U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–633 2018

H.R. 806, OZONE STANDARDS IMPLEMENTATION 

ACT OF 2017 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 22, 2017 

Serial No. 115–17 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, CaliforniaL RUIZ, 

California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Chairman 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

Vice Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

Ranking Member 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 6 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 85 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, prepared statement ........................................................................ 86 

WITNESSES

Sean Alteri, Director, Division of Air Quality, Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection ........................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 165 

Mark Cone, Director, Bureau of Air Quality, Maine Department of Environmental Protection ................................................................................................. 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 168 

Kurt Karperos, PE, Deputy Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board 24 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 184 

Nancy Vehr, Air Quality Administrator, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality ..................................................................................................... 32 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 196 

Homer A. Boushey, M.D., Professor of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary/Critical Care Medicine, University of California, San Francisco ............................ 48 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 207 

Seyed Sadredin, Executive Director/Air Pollution Control Officer, San Joaquin 

Valley Air Pollution Control District .................................................................. 55 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 212 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement of Glenn Hamer, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 

submitted by Mr. Shimkus .................................................................................. 88 

Article entitled ‘‘US surface ozone trends and extremes from 1980 to 2014: 

quantifying the roles of rising Asian emissions, domestic controls, wildfires, 

and climate,’’ Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2017, submitted by Mr. 

Shimkus ................................................................................................................ 101 

Majority memorandum, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ............................................ 129 

Statement of public health and medical organizations, submitted by Mr. 

Tonko ..................................................................................................................... 140 

Statement of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, submitted by Mr. 

Tonko ..................................................................................................................... 143 

Comments of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, submitted by Mr. 

Tonko ..................................................................................................................... 146 

Article entitled, ‘‘Alex Sherriffs and John Capitman: Don’t back off demands 

for cleaner air,’’ Fresno Bee, Sept. 30, 2015, submitted by Mr. Tonko ............ 151 

Page

IV 

Statement of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, submitted by Mr. Tonko .............................................................................. 154 

Statement of the American Chemistry Council, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ..... 159 

Statement of Community Organizations, submitted by Mr. Tonko .................... 162 

(1) 

H.R. 806, OZONE STANDARDS 

IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 2017 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Shimkus, McKinley, Blackburn, Harper, Olson, Johnson, Flores, Hudson, Walberg, Carter, Tonko, Ruiz, 

Peters, Green, McNerney, Cardenas, and Matsui. 

Staff present: Grace Appelbe, Legislative Clerk, Energy/Environment; Wyatt Ellertson, Research Associate, Energy/Environment; 

Blair Ellis, Digital Coordinator/Press Secretary; Tom 

Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy/Environment; A.T. Johnston, 

Senior Policy Advisor, Energy; Ben Lieberman, Senior Counsel, Energy; Katie McKeough, Press Assistant; Alex Miller, Video Production Aide and Press Assistant; Annelise Rickert, Counsel, Energy; 

Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment; Dan Schneider, 

Press Secretary; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member, Energy; 

Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; David Cwiertney, Minority 

Energy/Environment Fellow; Jean Fruci, Minority Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Caitlin Haberman, Minority Professional 

Staff Member; Rick Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment; and Alexander Ratner, Minority 

Policy Analyst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The Subcommittee on the Environment will now 

come to order. The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for 

an opening statement. 

During today’s legislative hearing we will consider H.R. 806, the 

Ozone Standards and Implementation Act of 2017. Mr. Olson reintroduced this bipartisan bill this past February after its development through the committee process and passage in the House in 

the 114th Congress as H.R. 4775. We thank Mr. Olson, as well as 

Mr. Flores, Mr. Latta, and a guy named Mr. Scalise for the particular leadership and thoughtful contributions to the previous bill 

and what is now H.R. 806. 

The Ozone Standards and Implementation Act makes practical 

reforms to the Clean Air Act to streamline implementation of naVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:44 Jan 30, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-17 CHRIS
2 

tional air quality standards by the state and local authorities. 

These reforms seek to improve the states’ ability to meet the new 

ozone and other air quality standards without undermining efforts 

to ensure and promote the productive capacity of their citizens. 

The bill reflects what we have learned from a record developed 

over a number of hearings and extending back to the committee’s 

Clean Air Act reforms in 2012. An important lesson from this 

record is that timelines and procedures established almost 30 years 

ago can be counterproductive today. The result is unnecessary 

costs, duplicative efforts, regulatory delay, and economic uncertainty. 

The 2015 ozone standards provide a case in point. In October 

2015, EPA established a new ground-level ozone standard of 70 

parts per billion, down from 75 parts per billion established 7 years 

earlier in 2008. The practical problem is that EPA had only issued 

implementation regulations for the 2008 standard 6 months earlier, 

in March 2015. So just as states were implementing measures for 

one standard they would now have to divert resources to implement measures for another standard for the same criteria pollutant. Yet EPA projected that the majority of areas that may be subject to the new standards would come into compliance with those 

standards under existing rules and programs. 

It does not make sense why these areas should be subject to new, 

long-term compliance and reporting regimes that they would avoid 

if allowed to let existing measures work. But this cannot happen 

under the tight timelines that were established almost 30 years ago 

when air quality was much worse and emission controls were just 

beginning to take hold. 

Add up the many other compliance deadlines for other EPA regulations, related litigation, the rapid pace of new rules, and you can 

see how this process hinders the ability of states to establish orderly plans and predictable permitting regimes. 

As a result, state and local regulators expend resources and time 

keeping up with a never-ending succession of rules. This undermines their ability to focus on assessing the performance of existing public health measures. It also undermines their ability to ensure predictability so that people can build and expand their business and infrastructure. 

H.R. 806 makes some reasonable changes to update the Clean 

Air Act requirements to address these problems. For example, the 

bill phases in implementation of the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards, extending the date for final designations for the latter standards to 2025 and aligns permitting requirements with this phased 

implementation schedule. 

It also provides reasonable timing for mandatory reviews of air 

quality standards by extending the requirement to 10 years, while 

preserving the EPA Administrator’s discretion to issue revised 

standards earlier, if necessary. This falls in line with the Clean Air 

Act’s cornerstone ‘‘cooperative federalism’’ approach which mandates that EPA establish the NAAQS, but leaves the task of deciding how to achieve them largely to the states. 

It requires timely issuance of implementation regulations by EPA 

to reduce the uncertainty that the states face when developing 

their implementation plans. The bill also authorizes the AdminisVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:44 Jan 30, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-17 CHRIS
3 

trator, under certain and appropriate circumstances, to take account of technical feasibility when determining where to set emission levels that scientists advise are fully protective of public 

health. 

Other steps the bill takes help ensure states and localities are 

not penalized for emissions and air quality events they cannot control. 

With that, let me welcome our witnesses, five of whom bring the 

state and local perspectives that we have focused upon throughout 

this process. They represent California, Maine, Wyoming, and Kentucky, regions that often confront different types of implementation 

challenges. We will also hear from the representative of the American Thoracic Society. 

Let me note for the record that we invited EPA to the hearing. 

And while the agency was unable to provide a witness today, we 

expect to receive written comments on the bill in time. 

I think all our witnesses will agree that our ultimate goal is to 

ensure air quality is protective of public health. Of course, the key 

to that objective is to ensure that we have laws that effectively facilitate standards for implementation. That is what this bill aims 

to do. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

Today’s legislative hearing will consider H.R. 806, the ‘‘Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017.’’ 

Mr. Olson reintroduced this bi-partisan bill this past February, after its development through the Committee process and passage in the House in the 114th Congress as H.R. 4775. Let me thank Mr. Olson as well as Mr. Flores, Mr. Latta, and 

Mr. Scalise for their particular leadership and thoughtful contributions to the previous bill and what is now H.R. 806. 

The Ozone Standards Implementation Act makes practical reforms to the Clean 

Air Act to streamline implementation of national air quality standards by state and 

local authorities. These reforms seek to improve the states’ ability to meet the new 

ozone and other air-quality standards without undermining efforts to ensure and 

promote the productive capacity of their citizens. 

The bill reflects what we have learned from a record developed over a number 

of hearings and extending back to the Committee’s Clean Air Act forums in 2012. 

An important lesson from this record is that timelines and procedures established 

almost 30 years ago can be counterproductive today. They result is unnecessary 

costs, duplicative efforts, regulatory delay, and economic uncertainty. 

The 2015 ozone standards provide a case in point. In October 2015 EPA established a new ground-level ozone standard of 70 parts per billion, down from 75 parts 

per billion established 7 years earlier in 2008. 

The practical problem is that EPA had only issued implementation regulations for 

the 2008 standard 6 months earlier in March 2015. So just as states were implementing measures for one standard they would now have to divert resources to implement measures for another standard for the same criteria pollutant. Yet EPA 

projected that the majority of areas that may be subject to the new standards would 

come into compliance with those standards under existing rules and programs. 

It does not make sense why these areas should be subject to new, long-term compliance and reporting regimes that they would avoid if allowed to let existing measures work. But this cannot happen under the tight timelines that were established 

almost 30 years ago, when air quality was much worse, and emissions controls were 

just beginning to take hold. 

Add up the many other compliance deadlines for other EPA regulations, related 

litigation, the rapid pace of new rules, and you can see how this process hinders 

the ability of states to establish orderly plans and predictable permitting regimes. 

As a result, state and local regulators expend resources and time keeping up with 

a never-ending succession of rules. This undermines their ability to focus on assessing the performance of existing public-health measures. It also undermines their 

4 

ability to ensure predictability so that people can build and expand their businesses 

and infrastructure. 

HR 806 makes some reasonable changes to update Clean Air Act requirements 

to address these problems. For example, the bill phases in implementation of the 

2008 and 2015 ozone standards, extending the date for final designations for the latter standards to 2025 and aligns permitting requirements with this phased implementation schedule. 

It also provides reasonable timing for mandatory reviews of air quality standards 

by extending the requirement to ten years, while preserving the EPA Administrator’s discretion to issue revised standards earlier, if necessary. This falls in line with 

the Clean Air Act’s cornerstone ‘‘cooperative federalism’’ approach-which mandates 

that EPA establish the NAAQS, but leaves the task of deciding how to achieve them 

largely to the states. 

It requires timely issuance of implementation regulations by EPA to reduce the 

uncertainty that the states face when developing their implementation plans. The 

bill also authorizes the Administrator—under certain and appropriate circumstances—to take account of technical feasibility when determining where to set 

emissions levels that scientists advise are fully protective of the public health. Other 

steps the bill takes help ensure states and localities are not penalized for emissions 

and air quality events they cannot control. 

With that, let me welcome our witnesses—five of whom bring the state and local 

perspectives that we have focused upon throughout this process. They represent 

California, Maine, Wyoming, and Kentucky—regions that often confront different 

types of implementation challenges. We will also hear from a representative of the 

American Thoracic Society. 

Let me note for the record that we invited EPA to the hearing and while the agency was unable to provide a witness today, we expect to receive written comments 

on the bill in time. 

I think all our witness will agree that our ultimate goal is to ensure our air quality is protective of public health. Of course, the key to that objective is to ensure 

we have laws that effectively facilitate standards implementation. That is what this 

bill is aims to do. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And with that, my time has expired. The Chair 

now recognizes the Ranking Member Mr. Tonko from New York. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

We have examined similar iterations of this legislation in the 

past. So it should not surprise any of my colleagues to hear me 

once again say that protecting public health and growing the economy are not mutually exclusive. 

The history of the Clean Air Act and the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards, or NAAQS, has clearly demonstrated that. 

Since its enactment, the Clean Air Act has reduced key air pollutants by roughly 70 percent while the economy has more than tripled. I have yet to see any evidence of that trend reversing. 

I want to thank our witnesses for being here. I especially want 

to thank Dr. Boushey, certainly, who is testifying on behalf of the 

American Thoracic Society. It is important for us to remember why 

the Clean Air Act was passed in the first place: to protect public 

health. 

According to a peer-reviewed 2011 EPA study, in 2010 alone the 

Clean Air Act prevented over 160,000 premature deaths, 130,000 

cases of heart disease, 1.7 million asthma attacks, and millions of 

respiratory illnesses. Healthier people means fewer sick days, hospital visits, and premature deaths, all which lead to a more productive society. The science is clear: breathing air that contains ozone 

can cause serious health effects. 

5 

Cleaning our air is not always easy, but the benefits far outweigh 

the costs. And history has shown that meeting these health-protective standards is achievable. 

This bill, as currently drafted, includes a number of provisions 

that would seriously undermine EPA’s ability to create and implement health-protective standards, and not just for ozone but for all 

NAAQS. It would delay implementation of the 2015 ozone standard 

significantly, extend the review cycle for all NAAQS from 5 to 10 

years, and add consideration of technological feasability into the 

standard-setting process. 

We all want states and EPA to work cooperatively under a 

framework that gives states flexibility on meeting these targets. 

But we cannot deny the critical role that the Federal Government 

must play in reducing air pollution. 

I am from a downwind state, and whether it is smog, particulate 

matter, or acid rain, we know air pollutants do not respect state 

lines. For years we have been asking EPA to do more with less. 

This bill continues that. I am not opposed to asking for studies and 

trying to better understand our nation’s air quality challenges, but 

we cannot expect these studies to be done without additional funding. 

I would be remiss not to mention the President’s proposed budget 

which seeks to cut EPA by 31 percent, and includes even great percentage cuts to categorical grants. We must assume state and local 

air quality management grants and other programs that improve 

our air quality will not be immune from these cuts. 

Solving our nation’s long-term air quality issues is going to take 

innovation. I believe in America’s ingenuity. It can be done. But it 

will be a lot easier if we support these efforts with federal investments. Investments in electric vehicles and cleaner trucks are just 

a few examples that would make a big difference. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on how we 

can achieve our common goal of making our air cleaner for generations to come. 

And with that, Mr. Chair, I will yield my remaining time to the 

gentleman from California, Representative McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I thank the gentleman from New York for 

yielding. 

It is a privilege to represent the northern part of the San Joaquin Valley, one of the most productive agricultural regions in the 

world, and home to manufacturing and renewable energy production. However, this region and its residents have suffered from 

some of the worst air quality in the nation. This means missed 

school and missed work. It means premature deaths, has a negative impact on the economy, and the long-term public health. 

We are fortunate to have the dedicated folks in the San Joaquin 

Air Pollution Control District and the California Air Resources 

Board who have done a tremendous job in improving air quality in 

the last several years. The valley, however, still faces significant 

challenges as the Valley Air District has testified in previous years. 

The valley’s geography will always make combating air pollution 

an uphill battle. But the Clean Air Act has been an effective tool 

to improve air quality. 

6 

Unfortunately, the bill before us today weakens the Clean Air 

Act. Improving our air, or even keeping the gains we have made, 

will be even more challenging if this bill were combined with the 

President’s budget targeting the EPA’s air shed grants and DERA 

grants that have been vital for our region. These are all steps backwards when we have made tremendous progress. 

I appreciate the CARB and the Air Valley District with the work 

you do on a daily basis. 

And I yield back the mountainous time that I still have remaining. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. TONKO. And I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair now recognizes the subcommittee chairman of the 

Telecommunications Subcommittee, Mrs. Blackburn, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am from Tennessee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. This is an issue that affects us and affects a 

lot of our counties. And the NAAQS standards are something that 

has been of concern. I am appreciative to Mr. Olson for the bill and 

for going about looking at this. 

I will tell you, and one of the things I want to talk with you all 

about, we know from the EPA that the technology that is necessary 

for some of these standards to be in place, you know, it doesn’t 

even exist yet. And so this concerns us because it makes long-term 

planning and budgeting very difficult. So sometimes I look at what 

was pushed forward with the finalization of the NAAQS standards 

and the ozone standards and I just think, you know, we kind of got 

the cart before the horse. 

And while, as I repeatedly say, we are all for clean air, we are 

all for clean water, what we want to do is make certain that there 

is the ability to plan for and to meet the standards that are on the 

books, and that we can do things in a technologically feasible and 

cost-effective manner. 

So we thank you for being here and for your attention to the 

issue. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady yields back the time. 

Without objection, we will hold the Ranking Member’s 5 minutes 

if he is able to attend. And with that, we will now turn to our 

panel. And I will recognize you are allowed to speak. Your full testimony is submitted in the record. 

You will have 5 minutes. It is an mportant issue, you can go over 

a little it. If you go over a minute-and-a-half or two minutes, then 

we will probably try to get your attention. It is a big panel, so we 

want to get to questions. 

So, first up is Mr. Sean Alteri, Director of the Division of Air 

Quality at the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection. 

We are glad to have you, sir. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

7 

STATEMENTS OF SEAN ALTERI, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF AIR 

QUALITY, KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION; MARK CONE, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF AIR 

QUALITY, MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; KURT KARPEROS, PE, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD; NANCY VEHR, 

AIR QUALITY ADMINISTRATOR, WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; HOMER A. BOUSHEY, M.D., PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE, DIVISION OF PULMONARY/CRITICAL 

CARE MEDICINE, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO; SEYED SADREDIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

STATEMENT OF SEAN ALTERI 

Mr. ALTERI. Thank you, Chairman. 

Good morning, Chair Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, and 

members of the subcommittee. My name is Sean Alteri, and I currently serve as the Director for the Division of Air Quality in Kentucky. I am honored to testify today and I thank you for the opportunity to tell you about our commonwealth and share some good information about our commonwealth. 

In addition to my work with the Kentucky Division for Air Quality, I am currently serving as the President of the Association of 

Air Pollution Control Agencies. Our association is a national nonpartisan, consensus-driven organization focused on improving air 

quality. The association represents more than 40 state and local air 

quality control agencies, and more than 20 environmental senior officials from state environmental agencies serve on its board of directors. 

Regarding today’s hearing, I appreciate the thoughtfulness and 

consideration that went into the drafting of H.R. 806. The bill’s intent to facilitate efficient state implementation of ground-level 

ozone standards is a welcome opportunity for state and local air 

quality regulators. H.R. 806 is supported by leaders of air pollution 

control agencies. The strategic approach to modernizing the Clean 

Air Act is necessary and appropriate. 

There are three elements of the bill that deserve emphasis. First, 

the proposed amendments establish a more reasonable time interval for area designations and revised NAAQS and provides EPA 

and state air pollution control officials with sufficient time to meet 

its statutory obligations. 

Additionally, H.R. 806 requires the study and report of international pollution and its impacts on air quality. 

And, finally, H.R. 806 will also obligate EPA and NOAA to conduct a study to determine regional background of naturally-occurring concentrations of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides from vegetation. 

These studies will provide the necessary information for state 

and local air pollution control officials to develop cost-effective air 

pollution control strategies. 

With respect to the periodic review of criteria pollutants, H.R. 

806 modernizes the statutory clock to reflect the significant improvements that have been made in air quality. Section 3 of H.R. 

8 

806 provides for a more practical and attainable 10-year interval 

for the review and potential revision of air quality standards. Moving forward, this time period will be essential to achieve the most 

difficult, the most expensive remaining increments of air quality 

improvement. 

In fact, the time frames and processes detailed in H.R. 806 are 

consistent with those that EPA has most recently employed to designate areas with respect to the 2010 SO2 standard. Although the 

sulfur dioxide standard was revised in 2010, the court order resulting from the consent decree negotiated between EPA and third 

party interest groups sets the schedule for EPA to complete all 

area designations by December 31, 2020, 10 years after the NAAQS 

requires. Given the court’s decision, the 10-year interval for designation time frame expressed in H.R. 806 is consistent with EPA’s 

approach to the 2010 SO2 standard. 

As a Director for the Division for Air Quality, I am responsible 

for carrying out the Clean Air Act congressional declaration of purpose, and that is, ‘‘To insure that economic growth will occur in a 

manner consistent with the preservation of clean air resources.’’ 

In Kentucky, we have a strong manufacturing economy that is 

robust and growing. Many of the products that are manufactured 

in Kentucky are essential to our national security and economy. 

For example, Kentucky produces military-grade aluminum and 

steel to protect our soldiers and to provide them with the resources 

to carry out their missions. We are a world leader in the aerospace 

industry and are currently the third largest automobile manufacturer in the United States. We are home to Toyota, Ford, and General Motors. 

We melt, cast, and mold more than 50 percent of the aluminum 

produced in the United States and more than 35 percent of the nation’s stainless steel. Currently, two of the four remaining primary 

aluminum facilities operate in the commonwealth. And, not to be 

forgotten, 95 percent of the world’s bourbon is distilled in Kentucky. Simply put, Kentucky makes the things that enables other 

states in the nation to grow their economies and improve their 

quality of life. 

In closing, state and local permitting authorities must be provided with regulatory certainty throughout the permitting process 

of new, modified, and reconstructed stationary sources. The regulatory certainty is necessary to carry out our statutory obligations, 

which includes providing for economic growth. The reasonable 

amendments proposed in H.R. 806 will further enable all of our 

states to continue to grow our economy, enhance our quality of life, 

and improve our air quality. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 806, 

and I look forward to any questions you may have regarding my 

testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Alteri follows:] 

9 


25633.001

\l \1 \\cr. HI-\ t\ 

ENERGY A'iD E:'IVIRO:•BIE:>IT CABINET 

DEP.\IU,IE~T FOH E~YIHO'\.,IF.YL\L PROTF(TIO> 

.'UO ~0\\ 11~ l\nt l! \ \Rll 

I R:\:\!...:1 OR I. Kl "- ll '('!-.. Y -lOW I 

TESTIMONY OF SEll!\ ALTER! 

ON "IlK 806. OZONE ST \1\D;\RDS IMP! Ev!I:NTliTION ACT OF 20 IT 

BEFORE TilE 

lJNII'I [)STATES IIOI ;sF OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ENERGY liND COM\IERCE St!BCO\I:VIITTIT ON El\VIRONMlXf 

\1ARCI I 22. 2016 

Cinod morning. Chair Shimkus. Ranking Member Tonko. and members or the 

Subcommittee. :Vl) name is Scan A!tcri and 1 current!; serve as the Director or the Kentucky 

Di\ bion l(x ,.'\ir Qunlit;.. I um honored to testify toda) and thank you ltw this opportunity to 

!-.hare inrnnnatiPn about 1hc Commom,calth of Kentucky. 

ln additilm tn my \\ork \\ith the KL"ntucky Division l(lr Air Qua!it). I also currently sene 

a~ the President t()r the Association or Air Pollution Control Agencies. Our association is a 

national. non-parti.c;nn. conscnsu:.;-drivcn organin1tion focused on imprcwing air qualit). The 

i\S;;I)Liation represents more than ~tO slate and local air agcnciL"<:>, and sl'nior onicials from 20 

<;;~ate cn\'ironmcntal agencies currcntl) sit on A A PCA 's BoanJ or Director~. 

Regarding tuday·s hearing. I appreciate the thoughtfulness and consideration that has 

"cnt into the dralling or II.R. 806. The Bill's intent. "ITlo litcilitatc cllicicnt State 

imp!cml'ntation of ground-h;vd o;ronc standards .. ··is a \\C!comc opportunity for state and local 

Jir qual it: regulators. li.R. 806 is supported b) leaders o!' air pollution control agencies. The 
10 


25633.002

strategic approach to modernizing the Clean Air Act is necessary and appropriate. There are 

three clements of the bill that deserve emphasis: 

The proposed amendments establish a more reasonable time interval lor area designations 

of revised NAAQS and provides EPA and state air pollution control oflicials \\itb 

sufllcicnt time to meet its respective statutory obligations. 

Additionally. II.R. 806 requires the study and report of international pollution and its 

impacts on our air quality. 

Finally. li.R. 806 will also obligate EPA and NOAA to conduct a study to determine 

regional background. naturally-occurring concentrations of volatile organic compounds 

and nitrogen oxides !!·om vegetation. These studies will provide the necessary 

in formation for state and local air pollution control officials to develop cDst-efTcctiw air 

pollution control strategies. 

\\'ith rcsp~:;ct to the periodic review of criteria pollutants, ll.R. 806 modernizes the 

statutor0 clock to rcllecl the signillcant improvements that have been made in air qualit). 

Section 3 of l!.R. 806 provides l<x a more practical and attainable I 0 year interval l(lr the review 

and potential revision of air quality standards. Moving lorward. this lime period will he essential 

to achieve the most ditlicult and expensive remaining increments of air quality improvement. 

In fact. the timeJ!·ames and process dctaikd in ll.R. 806 arc consistent with those that 

FPA has most recently employed to designate areas with respect to the 2010 sulfur dioxide 

national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Although the sulfur dioxide NAAQS \\US 

revised in 2010, the court order resulting li·om lhe consent decree negotiated between EPA and 

third party interest groups sets the schedule for EP /\ to complete all area designations by 

December 31. 2020. Given the court's decision, the I 0 year interval for designation timeli·ame 

2 
11 


25633.003

expressed in II.R. 806 is consistent "ith r:r A "s approach to the 20 I 0 SO: NAAQS designation 

process. 

As the Director of the Division for Air Quality. I am responsible for carrying out the 

Clean Air Act congressional declaration of purpose. "To insure that economic gro\\·th "·ill occur 

in a manner consistent with the preservation of clean air resources." 

In Kentucky. we have a strong manufacturing economy that is robust and growing. l\1any 

of the products that arc manufactured in Kentucky arc essential to our national security and 

economy. For example. Kentucky produces military-grade aluminum and steel to protect our 

soldiers and to provide them '' ith the resources to carry out their missions. We arc a world 

leader in the aerospace industry and arc currently the 3'0 largest automobile manufiKturcr in the 

United States. We are home to Toyota, Fore!. and General Motors. 

We melt. cast. and mold more than 50% of the aluminum produced in the US and more 

than 35% of the nation's stainless steel. Currently. two of the four remaining primary aluminum 

1~1Cilitics in the US operate in the Commonwealth of Kentucky . .And. not to be l(xgotten. 95% of 

the \\Orld"s bourbon is distilled in Kentucky. Simply put. Kentucky makes things that enables 

other states in the nation to grow their economies and improve their quality of life. 

In closing, state and local permitting authorities must be provided with regulator; 

certainty throughout the permitting process of new, modified. and reconstructed stationary 

sources. The regulator; certainty is necessary to carry out our statutory obligations. which 

includes providing for economic growth. The reasonable amendments proposed in H.R. 806 will 

further enable all of our states to continue to grow our economy. enhance our quality ol' life. and 

improve our air quality. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on II.R. 806 and !look 

l(lt"\vard to any questions you may have regarding my testimony. 

3 
12 


25633.004

250 

700 

560 

~ 'IS· 420 

! 

)zao 

~ 

140 

0 

Kentucky NO, Emissions from Power Plant Generation. 2000.20.16 

8 

1--- Annual Mass Emissions --- Monthly Gross Emissions Rate 

~ !!ot>riW lla!obloM. El!c.oi!Ot :llfl7 

Kent'-lcky Sulfur Dioxide .Emissions from Electricity Generation, 1995~2016 

531 

76 

1SS5 1SS5 1997 1$99 1$99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 200(1 2007 200a 200$ :llf10: 20f1 :llf12 2«13 :llf14 :llf15 :llf1& 

Kentucky Energy Datal>aOe. ESC-OSOI, 2017 O.la SoU~W: EPA CfeanA!I'Ma!i<ets 

4 
13 


25633.005

600 

500 

g' 400 

'\; 

l300 

J 200 

100 

14 

Statewide Air Quality Trends {O)JN021S~) 

5 
14 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. 

Now I would like to turn to Mr. Marc Cone, Professional Engineer, Director of the Bureau of Air Quality at the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. 

Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF MARC CONE 

Mr. CONE. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member 

Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. I am Marc Cone, Director of the Bureau of Air Quality with Maine Department of Environmental Protection. With over 30 years of experience working on 

Clean Air Act issues, I am here to speak in support of H.R. 806. 

Thank you for inviting me to speak. 

Maine benefits from clean air and pristine waters and supports 

environmental protection. Strong national implementation of the 

Clean Air Act requirements benefits people of Maine more than 

most because much of the pollution of our air comes from areas 

downwind of us. Emissions data, ambient monitoring data, and meteorological data irrefutably show that short and long range transport of air pollutants to Maine from other states and nations all affect Maine’s air quality. 

The Clean Air Act has been successful in reducing significant 

amounts of air pollution, but today the Act is inefficient. Maine is 

supportive of the Environmental Protection Agency implementing 

the Clean Air Act in an efficient manner and as expeditiously as 

practical. When the Clean Air Act was in its infancy, the 5 years 

between reevaluations of standards may have made sense, but now 

it seems to be a pragmatic problem. 

When the requirements to review ambient standards was new, 

the 5 years may have been effective due to less complicated and 

less costly controls, allowing timelier progress. Unfortunately, the 

reality today has been that EPA has failed to accomplish implementing new standards in a 5 year time frame. The current time 

frame has created uncertainty for facilities and for state and local 

regulating agencies. 

It is both difficult and frustrating to fully understand regulatory 

requirements, explore options, plan, fund, contract work, implement, and measure the results of changes intended to maintain 

ambient air quality standards when the target is redefined on an 

erratic schedule and guidance for implementation of any new 

standard is not provided at the same time the standard is set. 

It is complicated. A standard without an implementation strategy is like giving someone a destination without a map. You can 

probably get there, but it is going to take some time and effort. 

Currently, the system does not work and it is now an excellent 

time to consider changes. 

Today, for a new standard EPA needs to propose, consider comments, finalize, defend legal challenges, develop implementation 

rules, and work with states on these plans. They must accomplish 

this all before evaluating the standard again. This is quite a challenge, which has been reflected in the latest standards. 

EPA promulgated an ozone standard to replace the 1997 ozone 

standard 11 years later, in 2008. The EPA did not issue the implementation regulation for the 2008 standard until 2015, 7 years 

15 

after the promulgation of the standard. Just months after the 2015 

implementation regulation was issued for the 2008 standard, EPA 

promulgated a new ozone standard. 

Even now, the latest data suggests that some areas in the ozone 

transport region are not attaining the 1997 standard, not to mention the 2008 and 2015 standard. The reality is that when a standard is set, EPA needs to issue an implementation strategy for that 

standard at the same time. 

The latest sulfur dioxide standard was promulgated in 2010. The 

2010 standard provides a new level of complexity to implement, as 

EPA had significant time to develop implementation requirements 

that came out in 2015. Depending on a state’s plan, the final assessment of the 2010 sulfur dioxide standard will not occur until 

approximately 10 years after it was put in place. Again, the proposal in H.R. 806 seems a practical response to reality. 

The PM2.5 standard has also been a complicated process. In 

1997, EPA promulgated the first PM2.5 standard. The implementation has been very confusing and a technically challenging process. 

In summary, the implementation of this standard to date continues to create regulatory uncertainty. A 10-year time frame for 

some standards may still not be enough for EPA to overcome the 

technical challenges of a standard. 

In conclusion, a standard without an implementation strategy 

will not protect citizens. The challenges and uncertainty of the 

1997 ozone and particulate matter standard continue 20 years after 

their promulgation. The changes, as proposed in H.R. 806, to delay 

final designations under the 2015 standard until 2025, and to extend the time frame for standards review from every 5 years to 

every 10 years, including concurrently-published, clearly-defined 

implementing regulations, would allow for due process to be followed and fulfilled. This would more effectively and efficiently utilize federal, state, and individual facility resources to establish a 

standard and work for the improvement of air quality and protection of the people of our nation. 

Thank you for allowing me to speak today. And I welcome any 

questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cone follows:] 

16 


25633.006

PAUL R LEPAGE 

GOVERNOR 

STATE OF MAINE 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

PAUL MERCER 

COMMISSIONER 

Written Testimony Submitted to the Subcommittee on Environment of the 

Energy and Commerce Committee 

Comments on "H.R. 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017" 

This proposed regulation provides for improved fulfillment and facilitation of the regulatory 

process by EPA and therefore more effective use of regulations to protect air quality in the U.S. 

Historically, the EPA has neither promulgated updated ambient air quality standards within the 

live-year timeframe currently required by federal law, nor has the agency provided implementation 

regulations and guidance in a timely fashion so that states, tribes, and local agencies could 

implement the regulations and realize measured benefits in air quality. Components ofH.R. 806 

address and rectify both of these shortcomings within the current regulatory process. 

The cycle of reviewing a standard every five years creates a perpetual status of uncertainty with 

States and the regulated community. The States and the regulated community deserve certainty to 

implement and then evaluate the effects of their efforts before the target standard for compliance 

is redefined. The existing sequence of requirements makes that unachievable. The changes 

included in this bill would allow the EPA more time for strategies to be more thoughtfully 

developed, would help provide greater certainty within a more realistic timeframe for 

PARK 
17 


25633.007

H.R. 806, "Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017" 

Written Testimony of Marc Cone, Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

March 22, 2017 

Page 2 of 8 

implementation of a new standard, and would allow for assessment of the effectiveness of control 

measures that have been put in place. 

Issues Regarding Implementation of the Ozone Standard 

In 2008, EPA promulgated an ozone standard to replace the 1997 ozone standard. The EPA did 

not issue the implementation regulation for the 2008 standard until 2015, seven years after 

promulgation of the standard. Then, a few months later in 2015, the agency promulgated a new 

ozone standard to replace the standard for which implementation guidance had only recently been 

provided. Even then, EPA staff and states in the Ozone Transport Region recognized that the 

implementation regulation was not a plan that would achieve attainment of the standard in the 

Ozone Transport Region. The Ozone Transport Region is composed of northern Virginia, 

Washington, D.C., Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, 

Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. The reality is that when a 

standard is set, EPA needs to defend the standard and promptly develop an implementation strategy 

for the standard. H.R. 806 requires any newly promulgated NAAQS to be accompanied by 

concurrently promulgated implementation guidance. 

Under existing process and timctrames, before EPA could defend and develop a strategy for 

implementation of the ozone standard promulgated in 2008, the Agency was already due to 

re-evaluate the standard according to the five-year NAAQS review frequency in current law. This 

situation is not ideal. EPA has yet to develop strategies that allow all states to reach the 1997 

ozone standard. V./e have seen reductions of ozone levels in the country, but there are some areas, 
18 


25633.008

H. R. 806, "Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017" 

Written Testimony of Marc Cone, Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

March 22, 2017 

Page 3 of 8 

including some within the Ozone Transport Region, that arc not yet monitoring below the 1997 

standard, let alone the 2008 or 2015 standards. The continuing nonattainment with ozone 

standards and EPA's failure to facilitate discussions on pollution transport issues resulted in a 

number of states petitioning EPA to bring other states into the Ozone Transport Region. This 

adversarial situation could have been avoided if EPA had put resources into facilitating a sciencebased collaborative mechanism to achieve attainment instead of re-evaluating the existing ozone 

standard and then promulgating an updated standard. 

The EPA has developed the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which is a start for the 

development of an ozone transport solution, but the CSAPR has fallen short of the intended 

outcomes and needs to be more robust to solve nonattainmcnt issues. EPA needs more time and 

needs to put resources into solving the pollution transport issue to achieve attainment of the ozone 

standard within the Ozone Transport Region. 

Maine has experienced frustration with this latest ozone review cycle which created an atmosphere 

of uncertainty for our state. Maine is rural state and part of the Ozone Transport Region which 

requires the state be treated as a moderate non-attainment area for ozone even though the state has 

attained the ozone standard. Over the last 25 years, Maine has requested and been granted 

regulatory relief in the form of Section 182(!) waivers for nitrogen oxide (NO,) requirements for 

each ozone standard. The state demonstrated that controlling NO, further would not contribute to 

attaining the ozone standard in Maine and would not impact existing nonattainment areas in the 

OTR. In fact, Maine has monitored attainment with the ozone standard since 2004, which includes 
19 


25633.009

H.R. 606, "Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017" 

Written Testimony of Marc Cone, Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

March 22, 2017 

Page 4 of B 

the 2008 and 2015 standards. In 2013, the state requested regulatory relief from the more stringent, 

nonattainment-levcl requirements for volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions, which would 

make the VOC emissions requirements similar to those applicable to ozone attainment areas. This 

request was delayed, and then the EPA informed the state that this request would not be acted upon 

due to the next ozone standard being proposed. At the time, the state had already received 

construction permit applications for facility changes at forest products businesses that were relying 

on the regulatory relief being granted for economic and practical feasibility of the projects. Since 

that time, one facility has gone through bankruptcy, and the other has ceased operation. In a state 

where the manufacturing industry is still a significant part of our economy, every bit of regulatory 

certainty can be critical when competing in the global economy. 

Issues Regarding the Latest Sulfur Dioxide Standard 

The most recent sulfur dioxide (SO,) standard was promulgated in 2010, and the previous standard 

was promulgated in 1996, for a span of 14 years between standards. The primary standard became 

a standard on a one-hour basis, where previously the standard had an annual and a 24-hour 

averaging period. The 20 l 0 standard provided a new level of complexity to implement, and EPA's 

action was met witb legal challenges. Thus, EPA took significant time to develop implementation 

requirements, which became available in 2015. The implementation requirements obliged states 

to provide plans to demonstrate compliance with the standard around or near certain SO, sources 

by means of either atmospheric dispersion modeling or by setting up a monitoring network around 

sources which emit greater than 2,000 tons per year of SO, or other sources EPA identified to be 

included. The results of atmospheric dispersion modeling were required to be submitted in 2017. 
20 


25633.010

H.R. 806, "Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017" 

Written Testimony of Marc Cone, Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

March 22, 2017 

Page 5 of 8 

If monitoring is to be performed to show compliance with the standard, the source has to collect 

three years of data to demonstrate compliance. So, the final implementation of the 2010 sulfur 

dioxide standard will not occur until approximately 10 years after the standard was established. 

As it pertains to clarity and certainty in implementing this standard, Maine had no facilities 

emitting greater than 2,000 tons per year of sulfur dioxide; however, EPA Region 1 made the 

determination that a particular oil-fired power plant in Maine should be subject to these 

requirements and included in this analysis. The experience of Maine DEP staff provided great 

confidence that the facility's operation was not violating the ambient standard based on monitoring 

of another plant and experience with atmospheric dispersion modeling. The atmospheric analysis 

suggests the facility's contributions result in ambient air levels significantly under the standard. 

The ambiguity of this implementation requirement has created work that has little value or impact 

on the ambient air quality in Maine or the U.S. Future implementation rules need clear and concise 

lines of applicability, not foggy gray lines. Thus, the 10-year timeframe along with clarity in 

issuing implementation guidance in H.R. 806 seems a practical response to reality. 

Issues Regarding Implementation of the Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Microns (P~hs) 

Standard 
21 


25633.011

H.R. 806, "Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017" 

Written Testimony of Marc Cone, Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

March 22, 2017 

Page 6 of8 

The implementation of the PM2.s ambient standard has also been a complicated process. In 1997, 

EPA promulgated the first PMz.s standard. The implementation has been a very confusing and 

uncertain process as demonstrated with the following list of actions: 

(initial PMzs NAAQS) 7/18/1997- EPA promulgated primary and secondary PM2s NAAQS 

(five years later) 3/2002 -D.C. circuit court upholds the NAAQS 

(7.5 years later) 1/5/2005 -EPA promulgates designations for the PM2 s NAAQS, 

effective April 2005. 

(9 years later) 10/26/2006 - EPA promulgates revision to primary 24-hour PMz.s NAAQS 

(1 0 years later) 4/25/2007- EPA issued Implementation Rule for PM2s NAAQS 

(11 years later) 5/16/2008 -EPA issued PMz.s New Source Review (NSR) Rule 

(requiring Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

permits issued after l/1/2011 to address PMz s) 

(15 years later) 3/2/2012- EPA issued guidance document to aid states in preparing 

PM2 s State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittals 

(15 years later) 6/29/2012- EPA proposed revisions to primary and secondary PM25 

NAAQS 

(15.5 years later) 12/14/2012- EPA revised primary annual PM2s NAAQS 

(15.5 years later) 1/4/2013- D.C. Circuit Court decision on challenge to 2007 

Implementation and 2008 NSR rules means EPA's 3/2/2012 
22 


25633.012

H.R. 806, "Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017" 

Written Testimony of Marc Cone, Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

March 22, 2017 

Page 7 of 8 

guidance is no longer appropriate. The Court remanded both 

rules to EPA. 

(19 years later) 8/24/2016- EPA promulgated new rule re: SIP submittals to implement 

PM, s NAAQS (addresses PSD permitting of PM, and 

precursor issues). 

As demonstrated by the list of actions above, there have been technical and legal challenges to 

implementing this standard that made a five-year standards re-evaluation timcline impossible to 

meet. 

For Maine, there needed to be an ambient monitoring network for which there was none. Maine 

had to purchase and locate monitors which started collecting data in 1999. Maine monitoring has 

demonstrated attainment with the PM,, air quality standard although there are continued 

challenges with monitoring for this pollutant. 

However, PM2.s permitting requirements have been uncertain since the standard was promulgated. 

EPA needed over ll years to develop regulations that were unable to stand up to legal challenges. 

Testing methods for sources took years to develop, and today there is not an approved source 

emission testing method for PM2.s for a unit using a wet scrubber to control emissions. Sadly, the 

science needed to implement the 1997 standard has yet to be fully developed nearly 20 years after 

the standard was promulgated. This standard has created and fostered uncertainty for states and 

the regulated community since its inception. A I 0-year timeframc for some standards may still 

not be enough for EPA to overcome the potential technical and legal challenges of a standard. 
23 


25633.013

H.R 806, "Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017" 

Written Testimony of Marc Cone, Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

March 22, 2017 

Page 8 of 8 

In conclusion, a standard without an implementation strategy will not protect citizens. 

Implementation of the last two ozone national ambient air quality standards (1997 and 2008) and 

implementation of the 2010 sulfur dioxide standard has taken periods of time significantly longer 

than five years. The impleme~tation challenge ofthe 1997 PM25 standard continues 20 years after 

its promulgation. The changes as proposed in H.R. 806 to delay final designations under the 2015 

standard until 2025 and to extend the timeframe for NAAQS reviews from every five years to 

every I 0 years including concurrently published, clearly defined implementing regulations and 

guidance would allow for a more appropriate time period in which to complete due process. The 

timeframc would allow EPA to utilize available data and developments in scientific understanding 

in collaborating with states and the regulated community to develop plans for the successful 

implementation of the standard. This would more effectively and efficiently utilize federal, state, 

and individual facility resources to establish a standard, implement a standard, and create a level 

of certainty and expectation of work for the improvement of air quality and ultimately better 

environmental protection for the people of our nation. 
24 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Kurt Karperos, Deputy Executive 

Officer of the California Air Resources Board. Welcome, and you 

are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KURT KARPEROS 

Mr. KARPEROS. Good morning, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking 

Member Tonko, and members of the committee. My name is Kurt 

Karperos. I am Deputy Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you 

today. 

The Air Resources Board is the California agency responsible for 

implementing the Clean Air Act in all areas of the state. I oversee 

that responsibility, including meeting federal air quality standards 

in the areas with the most persistent pollution, the greater Los Angeles area, that we refer to as the South Coast, and the San Joaquin Valley. These two regions pose the nation’s greatest challenge 

in meeting the ozone standard and ensuring the residents breathe 

healthful air. 

It is from that perspective that I want to cover three points in 

my testimony today. 

First, meeting health-based, health-protective standards for air 

quality is achievable. 

Second, economic growth and development while cleaning the air 

is not only possible, in California it is a reality. 

And, third, weakening the Clean Air Act, as H.R. 806 would do, 

is unnecessary and will harm the health and well-being of millions 

of people. 

Nearly half of California’s 38 million residents live in regions 

with pollution levels that exceed the 70 parts per billion ozone 

standard. Of those, almost five million are children, with nearly 

one-half million suffering from asthma. 

California supported EPA’s use of the most current and robust 

scientific studies to set health-protective ozone standards because 

reaching this standard would reduce premature mortality, emergency room visits for asthma, hospitalizations, and lost work and 

school days. 

Simply put, meeting the ozone standard is a public health imperative. 

California has a long and successful history of meeting healthprotective, science-based standards. Of California’s 19 areas that 

once exceeded either the 1-Hour Ozone Standard or the original 8- 

Hour Ozone Standard, only four exceed those standards today. 

The San Joaquin Valley has made significant process. This extreme non-attainment area now meets the 1-Hour Ozone Standard. 

It is on track to meet the 80 parts per billion ozone standard. And 

last summer, San Joaquin Valley leaders adopted a plan to meet 

the 75 parts per billion ozone standard by the Clean Air Act’s deadline of 2031. 

The South Coast is more challenging, but progress there is also 

remarkable. The region once measured 1-hour ozone values above 

the standard on over 200 days per year. Today it has dropped to 

less than 20. Similarly, the number of days over the 8-hour standard have been cut in half since 1990. 

25 

At the same time we have been cleaning the air, California’s 

economy has continued to grow and prosper. Last year, California’s 

economy grew to be the world’s sixth largest. In 2016, California 

non-farm employment increased by 2.6 percent, compared to 1.7 

percent nationwide. In 2009, the California clean energy industry generated $27 billion and employed 123,000 people. By 2020, we expect it to grow 

to over $140 billion with 345,000 employed. 

Looking forward, EPA estimates that achieving the 70 parts per billion ozone standard would save Californians an estimated $0.4 

to $1.4 billion per year when accounting for both the costs of reducing emissions and the avoided costs of healthcare, lost work days 

and low productivity, and other pollution impacts. 

With its science-based, health-protective air quality standards, 

its meaningful deadlines, and its requirements for comprehensive 

plans, the Clean Air Act has been California’s tool for achieving air 

quality and economic success. The Clean Air Act requires comprehensive planning. H.R. 806 would delay planning and increase 

costs in the long term. 

Today’s testimony is timely, as tomorrow the California Air Resources Board will consider a plan that will not only provide the 

reductions needed to meet the 75 parts per billion standard in 

2031, it will also provide the initial reductions needed for the new 

75 parts per billion standard in 2037. Rather than delay and wait, 

California’s solution is to move forward. 

California has used the flexibility in the Act to drive innovation. 

Electric cars are the prime example. The next step is cleaner 

trucks. California has already certified a truck that has 90 percent 

fewer emissions than those on the road today. The needed technologies are here now. 

California’s success is proof that H.R. 806 is unnecessary. It 

would inappropriately insert control costs into EPA’s science-based 

process for setting air quality standards. How healthful the air is 

to breathe is not determined by the cost to clean it up. It is a question of science and what air pollution does to the human body. 

H.R. 806 would mean more people would breathe dirty air longer. 

It would unwisely mandate that we ignore the pollution impacts of 

weather conditions made worse by man-made climate change. It 

would push off deadlines, erode requirements for incremental 

progress, and undermine the Clean Air Act’s requirements for comprehensive air quality strategies. 

In closing, let me stress that meeting health-protective standards 

is both achievable and cost-effective. The Clean Air Act provides 

the flexibility to do this. 

Setting healthful air against economic prosperity is a false 

choice. California continues to show that clean air and economic 

growth go hand-in-hand. 

And, finally, delaying the standards will harm the health and 

well-being of millions of people in this country. The San Joaquin 

Valley, in particular, is home to high rates of poverty, pollution, 

and asthma. It is especially critical to continue progress in that region. 

And in the end, the economic costs and the human cost of polluted air far exceed the costs of cleanup. 

26 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. And I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Karperos follows:] 

27 


25633.014

Matthew Rodriquez 

Air Resources Board 

Mary D. Nichols, Chair 

1001 I Street • P.O. Box 2815 

Sacramento. California 95812 • www.arb.ca.gov 

Hearing of the House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Environment 

Edmund G. Brown Jr. 

Governor 

H.R. 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017 

Introduction 

March 22, 2017, 10:00 AM 

2123 Rayburn House Office Building 

Kurt Karperos, PE 

Deputy Executive Officer 

California Air Resources Board 

Good morning Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonka, and 

members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is Kurt Karperos. I am a Deputy Executive Officer for 

the California Air Resources Board. Thank you for the opportunity 

to speak to you today. 

The Air Resources Board is the California agency responsible for 

implementing the Clean Air Act in all areas of the State. I oversee 

this effort, including meeting federal air quality standards in the 

areas with the most persistent pollution -the greater Los Angeles 

area that we refer to as the South Coast, and the San Joaquin 

Valley. 

These two regions pose the nation's greatest challenge in 

meeting the ozone standard and in ensuring the residents breathe 

healthful air. 

facmg Calrfornra ts real 

ways you can reduce 

California Environmental Protection Agency 

Pnnted on Recycled Paper 
28 


25633.015

It's from that perspective that I want to cover three points in my 

testimony. 

First, meeting health-based standards for air quality is achievable. 

Second, economic growth and development while cleaning the air 

is not only possible, it is a reality in California. 

And third, weakening the Clean Air Act, as H.R. 806 would do, is 

unnecessary and will harm the health and well-being of millions of 

people. 

Public Health Imperative 

Nearly half of California's 38 million residents live in regions with 

pollution levels that exceed the 70 parts per billion ozone 

standard. 

Of those, almost 5 million are children, with nearly one-half million 

suffering from asthma. 

California supported EPA's use of the most current and robust 

scientific studies to set a more health-protective ozone standard 

because reaching that standard will reduce premature mortality, 

emergency room visits for asthma, hospitalizations, and lost work 

and school days. 

Simply put, meeting the ozone standard is a public health 

imperative. 

California's Success Implementing the Clean Air Act 

California has a long and successful history of meeting healthprotective, science-based standards. 

Of California's 19 areas that once exceeded either the 1-hour or 

original 8-hour ozone standards, only 4 still exceed those 

standards today. 
29 


25633.016

The San Joaquin Valley has made significant progress. This 

extreme nonattainment area now meets the 1-hour ozone 

standard. It's on track to meet the 80 parts per billion standard. 

And last summer, San Joaquin Valley leaders adopted a plan to 

meet the 75 parts per billion 8-hour standard by the Clean Air 

Act's 2031 deadline. 

The South Coast is more challenging, but progress there is also 

remarkable. The region once measured 1-hour ozone values 

above the standard on over 200 days per year. Today it has 

dropped to less than 20. Similarly, the number of days over the 

8-hour standard has been cut in half since 1990. 

California has achieved this at the same time that our population 

has grown by over 25 percent and the State's gross domestic 

product has more than doubled. 

A Growing Economy at the Same Time 

At the same time we have been cleaning the air, California's 

economy has continued to grow and prosper. Last year, 

California grew to be the world's sixth largest economy. In 2016, 

California nonfarm employment increased by 2.6 percent, 

compared to 1. 7 percent nationwide. 

In 2009, the California clean energy industry generated $27 billion 

dollars and employed 123,000 people. By 2020, we expect it will 

grow to over $140 billion with 345,000 employed. 

Looking forward, EPA estimates that achieving the 70 parts per 

billion ozone standard would save Californians an estimated 0.4 

to 1.4 billion dollars per year when accounting for both the costs 

of reducing emissions and the avoided costs of healthcare, lost 

work days and low productivity, and other pollution impacts. 
30 


25633.017

The Clean Air Act has been the Tool for Achieving this 

Success 

With its science-based, health-protective air quality standards, its 

meaningful deadlines, and its requirements for comprehensive 

plans, the Clean Air Act has been California's tool for achieving 

air quality and economic success. 

The Clean Air Act requires early, comprehensive planning. 

California uses the planning required by the Act to minimize costs. 

H.R. 806 would delay planning and increase cost in the long-term 

Today's testimony is timely, as tomorrow, the California Air 

Resources Board will consider a plan that will not only provide the 

reductions needed to meet the 75 parts per billion ozone standard 

in 2031, but will also provide the emissions reductions needed for 

the new 70 parts per billion ozone standard in 2037. 

Rather than delay and wait, California's solution is to move 

forward. 

California has used the flexibility in the Act to drive innovation, 

using incentives to bring cost-effective technologies to market. 

Electric cars are the prime example. 

The next step is cleaner trucks. California has already certified a 

truck that has 90 percent fewer emissions than those on the road 

today. 

The needed technologies are here now. 

Changes to the Clean Air Act are Unnecessary 

California's success is proof that H.R. 806 is unnecessary. 

H.R. 806 would inappropriately insert control costs into EPA's 

science-based process for setting air quality standards. How 

healthful the air is to breathe is not determined by the cost to 
31 


25633.018

clean it up. It is a question of science and what air pollution does 

to the human body. 

H.R. 806 would mean more people would breathe dirty air longer. 

It would unwisely mandate that we ignore the air pollution impacts 

of weather conditions made worse by man-made climate change. 

It would push off deadlines, erode requirements for incremental 

progress, and undermine the Clean Air Act's requirements for 

comprehensive air quality strategies. 

Closing 

In closing, let me stress that meeting the federal health-protective 

ozone standards is both achievable and cost-effective. 

The Clean Air Act provides the needed flexibility to do this. 

Second, setting healthful air against economic prosperity is a 

false choice. California continues to show that clean air and 

economic growth go hand-in-hand. 

And third, delaying the standards will harm the health and wellbeing of millions of people in this country. The San Joaquin 

Valley, in particular, is home to high rates of poverty, pollution, 

and asthma. It is especially critical to continue progress in that 

region. 

In the end, the economic costs and the human cost of polluted air 

far exceed the costs of cleanup. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I would be 

happy to answer any questions. 
32 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes Ms. Nancy Vehr, Air Quality Administrator at the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. You 

are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you for joining us. 

STATEMENT OF NANCY VEHR 

Ms. VEHR. Good morning, Chairman, Ranking Member, and 

members of the committee. Thank you for inviting Wyoming to testify. 

Before I discuss ozone, I want to share three facts to help you 

understand Wyoming’s perspective. 

First, Wyoming is the ninth largest state and has the smallest 

population of any state in the nation. 

Second, Wyoming is second in the nation in mean elevation, with 

Colorado being the highest. 

Finally, Wyoming is blessed with amazing and abundant natural 

resources that provide our nation, state, and our citizens with revenue and jobs. We are proud that we protect our natural resources 

and provide for responsible energy production. 

I am going to address five points. My first point is wintertime 

ozone in Wyoming. Our first ozone exceedence came in the winter 

of 2005 in a high-elevation, rural part of the state, in an area with 

abundant oil and gas production. Roughly 10,000 people live there. 

It is surrounded by mountain ranges on three sides. 

In 2009, Wyoming recommended that the area be designated as 

non-attainment. EPA did so in 2012. Emissions have been greatly 

reduced because of significant participation and work by state and 

local governments, industry, citizens, and the area has now attained the 2008 standard. Our experience highlights why a onesize-fits-all approach to ozone is not defensible. Wyoming’s experience differs greatly from EPA’s traditional ozone focus on low-elevation, densely populated urban areas with summertime issues. 

One-size-fits-all does not fit Wyoming. 

Alternative analytical tools and methods are critical for areas 

with unique characteristics or phenomena, like those that we have 

experienced. In fact, there is still no model that is proven effective 

at replicating our wintertime high ozone events. Section 3(j) of H.R. 

806 recognizes and provides for the study of ozone formation in 

rural areas and in the winter. 

My second point, and another area that Section 3(j) addresses, is 

background ozone. Background, or naturally occurring ozone, in the 

western United States is not well understood. When EPA proposed 

the 2015 standard, it dismissed high elevation site data as an 

outlier, even though it recognized that background concentrations 

are highest at high elevation. Background ozone is a reality in the 

Mountain West. Research is needed in order to better understand 

the impact of background ozone. Section 3(j) provides for that. 

My third discussion point is international transport. In addition 

to understanding background ozone, it is also important to have a 

full understanding of the extent and magnitude of influence that 

internationally-transported ozone and precursors have in the West. 

If the underlying cause of elevated ozone is from international 

transport, then imposing costly controls won’t make a difference. 

33 

Recent scientific evidence suggests that the Trans-Pacific transport of Asian pollution has contributed on the order of 8 to 15 parts 

per billion higher ozone levels in the western United States. Longrange international transport research, and translation of those 

findings into the regulatory framework, would be beneficial. Section 3(i) of H.R. 806 directs EPA to do this. 

My fourth point involves exceptional events. Section 3(h) of the 

bill clarifies that certain events, such as non-ordinarily occurring 

stagnation of air masses, high temperature, or lack of precipitation 

qualify as exceptional events. Wyoming’s experience has been that 

the exceptional event demonstration process has been costly and 

resource intensive. Specifying qualifying events and streamlining 

the process will reduce these costs. 

In addition to streamlining, EPA must act on those submittals. 

Between 2011 and 2014, Wyoming submitted 46 exceptional event 

demonstrations showing that air quality standards had been affected by high winds, wild fires, and stratospheric ozone intrusions. 

However, EPA did not act on any of Wyoming’s demonstrations of 

those 46. 

When there is no action and exceptional event demonstrations 

are ignored, the result is inflated monitored data that misrepresents the prevailing air quality conditions included in modeling, 

unnecessarily delays permitting, and inaccurately characterizes air 

quality for the public. 

My final point addresses interstate transport. Interstate transport provisions prevent one state’s emissions and sources from contributing significantly to non-attainment or interfering with maintenance of a national standard in a downwind state. Interstate 

transport of ozone is an area where EPA has shifted its approach 

towards western states by considering modeling results. However, 

to be useful, models must be accurate. Inaccurate models may result in the needless expenditure of time and resources and developing solutions for the wrong problem or on a non-existent issue. 

Inaccuracy adversely impacts public health and welfare. 

The model results that EPA now uses to address interstate ozone 

arose out of an update to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule that 

addresses interstate pollution in the East. The rule does not apply 

to western states like Wyoming. In order to develop the rule, the 

EPA used air quality modeling to project ozone concentrations and 

assess contributions. However, after EPA adopted the update it 

began to look to the model and draw conclusions about western 

states such as Wyoming. 

My earlier testimony highlights some of Wyoming’s unique characteristics that must be factored. Early and meaningful engagement with western states is critical. Implementation of streamlined 

and technically-sound measures assures that we can spend our resources on air quality improvement. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Vehr follows: 

34 


25633.019

Testimony of Nancy Vehr, Administrator 

\Vyoming Department of Environmental Quality, 

Air Quality Division 

before the 

United States House of Representatives, 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

Sub-Committee on Environment 

ll.R. 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017 

March 22,2017, 10:00 AM 

2123 Rayburn House Office Building 

Good morning Chairman Shimkus. Ranking Member Tonko. and members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is Nancy Yehr. I am the Air Quality Division Administrator for the 

\Vyoming Department o!Tnvironmcntal Quality and am responsible ltlr implementing the Clean 

Air Act and the Air Quality requirements of Wyoming's Environmental Quality ;\ct. I thank the 

subcommittee for inviting the State to share its perspective on the Omne standard. My 

testimony addresses live points \\ith respect to the standard: 

I) Background Ozone 

2) International Transport 

3) Exceptional Events 

-l) Permitting and Implementation Guidance 

5) lntcrstmc Transport 

Introduction 

In order to assist the committee with an understanding of Wyoming's perspective, I 

m'uld likl' to share a few of the relevant key characteristics of our state. 

