulation and the costs of lives averted or the hospitalizations averted. I am not specifically in that area, so no, I have not conducted
that cost-benefit analysis.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00353
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
348
Mr. BURGESS. OK, so we dont know is the answer to that question.
Now, Administrator McCarthy had a rather large compendium of
documents next to her as she testified, and this is described as the
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter. Are you familiar with this document?
Mr. WELLENIUS. Yes, I am.
Mr. BURGESS. My read of at least a portion of this is that there
is insufficient evidence to determine that coarse particulate matter
causes health effects. That is written on page 219, third heading,
maybe six lines from the end of the page: To date, a sufficient
amount of evidence does not exist in order to draw conclusions regarding the health effects and outcomes associated with long-term
exposure to PM10. Is that accurate?
Mr. WELLENIUS. That is accurate. For long-term effects of coarse
particles, there is next to no evidence in support of long-term
health effects.
Mr. BURGESS. Well, and certainly we will stipulate your credentials and the credentials of everyone at the witness table today, but
one of the tasks that we face is how do you approach regulation
in a way that does not further cripple the economy, allows witnesses at the other end of the table to continue their livelihoods
and to support their employees and their families. You know, forgive me, it looks like we are going on some pretty thin evidence
here with some fairly sweeping regulations, and I guess that is
overall what the concern here is of the committee today, and I
think the reason that Representative Noem brought the legislation
forward.
I thank the gentleman for his indulgence and I will yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Dr. Burgess.
Mr. WELLENIUS. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes?
Mr. WELLENIUS. Thank you. So I agree, you do have an enviable
task and one that I am happy you are doing rather than me in
terms of balancing the public health benefit versus how to impose
those regulations in a sensible manner. You focused on the longterm effects of long-term exposure to coarse particulate matter.
There is evidence on the short-term exposure that that is associated with increased hospitalizations, increased premature death.
We need more research for sure but the current evidence as the Integrated Science Assessment concludes is suggestive of causal association. Thank you.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Olson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair. More importantly, I thank the witnesses for your time and expertise today. And I am from southeast
Texas, Sugar Land, Texas. There is no equal. As you guys know,
Texas, all of Texas has suffered an historic drought, excessive heat,
over 100 degrees for almost the entire month of August in Houston,
which is unprecedented, and wildfires all across our State, and
ranchers and farmers have been disproportionately hit by these
disasters. And the theme of this series of hearings that this subcommittee and the full committee has had is about the uncertainty
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00354
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
349
created by the administrations regulatory agenda. I want to talk
a little bit about that.
I mean, there has been some testimony in the prior panel and
even on this panel about uncertainty and the fact that, you know,
EPAs promise not to revise the standards for 5 years provides
more certainly than a law, H.R. 1633, would provide, and I am curious if some of the panelists honestly believe that the Executive
Branch agency action provides more certainty than a law passed
under our Constitution by Congress. I am just asking for a simple
yes or no answer. Mr. Foglesong?
Mr. FOGLESONG. I dont believe that is exactly how I would put
that out. We look to you all because we vote you into Congress and
we expect you to look out for us.
Mr. OLSON. It sounds like Congress over the Executive Branch
agency.
Mr. FOGLESONG. Absolutely.
Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. ROGERS. I would agree.
Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir. Mr. Lien?
Mr. LIEN. I would agree.
Mr. OLSON. Thank you, sir.
Mr. BLASE. I would agree.
Mr. VON WACHTER. Sir, if your question is whether regulation reduces uncertainty, that is true. Whether uncertainty has an impact
on economic activity, that is from a scientific point of view an open
question.
Mr. OLSON. My question is, what provides more uncertainty, Executive Branch agency regulations or regulations by laws passed by
Congress? I mean, which one provides more certainty? What is the
more difficult process, going through the Constitution or going
through the Executive Branch? I think the answer is the Constitution. Wouldnt you agree? Yes or no.
Mr. VON WACHTER. I think you are better qualified than me to
answer that question.
Mr. OLSON. You are an American. You have an opinion.
Mr. Walke?
Mr. WALKE. You know, as a matter of law, they are equally lawful. If the legislative period of relief is short like this one and the
administrative period is longer, than it is the longer period.
Mr. OLSON. OK. And Dr. Wellenius?
Mr. WELLENIUS. I have no comment.
Mr. OLSON. No comment whatsoever? OK.
My final round of questions is for Mr. Blase. Mr. Blase, can you
give a brief history of the last round of the PM revision and this
one, and specifically, is it possible for us to be in the exact same
position in 5 years with farmers, ranchers and other rural businesses if the EPA chooses to lower the standard on dust?
Mr. BLASE. Oh, yes, absolutely. That is what happened the last
time. It is kind of a complicated thing and I wont go into all the
details, but there has been a debate overyou know, the current
standard for PM10 includes PM2.5. It includes fine and coarse. So
there has been a debate over whether the fine should just be
kicked out and the coarse PM standard should only be the top 2.5
to 10. I think my personal view is, that is probably what is going