S_iL~: Wyoming is the 9' 11 largest state covering 97.814 square miles. yet has the smallest 

population of any state at about 584,000. To put this into perspective, with respect to land mass, 

Wyoming is rough!) 93 times the size of Rhode Island. However. Wyoming's low population 
35 


25633.020

density of about six (6) people per square mile ranks at 49''' in the nation. The si7e of Wyoming's 

largest county- Sweetwater County -at I OA25 square miles. ranks as the eighth largest county 

in the nation and by itself is roughly four times as large as the entire state of Delaware (2,.+89 

square miles). Much of the state consists of many rural communities with large expanses in 

bet,vccn. Wyoming has only nine "cities" with populations greater than 10.000 people. Half of 

Wyoming's land is O\\ned and managed by the federal government. 

Elcv[!tiQo: Wyoming's mean elevation of6,700 feet above sea level places us at 2"d in 

height. with Colorado being the highest. Consequently. most of Wyoming's ozone monitors are 

sited at an elevation I 000 fl:et higher than the "mile high" city ol' Denver, Colorado. In 

comparison. the mean elevation of east coast states fall under 1.100 feet. 

l'{atund Rcsottr:_ccs: Wyoming has been blessed with amazing and abundant natural 

resources. We arc home to Yell(mstone and Grand Teton national parks, and other special and 

scenic places. Our abundant mineral resources provide the nation. our State, and her citi..:cns 

"ith revenue and jobs. Our leading industries arc energy. tourism. and agriculture. The energy 

industr) is the largest contribL1torto Wyoming's economy. In 2016, Wyoming ranked S'h in the 

nation for crude oil production, 4'h f(Jr natural gas, and leads the nation in the production of coal. 

bentonite. and trona. Aggregating the production and export of all fossil-based minerals. 

Wyoming is the number one producer of energy to the nation. In terms of renewable energy. 

Wyoming also ranks at the top by having the most class 5-7 categories for wind energy resources 

in the continental United States. 

Wyoming values the protection of its natural resources. The mission of the Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality is: "To protect, conserve and enhance the quality of 

Wyoming's environment for the bene tit of current and litture generations." As the Department 
36 


25633.021

and Air Quality Division carry out this mission, we do so in a balanced manner protecting our 

natural resources and providing for responsible energy production. As our governor, Matt Mead 

has stated, '·It is a false question to ask: Do we want energy production or environmental 

stewardship?" In Wyoming, we must and do have both. 

Ozone in Wyoming 

Ozone is a complex air pollutant that exists naturally at high elevations in the stratosphen 

or can be formed at ground level by both natural and man-made sources through complex 

chemical reactions. EPA's study and knowledge ofOzone has focused extensively on urban 

areas with high population densities and high ozone levels, and mostly for summertime issues. 

These fixus areas mainly have fairly flat terrain, and low elevations. EPA's knowledge base anc 

understanding is far different from Wyoming's characteristics and experience. 

Wyoming's characteristics as an expansive, high-elevation, sparsely populated rural state 

differs greatly from EPA's traditional focus. As a result, we face unique challenges in 

implementing the EPA's Ozone Standards in Wyoming. Wyoming's experience with ozone is 

also unique in other ways. Wyoming has experienced elevated ozone concentrations in the 

winter and early spring in its Upper Green River Basin. In the summer, Wyoming has 

experienced elevated ozone related to wildfires. 

3 
37 


25633.022

In th..: winters of2005 and 2006. primarily in the month of february. \Vyoming measured 

8-hour O/one concentrations greater than 84 ppb (parts per billion), the O/onc standard at that 

time. at monitoring stations in the Upper Green River Basin. The population in the Upper Green 

River Basin is approximately I 0,000. It is surrounded b; mountain ranges on three sides. 11 is 

als,l an area with abundant oil and gas production. Given the unusual nature of those ozone 

events and the potential implications of concentrations that exceeded the standard. the 

Department proactively focused its resources towards understanding the formation of ozone in a 

rural high-elevation area in the winter. Since 2005. the Division has spent over SI 0 million and 

allocated over 25~;(, of its staff to developing solutions. Less than I 0'10 of Wyoming's funding to 

investigate and address this issue came fi·om federal grants. This disparate allocation of funding 

sources. creates a burden on state resources. complicating the state's ability to achieve health 

based standards. 

Wyoming's cmms have helped build a foundation for understanding how ozone is 

f(lrmcd in the winter. Winter stagnant air mass (inversions) and enhanced solar radiation fi·om 

sno\\ cover can lead to high ozone l(xmation in the presence of ozone precursors (vobtilc 

organic compounds and nitrogen oxides). llowcvcr, the processes involved have not been fully 

identilled or replicated in the photochemical grid models used by EPA. ~o currently available 

modeling system has proven to be effective in replicating high ozone events in the Upper ()reen 

Ri,cr Basin. Wyoming's experience highlights why a one-size-tits-all approach to Ozone is not 

del'cnsibk. Onc-size-lits-all docs not lit Wyoming. Alternative analytical tools and methods are 

critical f(lr areas 11 ith unique chJractcristics or phenomena like those that we have experienced in 

Wyoming. 

4 
38 


25633.023

While Wyoming's early efforts led to greater understanding and a reduction in emissions, 

it was not enough. In 2012, Wyoming recommended that a small portion of the stale known as 

the Upper Green River Basin be designated as not attaining the 2008 Ozone Standard of75 ppb. 

EPA concurred. Since 2008, the Upper Green River Basin has achieved significant reductions of 

ozone precursors through the installation of controls and the centralization of gathering facilities. 

Wyoming's achievements reflect the significant participation and work undertaken by state and 

local governments, industry, citizens and the Upper Green River Task Force. 

NOx and VOC Olisetsil:Zcductions: Achieved through Permitting Actions Since 2008 

Upper <lrccn River Basin 

Despite the absence of federal regulatory tools to address Wyoming's situation, 

Wyoming's continued efforts were successful. In May 2016, the EPA declared that the Upper 

Green River Basin had attained the 2008 Ozone Standard. 81 Fed. Reg. 26,697. And, in 

October 2016, Governor Mead recommended to EPA that all counties within Wyoming be 

designated as attainment or unclassiflable lor the even lower 2015 Ozone Standard of 70 ppb. 

Background Ozone 

Background Ozone in the Western United States is not well understood. When EPA 

proposed the Ozone Standard that was ultimately adopted in20l5, it largely dismissed the data 

5 
39 


25633.024

from the sole high-elevation site in the Denver urban area case study as an outlier, even though 

EPA recognized that ''background concentrations are highest at high-elevation sites within the 

U.S." See Slate of Wyoming, Department of Environmental Quality- Air Quality Division 

Comments on the Proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Docket No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0699 (March 17, 2015). The Denver urban area case study showed that 

background concentrations of ozone comprised 55-66% ofthe total monitored concentrations. 

EPA's analysis showed that the fi·actional contribution ofbackground to total seasonal mean 

ozone is between 70-80% in Wyoming. By omitting that study, EPA failed to adequately 

consider or characterize background ozone conditions in higher elevations such as Wyoming. 

Without a better understanding of background and what the anthropogenic contribution is, it is 

difficult and ineffectual for rural intermountain western states to develop plans that control 

contributing sources. Background ozone is a reality in the mountain west and likely offsets some 

of the emission reductions achieved in the West. Continued research is needed in this area in 

order to have a better understanding of the impact of background ozone. 

This map shows estimates of seasonal mean U.S. background ozone 

concentrations at surface monitoring locations from o 2007 CMAQ 

simulation. {Figure 1 in the White Paper) 

6 
40 


25633.025

llistoricully. ozone planning and strategies have been focused on solving urban omnc 

exccedanccs. \Vyuming stresses the need for states and FPA to work eolbborativcly to 

understand the issues related to background ozone. In the meantime. however. states should not 

be held accountable for background ozone levels that cannot be properly characterized. 

International Transport 

lly lowering the ozone standard without having a full understanding of the extent and 

magnitude of intlucnce that internationally transported ozone and precursors has on areas in the 

\\'estern US, placed an unreasonable burden on states that litec impact fl·om international 

pollution. International contribution also uffects regions of the United States that do not directly 

border other countries. 

Recent scientific evidence suggests that the trans-Pacific transport of Asian pollution has 

contributed to heightening ozone levels in the Western United States. For example. a February 

2015 presentation by Mciyun Lin. entitled "Key Drivers of Western U.S. Surface Ozone 

Variability over Recent Decades: Stratospheric Intrusions, Asian Pollution and Climate:' 

summari/ed a series of studies assessing \Vcstern U.S. surface o7one variability fi·01n 1990-2012 

that \\ere collaboratively undertaken by Princeton University and the NOAA Geophysical Fluid 

Dynamics Laboratory. These studies demonstrated that "Asian ozone pollution can contribute 8-

l 5 ppbv on days vvhcn observed daily max 8-hour average (MD;\8) ozone at Western U.S. 

surface sites C'(cccds 65 ppb- a possible future O?one N AJ\QS" (Lin. February I 9. 20 I 5}. 

Another 2012 study. published in the Joumol oj'Gcophvsical Reseorch. acknnwlcdgcd 

that ··fi·om 1995 to 20 II. free tropospheric ozone above Western North America has increased 

significantly by 6.5 ppbv. and !rom 1984 to 20 II ozone increased by 14 ppbv." (Cooper ct a!. 

Long term ozone trends at rural ozone monitoring sites across the United States, 1990-20 I 0. 

7 
41 


25633.026

Nuvcmbcr 28. 2012). The results ufthc study indicate that. while domestic emission reductions 

have resulted in corresponding ozone level reduction in the cast. "'the limited ozone reductions in 

the western U.S. suggest that increasing baseline ozone [i.e. background ozone] is counteracting 

domestic emission reductions. Id. Newer studies show that western states may have significant 

precursor em iss ions from as l'ar away as Asia. 1 

It \\Ould be bcnellcial to states for EPA to conduct and review research in the area of 

long-range international transport and then translate those findings into the regulatory 

framewmk. 

Tools that assist states with attainment of the standards should be made broadly 

applicable. For example. a border requirement for impacts of international pollution would not 

assist intermountain western states. Likewise. imposing costly controls betorc consideration of 

international transport may not make any ditTercncc if the underlying cause is pollution caused 

by international transport. 

Exceptional EHnts 

There arc sevcralnatmal sources of ozone and ozone precursors including wildfire and 

stratospheric intrusion. The states and EPA rely on the Exceptional Event Rule to account for 

these sources. The extent to which these events contribute to a measured ozone concentration on 

a specific day can be uncertain and requires a detailed investigation and analysis. Exceptional 

event demonstrations arc resource intensive and costly. and place a significant burden on already 

strained state resources. especially \\hen EPA unilaterally decides not to review and 

acknowledge exceptional event submittals by the state. 

1 \ki; un 1 jn_ l ,arr; \V, I !onm itz, Ri...:hmd Pu; ton. 1\rlcnc M. Fiore. Cail Tonnesen, "liS Surbl..'l' O;onc Trends 

and L\tn:mc~ !i·om 1980<2014: Quanti!) the Roll's ofRbing i\siun Emissions. Domestic Controls. \ViltJlircs. 

anJ Cl im:Jtc:·. !lmosJ1heric ( 'hemisn:r I kcl'mhcr 7 _ 20 I 6. doi: 1 0.519-t/acp-20! 6-1093. 20 J (). l lnJcr 

Rl'\ iC\\. 

8 
42 


25633.027

EPA recognizes that stratospheric ozone intrusions ··typically a!Tect ozone concentrations 

in higher elevation areas more than area at lo\\cr elevations. Wyoming is the only state in the 

nation that has rccciYed EPA's concurrence li:lr a stratospheric o;one intrusion event. In fact, 

Wyoming's Air Quality Division has submitted five demonstrations to EPJ\ lor stratospheric 

omne intrusion causing exccedances of the ();one standard. but EPA has acted on only one of 

those demonstrations. See l!JJi:b_~/:'\\-W\\ .era. Lr1Jv/air-q ual it\ -anal\ sis/cxccptional-cvcnbd<>cUnL:nts-clZOnl:-\\yoilling. Wyoming's demonstration took just under a year to produce: 

required assistance ii·om staiTwith meteorological expertise, assistance ti·om EP/\ 's stratospheric 

omne intrusion workgroup. a group of state regulators. federal regulators, and academics 

lixused on stratospheric ozone intrusions. 

Wyoming has not attempted an exceptional event demonstration that a wild tire event 

caused an ozone cxceedance. However. Wyoming is familiar with the demonstrations that EP/\ 

has posted as examples. The Division estimates that it \vOtiid take about 15 months and 

contractor assistance at a cost of over $150.000 to produce just one of those demonstrations. 

RcS()UJTe and funding challenges to provide demonstrations of this complexity arc simply 

impractical. 

For exceptional events to provide relief under the Act. the investigation and analysis 

process must be streamlined. workable technical tools must be provided. and EPA must allocate 

resources to act on state submittals. Between 2011 and 201--1. Wyoming submitted 46 

exceptional event demonstrations to FPA showing that air quality standards had been affected b) 

high 11 inds. \\ ildllres. and stratospheric intrusions. However, FI'A ultimately elected not to act 

on \\')oming·s demonstrations because EPA did not anticipate that the data would .. be included 

in an attainment demonstration or involved in other regulatory decisions. See Letter j}·om Fl';\ 

9 
43 


25633.028

R8 to Wyoming DEQ rc: W)oming Department of Environmental Quality Exceptional Events 

Documentation Packages; 2011-20 1-'1 (April 23, 20 16). 

EPA's inaction is problematic. Not only does it signal the EPA's general disregard for 

the State's expenditure of significant time and resources. an cxceedancc is considered to violate 

the standard unless and until EPA approves an exceptional event demonstration. Not only are 

these \alucs used to demonstrate compliance with the Ozone standard. the data is also included 

in conjunction with emission inventories and modeling that EPA uses to establish policy and 

develop lcdcral regulations. When EPA disregards and fails to act on a state's demonstration. 

the result is inllatcd monitored data that misrepresents the prevailing air quality conditions 

included in modeling. unnecessary delays to permit actions, and inaccurate charactcri;ation of air 

quality to the public. Shelving these demonstrations does not align with our collective 

commitment to providing outstanding responsiveness on environmental policy issues. 

For example. the data that EPA shelved on Wyoming's exceptional event demonstrations 

ll·om the summer of2012 is attributable to an extraordinarily active wildfire seascm in Wyoming 

or transported into \Vyoming ti·01n \\ildfircs else\\ here in the West. EPA's t:lilurc to act means 

that those cxcecdanccs represent vkllations of the air quality standards both from a rcgulawry 

standroint and in the eyes of the public even though those events were beyond regulatory 

control. Shelving these demonstrations is unfair, unsound. and counterproductive. Ultimately. 

EPA's consideration of inflated monitored data results in a misrepresentation of existing state 

regulations and shifts state resources from addressing areas ol' concern to situations that are 

actually not problematic. In order l(Jr this mechanism to provide meaningful relict: EPA must 

stn:amlinc the demonstration rroccss. provide workable technical tools, and act on state 

submittals. 

10 
44 


25633.029

Permitting and Timely Implementation Guidance 

New standards may l'estllt in new or additional permit requirements, and in the 

development of new plans with new strategies. Grandfathcring provisions that apply to pending 

complete permit applications and clear and timely Implementation Guidance are key to ensuring 

a smoother transition, providing certainty, and leading to more timely and effective 

implementation of new standards. i\ smooth. clear and certain transition benefits the public 

health and the cnvimnmcnt by allowing ((>r a clearer path forward f(Jr timely implementation of 

new standards. Such transition measures prevent uncertainty and retroactive application of 

criteria that \\·as not in existence at the time of submittal of penn its or plans. Uncertainty and 

rl'!roactive application oiicntimes result in delayed implementation brought on by confusion and 

litigation. Unclear and untimely guidance leads to varied imcrprctations and confusion. \\hich 

ultimately lead to plan disapprovals, disputes between federal and state partners and delayed 

implementation or new standards. 

For example. in 20 I 5. EPA promulgated the Implementation Plan Requirements Rule for 

the 2008 Ozone standard of 75 ppb. That Rule. issued seven years after the standard \\US 

adnpted. provided states with the requirements necessary to address a range ofnonattainmcnt 

plan requirements ((Jr 2008 standard. However, just a tew months later. EPA adopted a new 

2015 010nc standard or70 ppb. 80 Fed. Reg. 65292 (Oct. 26. 20 15). This unfortunate timing 

meant that in 2015 and 2016. instead ofrocusing state efforts on how to implement and enforce 

the nc\\ 20 I 5 standard. states were finally able to begin figuring out how to implement the 2008 

standard. Untimely guidance sets up states fi.Jr unsuccessful and delayed implementation of 

nC\\er standards. invites litigcltion. and leads to disputes over missed deadlines instead of 

focusing on the health ol' our citizens and the environment. 

11 
45 


25633.030

Timely and specific guidance not one-size fits all is critical to successful 

implementation of new standards. Wyoming is a high-elevation rural area. Historically, EPA 

guidance is aimed at high-population, low elevation urban areas and has limited use for an 

intermountain western rural area. Timely and specific guidance promotes the states and EPA's 

shared goal of successful implementation of health based standards. 

Interstate Ozone Transport 

Interstate transport provisions, also referred to as "Good Neighbor'' provisions, require 

that state plans contain adequate provisions to ensure that none of its sources or emissions will 

contribute signiticantly to nonattainmcnt or interfere with maintenance of a national standard in a 

downwind state. The EPA has long used a wcight-ot~the-evidence approach in order to evaluate 

western state plans. However, with respect to Wyoming's plan, EPA's approach radically 

changed after EPA's promulgation of its Update to the Cross State Air Pollution Rule in 2016. 

Map of States Covered by CSAPR 

EPA Clean Air Markets' Map of States Covered by Cross~State Air Pollution Rule 

12 
46 


25633.031

The Cross State Air Pollution Rule addresses pollution in eastern states. lt docs not appl) 

to \\estern states such as Wyoming.2 In order to develop the Rule, the EPA used air quality 

modeling to project ozone concentrations at air quality monitoring receptor sites to 2017. 81 

Fed. Reg. at 7-1507. The EPA then used that modeling to establish a screening threshold metric 

of I ~ to assess contributions from upwind states to those downwind sites. !d. at 7-1508. 

Wyoming submitted its Plan in 2014. EPA f:tilcd to act. The Sierra Club filed a deadline 

suit at'ainst EPA. ln February 2017. the EPA disapproved Wyoming's interstate transport 

pnn is ions relating to the 2008 07one standard. 82 Fed. Reg. 9142 (Feb. 3. 20 17). The EPA 

based its disapproval in part on the modeling it conducted fi:Jr the Cross State Air Pollution Rule. 

Tools such as modeling are complex and must be developed to a level that assures 

accurac: for their intended application. Inaccurate models may result in the needless 

e'pcnJiturc of time and resources on developing solutions for the wrong problem or on a nonexistent issue. Such an approach is detrimental to public health and wellarc. 

\1y earlier testimony highlights some of Wyoming's unique characteristics that must be 

fltctorcd into the development and application of any model rdated to a health based standard, 

such as high elevation. unique topography and meteorological conditions. projections across long 

distances. inllucnccs ii·om wild lire. rural population, and the like. Earlier and meaningful 

engagement\\ ith western slates is critical. Failure to do so. and instead apply a one-si;c-fits-all 

approach. nHt) otherwise adversely affect W)oming and the health of her citizens. lnaccurac) 

results in the needless and wasteful expenditure of time and resources that would be better 

l'nJL'T the Cross State ;\ir Pollution Rule L:pJatc, the \Yl'Stcrn U.S ... consl:·;tS or the 11 \\CStcrn contiguous state:-; or 

/\ri/u!U. CaHrorniu. Colorado. Idaho. \lontana. N~\:Jda. Nc\\ .Vle.\.ico. Oregon. L'tah. \Va~hingt~..m. cwJ \\";oming. 

X I l'c,L Reg. 7.\:'0J. Jcl)23 at FN X7 (Oct. 26. 2016). 

13 
47 


25633.032

directed tcm ards implementation of appropriate solutions for the bene tit of the public health of 

·wyoming· s citizens. 

Conclusion 

Implementation of streamlined and technically sound measures assures that time and 

resources arc spent towards timely air quality improvements that provide public health benefits. 

Thank you. It has been a privilege to testify before you today. I am happy to ans\\er any 

questions. 

14 
48 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes Dr. Homer Boushey, Medical Doctor, 

from the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the 

University of California, San Francisco, on behalf of the American 

Thoracic Society. 

Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HOMER A. BOUSHEY, M.D. 

Dr. BOUSHEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, committee members. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on H.R. 

806 on behalf of the American Thoracic Society. It’s a society of 

over 18,000 physicians, scientists, nurses, and other health professionals concerned about the prevention and treatment of lung disease. 

I would like to emphasize a few points, although you have my 

written testimony before you. I will focus on what Mr. Karperos described as focusing on what air pollution does to human health. 

First, ozone harms the health of millions of Americans with 

chronic lung diseases. And as a lung specialist, I treat patients 

with these lung diseases, principally asthma and COPD. By prescribing controller medicine, medications, advising on avoidance of 

triggers and modifying lifestyle habits, I help them control their 

disease so they can control their lives. But neither they nor I can 

control the quality of the air they breathe out of doors. 

I have cared for patients who live in areas of California with serious air quality problems, and know from experience that ozone 

adversely affects human health. It is strongly associated with asthma attacks, COPD exacerbations, ER visits, hospitalizations, and 

even premature death. Literally hundreds of high-quality, peer-reviewed publications have documented that exposure to levels of 

ozone often exceeded in regions of our country. It is bad for human 

health, especially for those with chronic diseases or the respiratory 

or cardiovascular systems. 

Second, ozone harms healthy people, too. Research has shown 

that young people, healthy adults performing light exercise while 

exposed to levels of ozone at, or below, the current standard show 

declines in lung function and increases in lung inflammation, effects that we believe account for the association of ozone exposure 

with impairment in lung growth in children, development of asthma, exacerbations of asthma in children, and exacerbations of asthma and COPD in adults, especially in the elderly. 

Third, this bill delays implementation of current national standards to reduce ozone pollution, a delay that would result in more 

of all of those: exacerbations of asthma, COPD, hospitalizations, 

premature deaths. 

The bill goes further. It would force the EPA to delay updating 

science-based limits on air pollution. The Clean Air Act has required for decades the setting of standards to protect our citizens, 

including sensitive subgroups with an adequate margin of safety 

based on the most up-to-date science. Instead of reviewing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards every 5 years, as called for 

under current law, it delays it to 10. This would force the nation 

to set aside important new research, like recent studies suggesting 

49 

potential threats air pollution presents to newborns, to people with 

diabetes, and possibly to cognitive function in the elderly. 

The health impacts of delay are not trivial. The 10-year review 

lag would mean a newborn would grow to be a 10-year-old before 

a standard was changed, over a time when the lungs develop. And 

we know that lung function at adulthood is a predictor of risk of 

developing lung and cardiovascular disease. So, delaying improvements in air quality will affect many of our children. 

Lastly, the bill fundamentally rewrites the Clean Air Act by directing the EPA Administrator to consider facts unrelated to health 

in setting air quality standards intended to protect health. The 

Clean Air Act states that the EPA Administrator must set standards to protect the public health, irrespective of costs or technology, 

or assumes technological feasibility. The administrator does that 

following careful review of science, an approach that has helped 

clean our air for decades. 

The requirement to set a health-based standard has pushed the 

UDES to develop new technologies that enabled these productions, 

to clean our air, create jobs in the meantime, and save both money 

and lives. This approach has been affirmed in the U.S. Supreme 

Court in the majority opinion written by the late Justice Scalia. 

As a clinician, as a scientist, and as a citizen, I urge that this 

bill be rejected. 

Thank you for your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Boushey follows:] 

50 


25633.033

Testimony of the American Thoracic Society 

Presented by Homer A. Boushey MD 

Before the House Energy and Commerce Committee 

On March 22, 2017 

Regarding 

H.R. 806- the Ozone Standards Implementation Act 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking member, my name is Homer Boushey and I am a pulmonologist in 

the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicrne at University of Californra San 

Francisco. On behalf of the American Thoracic Socrety I want to thank the Committee for 

thrs opportunity to testify regarding H.R. 806 -the Ozone Standards lmplementatron Act 

The American Thoracic Society is a medical professional organization of more than 15,000 

professionals and patients dedicated to the prevention, detection, treatment and cure of 

respiratory disease, critical care illnesses and sleep-disordered breathing The ATS is 

testrfying today to register our strong concerns with H R. 806 - the Ozone Standards 

lrnplementatron Act If enacted, the legrslation would have significant negative impacts on 

the health of many Amerrcans 

Ozone (03) is a potent oxidant that damages the airways and lungs. There are literally 

hundreds of high quality peer reviewed studies that document the adverse health effects 

that exposure to ozone pollutron has on the lungs and other organ systems 

Recent studies provide several lines of evidence demonstrating dose-response relationships 

between ozone exposure in the 60 to 80 ppb range and adverse health effects. These 

effects include hospital admissions and emergency room visrts for children with asthma [1-

4] A study of younger, pre-school children in Atlanta has documented an increase in 

emergency department vrsits for pneumonia; this study showed that a 3 ppb increase in the 

three-day average of ozone was associated with an eight percent higher nsk of pneumonia 

[5] 

A growing body of evidence suggests that exposure to ozone may also induce the 

development of asthma in children, in addition to provoking attacks in chl!dren who already 

have the condition. A recent study in California compared children who lived 1n low ozone 

commumt1es to children who lived 1n high ozone communities Young athletes who 

participated in three or more outdoor sports. who drd not have physician-dragnosed asthma 

at the beginning of the study, were more likely to develop asthma in hrgh ozone 

communrties than those in low ozone communities [6] 

While this well constructed study does not prove that ozone causes asthma, it does add to 

a growing body of evidence that suggests ozone plays an important role in its development 

ATS 2017 
51 


25633.034

Taken together. the data are persuasive that ozone pollution - at levels permissible under 

the current standard -makes children sick. The EPA has the authority and obligatron to set 

a standard that protects children from the adverse health effects of ozone exposure. But it's 

not JUSt children -- adults are also at risk 

Research studies of adults have also shown that as ozone levels increase. so do, severe 

asthma exacerbations, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations for asthma [4,7,8] 

S1mi!ar associations have been found for adult admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary 

disease [9, 1 0] and pneumonra [1 0]. Healthy adults are affected as well. A population-based 

cohort study of generally healthy adults found that FEV1 was lower after days when ambient 

ozone ranged from 59 ppb to 75 ppb compared to days with levels under 59 ppb [11] 

Healthy rndrviduals have normal lung function. Controlled human exposure studres have reaff;rmed lung function decrements in healthy adults after exposure to 60 ppb to 70 ppb of 

ozone [12.13] 

Perhaps of greatest concern, there is now stronger evidence of increased mortality in 

assocration with higher ozone levels [14-16], particularly among the elderly and those with 

chronrc disease [17.18]. These large, multi-city studies found strong and consistent 

associatrons with increased risk of premature death, partrcularly in the warmer months when 

ozone levels are higher 

In sum, there is accumulating evidence that ozone pollution - at levels permitted by the 

current standard- is damaging to human lungs and contnbutes to disease. 

While the evidence on ozone and respiratory effects is comprehensive and compelling, 

recent studies have shown adverse health effects beyond the lung. The Integrated Scrence 

Assessment (ISA) has concluded that, ' the evidence is stronger for most every health 

endpoint, with causal frndings strengthened from 'suggestive' to 'likely causal' for 

cardiovascular effects and total mortality from short-term exposures." In addrtion, the ISA 

noted that ozone affects the central nervous system and brarn, and comments that a 

number of recent toxicological studies revealed various changes in neurologic function or 

hrstology wrth long-term exposure to ozone, includrng changes similar to those observed in 

neurodegenerative disorders. such as Parkinson disease and Alzheimer disease. The ISA 

concluded that. · the toxicological evidence for the rmpact of 03 on the brarn and behavior 

ts strong. and suggestive of a causal relattonshlp between 03 exposure and effects on the 

central nervous system '[19] 

In summary, recent research only reaffirms and deepens our understanding of the health 

effects of ozone exposure 

Reducing Pollution Improves Health 

In the midst of all this concerning research documenting the adverse health effects of air 

pollution there is good news. The good news is that as pollution is reduced, health 

improves. We know this from studies around the Atlanta and Beijing Olymprcs -where the 

respective host cities took steps to reduce air pollution emissions during the Olympics 

Not only did those efforts result in air pollution reductions. they resulted in improved health 

as measured by changes in biomarkers (20,21 ), reduced morbidity and consumption of 

health resources (22-24) 
52 


25633.035

Studres on Steubenville. OH and Salt Lake Crty, UT provrde other real world examples 

showrng that reduced Industrial air pollution emissions lead to measurable improvements in 

morbrdity and mortality (25. 26). Two recent publications based on a 20 year multi-cohort 

study of children in southern California demonstrated improvements in lung-function 

development in children as arr quality improved. These were observed in girls and boys, in 

chrldren with and without asthma, and across multiple ethnicities -suggesting all children 

benefrt from improvements in air quality (27. 28) 

Concerns with H.R. 806 the Ozone Standards Implementation Act 

The ATS has several grave concerns wrth H.R. 806. If enacted the bill would: 

Delay implementation of the EPA ozone standard until 2025 - delaying the ozone 

pollution reductions called for in the EPA rule. As noted above, the delay in reducing ozone 

pollution will lead to avoidable adverse health effects. including asthma attacks, COPD 

exacerbations. missed school and work days, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and 

premature death 

Delay Review and Revision of Other Criteria Pollutants -in addition to delaying the 

ozone standard, H.R 806 would also rewrite current law to delay revision of all the criteria 

pollutants under the Clean Air Act Instead of reviewing National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards every 5 years- as called for under current law this bill would call for revisron of 

standards every 10 years. This means pollutants lrke lead. particulate matter and carbon 

monoxide will remain rn the air longer - needlessly exposing the Amerrcan public to 

dangerous pollution and their adverse health effects 

Delaying Improvements in air quality, be it ozone or another criteria pollutant. is not a trivia! 

matter In the 10 year revrew lag called for in this bill, a child wrll grow from a newborn to a 

10 year old. In that time. the lungs, like the rest of the body. will see tremendous changes 

that will determine life-long health prospects of that chrld. We know that pre-natal and youth 

exposure to air pollution creates adverse development of the lungs in ways that impact adult 

disease By delaying improvements in air quality. we are literally burdening children with 

life-long health issues. 

Lastly, the bill fundamentally rewrites the Clean Air Act by directing the EPA 

Administrator to consider technical feasibility when setting National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. The Clean Air Act currently requires the EPA Administrator to set 

Clean Air standards to whatever level is necessary to protect the public health That this 

should be the sole requirement for setting a standard has been affirmed by the U S 

Supreme Court 1n a majority opinion written by the !ate Justice Scalia 

Mr. Chairman. research shows air pollution is bad for health. More importantly. research 

shows reducrng air pollution improves health If enacted, this legislation would delay 

improvements in air quality The American Thoracic Society respectfully urges the 

commrttee to reJect H.R. 806 
53 


25633.036

References 

Strickland MJ, Klein M. Flanders WD. Chang HH, Mulholland JA, Tolbert PE. Darrow 

LA Modification of the effect of ambient air pollution on pediatric asthma emergency 

visits susceptible subpopulations. Epidemiology 2014;25 843-50 

2 Strickland MJ, Darrow LA, Klein M, Flanders WD, Sarnat JA. Waller LA, Sarnat SE. 

Mulholland JA, Tolbert PE. Short-term associations between ambient air pollutants and 

pediatric asthma ernergency department visits. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 

2010,182.307-16 

Gleason JA, Bielory L Fagliano JA. Associations between ozone, PM2.5. and four 

pollen types on emergency department pediatric asthma events during the warm 

season rn New Jersey a case-crossover study. Environ Res 2014,132:421-9 

4 Darrow LA, Klein M. Flanders WD, Mulholland JA. Tolbert PE, Strickland MJ. Air 

pollutron and acute respiratory infections among children 0-4 years of age an 18-year 

time-series study. Am J Epidemio/2014:doi: 10.1 093lajelkwu234. 

5 Silverman RA, Ito K. Age-related association of fine particles and ozone with severe 

acute asthma rn New York City. J Allergy Clin lmmuno/2010;125:367-373.e5 

McConnell R, Berhine K, Gilliland F, London S, Islam T, Gauderman WJ, Avol E, 

Margolis H. Asthma in exercismg children exposed to ozone: a cohort study. Lancet, 

2014 Vol 359/lssue9304 386-391 

7 Glad JA, Brink LL, Talbott EO, Lee PC, Xu X, Saul M, Rager J The relationship of 

am brent ozone and PM(2.5) levels and asthma emergency department visits possible 

influence of gender and ethnicity. Arch Environ Occup Health 2012;67:103-108. 

Meng YY. Rull RP. Wilhelm M, Lombardi C, Balmes J, Ritz B. Outdoor air pollution and 

uncontrolled asthma in the San Joaquin Valley, Californra J Epidemiol Community 

Hca/1/r 2010;64142-147 

9 Ko FWS. Hui DSC. Arr pollution and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 

Respirology 2012;17.395-401 

10 Medrna-Ramon M, Zanobetti A, Schwartz J. The effect of ozone and PM1 0 on hospital 

admissions for pneumonia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a national 

multrcity study. Am J Epidamio/2006: 163:579-588 

11 Rice MB, Ljungrnan PL, Wilker EH, Gold DR, Schwartz JD, Koutrakis P, Washko GR, 

OConnor GT. Mrttleman MA. Short-term exposure to air pollution and lung function rn 

the Framingham Heart Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013; 188 1351-7 

12 Schelegle ES. Morales CA, Walby WF, Marion S, Allen RP. 6.6-hour inhalation of ozone 

concentratrons from 60 to 87 parts per billion in healthy humans. Am J Respir Crit Care 

Med 2009,180 265-72 

13 Kim CS, Alexis NE. Rappold AG, Kehrl H, Hazucha MJ. Lay JC, Schmitt MT, Case M. 

Devlrn RB, Peden DB. Diaz-Sanchez D. Lung function and inflammatory responses in 

healthy young adults exposed to 0 06 ppm ozone for 6.6 hours. Am J Respir Crit Care 

Med 2011:183:1215-21 
54 


25633.037

14 Peng RD, Samolr E, Pham L, Dommicr F, Touloumi G, Ramsay T, Burnett RT, Krewski 

D, Le Tertre A, Cohen A, Atkinson RW Anderson HR Katsouyanni K, Samet JM, Acute 

effects of ambient ozone on mortalrty in Europe and North America: results from the 

APHENA study, Air Qual Atmos Health 2013;6:445-453, 

15, Romieu I Gouveia N, Cifuentes LA, de Leon AP, Junger W, Vera J, Strappa V, 

Hurtado,Diaz M, Miranda-Soberanis V, Rojas,Bracho L, Carbajai-Arroyo L, TzintzunCervantes G, Multi city study of air pollution and mortality in Latin America (the ESCALA 

study), Res Rep Health Elf lnst 2012;0ct:5-86 

16 Zanobetti A Schwartz J Mortality displacement in the association of ozone with 

mortality an analysrs of 48 cities in the United States, Am J Respir Grit Care Med 

2008; 177.184-9 

17 Medina-Ramon M, Schwartz J Who is more vulnerable to die from ozone air pollution? 

EpidemiOlogy 2008; 19 672-9 

18 Zanobettr A, Schwartz J, Ozone and survival in four cohorts with potentially 

predisposing diseases, Am J Respir Grit Care Med 2011:184:836-41 

19 Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants EPA 

600/R-101076F, February 2013; 6-219, 

20 K1pen H R1ch D, et al. Measurement of inflammation and oxidative stress following 

drastic changes in air pollution during the Beijing Olympics a panel study approach 

Ann NY Acad Sci 2010 Aug: 1203: 160::-1§L 

21 Huang W, Wang G, eta!. Inflammatory and Oxidative Stress Responses of Healthy 

Young Adults to Changes in Air Quality during the Beijing Olympics, 6111 J Respir Grit 

Care Med, 2012 Dec 1;186(11) 1150-9 

22 Fnedman M, Powell K, et allmpact of Changes in Transportation and Commuting 

Behaviors During the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta on Air Quality and 

Childhood Asthma, JAMA 2001,285(7):897,905, doi,10,1001/jama,285,7,897 

23 Li Y Wang W et aL Air quality and outpatient visits for asthma 1n adults dunng the 

2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing, Sci Total Environ, 2010 Feb 1:408(5) 1226,7 

24 Richd D, Liu K, eta!. Differences in Birth Weight Associated with the 2008 Beijing 

OlympiCS All Pollution Reduction: Results from a Natural Experiment volume 1231 

number 91 September 2015 • Environmental Health Perspectives 

25 Lepeule J Laden F, Chronic Exposure to Fine Particles and Mortality An Extended 

Follow-up of the Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009, Environ Health Perspect; 

DOI10 1289/ehp 1104660 

26 Pope C et al Respiratory disease associated with community air pollution and a steel 

m1ll, Utah Valley American Journal of Public Health May 1989: VoL 79, No 5, pp 623-

628 

27, Gauderman WJ, Urman R, A valE, et al. Association of improved air quality with lung 

development in children, N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 905-13 

28 Berhane K, Chang CC, et al. Association of Changes in Air Quality With Bronchitic 

Symptoms in Children in California, 1993-2012 JAMA 2016;315(14)'1491,1501 
55 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Seyed Sadredin as Executive Director and Air Pollution Control Officer of the San Joaquin Valley 

Air Pollution Control District. 

We are glad to have you back. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SEYED SADREDIN 

Mr. SADREDIN. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and 

members of the committee. It is an honor and a great privilege to 

be here before you today. I want to express my gratitude to your 

committee for providing for a thoughtful examination and consideration of the federal mandates under the Clean Air Act. 

Given the tremendous challenges that we face in the San Joaquin Valley and our decades of real life experience with implementing numerous provisions under the Clean Air Act, I am hoping 

that the lessons that we have learned would be helpful to your deliberative process as you consider this issue before your subcommittee. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I believe that our region is a great example 

of how the Clean Air Act has led to major reductions in air pollution, significant improvement in air quality, and great benefits to 

public health throughout the nation. In our region the amount of 

pollution today released into the atmosphere by all sections of our 

economy, all businesses, industrial facilities, agriculture, cars and 

trucks, are at a historic low, despite a tremendous growth in the 

economy and in the population that we have had in our region. 

The population exposure to high levels of ozone and particulate 

matter PM2.5 in our region is down by 90 percent for ozone and 

78 percent for PM2.5. However, our experience, Mr. Chairman, indicates that some of the measures, some of the provisions in the 

Clean Air Act, although well-intentioned, are leading to unintended 

consequences. 

Today, on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 

District, I am here to ask you that you include an overriding provision in federal law that bars the imposition of devastating federal 

sanctions that could destroy our region economically if our inability 

to attain federal standards is due to pollution from sources that fall 

outside of our control. In our case, 85 percent of our pollution we 

have no control, no regulatory authority over. 

We believe this is a reasonable act that deserves strong bipartisan support. In fact, today with me I have a number of local elected officials on our Air Board, Democrat and Republican, that agree 

that this is something that is fair to do and should be done. Today 

behind me I have Councilmember Baines from City of Fresno, 

Chairman of the Board; Supervisor Worthley from Tulare County; 

Supervisor Elliott from San Joaquin County; Supervisor Mendez 

from Fresno County; and Supervisor Pedersen from Kings County. 

As we sit here today, Mr. Chairman, the imposition of devastating federal sanctions on San Joaquin Valley residents, the 

poor residents in these disadvantaged communities is imminent. 

And we have no regulatory authority over 85 percent of our pollution that comes from mobile sources. We do not believe that this 

is what the Congress envisioned in the Clean Air Act, that a region 

like ours that has left no stone unturned, has imposed the most reVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:44 Jan 30, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-17 CHRIS
56 

strictive regulations on businesses, on cars and trucks, would be on 

the verge of getting sanctioned with devastating penalties from 

Washington. 

We have petitioned the federal EPA to adopt tighter standards, 

national standards for trucks and locomotives. We have asked the 

State Air Resources Board to do more for the same sources at fault 

under their jurisdictions. We are asking, also, the Federal Government and the State of California to provide funding for incentivebased measures that can help expedite reductions in air pollution 

in a more expeditious fashion, but also by reinvesting those dollars 

in local communities, help grow the economy, and improve the job 

market in our areas that desperately need more jobs, and enhance 

the economy. 

Despite these exhaustive measures that we have put in place, 

and hoping that both the state and Federal Government will deliver what we need to date through a very robust, exhaustive public 

process, we have not been able to identify adequate measures to 

get us the reductions that we need to achieve the standards that 

lie before us. 

If you look at Figures 1 and 2 in my presentation, we can shut 

down all of our valley businesses and we will not get enough reductions to meet the standard. 

A federal remedy to bar the imposition of these unfair and devastating federal sanctions is our top legislative priority. But I 

wanted to, very briefly in the time that I have remaining, share 

with you some of the implementation issues that we have encountered in implementing the Clean Air Act. 

First, the transition between standards is extremely chaotic. As 

EPA tries to establish standards every 5 years, it leads to a lot of 

confusion for the public, for the businesses, for the agencies. As we 

speak today we are on the verge of having 10 state implementation 

plans, costly bureaucratic red tape without any corresponding benefit in air quality. 

The artificial deadlines and arbitrary attainment deadlines in 

the Clean Air Act do not allow for a real, meaningful consideration 

of the socioeconomic costs of regulations as called for in the Clean 

Air Act. 

The requirement to have contingency measures in areas that are 

designed as extreme, or classified as extreme non-attainment, is actually detrimental to air quality and getting clean air as rapidly as 

possible. Our inability to treat 100-year drought conditions as exceptional events does not make sense. 

And, finally, we don’t believe that Congress 40 years ago when 

they passed the Clean Air Act understood the scope and the nature 

of particulate matter. We need technologies and we need to be able 

to write, be able to write plans that have to rely on yet-to-be-defined technologies to be able to have approvable concept. 

Mr. Chairman, at this point I thank you for the time that you 

have provided me and would be happy to expand on these issues 

as we move forward. 

[The prepared statement of Seyed Sadredin follows:] 

57 


25633.038

Testimony of Seyed Sad red in 

Executive Director/Air Pollution Control Officer 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Environment 

Written Testimony on "H.R. 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017" 

March 22, 2017 

Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonka, and Members of the Committee, my name 

is Seyed Sad red in and I currently serve as the Executive Director/Air Pollution Control 

Officer of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. It is an honor and a 

privilege to be here before you today to provide testimony and answer your questions. 

For nearly 36 years, I have served as a public health official charged with implementing 

air pollution control programs in the bountiful and beautiful central valley of California. 

At the outset, I want to express my gratitude to your committee for providing an 

opportunity to thoughtfully consider the federal mandates under the Clean Air Act and 

potential enhancements that may be warranted. Given the tremendous air quality 

challenges that we face in the San Joaquin Valley and the wealth of real-life experience 

that we have with implementing numerous provisions under the Clean Air Act, I am 

hoping that we can be helpful to this process. 

Before I share some details on our experience to date in implementing the Clean Air 

Act, it is important to share with you some basic information about the San Joaquin 

Valley as a region. The San Joaquin Valley, at 25,000 square miles, is the largest air 

basm 1n the State of California with a population of approximately 4.1 million. 

Unfortunately our region suffers from chronic double digit unemployment and high rates 

of poverty In fact, CaiEnviroScreen, a document prepared by the California 

Environmental Protection Agency to identify communities that are disproportionately 

burdened, places 20 out of California's top 30 most disadvantaged communities in the 

San Joaquin Valley. As an added burden, due to the Valley's geography, topography, 

and meteorological conditions that trap air pollutants in our region, the Valley continues 

to exceed the latest federal ambient air quality standards for ozone and PM2.5 even 

after imposing the toughest air regulations in the nation and having reduced emissions 

by over 80% from Valley businesses. 

Given the totality of the above circumstances, while our agency is committed to leaving 

no stone unturned in developing and implementing measures that improve public 

health, it is also imperative that we take an objective look at the socioeconomic impact 

of our regulations and avoid detrimental impact to the quality of life for Valley residents. 

Today on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, I am here to 
58 


25633.039

Testimony of Seyed Sadredin 

U S House of Representatives 

Comm1ttee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Environment 

March 22, 2017 

ask that you include an overriding provision in federal law to prohibit imposition of 

federal sanctions on local regions where their inability to attain federal standards is due 

to pollution from sources outside their regulatory authority. 

If federal sanctions are imposed, the impact will be devastating on Valley residents, 

especially minority and low income residents in disadvantaged communities throughout 

the San Joaquin Valley. Our concern is not hypothetical or theoretical, but is rooted in 

our understanding and care for the real life implications of the unfair federal mandates 

that we are facing. As we sit here today, the Valley faces the imposition of federal 

sanctions in the next two to three years. 

Currently. the San Joaquin Valley Air District is preparing multiple attainment plans to 

address the PM2.5 standards with the following attainment deadlines: 

2019 for the 2006 PM2.5 standard (24-hour 35 j.Jg/m3) 

2021 for the 2012 PM2.5 standard (annual 12 j.Jg/m3, Moderate classification) 

2025 for the 2012 PM2.5 standard (annual 12 j.Jg/m3, Serious classification) 

These plans are due by August 2017. If the San Joaquin Valley Air District is not able 

to prepare a plan that will show attainment by the prescribed deadlines under the Clean 

Air Act. the Valley will become subject to devastating sanctions automatically by 

operation of law. Working with the California Air Resources Board and engaging all 

stakeholders through an extensive public participation process, we have not yet been 

able to identify adequate number of measures to achieve the enormous reductions in 

em1ssions that are necessary Figures 1 and 2 below demonstrate the magnitude of the 

challenge that we face. 

2 
59 


25633.040

Testimony of Seyed Sadredin 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Environment 

March 22, 2017 

Figure 1 Additional Emissions Reductions Required for Attainment After 

DirectPM2.5 Reductions (2019 Deadline for 2006 24-hr PM2.5 Standard) 

2()13 2019 

Attainment 

Targ.et 

Figure 2 Additional Emissions Reductions Required for Attainment After Direct 

PM2.5 Reductions (2025 Deadline for 2012 Annual PM2.5 Standard) 

2013 2025 

3 
60 


25633.041

Testimony of Seyed Sadredin 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Environment 

March 22, 2017 

To provide a greater context for the magnitude of the challenge that we face, Figure 3 

below indicates that the San Joaquin Valley will not be able to attain the PM2.5 

standard even if the Valley imposes the following measures for 155 days per year: 

1. No drive days for passenger vehicles in the San Joaquin Valley 

2. Close Interstate 5 and Highway 99 to heavy duty truck traffic in the Valley 

3. No farming days in the San Joaquin Valley 

4. No construction days in the San Joaquin Valley 

Figure 3 NOx Emissions after Imposition of Draconian Measures for 155 days per 

year in 2021 

To-llltVall<lyNOJO: En'lis1okms atttr Emlnlo-ns anN Emlulonll Ho-Orlv\'!Oilylll<!r NllTrllcli&AHoW<rO<>n PaPeng-..,rVGilieln !.Sand Hwy n 

Eml&sk>n.&lll'-<ll 

NoFa•mi:)ay& 

Emlssloo$Bftor IOmhtskm&llftGr 

NQCo-nsU"uetionOayt AIID"''""fdanM&a$Ufl!S 

Aflli\Ml!lllt Targ~t 

(Can'ytngCUJ)lK:il)'l 

Since its adoption, the Clean Air Act has led to significant improvements in air quality 

and public health benefits throughout the nation. With an investment of over $40 billion, 

air pollution from San Joaquin Valley businesses has been reduced by over 80%. The 

pollution released by industrial facilities, agricultural operations, and cars and trucks is 

at a historical low, for levels of all pollutants. San Joaquin Valley residents' exposure to 

high smog and particulate matter levels have been reduced by over 90% and 78%, 

respectively. 

We do not advocate for any changes in the Clean Air Act that would roll back existing 

rules and regulations in the San Joaquin Valley that have helped improve air quality and 

quality of life for our residents. However, we do not believe that the Congress, in 

passing the Clean Air Act more than 40 years ago, envisioned a scenario where a 

region like ours that has imposed the toughest regulations on stationary sources of air 

4 
61 


25633.042

Test1mony of Seyed Sadredin 

U S House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Environment 

March 22, 2017 

pollution would be in danger of suffering from devastating federal sanctions, We face 

these dire consequences despite having already done all of the following: 

./ Toughest air regulations on stationary sources (600 rules since 1992) 

./ Toughest air regulations on farms and dairies 

./ Tough air regulations on what residents can do within the confines of their homes 

(residential water heaters, residential HVAC furnaces, charbroilers, ban on 

fireplace installation and use) 

./ $40 billion spent by businesses on clean air 

./ Over $1,6 billion dollars of public/private investment on incentive-based 

measures reducing over 130,000 tons of emissions 

./ Toughest regulations on cars and trucks 

./ Toughest regulations on consumer products 

./ Reduced emissions by 80% 

At this juncture in the San Joaquin Valley, in addition to the above measures, the San 

Joaquin Valley Air District is in the process of adopting a new plan with new measures 

that will require large reductions in directly emitted particulate matter throughout the 

Valley, Even after these new reductions, meeting the latest federal standards also 

requires enormous reductions in oxides of nitrogen emissions, 85% of which come from 

sources outside our regulatory authority, We have petitioned the federal EPA asking for 

national ultra-low NOx standards for trucks and locomotives, We have also asked the 

California Air Resources Board for the same at the state leveL These two agencies 

have the necessary legal authority over these mobile sources of air pollution, We 

appreciate that both agencies and the California Air Resources Board in particular have 

expressed a desire to be helpful to the San Joaquin Valley in this regard, Unfortunately, 

however, to date neither EPA nor the California Air Resources Board have proposed 

any new measures that will provide further reductions in the San Joaquin Valley in the 

short timeframe (20 19 to 2025) mandated under the Clean Air Act in order to avoid 

federal sanctions, 

It is unfair that under the current law, local jurisdictions will be subject to devastating federal 

sanctions even though failure to attain the standards is due to emissions from sources 

under federal jurisdiction, These federal sanctions include 

De facto ban on new and expanding businesses (2:1 offset requirement) 

Loss of federal highway funds ($2,5 billion and numerous jobs lost in the San 

Joaquin Valley) 

Federal takeover and loss of local control 

Expensive federal nonattainment penalties 

The devastating impact of the above sanctions is an existential issue for the San 

Joaquin Valley, A federal remedy to bar the imposition of these unfair sanctions is our 

top legislative priority even though our decades of experience in implementing the 

Clean Air Act have highlighted a number of other implementation issues, For your 

committee's information the following is a summary of these issues, 

5 
62 


25633.043

Testimony of Seyed Sadredin 

U.S House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Environment 

March 22. 2017 

Chaotic Transition between Standards: Since the 1970's, EPA has established 

numerous ambient air quality standards for individual pollutants. We have now reached 

a point where various regions throughout the nation are subject to multiple iterations of 

standards for a single pollutant. Currently, we are subject to four standards for ozone 

and four standards for PM2.5. Each of these standards requires a separate attainment 

plan which leads to multiple overlapping requirements and deadlines. For instance, in 

the San Joaquin Valley we are on the verge of having to promulgate a total of 10 active 

State Implementation Plans. This results in a great deal of confusion, costly 

bureaucracy, and duplicative regulations, all without corresponding public health 

benefits. 

Artificial and Arbitrary Attainment Deadlines: Although economic and technological 

feasibility is to be addressed in the implementation phase of the Clean Air Act, our 

experience shows that meaningful consideration of economic and technological 

feasibility is nearly impossible when faced with formula-based milestones and deadlines 

that EPA and courts have established in absence of clear Congressional direction in the 

Act. 

Requiring Contingency Measures in Extreme Non attainment Areas is Detrimental 

to Expeditious Attainment of Standards and Public Health Improvement: A classic 

case of the well-intentioned provisions that were included in the Clean Air Act over 25 

years ago that are now leading to unintended consequences is the requirement for 

contingency measures in areas classified as "extreme" nonattainment. By definition, a 

region is classified as extreme non attainment if, despite implementing all available 

control measures, reductions achieved are not enough to meet the standard. The only 

way a region can meet the contingency requirements is to hold back on implementing 

clean air measures and save them for later as a contingency. Of course, this would 

result in delays in cleaning the air and reducing air pollution. As currently written, the 

requirements in the Clean Air Act that require extreme areas to include all available 

measures to ensure expeditious attainment and the requirement for holding back 

measures as contingency are contradictory 

Inability to Treat Extraordinary Drought and Stagnation as Exceptional Events: 

Currently, the Clean Air Act does not allow stagnation or lack of precipitation to qualify 

as exceptional events. Although last year weather patterns returned to more normal 

conditions, the west coast recently experienced drought conditions that had not been 

experienced since the late 1800s with some locations breaking records over 100 years 

old. The extended stagnation associated with the weather emergency overwhelmed the 

state's control strategy and has impacted particulate matter planning for years to come. 

Until the exceptional weather conditions experienced due to the recent drought, the San 

Joaqum Valley Air Pollution Control District was on track to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard before the federally mandated deadline of December 2014. The 

District's 2008 PM2.5 Plan satisfied all federal implementation requirements for the 

6 
63 


25633.044

Testimony of Seyed Sadredin 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Environment 

March 22, 2017 

1997 PM2.5 standard at the time of adoption and demonstrated attainment based on 

projected 2012-2014 PM2.51evels. All emission reduction commitments under that plan 

have been fulfilled. Due to the extreme drought, stagnation, strong inversions, and 

historically dry conditions experienced over the winter of 2013/14, the Valley could not 

show attainment even if the Valley eliminated all sources of air pollution and had zero 

emissions of PM2.5 released into the atmosphere for the following year (2014). 

In excluding stagnation as exceptional events, we believe that the intent of the 

Congress at the time was to only prohibit consideration of regularly occurring stagnant 

weather conditions which could vary on a day-to-day basis. Extraordinary 

circumstances that arise from 1 00-year droughts should qualify as exceptional events. 

Extreme Classification is not Provided for Particular Matter: The 1990 

amendments to the Clean Air Act recognized that reducing precursor pollutants that 

cause ozone formation in some regions would require technologies that may not be 

available at the time an implementation plan is due to EPA Therefore, Section 182(e) 

was incorporated allowing areas with "Extreme classification" to take credit in their 

implementation plans for future emission reduction benefits from yet-to-be defined 

control technologies. The same allowance is not provided in the Act for particulate 

matter because at the time of Clean Air Act enactment, dust emissions were thought to 

be the primary form of particulate matter. With PM2.5 now replacing the course 

particulate matter that initially was the primary focus, it is obvious that the combustion 

control technologies that would address precursors to ozone formation would also need 

to be deployed for controlling PM2.5. Without similar treatment for PM2.5, writing an 

approvable implementation plan that must rely on advancement of yet-to-be defined 

technologies is not possible. 

I thank you for this opportunity and for considering this very important issue. In crafting 

legislation that is before you, we are hopeful that you take into account the lessons that 

we have learned from our decades of implementing very complex and challenging 

mandates under the Clean Air Act 

7 
64 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. Great testimony. We appreciate you being here. And I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes 

to start the round of questions. 

I am going to go to Mr. Alteri. And I want to go quickly. There 

is a lot of stuff that I want to try to cover. So if you can answer 

succinctly, that would be helpful. 

Can you quickly explain what happens when an area is designated to be in non-attainment of the 2015 ozone standards? 

Mr. ALTERI. As a state agency we would have to develop a plan 

under Part D of Title 1 of the Act rather than Part C. And those 

requirements are much more onerous. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Do new compliance requirements add to permitting burdens for the area? 

Mr. ALTERI. Absolutely. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Do those burdens go away when the area comes 

into compliance? 

Mr. ALTERI. Not necessarily. And there is a delay in EPA’s approval. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Now, I understand that from EPA’s own estimates, 

most counties that may not meet the standard today will meet the 

standard over the next 7 years. Is that your understanding? 

Mr. ALTERI. It is. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And this is because control measures already in 

place, like fleet turnover and other measures, are kicking in and 

resulting in lower precursor emissions. Is that about right? 

Mr. ALTERI. It is. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Does implementation of the new ozone compliance 

regime significantly affect how fast these areas will come into compliance? 

Mr. ALTERI. It does. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You are being succinct. Very good. 

Can you explain the public policy benefit of placing areas into 

compliance regimes for air quality standards they otherwise will 

meet without those new regulatory burdens? 

Mr. ALTERI. I didn’t necessarily follow that. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I was going too fast. 

Can you explain the public policy benefit of placing areas into 

compliance regimes for air quality standards they otherwise will 

meet without those new regulatory burdens? 

Mr. ALTERI. No, I think that is a significant burden. We just 

have recently announced a new generation of turbines that are 

going to greatly improve the efficiency of power plants. If you find 

non-attainment areas, then those turbines aren’t going to be built 

in New York, and Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. And those 

technology-driven improvements, that is what is going to allow us 

to improve air quality the fastest. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. Thank you very much. 

Let me turn to Mr. Sadredin. You have proposed revisions to the 

Clean Air Act that would relieve you of some of the implementation 

burdens for ozone and other standards. Would those revisions constitute a roll-back of standards you are currently implementing? 

Mr. SADREDIN. No, Mr. Chairman. There is nothing in the bill as 

proposed that would lead to our region having to roll back a single 

65 

measure that we have in place or hold back our progress as we try 

to meet the standards. 

As you can see in my testimony, to meet the current standards 

we have to get to zero emissions. And once we get to zero, I don’t 

think there is much more that we can do. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, and that is why I like this cooperative federalism approach, because we really do want to trust local people 

on the ground who desire to protect their local citizens, but also to 

make sure that there is an economy that can grow and thrive. 

So another question. What is the potential impact on economic 

development and business expansion in your district if revisions 

are not made to the Clean Air Act implementation? 

Mr. SADREDIN. Mr. Chairman, the sanctions that are imminent 

at this juncture on San Joaquin Valley will be devastating. 

I do understand that California’s economy is growing, but our 

people are not just statistics. Just a year ago, and I am not talking 

about 8 years ago when we were at the depths of recession, many 

communities in our region because of the drought conditions and 

federal water policies putting farms out of operation, communities 

were experiencing 30 percent, 40 percent unemployment. I personally witnessed people in line for food. And I am not talking about 

your chronic homeless individuals, these are people in our region 

that are already suffering significantly. And seeing those faces, I 

cannot sit here before you and say we are OK with imposing billions of dollars in economic sanctions on those same people. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I understand you have 35 years implementing 

standards in one of the most challenging air sheds in the nation. 

From your experience do you see anything in H.R. 806 that will 

make your job to implement the regulations necessary to ensure 

public health protection more difficult? 

Mr. SADREDIN. There is nothing in this bill that would roll back 

even a single measure that we have already put in place or will 

hold back anything that we have to do and we are planning to do 

moving forward to meet the current standards. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, and I have 40 seconds. I just want to end with 

a story. 

In 1986, I left the military to get my teaching certificate. I did 

that in Southern California at, now Concordia University, it was 

Christ College Irvine. And we played a baseball game—I was a 

pitcher—in Costa Mesa. It just struck me, I was pitching a game 

and I came off the mound, I just couldn’t breathe. Now, this was 

’86, and I had no idea why because I was very healthy and in pretty good shape. 

I would ponder the question because we do support the Clean Air 

Act. It has been very beneficial in cleaning it up. I don’t think I 

would have that problem now in that particular position because 

of the success of the Clean Air Act. We just want to make it more 

workable for today’s era. 

And with that, I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. 

Tonko, from New York for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

The Clean Air Act has been an incredibly successful public 

health statute. And I believe that is because it contains a clear line 

of separation between two very important public policy questions, 

66 

the first being what standards must we meet to ensure the air we 

breathe is safe? 

Second, now that we know how clean the air needs to be to ensure public health, how do we achieve that standard in the most 

fair and cost-effective manner? 

We have never asked how much clean air can we afford? That 

is why we have made steady improvements in air quality, even as 

the population and the economy have grown. So I am very concerned that this bill alters the strict health-based standard setting 

process that has resulted in substantial health benefits over the 

past decades. 

Mr. Karperos, California’s topography and climate make air pollution control very challenging. But the statistics you provide in 

your testimony are impressive. Do you believe we need to change 

the fundamental process in the Clean Air Act that I just described 

that sets standards based on considerations of public health alone? 

Mr. KARPEROS. Absolutely not, Congressman. Setting the standards based on public health gives us a clear mandate where and 

the direction to go. And then the structure within the Act allows 

a deep consideration of the costs and how to get there proactively. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

And, Dr. Boushey, would such a change, allowing costs and technological feasibility as considerations in setting standards undermine the progress we have been making to clean our air? 

Dr. BOUSHEY. I absolutely think so. Some very good examples of 

how the setting of standards stimulated technological advances 

that contribute to the great improvements in air quality. There are 

two that came to mind, one has already been mentioned: the really 

remarkable improvement in large diesel engines. 

Siemens, Ford, and Volvo have all made engines that reduce particulate emissions by more than 90 percent, and nitric oxides similarly remarkably reduced. That was driven by the need to meet a 

standard for protecting human health. 

The electric car, the hybrid cars are another very good example. 

And there are many such examples throughout other industries as 

well. 

So, the setting of standards stimulates technology that may not 

have been known about. We had to face the fact that air quality 

was harming health and then develop the technologies to deal with 

it. And that is how the sequence should progress. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And again, Dr. Boushey, have there been 

a number of recent scientific studies on the health impacts of 

ozone? 

Dr. BOUSHEY. Yes, there has been. Since the setting of the 2008 

standard there have been hundreds of papers, literally, that have 

documented the health effects of ozone. Some are good stories, not 

just bad ones. 

For example, the improvements in the Los Angeles Air Quality 

Basins, there have been three beautiful cohort studies with children conducted at USC that have shown significant improvements 

over the last 15 years in the pulmonary function of 15-year-olds. 

They are followed from age 11 to age 15. Over three distinct periods as air quality has improved, particulates, nitric oxide and 

ozone, the pulmonary function of the children in the Los Angeles 

67 

area has improved. And that is remarkable. You can show that on 

a population basis. 

Mr. TONKO. And I would think we would all, I would hope we 

all share that common goal, to give our children cleaner air to 

breathe and generations to come to have even cleaner. 

Dr. BOUSHEY. If I can make just a comment, since the Chair 

pitched baseball in Costa Mesa. Correct? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That is correct. 

Dr. BOUSHEY. There is a study showing that three-sport varsity 

athletes in Los Angeles are more likely to develop asthma, presumably because they are playing hard out of doors breathing poor air 

quality. Now, that was before the recent years. And air quality has 

much improved. 

So your experience of having difficulty breathing after a tough 

inning, that was—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. It was the only tough inning I ever had. So don’t 

get me started. 

Mr. TONKO. Great. Well, let me just jump in. And with so many 

studies being published each year, Dr. Boushey, do you think moving the review from every 5 years to 10 years might prevent 

health-based standards from accurately reflecting the latest 

science? 

Dr. BOUSHEY. I am concerned about that. I am going to comment 

on an example, because I was involved in the research that demonstrated that very short-term exposures to sulfur dioxide can have 

remarkably severe broncho-constrictive effects in people with asthma. We discovered that a subgroup of the population, perhaps 8 to 

12 percent of the population depending on the demographic, have 

asthma. They are orders of magnitude more sensitive. 

That required that we not have an 8-hour standard for sulfur dioxide, it required a 1-hour standard. And to wait 10 years for people with asthma to be protected, that is long. And I just have to 

say it. 

Actually a theme here, I think, is we need greater flexibility from 

the EPA. That is going to be hard for them to achieve with a 30 

percent budget cut, but we need them to be more quickly responsive to advances in science and for difficulties encountered by Air 

Quality Boards. 

Mr. TONKO. I noted Ms. Vehr suggested that the timeliness of response from EPA is problematic. What does happen when you cut 

their budget by 31 percent? 

With that, Mr. Chair, I will yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the Chair. And welcome to all six of our witnesses. 

Obviously this issue in H.R. 806 are totally important to my district and me. As I have said time and time again, I want clean air. 

My family breathes the air in the greater Houston area. When I 

moved there as a 9-year-old boy in 1972, Houston had the dirtiest 

ozone air in America. Our air is dramatically cleaner. And I won’t 

let that progress backtrack. 

68 

My first question is to Mr. Alteri. I would like to look at Section 

3(b). That section says that if EPA’s science advisors find a range 

of options that all protect health, they can use achievability to hit 

the sweet spot. Ranking Member Pallone and I debated this section 

on the floor last year, and his fear was that it let EPA set an 

unhealthy standard. 

I said it then and I say it now, word the language very carefully 

to make sure that EPA can never pick money over science. Health 

was, is, and always will be the most important factor. 

So, if the science says we need a standard 65 parts per billion 

to keep people healthy, so be it. But if they say anything between 

60 and 70 ppb would keep people healthy, which happened recently, then my bill says they may, not must, may look at what is 

actually achievable. 

Do you agree with me it is important for EPA to set a standard 

based on health and then we do everything possible to make sure 

states like yours can implement those standards? 

Mr. ALTERI. Yes, sir. 

Our mission is to protect human health and the environment, so 

we recognize your bill, the language, the thoughtfulness, and the 

consideration that you put into drafting that language. 

And setting the standard does nothing to improve the air quality. 

Implementing control strategies and achieving those air quality 

standards, that is the improvement and that is the protection of 

human health and the environment. 

Mr. OLSON. A second question is for you, Mr. Sadredin. And I 

hope I got close to that pronunciation. All right. 

In your testimony you say that, and this is a quote, ‘‘currently 

we are subject to four standards of ozone and four standards of 

PM2.5.’’ The Texans I work for back home do their best to work 

with EPA for multiple standards on multiple pollutants but they 

claim health benefits is very, very confusing. And some people back 

home worry the EPA is taking health benefits from one standard 

and using those same benefits on another standard; double counting. 

And so do you believe they are double counting? And can you 

talk to me about what having multiple standards for each pollutant 

means to the San Joaquin Valley? 

Mr. SADREDIN. Yes. Thank you. As we speak right now, our agency is in the process of putting three separate PM2.5 plans for just 

PM2.5. And when you add up all the standards we will have about 

10 state implementation plans. Our agency alone on an annual 

basis spends about $2.7 billion in just the bureaucratic process of 

putting these plans together. And that doesn’t include the cost to 

businesses, to other agencies, litigation. 

In terms of double counting, as I show in my written testimony 

that we provided for you, just to meet the 2006 and the 2012 

PM2.5 standards we have to get enormous reductions in emissions, 

90 percent. Those same reductions will also get us to the ozone 

standard. So, when you take credit twice for the same reductions 

that, in a way, is a double counting. 

Mr. OLSON. And so any way you can get around that? You said 

there is no more growth, none whatsoever in the San Joaquin ValVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:44 Jan 30, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-17 CHRIS
69 

ley because of these ozone standards that can’t be achieved. Well, 

you can’t control that, but also with double counting. 

Mr. SADREDIN. No, I agree with my colleague from California 

that meeting these standards is achievable. It is just a question of 

time. We just need the time for the technology to be developed, for 

the funding, for the resources to be there to put these measures in 

place. Right now these artificial deadlines in the act do not provide 

the time to do that. 

Mr. OLSON. This bill gives you that time. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Peters, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this week in particular I want to say thank you for having a hearing on this bill. 

It is certainly helpful to inform us about, about the proposal. 

I want to start with Mr. Cone. And, Mr. Cone, I want to ask you 

a question as a state implementer. You talked a lot about the difficulty of dealing with delays in EPA’s implementation of standards, et cetera. Can you explain to me just as a practical matter 

how that makes things tough on you to do your job? 

Mr. CONE. As trying to figure out what standards and how to 

permit facilities you have to determine whether these standards 

apply today. Are you going to have to do something tomorrow? 

With the levels continuing to go down, a company wants to figure 

out what is going to meet the regulation so they have certainty for 

the future. As this continues to change, they have to continue to 

change. Well, if I put this control in today will this be good 5 years 

from now? It may, it may not be. 

Those are some of the things that we, as regulators, have to work 

with our customers to figure out what is appropriate, what is practical, and what will be effective. 

Mr. PETERS. My understanding is that this proposal 806 doesn’t 

require EPA to be any more timely with that kind of thing. 

Mr. CONE. No, it doesn’t. You need to come up with implementation plans when the standard comes out. 

Mr. PETERS. Right. So one, one way to deal with a very legitimate concern would get EPA to be on time and be more timely. 

That would at least address part of the problem with what you are 

concerned about with the 5-year period. Is that right? 

Mr. CONE. Correct. 

Mr. PETERS. Yes. I think we would all agree on that, too. And 

I hope that the administration will take that to heart as it considers its budget proposals for EPA because removing resources is 

just going to make that even more difficult for these folks. 

I would ask Mr. Karperos to—and probably your own process— 

but Mr. Sadredin from San Joaquin Valley came up with a very different view of these rules than you did. Would you like to respond 

to him? And I am going to give Mr. Sadredin the same opportunity. 

He basically alleged that, he suggested that attaining these things 

might be actually infeasible. And do you have a response to his 

concern? 

Mr. KARPEROS. The California Air Resources Board absolutely 

doesn’t believe that attaining any of the standards is infeasible. By 

70 

using, by looking forward to the standards that EPA has set, considering your control strategy as a whole for PM ozone—NOx that 

is going to form a particle in the air is the same NOx that is going 

to form ozone—you can develop an integrative strategy that distributes the control responsibility across all of the sources, reduces the 

cost, and in a feasible way brings you to the emission levels you 

are looking at. 

The numbers that Mr. Sadredin was referring to, we are in technical discussions about the what it will take to attain the standards, my agency and his. My agency has mapped out what we believe is a much more feasible strategy that wouldn’t require us to 

have no-drive days, that type of thing, but in fact would require us 

to move towards a cleaner fleet that’s available today. 

Mr. PETERS. What about his concern that he doesn’t have enough 

time to do this. Are you able to accommodate that within the current regulatory regime? 

Mr. KARPEROS. It’s a very good question. My agency tomorrow 

will consider a plan that will lay the regulatory groundwork for attaining the PM standards of the ozone standards in the state. We 

will need to come back and consider options for accelerating the 

turnover of the motor vehicle fleet, for example. That will require 

incentives. 

Mr. PETERS. I don’t have a lot of time and I want to get to Mr. 

Sadredin, too. But do you have the authority in CARB to give them 

more time if they need it? 

Mr. KARPEROS. We have the ability to develop a plan that EPA 

could look at and grant more time. 

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Sadredin, he gave some pretty positive statements about the current regulatory regime for the State of California. Would you like to respond to those? 

Mr. SADREDIN. Yes. Actually, we are in agreement that these 

standards are achievable. It’s just a question of time. 

For instance, the deadline that we are facing right now is that 

by 2019 we have to reduce our air pollution by 90 percent. And this 

is in California where we have already imposed the toughest regulations on the stationary sources, cars and trucks. It’s just a question of time. ARB cannot give us more time under the construct of 

the Clean Air Act as it is written right now. 

Mr. PETERS. I appreciate all the witnesses being here. And, Mr. 

Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. Thank you for 

his questions. 

The Chair now recognizes another gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Flores, who is very involved in this issue, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate having this 

hearing. Also I appreciate all of the witnesses for showing up 

today. 

Mr. Alteri and Mr. Sadredin, I have my first question will be for 

you two. The EPA estimates that annual costs for ozone standards 

outside of California will be $1.4 billion annually beginning in 

2025. Last year in a hearing like this Dr. Bryan Shaw testified that 

the EPA only includes industry’s costs in their analysis, not the 

states’ cost or taxpayers’ cost, nor do they look at economic impacts 

like increased electricity costs. 

71 

So, Mr. Alteri, to the extent that there are additional costs, how 

do these impact other pollution control priorities in your agency? 

Mr. ALTERI. Thank you. The rise in rates of electricity prices is 

a key concern of ours as a manufacturing state. And just a incremental change in the electric prices will drive out manufacturing 

industries. And they won’t relocate in Connecticut or New York or 

in the Northeast, but rather they will go to international areas 

where there isn’t afforded as much environmental protection. So, 

we do have those concerns. 

As far as the ozone standards and how they can affect us, they 

could limit the potential for economic growth. There are very few 

major stationary sources that want to locate in a non-attainment 

area. And so we are concerned about the limiting of economic 

growth. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. And you were looking forward, to the extent 

that there are additional costs, how these impact other pollution 

control priorities of your agency. I think you have answered that. 

Mr. Sadredin, based on your experience will there be costs to 

state and local government agencies like yours under the new 

ozone standards before 2025? 

Mr. SADREDIN. Well, as I said, with the double counting of what 

you need to do for various standards, right now what is before us 

to attain the PM2.5 standards will be also sufficient, if we can 

achieve it, to meet the ozone standard. 

Last week at our governing board meeting we presented the 

plan, very ambitious, makes a lot of sometimes unrealistic assumptions about what is doable. The costs to our region to get some of 

the reductions that we need, and still not sufficient, is $52 billion 

in San Joaquin Valley. 

Mr. FLORES. Wow. 

Mr. SADREDIN. And then when you add to it the bureaucratic cost 

that does nothing to improve air quality, $2.7 million a year just 

our agency spending on staffing and rewriting these plans in a perennial, continual planning mode, all of those dollars could go to 

actually reduce air pollution. And that would make our residents’ 

quality of life better if we didn’t have to do all this every, every 

year. 

Mr. FLORES. That is pretty compelling. 

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA currently must review the National Ambient Air Quality Standards every 5 years. For the 2008 

ozone standards the EPA issued the standards in March of 2008 

and began reviewing it in the fall of 2008. And H.R. 806 would extend the mandatory 5-year review period to 10 years, although the 

administrator would still have discretion to revise the standards 

earlier. 

When I drafted this part of the legislation, the reason we picked 

10 years was because that was the agency’s history of actually 

meeting the mandatory standards. They were not meeting their 

only standard—their own standard. They had a history of doing it 

since the beginning of the Clean Air Act. So all we are doing is 

matching the law to fit what their actual standards have been. But, 

we have also said that if the administrator wants to review earlier, 

they can. 

72 

So it is hard for me to see that there should be complaints about 

that. 

So, Mr. Alteri, from your perspective is the current 5-year review 

cycle practical for either the EPA or the states? 

Mr. ALTERI. No, sir. EPA—— 

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Cone? I have got limited time. 

Mr. CONE. No, sir. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Ms. Vehr? 

Ms. VEHR. No, sir. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you for taking care of the air quality in my 

birth state by the way, so. 

Mr. Boushey? 

Dr. BOUSHEY. I am not an expert on that. I think as science 

shows the important, new, dramatic effects we have to have the 

flexibility to do that. 

Mr. FLORES. The administrator has the ability to do that. 

Mr. Sadredin? 

Mr. SADREDIN. The experience does not indicate that EPA is able 

to do that every 5 years anyway. 

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Karperos? I didn’t mean to pass you. 

Mr. KARPEROS. We think 10 years is too long. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. But that is what the EPA has been doing. And 

the EPA Administrator has the flexibility under 806 to move forward. 

Mr. Cone, in your testimony you indicate that extending the 5- 

year review cycle to 10 years would more closely align with what 

the EPA does in practice. You said that. Can you say why that 

would be reasonable to do something like that? 

Mr. CONE. I didn’t quite catch the last part. 

Mr. FLORES. I am sorry. I says in your testimony you indicated 

that extending the 5-year current review cycle to 10 years would 

more closely align with what the EPA has done in practice, which 

we have just talked about. Can you elaborate why this would be 

reasonable to do that, to extent it from 5 to 10 for the mandatory 

review? 

Mr. CONE. Well, again, if EPA would come out with these implementation standards we would be able to probably get cleaner air 

quicker. 

Mr. FLORES. Right. 

Mr. CONE. But EPA has to turn around and reinvent and try to 

figure out how to do things differently to come up with these implementation standards. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas Mr. Green 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for 

holding this important hearing. And I want to thank our witnesses 

for being here today. 

It is no secret, in Houston we have air quality challenges. The 

region currently sits at 80 parts per billion, which is still above the 

2008 ozone standard, so we need a little more time. That being 

said, we have come a long way since the 1970s when our ozone 

measured 150 parts per billion. 

73 

And I think today’s discussion is a valuable exercise. And while 

I do not support the majority’s legislation, I think there are reasonable efforts that can be made to improve the implementation of 

NAAQS. 

Mr. Karperos, we have repeatedly discussed the issue of technical feasibility and economic achievability. The Supreme Court 

has stated that the most important form for consideration of technological and economic reforms is before the state agency. Does 

your agency consider technological feasibility when drafting a SIP. 

Mr. KARPEROS. Absolutely we do, sir. For the plan we are adopting tomorrow we did 10 deep dives on different mobile technologies. 

Mr. GREEN. Does you agency consider the cost-effectiveness when 

selecting emission control options to meet the new NAAQS? 

Mr. KARPEROS. Yes, we do. And we also do economy-wide 

modelings so that we understand the ripple effects throughout the 

economy. 

Mr. GREEN. Does your agency accept the input from districts like 

the San Joaquin Valley in the adoption of the costs in technology 

and standards? 

Mr. KARPEROS. Absolutely. Under state law it is very much a 

partnership for developing SIPs in the state of California between 

the air districts and the California Air Resources Board. 

Mr. GREEN. Director Sadredin, if the state can already consider 

costs and technology when drafting a SIP, why is this sufficiently 

flexible or not sufficiently flexible to meet the new requirements? 

Mr. SADREDIN. That is an excellent question because that is what 

often comes up because Clean Air Act does say you can include 

cost-effectiveness, economic feasibility in the implementation 

phase. 

The problem is that 40 years later after the Act passed, today the 

deadlines that we face, if your deadline to meet the standard is 10 

years and there is no way that you can go beyond that, how can 

you do a meaningful cost-effectiveness analysis if in our region or 

in your region the technology that you need. Billions of dollars that 

we need to spend on having the fleet turnover that is necessary, 

if that is not possible to do within that time line it is not a meaningful cost-effectiveness, economic feasibility analysis that we can 

actually do. 

Mr. GREEN. Administrator Vehr, in February 2014, NASA’s Global Modeling and Assimilation Office, the GMAO, conducted a study 

of western states which used satellite data to monitor stratospheric 

intrusions. NASA and the EPA have acknowledged that intrusions 

can cause ozone to rise above the 70 parts per billion level, especially in the summer months. Welcome to Houston. If the ozone 

rises above 70 parts per billion due to background ozone, does the 

statute provide a regulatory relief? And has Wyoming previously 

applied for regulatory relief? 

Ms. VEHR. The statute allows the state to submit something 

called an Exceptional Event Submittal. And under those Exceptional Event Submittals they are very time consuming. It takes 

about a year to prepare one for stratospheric ozone intrusion. 

Wyoming has been the only state in the nation to have had a 

stratospheric ozone intrusion exceptional event approved. And we 

have had four down to EPA that have not been acted on. 

74 

So, the Act provides for stratospheric ozone intrusion and other 

exceptional events, but the cost to prepare those, and if they are 

not acted on the consequences of that data being used in modeling 

and other events, is problematic. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. In your testimony you stated a one-sizefits-all to ozone is not good for Wyoming. And, of course, in Texas 

we would probably say the same thing. You also stated the alternative tools and methods are critical for areas like Wyoming. In response to the NASA study, EPA is forming a working group of scientists and air quality managers to identify intrusions using a variety of new and different tools. 

Was Wyoming invited or participated in that group? 

Ms. VEHR. Wyoming has been involved with our EPA Region 8. 

I don’t know about that particular group. But we have been in discussions on stratospheric ozone intrusion. And we welcome a meaningful collaboration with federal partners. We look at this as a federal-state partnership, and it should be collaborative and it should 

be meaningful discussions. 

Mr. GREEN. EPA acknowledged the burdens of the regulatory relief associated with events, and these working groups were able— 

I don’t know if these working groups were able to implement any 

change. Do you know anything about that? 

Ms. VEHR. The working groups I do not. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the 

panel for being here to assist us in understanding better. 

Mr. Alteri, one of the primary concerns that I have heard about 

the 2015 ozone standard level is that it could limit investment in 

domestic manufacturing, including the steel industry moving forward. And that is a big issue in my district in Michigan. Mainly 

that the regulation could limit companies from making key investments for plant improvements or expansions in the future. These 

are the type of investments that I believe Congress and the administration should support and make ways for. 

Could you share your thoughts on this concern and whether you 

have a similar perspective on the 2015 standard? 

Mr. ALTERI. Yes, sir. The stringency of the standard will create 

more non-attainment areas or projected non-attainment areas. Ms. 

Vehr had mentioned the modeling that is used in these analyses. 

The photochemistry of ozone creates severe complications. And if 

you can see, we have done an extra job in reducing PM2.5 ozone 

and SO2. But NOx and ozone are more difficult. 

But any time you have those non-attainment areas you are going 

to employ the lowest achievable emission rate with the best and 

most stringent controls, without taking into account cost and technical feasibility. So, it will limit opportunities for growth. 

Mr. WALBERG. And sometimes it is apparent, through no fault of 

the area or the city or the communities in the process. And almost 

like there is no way to get out of it. 

Mr. ALTERI. Yes, sir. That is the way we feel. 

75 

Mr. WALBERG. Let me ask as well, Mr. Alteri, it is clear that one 

of the major priorities of the Trump Administration is investment 

in infrastructure, whether that be for transportation, energy, or 

other purposes. But one aspect of the debate on the infrastructure 

that needs, I believe, more discussion is the potential effect that 

federal regulations might have. 

And so, from your state and location points of view do you view 

the 2015 standard for ozone, NAAQS, as a regulation that could be 

harmful in making investment in infrastructure that we sorely 

need? 

Mr. ALTERI. Mr. Sadredin had mentioned the sanctions that are 

associated with non-attainment areas. And they would apply to 

highway funds. 

Yesterday I got to speak in Cincinnati. The northern Kentucky 

area is our historic non-attainment area. And what we need is investments in bridges and roads to open up those corridors. I am 

from Kentucky, so my first 7 miles of the trip I might see one or 

two cars in the morning on my commute. But you go outside and 

you see many, many points of emissions sources just standing in 

traffic. 

I really think the infrastructure funding and development would 

greatly ease that burden in the Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky 

area. We do need to build bridges and open up the corridors. 

Mr. WALBERG. Ms. Vehr, I look forward to riding my Harley out 

in your state this summer for a week, breathing that fresh air. The 

2015 ozone standard immediately applies to prevention of significant deterioration permits that businesses need to grow and create 

jobs. That means businesses will have to immediately show their 

projects meet the 2015 ozone standard, something hard to do in an 

area that already fails it, as has been mentioned. 

Would PSD permit relief help economic development for the new 

non-attainment areas in your state? 

Ms. VEHR. Yes. We currently have one non-attainment area for 

ozone and PDS relief where their certainty provides relief to businesses. 

Mr. WALBERG. And certainty, define that a little bit more? What 

that looks like? 

Ms. VEHR. Certainty is tied to what the standard is and what is 

the controls and technology needed to achieve that standard. And 

that allows businesses to evaluate those opportunities. We have 

had that experience when businesses come to look at our state, 

they like that we have clean air. And so having that certainty in 

the surrounding ozone is beneficial. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you. And I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

McNerney, who has been patiently waiting, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I have been. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this 

hearing. And it is very informative, so I am having fun here. So 

thank you for participating. 

Mr. Seyed, the target of the Air Shed Grant Program is at risk 

with the EPA’s proposed cuts. If this program were eliminated how 

would it impact your work and the health of the people in the valley? 

76 

Mr. SADREDIN. Thank you, Congressman McNerney. I want to 

publicly express my gratitude for your help over the years to bring 

resources to the valley for these incentive-based programs that are 

critical to get the reductions that we need much more quickly, and 

also do it in a way that is helpful to our economy. 

In San Joaquin Valley we need incentive funding in the order of about $2.8 billion, billion with a B. And any reduction in those 

areas will be devastating to our efforts. In fact, we need those 

areas to be enhanced and more funding needs to be dedicated to 

those good programs. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Cone, in your opinion would reducing the EPA’s budget reduce regulatory uncertainty? 

Mr. CONE. It is possible that the EPA could look and strategize 

better what the resources are and reinvent themselves to be focused on that. I think it is an opportunity to look at how things 

are done and drive improvement. But the public deserves to know 

what is going on. And it gives the opportunity for EPA to show 

their value. And with those cuts that could be done. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. It will show their value by not providing the 

services that they provide. 

Mr. Karperos, your testimony was pretty stark. In your opinion, 

what is the progress that has been made in the valley? 

Mr. KARPEROS. Absolutely remarkable. Mr. Sadredin referred to 

some of the statistics in terms of the improvement in air quality. 

I think we are truly at a cusp where with the right investment, the 

continued support of EPA with incentive dollars, as Mr. Sadredin 

spoke to, we can achieve those standards within the current deadlines of the Clean Air Act. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Do you believe that the current ozone levels in 

the valley are primarily from sources outside the district’s ability 

to control? 

Mr. KARPEROS. This has been an issue that has been studied in 

great depth. And the bottom line is the high ozone levels we have 

experienced in the valley are homegrown. They are from emissions 

from within the valley. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Mr. Seyed, do you have any suggestions or 

recommendations on how the Clean Air Act could help reduce pollution that is not in the district’s control? 

Mr. SADREDIN. Right, and I believe Mr. Karperos was referring 

to pollution transferred from other areas. And your question was 

the regulatory authority over 85 percent of the pollution that we 

do not have. I think with respect to that for ozone, there is no disagreement. 

What we are asking today of this committee is that an overriding 

provision be included in the act, or in some other independent legislation, that says areas that are impacted by pollution from 

sources outside their regulatory authority will not be punished 

with devastating economic sanctions if they have done everything 

that they can do for sources of air pollution under their control. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Right, and I understand that. But what can be 

done to reduce pollution sources that are not in your control? 

Mr. SADREDIN. We have petitioned the Federal EPA to adopt national standards. We are asking the state Air Resources Board to 

77 

do more with some of the limited authority that they have compared to the Federal Government with mobile sources. And we are 

hoping that ARB will ultimately deliver on that. We are hoping 

that the Federal Government, if this is a standard that they want 

to impose on local areas, that they do their part for sources of air 

pollution that are of interstate commerce restrictions fall under 

their jurisdiction. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So, and I mean that sort of expands the authority of the Clean Air Act, what you are proposing? 

Mr. SADREDIN. We are just asking for a fair application of the 

Clean Air Act. Ask us to do everything that we can, but when we 

have reached a point of diminishing returns and also the physical 

impossibility to get the reductions that we need, the Federal Government has to do its part, state government needs to do its part. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Last September the EPA issued updated exceptional event guidance, further acknowledging the impact of 

droughts on air quality stagnation. What is your view on the updated guidance? 

Mr. SADREDIN. It improves the process slightly. But we think 

there is still a big problem with a region like ours when you experience 100-year drought conditions. You cannot use that as an exceptional event to say there is nothing that we could do. It overwhelmed everything, every measure that we had in place in our 

area. We still need some enhancement in that area. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Karperos, you looked like you wanted to say 

something. 

Mr. KARPEROS. Yes. Thank you. 

Even in drought conditions construction workers need to work 

outside. In the San Joaquin Valley farm workers need to work in 

the field. They will be exposed to the ozone that has been exacerbated by manmade climate change in the drought condition. There 

are reasonable actions we can take. The Exceptional Event Policy 

should be transparent, and it should be detailed because we are 

talking about public health here. The issue is not whether or not 

you should excuse the drought, the issue is whether or not we are 

taking all the reasonable steps we can to protect human health. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes Dr. Ruiz from California for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUIZ. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We are here today to consider legislation that, quite frankly, may 

make life worse for millions and augment people’s suffering from 

long illnesses. Air pollution exacerbates asthma; stunts lung development in children; increases risks for infections; increases risks of 

heart attacks, strokes, and even premature death. 

Nationally, there are an estimated 9,330 deaths every year because of air pollution. And I want to let that sink in because we 

lose nearly as many people to the exacerbation of illnesses due to 

air pollution as we do to drunk driving. 

Riverside County, on the eastern Riverside in Coachella Valley, 

which is very much like the San Joaquin Valley, and our economy 

is dependent on agriculture, where I am from and now represent, 

ranks among the worst in the nation for ozone pollution. The Inland Empire in Southern California of which Riverside County is 

78 

a part, also has some of the country’s highest levels of PM10s, 

those tiny particles emitted from chemical factories and vehicles 

that can penetrate the lung-blood barrier entering directly into the 

bloodstream and poisoning our communities and our relatives and 

our families. 

As a physician, I care very deeply about the health of our communities and the public health hazard that air pollution poses. And 

the fact is, respiratory illnesses caused by air pollutions are preventable if we have the proper safeguards in place, if we have the 

proper resources that our agencies need, if we have the right protections in place and the right goals, and the assistance to build 

a capacity to those safeguards like those in the Clean Air Act. 

Since 1980, nationwide ozone levels have declined by about a 

third thanks to the Clean Air Act protections which target emissions from cars, factories, consumer products, and other pollutant 

sources. As technology improves, we have an obligation to update 

our ozone standards to further reduce air pollution and save more 

lives. 

And it is precisely the lives of the working families and the poor, 

Mr. Sadredin, that we—who face the highest burden of those illnesses, who don’t have access to doctors or medicines, and who 

have the highest risk of having asthma and COPD and emphysema. It is not for them that we should reduce the regulations and 

the protections so that they can have a job in which they will 

maybe even, they will make minimum wage, and where the CEOs 

of these corporations will make big, it is precisely for them that we 

need to protect the air because they will have the highest burden 

of illnesses because of the health, the lack of the protections in our 

air quality. 

So, this bill would delay it for 10 years. And heard that it is because that is what the EPA did, so we will do it in 10 years. But 

when we cut the EPA’s budget even further it is going to be another 20 years before they can get some of these things done. And 

so, in 5, 20 years, are we going to keep delaying it and delaying 

it? Well, that is counterintuitive for us in order to be able to find 

the needs that we need and the resources that we need to help improve our health. 

Dr. Boushey, can you speak to the healthcare costs or the cost 

savings of these protections? 

Dr. BOUSHEY. Thank you for the question. 

We have actually run a calculation of what would be the health 

impacts of improving on the 2008 standard of 75 to the 2015 standard of 70 parts per billion. On a national scale we would save 1.5 

million lost days of work and school. And I think those school days 

ought to be counted double because so often both parents are working, and when your 9-year-old with asthma is home sick, you are 

out of work for the day or three days, however long it takes to recover. 

That’s 1.5 million from the patient, of patient days lost to work 

or school. Two thousand hospitalizations. This is just from the 5 

ppb change, 75 to 70. And prevention of an estimated 500 deaths. 

So, we have talked so much about the costs of implementing air 

quality measures to achieve better air quality. We should look at 

the value of returns, and they are substantial. 

79 

Incidentally, 45 percent of these improvements are in the State 

of California because they have a big population with a lot of air 

quality problems. 

Mr. RUIZ. Yes. 

Dr. BOUSHEY. So, I think that is responsive to your question. 

Mr. RUIZ. Absolutely. And I think that, unfortunately, as policy 

makers we don’t really count the cost savings for preventable illnesses when we can clean the air or have some of these policy decisions. 

I have taken care of very sick kids who are poor, who live in 

farm worker communities. I have seen the face of what the exacerbation of asthma can be. 

Dr. BOUSHEY. I care for people of minority ethnicities living in 

inner cities, like in Oakland, who are 28 years old. They would love 

to work. They are well educated, want to work, but they can’t because they are so often in the emergency room for asthma. 

Mr. RUIZ. I hear you. 

Dr. BOUSHEY. It is a real problem. 

Mr. RUIZ. I hear you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi Mr. 

Harper for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to each of you 

for being here. And I will direct these questions to Mr. Alteri and 

Mr. Cone. And either or both of you may respond. 

Concerns have been raised before this committee regarding the 

impacts of new ozone standards on permitting for new construction 

and expansions. So, can you explain how the 2015 ozone standards 

immediately impact PSD permitting? 

Mr. CONE. In Maine we are part of the Ozone Transport Region. 

Maine is treated as a non-attainment area even though we are in 

attainment for all standards. Any time we have an exceeding it is 

due to transport. 

We have received and applied for nitrogen oxide waivers. Those 

have been granted. 

We had in the process a VOC restructuring of the regulation that 

would have offered regulatory relief to two facilities that had applied for expansion in the state. Due to the fact that EPA did not 

get this process, and then the new standard was being proposed, 

they said we will not finish processing this. 

Since that time one facility has gone out of the business, the 

other facility has gone through bankruptcy. That is the reality of 

what is going on in Maine. 

Mr. HARPER. Mr. Alteri? 

Mr. ALTERI. It has the potential to limit economic growth and development. It is real simple. When a new project submits an application we do the analysis. And if it shows that it is going to be in 

a non-attainment area of cause or contribute to a violation, then 

there isn’t an opportunity for you to evaluate the control technologies based on cost or technical feasibility. 

Mr. HARPER. Let me ask both of you, will the new ozone standard impact the ability of new sources to obtain pre-construction 

permits? 

Mr. ALTERI. Yes. 

80 

Mr. CONE. Yes. 

Mr. HARPER. All right. Do you expect that the new ozone standards may delay the processing of pre-construction permit applications? 

Mr. ALTERI. Yes. 

Mr. HARPER. All right. You agree? OK. 

Another: do you also expect that it may delay the ability of states 

or EPA to approve permit applications going forward? 

Mr. ALTERI. Yes, and environmentally beneficial projects as well. 

Mr. CONE. Yes, and what we have seen time and time again, 

when companies invest in their facilities you get cleaner emission 

units. And if you put barriers up to those investments you won’t 

get cleaner units. 

Mr. HARPER. And for the others on the panel for other state and 

local regulators, would you like to comment on the impacts of the 

2015 ozone standards on the impacts on pre-construction permitting? Anybody else, the permit question? 

Mr. KARPEROS. We haven’t experienced in California that the setting of these standards has hindered us in our ability to offer permits. 

Ms. VEHR. This is Nancy from Wyoming, and what helps companies is know what standard they are held to. So, when you have 

that certainty that you are held to the current standard and you 

have a complete application in place—— 

Mr. HARPER. Right. 

Ms. VEHR [continuing]. Sometimes these applications take 18 

months to do the technical analysis, and so knowing what that 

standard is when it is permitting is helpful. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Sadredin, may I ask you a question, please. Is it correct that 

under the Clean Air Act states and local governments can become 

subject to fees or monetary penalties due to emissions outside their 

control? 

Mr. SADREDIN. Right. That is exactly the situation that we are 

experiencing right now with the 1-Hour Ozone Standard which was 

revoked by EPA. But old standards never go away the way EPA 

regulations work. Valley residents are paying about $29 million in 

penalties every year right now because of the valuation of that 

standard. But we, by the way, fortunately you have heard we have 

attained now, but it is a long process to remove those penalties. 

As we move forward with the new standards today, we are in a 

position of costly, devastating federal sanctions are imminent in 

San Joaquin Valley for the standard that lies ahead in terms of 

PM2.5, as I have described in my written testimony. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. And I know my time is almost over. But are 

mobile sources a particular concern in your air quality region? 

Mr. SADREDIN. In San Joaquin Valley the stationary sources, 

which include agriculture, oil and gas production, your ma and pa 

operations, all the way to your biggest manufacturing, they make 

up only 15 percent of the pollution now because we have imposed 

the toughest regulations in the nation on them. Right now, despite 

great work at the state Air Resources Board, the truck regulations 

and all of that, today 85 percent of our air pollution in our region 

81 

comes from mobile sources which we have no regulatory authority 

over. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. Thank you very much. And my time has expired. I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Cardenas, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CARDENAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate 

the opportunity for us to explain to the public how important this 

issue is. 

One of the unfortunate aspects of what we are talking about 

today is the most costly effects are not immediate and they are 

long term, and they are not just about quantitative, it is quality 

of life that we are talking about as well. So this makes it a very 

esoteric conversation. 

Yet, at the same time it allows us to either focus mainly on how 

does it affect the day to day and today, especially when it comes 

to pointing out the difficulties of businesses. And sometimes businesses find themselves in a quandary, and maybe even go out of 

business while they are waiting to find out their future and what 

is at stake here in this particular matter. 

Yet, at the same time if we were to, unfortunately, become too 

lax and relaxed about requirements and protecting the today and 

the tomorrow, then we could find ourselves with burdening costs 

that are just unquantifiable, as a matter of fact. Unquantifiable not 

because they are too small, but unquantifiable because they are 

just so massive and the effects are so negative that it is something 

that we can only admit afterwards that, wow, we screwed up, we 

made a mistake, we were too lax. 

In Los Angeles where I represent, in the L.A. Basin, it has some 

of the worst air pollution in the country. And L.A.’s geography, 

weather, and huge number of vehicles makes us ground zero for 

ozone pollution. When ozone levels pike, so do hospital admissions 

for things like respiratory infections and asthma. 

Since 2000, ozone levels have decreased by 30 percent in the L.A. 

Basin through a combination of local, state, and federal efforts. But 

the region still doesn’t meet federal air quality standards. Plans to 

deal with this problem have often been vague and long-term strategies to reduce emissions. 

I think what we need to do is to try to incentivize companies and 

individuals to switch out polluting technology for cleaner, currently-existing technology, and invest in research to develop better 

technology. 

Mr. Karperos, can you please tell me what is currently being 

done to incentivize these new technologies? 

Mr. KARPEROS. When we, the California Air Resources Board, assessed the need for cleaner trucks, for example, some 5 or 6 years 

ago, we identified that a modification and optimization of existing 

technology would reduce emissions from tucks by 90 percent. We 

have adopted a standard, an optional standard to do that. 

Tomorrow we will make a commitment to adopt a regulation to 

ensure that all trucks sold in California meet that standard. And 

then we are pairing that up with large incentive dollars to accelerate the turnover of that fleet. 

82 

If I may very briefly to the question of fees on businesses in the 

San Joaquin Valley, those fees are actually levied on vehicle registrations, so it is paid by motorists. And that money is turned 

right around and used to support the incentive turnover of trucks, 

so it is actually getting right at mobile sources. 

Mr. CARDENAS. So you just described that the government actually, you said, incentivizes. Incentivizes by patting them on the 

back and then a little certificate? What do you mean by incentive? 

Mr. KARPEROS. Offering financial incentives to accelerate. They 

would not be able to purchase a new piece of equipment as quickly 

as required under the Clean Air Act timelines. We offer up money 

that helps them purchase that piece of equipment sooner. 

Mr. CARDENAS. Oh, OK. So incentivize with actual real dollars. 

Mr. KARPEROS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CARDENAS. So that people can do the right thing, corporations or individuals can do the right thing, and at the same time 

they can get some help in actually doing the right thing? 

Mr. KARPEROS. Absolutely. 

Mr. CARDENAS. OK. Does anybody on the panel want to give an 

example of how perhaps those incentives are unwelcomed or inadequate? I knew it was going to be you. Go ahead. 

Mr. SADREDIN. Yes. We believe there is a greater need for the 

level of funding that is available right now. In our region alone, 

over the last 10 years, we have spent $1.6 billion in public/private 

funding for incentive measures to reduce air pollution and also invest in the economy. It has reduced air pollution in our region by 

over 130,000 tons. 

We still have major challenges. We need another 90 percent reduction in emissions. And, if anything, we need more funding in 

that area to both improve air quality but also help the economy. 

Mr. CARDENAS. So what you just described, are you describing 

that as a positive or a negative? 

Mr. SADREDIN. It is positive, but the negative part of it is that 

the resources have not been enough. We need more assistance from 

the state and Federal Government at the local level to be able to 

do this. 

Mr. CARDENAS. OK. So, in a nutshell, you would welcome these 

stringent requirements if in fact there was more support to actually meet those requirements? 

Mr. SADREDIN. The support and also the time to do it. Let’s say 

I get $3 billion every year for the next 3 years for our region, it 

just takes time to be able to turn over 78,000 trucks, 300,000 vehicles. We just need to have the time and resources to do it. 

Mr. CARDENAS. Thank you very much. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady Ms. Matsui for 5 minutes. 

Ms. MATSUI. I hope that is a compliment, Mr. Chairman. 

The Clean Air Act provides clear and well-documented public 

health and environmental benefits. This is the very first point that 

is considered when discussing the Clean Air Act and ozone regulations. The law has improved the lives and the health of so many 

Americans. 

83 

The American Lung Association reports our nation’s air quality 

has continued to improve over the last few decades. But despite the 

great strides we have made, we have a long way to go. Clean air 

is not a luxury. Breathing is not optional. We all need clean air to 

live. We, in Congress, should be facilitating the federal partnership 

with local agencies that want to improve air quality, not hindering 

it. 

Mr. Karperos, I am glad to hear that many of the regions across 

our state are not delaying efforts to improve air quality, but instead seizing the opportunity to create a healthier environment for 

Californians. But I know that some Californians benefit from these 

air quality improvements more than others. Are there certain populations in the state, even within the same region, whose health 

benefits more from air quality improvements? Do the disadvantaged and minorities feel the impacts of bad air quality to a greater 

degree than others? 

Mr. KARPEROS. Thank you for that question. That is a very, very 

important question. 

We have made significant progress in California in terms of lowering pollution. But let me give you sort of a fact, the major, the 

still disproportionate impact we see on disadvantaged communities. 

My agency did a detailed analysis that showed in about 2000 

that residents of disadvantaged communities, low income of color, 

were exposed to about three times as much diesel PM, cancer-causing diesel PM, than people who lived in wealthier communities. We 

have reduced that considerably, but it is still two times the exposure to diesel PM if you live in a disadvantaged community compared to a wealthier community. 

Ms. MATSUI. While the Clean Air Act’s science-based standards 

are very important, I also believe that other EPA programs that 

provide a federal partnership for improving air quality are critical. 

I am particularly supportive of the EPA’s Diesel Emissions Reduction Act grant program, or as we call it, DERA, which has helped 

clean up and retrofit diesel engines in Sacramento and every state 

across the country. 

I am very concerned by the administration’s move to slash funding for these types of important programs. Have you found that 

federal funding in programs play an important role in CARB’s 

work? Which federal programs have been the most vital? 

Mr. KARPEROS. There are a number of programs that I want to 

speak to. But funding across the board has been extraordinarily 

important: funding for EPA so that they can produce the guidance 

that the states need; the monies you spoke to, the DERA program, 

to fund the replacement of diesel equipment and the financial incentives so we can use that to accelerate the turnover. 

And another program that has been extraordinarily successful in 

the San Joaquin Valley is monies to help farmers buy new tractors, 

much, much cleaner tractors. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK, great. 

Mr. Sadredin, as I mentioned, I believe the DERA grants are an 

important tool for reducing diesel emissions from older engines and 

improving over all air quality in California. I understand that your 

air pollution control district has benefitted from the DERA program. 

84 

How many DERA grants has your air quality district received? 

Mr. SADREDIN. We have been fortunate to receive DERA funding 

almost every year. We have always advocated in Congress for full 

funding of that program. Unfortunately, even the previous administration every year zeroed out that account, and we had to work 

with you and the rest of the Congress to get funding in that program. So, if anything, we need more funding in that area and full 

funding of the DERA program. 

Ms. MATSUI. So you really have benefitted from this DERA funding in your region? 

Mr. SADREDIN. Yes, we have. 

Ms. MATSUI. In the past you said incentive programs are critical 

to get the valley into attainment as quickly as possible. What will 

be the impact in the San Joaquin Valley if DERA and other federal 

incentive programs are dismantled? 

Mr. SADREDIN. There is no way that we can reach these federal 

standards on the back of businesses alone and with regulations 

only. If you adopt a regulation, you still have to wait for the turnover and then the lengthy time that it takes. Incentives, with 

matching funds from the public, from the private sector they actually leverage those federal dollars quite a bit; they are critical. 

There is no way for us to reach the standards without significant 

funding at all levels, local, state, and federal, for incentive fundings 

such as DERA, targeted air shed grants, and NRCS funding that 

was mentioned earlier. All those are critical to meeting our objective to meet the standards as expeditiously as possible. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK, thank you. And I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady yields back her time. 

Seeing no other members present, we really want to appreciate 

your testimony and your diligence. I thought it was a great hearing. I think members got a lot out of it and it will allow us, hopefully, to move forward. 

I have a couple of documents that have been asked to be submitted for the record. Please follow this and make sure I don’t miss 

anything. 

Ms. TONKO. OK. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Testimony of Glenn Hamer, Arizona Chamber of 

Commerce and Industry, from the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee; a Study on the Surface Ozone Trends from 

the Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics; the majority 

hearing memorandum. We have got a letter by a lot of health 

groups, dated March 21st, 2017, from the Allergy and Asthma Network to the Trust for America’s Health. We have a letter to me 

from the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition; another letter from 

the same organization on October 25th, 2015. We have another document from them, San Joaquin Valley 2017 Plan for the 2012 

PM2.5 Standard. Fresno Bee article, Alex Sherriffs and John 

Capitman, ‘‘Don’t Back Off Demands for Cleaner Air.’’ And Office 

of the Commissioner from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. American Chemistry Council, dated 

March 22nd. 

And that is all I have, unless you all have anything else. 

Ms. TONKO. Yes, I think you covered them all, Mr. Chair. 

85 

I would like to personally thank the Commissioner of New York 

State, Department of Environmental Conservation, Basil Seggos, 

for what I think is a very strong letter opposing H.R. 806. He has 

outlined some very important information. 

So I thank you. You have covered them all. And ask respectfully 

that they—unanimous consent to place all of those in the record. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Again, thank you for attending. This is the first 

stop in moving the process forward, and we look forward to working with you during that process. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

The bill under review this morning provides a promising start to the committee’s 

goal of developing and moving common-sense measures that will reduce the barriers 

to a more productive U.S. economy—while preserving the public health and wellbeing of Americans. H.R. 806 represents the kind of targeted legislative updates to 

our environmental laws that will fix provisions that are threatening to do more 

harm than good, given existing regulations and the tremendous advances in air 

quality. 

This bill is about providing sensible tools and relief to state and local authorities 

so they can more effectively implement air quality standards for the benefit of their 

communities. It is also about ensuring appropriate timelines to enable authorities 

to do this without unnecessarily restraining economic development, especially the 

development we need to accelerate the nation’s infrastructure and manufacturing 

capabilities. 

There is no question federal clean-air laws-and state authorities that implement 

those laws have been tremendously successful since the first major of revisions of 

the Clean Air Act in 1970. As EPA reports, in aggregate, emissions of key air pollutants have declined 71% since 1970. As a result, the air we breathe has improved 

dramatically according to nationwide trends: Since 1980, data show ozone is down 

32%; nitrogen dioxide is down 60%; and particulate matter, just in the past 15 

years, is down almost 40%. Of course, much of this improvement over 37 years has 

occurred against the backdrop, overall, of an expanding economy. 

But, there also should be no question that the actual margins for continued improvement are also declining, especially with existing technologies. 

As state and local air-quality regulators implement new rules to drive down pollutant levels in response to statutory mandates, more areas of the nation come closer to natural and technological barriers to continued improvement. Failure to account properly for the existence of these barriers-or to provide reasonable time for 

existing measures to produce results-threatens damaging economic consequences. 

I note, for example, Mr. Sadredin’s testimony provides the troubling example that 

almost all economic activity could be stopped in California’s great San Joaquin Valley—including preventing highway thru traffic—and there would no meaningful improvement to air quality in that region. Yet without legislative and regulatory reforms, federal requirements will just keep mounting, stifling economic opportunity 

and growth in that important region. 

We should take this example and the examples from our other state witnesses 

this morning as a warning of what more regions may confront as air quality standards are tightened at a pace faster than innovation, technology, and the regulatory 

implementation process can reasonably keep up. 

Congress did not enact the Clean Air Act to be a regional economy killer. The 

good news is there are sensible reforms that will update the act, both to reflect the 

progress we have made and to account for current, practical factors that affect continued improvement. 

As I’ve noted previously, there are many opportunities before the committee to 

make meaningful improvements in our environmental laws and regulations—the 

outcome of which will be good for public health and good for the economy. Today 

is just the beginning. 

86 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

H.R. 806 is essentially the same legislation the Committee considered in the last 

Congress, and the ‘‘Ozone Standards Implementation Act’’ is still a very misleading 

title. While the bill does derail the most recent ozone air quality standard, these 

bad policies go far beyond just ozone. Let’s be clear: H.R. 806 is a broad attack on 

the successful health based standards and protections for all criteria pollutants— 

carbon monoxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides, and even lead. 

H.R. 806 is a compilation of misguided proposals that weaken or delay the protections in the law—strategies that won’t make air pollution magically go away. H.R. 

806 puts the public health and safety of the American people at risk, and virtually 

guarantees that people living in areas with poor air quality will continue to breathe 

unhealthy air indefinitely. 

We cannot consider this bill in isolation. It is only one of many assaults on public 

health and the environment being rolled out by the Trump Administration and the 

Republican Congress. 

The Administration has announced its intention to roll back progress in climate 

change policy, energy efficiency, and clean energy. Great news for the fossil fuel industry, but not for public health, consumers, low income communities, or the U.S. 

industries and American workers that are poised to take us into a clean, low-carbon, 

and more efficient future. The Trump Administration’s actions will further speed 

global warming, encourage more fuel consumption, and generate more pollutants 

while costing us jobs in the clean energy sector. 

The budget blueprint the Trump Administration released last week proposes to 

cut EPA’s budget by 31 percent—$2.6 billion dollars—to reduce the EPA workforce 

by 3,200 people, and to eliminate 50 vital programs that protect the public health 

and environment. I should also note that a large portion of EPA’s funding goes directly to states to help ensure our communities have clean air to breathe and clean 

water to drink. These drastic cuts will be devastating to the people we represent. 

Simultaneously, this bill explicitly says that no new funds can be provided to EPA 

and the states to do the numerous new tasks laid out in the legislation. So, although 

one of the stated justifications for this bill is to help states reduce air pollution, the 

fact is that it does exactly the opposite. The states need technical and financial support from their federal partner—the EPA—to implement the Clean Air Act. The 

Trump Administration budget and this bill abandon that partnership, sending a 

clear message to the states to go it alone. 

I do not believe the American people want more air and water pollution. Our constituents are not interested in breathing dirty air or drinking dirty water. They certainly don’t want their health compromised by going back to ineffective, voluntary 

pollution control programs. 

We have made great progress in reducing pollution and improving people’s health. 

These air standards are based on decades of research, reviewed by experts in the 

health sciences who have advised the Administrator that protection of people’s 

health requires lower ozone levels. 

My Republican colleagues claim this bill does not increase air pollution or undermine the fundamental public health protections in the Clean Air Act. But that is 

exactly what will result if you stretch the deadlines for compliance, remove vital 

agency resources, and insert cost and other factors that have nothing to do with 

health. 

Our experience with the Clean Air Act tells us that we do not have to choose between the health of our communities and a healthy economy. We can have both, and 

we have achieved both under the Clean Air Act. 

I opposed this bill in the last Congress, and. I continue to oppose it now. I will 

not go back on my commitment to the public to make the air safe and healthy to 

breathe. H.R. 806 breaks that commitment. The Clean Air Act provides EPA and 

the regulated community with sufficient flexibility to continue to improve air quality 

and public health. Instead of undermining the law and gutting the EPA, we should 

provide adequate resources to the Agency and to the states to continue to give every 

American clean, healthy air to breathe. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

87 


25633.045

~ 

¥ 

ARIZONA CHAMBER 

--OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY--

Testimony by Glenn Hamer, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, submitted 

to the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee's Subcommittee on Clean 

Air and Nuclear Safety Hearing entitled "Examining Pathways Towards Compliance 

of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ground Level-Ozone: Legislative 

Hearing on S. 2882 and S. 2072," June 22,2016 

On behalf of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Arizona Chamber or 

Chamber), I welcome this opportunity to submit for the record the following testimony 

regarding the economic implications for the slate of Arizona of the Environmental 

Protection Agency's new standard for ground-level ozone, In addition to this written 

testimony, I am including for the record a copy of the latest paper by the Arizona Chamber 

Foundation and Prosper Foundation titled "A Clear and Present Danger: !low the EPA's 

New 0Lone Regulations Threaten Arizona's Economy," which provides a comprehensive 

cxJmination of the issue. 

In October 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lowered the national 

standard for ground-level ozone to 70 parts per billion (pph) from the previous standard, 

set in 2008, of 7S pph. This new one-size-fits-all national standard will be virtually 

impossible for Arizon<l to meet he-cause of Arizona's unique location in the southwestern 

region of the U nitcd States, and because the primary sources of Arizona's ozone precursors 

0.rc outside our state's control. Protecting Arizona's air quality is of utmost important to 

those of us here in Arizona, and our state's businesses and regulators have been working 

diligently Lo reduce our emissions so that all Arizonans enjoy healthy clir. But the 

imposition of this new standard will punish Arizona for ozone we cannol control. 

First, Arizona's number one source of nitrogen oxide emissions is cars. Our state's location 

as a border stale and a gateway to Southern Californi<l mean that Arizona's highways arc 

heavily traveled. Yet because vehicle emissions are rcgu!aLed at the federal level, they arc 

wholly outside Arizona's controL ln other words, Arizona's most effective strategy for 

rL'ducing its 07.01W is entirely in the hands of federal regulators responsible for vehicle 

emission stJndards. 

Second, Arizona has incredibly high levels of biogenic, or naturally occurring, background 

ozone. With our state's vast ponderosa pine forest and high incidence of wlldfires and 

lightning, hiogcnic ozone emissions account for 13 percent of Arizona's volatile orgzmic 

compound crnissions. Point source major emitters account for a mere 1% of Arizona's VOC 

emissions. 

Third, /\rizonJ receives a significant amount of ozone from neighboring California, also 

referred to as "interstate transport." Proving that this ozone originates in California is 

complicated and expensive, and the EPA docs not permit exclusions for interstate 

ARIZONA 

MANUFACTURERS 

COUNCIL 

.';200 \J. (\'ntr,ll Aw Suitv t !2'1 

Phoeni-x, AZ f'"i()l2 
88 


25633.046

transport. Thus, despite the fact that ozone originates in California, Arizona is penalized for 

it. 

Fourth, Arizona receives significant "international transport" from Mexico as well as Asia, 

by way of California. But because of the EPA's rules, even if Arizona's Department of 

Environmental Quality could prove-at great cost-that Arizona would he in attainment 

"but for" the internationally transported ozone from Mexico and Asia, it would still be put 

into nonattainment status. 

Finally, almost 70% of the land in Arizona is tribal land or controlled by the federal 

government, yet Arizona is still responsible for controlling emissions originating there. 

Simply put, Arizona cannot implement a 70 ppb standard. Nine out of the ten counties in 

Arizona in which ozone is measured are already out of attainment. The penalties for 

nonattainment have drastic economic consequences: existing Arizona businesses and 

companies interested in expanding in the state will be unable to secure necessary permits 

and face limitations or outright bans on construction, and our state's federal highway 

dollars could be compromised. And these consequences are already coming to fruition, 

with companies choosing to locate elsewhere due to uncertainties surrounding permitting. 

With regard to the specific pieces of legislation before this committee: 

The Arizona Chambc'r is appreciative of the work being done on this issue by Semtors 

Hatch and McCaskill inS. 2072, which gives states an opportunity to submit to the EPA an 

"early action compact" to address state-specific issues with implementation. Offering 

another option as to how the states manage their air quality. However, on the issue of 

ozone, federal regulators must still recognize the unique characteristics of the various 

regions when setting a national st;mdard. 

With respect to S. 2882, The Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2016, we agree that 

delaying the implementation of the 70 ppb standard is necessary, at the very least. We also 

appreciate the excellent work of Arizona's two senators, Messrs. McCain and Flake, on this 

issue. 

The issue for Arizona and other Western states is not feasibility of implementation; it is 

impossibility. 
89 


25633.047

Introduction 

In October 2015, the tnvironmental Protection 

Agency ("EPA") lowered the national standard for 

ground-level ozone to 70 parts per biaion (ppb). 

Arizona's unique location in the southwest region of 

the United States makes achieving the lower standards 

unrealistic. Since 2008, when the EPA set the standard 

at 75 ppb, Arizona and other states across the country 

have been working diligently to reduce their emissions 

to meet that standard. Although Arizona was making great strides toward achieving attainment of 75 

ppb, its climate and geographic location will make it 

nearly impossible for Arizona to meet the new lower 

standard despite best efforts by Anzona industry and 

regulators. The consequences of nonattainment could 

be dramatic for Arizona. existing Arizona businesses 

and companies interested in expanding in the state will 

be unable to secure necessary permits and face limitations or outright bans on construction, and Arizona's 

federal highway dollars wiU be compromised. 