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00355
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
350
to happen in the next review. But in the last review, what happened was, EPA took a stab at doing just that and regulating true
coarse PM. The problem with that was the concentration limit was
way lower than most of us thought we could meet. Therefore, there
was an exemption proposed for agriculture and mining activities.
In the end, EPA threw up its hands and said we dont know what
the numbers should be, we dont know what the exemptions should
be so we are going to retain the current standard. But yes, the proposalif the point is the final rule can look quite different from the
proposal, the last reviews proves that.
Mr. OLSON. One final question about the rulemaking. I have introduced a bill, H.R. 1341, which is called the Establishing Public
Accountability Act. It is very simple. It just requires the EPA to do
some study of the impact of jobs on regulations and rulemaking,
the proposed changes, and it requires them to do this before the
public comment period so the public will have the opportunity to
review what EPA is proposing. And so I just want to ask all six
of you again, seven actually, just yes or no, do you think that bill
will be something you support? Mr. Foglesong?
Mr. FOGLESONG. Sure.
Mr. ROGERS. Yes.
Mr. LIEN. Yes.
Mr. BLASE. Yes.
Mr. VON WACHTER. That was a bit quick for me, but it seems
that if EPA is supposed to look at both the costs and benefits of
their regulation, that that seems a good idea.
Mr. OLSON. I will put you down as yes.
Mr. Walke?
Mr. WALKE. Is that the Regulatory Accountability Act, Congressman?
Mr. OLSON. Establishing Public Accountability, H.R. 1341. I can
get you a copy of it. But it is very simple, just the public has the
right to know, you know, whether or not this regulation, this new
rulemaking, what the impact is going to be on American jobs. Either is going to create jobs or kill jobs, and that is what we need
to address here. I think that is the biggest challenge our country
is facing is the lack of jobs in this recession.
Mr. WALKE. Well, I would love to read the bill before answering
that question, if I might.
Mr. OLSON. We will hook you up.
And finally, Dr. Wellenius.
Mr. WELLENIUS. Again, I am here to comment on the science and
the health effects, not on the policy.
Mr. OLSON. Thank you, sir.
And that is. I yield back my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Olson.
Mr. Pompeo, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Blase, Mr. Walke said that no one had contradicted sort of
the legal statements that Ms. McCarthy set out, and you are counsel, so I thought maybe you could help me. He also made the statement that 80 percent of Federal regulatory would be stripped away
by this bill. Would you care to comment on what you think this leg-
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00356
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
351
islation would do with respect to the scope of the EPAs ability to
regulate?
Mr. BLASE. Yes, I think it is a carve-out for crustal coarse particulate matter and nothing else is involved. I mean, power plants,
tailpipe emissions, it is all fine PM. I dont believe these changes
are necessary. People think changes are necessity to this legislation
to exclude fine PM. My group would probably support that. But as
I read it right now, I think it is confined to coarse crustal emissions, which is what is supported by the science and as it should
be.
Mr. POMPEO. So your legal analysis is very different from Mr.
Markeys comments, Ms. McCarthys statements and Mr. Walkes
testimony.
Mr. BLASE. Very different, yes, sir.
Mr. POMPEO. So I have power plants not excluded, school bus
tailpipes, no impacts. This notion of because they are windblown
they will all get caught up in this and we wont be able to regulate
them so they will become law. Nonsense.
Mr. BLASE. No, I dont believe it covers those at all.
Mr. POMPEO. OK. Great. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Pompeo.
Mr. Griffith, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Dr. von Wachter, your testimony mentioned that
those who lose their job can experience health problems that can
lead to significant reductions in life expectancy. I have been concerned about a number of EPA regulations related to similar things
like what happens when you raise the cost of electricity and the
people my district cant afford to heat their homes. So I would just
ask you in regard to the job loss and then significant reductions in
life expectancy, can you explain that and tell me what you mean
by that, and can it actually shorten a workers life?
Mr. VON WACHTER. Absolutely. I would be happy to clarify. So
what we have done, we have looked at workers displaced in large
downsizing Pennsylvania in the early 1980s, and these were workers at, you know, relatively large, stable firms and stable jobs and
they had very long-lasting earnings losses, and over the next 20
years they also had increases in mortality rates, and those who had
the larger earnings losses had the higher increases in mortality
rates, and if you add those 20 years up and assumes that the mortality effect lasts until the end of our lives, which seems to be a
fine assumption because the effects are very stable, then you get
to 1.5-year losses in life expectancy. So this one-time shock, what
seems to be a shock to earnings but also lifestyle, can have these
long-term effects. Now, Pennsylvania in the early 1980s is a very
hard-hit State with the reduction in steel and mining at that time,
so I would characterize that as worst-case scenario.
Mr. GRIFFITH. So what you are saying is, if we are going to study
the health impacts of regulations, we ought to also look at the unintended consequences if it does have a downturn in jobs that that
could actually negative impact the health of workers and of a particular community.
Mr. VON WACHTER. Oh, absolutely. So regulations affecting certain businesses certainly could lead to job displacement that has
been shown to lead to job displacement and this displacement takes
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00357
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