Arizona Chamber Foundation • Prosper Foundat1on 

The EPA's move to lower the standard now is 

premature and unnecessary. States across the 

country, including Arizona, have only just begun 

to see the impacts of the control measures they 

implemented after the 2008 standard was promulgated. Furthermore, scientists from the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration {NASA) 

and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) have found that, while 

"North American emissions contribute to global 

ozone levels. !there is no] evidence that these 

local emissions are driving the increasing trend in 

ozone above western North America."1 While the 

western United States reduced its production of 

ozone by 21 percent between 2005 and 2010, the 

region's air quality did not enjoy the expected improvement in response. 2 That is because domestic 

redJctions are be1ng offset by increases in ozone 

originating in Asia and elsewhere.3 
90 


25633.048

A Clear and Present Danger How the EPA's New Ozone Rcgutat1ons Threaten .Anzona's Economy 

Gtven this disturbing international trend and other 

\oca\ factors that make attamment costly and 

d:fflcult. lowenng the standard from 75 ppb to 70 

ppb IS not substantiated by the required sctentific 

data to support such a move. Protecting our air is 

of utmost importance to at! of us lucky enough to 

call Arizona home-dare say even more so~than it 

is to federal regulators in Washington. But Arizona 

and 1ts businesses are already making great strides 

in protecting air quality and ensuring Arizonans 

enjoy healthy air. The EPA has acted far outside its 

mandate, setting a new standard that is unjustifled 

by science and impossible to meet without severe 

economtc consequences 

I. The Clean Air Act and the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards 

The Clean Air Act ICAAI. originally passed by 

Congress in 1970, IS the federal law that regulates 

air quality. The CAA was intended to protect public 

health by regulattng emissions of common air 

pollutants from both mobile and stationary sources 

(i.e. vehicles and industry), which at that t1me were 

unregulated_ To that end, the CAA authorizes 

the EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAOS} for a variety of air pollutants, 

including ground-level ozone. 4 

But the EPA's mandate to regulate m this area is 

not unl!rn1ted. Rather, pursuant to the CAA, the 

EPA may only regulate emissions to the extent 

that public health is protected "with an adequate 

margin of safety."5 

S1nce the EPA set the first NAAOS at 80 ppb in 

1971, 6 erT1issions across the country have been 

reduced Slgmflcantly.7 Ozone levels have declined 

by 33% since 1980,8 as man-made sources of 

ozone have faHen in North America and Europe as 

a result of air-quality legislation. 9 Given the great 

strides toward attainment and the reductions we 

have already seen. the health impact of further 

reductions may be inconsequential at best while 

the costs assocated wtth such reductions will be 

exponential 

The EPA has acknowledged the incremental nature 

of further reductions, stating that while there is "no 

bright-tine rule delineating the set of conditions or 

Arizona Chamber Foundation • Prosper Foundat1on 

scales !within the range proposed] at which known 

or ant,cipated effects become adverse to publiC 

welfare, its pOsition is nevertheless that the lower 

the standard, the better. 10 

Scientists involved in setting the new regulation 

looked at health impacts from ozone levels 

ranging from 60 to 72 ppb using various studies, 

most notably one from 2009 examining just 31 

people exercising with varying levels of ozone 

exposure over a 6--hour periodY The EPA's po!icy 

assessment of the new standard makes clear that, 

based on this research, respiratory symptoms were 

seen at concentrations as low as 72 ppb, but that 

numerous exposure uncertainties existed with 

respect to the relatiVe weight given to d1fferent risk 

estimates at tower levelsY 

The EPA Administrator ultimately determined that 

within the probabilistic range of impact lowering 

the standard to 72 ppb was supportable, but stated 

that she had "decreasing confidence that adverse 

effects w1l\ occur fol!owtr-:g exposures to !ozone] 

concentrations below 72 ppb:13 Nevertheless, 

the EPA set the new standard at 70 ppb anyway, 

despite the cost and consequences to states 

trying to come into attainment.:4 !ndeed, the EPA 

has acknowledged that according to its own 

modeling, there arc areas in the Intermountain 

Western U.S.1s in which "substantial background 

contributions !already) approach or exceed the 

[75 ppbl NMOS."" Furthermore, a 70 ppb standard 
91 


25633.049

A C!ear and Preser.t Danger How the EPA's New Ozone Regu!at1ons Threaten Anzona·s Economy 

was explicitly rejected by the EPA Administrator in 

a 1997 review of the then~current NMOS precisely 

because it was too dose to peak background 

concentrationsY Lowering the standard to 70 

ppb now only makes sense in a wor(d in which an 

II. Understanding Ozone 

At the stratospheric level, ozone is a good thing-it 

protects us from the sun's harmful U.V. rays. In 

contrast ground-level ozone-the primary component of smog--may affect air qual1ty. Some 

studies (while inconclusive) suggest that ground-

!evel ozone on its own or when mixed with other 

potential pollutants such as particulate matter can 

have adverse health consequences like asthma 

and bronchitisY' However. some studies also 

indicate that ozone alone-while a risk factor-may 

not cause sign1flcant demonstrable health Issues 

for most populations. Rather, it is the interaction with 

other elements that presents possible negative health 

effects to the human body.20 In addition, ozone "is a 

natural constituent of the atmosphere and the lung is 

equipped with !defense] mechanisms" to deal with it.21 

The task for scientJsts and regulators is to detennine, 

with regard to ozone specifically, how it interacts with 

other pollutants, how it presents itself in various geographic areas. and how any spec,flc population may or 

may not be impacted 

Ground-level ozone is formed when n1trogen 

oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds 

emissions target of zero is the goal and the cost of 

further reduction is of no consequence. Even the 

EPA, however, acknowledges that the CAA does 

not require a zero-risk leveLls 

(VOCs)-also referred to as ozone precursors-react in the presence of sunlight and other weather 

conditions,22 The ways in which these reactions 

occur is highly complex and remain only partially 

understood 23 

The NOx and VOCs in our environment are both 

naturally occurring ("biogenic") as wen as the 

result of man-made ("anthropogenic") poUution. 

For example. nitrogen oxides come from agricultural sources like synthetic fertilizer and livestock 

manure. and fossil fuel combustion from mobile 

sources {e.g. cars) and stationary sources (e.g. 

coa!-flred power plants). 24 Nitrogen oxides also 

come from natural sources Uke Ughtning and 

biological decay in our soil and oceans.2s Similarly, 

VOCs come from man-made sources like solvents 

(paint adhesives, wood strippers, and cleansers) 

and various processes like dry cleaning and oil production and refmmg. 26 Naturally-occurring VOCs 

primarily come from plant life; tropical forests are 

estimated to produce approximately half of a(( 

global biogenic VOC emissionsP 

III. If Ground-Level Ozone is Bad, Why isn't the 

EPA's Lower Standard Good? 

A large percentage of ozone precursors are 

naturally occurring In addition, ozone is often 

transported hundreds of miles from its point of 

origin. Thus, for many states, especiaHy those of 

the Intermountain Western U.S., the ozone found 

Anzona Chamber ~"oundatlon • Prosper Foundation 

within their borders is largely not within their 

controL So even though ground-level ozone may, 

m large quantities. have adverse hea\th effects, it 

is unrea!istic to expect that states can continue to 

reduce or even eliminate ground-level ozone. 
92 


25633.050

rhat IS espeCially true Arizona, where the 

pnmary sources of ground~lcve! o;:one precursors 

are cars and p\ants 28 In Mancopa County, a mere 

:%of VOC err~•SSIOns con:e from po1nt source 

rr1a_1or G'Tlitters (1 e :ndustnal, manufactun'lg and 

electrical power generating facl1ti~s), 1n contrast. 

4.3% of ~'v1ancopa Cou'lty's VOC emissions come 

from biogen1c sources {i e natural vegetat10:1)/0 

Coupled wth unusual~y high ieve\s of background 

ozor1e and Arizona's dry and sun'ly desert c!Jrnate. 

Arizona 1s a un1que disadvantage when it comes 

to comply;ng \.'l.llth the EPA's new standard for 

ground-level ozone 

as a border state and a gateway to Southern 

Californ a .. Arizona's federal. state and local highways are heav1ly traveled by those passing through 

Jnd res'ding w;th1n the state Am:ona's pnmary 

sources of nitrogen oxide emiss1ons are on-road 

and non~road mobile sources (primanly cars, 

but a!so a1rptcmcs. construct1on equ1pme:tt, and 

lawn equ1pment) wAs Anzona's Departrnent of 

t:nv:ronmental Quality ("ADE.Q") nas pointed out, "!l] 

oca!!y imp!erT1ented pollution controls are unl1kcly 

to oc e:iect•ve at reduC1~'9 ambient ozone levels 

auoss iAnzonal because ozo'le 1s a regional problem and caused pnmar~~Y by cars."31 And because 

vehicle emiss1ons are regu\ated at the federal !eve!, 

they are who:;y outs1dc Arizona's control; Anzona·s 

rnost effective strategy for reduc1:1g 1ts ozone IS 

therefore ent1rc\y in the hands of federal regulators 

respons:ble for vehicle ern1ssion standards. 9 !t 

,s also 1r:1portant to note that Anzona t1as a higt1 

proportiOn of older-and therefore d1rtier--veh1cles 

as compared to the rest of the count1yy; because 

our greal weather al!ows cars to rema1n ;n operable cond:noq for a very long t:rne 

Ar1?o:ta's pnmary source of VOCs ;s b:ogenic em is 

s1ons. wn1ch are emiSSIOns ~rom natural sources such 

as vegeta.t1on, so:l and t1ghln1ng /vizona has the 

largest ponderosa ptnc forest 1n the United States, but 

no one would senously argue thal Arizona shou;d 

reduce 1ts VOC emiss1ons Dy cutt·ng down trees. Thus, 

A,r·zona nas '10 meanngfut way of reduCI!lQ its two 

Q,ggest sources of ozone precursors--cars ar1d plants 

!\lew RPgulat:ons Tnrea\e" ;\r:,:cr1a s Econon:y 

Arizona's unique geography 

contributes to its levels of ozone 

and will make it essentially impossible 

to with the EPA's new 

standard without dire effects. 

Second, Arizona has extremely high levels of 

background ozone. "Background ozone" refers 

to ozone that results frorn natura~ly-occurring 

emiSSions such as w:~d~res. ltghtr1ng or the na:ura! 

'off-gaSlng" of plants_ lt also 1nc!udes emtssio~s 

from man-made sources outside the borders of 

the United States (also referred to as international 

transport) 5

"' Background ozone is incredibly hard 

to measure. and requires complicated and cxpe'lSive photochemical modeling Even if proven, the 

FPA does no~ perrYlit exdus1ons for background 

Rather, states whose ozone \evels are above the 

federal standard-regardless of the source--·are 

deemed "nonatta1nrnent areas." wh1ch has signifICant consequences for the receipt of necessary 

perr11Jtt1ng and federa( highway doUars_ ~ 

tVlzona·s ozone compnsed s:gnif1cantly of transport from Mexico and Califo!nia (California's ozone 

has been shown to include ozone from as far away 

as Asia). Thus. even if Anzona's Department of 

Environmental Quality can prove--at great cost-that 

Arizona would be :n attainment "but for" the internationally transported ozone precursors originating 1n 

Mex1co or Asia. it would sti\( be put 1nto nonattainment status. And wf11\c the EPA may 1nc!ude international transport 1n :he dehr.1~:on of backg~ound 

ozonE?. 1t does not cons.der erniss1ons purportedly 

generated by man-made sources within the US. as 

background regardless of where they were generated. In other words. :t doesn't matter if eM1ssio~s 

rncasured 1:1 one state are generated 1n another state 

(referred to as interstate transport), even though they 

are outside the control of the impacted jurisdiction.36 

That rrear,s Am:ona gets no beneflt from prov1ng 
93 


25633.051

and 

to tr1c [PA t'lat It wou\d ·n attainment "but for" 

ozofle or:QTliJt!ng in California 

Ar:zona's un1que geography contributes to 

h1gh levels of ozone and wdl rnake :t essent:aHy 

,;nposs1b:e to comp\y w1th the EPA's new standard 

FederJ! regulutors (Y]Ji'lta:n that states have "tools" 

at ther d1sposol for address:ng backgroulld ozone 

But because of tnc make-up of Anzona's o?one. the 

so-u~\ed "tools" made ava1tab~e by the EPA are ln<J6· 

equate to enable ,A.r;zona to r:eet the new standard 

fhc; C\ca!l A1r Act ollows the tPA to determine 

tnat a area that 15 not 1n con:oLance w1th the 

federal standard can be treated as a "rural tronsoort 

(RT/\), thc~eby orov1d!ng certain rel:ef mechanis:ns for that designated mea However, to quat:fy 

as an RlA the state 'fillS~ sYlow that ttle rura( area 

does not conwin major cm1ssion so~rces Q.Qd. 

'S not i'lcluded with;n nor IS <Jdjacent to a high:y 

oo~ulated : ..~rban area 

!arc;e western state 

IS not helpful for a 

Arizona, where huge rural 

areas~·sor11c ot wh:ch are tens of thousands of 

acres and targer than ent1rc states on the eastern 

seaboard"~·arc adjacen~ to areas that conla1n 

urban populatiOn ce~1ters. Furthermore, because 

fH/I.s tcch:licatly designotcd J.S nonattainmetlt 

a~eas, tl"tey must fl"leet trte t.PAs requirements 

r:onatta:nrnem areas, inc(uding developing a 

basei:nc emiss;ons Inventory, 'mp;ementir~g a new 

source rev:ew prograrrt subrrt1t~:nq r"lJjor source 

en'1iSS:on statements, and prcpar1ng transportation and general conforrnty derrtonstrat:ons-aU 

cost\y r:1nd rcchnica! requ1re:r1ents. The only relief 

an RTA rece,ves <s that 1: :s not subJect to the 

reou1:ements of a 'ligher~c-ass1flcd 

nonattamrnent area ReQa~dtess, of a~l the rural 

areas ;\nzona that w1U be unable to corr1p!y w;th 

Ne1.1>: 0Lorre Reguiat1ons Threaten 

w1thout d1re effects. Anzona's rrounta1nous terrain. 

w1th 1ts a!ternat1ng valleys and high altitudes. lends 

ttself to accurr:u\ation of ozone.F Coupled with 

Af,zona·s hot dry. sunny cl:mace and propensity 

for w:ldfm::s and \:gh:~mg, 1\nzona ,::; a 

environment for ground~level ozone 

for Dealing with 

~he 2015 ozone standard, there are !ike\y none that 

would be able to seck an RTA designation 

International Transport 

The Clean A:r f,ct aHows the E.PA to approve a state's 

ozone attain'lient p:an~a required part of meeting 

~he fcdcrai ozotlc standard-if ~he state can demon~ 

stratc that ozone ong:nat1~g tn anotrler country is 

a s:g1;,flcant :mped.ment to :ts ab:l!ty to mee: the 

fed era~ standard QQ.Q U1at 1t hJs taken '"appropnate tocat 

measures· toward attainrnctlt '~ But this p:ov:sion does 

not exclude internat:onat transport from the state's 

ozone levels, nor docs it prevent areas from within 

the state fror:J being placed in nonatta:nment status, 

to the contrary, an in~ernationa\ transport des1gnation 

puts tile area into marg:nai nonatta!nment status and 

requ:res the area to implement mJrq:nal nonattain 

rnent programs,''° Furthermore, because of the nature 

of ozo:1e. orov:ng 1nternatona\ transport is tlme"consurn;ng and expens;ve for exi.lmple. i

7aso. lexas 

spent 10 years and undoubted\y an obscene amount 

ci rnoney to prove that a portion of ~ts ozone came 

from Juarez. Mexico 1 To date. it is the oniy city that 

has been successfu\1n do1ng so. f"he CM's :nternatlona\ lra'lsport proviSIOn is therefore not ne!pfut to 

Anzona, whicn borders on and gets s1gnlf1cant ozone 

from Mexico and, 1ncrcasi~gty, frcm Asia 

Exceptional Evertts 

An "exceptional event' is an event-natural or 

caused by ruman aCtiVIty··-that affects a1r qualtty, 

unl:keiy to recur at a part1cu1ar location, and 

cannot be reasonably contro!led or oreventeci.'12 
94 


25633.052

OVvTJ 

arnoun~ to a 

/\s of October 2015_ Wyo:n:ng or~ly s~a~e that 

had bt:Cil granted 0:1 "c:xceor:onal C'.ll?nt c\eJmnce 

to h:g!J background 

can take ar~ywhere fror!' four to 

an exceptonal events 

caused by 

wloi1rc would :equ·re 

oroduce '~ 7 stale succeeds n proving exthat :he sratc wll avo:d 

exclus:on 

ro: asc;ure 

w:~n no lccai indust:y, La Pal County has no !ocql 

•:•cchar:~srns 

Cal•iorn:i.l and Mexico''" t\s H:saei Cabn::ra, D1rector 

of Anzona's Uepartrncnt of 

before 

rY!any local crnss:o:1s reduclions are Yuma 

Councy' s:Y'lp~y w1U not be ab1e to ac'l~t2ve cornpU-

~mce w:t<l new [70 p9bl st.Jn(jard.'•G 

show a cortnbutiOil to Co:o(ado's 

anyvvnere t:etween and 

seven ppb 
95 


25633.053
96 


25633.054
97 


25633.055

fund;ng For th:s prog;Jr;r ur~n 

201:J standard bock or rccxJ;.:inCd 
98 


25633.056

t\ Oear and Present Danger How lhe EPA's New Ozone Regulations Threaten Arrzona·s Economy 

End Notes 

6 1aote of ,~,stoncai r(aC,ona: Arnb·e'1t A•r o~a:<y Sta'ldards 

t n\·ronr>le'lta: "'0\C'Ct·on /l.qc•lCy nttos 1/w-vvwepa gov/ozono>oo:iuton/ 

tabie-'l,storcai·ozone-nat•onai-a'Ttb,ent,a.r-.oual•ty·standaros-naaqs 

7 Accora•nq to tne EPA aggregate nac Cl'1Jl e"rYSS ons of tne SIX 

9 R:uCn M 'O;one Poi:ut·on ;rom Near a'ld Far: Na;ure 

Geosc:ence.l'.\..9 2015 

·o AJLQ Co<n"1C'"r\S O<C Proooseo Ruit:>, Marc..,;; 2015. Nat.onal Amo:en; 

:2 80 ced r<eg at 6~518,21 

!dat6':>52.H.65353 

:6 so r-eo i(cg at65300 

:7 rd at6':>291 

id at6'J2% 

19 07o'1c Bowes E nv•ro'lrt1C'''(a: f'rmect·o, i\qency, 'ltms ir'w,'lweoa gov/ 

An7ona Chamber Foundat1on • Prosper >'ounda\lon 

23 5cc80Fea iicg at65300 

Overw:w a! G•ecr1nouS€ Gases. supm note ?4 

'ndoor-a'r,oua: ty-,aaivoiaL,e-o'gan'c ·CO'T1Dounds· I'Ylpac:-.'ldoor-a:r-qual·ty 

30 ld 

32 !d 

cancomlart:c:eiconsumcrs-1-]o:a-on:o-cars-io'lger-mak•ng·exnaust-d,rt;oer/ 

55 ld ats 

1.0 1\<:JO'"lJ ')eoartrrent of :T")v,ro'"lrnen:a: Oua:rty Power~o.o;t Prese'l:at·on 

supranote?8 
99 


25633.057

~ 

't 

ARIZONA CHAMBER HHi N DA T l 0 N ---

wvviN azcnambcr co>::toundat'O'l 

:'rospcr Foundat1on 

:5200 North Centra\ Avenue, 

.AriZO'lC:l 85012 

602-529 l204 

wv\w proscerfouncialionhq org 

ms 
100 


25633.058

/\tnH)<.,, Chcm. Ph)~ .. 17. 1··21-l. 2017 

\\'\\ \\.atmo:-d·hcm-phy~.nct/17/1/20! 7/ 

doi: 1 0.519-Uacp-! 7-l-20! 7 

0 ,-\uthori :-,) :?:U! 7. CC Allrlbution 3.0 Liccn:-.e. 

l@ (l) j 

US surface ozone trends and extremes from 1980 to 2014: 

quantifying the roles of rising Asian emissions, domestic controls, 

wildfires, and climate 

i\leiyun Lin 1

•

2, Larr:v \V. Hormvitz2 , Richard Payton\ Arlene l\1. Fiore\ and Gail Tonnesen' 

'A;mo~phcric anJ Oceanic Scicrh.'~:-., Princeton University, Princeton. :-.lJ 08540. CSA 

'\0\~\ (Jcopll\-,H .• tl flwd D)nanm-; 1 abor.tlO!) P1mcclon NJ0H';;.f0 USA 

'LS Em irulltlll'lltal Protection Agency. Rc:gion 8, Air PnJgram. De mer, CO k0202. l."SA 

;Ltmont-Dohcrty Eanh-Ohserv:.llory and Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, 

Cnlumbia L.:ni\·cr-;ity, Pali~adcs, :\'Y 1096-t. LSA 

CrnT('\f!ondenct to: ~1ciyun Lin (mciyun.lin(d'noaa.gov) 

Rcccih'd: -~ Dl':ccmbcr '20 16 ~ Discu-,.-,ion ~tancJ: 7 December 2016 

Rn i\cd_ 2 h·hruary 2017 --Accepted: 6 f."chruary 2017 Publi~hcd: 

Ahstract. l 'S :-.urfacc o, to \'arying p.lobal-to 

emi"'lJom. and extreme \\Cather, 

\\ ith for Lks\glling cfkctivc air quality control jl{ll:ctc'> We examine thcst: conj~)incd prnces.'>cs with 

ob..,cnatiuns anJ global chcmi.-.try-climak model (GFDLA~!l} hinUt·a-,t~ O\t'f 19R0-·20l-L The: tn1Klcl capture:, the 

..,,tJit'lll fcatun::-. of obsencd trend,<., in Jailv maxin1um S h ave rag ... ' 0 1 · ( ]l increase~ O\E'r l·:a\l A.-,ia {up to 2 ppb yr 1 ). 

'-pringtimc il\l.:rea~c.., at we'>tc-rn t:s (\VL'S) rural sites 

tO 2~0.-" ppb ~ r- l \\'llh a ha:-.e!inc sampling appn.1ach, anU 

( 31 \UllllllLT\llllC dl':crc;t.-,e.-;. lart!t'-"l at the 95th ptTcenti!c. anJ 

\\ lll1l'rtimo..• incrca,cs in the 50th In 5th pt:'rccntilt>s over the 

C<l'o\("1"!1 { rs { H:s). Asian :\0\ cmis:-.ion~ have triplcU since 

l'NO. contn~lUllng a:-. much a-; 65 to moUclc:d springtinlc 

hac!-.~round 0 ( increase\ (0.3~0.5 ppb yr- :) over the \VUS, 

OU!jl~ll'ing 0 1 zh~tTC<L~c:s attained via 50S!: lJS :"-10, emi-;sion 

control-.. \1..::thant' increa\\cs over thi~ period contribute only 

l5 r; of the \\'l~S background ()·, incrca:-.c, SpringtllllC O, 

oh-,l.'nc:d in Dcml.'r ha~ irwrca-;cd at a rate :..imilar to n .. ·mote 

rur:d '>IlL'"· During summer. incrL'il:-,ing A:.,ian emi..,:.,ion.-; appro'\imatdy otl~L'l the benefits or US erni ..,sion reductions, 

lcaJing tu weak or in..,Jgniticant ob.wrved o, trend-. at WCS 

rural ~ne:-.. \lean .-;pringtimc WUS 0.1 

b~ ~ 10 ppb !rom 2010 to :?.030 undc:J 

chan11c \CL'IWrio. While: hi~torical \\ ddlire cmi-,sions can cnh:.\!h.'c summertime mnmhly mean O.i at individual siks by 

2 ·~ ppb, hi~h t.::rnpcraturc:." :md the ~L'osociated hul!dup of 0-t 

pmdu..::cd rrom regional anthropop:cnJC cmi:-.,c.ion~ contribute 

mo\1 to ck\'<Hing obscrveJ summertime 03 throughout the 

L'SA. GFDL-A:\B capture,\ the ob..,ervu.l interannual \ariahility or \Ummertime EUS o,,. Hm\T\CI'. 0; dcpmition ~ink 

to mu.-;1 be reduced by )) <;; for the model to ,tc 

:-.imu!ate ob.~crwd high-0::; annmalies 

vcre drought of 19XH. Rt•giona! ~Of reduction~ 

the 03 buildup during the recent hc:..~t wave:" of 2011 and 

2012 rebti\·t' tn earlier heat \VaV\'-" (e g .. !98S. 1999). The 

0 1 decrca:.,c~ driven by l'\'0,1 control~ \Vere more pronounced 

in the '<Outhea:-.tern LS, vvhcre the s~,..'asonal onset or biogenic 

isoprene cmi..,~ions and :-.J(\ ·.'<Cil,\iti\c ()_, production occur'< 

earlier than iu the northca"t. \Vithout emi..,sion control-;. the 

95th perccntlle summertime o, in the EL:s would haw in .. 

creased h) 0.::!. -0.4 ppb yr .. -! over 19R8-20l.f Juc to more fr~­

qucnt hot cxtrt'111l':-. and ri.'<ing bioi-!cnic i:-.opn.'nc cmi'<\iOn'>. 

1 Introduction 

Within the Cnitcd States. ground-level 0.1 has been rccPp. 

ni;:ed 'Iince the 1940:-. and ll)5{h a" an air pollutant dt'!rimental to public health. Dl'crea'l~-" in summ~~nime 0-, were 

observed in pan~ or California and thrLHlghout the ELS 

Cooper ct al.. 2012; Sirntm et aL 2015). follm\ing regional 

:\'(\ controls after the ltmering of till': LS !\a tiona! :\rnbicnt 1\ir Quality Standard (NAAQS) for(}:; in l9CJ7 to X-+ pph 

On the ba:-.i'> or hea!th L'\'idrlKe. the I\'AA.QS lc\ el for ()"'\ 

Published by Cnprrnicus Publications on behalf of the European Gcoscicm:es Cnion. 
101 


25633.059

:vt. LinN al.: CS surface ozone trends and extremes from l9SO to 2014 

ha.~ been further Jo,.vcrcd to 7':i pph in 200~ and to 70 ppb in 

2015 U·\:dl'ral Rcgi~tcr, .20 L'i). There are concern' that risinf: Asian L'mi..,-,lnns and global methane (Jacob ct a!., 1999: 

Un ct aL 20!5b;, more frequent large \\'ildlircs in summer 

(L'.g .. Jaffe. 2011; Yang ct al., 2015: AbatJoglou et al., 2016). 

and late :-.pring. ch.·ep :-.tnl\osphcric 0,; intru:-.ior1\ (Lin ct a!.. 

2012a. 20!.'1a: Langflml ct aL, 20!-+) nw) 

attaining rnore '>tringcnt o, stantLmJs in 

rcgil)n". A \\arming climak \\ould al-;o off'>ct some of the 

ai1 qualit) from regional cmi:-...,inn controh {e.g., L'l aL 2015). Quantiwti\e understanding of 

:-.mJn .. ·c.., or(), variability Pn daily to multi-decadaltimL·~cak'> 

can provide \.;t]uahlc information to air quality C\)ntrol man~ 

agl..'r" a" tlwy dc'<clop ()-l ab;llemcnt stratcl,!.il's unckr the 

\"AAQS. Here \\e sy.'>lcmically inve<.;tigalc the of 

l"S wrfan: 01 mean-; anJ L'XlrL'lllt'~ to change:-. in anJ 

\:\mh Amcn..:an anthropogenic l..'mis:-..lDlt'-, global methane. 

rcgi\ma! heat\'. aves. and Wlldlin:.\" m cr the coul">C of .15 yt'<H"\ 

from 1980 lo :::0 1~. ll'>ing oh-,ervation'> and chcmi:..try-climate 

modd (GFDL-AM3) bindcasts (Lin eta!., 20]-..l., 2015a, b). 

RapiU econom1c gn.l\\'th h<b Jed to a tripling of()_, 

"or l'll1i'>~ion-, from A'>ia in the past 25 year:-. {e.g .. 

l'\ aL 201 1: Hilholl 1.'1 al., 2013 ). Ob<.;LrvL-J. l h 0.< m],\ing 

rat:o-, can frcqul..'nt!y n.'<Kh 200-..J.OO ppb during regional pollution L'pi~ode:- in easkrn China (\Vang Cl aL. 2006; Li ~..·t a!., 

2016). with a <.:ca~onal peak in the late ·"Pring to early sum~ 

mer (Wang ct aL 200R: l .in et aL 2009). A '>)'rHhe:..is or available ~lh-,cn·atiPll.'> from thL' mid-l9lJ(b to the 2t)OO" indicate;.; 

lnC!"I,';l~l'S or 1' 2 pph yr I in spring to ~ununer OJ in China 

(!)infl L't aL 200~: \la et e1L 2016: Sun ct aL :?.0!6). Longrangt~ tran-,ptlrl of A'>ian pollution plunh?~ towarJs we-;tern 

.'\nnh Ank'riL·a ha'> been idcntiJkd by aircraft and satdlitc 

lllL'<l'-\l!"L'nll'nL\ <~nd 111 chL'IlliL'altransport nwdcls {e.g., Jaffe et 

:tl l 099; hon.~ et aL 2009: Bnm n~Steincr and Hess. 20 I 1: 

{,inc\ al., 10 1.2h; Huang ct al., 2013: Vcr:-..tracten et al., 2015). 

S) "\<..'mali\.' compari:-.on of ob'>ervcd and modeled long-term 

Ch trc11d-. mer A-.ia j_.., lacking in the publi:-..hcd lhcratun: but 

i" needed to C'>\abli"h confidence in mndeh u-,ed to a.'>.'-t'~s the 

i'.!oh:d imp<tch 

\lode! ~irnul:llions that import of A~ian pollutinn L'tllwncc.\ nlL'an WCS -,urfaec O, i11 -.pring b) --- 5 pph 

1/.hanf: L'\ al., ~.OOB~ Lin c! al., 2012h), and occ<.hionully con~ 

tnhu\C\ H-!5 ppb dunng ob~ 

-,cl\ed at rural "it;:-, \Lin ct by in :-.ilu 

acm-,nl L'Pmpo~!tion analy'>is (VanCuren and Gu~lin, 20L"i), 

Strato"phl'rk intru-,ions can epi:-..odically increa\C dally R h 

;1\ nagc .\urfacc 0\ by .20-40 ppb. contributing to the highcq nh'>cned 03 c\·cnh at high~ckv:J.tion WUS :-..ile~ {Lin ct 

al .. 2012a . .201:-aL in addition to pt)llutiun transport from 

Callfornia (e.g., Langford et .2010). In the den.<.:dy popuLncd LTS. both changes in regional anthropogenic cmi<;-

,)on-, and ilir po!lutio11 meteorolog) lla\"c the greatc.'>t impact:> 

lm -,umnwr surface 0_; during pollution episoUc-s Jacob 

and Winnt:r ~00(): Ril·der el al., 2015: Porter ct 2015: 

Pu-;c,k et a! .. 2015 L Di-;cerning diredly !he effect of climate 

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17. t-28, 2017 

change on air quality from long~ term ob,"ervation record:-. of 

0:; would be ideal. but concurrent trend.'> in prccur~or emi.~­

\ion;, and largt· internal variability in regional climate impede 

such an effort It i~ difficult to ">eparate the impacts or change,.., 

in global-to-regional precursor cmi:-.:-.ion.~ and dillerenl meteorological factor,., on o, at p.iven location~ without the benefit 

of multiple experiments afforded by moJ~.::l'>. 

On the other proce'\<.:-orienlt'd a~,.,c~smcnts of the 

models arc nccJcd to build confhkncc in thc1r utility for a:-.-

~e..,::.ing pollutitm control strategic.'>, c:-.timating tropo<.:phcric 

03 radiativt rorcing anJ projecting pollution extreme~ un 

dcr future climate '>C<:narios :v1nnl..'> ct al.. 20!5). A 

number of :-.tuJic.'> .'>how that modcb capture ob'>cncU 

dccnca.,e.'> in ~Ul1l!llCrtimL o.l owr the EC:S during 1990"' 

20!0, but have dirficulty simulating Ch llltr(:ascs measured 

at remotc high-elevation site.'> that arc bc!ic\·cd to rcprc-,ent 

hemi:-..phcric--,calc condition'> with little in!lul·ncc from frc.\h 

local pollution (hcreafkr referred to a" "'ba~elinc"l lc.g., 

Lamarque ct al., 2010; Koumoutsaris and Hey, 2012: Parri-;h ct aL, ?0!-+: Brown-Steiner et aL, 201.:"; Strode e\ al., 

:2015). Rct:L'nt!y, Lin et al. (20!5b) examl!lcd the rcprc.\entativencs" l)r (),trends JcriwJ fnlm :-.par::.c mc;a:-.uremen!'> in 

the free tropo.'>phere O\·cr the \Vl:S. originally reported h) 

Cooper ct a!. (20 1 0) and used in prior model evaluation:., 

They round thal di-;crcpancic,\ bCl\\"eCn \lb:-.cned and simuhttcd O_c; trends rdlcct measurement :-.ampling hia:-.t:s. Here 

we '>eek adUitional in:-.ights into the causes of the mozkloh-;crvation dl:..agrcement at the \\'US rural silL'S. wlth con· 

tinuum. high-frequency measurement.. :-Jotably, we reconcile ob~crwd anU :-.imulmed (), trend~ at these ...;itc-; with a 

lxL~e1inc sampling approach in the model. 

Our m thi~; paper i~ 2-fold: hr.'>!. to systematically 

ev:..~luate well the OFDL-AMl model repre~cnts ll-em.h 

anJ variahilil) of <.;urfacc 0 . .; ob.-;cr\'l'd at rural sites aero.\:.. 

amJ extremes in a suite 

!11 L'S surface OJ mcam 

'uu;-wccaua' hindcasl simulation.'> 

de:-.igncd to i"ola!e the rc;-,pome of 0.' to incn:ase" in A~ ian 

anthrupogcntc emissions, :'-Jorth Arnerlcan emi.'>sion control.'>. 

ri~ing gloh:tl mctha!ll'. wild!irc.\, and inkrannual 

in mcteomlogy. We e\aminc trend" a(TO'>'i the entire 

ability distribution of o, concentration. \vhich is crucial to 

asscs<;ing the J.hility of !11\lde!..., to sit~lulatL' the surf~Ke 01 

rt''-fXmsc under different temperature and chemical reg.irnc\ 

depending on 'L'a~ons, gco~raphiea] !ncation, and regional 

transport Specificall), we C\'aluatc the trend:- ~eparatcly for 5th. 50th and 9)th percentile:.. nr 1he ()_, concentration cbtribution in spring (1V1At\·1). '>ummcr dJA>. :tutumn (SOl\"), and winter (DJF). 

Section 2 brieny Ucscribc' the oh\ervational recorJ-,, 

moUe! experiments, and analysi:-. approach. As a lir.\1 .'>lt'p 

10\\art.Js <ISSC~'>Jng our understanding of the impact.~ Of rl'iing A ... ian cmission:o., we hricny revic\\' A:-ian 0:, trend.'> from 

observations in recent publications and evaluate mndelcd 

trends (Sect. l). We then focus our analysi\ on the CS, using both ob.-;crvation;-, and models to a.'>\\..'.'>.'> the re:-:pnn<.:e of 

W'l'w.atmO.'H.::hcm~phys.net/l7/l/20 17 I 
102 


25633.060

:\I. Lin et al.; L;S surface ozone trends and extremes from 19XO to 2014 

LS ..,urracc 0-' to change:.. in background 0<. regional anthropogenic cmi.-...,ion-; and meteorology (Sect. 4). In Sect. 5. 

\Vc further :-cparatc the in!lucnce of background on WCS 0_1, 

into component.., driven by ri'ling ,Asian anthropogenic emi'l-

:-.!nns, g.lohalmcthanc. and \Yild!lrc'l. We quantify the contribu:;on of tht'\e Ltc\drs tn surface 0-, in both rural ;m~as such 

:1~ natinnal park." (Sect. 5.! to )J) and in densely populate-d 

rcg:mh \Uch a" the Denver metropolitan area (S.:cl. SAl. AflL'r C\'tllu<lting hi..,wrical trend-,, \W additionally draw upon 

l\\\1 -,imulatlons fnllowing ihe 21st century RCP-1-.5 wr\u:.. 

RCP8.5 global change -,ccnarim to project \\TS 0 1 through 

2050 (SC"L't. .~ . .2). St'ction ()examine\ how the ELS summertime()-; proh;!b:!ity tli<.,lrihution and pollution extremes r<.:--

"pond to large-scale heat \\a\·cs. drought". and regional :\01 

rL·ductinm m t:r the paq decade, and how well our model \illlulate\ the oh ..... ~ned feature\. Finally, we ..;ummari1e in Sed. 7 

the !-~..·y drl\Cr<.., or L'S :.urface 0 ~ trends and C\trcmcs anJ dl.'iCU.\\ the implications of thi:. .-,tudy 

2 :\Iodl'i and observations 

2.1 Chcmi'itry-dimate modL•I cxperimt•nts 

The CiFD!. A\B moUe! include:-. intcractin~ stratosphere~~ 

itl)pmpbcrl' chcmi'>tr: and acn)<.,("l\o.; on a cubed :..pherc grid 

\\ith a rC\{)IUtl\m of appmximatdy 200 x 200km2 tDonncr 

ct a! . 20 I 1 ). 'l~tbk l :.umnuri;:cs the mctcnrology, radia 

ti\1..' furcing agcnh. and l'lllis'lion::- u:-.1.-'d in each experiment. 

The hlrHka'-'l -...imulation\ I 1979-201-+l are nudgL'd tn the 

\"CEP/:\CAR reana!ysi:-. ton~tl and meridional wind.\ u,..,ing 

a l:cighhkpt'ndcnt nudging lLin ct aL 2012b). 

l\'0, arc tied to 

model meteoroh1~y (CJuenthcr d aL 2006; Ra-,mu~:->cn et al., 

.20 l2J and t!Hh c;m rc-;polld to change~ in climate, whcrcac-; 

.... nd \"C) 1 and chemical dry deposition vehKitic:-; arc set tn a 

mt~n~hl) clinl;!to!ogy (:\aik et al.. 20!3L with a diurnal cycle appl:cd for(), dry depo,.,ition. To invc\ligatc the pm~ib!c 

in!lucnce of dr~1ught on O, removal Embe-r,on ct aL, 

'0 I.::. l, \\\.' ~Hlditiunall; conduct a "en..;itivity -,imulation for 

19XX \\ith reduced Q_, depll.,.,ition velocity (see Scct. 6). Our 

R·\SL :-.lmulatinn and two additional ~imulation'> with nHxliri~..·d er~Jiv-.inn-, tFlXE.\t!S aml lr\YFIRU \\l'l"t.' prcvil)u:-.1) 

u"ed to lntcrpret the cau-,es uf increa'ling auwmnal (}\ mea-

\Urcd at \laun:1 I.na ()b'len<.ltOt") in 1-l;m·aii .'llncc !97--l- (\,in 

et <.d .. 201-~L int~rannua! variahi!ity o! O.l (Lin ct 

al . .2015,11 and tht' 

mea-,uremcnh 0\er thl' \VL"S (Lin t'l al 

With ;mthropogenic cmi:-...,ion'> and lllt'lilanc hc!J con'l\ant 

(!'able 1 ), the FIXE:\-"11S and IAVHRE :.imulation.-, i'>olatC' 

the in!luencc from meteorology and wild!irc cmissiorl-'>, rc-

-"P'-'cti\l'ly. ln lAV/\Sl:\, dnlhropo~t'nic cmi'-'\ion:.. from Eac.t 

,.\-,ia tl5· 50'~, 9~-l6W Fl and South Asia C'i-35'' ~-50-

IJ:"i El art:' a!hmed to vary from ;e;1r to ;car ac. in BASE, 

\\ hilc anthrojwgcnic cmi.-,-,ions in the other region\ of t!w 

W\\ w.atmos·l'hem- phys. net/17 /t /20 17 I 

wor!J. global methane and wildtirc emi'-1.\lon\ are held constant a-; in FIXE\HS. In IAVCHJ, glohal methane\<., alhmed 

to (1\er lime a'l in BASE. hut with anthrnpogenic and 

cmi"'"ions held constant as ln riXE\1IS. Tht' lAVASIA and IAVCH-1- :..imulations thus i'lolate the role of ri~ing 

Asian anthmpo~enic emissions and global methane, rC\fX'Cti\"c!y. by contra'>ting with the F!XE\1IS simulation. Roth 

BASE and 1:\VCH.l simulations apply obsen·L'd tinll'-\arying 

mdh<me conccmration:-. a\ a lower boundary condition fo1 

chemistry ~Suppkment Fig, S 1 ). Thus. under~stimatc:-. in hi<..-

torical methane emi~..;ions reponed recently b) Schwiet~:kc 

ct al. (2016) do not affect nur results. \\'c qu~uHify 1hc \l)-

tal cuntribulit)!l:-. to surface 03 from meteorological variability, stratOSf)hL'n:·to-tropospherc tran"port. pollution from forei!!n contincnL\ and 0 3 produced by global methane. lightning NO,, wildllre.-, and biogenic cmi_.:sions \Vith the I3ackg_rounJ simulatinn. in \\·hich l\orth Amnican anthropogenic 

cmi:-.siom arc ;croed out relative to BASE. \Ve additional!: 

draw upon two ..,Jmu!atiom wi1h the GFOL Coupled \1odd 

C\B Co!lm\ ing the 2! :.t century RCP g:k1bal change scenarios to changes in WCS C)J through 2050. Detail" of 

thc,\C '>irnu!ations were described in Jnhn et al. (201.2) 

2.2 Anthropogenic and hiomass hurning emissions 

We Jir"t l'\iHllinc how \\Cll the emis:..ion imentoriC'..; in A\.U 

BASE rcprl'Sl'fll changes in regional 0:0, crni.-,,.,inn-, owl 

recent tkcadr:\ infcrrl:d rrorn satellite mca.c.urcmcn\s or \tl)" 

po..,phcric \·crtical column tknsity (VC:D1:np) of :-.:0:.. The 

comhincd rccnrd of GOME and SCIAMACHY :.how:- that 

:\0; mer the highly polluted region of ca;;tcrn 

tripled during 1996---.2011 (Fig. !at In con-

:.l02 owr the ECS dc'l'rea\cd by ''-'50 f,( in 

I h) due lo :\01 State Implementation Plan~ 

(commonly known a:.. the :\01 SIP Call) and many ruk-; that 

tighten emi~:-.ion qandards for 11ll)bilc sources (.\1cDonakl 

et aL 2012}. Similar decreases occurred in \Vt:S citie .... resulting. from the :\0, control programs tn achie\'C' 0:; and 

rL?ginnal ha;t' planninb.~ goals.. These trend" are L'on.,i-'>tent 

\\ ith those reported by a few recent sllldie'l {e.g __ Hilholl ~'l 

aL 201 3), including tho"e u"lng OMI :\0: data (Ru:-.sL·IJ <.'\ 

cd., 101:2: Duncan et aL 2016). ~or compari;,on wit!-: 'latc!-

lite Jata. \\e c,umplc thC' model archived ever) 3 h c]o..,c:-.l 

to the time of satellite for the SC!AlvL\CHY and 

G0~1E product;, we U\C in l ( 10:00 -!0:~0 local time) 

Trend..; in VCD\r,1p :\0:; an: :..imilar to tho:..e in NO, cmi.\~ 

;,ions (orange line:-. n>:rsus red triangle:- in Fl~. Ja-b). indicat 

ing that any change:.. in ~0 1 chemical lifetime or partitioning ha\'L~ negligible in!lucncc in our moJeL cnn-,is.tent \\ ilh 

.0.'0: los:-. again-,l OH hcing minor Juring the morning mcr· 

passes ofG00.1E and SCIA0.1ACHY. The emi:-.sion inwntor: 

used in BASE. from Lamarque et al. (2010) with annual interpolation after 2000 to RCPH.5 (Lamaryuc L'i al.. .2012 ), 

mimics the Pppo-;ing changes In \'01 cmis-,ion\ mer ethlern Chinu \ er-,u\ thL' FL'S during 1996-20 !I, con"i:-.lL'nl \\ ith 

Atmos. Chcm. Phys .• 17. 1-2X, 2017 
103 


25633.061

M. Lin ct al.: US surface ozone trends and extremes from 1980 to 2014 

Table 1. Summary of forcings and emissions used in At\B hindcasts and CM3 projel'tions. 

Experiment 

BASE 

Background 

F1XEMlS 

IAVFIRE 

IAVAS!A 

li\VCH.1 

CM3_RCP4.5 

CM3_RCP8.5 

Time periods Meteorology 

1979-2014 

1979··2014 

1979-.2014 

1979-2014 

1979-·20122 

1979-20122 

2005.-·2050 

2tX)5-·2050 

Nudged to NCEP 

As BASE Historical 

As BASE Hi.~;torical 

As BASE Historical 

i\s BASE Historical 

As BASE Historical 

Free running RCP4.5 

free running RCPS.5 

CH4 (chemistry) fire emissions 

Historical Historical Historical 

Ilistorical Zeroed out in N. America; Historical 

as in BASE el:-cwherc 

2000 Constant 1 Constant1 

2000 Constant 1 Historical 

2000 Varying in Asia as in BASE; Constanr1 

as in FIXEMIS elsewhere 

Historical Constant1 Constant1 

RCP4.5 RCP45 RCP4.5 

RCP8.5 RCP8.5 RCPS.5 

1 Aver~g~d ow1 the 1vho!e !Q70-20!0 pmud. 2 :-<otc that the !A VASTA and IAVC!I4 >Hllu!atmns only cxt<md to2()!2 

Year 

1<1gure 1. Changes in NOx emissions. (a-b) Mean annual vcttical column densities of tropospheric (VCDtrop) N02 normalized to the year 

2000 for the eastern China and eastern US domains (black boxes on map) from GOME ( 1996-2002, open circles) and SCIAMACHY {2003-

201!, closed c-ircles) measurements and AM3 BASE simulations (orange lines). Triangles indicate trends in NOx emissions (nommlized to 

2000) from Lamarque et al. (20!0) with annual interpolation after 2000 to RCP8.5 (red) versus RCP4.5 (blue). (c-d) Differences in annual 

mean SCIAM/\CIIY VCDtrop NOz from 2003-2005 to 2(}()9 .. 2{)11. 'Ilw r~d boxes denote the. regions where emissions vary over time in the 

IAVASIA simulation (Table 1). Satellite N02 data are from www.temis.n!, with the retrieval technique described in Boersma et aL (2004). 

changes in VCD,rop N02 retrieved from the satellite instruments. For comparison, the RCP4.5 interpolation for 2001-

20 I 0 in CMIP5 historical simulations analyzed by Parrish et 

al. (2014) underestimates the increase in Chinese NOx emissions by a factor of 2 (Fig. 1 a). Recent reductions in Chinese 

NOx emissions after 2011 (Duncan et aL 2016) are not represented in the inventories used in AM3. 

Our BASE model applies intcrannua1ly varying monthly 

mean emissions from biomass burning based on the RETRO 

inventory (Schultz et al., 2008) for 1970 to 1996 and 

GFEDv3 (van der Werf et al., 2010) for 1997 onwards, distributed vertically as recommend hy Dcntcncr et al. (2006). 

Atmos, Chern, Phys,, 17, 1-28,2017 

Figure S2 illustrates the interannual variability of biomass 

hurning CO emissions from the main source regions of the 

Northern Hemisphere over the period 1980--2014. Boreal 

flre emissions in Eurasia almost doubled from 1980--1995 to 

1996-2014, with large fires occurring more frequently in the 

recent decade, as found for the WUS (Dennison ct al.. 2{)14; 

Yang et al., 2015). 

2.3 Ozone observation records and uncertainties 

Long-term surface 03 observation records were obtained at 

70 selected rural monitoring sites with 20 (1995-2014) to 

27 (1988-2014) years of continuous hourly measurements 

www,atmos-chem-phys.net/17/112017/ 
104 


25633.062

M. Lin et al.: t:S surface ozone trends and extremes from 1980 to 2014 

of observed 

All have 

in every month shown. The 

\.\"hen data at Yel!owe'tonc (red) 

.and mt~dian MAM MDA8 0:> at Rocky Mountain with atld \vithout 

data in 1990. 

from OS National Park Services, the US Cle~:m Air Status and Trends 0ietwork (CAST~l.'t), and the US EPA Air 

Qua!iry a!. (2012) 

over 

trends in daily maximum 8 h averaged (MDA8) 

the analysis. of Cooper ct aL (201::.) using ad2014 and including l7 additional sites with 

in 1991---1995. All sites have at leas! 

site has less than 50% data availability 

in uny season, then that particular season is discarded. The 

trend is. cah.~ubtcd separately for the 5th, 50th and 95th percentiles of dally ~-1DA8 03 for each seawn through ordinary 

linear regression. Statistks are derived for the 

of th~ ..... in units of 1, the 

slope with a 95 9(, conl1dcncc (not adjusted 

autocorrelation), and the p value indicating the stasignificance of the· trend based ou a two-tailed t test. 

A cross-site analysis was performed to determine robust changes in time evolution of ():} over the 

VVUS during 1988<2.014 (Fig. 2). The monitor al Yellowstone N ationa1 Park \vas Jn{wed I .5 km from the Lake Yellowstone site to the Water fank site in 1996< While the local 

nual variations show large-scale similarity across sites over 

www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/l/20 17/ 

the Intennount~tin ·west 

1990. During this. period. and 

Rocky Mountain national parks show low~03 anomalies that 

do not appear at other sites, but there is no change in mea~ 

Jaffe and Ray (2007) thi< represents variations in background are seen 

in common at these two However, analysis of meteorological fklds and diagnostics does not reveal any 

obvious influencing 03 variations at these 

sites in et al.. 2015a). Ohservations Pinedale 

January-February 1990 are also 

tivc to Grand Canyon (GRC474), Centennial 

Gothic {0THI6l ). TI1esc anomalous data the beginning of 

measurement records can influence trends calculated from short records. aL (:2012) 

found a summer 03 increase of 0.42 ± 0.30 ppbyr- 1 at '{ellmvstone over ! 990--20 I 0. Removing 1990, we find a weaker 

(Fig. 2b). Removing 1990 at 

uncertain rneasuremcnts in 

2.4 lVIodcl baseline sampling approach 

Springtirnc 0:; observations at WUS high~elcvntion 

(2:: 1.5 km a.s.L) typically represent baseline condition_.; with 

little influence from local ln a model 

with ,...... 200 re.::olution, these 

remote sites can reside in the :.ame gdd cell that contains 

urban cities where NOx emissions decreased over the analfor example, Rocky Mountain National Park 

less than ! (){) km from the 

tan area in Colorado. This 

remote 

sites by decreased urban pollution within the same model 

grid cell. Thus, coarse-resolution models are often unable to 

reproduce obsl:rved 03 increast..~s at the high-elevation sites 

rt:'prcsentative of remote baseline conditions (Fig. 3a versus 

b), as found in many prior modeling analyses (e.g., Parrish et 

a!., 2014; Strode ct al., 2015, anJ references therein). This 

limitation can he addressed by using a baseline selection 

procedure lo identify conditions for sampling the rnoticl to 

avoid model artifacts caused by poor spatial resolution, as 

described below. 

All measurements 

constant in of four northern m.id-latitude 

source regions (Lin ct al., 2014). \Ve use these COt lraccrs to bin modeled 03 according to the dominan1 influence of different continental air regimes. To represent observed basdine conditions at \VUS sites, we sample AM3 

Atmns. Chern. Phys., 17, 1-28,2017 
105 


25633.063

M. Lin t.'t al.: US surface ozone trends and extremes from 1980 to 2014 

{a)Obs.orved (b) BASE Sfc (c) BASE 700hPa tittered 

(tl) SASE 100hPn {e) Ba-ekground Sfc (f) Background 700hPa 

at 700hPa (~ 3 km a.s.l.) and filter the Ot data in the BASE 

With 

model 

simulates significant that are similar at the surfa-::c (Pig:. 3e) and at 700hPa (Fig. 3f). This Jinding indi~ 

cates that th~ underestimate of 03 increases in BASE, when 

sampled m the :-;urfact~ (Fig. 3b), reflects an exce~sivc ofL'>d 

from domestk dt~cn~ascs in the modd relative to 

to the iu:mfficient of 

and those sampled at the surface versus alofT, \Ve can usc 

the moUel which sites most frequently 

influenced by North American 

pop.enk emissions. for consistency, in the 

we apply model ba:->eline tiltering to aU sites with 

greater than L5 km altitude, ln the EUS, \Vhere 

the terrain and monitor elevations arc much lower 1han in 

Almos. Chem. Phys., 17, 1-28,2017 

the west and observed 03 trends are largdy controlled by regional cmis:>ion changes, we always sample the model at the 

surface without filtering. 

3 Global distribution of lower tropospheric 03 trends 

3.! Glohal 03 burden and distribution of trends 

di:-.tribution of lower trofrom the BASE slm4) and focus on the differences between the 

(""' 7{)0 hPa), with implications 

of trends in hemispheric basL~~ 

The model indicates thal sur~ 

face MDA8 03 kvels Asia have increased significanlly by 1 in the 95th (Fig. 4a-b) and by 

(fig. 4c-d). with the largest 

the EUS and in central 

ccntilcs and during wmmer< over 

Asia and decreases over the US und Europe are consistent 

with changes in regional cmi~sions of 0.'1 precursors over this 

period (Fig. 1). 

Over Southeust Asia {south of 30" N) during 

licr springtime 03 photochemical production at 

tudes with active frontal (Liu et 

et al., 2003; Lin et al.. 

rablc or even 

than at the 

increase in 03 in the free 

(Fig. 4c versus e). ln contrast, over c~n~ 

tral eastern China during summer Lhc simulated trends of OJ 

in the free are at least a factor of 3 weaker than 

4d versus f), consistent with the analysis 

of MOZAIC aircraft data over Beijing in 1995-1999 versus 

2003-2005 (Ding et al.. 2008). Mean 03 at 700 hl'a above 

parts of North America and Europe show little changt', in 

summer or even increase in the model. sirn~ 

despite the~ significant ckcrcascs in sur!~tce air. The global tropospheric 03 

burden in the BASE simulation increases approximately 

35 5a), mainly to 

onthmnot>enic the 2004-·20!5 

however, meteorological 

~ontributcs half to the totaj simulated 

trends of 03 (Fig. Sa), that attribution of 

the satcllitc~clerived dccadal trends 

3.2 Comparison of observed and simulated 0,~ trends 

in Asia 

O:;t observations are sparse Asia, making difflcult to evalume modeled trends. \\/e 

availahle measurements from the puh!ished literature, 

www.atmos-chem -phys.ne!ll7 /1120171 
106 


25633.064

I\1. Lin ct al.: LS surface ozone trends and extremes from 1980 to 2014 

JJA 

60" N 

60" N 

30"' N 

0' 

30" s 

60"' s 60°S 

0" 90"E 180" 90"W 0" 0" 90°E 180" 90"W 0" 

J:}-c 

[ppb yr'J ;;:_~~~ i}ft [ppb yr'J -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 

Figure 4. Global distribution of t\..'IDA8 0 3 trends from AN13 BASE over 1988-2014 for bor~ul spring (left) and summer (right) for the 

95th pcrcl:ntik at thl: ~urfacl· (a-b), median ai the wrface (c-d), and median in the free troposphere (700 hPa; e-D. Stippling indicates areas 

where the treml is statistically signi!icant (p <0.05). The color scale i~ designed to resolv8 regional features rather than extreme values and 

saturates. The range of the trends is -l to +2.5 ppbyr- 1. 

ing ozonesonde profiles at Hong Kong (2000-2014; www. 

woudc.org) and Hanoi (2005-20t5; SIIADOZ, Thomp:mn 

et al., 2007), MOZAIC aircraft profiles collected on summer afternoons in the boundary layer (below 1250 m altitude) over Beijing for 1995 ·2005 (Ding eta!., 2008), groundbas~d measurcmcnl.o; at Mt. Tai (1.5 km a.s.l.) ln central easte:rn China for July-August 2003-2015 (Sun et al., 20 I 6), at 

the GAV..' stations, Shangdianzi north of Beijing for 200..:t.-

2014 (Ma et al.. :20 16) and Mt. Waliguan (3.8 km a.s.l.) on 

the Tibetan Pbteau !'or 1994-2013 (Xu cl a!., 2016), at Taiwan for 1994-2007 (Lin ct al., 2010), South Korea for 1990---

2010 (Lee ct a!., 2014), ML. Happo (1.9kma.s.l.) in Japan 

for 1991-2011 (Tanimoto. 2009; Parrish et al.. 2014), and a 

coastal site at Hong Kong in southern China for 1994-2007 

(Wang et al.. 2009). 

Recently. Zhang eta!. (2016) compiled '>parse 03 profiles 

above Southeast Asia from lAGOS commercial aircraft and 

ozonesondes from Hanm for 1994--2004 versus 2005--2014 

and found a total springtime 03 Increase of :20-:25 ppb belWCt!n the two periods ('""'2ppbyr-1). However, our model 

indicates an increase of up to 1 ppb yr-1 for free tropospheric 03 over Southeast Asia in spring (Fig. 4e). We illuswww.almos-chem-phys.net/17/1/2017/ 

trate the possible influence of sampling deficiencies on the 

03 Lrends inferred from ~parse obs.crvations (fig. 5). The 

ozoncsondc frequency is four profiles per month at Hong 

Kong and only one to two profiles per month al Hanoi. To 

determine the representativeness of 03 trends derived from 

these sparse measurements, we compare observations and 

model results co-sampled on sonde launch days, with the 

''tme average" determined from 03 tlclds archived every 3 h 

from the model, as in our prior work for WUS sites (Lln 

ct al., 2015a, b). Figme 5b and c show the comparisons 

for the annual trends of 03 over 900-600 hPa. The trends 

are generally consistent across the sonde data, model cosampled and ;,true average" results for Hong Kong, with 

an increa<;e of 0.5 -t 0.1 ppb yr- 1 over 2000-2014. Ob'lervations at Hanoi shmv an apparently rapid 03 increase of 

1.1 ± 0.2 ppb yr- 1 over 2005-2014. AY13 BASE, when sampled sparsely as in Lhe o~:onesondes, captures the observed 

variability (r2 = 0.7), whereas the '·true average" over !hiE. 

period indicates the trend (0.7 ± 0.1 ppbyr-1) is only 63 S'c 

of that inferred from observations. Moreover, interannual 

variabillty of 03 resulting from wildl1rc emissions and meteorology in IAVFIRE is as large as the total OJ change in 

Atmos. Chern. Phys., 17, 1-28.2017 
107 


25633.065

8 M. Lin et al.: US surface ozone trends and extremes from 1980 to 2014 

(a) Changes in global trop. 0 3 burden 

30 BASE 

FIXEM!S 

ru 

] 10 

o" 

"-2 

t10 (b) Hong Kong (22.3'N, 114.2'E, 900--600 hPa) 

Figure 5. (a) Tirne series of changes in global tropospheric 0 3 bur~ 

den relative to the ! 981-1990 mean from BASE and FIXEMIS 

simulations (Table 1). (b) Time series of 12-month running meun 

anomalies (relative to the 2005-2014 rncan) of 03 averaged over 

900 · 600 hPa at Hong Kong from the averages of ozonesonde samples (black circles) and the BASE model co~sampled on sonde 

launch days (orange circles) versus the true average from BASE and 

IAVFIRE with continuous daily sampling (solid lines). (c) Same as 

(b), but for Hanoi. 

BASE over the short period 2005-2014. We conclude that 

measurement sampling artifacts influence the 03 trends reported by Zhang et al. (2016). 

Expanding the comparison to a suite of sites across East 

Asia (Fig. 6), we tind that AM3 captures the key features 

of observed 03 trends in Asia, including their seasonal to 

regional variations, summertime increases ( 1-2 ppb yr~ 1) in 

central eastern China where NOx emissions have approxi~ 

Atmos, Chern, l'hys,, 17, 1-28,2017 

(a) 

(b) 3.5r--::::-:-:--:::-------,---,-------, Q08.S .GC0L-AM3 

3.0 

\2,5 

.D 

_9: 2.0· 

~ 

0 

~ 1.5 

~ 1.0 ::l 

O.O Mt.Tai 

JA 

Figure 6. Surfa~e 03 trends in Asia. (a) Observation sites super~ 

imposed on a map of the 95th percentile summer MDA8 0 3 trends 

over 1995-2014 from AM3 BASE. (b) Comparison of median 0 3 

trends from AM3 (1995·-2014) with observations (see text for periods): in central eastem China at Mt. Tai (July-August, Sun et at., 

2016), Beijing (May-June-July, Ding et aL, 2008) and Shangdianzi 

(SDZ) (JJA. Ma et al., 2016); in South China at Hong Kong (HK) 

(annual average, Wang et aL, 2009) and Taiwan (MAM, Lin et al., 

2010); at Mt. Waliguan (WLG) in western China (MAM, Xu et al., 

20!6); in South Korea (JJA, Lee et al., 2014) and Mt. Happo Japan 

(MAM, Tanimoto, 2009), For Mt. Happo (triangle on map) AM3 is 

sampled at 700 hPa and filt~red for the influence from Asian continental air - more representative of observed baseline conditions in 

spring. 

mat ely tripled since 1990 (Fig. l a), and springtime increases 

(0.5 ppb yr- 1) at Taiwan and Mt. Happo that are driven by 

pollution outflow from the Asian continent. Note that to place 

the trends derived from the short observational records into 

a broader context, we show the 20-year trends over 1995-

2014 from the model, except for South Korea (1990--2010) 

and Happo, Japan (1991-20 II). We match the time period in 

the model with observations at these two sites because AM3 

shows weaker 03 increases when data for the recent vears 

are included, which likely reflects the offsetting effects ~f regional emission reductions in South Korea and Japan. 

www,atmos-chem-phys.net/17 /1/2017 I 
108 


25633.066

1\-1. Lin et al.: l!S surfa(_·e ozone trends and extremes from 1980 to 2014 9 

Observed 

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 

Figure 7, Linear trend'i in spring (MAM) MDA.S 

(left! and simulated (right) in AX13 BASE 

BASE 

sites, the moUe! is sampled at 700 hPa and filtered to remove Inca! influence 

Parrish et (20t4) show that three CMlPS~like models 

underestimate the observed springtime ()] increase at :V1t. 

Happo by a factor of 4. This discrepancy may reflect a combination of factors: ( 1) underestimates of Asian emission 

gro\vth in the RCP4.5 interpolation after 2000 used in CMIP5 

historical simulations (Fig. Ia); (2) trends driven by interannual meteorological variability that fre¢-running CM1P5 

models arc not expected to reproduce exactly; (3) an excessive offset from Japanese pollution Jccr~ases in the models owing to their coarse resolution and limitation in resolving observed baseline conditions at Mt. Happo. Samour BASE model at 700 hPa above Happo, we find an 

increase of 0.35 ± 0.13 ppb yr··l. When focusing on days 

influenced by outflow from the East Asian continent COt 2. 67th), the model 03 trend increases to 

0.48 ± 0,1} ppb yr~ 1• approximating the observed increase 

or0.76 ± 0.,15 ppb yr· I at Mt. Happo (Fig. 6b). The observed 

ami simulated trends arc not statistically different given the 

overh1pping confidence limits. The larger confidence limit 

www,atmos-chem-phys.nct/17/1120 17/ 

(uncertainty) derived from the Happo observations reflects 

the measurement inconsistency before 1998 and instrumental problems after 2007 (Tanimoto et aL, 2016). ·we conclude 

that Gf.DL-AM?t captures 65" .. 90% of the observed 0 3 increases in Asia, lending confidence in its application to as~ 

sess the global impacts of rising Asian emissions. 

4 Regional and seasonal \'Uriability of US surface 03 

trends 

We next focus our analysis on the US, where dense, high~ 

frequency, long-term. reliable measurements of surface 0~ 

facilitate process-oriented model evaluation. Comparisons of 

surface 03 trends over 1988"··2014 at 70 rural monitoring 

sites across the US as observed and simulated in AM3 BASE 

are shown in Fig. 7 for spring, Fig. 8 for summer, Fig. 9 for 

winter, and in Fig. S4 for autumn. The trends are calculated 

separately for the 5th, 50th and 95th percentiles of the daily 

MDA8 03 concentration distribution, with larger circles on 

Atmos. Chern. Phys., 17, 1-28,2017 
109 


25633.067

10 l\'1. Lin ct al.: US surface ozone trends and extremes from 1980 to 2014 

Observed BASE 

FigureS. As 7, but for summer (JJA). Note that the color scale saturates nt ±O.K 

by model evaluation and trend attribution (Sect 4.2). 

4.1 Observations 

ln spring 7), observations indicate spatial hete-rogeneity 

in o-1 trends a~ross the Intermountain W~st and the north-

. (north of 38° N) and southeastl':rn US. At the 95th 

percentile (Fig. 7a) the of observed trends is homogeneous acros!> the and southeast~·m CS. \vith 

;pproximutely 85% of the sites having statistkally 

cant O:t decreases of0.4--0.R ppb yr~! and no sites 

In contrast significant increases occur at 

the Intermountain West. Only Joshua Tree 

National Park iocatcd downwind of the Los Angeles Basin 

decrease at the 45th percentile. At the 

7b) there are signifkant 03 decreases of 

in the southeast and Httle overall 

while significant increases 

occur at 50 '-!b of the sites in the Intermountain West. 

niflcant springtim~ OJ increases occur at all observed perAtmos. Chern. Phys., 17, 1-28. 2017 

ccntilc (fig. 7c) 

in the northeasL 

are found in the southl'HSL 'Du.•, occurrence grealcst 

Dbs.~:rved. 01. de<:rcases for the highest perccntl1cs is consistent with . 03 being more NO,c 

limited 2015) thus more n:sponsive to de~ 

creases in NOx emission:;, 

The north~to-south gradient in springtime 03 trends over 

the EUS reflects the earlier seasonal transition from NO,-

saturated to NOx-sensitive 03 production regimes in the 

southeast, where plentiful radiation in spring enhances HOx 

supply and biogenic emissions begin earlier than 

in the nm1hcast. The 

experiencing significant median 03 decn;,ases in spring over 

www.atmos·chcm·phys.netJ 17/1/20171 
110 


25633.068

M. Lin et ai.: US surface ozone trends and extremes from 1980 lo 2014 11 

Observed BASE 

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 

Figure 9. As in Fig, but for \vi mer (DJF), Large <;quarcs in (a) denote AQS sites >vith significant 0 3 decreases in the 95th percentile, 

l98R~2014, \Vhile Coopcret aL (2012) found only 8%. Sites 

with 95th percentile springtime 03 decreases in 

the are also much more common in our study (85% 

versus 43% in CoopL':r et al. (2012). In the 5th 

45 of the northeastern sites in our analysis have 

0:<, increases, \Vith 15 (k in Cooper ct 

southeast Lhan the northeast 

54). 

of biogenic isoprene and 

duct ion in the southeast lo autumn. 

ln ~umm~r (Fig. 8), as radiali0n intensifies and isoprene 

seasonally, the 0.'1 becomes. more 

across both the sottth,oaSI.crn 

L'S. \Vhere ~0.1 emission controls have led to significant 

0:; decreases in the 95th percentile and 

()A,··O.Rppbyr·l value (Fig. Sa-b). In the 

southeast significant decreases have also occurred at the 

lowest during summer (Fig. Be), in contrast to 

the 7c). nottheastern states 2000s not turn 

on power plant ;..;ox emission controls until the 0:; season 

www.a!mos·chcm·phys.net/ 17/l/20 17 I 

(Y!ay-,September), which may contribute to observed differences spring and summer 03 tn:nds. 

to the 1990---20l0 trends reported in Cooper et aL 

the EUS sununer 03 decreases reported here with additional 

data to 2014 are 33 % stronger. reductions in precursor ~missions in the WUS cities ld). there are no 

signiflcant summer 03 decreases the site~, 

except in Yosemite and Joshua Tree nntional parks for the 

95th Instead, a significant summer increase of 

occurs across the entire 0:; distribution at Yelsummcr incr~ases are found in lhe 5th 

Mesa Verde, and Rocky Mountain naln (Pig. 9), observed 0::; increases are more common lhan in spring and ~ummcr across the US. The wintcrtirm; 03 increases are in the lowest percentil~s 

over the EUS, indicating the from weakened NO, 

titration as a result of regional ?\Or emission controls (!.:;ee 

also Gao et aL 20!3; Clifton et al., 2014: Simon ct al., 

2015). Even during \\'inter, some decreasing 03 trends are 

found in the highest percentiles over the southeast (Fig, 9a). 

Atmos. Chern. l'hys., 17, 1-28,2017 
111 


25633.069

12 :\I. Lin et al.: tJS sul'l'an ozone trends and extremes from 1980 to 201-t 

nw:-.t promincn:Jy in Tc\:a\ (Dalla.~ anJ I-lou\lOnl, where lropical~.·Jimatc and year-round active photochcmi.'>try makt:'> 0:> 

mo;..l r~.·.-,pon-.,ivc lo regional ~0 1 cmic-,sinn control". De.~pitc 

the greatc"l :--.l0 1 cmi . ..,~ion reductions over the past LlccaJe in 

th' cr.::ntra! aud nnrthc<t-.tcrn CS region.'.. ohserved 03 rcductioll\ ha\'1.:: been lllO'.l pronounc~.·d in the <.,nuthea:-.1. particubrl) in <...pring: and autumn. 

4.2 !\lode! eYaluation and attribution of observed 03 

trcnd"i 

The BASF "imulmion with CiFDL A!'v13 captures the sulient 

Ccatun:<, of llh.,.,crn~d (),trends over 19HX-20l-+ at rural sites 

ac1w.,..., the LS: ( l) the overall springtime increase~ and the 

lack nf '>ignillcant trend-, in .\Uilltnl'r n\cr the Intermountain 

Wl'q: (2l ;h._, north-to-south gradil'nl,<, in 0.1 trends during 

'>pring and :he brg.:~t dcuca~l..'s in lhe 95th percentile durint: .'>lll1l!1lcr cncr the Et:S; (3) wintertime increa..;e:-. in the 

:'ith and 50th percentile-; (left versus right panel.<.: in Fig:-.. 7to 

9). A:vU a!-.n .'>imubte., a median springtinlL' 0 3 incrca<.,c of 

IU2{ 0 II pphyr 1 mer 19~8-201-l (0.6-lcUl.50pphyr 1 

oYn 200-1-· 20!-\.) at i\1ount Buchdor Oh:..crvatnn in Ore 

)!n!l .. L'\)tl\i'>tcnt w1th th'-' po-;itlv'-' tn::nd !0.63 -t: 0.41 j1ph yr- 1) 

nh'>LT\I..'d (l\Cr the '>hPrtCr 2()() .. 1-2015 pcnod (Ciratz L'l al. .. 

20]..1). Th..: .... c ana]yc-,es that CJFDL-A.\B reprec-,ents the 

Ulll.kr!) tng rhcmka! phy~ical procc .... sc'> controlling the 

rL'"P()Il'-C pf L':) '>urfacc 0_, mean.<. and extremes 10 changes ln 

ghlh;1i-HHcgi{mal prcnw .. or emis:-.ions anJ climate, d~spitc 

lllC,tn ... t~lll' biChl'" (l··ig ..... S5-.S6l. 

ThL' lillL'I'L'd model \hO\\c-, greater 95th percentile 03 incn:a'>l'" than P!1,er\ed at '>O!llL' \\'US :-ilh.':-. (e.g., Yosemite; 

Ci1and Can:nn: CanyonlanJ~) fDr both 

(h~'·" d and Sa. d), rdlccting that ohc;,,nc:lllons 

..,;k.._ ... onll'timc' can he innucnccd by tramport of photoclwmical!y aged plumes from nearby urban areas and from 

wuthnn Cahfornia Juring late spring and summer. When 

... ampll'J at the :-;urface .. :-\,\-B .'>irnulates '>rnall summertime 

0, d'-'lTCa\c.., ill tbc 95th and 50th percentiles over the lntermn(mt;t!n \\",_•.._t ( Fi_\!. . ...J.b .. d) .. cnn<.:i\lent with oh~en·atiun-.; at 

Yo,L'lllite .. ()rand Canyon, and Canyonlands (Fig. Sa, b). A;.; 

ilhl..,tratcd in Fig. 5 for spring and Jiscu:-.scd in Sect. 2.4, indi\ idual <tc~ in :he wc:-.t display ohserwd trend-; falling in 

bct\\'ccn the filtered model <tnd tlh)SC ~amp led at the surface 

\L'r"u" a!on 

\\"c C\~unine hnw L'S smfacc 0~ responds to change'> in 

1\.'gl\ltl~tl anthn)p<t~l'llic L'n1l~ . ..,j\)ll~. hemi.<.phcric backgrounJ, 

and mctc,lru!ogy by romparing 0_; trend-; in thl' BASE. 

Bad.:ground .. and FIXI:\'llS c:-:pcrimcnh (Figs. 10--11 ). \Vith 

:\onh American anthropogenic cmis~ions !,hut oil in the 

Background c-,lmulation. little di!Tererh.'C" i'> Ji-.;cernahlc from 

the BASE ::.imulation for \VL'S 0:~ tn:nd" during ~pring 

(Jir,..,t vcr"u" "ccond n)\\'.'> in Fig. !0). the key role 

of hcmi...,ph~ri'-' background Jriving incrca-;cs ~pringtimc 

(}; (l\·er the Wt:S With anthropogenic emi::..'>ion:-. hclJ con-

:-.tant in timL'.. FIXE:.-1JS still ;.,ho\\,<, :-;tatistical!) :-.ignificant 

Atmns. Chem.l'hys .. 17, I-2M, 2017 

spring 0 3 increa;.,es in the 95th pcrcentlle {Fig. !Oc) .. aphalf of the trench .'>imulatcd in BASE .. for Grand 

Canyonlands, \'k~a Verde and Rocky Mountain national parb. Prior work shows that deep ,<,trato:-.pherie intrusions contribulL' to the highe.\1 obsened ami ;..imulatcd .... urfacc 0-, c\·cnb at thc'>c sites {Langford et a!., 2009: Lin et 

a!., 20 J 2a). Strong YL'ar-to-ycar variability of '"luch intru'>ion 

e\·enb (Lin l't a!., 2015a) can confound the aHrihutinn of 

springtime o_, changes over the \Vt:S to anthropn¥enic cmi'>-

.'>ion trends, particularly in the highe\l anJ OWl 

a ..,hmt record length. Summer avoid~ confounJmg influ~~nce when .\tralosphcric intrusions are at their :-.easonal 

minimum .. J.s evidenccJ by liule 0-, change in FIXE:-.HS 

0\·cr the \\.TS (Fig. llc. f). In contrast to spring. the model 

,bows lmgt'r diiTcrenccs in WUS 0_, trend~ hct\wen HASE 

and Background fm <.,ummcr \\-'hen :\"orth American pollu 

linn peak<., '>l.'<l<;Onally (Fi~. lOa, d vcr.'>us b. c C\)mpared to 

Fig. lla, d \"C!"\US b, e). There are <;i~nifkant increa-;e<; or0.2-

0.) ppb yr~-l in the 9)th and 50th pcm:ntilc .\Ulllllll'r background Ch at more than )() (} of tbe \\'estern sitt"-, (fig. I ! b .. 

e). offsetting: the 0.1 dccrca'>es resulting from L:S I\0, reduction:-. Jnd leading to little 0\era!! change intotaluh'>cn·cd and 

simu!atcd o, at Wt:s rural '>itc<; during sur1m1cr (Fig. S). 

Over the ITS .. A\-D also '>imulatcs backgrr•und 0.< increa<;cs, occurring in both the 95th and 50th \\"llh 

a rate of 0.1---0.J ppb yr- 1 during -.print; I Oh, e) and 

0.2-0.5 ppb) r--l durin~ summer (Fig. 11 h, e). Bd\ed on prior 

model e'.timate\ that .'>pring.time background Ot i'> greater in 

the northc~ht than the <;outhca\t {Lin et aL 2012a .. b; Fiore ct 

al., 20\-f) .. one might a-.<.,umc that the '>pringtimc 0_; increa~c-, 

in the 5th percentile obser\"ed OYer the northea\t (Fif:. 7c) 

haYc been influe-nced by a rising background .. Howev~r .. A\l) 

simulate;., homogeneou~ background 03 trend'> aero~'> the e-ntire ELS (Fig. lOb, e), indicating that the obs,_-rvcd north-to 

.~outh gradient in 03 trends reflect:; an earlier '>ea:-.onal on 

set of r\01 -:->Cthitive photocht::Jlli'itry in the ,\OU!hea;..t. <l'> Op 

posnlto the background innucncc 

A wam1ing climate i'> lll\l,..,l likely to wor<..:en the highc"t 0 1 ewnh in polluted rcgitln<.: (e.g ... Schnell et al.. .2016~ 

Shcn d aL 20!6). With anthropogenic emis:-;ion<..: ht~ld enn-

~tant in time nwr 1088.~201-t FlXEMIS !-,Uggesb ..,ip.ni!icant incrca.~es or 0.2-0.4 ppb )I' l in the 95th PL'rccntilc \U!!lmcrtirne (), on~r the EUS (hg. llc). L:<;ing <.;c\f-nrgani/ing 

map cluster ana!ysi-.; .. Horton ct al. (201:-1) identified rohu-.;1 

increa . ..,c<., in the occurrence of summer anticyclonic circulati<m" O\er ca'>tern ~orth America \ince 1990. \\".,_, finU 

that hiogeniL' i~oprcne L'Tllis'lion,.., 0\Cr thic-, period incrca-.;cd 

significantly h) J .. 2 (/( yr- 1 ( 10 to :?.0 mg C m 2 <;ummcr i l 

throughout the ECS in the- modeL con .... i:->tent with simulated 

increa~c:-; in the 90th percentile JJA daily maximum lt'mperatun..:: (Fif!.. 12a--b). Increases in i<.,oprcnc crn;:-.c-,ions contribute 

to rai~in1! EL'S background OJ in ;..ummer (Fig. llh .. c). L1-.;-

ing the Global Land-Da;..cd Data:-.cts for \1on1toring Climate 

E:'\trcmc\ (GHC~OEX; Donat eta!., 201J} .. we flnd increa"c" 

in the number or warm day ..... above the 90th percentile and 

www.atmos~chem~phys.net/17/J /2017 I 
112 


25633.070

IVI. Lin ct al.: lJS surface ozone trends and extremes from 1980 to 2014 lJ 

BASE BASE 

-0.$ -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.6 0.8 

trends in the 95th (left) and 50th percentile springtime MDA8 03 over 1988-20!4 at US rural sites from BASE 

Aackgl\)und (middle) and FIXeMIS simulations Larger circles indicate sites with statistit'atiy 

are repeated from 7d, e< Not0 that the 95th (50th) sampled from the 

without depending on the \Yb0n the percentile days. 

maximum temperature over the southcast~rn US in August 

12c·-d). The tr0nds in lcmpcraturt~ extremes arc similar 

between Jun~ and August, but lhcr.c is no signitkant trend in 

July (J11.1t sho\vn). \Vhilc changes in regional cxtremt..~s on 20- to 30-ycar time may relle.ct cli20 15), we suggest that increasing 

hot extremes and isopn:ne emissions over the last 

decades may have ollset some of the benefits of regional 

NO~ reductions ln the ECS. 

www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17 /l/20 17 I 

5 Impacts of rising Asian emissions~ methane and 

wildfires on western US 03 

5.1 Historical western lJS 0 3 trends in spring 

Further indications of the factors driving haseline 03 

changes over the \VUS can be inferred by examining the 

time serles several sites, which most 

sampk baseline in the free 

(Sect 2.4). 13 shows the 

sites: 

National Park in NevaUa (2.1 Rocky Mountain 

Nalional Park {2.7kma.s.l.) in Colorado, US Air Force 

Academy (1.9kma.s.1.) in Colorado Springs, Yellowstone 

National Park (2.4 km a.s.l.) and Pinetlak (2A km a.s.L) in 

\Vyoming, and Mesa Verde National Park (2.2 km a.s.l.) 

in the Colorado-New Mexico~Arizono--Utah fom·~corncr 

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 1-28,2017 
113 


25633.071

14 M. Lin ct al.: US surface ozone trends and extremes from 1980 to 2014 

BASE BASE 

l:lgurc 11. As in Fig. 10. but for summer. Top panels are repeated from Fig. Sd, e. 

region. The observed median values of springtime MDAS 

03 have increased significantly at a rate of 0.2-0.5 ppb yr"··l 

over the past 20...-27 years at these sites, except Pinedale, 

where the increase in background 03 is likely offset by the 

0:-. decrease due to recent emission comrol for the large oil 

and gas production fields in this area (http://dcq.wyoming. 

gov/aqd/winter-ozone/resources/technical-documcnts/). 

When filtered to remove the innuence from fresh local 

pollution (Sect. 2.4), AM3 RASE captures the long-term 

trends of 03 observed at these sites. 

Correlating AM3 Background with observed 03 indicates 

that most of the observed variability renects changes in the 

background, with 11uctuations in stratospheric influence contrihuting to anomalies on interannual timesca!cs (e.g., the 

1999 anomaly, Lin et uL, 2015a), whereas Asian influence 

dominates the decadal trends as discussed below. The 03 reduction resulting from US anthropogenic emission controls 

is less than 0.1 ppb yr' .. 1 (BASE minus Background) at these 

baseline sites. We show model results for the entire 1980--

Atmos. Chcm.l'hys., 17, 1-28,2017 

2014 period for Great Basin, Rocky Mountain, and the US 

Air Force Academy to provide context for observed trends in 

the 2 most recent decades (Fig. 13a). ln the 1980s when Chinese NO.~ emissions(''-' 4 Tg yr- 1 NO) were much lower than 

US NOx emissions (...._.15 Tgyr- 1 NO) (Granicret al., 2011), 

then:: was little overall 03 change overthe WUS in the model. 

From the mid-l990s onwards, with NO.r emissions in China 

rising steeply (Fig. la) and surpassing US emissions in the 

2000s, the 03 trends at remote WUS sites appear to be dominated by trends of background, reflecting rising emissions 

outside the US. The largest spring 0:; increases from 1981-

1990 to 2003-2012 at 700hPa extend [rom Southeast Asia 

to the subtropical North Pacific Ocean to the southwestern 

US (Fig. S7a), consistent with the innuence of rising Asian 

precursor emissions. 

Table 2 contains a summary of the drivers of 03 trends 

in the model :.tt seven CASTNet sites that exhibit a significant spring 03 increase observed over 1988-2012. Here we 

focus our attribution analysis on the period 1988-2012 (inwww.atmos-chem-phys.net/17 /1/2017/ 
114 


25633.072

l\·1. Lin et al.: US surface ozone trends and extremes from l9RO to 2014 15 

50"N 

Table 2. 

tions. 

Experiment 

120Qw 110"W 100°W goow soow 7o~w 

·20 ,j6 -1.2 .:

1 ·4 0 4 ;vr 12 "'16 2[1 fmg c m·?. y(1

j 

Lassen Great Basin Rocky Mountain 

over l98R,.·2012 at WUS sites from obs~rvations and AM3 simuiu-

( < l ~,; 1-·5 %; :?: S%) were estimated by the two-tailed t test 

Mesa Verde Yellowstone Yosemite Chiricahua -------··--------~----------· 

Observed 

BASE' 

FIX EM IS 

0.3~ ± 0.14 

0.3320.11 

0.31 

0.41 ±0.12 

0.29±0.13 

0.26±0.16 

0.18cHl.12 

0.10±0.12 

0.08 ±0.12 

0.18±0.18 

0.38 ±0.26 0.37~0.18 

0.34±0.12 0.32clc0.1J 

0.40±0.13 0.45±0.1] 

0.39±0.18 0.50±0.15 

{Ul~O.ll 0.25:±:0.11 

0.26±0.16 0.35±0.!3 

0.20±0.11 0.12±0.09 

0.14±0.12 0.17±0.14 

0.12x0.12 0.16±0,12 

0.20±0.25 0.18±0.18 

0.30±0.18 0.21.L0.19 0.3HcO.J2 0.17±0.10 

0.37 .±0.14 0.21 ±O.l! 0.35.L0.17 0.25±0.19 

0.43 '" 0.17 0.30±0.11 0.41 Jc0.16 0.32~1:: 0.21 

0.52 ±0.20 0.40cLO.I6 0.47 ±0.!7 0.47 ±0.21 

0.27:± 0.! I 0.19±0.11 0.24J.0.14 0.15±0.15 

O.J2cLO.I3 0.27±0.16 0.31±0.18 0.25J.::O.l5 

0.16.L0.12 0.09 ±0.12 0.15HU6 0.04±0.15 

0.16±0.14 0.11.t0.!3 0.1hc0.16 0.08 ± 0.17 

0.13±0.12 0.09 ±0.13 0.12±cO.l6 0.04±0.16 

0.25 :!~(U3 0.15±0.18 0.27 ±0.30 0.07 i. 0.24 

T!w EA sub-,.,·npt 1mhc~t<os that data wert~ fi!tcl'cd to rcpr~;cnt tr.<rhpnn ,:,1ndilinn~ 

stead of 1988~2014) because the lAVAS!A andlAVCH" simulations only extend to 20!2. Meteorology vm·ies from year 

to year in all experiments. Thus, \Ve quantify the contributions of rising Asian emissions in IAVASIA, g!ohal methane 

in IAVCH~, and wildfire emissiom; in IAVFIRE by subtracting out the slope of the linear regression of seasonal 03 

means in FIXEMJS. Simulated 03 with anthropogenic emissions varying in both South and East Asia but held constant 

clsc\vherc shows stntisticnlly significant increases of OJwww,almos-chem-phys.nct/1711120171 

0.2ppbyr·1 (p:<O.OJ: IAVASIA minus F!XEMJS in Table 2), con~istcnt with trends of 0,2ppbyr~l estimated. by 

scaling results from HTAP phase 1 multi-model sensitivity 

experiments with Asian emissions reduced. by 20 ~-';, (Reidmiller c1 al., 2009), This Asian inllucnce can explain 50~ 

65 % of the modeled background 03 increase in spring (Table 2). 

With only methane varying, the model trends arc less than 

0.1 ppbyr~l (lAVCH., minus FIXEMIS), accounting for an 

Atn10s. Chem, Phys,, 17, 1-28, 2017 
115 


25633.073

16 l\1. Lin el al.: LIS surfact· ozone trends and extremes from 1980 to 2014 

(b) 15 ~~-Y_e~l_lo_w_s~to~n_e_N~P~·-WY~~[1~1~0~.4_'_W~,_4,4._6_'N~,2_4_0_0~m~]~-. 

OBS 0.21±0.19 ppb yr·j P=0.03 :g: 10 _BASE" 0.21t011ppbyr·\P"'D,OO 

~ 

ro "' 

E 

0 

c 

<U 

J {OBS,AMJ)'"' 0.~ t OBS 

• c5' -10 

-15'~~~~~::!'-'~~~-~"--';:~~~::'::':'!'--"--' 

15~-~ o~:-~~~1'o~~~:b~~f:·~o~J~~~o ,W, 39~ 9~1,m] _o 

10 ) riA'>L' 0-.<.:i:D 14ppbyr--.f'"'00J r{g~~-AM3·"'058 I Mesa Verde NP, CO [10B.5'W, 37.2'N, 2165 m] 15 OBS 0.30±0.18ppby•·',P.O.OO n 1 O BASE~ C/.37::0 H ppb yr\ P"'O.OO I (OBS,AM3t= 0 J7 , 

8: 5) u.-, •• oj 

~ ol '"' '"~• k'='~;•<':-1 

a.. OBS ' --1 

~ 5 c coc 

i -s~~,)co :~~:~·· I ~ 0-- 0 ~-? i 

g ~5 -O.---:'-~·--~o 8 ~ • = o ! 

0-10: en '' • J ro ,...., ~ C I 

o -10 - -- I 

~~9ss 1990 1995"2a~'6''2"il~'-"2'6';'t'io1s -15 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 

~ 

Year (MAM) Year(MAM) 

Fi!,.!;un• U. (al lmlL' -;enc~ o! median ~pnng \·1DA8 Oi anomal!e-; (rebthe to tile J~l)j. 20!4 mean) at Great Ha<.;in. Rocky ).fountain, amll~:s 

\it hJJce ,\cc~dcm~ J~ ob-,cJYcd (black) and ~mtulatcd in Al\H BASE tiltetcd for b;_t<;clinc condition<; (n'd: ~ce St·ct. 2.-tl and in Back.gruund 

1\1\h '\orth ,\m~·rican anthropogenk tmi~::ion'i rero,:d out (:\:\B: green}. Prc\Cnted ut the top ~1f the graph ;Jre ~tatt<.:\IC\ from the linear lit 

c~nd ~·111 :cLt!HJll~ between oh~erYation\ and -.imu!ation\. :\umber" at the bottom of the iH-Iph denote the :.ample su.c of olN.:nation'i for c;tch 

;.<-'al. (Jr,!y l!Oh nldlt·ate unccrtalll ob~cnalion\ that arc rcmnn:d hom the linear fit {\ec Sect. 1,:\).(b) Same a\ Fig Ua, but for Yel!O\\:-.tonc, 

Pt~h:d.dc. ,md \h:~c1 Verde OYer the p..cnod !9Sk 20 !2 

incrcasl'. The contrihu~ 

spring is or minor impnrtancl' (IAVHRH minu<.. FIXEMIS. Tah!e 2). /\ stratospht:ric 

(), tracer (();Slral) in A\n (Lin et al., 2012a, 20 l5a) demon~ 

qratc~ c1 p>)~illvc but in5-igni!icam trend ln strato:-plwric 0:; 

lran.\port \o the :-.i:cs. \V~.: examine the trend:-. nf ](l\\Cr tropo-

"PhL"ric 0, at th...:.'.c ">itcs when tram port conditions bvor the 

il~lport or r\\liltl po!lution into \\'Cc-itcrn ~orth America, as di-

<l~!ll)~Cd h;.. the F.a\l :\"ian CO tracer (EACOtl exceeding the 

67~h P'-'rccnti!t: for each "Pring. SimiL.Jr to the conc!tbion of 

Llnl'l :tl. t201:"hl, we lind that the rate of(), increase in the 

B<lck~t\)und "imu!ation ;.., greater by 0.05-0.! ppb yr-~' un-

<-kr ~tmHf! tralhpon Cn1111 A~1a than \\ithout filtering. Fillcrmg chc lAVAS lA "imulation for· A:-.ian in!lucncc also rc:-.u!ts 

.-\!mos. Chem. Phys., 17,1-28,2017 

in ()-, increa">c.., than filtering for ba">eline condition"> 

2). 

Ri:.ing Asian emissions even inlluencc trends of 03 do\\'11-

\\ind of the Lo<> Angeles Basin during .... pring. 0_-; mca-

~ured in Jushua Tree 1\'ationu! Park shows an inLTC'-1\t: of 

0.31 L0.25ppbyr 1 in :-.pring owr 1990-<W!O (Cooper t'l 

aL, 2012), despite significant improvement-. in()-' air quality in the Lo~ Angele:-. Basin (\VJrncke d aL, 2012), The 

03 record cxtcntkd to 2014 shows a decline in the 95th percentile O.t in Joshua Tree :-.:ational Park for both "Pring and 

'iummer (Fig:-.. 7-8L \Vhcrca:-. the 5th percentile cnntinuc\ to 

inuea~e in \pring and thcn~ is no significant trend in the ll1L' 

dian. Snmp!ing the A:vB Background :-.imulatinn at thi~ ~itc 

indicates a ri~ing baclground (0.31 -:i:: 0.14 ppb yr-~ 1 ). Aircraft mca~urt'mcnt~ in :\1ay--June 20!0 indicatt.: the prc~cncc 

www.atmos~chcm-phys.net/17/1/20 17/ 
116 


25633.074

M. Lin et al.: US surface ozone trends and extremes from 1980 to 2014 17 

15 OBS 

10 

I 

~ 

1 

c5' -5 

'

1

9980 

,' 

<t•. 

. 

1990 

Western US (700 hP<~, MAM) 

CM3_RCP8.5 

CM3_RCP4.5 

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 

Year 

Figure 14. Future projections. Time series of median springtime 0;~ 

changes relative to 2010 in GFDL AM3 hindcast (orange circles) 

and CM3 future simulations for RCP8.5 (red) versus RCP4.5 (blue; 

shading represents the range of three ensemble memben;), smnpled 

at 70UhPa over the WUS (35-45° ::--1, 120··105° W). 13lack circles 

indicate observed changes averaged from the Lassen, Great Basin, 

and Rocky Mountain national parks. 

of Asian pollution layers 2 km above southern California 

with distinct sulfate enhancements coincident with low organic mass (L.in et al., 20l2b), supporting the conclusion 

that rising Asian emissions can contribute to trends of 03 observed in this region. Yosemite National Park (L6 km a.s.l.) 

and Chiricahua National Monument (1.5 km a.s.l.) are also 

influenced by increases in Asian emissions and concurrent 

decrl!-ases in local pollution in California. 03 observed at 

Yosemite shows an increase from 1995 to around 2012 

(0.37 ± 0.32 ppb yr- 1; Fig. S8), which the model attributes 

primarily to rising Asian emissions (Table 2), but observations have remained constant since then, renecting an offset 

by 03 decreases in California (Fig. 4). 

5.2 Projecting western US springtime 03 for the 21st 

Century 

Under the RCP8.5 scenario, Chinese NOx emissions are 

projected to peak in 2020-2030, reflecting an increase of 

_.__.50% from 2010 (Fig. la), followed by a sharp decrease, 

reaching 1990 levels by 2050. Global methane increases by 

~ 60% from 20 I 0 to 2050 under RCP8.5 (Fig. S I). Under 

the RCP4.5 scenario, in contrast, NO<( emissions in China 

change little over 2010-2030 and global methane remains 

almost constant from 2010 to 2050. NOx emissions in the 

US decrease through 2050 under both scenarios, by -.... 40% 

from 2010. A number of studies have examined future US 

0~ changes under the RCPs (e.g., Gao et al., 2013; Clifton 

et aL, 2014; Pfister et al., 2014; Fiore et al., 2015; Bames 

et aL, 2016). However. as discussed earlier, the trends of 03 

in the motlel when sampled near the surface are overwhelmingly dominated by US anthropogenic emission trends. Thus, 

the future 03 changes estimated by these prior studies do not 

www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/l/2017/ 

Figure 15. Summertime 0 3 in Yellowstone National Park. (a) Median JJA MDAS 03 trends over 1988-2012 at Yellowstone from 

observations (black) and simulations sampled at 700 hPa for 

BASE without filtering (pink), BASE filtered for baseline conditions (hatched pink), IAVASIA (solid purple, baseline), IAYASIA filtered for Asian influence {EACOt 2: 67th, hatched purple), 

IAVCH4 (cyan), IAVFIRE (orange) and FIXEMIS (red). (b) Time 

series of anomalies in August medlan MDA8 03 at Yellowstone as 

observed (black) and simulated by the model sampled at the surface, 

with constant (red) and time-varying wildfire emissions (orange). 

Trends over 198S--20l4 arc reported. (c) Interannual CO!Tclations of 

JJA mean MDA8 03 observed at Yellowstone with JJA mean daily 

maximum temperature from observations (Harris et al., 2014). 

represent baseline conditions, particularly the response to rising Asian emissions. Jn Fig. 14 we show changes in WUS 

free tropospheric (700 hPa) 0;~ relative to 2010 in the CM3 

future simulations under RCP85 versus RCP4.5. Historical 

hindcasts and observations are also shown for context. Under RCP4.5, springtime 03 over the WUS shows little overall 

change over 2010~2050. Under RCP8.5, in contrast, springtime WUS 03 increases by _..._.10ppb from 2010 to 2030 and 

remains almost constant from 2030 to 2050, consistent with 

the projected trends in Asian emission.s antl global methane. 

5.3 Trends and variability of western US OJ in summer 

Yellowstone National Park is the only site with statistically 

significant summer 03 increases observed across all percentiles (Fig. Sa-c). The 1988-2012 trends for the median 

observed and simulated 03 are summarized in Fig. 15a. Observations show an increase of 0.32 ± 0.18 ppb yr- 1 for JJA, 

with a greater rate of increase in June (0.38 ± 0.25 ppb yr- 1) 

than in July-August (0.26±0.18ppbyr- 1). AM3 BASE 

sampled at 700 hPa and filtered for bas.eline conditions 

(hatched pink bar in Fig. l5a) captures the observed increase. 

Without baseline filtering (solid pink bar), North American emission reductions ofT set almost 50% of the simulated 

03 increase at Yellowstone, causing the model to underestiAtmos. Chern. Phys., 17, 1-28,2017 
117 


25633.075

IX \I. Lin et al.: CS surface ozone trends and cxtrt'mes from 1980 to 2014 

mate the ob:-.cncd o, trend The model attribute" much or 

the ob:-.cncd -.ummer 0.~ increase at Ycllovv'>tone to rising 

A-;1an cmi:.:.ipn:-.. with IAVASlA au 0::~ inc1ca~c 

of O.J 1 1 0.! 9 pph yr- 1 under increasing 

[0 0.-J-:2 pph )'f ~! under COHditiOll.'i ol' A:.., ian in!lUCOCl' 

(Ei\COt ~67th perct~nti!c). The ;-,.tronp:er incrca"t~ mca-.urcd 

in June than in Jul;-Au~u~t i:.. consistent with the inllucncc 

or th~: /\."ian \Ul11ll1LT mon~oon producing a :-.urLtcc 01 minJ111Ulll 111 July-:\ugU'it in East Asia (e.g., Lin ct al., 200<J), 

a-., \\'CJ! ao.., !he -,¢asonaJit) of interCO!lti!lC!lta] pol!uti\Hl lram,-

port Changes in lllt'thanc. wildJlrcs, and meteorology over 

thi" period arc of minor importancc f1lr the JJA 0_, trends at 

Yelhw..ston~ 

Enhanced \\ ddllre activity in hnt and dry \Veather is 

thnut_:ht to be a key driver of interannual variability of surface o, in the Intermountain West in sunm1~r (JaiTc ct aL, 

200B: Jaffe. 201 !). However. hot and dry condition:-. also 

facllitatc the buildup of 0:- produced from regional anthropo_l2cnic cmi'>~l\)!1'-, \\'hich can Cl)JHplicate the unambiguou.'> 

a:tnhution of \'lb'>ervcd o, enhancements. L:sing August data 

at 'J\·llowstonc a." an ex.ample. WL' isolate the relative contribution of tlll''>C two proce.'>~es to obsl'rvcd (), \\'ith the lAY-

!' IRE \'t'L'>U~ FIXE.\115 cxperimcnh (Fig. 1 )b). Here we.· '-amric A\·B atth~..· 'iurface to account for an:, influence of vary1!1)2 boundar)' mixing depths. t-\·en without interannual 

\<!nation.\ o! cmi:-.'>ion ... , F!XE:\115 captures much or ~he nh'>t'ncd )Car-to-year variability or August mean 0; at 

Y"'·Jim\"ton~..· (r =0.67). IAVFIRE with 

in)! fire ~..·mi ... ~iun'i tlllly moderatdy !mpron:s thl': 

(r = 0.75L FlXE\·llS aho capture:-. the ob:-,crved 0.1. incrca<>.c 

rrom thL' early ! !)\)()-,to around 2002.likely rdlccting warmer 

tclnpcr,llurc" ;md deeper mi;-..ing c.kplh\ <dlowing more b;t\C~ 

linv o~ to l111\ th)\\!l to the surface. Owr the entire l9XS~ 

201-..J. (or !(JXO<:.Ol41 period, IAYFIRE give'> "'--0.1 ppbyr 

grL'<.ltcr o~ incn.:a'>l','> in Augu'it than FIXEM!S, CDll\i.-,tcnt 

\'.itll an owralllncrcase in boreal wihl!lrc acti\ity (Fip. S:2 

and Slh) 

variability in 'lurface MDAS 

(), l'!lh~uwcnwnt" from durin):! :-ummcr. a'i diap:~ 

nn .... cd hy tht' diJY,•ren~..·c''> between LAVFIRE and FIXE\-1JS. 

TllL' r\''>Ulh ar'-' '>hm n f(lr individual month<> t-lnce lires clrc 

high!~ cri'>odic. During thL' ~urnmcrs of !CJ9X. 2002. and 

~.0{l3. biom,h'- lire'> burned a large area of Siberia anJ parts 

nr the :\forth American boreal fore~l\, raising carbon nlOJl()'(-

idl' acro-;.., the ~orthcrn HcmL ... phen: as detected from space 

iYurganm ct ;tL 2005; van dcr Wcrr ct aL 201()). Longran~e tran-.,pun or Siberian !ire plumes resulted in 2-6 pph 

cnhanccmL'!ll\ in '>urfacc MDAS 0-; at the US western co<~:->t 

<-tnd in part'> of lhc Intermountain Wc\t in A\13. The moJd 

calculate~ cnll;mcr:rnents in monthly mean MDAJS OJ of 

1u B pph from thL' inte!he wildlirc C\Cnts in nnnhern 

fornia dunng July 2008 (Hu;mg et al.. 2013; P!i:.ter et al.. 

201.-;\), OYL'f Tcxas-\1exico during June 2011 (Wang et aL. 

2U15). and in \\')omin.u--Utah during August 2012 (Jaffe ct 

aL 20 U ). The A:\13 c:-.timatcs an: roughly comi'>letll \\ ith 

,\!mos. Chcm. Phy; .. 17,1-28,2017 

analysis or boundary layer aircraft tlata with and 

lire influ~n.:c'> (a~ diagnosed by Cll,Ci\') during June 

200X mer California (PJlster eta!.. 2013). 

While lire" Juring hot and dry "'ummcr-.., clearly re~ult in 

enhanced (h ai indiVidual sites Cor wm¢ "'ummcrs, the abillt; 

of A\B with constant lin:: emi'>sions to '>imulate variability nf 

03 for a high (e.g., 1988, 2002, 2006) versu'\ low (e.g., ! 997, 

2009) fin: )Car (Fig. 15h) indicatt's that biomas' burning i~ 

nnt the primary driver or nhserved o., interannual \·ariabi!-

ity. Year-to-year variability of JJA mean .\·1DAR 0.' oh'>crved 

at Ycllm\ stone i\ strongly correlated (r > 0.6 l \\'ith ob;-,crvcd 

large-scale variations in JJA mean daily ma'\imum temperature acros,-, the Intermountain Wc~t thg. 15c). Correlation:-. 

for other ground station" ~hov.: a similar largl'-\Calc feature 

Similar to the conclusion from Zhang ct al. (20 14 ). our analysis indicates that the correlation between 0; and biomas<.; 

burning reported hy Jaffe ct al. C?.008) and Jaffe (2011 J at rural si\e'> rr:Jkr:ts common underlying correlations with tcmpcralurt> rather than a cau:,al relationship or !ire witll o.~· 

At remote mountain t-.itcs (c,g., Ye!lmvstone}, warmer surrace temperatures lead to deeper mixed layl'r.'> that facilitate mixin~ of l'n:c tropcv-,phcric o,-rlch air ckmn to the ~urface. At sites tH:ar ~ourcc." of air pollullon. hot condition~ 

enhance regional 0-, production and orographic lifting or urban pollution to mountaintop "itc'> during da) time, as occur'> 

at Rocky :Y1nuntain r\ational Park located downwind of the 

Dcnwr metropolitan area during '>ummer iSCL'L 5..--l-). Hcacti\'e volatile organic compound (VOC) cmi-...-..ion.'- from tire,\ 

may enhance 0_, producticm in !\'0\ -rich urban area:-. (Baker 

ct aL 20! 6). although C\'clluating the~L: impacb needs hii,;hre~olut!on mock!" and be!!er treatment of -;ub-grid-<,cale !Ire 

plume~. 

5.4 ()zont' trends in the Denver metropolitan an•a 

Effort.'> !o improYe air quality have led to a ntarkeJ d"'~crca,.,c 

in high-03 cvems in lhe Ln.:. Basin as illu.'>lrated by 

the annual 4th highest ~1DAH at Crestline ~ a regionrepresentative monitor operated ..:ontinuou:-.ly from 1980 

to present (Fig. 17a). ln :-.trik.ing contrast, the 4th highe~t rvlDAS 0 1 in the Dcmer mctropo!Han area '>hOw'\ IHt!c 

change 0\Tr the past decades. dc .,pitc reduction-., 

in N0 1 (Fig. I) and CO emissions{- ~~;.- from !990 to 

20l0; Cooper ct aL 20!2). Recent field mca\urcmcnt<> indicate that incrc<bL'd VOC emission" from l)l\ and natural 

ga'> operation~ nrc an important \Ource uf 03 pr~·cur"or~ in 

the Dcmer·-.luit::-.berg Hasin tGilman ct aL 2013: Hallida:, ct 

al., 20 16; :\·1cDuf!ie el al., 20 16). However. total V()C cmi'>-

~ion~ in Denver may not he mer time due to 1hc 

marked n:duc1ion" in VOC cmi.<.::-.iom vehicle\ (Hi"' hop 

and Skdman, 200B, 2015). \Ve s~ek in~ights into the c;nJ:.c" 

or the lack of :-.ignilicant 0_:; respon:...c~ to emi. ... ,iun controb in 

Denver by :-.eparatcly analyLing trend:-. in -;pr!ng and \Ummcr 

(Fig. l7b~cL 

www.atmos-chl'ITI ~phys.nct/17/l/20 17 I 
118 


25633.076

M. Lin et at.: US surface ozone trends and extremes from 1980 to 2014 19 

IAVFIRE- FIXEMIS: surface MDA8 03 anomaly 

Figure 16. Surface _MDA8 03 enhancements from wildfire emis~ions for individual months in the years with large biomass burning in boreal 

l't'gions (1998, 2002, 2003) and over the WUS (2008, 2011, 2012), as diagnosed by the differences between IAVFIRE and FlXEMIS. The 

bbck circle denotes the location of Yc!lo\vstone National Park. 

The ""'200 x 200 km2 AM3 model is not expected to resolve the urban-to-rural differences between Rocky Mountain ~ational Park and the Denver metropolitan area. However, if observed 03 variability in Denver correlates with that 

at remote sites in the Intermountain West, then model attribution for the. remote sites can be used to inft.~r sources of 

observed O.:t in Denver. This is demonstrated in Fig. I7b 

for spring using data at three representative sites in Den~ 

ver, Rocky Flats North, National Renewable Energy Lab 

(NREL), and Welby, with continuous measurements since 

the early 1990s. Year-to-year variability of median MDA8 

OJ at these sites during spring correlates strongly with that 

in Great Basin National Park (r = 0.7), a fairly remote site 

in Nevada not influenced by urban emissions from Denver. 

l\>1edian spring 0:. observations in Denver increased signil:., 

icantly by ,......, OJ ppb yr'~ 1, similar to the rate of increase in 

Great Basin National Park, which the model attributes to rL.;;-

ing background (Fig. 13a). implying that the tripling of Asian 

emissions since 1990 also raised mean springtime O:;t in the 

OL':nvcr metropolitan arL':a, Trends in the 95th percentile arc 

statistically insignifkant. 

During summer, changes in regional emissions and tem~ 

perature huw the greatest impacts on the highest observed 

0:~ concentrations in polluted environments. Figurt! l7c 

shows times series of July-August 95th percentile MDA8 

03 in Denver, together with the distribution of daily maximum temperature. In every year since 1993, the highest summer MDA8 03 observed at these sites exceeds the 

70 ppb NAAQS level. There is a small negative trend that is 

swamped by large interannual variabtlity. The summers with 

the highest observed 03 coincide with those with the highest 

observed temperatures, such as 1998, 2003, 2007, 20 ll and 

2012. During these summers, enhancements of MDA8 03 

were also recorded in Rocky !\-1ountain National Park, retlect~ 

www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/112017/ 

ing enhanced lifting of pollution from Denver under warmer 

conditions (Brodin et aL. 20 10). Applying quantile regression (e.g., Porter et al., 2015) to daily observations at Rocky 

Flats North over 1993-2015, we find a 2 ppb oc- 1 sensitivity 

of 95th percentile July-August 03 to changes in maximum 

daily temperature. We suggest that the substantial increases 

in extreme heat occurrence over central North America over 

the last 2 decades, as found by Horton et al. (2015), contribute to raising summer 03 in Denver. which offsets 03 

reductions that otherwise would have occurred due to emission controls in Denver. Potential shifts in the 0 3 photochemistry regime can also contribute to trends of summer 0 3 in 

Denver, although advancing this knowledge would require a 

high-resolution air quality model. 

6 Impacts of heat waves and droughts on eastern US 

summer03 

We discuss in this section interannual variability and long~ 

term changes in summer 03 over the EUS, where air stagnation and high temperatures typically yield the highest 03 

observed in surface air (e.g,, Jacob and Winner, 2009). Evaluating the ability of models to simulate the high-03 anomalies during historical heat waves and droughts is crucial to 

establishing confidence in the model projection of pollution 

extremes umler a warming climate. Figure l8a shows comparisons of July mean MDA8 0:1 at one regionally representative site, the Pennsylvania State University (PSU) CASTNet site, from observations and model simulations. With 

time~varying emissions, the BASE model simulates an 0 3 

decrease ( -0.45 ~± 0.32 ppb yC 1) consistent with observa~ 

tions ( -0.67 ± 0.33 ppb yr-· 1) and captures the observed July 

mean 03 interannual variability (r =:: 0.82) that is correlated 

with huge~scale variations in daily maximum temperature 

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 1-28,2017 
119 


25633.077

20 M. Lin et al.: US surface ozone trends and extremes frmn 1980 to 2014 

i 90 

c· 80 

~ 70 " eq98D I 

1985 

LnsAnge1l!S --3.79±0.3Sppbyr' 

Denver --0.30±0.20pp.byr1 

Year 

Figun.• 17. Surface 

extremes are successsummer heat \Vaves of !988, 

1 and 2012 (Leibenspergeret aL, 2008: 

Jia ct aL, 2016). Y<'l>e-1•<>-ve.l>e 

in meteorology can 

variability (r = 0.55). as 

anthrc•pnlsenic emissions. lf US anthrcmorrerlic 

at 1990s levels (us in then anomalies iu 

ml!an lv1DA8 03 would bave been J 0 ppb .,.,,,.,,, h>eirw 

the 1 and 2012 heat waves. Loughner ct 

that haJf of the days in July 2011 would have hccn classified 

A!mos. Chem. Phys., 17, 1-28,2017 

Pennsylvania State Univ [78° W, 41° N, 378m} 

Year (JUL) 

Figun~ 18. (a) Time series of July mean MDAS 

<Hive to 1988 2014) at the Pennsylvania State (PSU) 

CASTNET observed (black) and simulated by the 

anthroj>agenic 

tions (gn~en). 

Figure 19a density funclions of 

MDA.S 0_-, surface for JJA in the pre-!\Ox SIP 

Call (1988--2002) versus post-NO, SlP Call (2003--2014) 

and durlng the extreme heat waves of 19?S8 versus 

the NO, SIP Call, the distribu--

tion MDA8 0:~ over the downward (solid black versus dotted gray lines in Fig, 19a). The 

medinn value declined by 9 ppb and the occurred in the upper tails, leading to (}:) 

dewww.atmos-chern-phys.nel/17/1/20171 
120 


25633.078

l\1. Lin ct al.: US surface ozone trends and extremes from 1980 to 2014 21 

Simui~ted MOAB 0 3 (ppb) 

a sl:'m;Jtivity simulation \'\-ith 35 (k decreases in VJ,O_:; in drought ar-

(c) Smndardm:d ~oi! moisture for JJA 1988 

by dividing anomalles by th~ 

deviation. using data from the NOAA Climate Prediction 

C<.'nter), 

purple versus dotted brown lines in 19a): a =22.3 versus and median value 1--l versus 52.2 pph. 

Figure shows the corresponding comparisons 

the results from AM3 BASE. the hig-h mean 

AM3 overall structure of tbe 

surface 03 and thus the 

d' 0.~ 10 the NOx SIP Call, including the 

of high-0:; events during the heat wave of 2012 compared to 

1988. Nevertheless. there is a noticeable difference betw~cn 

the observations and simulations in the shape of MDA8 0.{ 

probahility distributions for summer 1988, particularly in the 

www.atmos-chcm-phys.neU17 /l /2017 I 

observed July mean 03 

(purple versus black dots in 

nation for tbes~ biases is that 

reduce the O::t sink to vegetation, leading to an 

crc<.ISC in surface concentrations as found during the 2003 

European heat waw: ct aL 2008), whereas Al\B 

does not include varying dry deposition 

itics. 

The Aorth American drought of 1988 ranks among tht.~ 

worst in the US Seager ancllloerling, moisture 

norlhern Gn~at P1ains-!v1idwcst r~gion with 

2.5 mm standardized departures from the 1979·-·2010 climatology (Fig. 19c). Huang et aL (2016) found that monthly 

mean 03 dry deposition velocities 01d,0 1 ) for forests decreased by 33 CJo over Texas during the dry" summer of 20 l 

Based on this estimatt:, we conduct a sensitivity simulation for 1988 using BASE emissions but decreasing monthly 

mean Vd,O.< from to August by 35 Y'c in the areas over 

North America N) where soil moisture deficits in 

1988 exceed -LOa mm (Fig. !9c). This (hereafter referri:!d Lo as IAVDEP) simulates,...,_.. 

Atrnos. Chern. l'hys., 17. 1-28, 2017 
121 


25633.079

22 i\1. Lin et al.: CS surface ozone trends and cxtn·mes from 1980 to 20 1-' 

mean :--.1DA~ (), at the PSL CAST\ict "ilc than the l3,:\SE 

mndcl ,_md matche,<., the observed 0.1 annmaly in 19S8 rdauvc to thl: record mean (green 'iymbol in I'ig. I Sal. The impact is lar~L·:-.t (up to l5ppb) on day:-. when obsern;d rvtDAS 

OJ cx.ccclh l 00 ppb \rig. I Sb: 7~n.l.\ :: 30 ·;c). Simulated JJA 

:\-1DAX (), at El'S site<., in IAVDEP :-.ho\\S an upward ;..hift 

in the pwhabilit) di ... trlbutinrL particularly in the uppcr tail 

abO\ I.? I!Oppb (green \er~us purple lines in Fi);!. l9b), bringing 1t cJo,cr to ob,crvatiom. in 1988 (Fig. 1 tJa). Tlw OJ qandard deviation in IAVDEP (a= 18 ppb) <;hift-: tov>ards that 

in observatJoll" (a .:.-:: 2:2 pph) relatiH; 10 th~ BASE model 

(n---:: l6pph) 

Quantik r:1apping can he applied to correct ..;y~tematic di<;.-

tributional biasc" in surface (), compared to observation-. 

!Rieder ct al., 2015), but thl" approach ha~ limitation..; if' 

lhL·rc arc \tn!ctural bia..;cs in the(}~ distributinn due to mis..;-

ing ph:- ... ical pmccs ... e.<., in the modd (L'.g: .. variation<.; ofVd o, 

\\'ith droughhl. Tnt\ I<., et aL (20!6) ,qJg~e:-.l that the :-..'ational 

Enli..,..;ion Jmcntory (l\El) for i\0, fron1 thl' l 1S FPA i..; too 

hip.h national!) by 50 ({ Dccrt:<l.~ing L:S \!"0 1 emi.~llion..; h) 

lhb amount corrcch their model hi a:-. r~)r boundary layer o_~ 

by l:?. pph in tb.' snuthea-.t for summer 2013, whllc surf~tcc 

\IDAB 0\ in their model i" ~till biased high by 6 :L 14 pph, 

\\ h1ch the author~ attribute to e.\.cesc.ivc boundar) layer mixin_l!. L"S ;\"(\ t~mi-.:..ions in the emt:..:..ion inventory u<.,ed in 

A • .\13 (S('CL 2.2) are ~lppnl\imately 15 1/i lower than tho-;c 

frolll the i'<EI The 35 dccrca;,;c in :-•,,'(), emi ....... ion:-; fnm1 the 

prc-:\0 1 SIP Call to the pn.\\-:\0 1 SJP Call in the model reduce-. mean o, by 8 rph ln the ECS. implying that the ~0, 

l'mi ... -.wn hiac, could correct 40 ~ .. ~ of our model mean bias of 

,~ :?:0 pph. Thc-"e e-stimate:.. ~upport the idea that the common 

nwLk·i hia"c" in -.imuhtting surf:.Ke 03 over the .... outhcastern 

l"S fc g., hurt . .' t.:l a!.. 2009) may partly rdkct cxcc;..-.i\C ~0, 

<..'!111'>\tOn'-. Some of the pmitiw Q, bia:-.C\ could be alw due 

\1) the ;l\Cfilgini! oYer a rJccp vertical box in tht' model ~urLll'<..' l;1ycr t-"- 60 m m A\1:\) that can not reo.ohe ncar-~urface 

~radicnts crr~l\i\ et al.. 2016). 