352
place in a very depressed economic environment, that they could
have large costs with the affected workers in terms of earnings but
also other outcomes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Blase, did you want to respond?
Mr. BLASE. Yes, I have a brief response to that. Our coalition has
spent some time looking at what is a great developing body of scientific literature that suggests that unemployment itself causes adverse health effects, which I dont think takes an epidemiology
study to show for most of us. However, we have pressed that point
with the agency but have been told repeatedly that they have no
legal authority to consider that aspect. So we will be making the
point in our comments on the upcoming proposal and in other forums, but as of now, EPA is telling us, you know, the health effects
of unemployment cannot be considered in this equation.
Mr. GRIFFITH. And I know you dont have any study on it but I
think that plays into my fear that when we raise the cost of goods
and services, particularly goodsagain, I get back to heating but
also we are talking about these things that could raise the cost of
food products. That makes it particularly hard on the working poor
or the unemployed, and that too would by common sense seem to
have a health impact. Wouldnt you agree?
Mr. BLASE. Yes, I would.
Mr. GRIFFITH. I thank you very much for being here and all your
testimony, and I appreciate, Mr. Walke, there may be a way to fix
that concern of us although based on the definitions, I recognize
that it may not need fixing. That being said, Mr. Chairman, I yield
back my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Rush, do you seek recognition?
Mr. RUSH. Mr. von Wachter and Mr. Blase kind of touched on
something I am interested in. You said unemployment has health
consequences for the unemployed. Is that correct?
Mr. VON WACHTER. So what we can establish is that the job loss
has an effect on health.
Mr. RUSH. On health.
Mr. VON WACHTER. Establishing that unemployment has an effect is very difficult, because once you lose your job being unemployed is partly a choice of the worker, so it is not clear what is
cause and effect at that point, but job losses have been shown to
have an effect on health in the short and long run. It is possible
Mr. RUSH. Did your study include the chronically unemployed
and the underemployed?
Mr. VON WACHTER. As I said, it is difficult to establish those effects for those who are chronically unemployed or currently underemployed just from a statistical point of view. We dont know what
the right comparison group is. Now, presumably, from what we
know, these people are unlikely to do better but one has to be very
careful because unemployment is itself an outcome. For example,
a sick worker might become unemployed and you dont want to conclude that unemployment makes you sick, but if you are displaced
from a large downsizing, presumably you were a good worker and
that being displaced from the downsizing doesnt make you sick, so
that is a statement about causality that is easier to back up.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00358
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
353
Mr. RUSH. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Rush, and thank all of you for
your time and giving us your entire testimony as well as your oral
testimony. We look forward to working with all of you as we move
forward, and thank you very much for attending, and with that,
the hearing is concluded and the record will remain open for 10
days for any additional materials. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00359
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00360
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.281
354
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00361
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.282
355
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00362
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.283
356
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00363
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.284
357
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00364
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.285
358
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00365
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.286
359
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00366
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.287
360
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00367
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.288
361
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00368
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.289
362
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00369
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.290
363
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00370
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.291
364
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00371
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.292
365
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00372
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.293
366
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00373
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.294
367
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00374
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.295
368
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00375
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.296
369
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00376
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.297
370
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00377
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.298
371
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00378
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.299
372
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00379
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.300
373
374
VerDate Aug 31 2005
09:14 Oct 17, 2012
Jkt 037690
PO 00000
Frm 00380
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6011
F:\112-09~1\112-99~1
WAYNE
76176.301