7 Cnndu~ions and recommendations 

Through :m ob.-.c!Yatlona! anJ modding anal;si~ of inkrannual 'ariahility and long-IL'nn trend.<., in sources of Ch O\Cf 

the pa'>l _1) )C<lf\, \\e havt.' identi!JeJ the key drivers. of ().l 

po!!ut1on OH'r the US. \Vc initially evaluated tht> trend:- or 

n:,g..,. -+- 6l. Our -.yntllc:-.i-; of ob:-.nvatiom and .'.illlubtlon-. indicates that surface o, ov~.:r Ea;-,t A~ia ha" incn:a:..cd h:, l--.2 ppb yr since 1990 (i.e .. 25--50 ppb over 

.2) yearo.). \\ llh -,lgniliuJnl imp!icatiuns for rcgwnal air qualit) and g!ol""~al trnpu'>pheric o_, burden. Shirtinf! ne\[ to the 

LS. \\C lind 0.2 O.~prbyr ' incrc<tsec. !n median .... pringtinw ,'vlDAS OJ lllL'a:-,urcd at 50rf( of 16 \VL:S rural sites, 

\\ ith 2.:1 1.1 of the .-:itcs \bowing incrca.c,cs acros" the entire-

(), ~o.'Olll'Cn:ration distribution, de:..pitc stringent CS doJ~lC'itic 

Atmos. Chem.l'h)·s., 17, 1-28.2017 

emi.'.sion controls 7), Vv'hilc many prinr studies show 

that glnbal modeb diniculty simulating O, incr-eases 

oiJ<.,crvcd at rural ba:..eline .<.,itcs Parri'h cl a!., 2014: 

Strode ct aL 2015), we reconcile and .'>imulatcJ 

03 trcnJs in GFDL-Ai\B \\ith a novel baseline s,1mpling appruach (1-'ig.'i .. ~and !3). \Vc ~uggcsttbat the common model 

Ob.'.ervation di-,agr~:ement in ba:-.cline 01 trends reflect-. hl1litations of cnar:-.e-rec.olution global model-, in n:,-.oh ing nbserved ba:-.clinc condit1ons. 'l"bi.'l reprc:-,cntativencss 

can be addrc.<.,scd by liltcring model 01 for ncrmsimenc-

"cale ba..;elinc conditions u'iing the Cil'-'} -to- implement. !owL'Ost regional CO-like tracers, Thi.'. approach J.lh.nv:-, trend" 

of 03 measured at baseline site:-. to he compared direct!) 

with multi-decadal global model hindcast.-., such a:-. tho<.,e being conducted fnr the Chemi:-,try-Climate :\1odd Initiative 

tCC~vtl: :\'lorgcn'itern ct a\.. 2017). 

The ability or the GFDL-A:\B model to reproduce ob-

:-.ervcd US c.urface ()-, \n:m1<., lends confidt:tKC in ib arpJication to attribute these ohscned trend.\ to c.peci!ic proccs'ico. 

(Fig~. 7 to 11 ). We summariN the o\·erall stati:-,tic .... in Fig. 20, 

drawing upon the dccadal mean 01 change," frorn 19S 1-

1990 to 200]- 2012 in the RASE and :-.cn'iitivity simulations. The changeo. in BASE are lWer the Wt :s 4.3::!:.. l.H ppb 

fur :-.prinp: and 1.6 _-t_ 1.2 rpb for -;umrncr: over the north 

e<.l'it, 1.8 j_ 1.7 ppb for :o:pring and ~6.0 J: 2.0 ppb for -;ummer: and over the .'.Outheast, - 3.9 ± l A ppb for :..prinp: and 

7.5-± 1.6 ppb for .wmmcr. lncrca:..ing 0_< in the \Vl'S under BASE coincides with an incre;b,~ in background o, h;. 

6.3-±:. \.\) pph for :-,pring and 4.:2-+ 2.0 ppb for surnmer. CnJer condition" of ..;tn.)ng transport ftom A-,ia (Fa-;t A"ian 

COt:::67thl. the background trend rose to 7.6±2.2ppb ror 

.'.pring and 6.0 -1- 2.1 pph for summer \green Jot:-. in Fig. 20) 

The WL'S bad.,_ground 0.1 increa:-,c reflcct~ contrihullnn" 

from increa.c,cs in A.'lian anthropogenic emi ... sion:-. (<tcC\JUnting for~()<(( ofback~round incrca:-e in o,pring: 5:2 <,;in :-ummerL ri:-.ing glnba! !llL'lhanc ( 13 (X in spring: 23 in -.ummer), and \anabllity in biomas;., burning (6 (+in -.pring: 12 c; 

m sumnwr: excluding the meteorological innucnce) 

\Vc- conclude that the inl'rea<;e in /\~,ian anthropo_Qcnic 

emi~sions i" the major dri\·cr of rising hac~g:round 0; owr 

the- \VL'S fnr both ~pring and :-.unHHer in th.: past Jccade~. 

with a b:.-,,,..,~.,~r contribution from mcthano: incrca:-.c~ o\ cr tbi.-, 

period. The tripling of A"i<m :\'0 1 emi"">.\iDn'> since !990 contributes up to 65 r;c of modl'led :;pringtimt~ background 0 1 

increase" {0.)-0,)pphyr 1) me1 the WL-S. outpacing 0 1 

lkcrea-"l'" re:-.ulting from 50 r;-( l'S :\01 emission control:, 

(::::=0.! ppbyr 1: 'IJhle 2 and Hg. 10). Springtime o, nb 

.'.en·ed in the Dcnn·r metropolitan area ha'i incrca:;t:d at a 

rate o.lmilar to remok rural :->itcs !Fig. 17b). \~lean ~rringtimt' 0-, ahm·e the WUS is projected to increa-.,e by ...,.,. J 0 pph 

from 20 l 0 tn :2030 under the RCP?-;.5 global change scenario 

hut to remain con:.tant throughout 2010 to 20:'10 under the 

RCP4.5 scenario (Ftg. 14). Ao, :\C\ emic.,ioJb in China con 

tlnuc to dcclint' in re-.ponsc to cllort<., to imprm·e air quulit} 

{Krotk.ov et al, .20!6; Jju ct al .. 20!6), ri .... ing global nwthanc 

"vww.atmos-chrm~phys.nct/17/1120 l7/ 
122 


25633.080

:\1. Lin ct al.; rs surFa{'c ozone trends and extremes from 198() to 2014 23 

and ~0 1 cmi.-.sion.-. in the tropical cnuntrics (e.g .. India) in 

A-.ia. whcrc o, production i-> more ef!lcicnt, may become 

!ll()rc important in the coming decades. A global 

i~ ncccs-.ary \\hen dcsigninp. a \tratcg)- to ml!ct 

quality obicctive:-.. 

During wmmcr. a tripling (lr Asian anthropogcn~c crnis~ 

: .. ions from !9SS to 2014 approximately ofl\et-; the bcnl'tit:-. or 50 q reduction~ in US domestic cmi,siom. !caJing to \\'Cak 

or imigm!\Ccull 0_; trend" observc:J <J.l mo~t \A/LS rural ~itcs 

(Fi!!'">. S and I!). Ri .... iiH.! A: .. ian cmi:-.sion" contribute tu ob-

:-.er~·cd SU!1HllL'llimc o,~increa:-.e<, (0.3 ppb yr" I) at Ydlow" 

<..toJH..' \ational Park. Our finding-.; con!lrm the earlil':..t projcc~ 

\ion of Jacub ct al. { 1990) v.:ith a tripling of A:- ian ~mis:-.i1ms. 

While'' i!dlirL' ~mis-.iom can rcsuli in 8 ppb L'nhancl'mcnh 

to month!:- nll'an 0,; at individual site:-. in :..omc qJmmcr.-.. 

t!Jcy ar~' !WI lhL' primary driver or ObSCr\'Cd ()_:; interannual 

\ari<1hilit: mer the lntcrmountam We:-.l (Fig.-.. 15 and ]6l. !n-

'>lcad, boundary layer depth, temperature-> and the associated buddup or (h produced rcgil)!l<ll anthropogenic 

cmi-,-.,inn:-. contribute mo-"l to the observed interannual \·artability of o, in ;,ummcr. Summertime 0_:~ ml'a~urcd in Den-

\er dunng pollution episodes frequently exceed~ the 70pph 

\A:\QS kn·L with lllllc m·cralltrL·nd despite :-.tring:ent precur~or L'nli:-.-.Jon L'Ontrob (Fig. !7c), likely dtll' to the effect" 

pf more frcqUL'Ht occurrence-, of hot extrcme:-. in thl' last 

de~.: a de 

ln the ea'\crn US, if cmis:-.ions had not de~ lined. the 95th 

fJL'rCL'Il\iJc '>LIJ11l1ll'r\itlll' ()~ \VOu]d have iDCrt~a:-,cd by 0.2-

0.-tppbyr 1 (\\'t'l" 191SS-20J-+ (fig. lie), Jue 10 more fre~ 

qul'!lt hot .'-ummcr extrcrncs and increase..; in biogenic i:-.oprcnc cmi,-.,ions { l--2 c;(· yr- i) over thi:- period (Fig. 12). Re-

~inmd :'\JO\ rL·Juction:-. alleviated the o, buildup during the 

rcccnt !1cat waYt?'> of 2011 and 2012 rclati\l' to earlier heat 

\\<J\C'"> {c.~ .. 198~, 1995. 19()()). GFD!.-A\13 capture.-. yearto·~ l..'ar \ariabilit~ in monthly mean C):; enhancement<; a:-.~ociakd with larg ... >~e<.tle variations tn \Lmpcratur~" (Fi)!~- I X and 

]9). Hm\~'\er. there j,., a need to improve the model reprc-

'>l'ntatiun oro, ckpo:-.ititl!l ;,ink lo vegetation. in 

reduced cf11cicncy under drought ...;tro:s:-., a:-. \Vl' 

for th· ...;t?\ ere :\nrth American Jrnught of ! 9SS. Such land-· 

are roorly rqw..:-scntcd in current moth:h 

\\urk 1'\ neeJcd to cxamlnl· thL'ir impach un ()_~ 

p\ll!utillll extr,:;mc-.; in a \Vannin? clinmte. 

Fn!lowing the \10 1 SIP Call, -.urfacC' Ot in the ca:-.tern 

LS dl'L'lined throughout it~ prohabdity dlstrihutlon. \Vith the 

largL''>l UeLTea'>L'S occurring in the hight:'>l pcn:cntilc.-. during 

-.,ummer ( -0.8 to ~~ l.S ppb yr- 1 : Fig. 8). Spatially, historical 

(), d~·crl!a'IC\ during nun-: ... ummer sc<:L~on-.; wnc more pronounced in tho.? ~outhcast. \\here the -.easonal on.-.et of biof':L'tllC emi:-.:-.ions and r--.;0 1 -sensitive o, production 

occuJ-, than in the northed~t (Fig:.. 7, 9 and S4). The 

95th pe-rcentile o, wncentratil)ll in the :-.outhca:..t has ewn 

decre;b,~d durini! \\inter. De.-.pitc high mean-:-.tate bia:-.c~, 

C!!·D!.-A\'1.1. capture-. the salient feature;, of ob:-.crved o, trend.-. O\ C! the eastern US, including wintertime 1ncreas~s in 

wYr\v.atmo.•H·hcm-phys.nct/17/1/2017/ 

the .'ith and 50th percentile:.. in the nonhea~t, greater springlime dccrca:-,e~ m the southCJ'>l than the northeast. anJ ~um· 

mcnilllc dC'crea:-es throughout the 0-. concenlra\ion di:-.tribution. ThcSL' rc,.,uits suggest that 0J0 1 emis<.;ion controls will 

continw.: to provide long-term 0:, air quality bcndit.-. in thl' 

southca~tern LS during all .-.ea:-.nn~. 

8 Data av::~ilahiiity 

All data derived from ob-;ervatiom and model .-.imulation:-. 

tJ.~cd in thi:- study arc archived at )i0AA GFDl and arc available to the public upon request to ,1lvlciyun Lin. 

The Supplement related to this artklc is aYailablc online 

at doi: 10.519~/acp-17-1-2017-supp1cmcnt. 

ComJiefing inrae\1\ The author.~ dedare that they have no cnnilil't 

of lntere:-.t. 

i\cknowledqement.l'. Thi~ \\<t)rk wa-; 'urported hy funJing: fn.,m 

:--Jr\SA gram-.; :-.l"Nill3ZD,\OO!:\I-At!RAST :md Ni\'Xl~;\R--J.7U to 

fl..kiyun Lin, We tkmk 0. Cooper, S. Fan and J. Schnell for hdpful 

commenh on the manu-.,cnpL We ackno\\ledgc the free LhC oJ 

oJonc-.,onUe data ~~~ Hong Kong avui!uhlc on 

CJO~vtl~-SCIA.\1!\CHY N02 column data 

A'isistann: A,g.rt·ement nn exprc-.,cd in thi-., 

document are 'oldy tho-,c of the author-.; and do not neces-.arily 

retlect Meiyun Lin de\'otc-. thts article to her fa 

and research career 

hlitcd b) B. \L Duncan 

Rt:'Vic\vcd by· t\\n anon) moth referee-; 

References 

Abcn..corlou. J. T and Witlianh, A. P.: 

mutl.' change on \~ildfirc acrm~ \'-'C"lern /\cad. 

Sci. USA, 113. 1!770 I!T/5, dm:l0.!()'!3/pna-;.160717l!Ll, 

20!6 

Bak.:r, 1\. R .. Woody, ~vL C., Tonnc-.,en. G. S, Hutt,cll. \V., 

0. T., Dea\L~r. M. R .. Pouli\lt. Cl .. and Pkrce. T.: 

of regJonal~scc~k tire event'"> toO/One and P\'l2 5 atr qua!Jty C'>llm:tted by photocht>mical modeling: aprroache~. Atmo:-,. Em tron .. 

J.lO, 539 5.:-i..t. doi: JO.l0l6!J.atmo-.;em· 2016.06.o:n. 2016. 

Burn~~. E. A., Fiore, A .\L and llorm\ itz. L. W.: Detection ol 

trend-.; in -.urtace 0/0ne in the rre:..<'ncr: of climate \<lriahility. 

J. G<:'ophy-., lh;-,. 121.6112-6120. dnt:JO.l002/2015jU02-+JY7, 

2016. 

Bl.'lhnp. G. A. and Stedman, !J. H.: A decade of on road enm" 

:..iom tnt::a~uremenh. Ell\irnn ScL Techno!.. -l2, !6.'1!-1656. 

doi·JO.l0211e<702·.!l3h, 200R 

Atmos. Cht'm. Ph_ys., 17, 1-28,2017 
123 


25633.081

24 i\-'1. Lin l't al.: VS surfal·e ozone trends and extremes from 1980 to 2014 

Bhhop, 

Enu~~ion Trend~ in Three 

Stale.~ Fk•ct..,, Em HOn. Sci 'f<.:chnoL 

dm: l 0. I 021/dc.., cs!.5h02J92. 2015 

Specie-. 

United 

JJ].H). 

Bocr..,m~L K. F, E-.:k\''-· H. Land Bllllhma. E. 1.: Error an:!ly-.h for 

tropo ... pheric ).102 1ctrina! fmm :-.pace. J Cieophy;,. Rl'\ .. JO<). 

D0-1. ~!!. do1: 10 !021lt2tl0JJdOOW62. 20lH. 

B1odin. \L ! k!inig. D .. and Oltmans, S Sca\on<ll n;_one 

beha\ ior ttlong an ck\'ation gradn:nt in the Co!\1wdo 

hont Range :\loHntain~. ;\tmo:-.. Fm iron .. 4-+. 5~05-.'iJ 15. 

dm: !0.!0!6/j almu .... cn\'.20!0.06.0.33. 2010 

Bumn-Steincr. B. and He..,,, P.: ;\;,i:m in!lut:nn-' on surfacl' o;.onc 

m lb; l 1

mh'd Stat..:.~. A CO!ll[Xtri~on of chemistry. \l'<l.,nna!~ 

mcchant'>ll1~. J. Ge1>phy..,. Rl'\., l !6, 1)]7,;09. 

lidOJSS-H'i. 201!. 

Bnmn S:cwer. IL He\.~. P. G .. and Lin. ~-L Y.: 01! the capabiiilil'S 

;md limt!;ll!Oll~ of GCC\1 .\JnlUlatwn<- llf ..:ummert1me 1cgional 

cur quah!y: :\ dugnoqic ana!y"i" of ;);one and tl.'mperatun: '>1!11-

uiatlon'> in the US u~mg CES~vl C·\ivl-Chem, i\uno<;, Environ., 

IOL 1:<-J .. :.l-S. do1·10. !016(! atnHN:m·.20l4.! 1.00!. 2015 

Cmnrc1ucl. Ci R,. fang. Y.. Kuml<-L C .. Uno. L Strcl.'h. D., Woo, J. 

J !.. l htang. I!.. Lcler, B .. Shetter. R. Blake, D .. Atla<;, 

t 1d,. L S-td'"'-'· Brune. W. Sandholrn. S .. Kondo, Y .. Sllli!h, 

!l 'Ldbot, R .. Band). A.. Thorton. D .. Clark..:. A .. and I kikc-.., 

nf!hc 

d!UI:'-1'- t>l oh-.~T\U[Illil\ C'\pt'r!-

J C!el'[lh;. "· R'-'"·· !OK. r;S23. doi·JO. 1029!2002id00} l 17, 

200.\ 

C!:lton. 0 E hot\',:\. :'\L Correa. CJ .. llili'OW!tl, L \\' .. and Naik, 

\' '1\\ent;.-tl:'-l ,._·cntur) rn:.:r-;a! of the ~urfacc o;om· "C<honal 

l')L·\: o\ct 11\ll'tllca"teln United Statco.. Re-... ),,_•tt., 

~L /3-P d0l:!O.l002/20l-.J.gi06J37K. 

(\injlt'l, 0. f(. Parmh. D. D .. StohL A., Tnunl.Cr. \1., !'kdckc. P .. 

! hu\il\.'L \ , Ci!llllla-... J. P, Olttll.lih. S. L Johno.on. B. L Tara· 

fL Leblanc. 'L .. '\'ltDL'I mid. !. S" .latlt:, D .. Gao, R., Suth, 

I f~:er-..nn. ,\lkln. K .. Campo~. T, Weinheimer. A. and A\· 

'-'I_:. \1 .·\ !nn·..:a\lllP, mixing ratio~ in tht: fH~t' 

liUj)lhpiK!C \Her \\t'\t<:rn ~63. 3-+-J. :HH. 

d\lt: JP. !03~/n,mirc0870S. 2010. 

0 R. C!a,1, R.·S. Tarii\1Ck. D .. Ll'blane. T. and Sweeney, 

! .on~-ll'm1 o;onc tr<:nd-. at rur:1l o;one monitoring -..)tc" aero_-.-; 

the Unilt.'d Sure~. IWJO 20!0 .. L Cicopll)\. Rc-.., 117. 02230'!, 

dut: IO.J029/20!2Jl>01tl2tll, .::012 

D<.'lllli'-nlL I' Brewn. S. C .. /\mold, J. D .. and .\1m·iu. M. A: 

Lugt' !!C!Kh in the \\·esrern Unttcd State~. !0S4-201!, 

Ueopil;. .... Rn. Lett, -1-l. 292B<?933. doi: !0.!002i201..J-~J059)76, 

201-1 

Dc-:H;.'IIl'l. F. Ktnne. S. Bond, T.. Boucher. 0., CofalJ, J.. Ciencro'io. 

S .. Ci!no~J\, P .. Ch1ng. S .. 1-!oclzem;nm, J. J, ltu. A., \Jardli. L 

Pc!~n~·r. J. E .. Pu1aud. J..P .. Texto1·, C, Schul;, \1, \an dcr \VerL 

Cl. R .. ;md \\'ihon. J: Emb\iPll'> aero.;ol and precur~ 

111 tlH: year-.. 2000 and dala-..,ch f01 ;\e~ 

nl('um. Atmo~ Cllcm. Phy"·· 6, -U] I --1 1+-1, doi: !0.5 !9-f/acp-6-

-t.\21 200(1. 2006 

Atmo"'. Chem. Phys., 17, 1-28,2017 

Donat \L Ale-xander, H., Durn~. 1.. Vo.,e. R .. and 

Cac:-,ar. L Global Data-.eh for lv1onitoring CllmatJc Lxtn.'!HC'>. B. Am !V1eteorol. Soc., Y·L 997 ·100(>. 

doi: l0.1175/Bam"-D-l2-00!09 I, 2013 

Donn-:r. L. J.. \\")man, B. I., Hemler. R. S., ct <.tL The D) 

n;mJJcat Core. Phy:-.ic<ll ParanK'lcrv.atinn<:, and Ba'ic Simula 

tmn Charaderhtic~ ,1r !he Armo.~rhenc Cumponem i\~B of the 

Gl'DL GloQctl Mode! C.\Ll·. J. Climate. 2·-L 3-+8-l- ~5Jll, 

doi: !(l.Jl'!_l/20! 2011. 

Duncan, B. N .. LHlhaL L N .. Thomp,nn, A. ~1.. Yo~hida. Y .. J .u, 

Z. I . Street\, D. 0 .. llurwitt, M. \L and Pickenng. K. E.: ,\ 

llig.h-n:~oluti,m \ ic\'v of notable 

pollution around the \\Orld (200.i -2014). J. Rt'~ .. 

121 976 096. 2016 

P .. and Cinderby, S.: S,._·orcheJ Earth: how wll! change.~ in the ~trength 

of the vegetalion ~ink to ozone- affed human 

health and ceo-.) ->!em'-?. Atmo~. Chem JJ. 67 f! 0755. 

(k>i: l 0.5 I 94/acp- J 3-6 7-J.! -20 I 3. 20 l3. 

Federal Regi.,ter: US Environmental Protection Agem .. ·:;. National 

Ambient A1r Qual it_:. Standard~ for O;une Fnwl Ruk. h:dof intcrcnnun~'nta! ~o11rce· receptor rdation'>hip~ for o;:onc p\lllution. J. C/eophy". Rc~,, ll·L DO..J.JOI, doi: !0 102'.l/200(-;,iJOlO?\ 16. 

2009 

hore, A. \L Oherm.uL J. T. Lin. ~1. Y. Zhang. L. Clifton, 

0. E .. Jacob. D. J., :--.Jaik. V., 1-lorowit;:. L W .. and Pinto. J 

P .. htimatlng :"-!OJth ,-\rill'ncan O/one in U.S. ~urface air \\ith t\\0 indepemlent mmkk \'anabdity, un;.:ertclintic<;. and re.._·ommcndation\ ;\tmn..,, Em·imn .. 9(1. 2~4 300. 

doi: 10.101 (l(j.dtlllO"Cll\'.20!J.07 O..J-5. 201-J. 

Fiore, A. 1\l, :.Jaik, V .. and Lcibcli'Jlergcr. E. M. Air Qu:tlll) 

anU Climate Con!lt'l'tion-,, J. Air Wa~te ~d;mage .. 6.5, (1-J.).-6!\5. 

doi: l O.lOkO/ l 0962247.2015. l ().-+0526, 20 J 5 

(Juo, Y., Fu, J. S., Dra\...c. J. B .. Lamarqur:. J.-F.. and Liu. 1'.: The 

imract of emi\~!On and dimak change on o;.one in :he l.hllted 

State-.. under r.:pn::-.cntathe con:.:cnlration pathway-. (RCP<:), Atmoo.. Chcm. Phy~ .. 1.~. 9607~9621. dm:l0.)19..J.hKp-lJ-Y(l07-

20!.1, 20!3. 

Gilman. J. 13., Lerner, B. \L Ku..:ter. \V. ('. und de Ciouw. J. A 

Source from Oi! und 

bl\'iron. Sci 

doi:! 0. l 02! !c<~0-1- ll Ya, 20 1.1. 

Granier, C.. !k<.:'><lgncl, B, Bond. T., D'Angi11la. A .. van dn Cnn, 

H. D .. h·ost, G. J., lleiL :\ .. Kai-,cr. J. \V., Kmne, S. K!irnont. 

Z .. K!mter, S .. Lamarque. J.-F.. LIOlh~e. C .. \1<hui, :-.felt'llx, 

I .. \lin ilk.;\., Ohara. Raut. J.-C .. R1ahi. K., Schult;, \1 

G .. Smith, S. L Thonlp:olHl. A., van :\mdcnnl'. L \an dcr W-:lf, 

G. R .. , and van Vuur<:'n, D. P.: E\'olurion of anthrnpogemc and 

bloma."'> humin~ cm1~'-JO!l\ of ~m pollutant<.: ut global ;md 

gional '.calc\ during the !980-2010 pcnod. Cl11nanc C!nngc. 

100, 16l--190. doi:l0.!007i,IIJ504~01 l-OJ.).~ 1. 20!1. 

Clrall. L. 1::: .. Jaffe. D. A., and l lee,], R CiU\L'" of incre<l~in!; o;onc 

und dccrca<;ing carbon nwnnxidc ln '>j1l'in~nitn<.:: ut th..:: \1t. I"Ltdw 

lor Ob..,~·tT~HOI') from 2004 to 20!3. Atmo ... !·:miron .. llN .. ~::l 

:UO. dot: I (l_J 0 l (l/j.:ttmo..;eu\'.20 l·i.O:'Ul76. :0 l-.1-

W\Yw.atmos~chcm·phys.nrt/17/l/20 17/ 
124 


25633.082

.\I. Lin ct al.: CS surface ozone trends and extremes from 1980 to 201-t 25 

(;uentlter. J\ .. KarL T. Harky. P., \\'iedinmyer, C., I\llmcr_ P. 1.. 

and Gnon, C F~ttmate\ of global tL:rrc~tnal r-;oprene cmt..,...,ion.., 

u"m;,: \'1[~(1.-\:\ ( \Iudd of Enu-,..,iom ofC;a...,c-. and Acro.~uls hom 

~antr<:L Atmll~. Cllun. Phy\., 1\ 3181 -3210. doi.JO 519-l-/ilcp 6 

J 1 H l-2006. 2006 

lhillldc~;. !I. S .. Thomp..,on, A. \t, Whthakr. A .. BlLih.c, D. R., 

Jlornhrook, R. S .. \llkoviny. :"v1ul!ct, M .. Eichkr. P .. 

L C and l!Jll..,, A J.. i\tmo-;phcric hcn;cnc olN.'r\.ltion" 

ul! and ,Qd\ pwJuctiou 1!1 tile Dem·c!-Ju!c..,burg Haqn in July 

,lJld Alli'-ll"l 20!-l-, J. (ieophy'i. Hc~.-.\tlllo\., 12 L ! 10.'-15 ! 1074, 

dm:l010tl2/20!(J]d025327. 2tll6. 

ILUTI\. !.. J()nc~. P. D' Chborn, T J., and u~tcr. D. fl.. Updared hiE!h rc..,olutmn gnLh of 

the CRl' I'S_UO D,lttl~C't, !nt 

dPl: ]() !002/JiK 3,7! L 201-L 

l!dbo!L A Ri..:htcr. A .. anJ l3tl!TO\\'-', J P.: Long u:rm l'hangc~ 

(li tmpo..,ph::ric \:0:; P\er megacl!Jc.., dcri\::d !rom mu!ttp!c 

,,nvlllt<: tn..,t:umcnh, Atmo.., Chcm. Ph!~-- l\ -+l-t":i-4169. 

dn:·JO :--1 9-t/~t..:p- !3--l-l--1-."i -201:.. 201 J 

I h'rl\ln. D Joiu!,on, N. C __ Singh. D., S\\am, D. L. 

B ,md Ddt..::1h~tugh. )I_ S.: Colltrihutt(m of change:-. 

~!'lh'I'h' ~.-·lln:l,!tJOil putrern:. to C\tremc tcmper;ll:m:~ tremh, NatuJ L'. 522_ -l-6:' ...:(10, dui: I 0.1 03N/ncttun.: J -.+550. 20 l) 

llu,m,:_. L. \lL'Dnnald-B,tl!er. E. C.. McGaughey. G .. Kimura, Y .. 

and Alkn. D T · l"he nnpaCl of drought on o;one dry deJlll~illlll1 O\er ~·.J..,t::rn Tna~. Atmm. Emiron., 127, 176-l.S6. 

dm·l O.IO!(J-'j atmo"env.2015.!2.022, 2016 

I h.1,mg. \1., Cm~1:dmel. G R .. Chai. T, Ptctn'. R. B., Oltman~. S. 

1 .. bttc_ D .. \ U()\\man. K. W., Kaduwcla, .\., Cai, C .. Sp<tk. 

.'l '\ \\'ctnh~·tmer. ALI [u~.-'), L G, and Di~km, G. S.: Impacts 

nt tr:uhpon::d b;1ckground pollutant\ on ~ttrnmer11n1e we:-telll US 

qual!>:· mudd n aluauon. \l'tl..,ltlvtry analy-.i~ and data u~~llll 

::ati11:1. ,-\tn:P~. Cht'llL Phy\ .. !3, 359-YJJ. dl1i:l0.5!(),4/acp-lJami \\'tnneL D .-\.: Fff~·ct 

ch.u1~c PII <tlr qualii). Atmo\. Em iton., 

dtl:. lO.lfll()l:.atmo..,cnv.200S lN.02l l. 200ll. 

ot dimatt· 

u. 5! 63, 

enll..,...,lOn~ on ..,urfa..:e o;one in the l 'nit<:d States. Re~. 

I ,,·tr 2(1. 21'5-217'i'.. do1: 10.102')1! LJ()l)g!000-l50, 

/;Ilk, D. RcLJlJO!hhip between Surface and Fret' Tropo~rh.:ric 

l)r\nlL' 111 the \\'..::\h:m tr S. Emimn. Sci. TedmoL 4.:i, -l-J2··13S. 

du!:l!l.!02!/c~l02?llOL !. 

JJlie. [) <~rld Kd). J lncre,t..,e in 'UI!dct' tJ/tJ!le at rural 

\Itt.'~ m the \\e..,tern L1S, Atmo-.. Envnon .. 41. :'i·l';2-5·+fJ3, 

dm.IO !Oi(l!J <Ht:m:-.~·m·.2007.02 ()J .. J, 2007. 

!,\!:,·. ll .. Chand, IL Hc~fncJ. \\'., Wnterl111g, A. and SprCJch:kn, 

D.· !nllllt.'llt.\' oi" 1:n:..,· \lll o.tone concentration.~ 111 tlw weql'rnl}$, 

Lm 1wn. s~·L J~·chnol.. ·-f2. _"igS.'i 5~91. do1: 10.102lfe~.SOOOS4k. 

2UO~ 

.!,ilk. D., \\'l_gdcr, ~-, Dm\ney, :'\l., Pli-.ter, G., Bnynard, A .. and 

Re1d. S. IL Impact of Wildfire~ on Ot:onc E\ctplionul E\ enr-; 

111 the \\.,>!L'rn US. Emirot1. Sci Techno!., t?, !10(1) 1!072. 

d01·lO 102!/e~-+0216-t!, 20!3 

J:a, !. \\ G. A .. Y:mg. X. S., CiuUg::L R. G .. Dch\ortb. T. 

I.., Stl'l'lL \V. F., f\tl'fcndorl. K .. l 1ndcrwond. S. D .. and /.eng, F 

1\ .. The Roll'-. of Radiative Fo!<.:1ng:. Scu Surf~lt't' TL'mpcraturc~. 

and :-\l!lHhphet-ic and Land Initial Cond!tJOn.., Ill US Summer 

"'" w.atmos~chcm~phys.nct/17/1/2017/ 

\Vannin,£! Epi..,oLh::~. J. Climate. 29,--1- J 21 --11 ~5. d01: 10 l J 75/kh· 

D-15-0·PLI, .20!6. 

Juhn, J. G., Fiorl', A. ~l. )laik, V, litlJO\\ itt:. L \\' .. anJ Dunne, J 

P.: Climate \'ChU.~ cmi:.:-.ion driver~ of methane lifctJmc agcun~t 

lo~-~ by tropo-.rhcnc 01! from !S60 -2100, Atmo~. Chern Phy.., 

!2, !202 I -120J6, dnt: 10.5104/acp-12-!2021 -20 I 1. 2012 

KPumouhan ..... S. and Bey. L: Can a global model repmduce oh-

~cn·cd tremh in :-.ummertime -.urtacc o;one kvc!..,?. ,\tmo\ 

lhcm. Phy ..... , ! 2, 6lJS3 699S, dm: !0.51 0-1/acp- J 2· 69S~- 2012. 

2012. 

KrotkO\', N . .\., i\1cLmdcn. C A., LL C .. Lum:-.aL L ::-\ .. Cclan<:L 

E. A., ~'lar..:hcnko, S. V, S\\'Urll .. \\' ! L, BlK'-'e!<L E. L Joiner, 

J., Duncan. B. ~-, Bncr.~nHl. K. F., \'cdkmd. J.P .. LL"\c!L P. F 

Fiokto\, V. E .. Dickcr..,on. R. R .. !le, JL Lu, Z .. and Stree~:-.. 

D. (J.: Aura 0.\'ll ob'>cnatrun' of regional SO~ :.md N01 pollution change~ fl(\lTl 2005 tn 2015, Atml)~. llletn. Ph)S., \6, ·1605--

4-629. dni:JO 519-.J./acp-l6-4605-20l(l. 2016. 

Lanwrque. J.-F .. Bond. T C. Eyring. V., (i!amcr. C .. lkd. A .. 

Ki1mont. Z.. Lee. D., Liuu~''-'· C \ll!enlk. A .. 0\\l:ll, B .. 

S..:hultz . .\i. G .. ShmdclL D .. Smrth, S. L Stehft~..,L E .. Van AarJennc . .!., Cuoper. 0. R .. Kuinu1mL .\L \lahm\a!d, ~, i\kConnclL J. R., :--.;aik. V., Riahi, K .. and Yan Vuurcn, D.P.: 1-b 

torical t 1850 .2000} gndJed anthroro!!CJIIL' and bionw~-.. burnintc 

cmt:-,:-iom of rcactrw gase.~ and aero~oh. methodolo~)' ilnd ;lrAlmm. Chem, Phy:>., 10.7017 7039, dui: J~l.SJIJ.+/a,:p2010 

LmHuqul', L F., Kyk, G. P .. .\1cimhmt\en. :v1.. Riahi. K. Smnh. 

S. L \".ll1 Vuun:n. D. P., Conlt:y, A. L and Vllt. J··: (i!obal 

and regional n olu!inn of :-.hort-!twJ 

acro~o!.., Ill thc- Rcpre~entative ConcL"ntratJon Cllllmtic 

Change JOY, 19! doi·J0.1007/...,!058--l- OJ! -0155 0, 2012 

Langford, A. 0 .. A1kin. K. C., Eubank. C S .. and \\'illiam..,, E 

J.. Strato~phenc ..:ontnbution to h1gh -.ur!~tcc o;_onc in Co!-

orado dunng ~pringttmc. G::ophJ"· Rc ..... l.etL. :16. Ll2k01, 

th)i: 10.102LJ/20{Ng!O::l.S3(l7. 2009 

Langfon.L t\. 0., Senff. C. J., Alvarez ll. R. J., B,u1ta. R. :\L a~1d 

llaale~ty. R. \1.: l.nng-range tran'-'pt.lrf of o;:one t"io::1 the Lu' 

Ba~irr /\ ~-~N: qudy, Geoph:~- Re~. Ll'tt.. J7. Ul6S(l7, 

20i0. 

Langfmd. /\. 0 .. SL"nfL (',AI\ are;. II, R .. Bnoudc. J, C\•opcr. 0, 

Holloway. L Lm. :\1., 7vlarchbanh, R .. P1c1LC, R.. S 

Weickm:.lllll, A. and Willi arm. F .\n tl\ervtew ot' the 20! La~ 

Omnl" Stud: (L\'OS): lmp<~cl or ~lralu-.phenc lntrU~IOJl'-, 

Jon~ -rc~ngc tran~porr on ~urface air quality, Atnw~. Em irun .. 

lOLJ. J05 O..J-0. 201--1-

ConpeL 0. R-. FH• ..,t. U. J., Kim. 

C.~t-L Park R. L Tn11ner. M .. and WoD, J.-11.: Tra11"-po11ot '\0 1 

in bht A~ia 1cknttlic-d by ~utdl!tc Jnd 111 '-,l\U mc<NIJ"t•menh ;md 

IAgrangran pm1k!e di<;perw1n model ~inml;Jtton..,, J. Cicophy' 

Rc~.-~\tmo'> .. 119. 257..J- -2596. Joi.dm:!O l002/:?0l:1Jl)02: J?i5. 

2{)]..JLerhen~perger, E. \.-1., ~1tcklcy, I. J., and Jawh, D. J St'nqtl\ !t) 

of US air to tnid-latrtude C) .:I on~ frcljUCllC) ;md !!11pilcatlon~ of climate' change. Atmo~. Chcm Ph)" ~-

7075 70S6, dot: I 0.51 9-.+/acp-i.:-7075-200~. 200S 

l.t. G .. Be1, :-.1_, CaP, L Wu, L Long, X .. F~ng. T, DaL \\' .. 

l.nL S .. Zhang. Q, anJ T1e. X. and Pc1"i~'lcnt 

O:tone Pollution in Lt\tern China, AinHh. 

dol: l0.519Vacp·2016-8(d_ in n:YiC\\. 20! 6 

Atmos. Chem. !'h)'s., 17, 1-28,2017 
125 


25633.083

26 \\I. Un ct al.: lJS surface ozone trends and extremes from 19SO to 2014 

!.in. \1 !hll!(m,ty, T. Oki, T. Strech. D. G. utd RichtcL A.: :V1ultl 

~c,tk mode! an;J.ly;,1;, ofboumhuy !ayc1 orom· O\Cr Lt\l A'>ia_ Attnm Chcm. Phy~, 9_ J277 -.'~301, dnc 10.519-1-/acp-9-\277-1009, 

2009 

Lll\, \L Hollov.-ay, T. CannichacL G. R., anr.i Ftorc, A ~L QmmIIf)lllf: poUuunn wlkm and outtlm\ mer El\1 A~ia w 

\\ 1th reg10nal ~md g!oha! modcb. Atnw~. Chcm. Phy\., 

4:2.\lJ_ dol: !U )J<J+facp-10-4221-2010. 2010 

Lm. \1. Fm1e. -\ \1.. Cooper. O.lL l!onmtU, L. \V., LangJonL A 

0. LC\).Il. John:-.on, B L :-Juik. V., Oltmnm. S. Land Scni'L 

C J.: Sp!!ngtmll' hi&h surface cvone ~:·wnh O\'e! the \H:-.,tcrn 

ll:1:tcd Stdk\. (,)uantirying tht' rok of 

J. Cicoph)' Rc~ .. ! :7. 000\'22, 

20!2,\ 

l.1n. \1., F1orc, :\. \1., l!orO\\"ltl.. L \\'.Couper. 0. R .. 1\iaik. V.. 

1 !ollll\\.J). J. JoiHNiiL B. J., :Vhddkbrook, A. 

L PnllacL! B., Ryel'>\ln. T. B., Warner. J. X .. 

inw .... uri'.Jce air (J\TI" the \\e-,tern l3nited State' in 

ph)'>- R, • ..,. 117. ])00\'07. dm.IO 1029/:201 

l.1n. 1\I .. llt,nmitt, ! .. W .. Oltman:-.. S. J .. Fiore. /\.. M .. cmd 

Lln. S .. Tropu ... ph~ric o;one trend' at l'dauna Lou Ob~en·atory 

ltcd to dcl.tdcd clnnatc vanabill!). Nat. (Jco'>Cl., 7. 136--!·1.1, 

d\n ! 0.1 (l '-i-lin~eo2066. 2tl! ..f 

\L ho1\~, \. ,\1., Hnnmitt. L \\ .. Lanl!tord. r\. 0 .. 0\tm;m .... S. 

L Lll"d'>K~. D. <~nd Riedt.'r. li E.: CimlJte \'miubillty modulah.'\ 

\\t.''>t<:rn L S. o;one an quahty Ill '>[lflng \'1<\ deep "tnlt\hph~.:nc 

i:llllhl\\:1..,_ '.:~1l. Com1ntl!L. 6. 7105, doi:lO.!O:ik/nnllllm\8!05, 

,2()]"id 

l i:l, \L ! !onl\\ :u. L \\", Cooper, 0. R .. Tcua..,ick. D .. Conky, 

S .. llaL·I. L T .lt\hl~'>on, B .. Leblanc, T. P<:tropavi(WSk!l-.h. 

l and l'atL"'-. !-:. [ Re\ l'>itlng the cvidenct< of inctc<hing 

'P :ngt1:n-: utouc ml\Jn_g rauo-., 111 the free trupu-;phen: 0\cr 

\\nkrn >Juith ,\ml'Jica, Rl'\. Ldt. -12, 137 !9 872S, 

dni,;fll!l02/:20l:-i(iL06'i3i1, 

L1n. Y !\. .. Lm. L-l! .. omd Chang S. C Th~ change-., in drtlcren! 

11/mK nw\J :l·\ •u~'-l th,·tr lmplil'cttl\lll'> fol!o\\ in,!! rcduct;cm' ll\l'! nonll..:-rn 'latwan from !09-l- to 2007. Mo111t. 

\"t:''- 16lJ.l-Ll l.'i--:',thn:IO.l007/~10661-0t)l) lL'iS--+,2010 

Lw. I·. Zl:ang. Q .. Ron,lld. J. V, Zheng, lL D .. Yan, L., 

/!wn~. Y. X, <!!ld lk, K. B .. Recent reduction ~0. 1 cmh~ 

'>inm O\CJ Cln1W :-.ynthc,i'i of \<lldli!e ob..,enauon.., and emi..,~Jon 

:menton'-'\. Lm1ron. Rc-.,. !.dt., 11. t 14002, dol:lO.lOKS/!7·1-t<.~ 

lil j(j !-1002, 2016. 

l It:. l! Y .Limh. D. L Chan, 1.. Y. Oltman'-. S. L Bey, !., Yan 

R. \1 !brrh . .!. l\.L Duncan. B. N .. and .\lcullll, R. V.: 

Sllwce' u! llPpn..,phenc otonc along. the ,\,ian Pal'lllc Rm1: 

. \n ;m;d~ -,1., pf oton<...''>Oildc ob-,er \\Hitm~. J. Gl'\ljlh)'· R<...·~ .. 107. 

.l:'i?J. dn1 lO IO~LJ!200ljd002005, 2002 

l.oughnn, C P _ DuncuL B :--.1., and f!airh, J.: The hCill'lit of hi.-.,-

tolt,·c~l cttr pnllutrnn cmi..,-.,1on~ Jcduc·tion .... dunn~ C\lil"mc heat, 

!:mmm. \Lutc1gc .. 9, 34 JK 2014 

.\tt. /..Xu. J. fJuan. \\'.,Zhang. Z .. l in. \\i., and Xu, X.: Stgni!il'Unt 

ol '>lii'Ltl'e o;_onc at a rUJal ~Jk, north of eu~rern Chma, 

\ttll<"l'-. ('ilL'I1' f'h> ~ .. 16, 1')6<.) _NT?. ckw l05194/acp-16-3969~ 

20l(l . .20:(1 

\kDun;tld, B. C D<lllimum. T. R .. .\'lartin. E W. and I !ark), R 

\ Long-ll'Illl tll:nd~ 111 nitrogen o"idc cmi ... ..,ion ... frum motnl 

Atmos. Chem. Ph)S., 17, 1-28,2017 

Ydncle~ at nallnnal, ~tat~:. and uit ba~in :-.calc~, L Geophy'-. Re'. 

! 17. DOOV l S, doL 10. !02ZJ/2012jJOJ SJO-t 2012. 

!\kDuffic. E. . !::dwards. P. :-.L Gilman. J. B .. l.crner. 8. M. 

Dubl'. W P .. Ttc~iner. \l, \Volfe. D. E., AngcmK'. W. \1. de· 

(Juu\\, L \Vll!iam~, E. L Tevlin. A. G., ~vlurphy, J. G .. Ft~­

ch:.:r. E. \' \kKeen, S., Rycr~on, T B .. P.-t:-.chL J.. Hn!ltma), 

.1. S .. Ail-.in, K .. Lant'Jord. 1\. 0., Sentf. C. J, Alvarer. R. L 

lla!L S. R., U~lmann. K .. I ~antz, K. 0 .. and H!"ll\\ n. S. S .. Influence of o!l and ga-; cmi~~iOJh on .... utwm:mm .. ~ Oi'onc in th~ 

C\1lorudo ~ollh;,;rn Front J Gcophy'. Rc-.,.-AtnlO'> .. 

.'\7!:2 :r;::SI. :::uJ(l 

\lollL, P. S., .-\rch1bald, ,\_ T, Colette. A .. Cooper, 0., (\i) le, r'-1.. 

Dcn\cnt. R .. hl\\kl. 0 C.Jrani,~r. C .. L1w. K. S .. 1\11!!~, G. E .. 

StC\'CI1Vll1. D. S .. Tar<hO\a, 0._ Thourct. V., \Oil SclHli::!dt'nte:,-.,eJ, 

E.. Sommari\a, R., \\'i!d, 0 .. ami WillJWll'i. ivl. L. Troro~phcric 

Oi'OtK and ih prL'(Ur~or:-. ftom the urh,m to the global ~cale from 

air quulit) to .... hort-livcd dJtnate fOll'Cl, 1\t:no'>. Chem Ph)'<, !:\ 

8~S9- 89'-'3. do~: !0.5 !94/aql- 15-8~80-2015. 2015 

!\loq;.cn'>tcrn. 0 .. 

Abraham, 01. L.. 

\1. 1.. Ro/allO\', E .. O'Connor, F \L 

H, An:h1bakL i\ T, HeJ.J,:J. S., 

Butchart. N., Chipp,~rtlc!(L \1. P, Dcu'hl. \L Dho1m.-. S S .. 

Garc1a. R. R .. llardiman. S. C., Horo\\ltt, 1.. W .. J(lcl-.eL P .. 

Jo~~e. B .. Kimmon, D .. Lm, .\L .\Lm'-·im, 1-: .. \·1anym. 0.1. E. 

0.1arch.md. \1.. MarCcaL V, .\lichou . .\L Oman, 1.. D .. Pitan. 

G .. Pluml1\cr, D. A .. Revell. L. E .. Samt-\·larttn. D .. Schofield. 

R .. Steukc. ,\ .. Stone, K. Sudn. K , Tana"a. Y., !'lime-.. 

S .. Yama'ihlt;t. Y .. Yo.-.,hida. K., and /.eng. G.: Renew ot the 

globdl 111tllkl' thcd wJthlll 1 of the Chenmtry~Cllmate 

~lodel !mllalt\c (CC:vll). \lmkl DeY .. 10, ()_H) ()'/!. 

dUI 10.5194/t:md-J0-610-20)7, 2()!7 

:\atk. V .. llnnm lt/, L. W., Finre. t\. :-.L Gill(lU\. P.. 1\bo . .!. Q .. 

A \·1 'cmd Ll'\')', I-1.: lmp<tct of prcindthtrialto rll''>Ctl[-

chanf',C'> in ~hort-li\ed pollutant rrm~..,1nn ... (.)11 atmo~piK!l~· 

cnmposition and climate forcmg, J. (Jeoplty ..... Re ..... J !II. kOS(J 

HI !0, doi·J() 1002/jgl"Ll.50(108. 20lJ 

Parmh. D. D .. Lamarque. J.-F, ~<Hk V., Horowiu .. L., ShindelL 

D T., Staehclin, J. Det\H"nt. R., Cooper. 0. R .. -~~llllmoto. lL 

Volz-Thom~h. ,\., Gil&c. S .. Scheel. l L-E.. Stcmha..:her. M, cmd 

Frl1h!il'h. \'1.: I .Dng-term change-., in lm\er tropmpheric ba-,cltne O!one UlllCl'lltration~: Companng l'hl'llll'>try-climate model~ 

and ob--.cr\'atlnn~ at northern nmllatitudc->. J. Geophy..;. Re-., .. 110, 

5"/ 19 57.VJ. doi: I O.l002/2013JD02l-F5. 201-l-. 

P!bter. c;, U .. Walter-;, S., Emmon~. L. K .. Fdwanh, D. P., and 

i\\ r~c. L ljudnlli)'Illg the con!J lbUtlull uf tllll\l\\ ll!l ~l!! falT \l/OllC 

OYer Cal1!'ornia dunng ... ummcr ~001( J. Gcophy ..... R~.·~ .. ! !K. 

12282--12299, doi: lO.! 002/20 J Jjd0203.16. 20 JJ, 

Pii~ter, G. Ci .. Walter:-.. S.. .1. F. Fa-,t. L Barth, \1. C. 

Won!-!, J.. Dtme. J. I !oll<lnd, C. L.: Pn()Cdton~ 

! . Cictophy~. Re.., __ 1!9 

5559-55::l2, dni .l 0.1002/20) 3jd020LJ32, 20! -lp(,rte1, \\". C Heald. C L. 

extreme~ to nwteorolnglcal d1i\<:r\ via quantile regr~'\'>!Oll. AtnHA Chcm. Phy~ .. 15 . 

103-l-0 lO:ih6. doi: l0.51Y4/acp-l5-l03-l9-20 i 5. :201) 

Pu,cde. S. E, Stel!\1:1. A. L., and Cohen, R. C Tcmpcm;ure and 

Rel't.'nt Tll.~nd-., m the Chemhtry of Contm.:nta! Sultan~ 01mlt'. 

Chem. Rl.'v .. I !5, 31\9S-3Y!X. doi·!UI0.21!cr50(J6Sl5. 20!5 

R:hnlu.w;~n. D. J.. Fiore, A l'v1. :-.;ail-., V. J!Of(l\\it;:. L. W., Mc(Jinlll~. S. L and Schultz, r--.1. G.: Surfa.:e ti!011l'-kmp.-rature rel<lwww.atmos-chem-phys.net/1711120171 
126 


25633.084

:\1. Lin et al.: L'S surface ozone trends and extremes from 1980 to 2014 27 

t;nn,hip-: :11 the ea\letn {TS: A monthly chmato!ogy for e\alu~ 

;:ttn:; chcmi~try-climate model,. Atmo..,, Ern1ron, -~7. !-l-2 !53, 

!. ! 1.021, 20!2. 

\l (long. S .. ! !c~~. P.. Jon«on, J. E. 

\l<~nnet·, L .. Park R .. Schult£. \1. G., Shmddl. 

CuCJ., (Jau~.~. 

Lupu. A .. 

. Smp.t. S., 

\'1\'<lllCO. \1. CJ .. Wdd. 0 .. :.md Zulwr. A.: The mtlucnc~· of foreign 

\'-. :--lotth .\nil'l'tccm eml-:..,lon~ on «urface o1one 111 the llS. Atmm. ( l:em. Ph; ..,, 'J . .'1027--50-+~. d01 lO 519-l-/ucp-9-5()27-2009, 

:20()1) 

Rt<.'dct·. 11. L. l"iore. A. .\·1. l!OJO\\ it;, L W .. and Nai'k. \'.: PmJectpulic: -Je:e\'~1111 mell ic.., for h1gh -:ummertime tl/tlnC pollutinn 

C\t.'nt~ 0\Cr the ea<;tern Lmted State~ due to climate and emi..,'>inn 

dl:n;g~·.., d\lt 111~ thl' 2J . ..,t centur). J. Cicophy.., Rc"-.. 120. 7H-l- -800. 

du: 10. i002/20l·(Jd022303.20!5 

Ru-.-.L·lL ;\ R \"<Jilll. L C and CohetL R_ C Trend' in 0!\11 NO:! 

uh..,erYa!ton~ U\t::r the l 1nlted State~: cfft::ct\ uf cmi\c-,ton control 

k,:~molo~y dlld the eCllnomic rL'l'l'~\1011. Atmo-:. Chcm. Phy~ .. 12. 

i21Y7 l2209.dpj·JO 2012. 

S\.'lmcll. J. L, Pta:llcr. :-,.'1_ L !!orowttr., L. 

\\' .. '/en~. (i .. Shindcll. D T., and hdll\cgi, G .. Effect of 

diilUll' Lhdn~c on ..,urfacc o1onc (ncr North Anwnca. EuIUJIL'. cmd Ed';t A"la. (icophy~. RL-,.. Lett.. ..f.l, 350()--~518, 

d1lL IU.IOU2i:'lli6C!.OGSllbO, 20!6 

Sdn:lu. \1 U l-Id. :\ .. !loel;em•am, J. L Spe~<.:a. A., Thont .. :l..e. K .. (ioldalllmer. J G .. llcld, A, C.. P..::rcir'L J . .\t C .. 

\all net Buhcbt·r. \-1.: Globed wildland lire em1~~~ml" 

frum 1 %() tn 2000. G!nhal BH1gcnchem Cy .. 22. (_Jb2002, 

I (J l (J::l)!.:'\l07§!btlOJOJl, .?OOS 

SL·i:\\IL't!kL', ,~ .. Shcn\ond. 0. A. Ruhwikr. L ~vi. P. IL :-.1i!kr, J. 

JL L:tnJh:. (] Dlut:okencky, E. J., Midtel. S. F. ,\rling, V /\ .. 

\<~et12hn. B I!.. Wh!tc, ], \\'. C. and T;m..,, P. P.: Up\\·ard rcYt-

~lll11 nt ,;IPb,d f\h"il ful'! Jndlwnc t'Hlt;.,sion~ ha.,cd on J~otopc 

d,H~Ih,l\e_ .\:arurt'. 5.iX. ::)H 9!, doJ:I0.](J)S/nature!Sl797, 201(1. 

R. and llocrling .. 'vl Atmo~phele and Oc.:,m Ongi11\ 

\ll \:urtli :\nwticc~n Dwughh, .l. Clmwr~, 27, .fJSJ 4606. 

du1.lO 11"75/kll-D U-Otn29.!. 201-~ 

Sh~·n, L, .\lid,Jc~'· L L and GJ!/dand. E.: lmpiitt of increa'>tn!! 

ilea! \\.J\ l'~ on l :s ozone cpl~oclc~ in tlw 205(h: Rc~ulh fHHn a 

Res. 

tu:c nll'c:1lt·~- ~:~ture_ 522_ ..J.22---l-:?A, 2015 

Smwn. !L Ret!. .\, \\c!b, B .. Xtng. J .. and hank. N.: Own..:: 

!Jcnd.., .\C\h~ :lw U:11tcd St<ttc\ o\cr a Penod of Decrca~ing 

:\l ) 1 c:nd \ ()C Fmi..,"ltlll'>. f·.nv1ro!1. Sci. Tcdmol .. ..J.Y, 11:16- 19:'1. 

dn1:!0 IO.?J/,·-.50-L'il--i-1 . .?01.5 

SPihtli,'.. S. I 1\1\. 0 .. SoVLk. A .. l~ah.\t:ll. I S. A .. Codd~.;villc. P., 

Dt' !Ltl'~t·:. 1!. hw-,tel. C Or~ulmi. Y., and l'h'-e. K.: Euror~dn 

"ur:',tce o;onc 1n the extJelllC "unmlt·r 200.1. J. G~:oph)~- Rl''> .. 

ll.\. D0?30'7. doJ·l0.1029i2007jd00901JS. 200B 

Stwdc. S. :\ .. RPdngucz, J. \1.. Logan. J. ,\ __ Cooper. 0 R" \\-'itte. J. 

C. I ,wm~d. L :\. Damon . .\I.. V,m Aarh,::1, B .. Stc.:nrod, S. D" 

cu:d Suodnn. S. E l'remh and '<ll'lt~h!lny 111 ~urfan:: o;onc over 

R.:-:.-i\tm\K, 120, 0020-tJ0..!-2, 

2015 

Sun, L (lao, L Din,l!, A .. Cooper, 0. R., Lin. 

,\l , Xu. P. \\'ang. Z., \Vang_ X .. Wen. .. Zhu, Y. Ch<::'n. T.. 

\~ ww.atmos~chcmwphys.neU 17/l/201 7/ 

Yang. L. \\'ung. Y., Clll'll. L and \Vcm,~. W S1gnifkant incn::a~e of \Uillmerti!lle ozone at :\1ount Tai in Centra! Ll\tl'l'n 

Chma. AmlO\. Chem. Plly.~ .. 16, 10637-10650, doi: 10 51 9-l-/acpl(l-lOCJ:ri<20!(J. 2016. 

Tanmwtt1, H., Zbinden, R. :-..1., Thourct, V. and :--Jede!cc. P.: Con 

~i~tcnvy of tropo~phcric omne ob..,ctYatiom 1l1<l(k by dit'ft:rent 

platfornh and in the global d<~taba~t\, T...:llu" H. 67. 

2707J, 2016. 

Thnmp;.,on. :-\. \l. Wl\t.:. J. ('. Smit. l! G . .!., Oltmam, S. L John-

..,on. B. I., Kuchhoff. V \\'. J. H., and Schmid 1m. F. J.: Southern 

:\dd1tJOnal Omne~ondc~ (SlL\DO/.) )\)9K :200-lo;ont' t·lirnatnlogy: .1. ln\trumentutlon, ~ta\!On-tn-stmion 

and C\U!U<.ltiun \\ill! ~imu!a!cd lhght j_ Gcophy~ Rc" , I 1 2. D01.104. 

T!aVJ~. K R .. Jacob, D. J,, l·l..,lwt. J. A .. Kllll. P. S .. ,\larat~. E. A. 

/.hu, L. Yu, K. ivlt!lcr, C C., YantlbC<L R. \I.. Sulprili\l, i\1 

P .. Tholl1!hOn. ,\, :vt., Wcnnbt..'rg, P 0., lrmJn\C. J. D., St. CLur. 

J. ~1. Collen. R C., Laughner, .L L, Dihb. J. b., Ha!L S. R .. 

L11!mann, K .. Wolfe, G. ~L Pn!lack. I. IL f\·i..,chL J., ~cuman, J 

A .. and Zhnu. x_: \\'hy do moJeh m·ert"-ilimate \Ul r,!Cl' \)/()1)<;' l1l 

the Southea~t t:nitcd St,lte~'?. Atmo~. ('hem. Pby~ .. !6. U.'"l61 

1 Yi77, dot: 10 51Y-l-/acp-l6- 13561-::'.0!6, 2016 

Yan dtr \\'erf. CT. R., R;mJer-;on. J. T., G!ghn. L .. Co!!utz. G. J., \1u, 

M .. Ka\ihhatla, P. .S .. :\-lorton, D. C.. DeFne\, R. S., Jrn, Y., and 

\"<111 Leeuwen. T. T: Global fire emi..,-,lon-; and the contnhution oJ 

dcfore~tatlon. ~av;mna, fore«t, agnculrural. and peal lire" ( 19')7 

2009), Atmo"-. Chcm. Phy~ .. 10.11707--l l7J5. Joi:l0.5J<;q/,H-'P-

!(J.JI707-20l0. 2010. 

VanCuren, R. and Gu~tiJL \1. S.: Identification (lr ..,(1urce~ contributing to P\cl:.;; and o;one at elc\ated ~ite~ in rhe \\l'.qt.'rn l!S b) 

receptor ww!)~i~: La..,~cn Volcamc :.Jatiomd Park, Ca!lfomia. aml 

G1cat Ba..,in :--/atwna! Par\... Ne\'ada. Sn. Totdl Emiwn_. .'iJO, 

505-SIS. dot: 10.10!(J/j.~Cllotctw.201 ).03.091. :2015. 

Vtr"-fnteten. \\'. \\'., Ncu. J L., \V!lli,Jm~. J. l· .. Bov.-nwn, K. W., 

Worden, J. R .. ,md Boer'.Jll.\, K. F.: Rapid mcn::'a~c~ in tropo 

.\pheric 01onc production and cxpun fwm China, .\iat. Geu..,ci .. 

K. 690 G95, dm: !O.HHS/:--Igeo2-l-'n. 2015 

\\'ang. T. D11112. A J, Ciao. l., and Wu. W S.: Strong ('IOIW prodw,> 

!inn in wban China, GcophJ'· Re\, Lett.. 

:n. L2!t-i06. 2uo(> 

!'..Wet. X. L, D1ng. A J , Poun, C.:".! .. l_<tlll_ K S Li. Y S .. 

L Y .. ,md Anvm. :v1 · 

tratmm in tile hackgruunJ atmo..,pher~ 

2007. Atmo"-. Chem. Phy~, 9, !1.?!7 6227. d\li: !O.:"iJl).fhKp-lJ6:217-2000, 2009 

Wang. Y. ~·kElroy, \'1. B .. Munger. J. \V. Huo. J.. .\·L1.! L :\'ieht.:n. 

C. P .. and Chen, 1' .. Vanattnn~ or 0; and CO 1n ..,unHJ\ertime 

;!I a rurd! ~1\c neat BeiJing, Atrno~. Clwm Phy"-· k. 6155 6J6:~. 

d01: l 0.~! 9-l-hlcp-8-6355-200~. 200S. 

Wan[!, Y.. Xtc. Y .. Cai. L.. DPng, \V.. Zhang, Q .. and Zhanr. L 

Impact ot the 2011 Southern US Drou~fll un Ciwund-!.en,l Fme 

Acw\ol Cnncent!atmn 111 Summen!me.J. r\tmo\ Sci.. J(J'lj 

!09::1. dm: 10.1175/j:.lHl-14-0197.1. 2015. 

Warnch.e. C .. (k Gouw. l A. Hol!m\'a). J. S .. Pci..,chl. .1., RyL'Nln. 

T B., Atl:h, E., B!<tke, D., Trmncr. l\L, and Parri~h. D D: \lultiye:u trend.., in Ynlatlle 11rganic compnw1lh in Lo\ Ang<:'le~. CalAtmos. Chem. l)hys., 17, 1-28, 2017 
127 


25633.085

28 l\1. Lin ct al.: l:S surf<:~ce ozone trends and extremes from 1980 to 2014 

llPrnt;l J;l\1' dC(.'.ldC'> 

I:-:. DOOvl7. dO!.IO 

Gcophys. Rc\., 

Xn. \\' Lm. W Xu. X .. rang, J, Huang. J., Wu. IL am! Zhang, 

X.: Lonp·h'nll trcnd~ of ~Ull<tcc lJ/.O!lc and intlucnun~ f.tetllr'> at the \1t \\alii!uan CIA\\' '-tat1on. Chmu- Part l: 0\eral! 

lll'n<.h cmd ~.;ilcu\Kteri'>ti...-". AllllO'i. Chern. Ph}"-- !6. (1]9!-6205. 

dm !0 Sl'i..J-/acp-16-6101-20!6, 2016 

J • T:,1n. ll C).. T,HI. B .. R,·n. W .. 1\m. S. l·, Liu. Y. Q._ and 

'( H.: ,\ ~~rm\·1ng imrortancc of large lire.'> in contcnmIIULI'> ll:111ed Stall''> during 1984-2012. J. GL'oph) '>. Rc".-Biog..:o., 

;20. 2(125 2h-~U. doi:!O.J002120!.'5jg0021Jb5. 2015. 

Yut!-O<HHl\', L \: Duchatekt P., D:thnla, A. V. Edward,, D.P.. I l<hC. 

F Kr;ulltL !.. \-'Ltllll'U. E. \'k·!l(.j\-i'it. J., \otholL L Nll\dli. 

!'.C .. Rod,mdnn. A. ScheeL ll Schnc1dcr. \L Schulz. A., 

Strc!ndh>.T)l, /\. SU'>\llliillll. R .. Tannnnto, H., Velazco, V., Drummond. J. R, and Gi!k. J. C lncrea~cd Nnrthcrn I-knw,phenr.' 

~·:uhnn lllOllo\ide burden tn til..: tropo;-,ph.:re m 2002 and 200J 

cktcL·ted troll\ th<.: ground and from '>pacl'. i\lnH"-. Chcm Phy~ .. 

\ 5(L1 d\ll' 10 511J4/acp-5·56J<~005. 20m. 

Atmos. Chtm. Phys., 17,1-28,2017 

Zhang:. L., J<k'\lb, D. L Bocr~ma, K. F. Jaffe. D . .-\., ()!..,Pn. J R .. 

Hm\lllan. K. W .. \Vurdcn, J. R.. A ~l.. Aver;. 

A .. Cuht'n, R. C .. Dtbb. J. I .. Flock. \L, 

Hucy. L c;. \h:!\·lillan. W. V/ .. Smgh. H. IL 

A. J.: Tran~pa~.;dk ttan'>port of wone pollution ;.tnd the effect o! 

rcn.'nt A"ian tllli'>~ion mcn:ase.~ on qua!Jty in :'\'orth Americ:t: an int<.:gr,tted an,tJysi<o u~ing -.;Jtcllito.:. airn<tfL o;one"ondt'. 

ctnd ~urfacc nl.ho.:natron~, Atmo-.. Chem. Phy'> .. 8. 6l17--61J(J, 

doL 10.5 104/acp-8-6ll7-200R. 200R. 

Zhang. L. Ja..;oh, D. J., Yue. X .. Do\\ney, ;..;_ V" Wood. D. A. <md 

Blewitt. D.: Smtfl·~,·s coutnbutmg to had.gronnd ... urface \)/.(lllt' 

in th.: tiS tnternmuntain \Vc.'>L Aimo.\. ('h..:tn. l'hys .. l..J-. 

5309, dm: l 0.5! 9·Vacp-l..J--5205-20 1-l-. 20 J.-1-

Zhang, Y. Q. A . .\1.. :''kdclec. P., Ogino. Y. and \\bt, J. L "'''"""";,,,,,,o;onl' changl' 

from lYt\0 to 2010 dnminatcd rcdi'>trtbution 

pf emi~swn-.. :\i<~t Cien~ci, '1, ?\75 

20!6. 

vnvw.atmos-chcm-ph~ s.neU17/1/20 17/ 
128 


25633.086

TO: 

FROl\1: 

U.S. TIOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

1\-kmbcrs. Subcommittee on Environment 

Committee Majority Staff 

March 20. 2017 

Omnc St3J1dards Implementation Act of2017_"~---

I. INTRODUCTION 

The Subcommittee on Environment 11ill hold a hearing on Wednesday. March 22.2017. 

at I 0:00a.m. in 2123 Rayburn !louse Of'lice Building. The hearing is entitled "li.R. 806. Ozone 

Standards Implementation Act of20 17." 

II. WITNESSES 

Scycd Sadrcdin. Executive Director/Air Pollution Control Oflicer. San Joaquin Valley 

Air Pollution Control District: 

Nancy Vchr. Air Quality Administrator. Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality: 

Murc A. R. Cone, P.E .. Director. Bureau of Air Quality. Maine Department of 

Environmental Protection: 

Scan ;\lteri. Director. Division of Air Quality. Kentucky Department of Environmental 

Protection: 

Kurt Karperos. Deputy Exccutiw Officer. CalitiJrnia Air Resources Board: and 

llnmer Boushey. M.D .. Division of Pulmonary/Critical Care Medicine. University of 

Calitlm1ia. San f<rancisco. 

Ill. BACKGROUND 

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA). the Fnvironmcntall'roteetion Agency (I;!' A) has 

established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants, including 

ground-level ozone-' 07onc is not emitted directly into the air. but is created by chemical 

reactions bct11een oxides ol'nitrogcn (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) ti·om either 

1 Criteria pollutants include ozone. particulate matter. sulfur dioxide. carbon monoxide. nitrogen dio:-.idc, 

and lead. Sec EPA NAAOS 11ebsi(~. 
129 


25633.087

Majorit) M~morandum fur March 22. 2017, Subcommitt~~ on Environment !!caring 

Page 2 

manmade or natural sources in the prcscnc~ of sunlight. According to EPi\. sine~ 1980 ozone 

levels have declined by over 30 percent. 

FPA initially established an ozone standard in 1971, and subsequently revised the 

standards in 1979. 1997. and 2008. 2 The standards set in 2008 established an 8-hour standard of 

75 parts per billion (ppb), replacing a 1997 standard equivalent to 84 ppb. See 73 Fed. Reg. 

16.436 (l'darch 27. 2008). In 2012. EPA designated owr 230 counties in 26 states and the 

District of Columbia as being wholly or partially in nonatlainmcnt with the 2008 standards-' 

EPA did not publish implementing regulations until March 6. 2015. and states are in the process 

of implementing those standards.' 

In October 2015. FP i\ also promulgated a new 8-hour ozone standard of70 ppb.' Based 

on the a!'.cncv,· s monitoring data for 2012-2014. 241 counties in 33 states would violate this 

standarc~'' '!~his docs not i~1clude contiguous counties that do not c:-.:ceed 70 ppb. but that may be 

dcsigrwtcd to be in nonattainment 7 nor does it include the more than 2.400 counties that do not 

cmT~ntl) have O/One monitors-" Under the agency's current schedule for implementing the 2015 

'See I<l,bj'" of llistorical Ozone NAAQS; see also 2008 National Ambient Air Qualitv Standards 

(J':S_'\_,\OS) for O]pne. For the classitlcations under the 2008 and 1997 ozone standards, sec Designations. 

'Sec ~±lp_ur Ozone_L~008) Des,ignatcd Area Design Values: sec also (ireen Book 8-llour OzonenOillU 

Arc<U!lL(lrmation: sec ulso Nonallainment Designations for the 2008 Standards. ('ounties bv State~ 

f~_cL,Rcg.)0088 (May 21, 20 12). Some areas arc also designated nonattainment with the 1997 standard. 

Sec ~'JZ)J~f!J_QL1. 

'Sec "Lmnlementat[9tJ.ofthe 200_1l,Nntional !\mbient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State 

lmrrkm,_Dtation PIQtUZequiremgnts: Final_f{uJg .. " 80 Fed. Reg. 1226.\ (March 6. 20 15). 

'Sec lJn.aL!\ule (published at 80 Fed. Reg. 65,292 (Oct. 25, 20 15)): Begulatorv Impact Analv::;is: 

Overview: "Designatii'Jfu1nd Permitting Rmuirements t(lr the 2015 Ozone Standards: 2015 Ozone 

N;\/\QS Time lines: Memorandum; S,upporting Documents and Qc~~.(03) St~111,Q~1rds: dock_~L EPA 

revised both the "primary" standard to protect public health, and "secondary'' standard to protect the 

public \\cll'arc. to a level of70 ppb. 

0 S,·c EI'A ~\luntv-lcv~ci.J}esi"n VaJltcs for thc __ 20 15 Ozone Standards" Of the 241 counties. 213 arc 

outside ofCalifi:>rnia. The agency states that ·'EPA \\lJ! not dcsi~natf' areas as nonattainmcnt based on 

[~(ll)-2tL14Lc1Qta, buL!ikeiy .. b_a5c.<tmL20J9:,_20 16s1'lt~.~bieh !!8','-"iJl~,<:lf'd to sho,lY_ifJlllCOYcsJ.illuumlitY·" 

' Under the Ci\A. states are directed to designate as nonattainmcnl "any area that does not meet (or that 

contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondary 

ambient air quality standard for the pollutant." 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d). 

'EPA has advised the Committee that in 2014, there were 813 U.S. counties with ozone monitors 

reponing data to I·:PA. and 2.-!07 counties with no ozone data reported. 
130 


25633.088

Majorit: !v1emorandum for March 22. 2017, Subcommittee on Environment llearing 

Page 3 

ozone standards, states were required to submit designation recommendations by October I, 20 16." 

and FPA is scheduled to designate areas as being in nonattainment by October of this year."' 

States with areas designated to he --nonattainment" will become subject to nevv emissions 

control and transportation conformity requirements. and must develop emission inventories and 

implement a preconstruction permitting program.' 1 These states will also have an obligation to 

submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) that may include lnfi·aslructure and Transport SIPs by 

Cktoher of2018: f(x States classified --,v!oderatc'' or higher. they will also be required to submit 

attainment plans in the 2020 to 2021 timcfl·amc. 12 States with nonattainment areas would also 

have an obligation to address the interstate transport of air pollution. which vvill significantly 

colltrihutc to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the ozone standard in other states. 

42 U.S.C. § IIO(a)(2)(D)(i)(l). If EPA finds a state or locality has failed to submit a satisfactory 

implementation plan. in v' hole or in part. the state or area is subject to sanctions and the 

imposition of a Federal plan by FPA. 42 U.S.C ~~ 179. liO(c). 

For areas designated to be in "nonattainmcnt." even aller monitored air data shows the 

area meets the standard. they continue to be designated "nonattainmcnt" areas until FPA 

approves maintenance plans. which can take years. A state requesting IT-designation of these 

areas must submit a revision to its applicable SIP that provides t<x the maintenance of the 

standards f(lr at least I 0 years alter the rc-clcsignation. 42 U.S.C. § 7505a(a). In addition. 8 

)Cars alter IT-designation of any area as an "attainment" area, the slate must submit an additional 

revision to the applicable SIP for maintenance of the standard f(lr another I 0 years alicr the 

c:-;piration of the initial I () .. year period. 42 l! .S.C. ~ 7505a(b ). /~ecordingly. even a Her achieving 

the standard. these areas continue to be subject to EPA oversight as they implement maintenance 

plans and controls under anti-backsliding provisions for the next 20 ycars. 1' 

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

"See J:P,\ lll_C!nQ dated Oct. I, 20 I 5: see also ~:uidajlc_t: dated feb. 25. 2016. 

Hi Th~ C,.\r\ established ozone classification and attainment dates for the initial ozone standards of3 years 

l(lr "MarginaL" 6 years tc>r "Moderate," 9 years f(Jr "Serious:· 15 years for "Severe." and 20 years for 

"E\trcmc ... 42 U.S. C. § 75 I I. These deadlines have applied to subsequent ozone standards. See, e.g. 

l'!El2( .. !,J:I~,~ 1 Case No. 12- I 321. D.C. Circuit. Dec. 23. 2014). 

11 -l2 l 1

.S.C. ~~ 7-W7. 7~ 10.7501-7511. For background on the SIP process, si!e, e.g. B_Q_:~dc Information: 

llllhti!r:.uciure SJr.J~ecLuire_ll'_Ciili: GuiJanc,;.QtJJnfrastructure SIP _EJt?mg_Q!;;_~ndcr Cic'!!.l.J\LLA.et SectiQJlS 

_UOiaH I 1 and I JO(a)(2): SIP Development Procf_;;.;;: Nonattainment /\rca & OTR SIP Rcquircmellu;: )_[[' 

Flllciei\':.L£(:_\:J:fcc:li.vcll'-"2 Guicbnce Memos: ;2!}0R Q_zonc N;\_6_Q;i_JJ:unsportation ConformitY 

~.hlj~l;m<;.~.)l!ld Ret!ulatinns. For background relating to permits. see. e.g. De~ign_ations and Pcnnittln~r 

li_.:_cmil:£Il2"-lltS t(lr tllCJ) I 5 Ozone Standards: f'-:'taj_Qritv Memorandum l(lr May 2 I. 20 I 4 hearing. 

"See ;;Ql~ __ QzoneJ'-.ic\t\QS_}"illl_'-lines. States or localities will he required to meet the primary standard 

between 2020 to 2037. d,'pcnding on the severity ofthe area's ozone problem. I fan area fails to meet its 

deadline. it "ill be reclassified to the nc:>.t higher classification level unless the area is already Severe or 

L\treme. and be subject to stricter mandatory controls. ,~2 U.S. C. ~ 7511. 

''See EPA Redesigm1tion and Clean Data Policv. See also EPA Sept. 4. 1992 MemQ. 
131 


25633.089

Majority "vkmorandum for March 22. 2017. Subcommittee on Environment llearing 

Page 4 

For its 2015 ozone standnrds, LPA projects all but 14 counties (excluding California) 

\H1uld come into compliance by 2025 under existing regulations and programs.'' EPA provides 

an annualized cost estimate only l(Jr 2025, estimating $1,4 billion (excluding Calif(Jrnia). and !(Jr 

California an additional $800 million post-2025. 1

" In making its annualized cost estimates, the 

agency projects ''unidentified controls" would be needed in some areas to meet a 70 ppb 

standard. including f(1r 1 00 percent of the NOx emissions reductions needed in California.: 7 In 

its cost estimate. EPA does not inducle the costs associated with complying with the 2008 

standards. which the agency previously estimated would be $7.6 billion to $8.8 billion in 20201 ' 

With the 2008 ozone standards. 1(1r which implementation regulations were not issued 

until 2015. and the new 2015 standards, states currently face the prospect of implementing two 

di!Tcrcnt omne standards simultaneously. Prior to EPA's decision to issue the 2015 standards. 

nearlY 700 nationaL state. and local organi?ations and stakeholders had requested that EPA retain 

the 2008 standards and not establish a ne1' additional lower standard. In comments on the 

proposed rule, manv state environmental regulators also raised concerns about the role of 

background ozone. both naturally occurring and internationally transported contributions. and 

about the limitations to the Clean Air Act tools EPA had highlighted for regulatory relief to 

address background ozone.''' 

In addition to concerns relating to the implementation of multiple ozone standards 

simuhancously. general concerns with the NAAQS program have also been raised by state 

regulaturs. These have included concerns regarding the current 5-ycar time line 1i.lr review of 

1

' In a fact sheet accompanying the llnal rule establishing the 2015 ozone standards, EPA states: "the vast 

IJ.lill.oxi.l) or U.S. counties will meet the [2015 ozone standurds] bv 202'ljgst 11ith the rules and progr'lrrD 

nO\\ in place or underwav." Sec also Countie.~_Proicctcd to Yiol:,lle~J\)c20 15 Primarv Ground-Level 

07nnc Standard i]12025. The 14 counties include: Larimer County, CO (71pph); ii) Jefferson County, 

CO (71 ppb): Tarrant County. TX (73ppb): llarris County. TX (74ppb): Brazoria County. TX (75ppb): 

Shcho)gan County, WI (71ppb): Jctlcrson County. KY (71ppb); Allegheny County. PA (71ppb): Ilarlord 

Count). MD (73ppb): Richmond Count). NY (72ppb): Queens County. NY (7lppb): Sui"l\1lk County. NY 

(73ppb): Fairticld County. CT (72ppbJ: New Haven County, CT (71 ppb). 

'"EPA ·s cost estimate in the linal rule is significantly lower than its estimate in the proposed rule. where 

it estimated costs I(Jr a 70 ppb standard to be S3.9 billion in 2025. See RI6_1or Proposed Rule at FS-14. 

I S-15. 

~Sec EJ"\ for Final Rule at Table ·1-9 at 4-40, 4A-5 at 4/\-6 and 4/\-6 at 4/\-6; Tables 3-9-and 3-10 

(Cali!(Jrnia) at3-2-l. 

''Sec FP,\ Fact5heet lor 2008 Final Revisions to the NAAQS J(Jr Ozone. 

1

'' Sec, e.g State Environmental ;\Qencv Perspectives on Baek<>round Omne and ReQtdaton· Relief (June 

2015). 

en c:k:an~Air Act Forum (Part 1): Cle;m Air Act Forum (Part ill; Clean Air Act Forum (Part 11!.1 
132 


25633.090

Majority Memorandum lor March 22. 2017. Subcommittee on Environment Hearing 

Page 5 

NAAQS. as well as the failure ofthc agency to consider the likely technological feasibility or 

potc:ntial adverse effects associated with implementing revised standards. and failure to issue 

timely implementing regulations and guidance." 

" Under the CAA. EPA is required to complete a review of every NAAQS every 5 years. 42 U.S. C.§ 

n09. Man0 air regulators have raised concerns that the review time should be extended. See. e.g 

Iestimrml of Alan Matheson. E~ecutive Director of the Utah Dept. of Env. Quality (""fElxtending the 5-

N;\i\QS review cycle so that it better aligns with the prescribed NAAQS implementation timelines 

appn1priate): Testimony of Bryan Shaw. Chairman. Texas Commission on Env. Quality (""By 

lengthening the required revie;; period from live to ten years. it will ensure the EPA docs not rush to 

lower a given standard only to comply with a statutory deadline. Furthermore. it will give states more 

time to comply with previom standards before getting saddled with more stringent standards and 1

or 

t:rcing economic or developmental sanctions for nonattainmenf"): Clean Air Act Forum Response of 

Thomas Burak. New llampshirc Dept. of Env. Services. July 27. 2012 (""Timing issues can also be 

challenging: ol\en states arc 1101·king on SIPs for multiple pollutants for which EPA had established 

diflcrent compliance deadlines. At the same time. EPA may be revising the NAi\QS l(1r a pat1icular 

pollutant. leading to a constant state of tlux in which the states and individual sources must try to 

reconcile complex and potentially conflicting requirements.""): Response of Paul Tail. Southeast Michigan 

(\,uncil of Governments. July 31.2012 (""The CAi\ calls for setting standards every tlvc years. While 

this m:rv have made sense in the 1972. it poses serious challenges today.""): Response of Teresa Marks. 

Arkansas Dept. of Lnv. Quality. July 3 I. 2012 ("Tive years may not allow for enough time for new 

technolog0 or science to be fully developed .. With more time between review processes. the States 

could have adequate time to develop proper SIPs and meet federal deadlines.""); Reo;p.Qll"£ or Martha 

Rudolph. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Nov. 23. 2012 (""[Tjhe ambitious 

schedule for evaluating and promulgating NAAQS revisions every live years has created an inefllcient 

planning process""): Response or Scott l Nally. Director of Ohio EPA. ;\ug. 2. 2012 (""We \\ould 

recommend a minimum often years lc>r the review and possible changes of the ambient air quality 

standards""): Response of Susan llilclcbrand. Texas Council on Env. Quality (""While the concept of a five 

yL:ar rcvie\\' may sound reasonable. in practice it has not served as intended."); R~.?J?_Qn~G of Michael 

J<rancer. Pennsylvania Dept. ofEnv. Protection. "4ov. 29.2012 (""Dcv·elopment of the NAAQS on an 

interval or five:; cars (Section I 09(d)( I)) has created signillcant resource burdens lor both EPA and the 

states. Jitwthennore. the cascading standards can create confusion I(Jr the public because states and EPA 

continue to vvork on lSI I' I revisions. determinations of attainment h>r one standard. while the Air Quality 

Index is based on another. NAAQS review intervals should be lengthened to I 0 years""): Response of 

Robert Martineau. Jr. Tennessee Dept. ofEnv. and Conservation, Nov. 29.2012 (""ITJhe review period 

!(>r the N/1/\QS needs to be lengthened lhlln the current live (5) year cycle. /\ ten (Ill)) ear cycle should 

be considered.""). 

:• Section 109(d)(2)tC)(iv) of the CAA expressly requires that the Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

Comrnitlcc (C;\SAC) '"advise the Administrator of any adverse public health. welfare. social. economic. 

or cncrg) effects which may result from various stratcgics for attainment and maintenance or such 

national ambient air quality standmds."" 42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(2)(C)(iv). On May 20,2015. the Government 

Accountability Oflice issued a I:C'PSltl indicating C/\SAC has never provided such advice because EP/\ 

has never it. and that FP/\ has no plans to ask CASAC to provide advice on potential adverse 

crtl:cts. S,'e Concerns have been raised regarding the agency"s failure to implement this 

statutory provision. e.g May 1-l. 201.) Letter fi·Otn Senator Vitter and Resj1Q.Jle£ 1J·om Louisiana 

Dept. of Environmental Quality. ~l.QllSc li·om Mississippi Dept. of Environmental Quality; Response 

fi·orn North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources: 13._£,'J2QD.lC from Te\aS 

Commission on En;ironmental Quality. 
133 


25633.091

Majorit) \lenwrandum for March 22. 2017. Subcommittee on Environmcntllcaring 

Page 6 

States. fl1rthermorc. also face other Clean Air Act deadlines during the period 2016 to 

2021. See Appendix 2. These converging deadlines to comply 11 ith other regulations include a 

number of requirements that also impose significant compliance costs. Among others. the 

pending requirements include compliance 11ith the EPA"s 2012 particulate matter standards for 

11hich EPA did not finalize implcmcntinu regulations until2016. and 2010 sulfur dioxide 

standards fi.Jr which the agency has required multiple rounds of designation submissions and is 

still in the process oflinali;ing implementing regulations anJ guidancc.2

' 

IV. ILR 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017 

H.R. 806 was introduced on Feb. I. 2017. by Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX), together with Rep. 

Bill Flnres (R-TX). Rep. Bob I ,atta (R-OH). Rep. Henry Cuellar (0-TX). Rep. Sanford Bishop 

(D-CJA). Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA). \lajority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA). Majority Leader Kevin 

McCarth) (R-CA). and other original cosponsors of the bilL Provisions include the following: 

Section I. Short Title: This section provides the short title of·'Ozone Standards 

Implementation Act of20 17."" 

.Section 2. Facilitating State Implementation of Existing Ozone Standards: This section 

provides a schedule ((Jr implementation of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

l(lr ground-level ozone published in 2015. Section 2(a) provides that states shall submit 

designations to implement the 2015 NAAQS 1(1r ground-level o;.onc not later than October 26. 

202-L The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shall promulgate lina! 

designations with respect to those standards not later than October 26. 2025. and states shall 

submit implementation plans not later than October 26. 2026. 

''EPA 'r;; lack of timely implementing regulations and guidance has raised concerns and challenges for 

States, See, Ck·an Air J\ct Forum Respons.~ of Teresa Marks. Arkansas Dept. of Env. Quality ('"Too 

oft-:n arc promulgated \Yithout the technical implementation rules ln place. This places States 

in ~Hl C"'.trCJTlcly difficult position---that is to assert that the infrastructun: will be in place timely and revise 

the SIP or other program requirements \:vithout the real tools to implement the new requirements."): 

E_e;;)lO!lS.<' ofSusanllildcbrand. Texas Council on Env Quality. July 31.2012 (""A common complaint of 

stmc regulators is the failure of U' ;\to provide guidance contemporaneously with the promulgation of a 

nc\\ "·L\AQS or other standard""): Response of Martha Rudolph. Colorado Department of Public Health 

and J::nvironmcnt Nov. 23,2012 ("The absence of timely implementation guidance produces a lack of 

clarity on SIP e:\pcctations. and often causes considerable uncertainty in the planning process. because 

stales arc reluctant to proceed with expensive technical planning activities that are later superseded by 

belated guidance that may diller signilicantly Ji·om the states· approach""). 

''See, e.g Auf!. 23. ~o I 0 Cicncral Guidance Memo; March 24. 20 II Memo; Apri I 23. 2014 

Memo and Guidance; March 20.2015 Updated Guidance Memo: Julv 22.2016 Memo; 

.0:'1od<,:)iug__GJlidancc. 
134 


25633.092

Majority Memorandum for March 22. 2017. Subcommittee on Environment !fearing 

Page 7 

Section 2(b )( 1) provides the standards shall not apply to the review and disposition of a 

prcconstruction permit application required under title I of the Clean i\ir i\ct (42 U.S.C. 7401 ct 

seq.) if the Administrator or the state. local. or tribal permitting authority. as applicable. has 

determined the application to be complete prior to the date of' promulgation of' linal designation 

of' an area. or has published a public notice of a preliminary determination or draft permit bcf(nc 

the date that is 60 Jays a ncr the uatc of promulgation of' final designation. 

Section 2(b)(2) provides that the section shall not be construed to eliminate the obligation 

of a prcconstruction permit applicant to install best available control technology and lowest 

achievable emission rate technology. as applicable. or limit the authority of a state. local. or 

tribal permitting authority to impose more stringent emissions requirements than the NAAQS. 

Section 3. Facilitating State Implementation of National ."-mbien! Air Qual it\· Standards: 

This section includes provisions to facilitate more eflicient implementation ofNAAQS by states. 

Section 3(a)( I) would extend the current NAAQS review cycle for criteria pollutants 

fl·om 5 years to 10 years. Section 3(a)(2) would provide that no revision of the ozone standarus 

shall be proposed prior to October 26. 2025. 

Section 3(b) provides that the Administrator. when establishing or revising a Ni\i\QS, 

may consider. as a secondary consideration. likely technological feasibility. 

Section 3(c) provides that the Administrator. prior to establishing or revising a NA/\QS. 

shall request. and the Clean i\ir Scientific Advisory Committee shall provide, the advice 

prmidcd lor in C/\A Section 109(d)(2)(C)(iv) regarding any adverse public health. welfare. 

social. economic. or energy effects. which may result from various strategies for attainment and 

maintenance of such national ambient air quality standards. 

Section 3(d) provides that the Administrator, when establishing or revising a NAAQS. 

shall concurrently publish implementing regulations and guidance as necessary to assist states. 

permitting authorities. and permitting applicants, and that the nc\\ or revised NAAQS shall not 

apply to preconstruct ion permit applications until such final regulations and guidance have been 

published. 

Section 3(c) provides that in Extreme ozone nonaltainment areas. contingency measures 

arc not required to be included in nonattainment plans. 

Sections 3(1)( I), (2). and (3) ensure that economic feasibility. in addition to technological 

achicvability. be taken into consideration in certain requirements for plans for Moderate. Serious. 

and E:-:lreme ozone nonattainmcnt areas. Section 3(!)(4) eliminates certain demonstration 

requirements in approving provisions of an implementation plan for an Extreme ozone 

nnnattainment and which anticipates development of new control techniques or improvement of 

existing contn'l technologies. 
135 


25633.093

Majority \!lcmorandum for March 22. 2017. Subcommittee on Environment l fearing 

Page 8 

Section 3(g) provides that for particulate matter nonattainment areas, the milestones that 

must be included in plans to show reasonable further progress must take into account 

technological achicvability and economic feasibility. 

Section 3(h) provides that with respect to air quality monitoring data influenced by 

exceptional events, an exceptional event may include stagnation of air masses that arc not 

ordinarily C'ccurring, and may also include a meteorological event involving high temperatures or 

lack ol'prcciritation. 

Section 3(i) provides that'' ithin 2 years of enactment of the Act the Administrator, in 

consultation with states, shall submit to Congress a report on (i) the extent to which foreign 

sources of air pollution impact the area designations and the attainment and maintenance of 

Ni\1\QS: (ii) the EPA's procedures and timclincs for disrosing of petitions relating to emissions 

lhll11 sources emanating outside the United States that are submitted pursuant to section l79B(b) 

oft he Clean Air Act (C/\A): (iii) the total number of such petitions received by the agency and 

related inf(mnation; and (iv) whether the Administrator recommends any statutory changes to 

l(tcilitatc more cfticicnt review and disposition of such petitions. 

Section 3(j) provides that the Administrator shall, in consultation with the National Oceanic 

and Atnwsrhcric Administration. (i) conduct a study on the atmospheric formation of ozone and 

c!Tccti\'C control strategies. including \Vith regard to the relative contribution of manmade and 

naturally occurring nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and \lthcr pollutants in omne 

formation in urban and rural areas, and with regard to wintertime ozone: (ii) that the study be 

peer rcvic\\ed in accordance \\ith the requirements applicable to highly inlluential scientific 

assessments: (iii) that the Administrator submit a report to Congress describing the results of the 

stud): and (iv) that the Administrator incorporate the results of the study into any Federal rules 

and guidance implementing the 2015 ozone standards. 

Section 4. Dc.linitions: This section contains the following definitions: 

(I) The term "Administrator" means the EPA Administrator. 

(2) The term ·'Best Available Control Technology" has the meaning given that term in CAA 

Section 169(3). 

(3) rhc term "llighly lnllucntial Scientific Assessment'' means a highly influential scicntitlc 

assessment as defined in the publication of the Ollicc oft-,.1anagcmcnt and Budget 

entitled "Final Information Quality Bulletin t(lr Peer Review" (70 Fed. Reg. 2664 

(January 14, 2005)), 

( 4) The term "Lowest Achievable Emission Rate" has the meaning given that term in CAA 

Scctilln 171 (3 ). 

(5) The term "national ambient air quality standard" means a national ambient air quality 

standard promulgated pursuant to Ci\A Section I 09. 
136 


25633.094

~vlajurity :VIemorandum for March 22. 2017. Subcommittee on Environment !!caring 

Page 9 

(6) The term "!'reconstruction Permit" means a permit that is required under title I of the 

C!\;\ (42 \J.S.C. 7401 et seq.) forthe construction or modification of a stationary source. 

and includes any such permit issued by the EPA or a slate. local. or tribal pcrmilling 

authority. 

(7) The term "20 15 Ozone Standards" means the national ambient air quality standard f(lr 

ozune published in the Federal Register on October 26. 201) (80 Fed. Reg. 65292). 

_)cction 5. No Add_i_tiQnal Funds Autl1or_itcd: This section provides that no additional 

funds arc authori/cd to carry out the requirements of the Act and amendments made by the Act. 

and that such requirements shall be carried out using amounts otherwise authorized. 

V. ISSUES 

The I(JIIowing issues may be examined at the hearing: 

!"he provisions of! LR. 806: 

Practical challenges to implementing existing ozone standards: 

Potential improvements to the NAAQS process: 

Impacts of revised NAAQS on jobs and economic gnmth: and 

• Costs of revised NAJ\QS to households and consumers. 

VI. STAFF CONTACTS 

If you have any questions regarding this hearing. please contact Peter Spencer or Tom 

llassenboehlcr of the Committee staff at (202) 225-2927. 
137 


25633.095

Majority Memorandum for March 22. 2017, Subcommittee on Environment! !caring 

Page 10 

APPENDIX 1 

States with Counties That Violate 2015 Ozone Standards 

Based on Monitored Air Quality Data from 2012-2014 

Alabama 

Arizona 

Arkansas 

Califixnia 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

District ofColumbia 

Georgia 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

I .ouisiana 

Maine 

\1arylaml 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Nevada 

1\:c\\ Jersey 

\ic1v ivkxico 

Nc\\ York 

1\orth Carolina 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 

Tennessee 

Tc.xas 

Utah 

Virginia 

Source: EPA ··County-level Design Values for the 2015 Omnc Standards" available at 

https: · \\\1'\\.Cpf!.gov'sites!production files 1

20 16-0J!documcnts!20 15100 I datatablc20 1220 1-l.pdf. EPA 

\\ill not designate areas as nonattainment based on 2012to 2014 data, but likely based on 201-l to 2016 

data which arc expected to show improved air quality. 
138 


25633.096

Majority Memorandum for March 22, 2017, Subcommittee on Environment Hearing 

Page 11 

March 2017 

J~I'Otlar}' 1016 lell<l<l<lenlll'joln'il 

AlrSo~.~r«~Oue 

2016 

APPENDIX2 

2018 

Oct<o~2!118 

lnfnHit~snd 

Tran5ponSIP 

Ravbok>I'IDue 

' ' 

2019 

S<i'~~tem!r2!11S A~~,.:; .. ~J!. FlMISia!ePIJin fu.rflratRound 

wt"e~'te~!'":O~· of Duslg...,tlon• 

Octob<lr2019 

Emlul<ms 

lnvomtoryS1P 

RtlvilllonDue Mareh'Zil20 Qv!OI!tyAaliUrad 

OBI.lDU<i 

c~"%~~~ve PlannfngSlPOUI! 

Eaf'ly21l21\(; 

~t.:!,~;;: .. ', 

Regional Haze 8 ~~~~~~~~~:~~~ra~ (~f~)uC~:Iion State 8 2006 Fine Particulate Matter NAAOS 2015 Ot.one NMOS 

• Clean Power Plan• 8 ~~Oa~i~e~~a~~~~:~~r.:ba;)t Air 2012 Fine Particulate Matter NMOS 2008 Ozona NMOS 

8 Monitoring Network 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 8 State Plans Under 111(d} 

The Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies (AAPCA) is a national, consensus-driven non-profit organization focused on assisting 

state and local air quality agencies and personnel with implementation and technical issues associated with the federal Clean Air Act. 

You can find more information about AAPCA at: http://www.cleanalract.org 

Source: http://www .csg.org/aapca site/documents/ AAPCAStateCAADcad1ine-FINAL-3-

2017 OOO.pdf 
139 


25633.097

National 

Medical 

\( 

1 Associalion 

March 21, 2017 

Dear RepresentJtive: 

AMERICAN 

LUNG 

ASSOCIATION 

Clean air is fundamental for good health, and the Clean Air Act promises all Americans air that is safe to breathe. 

The undersigned public health and medical organizations urge you to oppose H.R. 806, the so-called "Ozone 

Standards Implementation Act of2017." A more fitting name for this legislation would be the "Smoggy Skies 

Act," as it delays lifesaving standards to reduce ozone pollution, or smog, and permanently weakens the Clean 

Air Act. 

Clear, up··to-date, scientific evidence documented the need for greater protection from ozone pollutlon1 and 

drove the stronger limit on ozone that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized in 2015. To 

meet the updated standard, the states have clear authority and plenty of time to plan and then work to reduce 

pollution under the Clean Air Act's long-established, balanced implementation timeline. Despite those facts, the 

Smoggy Skies Act imposes additional delays and sweeping changes that will threaten health, particularly the 

health of children, seniors and people with chronic disease. 

The Smoggy Skies Act also reaches far beyond implementation of the current ozone standards. It permanently 

weakens the Clean Air Act and future air pollution health standards for all criteria pollutants. Specifically, the 

Smoggy Skies Act weakens implementation and enforcement of all lifesaving air pollution health standards, 

including those for carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. It 

would also permanently undermine the Clean Air Act as a public health law. 

The Clean Air Act requires that EPA review the science on the health impacts of carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen 

dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide air pollutants every five years and update these national 

ambient air quality standards according to the current science. The Smoggy Skies Act would lengthen the 

review period of the air pollution health standards from once every live years to once every ten years for all 

criteria pollutants. As the science continues to evolve, the public deserves that their protections be based on 

the most up-to-date science, certainly not a schedule that is twice as long as they currently have under the law. 

The work that EPA and states do to clean up air pollution should be based on the best and most current science. 

Emerging reseorch adds crucial information to our understanding of the impacts that air pollution has on human 

heillth, and EPA should not have to wait a decade to incorporate it. For example, on March 29, 2016, a newly 
140 


25633.098

published study, Particulate Matter Exposure and Preterm Birth: Estimates of U.S. Attributable Burden and 

Economic Costs,1 showed new information linking particulate air pollution to nearly 16,000 preterm births per 

year. Under the Smoggy Skies Act, EPA would have to wait as much as a decade to consider such new evidence 

when setting standards. Ten years is far too long to wait to protect public health from levels of pollution that 

the science shows are dangerous or for EPA to consider new information. 

In the 2015 review of the ozone standard, EPA examined an extensive body of scientific evidence demonstrating 

that ozone inflames the lungs, causing asthma attacks and resulting in emergency room visits, hospitalizations, 

and premature deaths, A growing body of research indicates that ozone may also lead to central nervous system 

harm and may harm developing fetuses. In response to the evidence, EPA updated the ozone standards. While 

many of our organizations called for a more protective level, there is no doubt that the updated, 70 parts per 

billion standard provides greater health protections compared to the previous standard. 

The Smoggy Skies Act would delay implementation of these more protective air pollution standards for at least 

eight years. This means eight years of illnesses and premature deaths that could have been avoided. Parents will 

not be told the truth about pollution in their community and states and EPA will not work to curb pollution to 

meet the new standards. The public has a fundamental right to know when pollution in the air they breathe or 

the water they drink threatens health, and Congress must not add eight years of delay to health protections 

and cleanup. 

Furthermore, the American public overwhelmingly supports upholding these more protective limits on ozone. A 

2017 poll found that by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans believe Congress should leave EPA's updated standards in 

place, showing clear public opposition to the Smoggy Skies Act. 

The Smoggy Skies Act would also permanently weaken implementation of the 2015 and future ozone 

standards. The Act would delay implementation to a date when the evidence shows the! most states would 

meet the standard with cleanup measures already in place. It would also reduce requirements for areas with the 

most dangerous levels of ozone. Areas classified as being in "extreme nonattainment" of the standard would no 

longer need to write plans that include additional contingency measures if their initial plans fail to provide the 

expected pollution reductions. The Clean Air Act prioritizes reducing air pollution to protect the public's health, 

but the Smoggy Skies Act opens a new opportunity for communities to avoid cleaning up, irrespective of the 

health impacts. 

Further, the bill would greatly expand the definition of an exceptional event. Under the Clean Air Act, 

communities can demonstrate to EPA that an exceptional event, such as a wildfire, should not "count" in 

determining whether their air quality rneets the national standards. This bill would recklessly expand the 

definition of exceptional events to include high pollution days when the air is simply stagnant- the precise air 

pollution episodes the Clean Air Act was designed to combat- and declare those bad air days as 

"exceptional. 11 Changing the accounting rules wi!! undermine health protection and avoid pollution cleanup. 

Additionally, the bill would permanently weaken the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act is one of our nation's 

premier public health laws because it puts health first. The Act has a two-step process: first, EPA considers 

scientific evidence to decide how much air pollution is safe to breathe and sets the standard that is requisite to 

protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. Then, states work with EPA to develop a plan to clean 

1 Trasande L, Malecha P, Attina TM. 2016. Particulate matter exposure and preterm birth: estimates of U.S. attributable 

burden and economic costs. Fnviron Health Perspect 124:1913-1918; .tillQJL.Ql<.&g_Lqyg/1.Q))89/ehp.15JJ2§.1Q 
141 


25633.099

up air pollution to meet the standard. Cost and feasibility are fully considered in the second phase during 

implementation of the standard. 

This bill states that if EPA finds that "a range of levels" of an air pollutant protect public health with an adequate 

margin of safety, then EPA may consider technological feasibility in choosing a limit within that range. Further, 

the bill would interject implementation considerations, including projections of adverse economic and energy 

effects, Into the standard setting process. These changes will permanently weaken the core health-based 

premise of the Clean Air Act- protecting the public from known health effects of air pollution with a margin 

of safety. 

These changes would reverse the intention of the Clean Air Act explicitly included by its bipartisan authors in 

Congress: that basing the standard on the protection of public health would push technology to develop new 

tools and techniques to reduce emissions. They understood that pushing the cleanup technology to meet the 

urgent need to protect health would help to expand job development and growth. They were correct, as the 

emission control industry today has helped the nation meet stronger standards in creative, cost-effective ways. 

The text also explicitly states that the Smoggy Skies Act does not authorize any additional funds to be 

appropriated to EPA for its work carrying out the bill's provisions. Forcing EPA to perform the additional work of 

implementrng this bill with no additional resources could put the agency's current, lifesaving work at further risk. 

The Smoggy Skies Act is a sweeping attack on lifesaving standards that protect public health from air 

pollution. This bill is an extreme attempt to undermine our nation's proven clean air health protections. Not 

only does it delay the long-overdue updated ozone standards and weaken their implementation and 

enforcement, it also permanently weakens the health protections against many dangerous air pollutants and the 

scientific basis of Clean Air Act standards. 

Please prioritize the health of your constituents and vote NO on the Smoggy Skies Act. 

Sincerely1 

Allergy & Asthma Network 

A!iiance of Nurses for Healthy Environments 

American lung Association 

American Public Health Association 

Amerit<'ln Thoracic Society 

Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America 

Center for Climate Change and Health 

Health Care Without Harm 

National Association of County & City Health Officials 

National Environmental Health Association 

N<-Jtional Medical Association 

Physicians for Social Responsibility 

Trust for America's Health 
142 


25633.100

March 21, 2017 

The Honorable Congressman John Shimkus 

Chairman, Environmental Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee 

United States House of Representatives 

2265 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

CC: The Honorable Members of the Environmental Subcommittee of the Energy and 

Commerce Committee 

RE: OPPOSE H.R. 806- OZONE IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 2017 (OLSEN) 

Dear Chair Shimkus, 

On behalf of public health and environmental organizations, the Central Valley Air 

Quality Coalition (CV AQ) is writing to express its concerns with H.R. 806, a bill known 

to us as the "Smoggy Skies Act." 

Since 2003, the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition has led a partnership of more than 

70 organizations to uphold the Clean Air Act and strengthen local air quality policy in 

California's San Joaquin Valley, with the goal of improving public health and the quality 

of life for the Valley's 4 million residents. Colleagues have already addressed why the 

Smoggy Skies Act will not help clean our air. The purpose of this letter is to rather 

provide context and clarity for the situation in the San Joaquin Valley and to shed light on 

the actions of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District). 

Foremost, the Clean Air Act- for very good reasons- does not allow air stagnation or a 

lack of precipitation to qualify as exceptional events. The climate of the San Joaquin 

Valley, a semi-desert region in Central California abutted by mountain ranges on three 

sides, is characterized by air stagnation and limited rainfall. With the advent of climate 

change, periods of drought and the stagnation that ensues will only increase. A recent 

study by Cornell researcher Toby Ault and his colleagues (2016) show that the chances of 

a severe ten-year mcgadrought in the Southwest this century is 80-90% and a 35-year 

4991 E. McKinley Ave. #109 0 Fresno, CA 93727 D Phone: 559.272.4874 0 dolores@calcleanair.org 
143 


25633.101

megu-drought has a 20-50'/o chance. 1 Drought and air stagnation will not he an 

exceptional event in the Valley, hut rather a reality we must plan for. Excluding 

periods of air stagnation and drought [rom official rccordkccping will effectively remove 

protections for Valley residents when we need it the most. 

Secondly. I would like to address the context in which our District's Executive Officer, 

Scyed Sadredin, speaks about contingency measures. I'M 2.5 and ozone share precursors, 

thus control measures for each have mutual benefits. The District claims, f()[ both ozone 

and particulate matter standards, that it has implemented all available control measures 

and therefore has nothing to set aside as contingency measures. In October of 2016, the 

California Air Resources Board denied this claim and sent District staff back to find 

additional measures. Since then, the District has presented a host of additional controls to 

explore mcasun.:s they claimed months earlier were nonexistent- disproving their own 

messaging that they had ovcrtumed every stone. Unfo1iunatcly, these additional 

measures arc weak and do not include the dozens of recommendations made by 

advocates over the past ten years (please find attached a list of measures the District 

could either implement now, or set aside as a contingency measure). The claim that 

contingency measurrs require an air district to hold back available controls would 

only make sense if this District were actually implementing all available controls. 

I would also like to address economic and technologic feasibility. At present, the Clean 

Air Act allows Districts to address feasibility within their implementation plans. If 

measures to reach attainment arc too costly, or not technology feasible, a District can ask 

for a time extension from the EPA within normal regulatory avenues; this is a route the 

San Joaquin Air District has chosen many times. Ilowcver. addressing economic and 

technologic feasibility when setting the health-protective standards double-counts 

cconomics and technology while discounting the science and public health impacts that 

arc meant to be the basis of the standards. 

The Air District and ll.R. 806 seek to address one air quality standard at a time. Citing 

Cali t(lrnia 's South Coast Air District planning efforts, CV AQ has continuously asked the 

San Joaquin Air District to develop an integrative plan that addresses the most stringent 

standard, integrating requirements for all subsequent standards. In late 2016, the District 

announced they would be planning an integrative PM 2.5 plan, addressing multiple 

standards, thus demonstrating the administrative options under the Act as-is. 

Lastly, we would like to address the claims that meeting the new federal clean-air 

stambrds would be akin to the Valley approaching "background concentrations" of 

' ;\uil, T. R .. .I, S Mankin. 8. L CllOk, and J. E. Smcrdon. "Relative Impacts ol' Mitigation, Temperature. 

nnd PrecipitatiOn on 21st-century Nlegadrought Risk in the American South\\ e-st." Science Ad\·ances 2, I 0 

(:~() l (} ): \V ~b. <lw p:i ad\'ancc-~.sciencemag.oqrc~mtenl' 2/ llJ.:e l {1008 75. full>. 

Central Valley Air Quality Coalit1on 4991 E. McKinley Ave. #109 _Fresno, CA 93727 J Pl10ne 559.272.4874 J 

do!ores@calcleana~r.org 
144 


25633.102

o.wne, or that that "all Valley businesses, agricultural operations, or tn1cks traveling 

through the San Joaquin Valley need to be eliminated'' in order to reach attainment of 

ozone standards. These claims arc false. At present, due to the implementation of mobile 

source controls promulgated by the Califomia Air Resources Board, the San Joaquin 

Valley will reach attainment of ozone standards within the timelinrs set by the 

Clean Air Act (State Implementation Plan, p. 33) 2 In !1tct, newly proposed measures 

will provide additional reductions that go beyond what is needed to meet the Valley's 

203 I attainment date. This progress is ultimately tied to the impressive regulatory agenda 

of the state of California and is not attributable to the actions of our local Air District. 

Rather, our region will reach ozone standards despite our District ignoring significant 

sources of ozone pollution within its regulatory jurisdiction, such as volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions [i·mn dairies and oil and gas operations. Changes to the Act 

in response to the Valley's ozone needs an: therefore unnecessary- and would hurt our 

neighbors in the the Los Angeles area who have greater ozone challenges. 

In conclusion, H.R 806 's proposed changes to the Clean Air Act are unnecessary and 

counterproductive. Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Dolores Weller 

Director 

Enclosure: 

-~-----

Opinion Editorial in the Fresno Bee: Alex Sherriff~ and John Capilman: Don't 

back off"demandl"(or cleaner air (September 30, 20 15) 

Letter Re: Ilearing on EPA's 2015 Ozone Standard: Concerns Over Science and 

Implementation (October 21, 20 15) 

CV/\Q's PM 2.5 Reduction Recommendations 

~ Cali!'omia Air Resources Board. Ri!dsed Proposed 2016 State S~!ralegr /or the ~)'tate Implementation Pion, 

iv1arch 7, 20 I 7 h! l!?:": \\·'~\~~:.:lrf?.s:-~.go\ ·'r!anninl'~>lp 20 I (1~ip:rev·2_0 l_{:~!<_l_1gs(p.J~-~U.' 

Central Valley 1\ir Quality Coalition:< 4991 E. McKrnley 1\ve./1109 Fresno. Cl\ 93727 :.i Phone: 559.272.4874 J 

dolores@calc!eanair.org 
145 


25633.103

Advocating for Clean Air in the San joaquin Valley 

October 21, 2015 

House Committee on Science, Space & Technology 

2321 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Fax (202) 226-0113 

Re: Hearing on EPA's 2015 Ozone Standard: Concerns Over Science and Implementation 

The Central Valley Air Quality (CVAQ) Coalition requests the following comments be included 

as the House Committee on Science, Space & Technology considers the science and 

implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s newly released ozone standard 

of70 ppb. 

The Central Valley Air Quality (CVAQ) Coalition is a partnership of more than 70 member 

organizations committed to creating clean air in the San Joaquin Valley of Califomia since 2003. 

Our coalition originally advocated for the most health protective possible standard of 60ppb. We 

urge the committee to support the implementation of the 70 ppb standard, which represents a 

level of health protection that is long overdue and at the very least it is in the right direction. 

On October 22, 20!5 the committee will hear from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 

District, Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO), Seyed Sadredin. It is important that the 

committee understand Mr. Sadredin's perspective and his efforts on behalf of the San Joaquin 

Valley, Our coalition believes he does not represent the public; instead he represents interests of 

industry and Agriculture in our Valley. While he represents a public health agency, the Valley 

Air Board members, whose political campaigns and personal income are directly tied to our 

polluting industries, determine the fate of his position. Thus, his perspective is biased. 

Mr. Sadrcdin advocates tor the interests of business, even while our Valley, with over 4 million 

residents, has the highest asthma rates in California. He claims businesses have done all they 

could and cleaning our air is the responsibility of the individuaL This stance was demonstrated 

when he convinced the Valley, that the EPA levied a $29 million fee via a DMV surcharge on all 

motorists, for not meeting an ozone standard. He failed to clarify that the decision was made hy 

himself and the VaHey Air Board, to place the financial burden on all Valley motorists, rather 

Lhan business. For the past ten years, our coalition has debated with Mr. Sadrcdin on strategies 
146 


25633.104

for clean air. The District has ignored significant sources of ozone pollution, such as volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions from dairies and Oil and Gas operations, and they have also 

failed to implement aggressive measures on agricultural equipment and mobile sources within 

their purview. 

Rather than look for additional control measures, 1Vlr. Sadrcdin has employed tactics of 

scapcgoating. The Air District has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars into examining 

ozone pollution traveling to our Valley from Asia, while ignoring the majority of our 

homegrown pollution. In recent years, the Air District has blamed the drought for our bad air, 

taking no responsibility for the consequences of failed air quality plans from previous years. 

Currcmly. the blame Calls on the EPA and the Clean Air Act. claiming the Act is antiquated and 

EPA sets unrealistic standards. Without strong guidance from the EPA and the Clean Air Act, 

the Valley Air District representing the air basin with the worst air pollution in the nation. would 

ddinc its 0\\'!1 path to clean air with little regard l(Jr public health. 

The Air District's decisions and inaction have real and lasting impacts on our health. Our 

children arc regularly kept indoors fi·om recess and sports activities and \\'Close billions of 

dollars every year in missed school and work days, visits to the emergency room and health care 

costs. We learn more everyday of the impacts of air pollution on our health and our Valley has 

become numb to the information, because Mr. Sadrcdin and the Valley Air Board disregard it. 

blame external f~rctors and have failed to find a balance between supporting business and 

protecting public health. 

Our coalition urges you to support the EPA's decision of implementing a standard of70 ppb and 

to hear Mr. Sadredin with skepticism. Mr. Sadrcdin docs not represent the interests of Valley 

rcsidenls and Valley businesses ha\'C not done enough. On the other hand, residents have 

endured enough decades of poor health and misinf(lrmation with no accountability. \Vc need 

your help in guiding our local leaders to protect our health. 

Sincerely. 

Dolores Weller 

CVi\Q Director 
147 


25633.105

Central VaHey Air Quality Coalition's 

Pollution-Reduction Recommendations 

S:a1n j((llaquin Valley 2017 Ploln for the 2012 

PtWllZ.S Standard 

Agriculture 

Limit Biomass and n~n Open Burning: Biomass burning is a significant source of 

direct PM2.5, yet in 2016 the Air District allowed close to 2,000 acres of biomass to 

be openly burned in the Central Valley. Open burning of agricultural waste should 

be completely banned and incentives for mulching waste like those provided by the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture should be provided. 

e Regulate Agricultur<11 Equipment: For over five years ARB has promised to 

implement an enforceable rule on Agricultural equipment. A rule is necessary for 

attainment in both ozone and PM plans. We also need to regulate Agricultural 

pumps (internal combustion engines). Having been heavily incentivized, it is time 

for all Ag. Equipment to be subject to an enforceable rule to utilize the cleanest 

available technology. 

<> Update Conservation Management Practices (CMPs) and Require Emission 

Reduction Plans rrom Growers: C:MPs are activities farmers can implement to 

reduce dust emissions from on-farm sources. While farming techniques and 

technologies have greatly evolved over the last ten years, the list of available C:MPs 

has not been updated since 2001. For instance, the Almond Board has approved new 

harvesting technologies that reduce particulate matter by 30%. C:MPs should be 

updated to reflect current practices and new technologies and farmers should be 

required to demonstrate actual on-farm emission reductions. 

" Regulate Ammonia: Ammonium nitrate, composed of ammonia and NOx, is the 

largest component of the Valley's PM2.5 levels and contributes significantly to levels 

that exceed the national standards. Compared to NOX, which has already been 

heavily regulated, ammonia has been historically under-regulated and represents 
148 


25633.106

2 

the cheapest opportunity for emission reductions. The EPA has already asked the 

District to regulate ammonia. We'd like to see a 70% reduction in ammonia modeled 

to determine its significance as a precursor. 

Transporation 

" Add the San joaquin Valley to areas of focus within ARB's Mobile Source Plan, 

including additional actions to deploy cleaner technologies. 

o Accelerate time lines within the Mobile Source Plan for San joaquin Valley: 

accelerate the setting of in-use emission performance standards and a 

low-NOx engine standard; accelerate deployment of zero-emission drayage 

and last-mile delivery trucks; accelerate deployment of zero-emission airport 

shuttle busses, forklifts, and transportation refrigeration units. Accelerate the 

change of construction fleets to Tier 4 standards. 

o Institute more aggressive targets for purchase requirements for 

zero-emission last-mile delivery trucks and bus fleets. Institute a 

zero-emission drayage truck rule. 

" Expand the Indirect Source Review (ISR) Rule: The ISR rule plays an important role 

in minimizing pollution from urban development. The District could expand the 

applicability of the rule to include new agricultural operations, such as traffic 

emissions between operations (i.e. milk processor, dairy, feedlot). In addition, the 

District should add limits on PM2.5 emissions and increase the emissions reductions 

required for projects. 

" Institute Clean Public Fleets: The District has the authority to adopt next-generation 

standards for fleets with zero-emission requirements on all publicly-owned vehicles 

in the San joaquin Valley. 

Oil &Gas 

" Amend the Flare Rule to incorporate required and enforceable minimization plans 

for operators, small and large: At present, Valley oil producers have no incentive to 

decrease flaring. North Dakota has a flare rule that requires operators of natural gas 

facilities to capture 74% of all natural gas, and by 2020, increase the capture rate to 

90%. If operators do not meet the targets, the Commission can reduce flared gas by 

restricting oil production. The District could borrow from this approach to reduce 

flaring. 

" Enhanced NOx and PM2.5 control requirements for boilers and steam generators, 

with a focus on transitioning to solar-powered boilers and generators. 
149 


25633.107

Reduction Credits: Require the expiration of credits after 10 years and 

reduce their value by So/o annually. 

3 

<~> Explore NOx and PMZ.S controls for noiN1gricultural internal combustion 

engines- including those in the oil and gas sector. 

" Glass Melting Manuf~cturing: Require more stringent NOx, SOx and PMZ.S emission 

limits to facilities manufacturing glass, making the applicable rules similar to South 

Coast's (0.24lbs NOxjton of glass pulled utilizing the "Ultra Cat ceramic filter 

system"). 