House Hearing, 112TH Congress - H.R. 1633, The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

House Hearing, 112TH Congress - H.R. 1633, The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

House Hearing, 112TH Congress - H.R. 1633, The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

H.R.

1633, THE FARM DUST REGULATION

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

OCTOBER 25, 2011

Serial No. 11299

VerDate Aug 31 2005

09:14 Oct 17, 2012

H.R. 1633, THE FARM DUST REGULATION PREVENTION ACT OF 2011

VerDate Aug 31 2005

09:14 Oct 17, 2012

H.R. 1633, THE FARM DUST REGULATION

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

OCTOBER 25, 2011

Serial No. 11299

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

VerDate Aug 31 2005

09:14 Oct 17, 2012

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

VerDate Aug 31 2005

09:14 Oct 17, 2012

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth

VerDate Aug 31 2005

09:14 Oct 17, 2012

VerDate Aug 31 2005

09:14 Oct 17, 2012

H.R. 1633, THE FARM DUST REGULATION

Mr. WHITFIELD. This hearing will come to order.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

09:14 Oct 17, 2012

VerDate Aug 31 2005

09:14 Oct 17, 2012

VerDate Aug 31 2005

09:14 Oct 17, 2012

VerDate Aug 31 2005

09:14 Oct 17, 2012

VerDate Aug 31 2005

09:14 Oct 17, 2012

VerDate Aug 31 2005

09:14 Oct 17, 2012

VerDate Aug 31 2005

09:14 Oct 17, 2012

VerDate Aug 31 2005

09:14 Oct 17, 2012

VerDate Aug 31 2005

09:14 Oct 17, 2012

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

09:14 Oct 17, 2012

VerDate Aug 31 2005

09:14 Oct 17, 2012

VerDate Aug 31 2005

09:14 Oct 17, 2012

Mr. OLSON. I thank my colleague from Texas.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

VerDate Aug 31 2005