" Ban Fireplaces in New Development, Lower the Burn Threshold and prohibit iill 

devices from burning on a day expected to exceed 12 ug/m3 in PM 2.5 levels. The 

District should, like the the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District already has, ban 

fireplaces in all new homes and ban the use of fireplaces when PM 2.5 

concentrations exceed air quality standards. 

"' Update the Charbroiling Rule to indude under-fired charbroilers: Under-fired 

charbroilers emit direct PM2.5, yet the District has delayed updating the 

charbroiling rule to include the under-fired variety. The Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District has already implemented regulations on under-fired 

charbroilers. 
150 


25633.108

FRESNO BEE 

Alex Sherriffs and John Capitman: Don't back off 

demands for cleaner air 

bl!J:LIIwww,fresnobee,comlopinionlopn-columns-blogs/article37113285,html#storylink=cpy 

• Two dissenting members of 

Valley air board want to 

increase resources for cleaner 

air, not delay attainment 

• Valley can be proud of efforts 

that result in better air quality, 

but we still have far to go 

• Any changes to the Clean Air 

Act must unequivocally help us 

move forward 

BY ALEX SHERRIFFS AND JOHN CAPITMAN 

We are responding to a commentary in the Sept. 23 Bee written by five of our fellow board 

members at the San ,Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 

They support federal legislation that we believe will weaken, not strengthen, efforts to 

improve the Valley's air quality. As a practicing physician and as a professor of public 

health policy serving on the board, we cannot support a policy direction which threatens to 

extend the time Valley residents are breathing unhealthful air. 

Generalities in the op-ed sounded good, but we cannot endorse many details of the 

legislative language, particularly as public discourse of its implications has been limited. 

The district needs to focus on policy and advocacy to increase the tools and resources to 

meet more healthful air standards - not on how to delay attainment. 

Thanks to the Clean Air Act, the Valley's air is cleaner and more healthful than it was five, 

10 and 25 years ago. The Clean Air Act represents 40 years of federal legislation driving 
151 


25633.109

efforts to combat air pollution. It got lead out of gasoline. It fights lung- and eye-burning 

ozone, and it has saved hundreds of thousands ofliws by cleaning soot and tiny 

particulates from our air. 

The Clean Air Act sets standards based on what the latest and best science tells us about 

the impacts of air quality on health. First and foremost, the Clean Air Act is about achieving 

better health for us all. 

The Valley has made important investments to reach Clean Air Act goals. Thanks to 

federal, state and air district regulations, our businesses usc cleaner technologies and han~ 

adopted more sustainable and efficient practices. Trucks have to upgrade to 

lmrcr-emission, more fuel-efficient engines. The public has been essential in its demand 

for and acceptance of cleaner-burning, higher-mileage and altcrnath·e-fucl cars. The public 

also has been on hoard in its support of incentives, financed by state bonds and DMV fees 

speeific to the Valley. 

Agriculture, too, has played an important role. Farmers have switched from diesel pumps 

to electric· pumps and have purchased cleaner-burning tractors, thanks to inccnti1·c 

programs. 

Schools have been able to purchase less polluting buses, decreasing our childrcn·s direct 

exposure to toxic diesel emissions. Those incentives have helped businesses adopt cleaner 

technologies sooner. We all benefit: Businesses get assistance buying cleaner equipment 

ahead of deadlines, and the public sees cleaner air sooner. 

We~ can all he proud of the combination of efforts that has resulted in better air quality. But 

we still haYe far to go. We still share the worst childhood asthma rates in the nation with 

the heavily polluted Los Angeles basin. vVe still have more than 1,000 premature deaths 

cn~ry year in the Valley because of air pollution. Among all the air pollutants contributing 

to cancer, diesel emissions remain the No. 1 cause. 

\ Vhcncvcr we think about the costs of cleaning up, we must remember, too, the costs of not 

making things better for our children and grandchildren. The annual monetary cost of 

Valley air pollution in lost days of work, lost school days and health costs is overS 1 billion. 

That human suffering and monetary expense may not make daily headlines, hut it is real 
152 


25633.110

and immediate. 

We need to focus on achieving the health goals ahead, not on finding "·ays to delay success. 

Many thought that achieving current ozone standards would be impossible due to the costs 

and the lack of technology, but thanks to regulations put in place, and especially cleaner 

trucks and bnsl:s, we arc on a path of success into the 2030s. 

Creating a cleaner and more healthful future requires change. How we will balance 

competing needs is never certain. \Ye h:n·c great opportunities to promote even cleaner 

technologies, garner more support and financing to implement those strategies, and to be 

certain we' include disalh·antaged connuunities in that economic success. 

E\·cry day of delay is more deaths, millions of dollars in unnecessary health costs, and new 

cases of asthma. Any changes to the Clean Air Act must unequivocally help us move 

forward and strengthen our hand for cleaner, more healthful air. 

Alexander Sherriffs, 1\I.D., is c1 physician with Adventist Health Community Core in 

Fowler. John A. Capitmon, Ph.D., is executive director of the Central Volle~; Health Policy 

Institute. They ore Scm Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District board members. 
153 


25633.111

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER 

Ne-w York State 0C'ptn'trno-n1 of En-vironnlNtt»l C-on:serv~tion 

G?S 14th F'(ool. Abm<y, N1:w Yo1k 12233-1010 

P t5i3)402·8545 'F. {518) <W2·8541 

The Honorable John Shimkus, Chairman 

Subcommittee on the Environment 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Paul D. Tonka, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on the Environment 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Re: H.R 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017 

Dear Honorable Chair Shimkus and Representative Tonka: 

The State of New York strongly opposes the 'Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 

2017,'' which will substantially harm public health to the detriment of New Yorkers and 

residents of many other states. The proposed bill would restrict the efficacy of the Clean 

Air Act in a way that would delay implementation of critical health-based standards for 

protecting the public from harmful ground-level ozone and other dangerous air 

pollutants. The result of this proposed bill would be the significant postponement of 

health and environmental benefits for nearly a decade, inevitably resulting in increased 

illness and deaths from air pollution. 

Introduction 

The Clean Air Act ("Act") addresses the critically important issue of protecting the health 

and welfare of all Americans from excessive levels of air pollution. It establishes a 

federal-state partnership under which EPA, informed by established science, sets 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) at a level necessary to protect public 

health, and states develop and implement plans for achieving those standards. This 

collaborative process has significantly reduced pollutant concentrations to the great 

benefit of the public. Importantly, the process provided by the sections 109 and 110 of 

the Act recognizes that air pollution knows no boundaries and that air quality in many 

states. including New York, is impacted by emissions from sources located upwind. 

Section 109 of the Act ensures that implementation of the Act is guided by established 

science: it charges the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) with reviewing 

the latest 'state of the science" relating to public and environmental health, and 

D~partment of ElWironment;J.l 

Con!.ervati-on 
154 


25633.112

Page 2. 

conveying its findings to the Administrator. Based on that information, the Administrator 

establishes the NAAQS at a level necessary to protect public health within a reasonable 

margin of safety. Under Section 110 of the Act, States then develop plans to achieve 

air quality that meets the standard in those areas that do not meet the standard. known 

as "nonattainment" areas. 

In its latest review, CASAC determined that the existing 2008 ozone NAAQS was 

insufficiently protective of public health, particularly for at-risk groups including children, 

older adults, people of all ages who have lung diseases such as asthma, and people 

who are active outdoors. Based on CASAC's scientific findings, EPA determined that 

implementing the 2015 ozone NAAQS would help prevent a range of harmful health 

effects each year, including 320 to 660 premature deaths; 230,000 asthma attacks in 

children: 160,000 days when kids miss school; 28.000 missed work days; 630 asthmarelated emergency room visits; and 340 cases of acute bronchitis in children. EPA has 

identified additional serious health threats from ozone including cardiovascular disease 

(e.g., heart attacks, strokes, heart disease, congestive heart failure); potential harm to 

the central nervous system; and potential reproductive and developmental harm. The 

health benefits from meeting the 2015 ozone NAAQS exceed the costs of controls by 2 

to 4 times. 

Like many other states, New York strongly supported EPA's strengthening of the ozone 

NAAQS in 2015. This support comes even though New York faces a substantial burden 

of achieving ozone attainment in the New York City metropolitan area. This burden, 

however. is outweighed by the need to address the serious public health impacts In 

New York City, approximately 1 in 10 emergency room visits for asthma are attributable 

to ozone pollution. Rather than seek to delay its ozone attainment efforts, New York 

strives to bring the New York City metropolitan area into attainment as expeditiously as 

possible. in order to provide its residents with cleaner and more healthful air to breathe. 

Delaying public health benefits of the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

The proposed legislation would harm public health by delaying the implementation of 

the 2015 ozone NAAQS (and its corresponding health benefits) for eight years and 

further postponing any future standard for several years beyond when they are 

necessary. Current law requires EPA to designate states under the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS according to their monitored air quality by October 2017, and states not 

meeting the standards would have a number of years to reach compliance proportional 

to the severity of their ozone problems. However, this legislation would defer action so 

that designations would not be made until October 2025, thus postponing even the 

begmning of planning efforts until after attainment would otherwise have been achieved 

under the current structure of the Act For New Yorkers and other Americans, this 

would result in a substantial delay in their ability to breathe clean and healthful air. 
155 


25633.113

Page 3. 

Even worse. this proposed bill compounds this public health harm by allowing the 

construction of new power plants and factories without considering their impact on a 

region's ability to achieve compliance with the NAAQS. Under current law, such new 

and modified facilities located in areas designated nonattainment are subject to a 

control technology review under the Clean Air Act's nonattainment new source review 

program, which requires a demonstration of control technology that would consider the 

"lowest achievable emission rate," resulting in the most stringent emission limit for a 

certain source class. This bill would eliminate these new source reviews, which are 

critical for advancing a nonattainment area toward NAAQS compliance. 

Together, these aspects of the legislation will have even worse additional adverse 

1m pacts on states like New York that are victimized by upwind air pollution. First, this 

legislation will impair New York's relief from ozone transport from upwind locations. 

EPA modeling indicates that between 75% and 94% of the ozone in the New York City 

metropolitan area comes from sources outside of New York. Although New York will 

continue actions to reduce emission of ozone precursors, it cannot achieve healthful 

ozone levels without a substantial reduction in emissions from states located upwind, 

which are responsible for most of New York's ozone levels. Many of these states 

encompass areas that are currently monitoring as nonattainment, and these areas 

would have to achieve emission reductions under current law if designated 

nonattainment. Postponing a nonattainment designation for the New York City 

metropolitan area will have the unacceptable effect of postponing the "good neighbor" 

obligation of upwind areas to reduce their significant contribution to New York's 

nonattainment until sometime after the nonattainment designation. 

Moreover, postponing compliance with nonattainment New Source Review in areas that 

would otherwise be designated as nonattainment with the ozone NAAQS establishes an 

Inequitable outcome for New York and other states that have already been designated 

nonattainment. Under this proposed bill, new industrial facilities in areas currently 

designated nonattainment with the 2008 ozone NAAQS or in the Ozone Transport 

Region- including all of New York-- will have to comply with nonattainment NSR 

requirements, yet facilities located in regions with comparable or worse air quality and 

much higher emissions will not have to do so for a decade or more. As such, states that 

would otherwise be designated nonattainment would gain an unfair advantage in 

attracting business development under this bilL 

Delaying public health benefits from reducing other criteria pollutants 

As1de from ozone, provisions of this proposed bill would affect future NAAQS reviews 

for all cnteria pollutants, thus compounding negative public health impacts. For 

example. the bill would irresponsibly extend the NAAQS review time from five years to 

ten for all criteria pollutants. Retaining the five-year review schedule ensures that the 

Administrator reviews the relevant state of the science while it is timely and germane 
156 


25633.114

Page 4. 

Health science moves quickly: by the time one NMOS revision is reaching completion, 

other pertinent clinical studies are being published. 

This proposed bill weakens public health protection by making cost and technological 

feasibility larger factors in the establishment and implementation of NMOS The 

Supreme Court has already upheld the notion that the consideration of costs has no 

place in the setting of a NMOS (Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 

2001 ). Instead, questions of technological and economic feasibility are considered at 

the stage of implementing the NAAOS For example, the Act's nonattainment area 

classifications recognize that areas with more difficult ozone pollution problems require 

more time to comply. Unfortunately, Section 3(b) of the proposed bill would change the 

long-standing practice of how an Administrator determines the NMOS by allowing him 

or her to analyze, as a secondary consideration, the likely technological feasibility of a 

revised NAAOS. Section 3(c) would expand CASAC's role to providing advice to the 

Administrator on adverse economic effects (among others) prior to the setting of the 

NMOS. Taken together, these proposed revisions would have the effect that NMOS 

would no longer be set at levels that are protective of public health and welfare. 

Finally, the proposed bill unnecessarily redefines ordinary expected conditions as 

"exceptional events" that need not be considered by a state in demonstrating 

attainment The intent of the "extraordinary event" exception is to allow a state to 

discount NMOS exceedances that result from one-time, unpredictable, and 

uncontrollable events such as wildfires. The proposal, however, would allow 

commonplace conditions such as stagnant air masses and "meteorological event[s] 

involving high temperatures or lack of precipitation" to be considered exceptional. In 

their ozone planning, states should anticipate these conditions, which are expected to 

occur each year and promote the formation of ozone when public health is at the 

greatest risk 

We also disagree with the proposal to allow sources to avoid nonattainment new source 

review until release of the implementation guidance. EPA's delay in issuing guidance 

should not be an excuse to allow new sources in non attainment areas to contribute to 

further air quality degradation. In addition, the bill's reduction of the time allotted for 

states to formulate and submit attainment plans from the current three years to one year 

reflects a misunderstanding of the laborious process for developing these plans. 

Conclusion 

The Clean Air Act is a bipartisan success story. Citizens across the country have 

benefited from the Act's clean air requirements over the last few decades. People can 

breathe easier due to the clean air standards that have resulted from rigorous reviews 
157 


25633.115

Page 5. 

that are guided by the latest scientific evidence. Passage of this proposed bill would 

deprive the American people of those benefits, worsen air quality and harm public 

health substantially. 

Sincerely, 

Basil Seggos 
158 


25633.116

c\CC \\dconK" lk;mng On Lcgi~hllion to lmprO\C lmplcmmllltivn Procc~s for EPA 0?f>nc Standard6 

RESOURCES 

(202) 249-6512 

WASHINGTON (March 22, 2017)- The American Chemistry Council {ACC) 

issued the fOf/OWing statement in advance Of foday's IPrcri.<Lllh,•i• 

House Subcommittee on Environment entitled, 

Implementation Act of 2017" 

in the 

'We commend Chairman Shimkus for holding today's hearing on H.R 806, 

bipartisan legislation that updates and improves the implementation process for 

EPA ozone standards. It will help ensure that manufacturers who want to invest 

and hire in the U.S. can obtain regulatory permits in a timely and efficient 

manner. 

'Before manufacturing facilities can proceed with a new construction or 

se_rc 
159 


25633.117

expansion project, they must obtain regulatory approval. This is complicated 

when localities are forced to comply with two different ozone standards 

concurrently. EPA has failed to provide needed implementation rules and 

guidance in a timely manner, leaving facilities and state permitting agencies in 

limbo. The confusion and delays that result from EPA's approach to setting and 

implementing ozone standards can put new investment and jobs at risk. 

'The 'Ozone Standards Implementation Act' will help. It sets a ten-year cycle 

for national ambient a1r quality standards (NAAQS) reviews, provides 

regulatory certainty by streamlining preconstruction permitting and extends the 

compliance date for meeting the 2015 standards to 2025. Such reforms will 

enable continued air quality improvement without compromising U.S. 

manufacturing growth.'' 

H.R. 806 was introduced by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas), together with Reps. 

Bill Flores (R-Texas), Bob Latta (R-Ohio), Henry Cuellar (0-Texas), Sanford 

Bishop (0-Ga.), Jim Costa (0-Calif.), Steve Scalise (R-La.), Kevin McCarthy 

(R-Calif.) and other original cosponsors. The Senate companion, : , was 

by Senators Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) 

and Joe Manchin (0-W.Va.). Both bills were introduced on February 1, 2017. 
160 


25633.118

SLOG ,ACC STORE CONTACT US MEMBER LOGIN SITEMAP 

\n\ \\ .amerit-anchemiqry.c0m/."~c0-5l iS;:~23n425t>IS709bO 1 0913·19~769a4&c.~id~·-61Shc5rm-05{lf .. ._,7! !-b}.lOS-0050568! 34cO&urlid ·-0! 3122,2017 
161 


25633.119

March 21, 2017 

Dear Senator/Representative, 

On behalf of our millions of members, the undersigned 121 organizations urge you to oppose the 

"Ozone Standards Implementation Act" (H.R. 806, 5.263). The innocuous-sounding name is misleading: 

this legislation would actually systematically weaken the Clean Air Act without a single improvement, 

undermine Americans' 46-year right to healthy air based on medical science, and delay life-saving 

health standards already years overdue. 

This bill's vision of "Ozone Standards Implementation" eliminates health benefits and the right to truly 

safe air that Americans enjoy under to day's law. First, the legislation would delay for ten years the right 

to safer air quality, and even the simple right to know if the air is safe to breathe. Corporations applying 

for air pollution permits would be free to ignore new ground-level ozone (aka smog) health standards 

during these additional ten years. For the first time the largest sources of air pollution would be allowed 

to exceed health standards. The bill would also outright excuse the parts of the country suffering the 

worst smog pollution from having backup plans if they do not reduce pollution. The most polluted parts 

of the country should not stop doing everything they can to protect their citizens' health and 

environment by cleaning up smog pollution. 

This bill is not content to merely weaken and delay reductions in smog pollution. It also strikes at our 

core right to clean air based on health and medical science. The medically-based health standards that 

the law has been founded on for 46 years instead could become a political football weakened by 

polluter compliance costs. This could well result in communities being exposed to unhealthy levels of 

smog and soot and sulfur dioxide and even toxic lead pollution. The bill would also double the law's fiveyear review periods lor recognizing the latest science and updating health standards, which are already 

frequently years late; this means in practice that unhealthy air would persist for longer than ten years. 

The legislation also weakens implementation of current clean air health standards. The bill expands 

exemptions for "exceptional events" that are not counted towards compliance with health standards for 

air quality, even when air pollution levels are unsafe. This will mean more unsafe air more often, with no 

responsibility to clean it up. Requirements meant to ensure progress toward reducing smog and soot 

pollution would shift from focusing on public health and achievability to economic costs. Despite the 

bland name "Ozone Standards Implementation Act," this bill represents an extreme attack on the most 

fundamental safeguards and rights in the Clean Air Act. 

Since 1970, the Federal Clean Air Act has been organized around one governing principle-that the EPA 

must set health standards based on medical science for dangerous air pollution, including smog, soot 

and lead, that protect all Americans, with "an adequate margin of safety" for vulnerable populations like 

children, the elderly and asthmatics. This legislation eviscerates that principle and protection. We urge 

you to oppose H.R. 806 and S.263, to protect our families and Americans' rights to clean air. 

Sincerely, 

350KC 

350 Loudoun 

Alaska Community Action on Taxies 

Alton Area Cluster UCM (United Congregations 

of Metro-East) 

Brentwood House 
162 


25633.120

California Latino Business Institute 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Central Valley Air Quality (CVAQ) Coalition 

Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility 

Chicago Physicians for Social Responsibility 

Citizens for Clean Air 

Clean Air Watch 

Clean Water Action 

Cleveland Environmental Action Network 

Climate Action Alliance of the Valley 

Connecticut League of Conservation Voters 

Conservation Voters for Idaho 

Conservation Voters of South Carolina 

Dakota Resource Council 

Earth Day Network 

Earth justice 

Earthworks 

Environment Iowa 

Environment America 

Environment Arizona 

Environment California 

Environment Colorado 

Environment Connecticut 

Environment Florida 

Environment Georgia 

Environment Illinois 

E:nvironment Maine 

Environment Maryland 

Environment Massachusetts 

Environment Michigan 

Environment Minnesota 

Environment Missouri 

Fnvironment Montana 

Environment Nevada 

Environment New Hampshire 

Environment New Jersey 

Envtronrnent New Mexico 

Environment North Carolina 

Environment Ohio 

Environment Oregon 

Environment Rhode Island 

Environment Texas 

Environment Virginia 

Environment Washington 

Environmental Defense Action Fund 

Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) 

Environmental Law & Policy Center 

Ethical Society of St. Louis 

Faith Alliance for Climate Solutions 

Florida Conservation Voters 

Fort Collins Sustainability Group 

Gasp 

Green Latinos 

Health Care Without Harm 

Iowa Interfaith Power & Light 

Jean-Michel Cousteau's Ocean Futures Society 

KyotoUSA 

Labadie Environmental Organization (LEO) 

Latino Donor Collaborative 

League of Conservation Voters 

League of Women Voters 

Maine Conservation Voters 

Maryland League of Conservation Voters 

Michigan League of Conservation Voters 

Moms Clean Air Force 

Montana Conservation Voters Education Fund 

Montana Environmental Information Center 

National Parks Conservation Association 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

NC League of Conservation Voters 

Nevada Conservation League 

New Mexico Environmental Law Center 

New York League of Conservation Voters 

Northern Plains Resource Council 

OEC Action Fund 

Ohio Organizing Collaborative, Communities 

United for Responsible Energy 

Oregon League of Conservation Voters 

Partnership for Policy Integrity 

Penn Environment 

People Demanding Action, Tucson Chapter 

Physicians for Social Responsibility 

Physicians for Social Responsibility, Maine 

Chapter 

Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles 

Chapter 

Physicians for Social Responsibility, Arizona 

Chapter 

Physicians for Social Responsibility, SF Bay Area 

Chapter 

Physicians for Social Responsibility, Tennessee 

Chapter 

Physicians for Social Responsibility, Wisconsin 

Chapter 

Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Public Citizen 

Public Citizen's Texas Office 

RVA Interfaith Climate Justice Team 
163 


25633.121

Safe Climate Campaign 

San Juan Citizens Alliance 

Sierra Club 

Southern Environmental Law Center 

Texas Campaign for the Environment 

Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services 

Texas League of Conservation Voters 

The Environmental Justice Center at Chestnut 

Hills United Church 

Trust for America's Health 

Union of Concerned Scientists 

Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Valley Watch 

Virginia Organizing 

Virginia Interfaith Power & light 

Voces Verdes 

Voices for Progress 

Washington Conservation Voters 

WE ACT for Environmental Justice 

Western Colorado Congress 

Western Organization of Resource Councils 

Wisconsin Environmental Health Network 

Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters 

Wisconsin Environment 

Wyoming Outdoor Council 
164 


25633.122

Mr. Scan A lteri 

Director 

Division for Air Quality 

Aprill1,2017 

Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection 

300 Sower Boulevard; 2nd Floor 

Frankf011, KY 40601 

Dear Mr. Altcri, 

~-H;\NK 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Environment on Wednesday, March 22, 

2017, to testify at the hearing entitled "'H.R. 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act of20 17 .'' 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (1) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to lhesc questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on \Vednesday, April26, 2017. Your responses should be 

mailed to Grace Appdbe, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailcd in Word format to 

Grace.Appelbe@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Environment 

cc: The Honorable Paul Tonko, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on EnYironmcnt 

Attnchment 

Y i\SLY 
165 


25633.123

MATfHEWG, BEVl~ CH.A.RLES G, SNAVELY 

GG>fj(>JOR SecR.E!MW 

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT CAIH!'IET 

DEPARTMENT FOR ENVII\ONMENTAL PROTECTION 

300 SOWER BOUI.EV/IRO 

FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY 40601 

April 26, 2017 

AAR0:-1 B. KEATLEY 

COI~SS.IVHER 

Ms. Grace Appelbc, Legislative Clerk 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2!25 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Ms. Appelbe: 

On Wednesday, March 22, 2017, I appeared before the Subcommittee on Environment to 

testify at the hearing entitled, "H.R. 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act of2017." 

Included in this letter, please find my responses to Chairman John Shimkus' additional questions 

for the record. 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

I. Witnesses noted in testimony that it is unfair that, under current law, local 

jurisdictions may be subject to penalties for failure to attain standards, even 

though the failure is due to emissions from sources that are outside the 

jurisdictions' authority to control. 

a. To assist with our identifying the problem fully, would you provide 

examples of the types of emissions or pollutants, natural or 

anthropogenic, that are outside your state's control and that may impede 

your ability to reach attainment of air quality standards so as to subject 

you to fees or other penalties? 

"Exceptional events", such as wildfires that recently occurred in Appalachia 

during November of2016, may impede the ability to achieve the national 

ambient air quality standard for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns 

(PM2 5) and ozone (OJ). State and Local agencies are unable to control 

emissions resulting from wild fires. 

b. Are there circumstances in your view in which relief from penalties may 

be provided either to local or to state level jurisdictions? 

K~ntuckyUnbri.:iledSpirh c-om 

Section 179(d) of the Clean Air Act details the "(c)onsequences for failure to 

attain" and requires an additional revision to the applicable implementation 

plan. The implementation plan shall include the permit requirements of 

An Eqna! Opponunlry Employer 1\1 'F D 
166 


25633.124

Ms. Appelbe 

April26, 2017 

Page 2 

Section 173 of the Clean Air Act. My understanding is that the "offsets" 

mandated in Section 173 of the Clean Air Act are applicable and there is no 

relief that can be provided regarding "offsets." 

2. Hearing testimony raised concerns about the quality of modeling data. When 

promulgating nonattainment designations in air quality control regions, should 

the Administrator base such designation on modeling predictions that do not 

incorporate state/local air agency input in lieu of the state's air quality 

monitoring data? 

No. Failure to incorporate state and local air agency input may result in EPA's final 

nonattainment designations based upon erroneous data. During recent EPA analyses 

for interstate transport of pollution, state and local air pollution control agencies 

provided clarifying information to accurately reflect emissions inventories of 

stationary sources and correct modeling inputs used by EPA. 

Furthermore, modeling characterizations of the air quality in an area are conservative 

and do not accurately reflect actual concentrations of criteria pollutants observed at 

the State and Local Ambient Monitoring Stations (SLAMS). Modeling 

characterizations can provide beneficial information necessary to establish the 

appropriate location for the siting of SLAMS. However, considering the significant 

consequences associated with nonattainment designations, the Division for Air 

Quality does not find modeling characterizations to be appropriate for designation 

purposes. 

3. Are there any other considerations we should take into account concerning H.R. 

806 that you believe we did not cover sufficiently in the hearing? 

Currently, EPA is requesting state and local air pollution control agencies to review 

ozone monitoring data for the previous three (3) monitoring years for which there is 

complete, quality-assured monitoring data (2013, 2014, 2015). On April I 3, 2017, 

EPA notified states that it intends to invalidate a substantial amount of certified 

ambient air monitoring data from the period 2013 to 2015. The data collected during 

those years served a~ the basis for which states used to determine their recommended 

designations for the 2015 OJ NAAQS. Invalidation of this ozone monitoring data 

could have a significant impact on EPA's final designations for the 2015 OJ NAAQS. 

Sincerely, 

Sean Alteri 
167 


25633.125

Mr. Mere A R. Cone 

Director 

Bureau of Air Quality 

April11,2017 

Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

17 State House Station 

28 T vson Drive 

Aug~sta, ME 04333-0017 

Dear Mr. Cone, 

Th.:mk you for appcnring before the Subcommittee on Environment on Wednesday, March 22, 

2017, to testify at the hearing entitled "H.R. 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act of20l7." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which arc 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (l) the name of the 

\1crnber whose question you nrc addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold. and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on \\/cdnesday, April 26, 2017. Your responses should be 

mailed to Grace Appelhe, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailcd in Word format to 

Grace.Appelbe@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preradng and delivering testimony before the 

Sub<.::ommittee. 

John 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Environment 

cc: The Honorable Paul Tonko, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment 

Attachment 

Ji 
168 


25633.126

~TAT[ OF MAl~C 

DEPART~lENT OF ENVIRON~fENTAL PRO'!EC]'!ON 

rAUL R 

GOVERNQq 

f'AUL MERCEH 

COVMiSS:O\iER 

April 25, 2017 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515-6115 

RE: Responses to Questions for the Record on H.R. 806 

Dear Chairman Shimkus: 

Thank you for the opportunity to supplement my testimony of Wednesday, 

March 22, 2017, before the Subcommittee on Environment at the hearing entitled 

"HR. 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017". 

I have reprinted your questions below, with my answers following. 

1. Witnesses noted in testimony t/Jat it is unfair t/Jat, under current law, local 

jurisdictions may be subject to penalties for failure to attain standards. even though 

the failure is due to emissions from sources that are outside the jurisdictions' 

authority to control. 

a To assist with our identifying tile problem fL11/y, would you provide examples of 

tile types of emissions or pollutants, natural or anthropogenic, that are outside 

your state ·s control and that may impede your ability to reach attainment of air 

quality standards so as to subject you to fees or to other penalties? 

b Are there circumstances in your view in which relief from penalties may be 

provided either to local or to state level jurisdictions? 

As stated at the hearing, Maine's air quality is impacted more by emissions outside of 

our control than most any other state, simply because Maine is geographically located 

downwmd from most of the rest of the United States. For example, it is not uncommon 

for Maine to monitor exceedances of the ozone standard from time to time during each 

ozone season (April - September). Staff meteorologists have completed analyses and 

developed maps showing where transported ozone pollution has originated which has 

resulted in monitored ozone levels exceeding standards in Maine (See Attachment). 

Each of the attached maps tracks the wind directions for periods of time prior to an 

individual exceedance event This demonstrates where pollution originated and travels 
169 


25633.127

Letter to: Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment 

RE Responses to Questions for the Record on H.R. 806, Ozone Standards 

Implementation Act of 2017 

Apnl 24, 2017 Page 2 of 15 

prior to impacting the Maine coastline. Every monitored exceedance is attributable to 

pollution transported from beyond Maine's borders with little or no contributions from 

sources 1n Maine. These exceedances occurred because the transported pollution 

plume from metropolitan areas to our south typically travels out over the Gulf of Maine, 

where on-shore sea breezes drive the ozone-laden air mass to Maine's coastal 

communities. Maine has no control over the emissions which cause these air masses 

coming from other states to exceed the ozone standards in Maine. In fact, EPA's most 

recent modeling completed during the development of the 2015 ozone standard 

demonstrates that emissions generated in Maine contribute no more than 1.5% of the 

total of the state's highest monitored ozone levels. 

This srtuation also occurs with transported pollution that travels over large bodies of 

water and impacts the coasts (termed land-water interface) of Connecticut, Maryland, 

and Michigan, all of which are experiencing ozone levels that are either in areas which 

are already designated as non-attainment or are monitoring at non-attainment levels. 

These land-water interfaces create significant ozone control strategy challenges to 

Maine and these other states which are overwhelmingly caused by emissions from 

outside their states. 

Over 50% of ozone causing pollution comes from mobile sources (cars, trucks, and 

non-road vehicles). The federal government and California are the only two regulatory 

entities in this country to impose emission requirements on the manufacturers of these 

sources. Maine has no control over emissions from mobile sources, both gasoline and 

diesel engines 

Additionally, states into which overwhelming transport is documented should be 

provided relief from regulatory sanctions for not attaining the ozone standard. Currently, 

Maine can demonstrate that overwhelming transport is occurring but cannot obtain 

regulatory relief because the state has a "metropolitan statistical area", Portland, Maine, 

whtch has a population greater than 100,000 people. Currently, under the Clean Air 

Act, because Maine has a metropolitan statistical area, the state is denied regulatory 

relief even though it does not significantly contribute to ozone exceedances. Situations 

such as this deserve relief from the imposition of sanctions, penalties, and additional 

regulatory burdens. 

2. Hearing testimony raised concerns about the quality of modeling data. When 

promulgating nonattainment designation in air quality control regions, should the 

Administrator base such designations on modeling predictions that do not 

incorporate state/local air agency input in lieu of the state's air quality monitoring 

data? 

The administrator should base nonattainment designations strictly on state's air quality 

monitoring data, where available. For any modeling that EPA undertakes for other SIPrelated actions, EPA should always incorporate state/local air agency input 
170 


25633.128

Letter to: Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment 

RE: Responses to Questions for the Record on H.R. 806, Ozone Standards 

Implementation Act of 2017 

April 24, 2017 Page 3 of 15 

3. Are there any other considerations we should take into account concerning H.R. 806 

that you believe we did not cover sufficiently in the hearing~) 

Maine supports the fact that an application received for processing should be subject to 

the rules in place at the time of acceptance. Thus, an accepted application that was 

subject to Best Available Control Technology (BACT) should remain subject to the 

BACT provisions and other regulatory requirements applicable at time of application 

acceptance by the permitting agency. 

Aga1n, thank you for the opportunity to provide additional information to supplement my 

testimony. Please do not hesitate to contact me if there are questions or I may be of 

further assistance to the Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on 

Environment 

Marc A R. Cone, P E. 

Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Attachment: 

Maps of Back Trajectories for Monitored Ozone Exceedances in Maine 

(These demonstrate where the air mass originated 36-48 hours prior to the 

exceedance and the path the air mass traveled.) 
171 


25633.129

Letter to: Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment 

RE: Responses to Questions for the Record on H.R 806, Ozone Standards 

Implementation Act of 2017 

April 24, 2017 Page 4 of 15 

Maps of Back Trajectories for Monitored Ozone Exceedances in Maine 

The following map shows 48-hour back trajectories from sites in Maine that had an 

exceedance of the current 2015 70 parts per billion (ppb) 8-hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) during the 2013-15 ozone seasons. 

Back Trajectory Hourly Endpoints 

for Maine Sites With Daily Exceedances by height 

trafl~dortes were modeled by NOAA's HYSPLIT model for 

of these sites exceeded the 2015 Ozone NAAOS 

2015 Ozone Seasons. 

for each hour lhal ozone was above 10 ppb 
172 


25633.130

Letter to Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment 

RE: Responses to Questions for the Record on H.R. 806, Ozone Standards 

Implementation Act of 2017 

April 24, 2017 Page 5 of 15 

The following maps show 36-hour back trajectories from sites in Maine that had an 

exceedance of the 2008 75 parts per billion (ppb) 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) during the 2011-13 ozone seasons. 

Hourly Endpoints from Back Trajectories for Maine's 

June 8 2011 Ozone Exceedance 
173 


25633.131

Letter to: Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment 

RE: Responses to Questions for the Record on HR. 806, Ozone Standards 

Implementation Act of 2017 

April 24, 2017 Page 6 of 15 

Hourly Endpoints from Back Trajectories for Maine's 

June 1, 2013 Ozone Exceedance 

model was used tv create back trajectories for evGry hour ozone was greatsr 

the ground atthe stte 

59 

• 
174 


25633.132

Letter to Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment 

RE: Responses to Questions for the Record on H.R. 806, Ozone Standards 

Implementation Act of 2017 

April 24, 2017 Page 7 of 15 

68 

0 

65 

() 

59 

• 

Hourly Endpoints from Back Trajectories for Maine's 

June 8 2011 Ozone Exceedance 

HYSPLIT model was used to oeate back trajec!ones for every hour Olone was greater 

date 
175 


25633.133

Letter to: Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment 

RE: Responses to Questions for the Record on H. R. 806, Ozone Standards 

Implementation Act of 2017 

April24,2017 Page8of15 

55 

• 

68 

0 

54 

• 

Hourly Endpoints from Back Trajectories for Maine's 

June 29, 2012 Ozone Exceedance 

model was us-ed to treate back trajectories for every hour ozone was greater 
176 


25633.134

Letter to: Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment 

RE: Responses to Questions for the Record on H.R 806, Ozone Standards 

Implementation Act of 2017 

April24, 2017 Page 9 of 15 

1-nrln•>ml:<> from Back Trajectories for Maine's 

6, 2011 Ozone Exceedance 
177 


25633.135

Letter to Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment 

RE Responses to Questions for the Record on H,R. 806, Ozone Standards 

Implementation Act of 2017 

April 24,2017 Page 10 of 15 

from Back Trajectories for Maine's 

13, 2012 Ozone Exceedance 
178 


25633.136

Letter to: Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment 

RE: Responses to Questions for the Record on H.R. 806, Ozone Standards 

Implementation Act of 2017 

April 24, 2017 Page 11 of 15 

46 

• 

48 

• 

Hourly Endpoints from Back Trajectories for Maine's 

2013 Ozone Exceedance 
179 


25633.137

Letter to: Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment 

RE: Responses to Questions for the Record on H.R 806, Ozone Standards 

Implementation Act of 2017 

April24, 2017 Page 12 of 15 

79 

• 

Hourly Endpoints from Back Trajectories for Maine's 

July 21,2011 Ozone Exceedance 
180 


25633.138

Letter to: Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment 

RE: Responses to Questions for the Record on H.R. 806, Ozone Standards 

Implementation Act of 2017 

April 24, 2017 Page 13 of 15 

59 

• 

Hourly Endpoints from Back Trajectories for Maine's 

August 3, 2012 Ozone Exceedance 

model was used to create back trajectories for every hour ozone was greater 

ground atthe. site 

45 

• 43 

• 
181 


25633.139

Letter to: Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment 

RE: Responses to Questions for the Record on H.R 806, Ozone Standards 

Implementation Act of 2017 

April 24, 2017 Page 14 of 15 

57 

• 

Hourly Endpoints from Back Trajectories for Maine's 

August 22, 2013 Ozone Exceedance 
182 


25633.140

Letter to: Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment 

RE: Responses to Questions for the Record on H.R. 806, Ozone Standards 

Implementation Act of 2017 

April 24, 2017 Page 15 of 15 

Hourly Endpoints from Back Trajectories for Maine's 

August 23, 2012 Ozone Exceedance 

NOAA's Online HYSPUT model was used to create back trajectories for every hour ozone 

than 75 ppb for this date 

The model was set to mclude vertical velocity. Traj-ectories end 10 meters above the ground at the 

recordmg the e;.,:ceedance. AU trajectories are 36 hour back trajectories. 

S1te values are the 8-hour Maximum value for the day in parts per billion .. 

55 

• 

0 61 

0 

53 

• 20 40 

~ 

~ 80 Mile. 

legend 

No data 

< 61 

0 61 65 

0 66- 70 

0 71-75 

• >75 

~ MEDEP updated Hli112013 with SackTrajectol)' Endpoints from NOAA's HYSPUTModel, 

<!Zone data from EPA'sAtrNow database and map lay<lfs fromMEOtS. 
183 


25633.141

COMMiTTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMHlCE 

Mr. Kurt Karperos 

Deputy Executive Officer 

California Air Resources Board 

I 00 J I Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Dear Mr. Karperos, 

April I I, 2017 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Environment on \Vednesday, March 22, 

2017, to testify at the hearing entitled "H.R. 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act of2017." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to pennit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as foliO\\'S: (1) the name of the 

Member whose question you arc addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmitial Jetter by the close of business on Wednesday, April 26, 20 17< Your responses should be 

mailed to Grace Appel be, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House 

Office Building, \Vashington, DC 20515 and c-maiied in Word fonnat to 

Grace. Appe 1 be@im a i 1. house .gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcon!mittee. 

Subcommittee on Environment 

cc: The Honorable Paul Tonka, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment 

Attachment 
184 


25633.142

Air Resources Board 

Mary D. Nichols, Chair 

Matthew Rodriquez 

Secrerary for 

Environmental Protection 

1001 I Street • P.O. Box 2815 

Sacramento, California 95812 • www.a:b.ca.gov Edmund G. Brown Jr. 

April 26, 2017 

Chairman John Shimkus 

Ranking Member Paul Tonka 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515-6115 

Dear Chairman Shimkus and Ranking Member Tonka: 

I would like to thank the Subcommittee on the Environment for the opportunity to 

testify at the hearing entitled "H.R.806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 

2017" held on March 22, 2017. Enclosed are our responses to the additional 

questions from the Subcommittee on Environment regarding H.R.806. The 

responses are for the hearing record. 

If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please do not hesitate to 

. Sydney Vergis, at 

Sincerely, 

Kurt Karperos 

Deputy Executive Officer 

Enclosure 

cc: Sydney Vergis, Ph.D. 

Interim Legislative Director 

The 

California Environmental Protection Agency 

Printed on Recycled Paper 

Governor 
185 


25633.143

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Hearing of the Subcommittee on Environment on Wednesday, March 22, 2017 entitled 

"H.R. 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017." 

Additional Questions for the Record 

California Air Resources Board Responses 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

1. What transportation measures is California considering to meet the 2015 

ozone standards? 

a. Could implementation of plans to meet the 2015 ozone standard 

necessitate changes in the composition of gasoline? 

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) does not anticipate changing the 

composition of gasoline to meet the 2015 ozone standard. 

b. If so, what would additional fuel regulations cost consumers on a per 

gallon basis? 

See above response. 

2. Has California estimated the cost of existing fuel regulations aimed at 

reducing ozone and other emissions on gasoline prices, and, if so, what 

are its estimates? 

California's Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG) Program reduces emissions from gasolinefueled vehicles and equipment to help meet health-based State and federal air quality 

standards (including ozone standards) and reduces health risk associated with exposure 

to toxic air contaminants. The program functions by establishing fuel quality 

specifications for gasoline sold in California. 

Since the mitial rulemaking in 1990, the program has gone through three distinct phases, 

and at each phase California has estimated the costs of complying with the 

program. Phase II had the most significant cost impact At the time of Phase II rule 

adoption, which began in March 1996, CARB calculated that CaRFG would increase 

production costs by about 5 to 15 cents per gallon (with an average estimated impact of 

1 0 cents) This value was inclusive of the 2 to 5 cents per gallon needed to make 

Federal RFG instead of non-reformulated gasoline at that time (see this fact sheet for 

more information • blli)//www. afd c.el1..ill:flY.i!OV/pdfs/300£QQf). 

Since that analysis was conducted, updates to Federal fuel specifications continue to 

narrow the gap between the cost of producing CaRFG and Federal RFG. For example. 

until recently, a significant difference between CaRFG and Federal RFG requirements 

had been the sulfur content requirements. However, in 2017, the sulfur content of 
186 


25633.144

Federal gasoline was reduced to an average of 10 parts per million-much closer to the 

California requirement-reducing the difference in cost of production between the two 

fuels 

Independent peer-reviewed academic analysis has confirmed that the CaRFG Program 

has been effective in improving air quality and that the air quality benefits have 

significantly outweighed the costs. (For an example see Auffhammer, Maximilian and 

Ryan Kellogg. 2011. "Clearing the Air? The Effects of Gasoline Content Regulation on Air 

Quality ... American Economic Review, 101 (6) 2687 -2722.) 

3. Will California implement plans to reduce vehicle miles traveled under 

the 2015 ozone standard? 

As I described in my testimony, last month the CARS adopted a comprehensive mobile 

source strategy that will not only provide the reductions needed to meet the 75 parts per 

billion ozone standard, but also the emission reductions needed for the new 70 parts per 

billion ozone standard adopted in 2015. The strategy includes reductions in passenger 

vehicle miles travelled achieved from efforts to meet the State's climate goals through 

development of more sustainable communities that support increased access to transit 

and other alternative modes of personal mobility. These efforts will reduce transportation 

costs, improve public health by facilitating more active transport and physical activity, and 

also reduce smog-forming emissions that will contribute to meeting ozone standards. 

4. Witnesses noted in testimony that it is unfair that, under current law, local 

jurisdictions may be subject to penalties for failure to attain standards, even 

though the failure is due to emissions from sources that are outside the 

jurisdictions' authority to control. 

a. To assist with our identifying the problem fully, would you 

provide examples of the types of emissions or pollutants, natural 

or anthropogenic, that are outside your state's control and that 

may impede your ability to reach attainment of air quality 

standards so as to subject you to fees or other penalties? 

The Clean Air Act coupled with California law, provides a clearly defined structure 

outlining responsibilities and mechanisms for addressing the full scope of sources 

affecting air quality. These provisions recognize that healthful air is a shared 

responsibility that can be achieved through clearly defined actions at the federal, state. 

and local level. California has long used this framework to design effective control 

programs that reflect a coordinated suite of state and federal actions to reduce mobile 

source emissions. Most recently, last month the CARS approved a comprehensive 

strategy to achieve the mobile source and consumer products reductions needed to meet 

federal air quality standards over the next 15 years. 

By working with U S. EPA, businesses, and the public, we have been able to effectively 

2 
187 


25633.145

utilize the structure of the Clean Air Act to achieve needed emission reductions. 

California's innovation and partnerships with U.S. EPA have led to cleaner technologies 

that provide benefits throughout the nation. Our package of clean vehicle standards and 

zero emission vehicle (ZEV) requirements are a prime example Looking forward. CARS 

staff has been working with U.S. EPA to develop requirements for the next generation of 

cleaner truck standards by optimizing technologies that are already here today. An 

adequate budget for U.S. EPA action that supports development of cleaner standards for 

cars and trucks will be critical to meeting air quality standards. Without this commitment, 

more costly controls may be required for other sources, which can in turn limit progress 

and increase health costs. 

The Clean Air Act also provides effective mechanisms to address the impacts of natural 

sources such as wildfires, as well as background ozone and international emissions. 

These mechanisms include the Exceptional Events Rule and the international transport 

provisions of the Act CARS has a successful track record of working with U.S. EPA to 

apply the Exceptional Events rule to ensure that impacts from sources that are beyond 

reasonable regulatory control do not affect a region's attainment status. Similarly, the 

Act's provisions related to international transport exempt affected areas from showing 

they have attained the standard and has been successfully employed in a number of 

regions in the Western U.S Lastly, the available science strongly suggests that high 

ozone days in California's urban areas are primarily due to local and regional emissions. 

There is also emerging evidence that background ozone reaching the west coast of the 

United States is now declining. Thus, with the exception of direct cross-border impacts of 

pollution from Mexicali, Mexico, our pollution control efforts puts us on track at attain 

current air quality standards. 

Finally. it is incorrect that local jurisdictions are subject to penalties for failing to attain air 

quality standards. Under the Clean Air Act, when a region fails to meet its attainment 

deadline. the region must prepare a new attainment plan with a new attainment deadline. 

When an area classified as extreme nonattainment for the ozone standard misses its 

attainment deadline, there is a requirement for additional fees on industrial sources to 

encourage further reductions. In California, both the San Joaquin Valley and the South 

Coast are subject to these fees. However, in both of these areas, working closely with 

U.S. EPA. California has used the flexibility inherent in the Clean Air Act to substitute 

vehicle registration fees already in place for the fees on industrial sources. These fees 

are immediately used by the local jurisdiction to incentivize the purchase of cleaner 

trucks. 

b. Are there circumstances in your view in which relief from penalties 

may be provided either to local or to state /eve/jurisdictions? 

The Clean Air Act does include provisions to apply sanctions should a region fall behind 

in meeting the Act's requirements. We believe it's important to have this type of 

mechanism to keep states moving forward. The key to meeting Act requirements and 

avoiding sanctions is to move forward proactively This provides states the time to 

3 
188 


25633.146

develop feasible and cost-effective strategies for achieving clean air and coordinate with 

U.S. EPA to ensure they meet the Clean Air Act's requirements. 

The most cost-effective strategy requires comprehensive actions by local air districts, 

CARS, and U S EPA At the local level, this includes actions to address residential, 

commercial, and industrial sources of emissions. For GARB, it means a commitment to 

use all of the authority provided to us under the Act to address mobile sources. For U.S. 

EPA, it means action to set cleaner federal emissions standards for cars and trucks that 

have already been proven feasible and cost-effective. When states work to address the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act proactively, as described in my response to question 

4a, the potential for penalties is minimized. 

4 
189 


25633.147

The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr. 

In your written statement you note that "California uses the planning required by the Act 

to minimize costs." 

1. Please elaborate on how this has been achieved by the state. 

California uses the Clean Air Act's requirements for early and comprehensive planning to 

look ahead and put regulations in place early to benefit from the pace of long-term 

technology turn-over, maximizing the cost-effectiveness of our regulations. The effort 

starts with technology assessments and pilot and demonstration projects for advanced 

technologies to provide the foundation for determining cost-effective regulatory 

approaches. These technology assessments also provide a mechanism to look ahead 

and plan for the gradual deployment of cleaner technologies across the timeframe 

allowed for attainment, which spurs incremental advances and in turn drives down costs. 

California also uses the advanced technology provisions of the Act to drive innovation, as 

well as employ incentive programs to bring cost-effective technologies to market. Finally 

provisions in the Clean Air Act provide states with the flexibility to focus on the 

approaches that are tailored to the unique nature of each region, and target the most 

cost-effective pollutants and solutions to improve air quality. 

2. Please explain how H.R. 806 would increase costs in the long-term. 

The delays in H.R. 806 will increase cost in two ways. First, delaying the planning 

process for implementing the ozone standard will result in lost opportunities to achieve 

near-term reductions from both new industrial sources and new vehicles and equipment 

entenng the fleet. This equipment will stay in use for many years and continue to pollute 

more than if it had been cleaned up sooner. This also shifts more of the burden to 

existing sources, and raises the costs of pollution controls. Ultimately, this will lead to 

states having to pay what is effectively a balloon payment to reduce emissions that could 

have been reduced more cost-effectively if add res sed proactively. 

Second, we have found that we can cut pollution while providing major economic benefits 

by keeping people healthier, working. and out of costly medical care. H.R. 806 would 

mean more people would breathe dirty air longer, leading to increased health costs, as 

deadlines are extended and requirements for incremental progress are eroded. 

Hospital room visits, missed work days. premature deaths, and long-term health damage 

to children all threaten our economic prosperity. By 2020, the Clean Air Act will have 

prevented 230.000 deaths, millions of cases of asthma, and hundreds of thousands of 

heart attacks. The economic costs of healthcare associated with exposure to polluted air 

are substantial, and far exceed the costs of using cleaner technologies. The Clean Air 

Act ensures we operate on excellent science, and then gives us flexibility to help avoid 

the major costs pollution imposes on people. 

5 
190 


25633.148

U.S. EPA estimates that achieving the newest federal ozone standard in California would 

save an estimated 400 million to 1.3 billion dollars per year when accounting for both the 

costs of reducing emissions and the avoided costs of healthcare, lost work days and low 

productivity, and other impacts of pollution. U S. EPA's estimates for attaining the 2012 

PM2.5 standard are also substantial, showing a net benefit of at least 3.3 billion dollars, 

with over 90 percent of the monetized benefits coming from reduction in premature 

deaths. Delaying implementation of standards would extend the substantial costs 

associated with exposure to unhealthy air, not only in California, but throughout the 

country. 

In your written statement you mention that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

will meet to consider plans to provide the pollution reductions necessary to meet the 2008 

and 2015 ozone standards. Since the March 22, 2017, hearing, the board has met and 

considered these plans. 

3. In the plans considered by CARB, please elaborate on the 

technologies and strategies that will help air districts achieve these 

goals? 

CARB's current mobile source control programs have achieved tremendous success in 

reducing smog-forming emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx). Ongoing implementation of 

these programs will result in substantial further reductions through 2031, providing a 

significant down payment for meeting air quality standards. The mobile source strategy 

approved by the Board last month identifies the regulatory and programmatic approaches 

necessary to deploy the next generation of cleaner technologies and fuels, and ensure 

sufficient penetration to meet air quality standards by deadlines established in the Clean 

Air Act 

For passenger vehicles. the strategy includes actions to increase the penetration of plugin hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and ZEVs, including battery-electric and hydrogen fuel 

cell electric vehicles. For heavy-duty vehicles, the strategy calls for combustion engine 

technology that is effectively 90 percent cleaner than today's standards, and also 

includes targeted introduction of zero emission technologies in heavy-duty applications 

that are suited to early adoption of ZEV technologies. 

Similar actions are included for off-road sources, with a focus on deployment of ZEV 

technologies in smaller equipment types such as forklifts and airport ground support 

equipment A low-emission diesel standard builds upon CARB's existing fuels framework 

by requiring that low-emission diesel fuels are used to achieve greater criteria pollutant 

reductions. Finally, for sources that are primarily under federal jurisdiction, such as 

interstate trucks, locomotives, and ocean-going vessels, the strategy includes petitions 

calling for U.S. EPA action to provide the needed emission reductions from these sources 

by setting more stringent engine standards. 

Meeting air quality standards in the two areas of the State with the greatest air quality 

challenges- the South Coast and the San Joaquin Valley- will also need to include 

6 
191 


25633.149

comprehensive action at local air district level. The South Coast air district also recently 

adopted a plan that includes actions to further reduce emissions from the largest 

industrial sources in the region, such as refineries (through the use of selective catalytic 

reduction), as well as transitioning to cleaner energy sources, such as electrification, fuel 

cells and solar for commercial and residential sources, and increasing energy efficiency. 

Similar actions will be needed in the San Joaquin Valley as part of plans that are in 

development to meet fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standards. In addition to industrial 

sources, District efforts to address residential wood burning, commercial cooking, and 

fugitive dust will also be critical to attainment. These efforts not only are important to 

meet air quality standards, but also to reduce people's exposure to air taxies. 

A number of the other witnesses expressed frustration and confusion associated with 

having to prepare and manage multiple implementation plans for various pollutants, at the 

same time. 

4. In your experience, how can integrated planning alleviate some of this 

frustration and confusion? 

Although a region may be required to meet multiple air quality standards over a period of 

years, each prior plan serves as a foundation to support the planning process for 

standards that are progressively health protective. A common core of regulations carries 

through each plan, with new regulations building on these efforts within the additional 

timeframe allowed under the Act for meeting the more stringent standard. Since the 1990 

Act amendments, the South Coast Air Quality Management District has been developing 

integrated plans to address all standards simultaneously This integrated air quality 

planning process highlights that it is not only possible to develop a plan that addresses 

multiple standards, but it is also an efficient and effective way to ensure continuing 

progress in protecting public health. 

In your written statement you made a few comments about the air quality challenges of 

the South Coast area. That the nonattainment issues are "more challenging, but progress 

there is also remarkable." 

5. Could you please describe the unique challenges of this area, and some 

of the techniques and strategies used to make such progress? 

The South Coast Air Basin has historically had one of the greatest air quality challenges 

in the nat1on. The region is home to nearly 17 million people, over 40 percent of the 

State's population. The region is also home to over 10 and a half million passenger and 

commercial vehicles that travel over 130 billion miles per year. Weather conditions and 

topography, along with emissions from vehicles, refineries, power plants, manufacturing, 

sea ports. airports, and railyards combine to produce elevated concentrations of both 

ozone and PM2.5. 

However, due to ongoing control efforts, air quality in the South Coast has improved 

7 
192 


25633.150

dramatically. Twenty-five years ago the entire South Coast region exceeded the 75 part 

per billion (ppb) 8-hour ozone standard. Today, peak concentrations have decreased 45 

percent, and 40 percent of residents live in communities that now meet the 

standard. The South Coast is also making significant progress in reducing PM2.5, which 

has decreased by over 50 percent in the Basin since 2000. 

The tools available in the Clean Air Act have been key drivers in this success. Decades 

of research programs and technical work conducted by CARB. the air district, U.S. EPA, 

academic institutions, other research organizations, and the private sector have provided 

the scientific foundation for determining effective control approaches. 

The Clean Air Act's waiver provisions that allow California to enact more stringent 

emission standards for passenger vehicles, heavy-duty trucks, and certain off-road 

vehicles and engines have also been critical to the region's ongoing progress. Over the 

years, California has received waivers and authorizations for over 100 regulations. With 

its Clean Air Act waiver authority, California has set emission standards for on-road motor 

vehicles that have reduced NOx emissions by almost 70 percent in the last 15 

years. Emissions from off-road mobile sources and equipment have decreased over 40 

percent based on similar advances in cleaner technologies. Advances in pollution control 

technologies have also lead to substantial NOx reductions from stationary and area 

sources, which have decreased by approximately 60 percent over the same time period. 

8 
193 


25633.151

The Honorable Debbie Dingell 

I have several concerns with this bill, but I want to focus on the problems in section 3(d). 

This section undermines decades of Clean Air Act practice and weakens air quality 

protections. 

The Clean Air Act requires a large new or expanding industrial facility to get an air 

pollution permit before starting construction. The facility must commit to install pollution 

controls, and it must demonstrate that its emissions won't produce unhealthy levels of air 

pollution in the area. If the facility's pollution would cause tile area to violate an air 

pollution standard, then the facility must do more to reduce or offset its emissions. 

But section 3(d) of the bill before us creates a loophole in the law. If EPA fails to meet 

new procedural requirements, the bill would allow a facility to get a permit by measuring 

its emissions against an outdated, less protective air quality standard. Previous 

witnesses have referred to this as "amnesty" 

Mr. Karperos, what is the practical effect of allowing a new facility to 

be permitted under an outdated standard? 

2. What are the public health implications of exempting new or 

modified facilities from more protective air quality standards? 

Opportunities for further emissions reductions and related health protections that could 

have been realized under a newer, more stringent standard will be lost, should the facility 

be permitted under an outdated standard. These missed opportunities will only prolong 

potentially significant localized health impacts, such as those experienced in 

disadvantaged communities that are already highly affected by air pollution. It should be 

a priority for regulatory entities to ensure these impacted communities are protected from 

the dangerous effects of air pollution as quickly as possible. 

Further. this bill does not only harm public health -it hurts industry. The provisions of 

section 3(d) shifts the burden of air quality improvements from new to existing industrial 

facilities that would need to retrofit pollution controls. which is generally more expensive 

than if a new facility was designed with these pollution controls from the start As a 

result, it raises the costs of pollution controls and raises overall costs for existing 

businesses to continue operating. 

3. Mr. Karperos, how will this affect existing industrial sources in your state, 

particularly if a new facility pushes an area into violation of the air quality 

standards? 

This is contrary to a key principle of the Clean Air Act, which has historically 

demonstrated that it is an effective means to protect public health and the environment 

The CAA requires new sources to install the newest control technologies because it is 

9 
194 


25633.152

during the design phase that incorporation of these technologies is the most effective 

from both control efficacy and cost perspectives. Further, new facilities will likely exist for 

longer than existing ones, and ensuring these new facilities operate as cleanly as they 

can from the first day of operation will result in more emissions reductions over the 

lifetime of the facility. Finally, as mentioned previously, if new sources are not subject to 

the newest standards, the burden for additional emissions reductions will be shifted to 

existing sources, where installation of pollution controls is more costly and potentially less 

effective. 

4. Finally, Mr. Karperos, has your state ever been unable to issue 

preconstruction permits because EPA had not issued guidance for a 

new air quality standard? Is this a situation that states have the ability 

to handle? 

California, like many states that face significant air quality challenges, has many decades 

of experience regulating air pollution. The air districts' regulation of stationary source 

emissions, in partnership with ARB's programs to reduce mobile source emissions, has 

resulted in significant improvements in air quality for the state. These successes have 

not only gotten us to where we are today, but will continue to guide and inform our work 

to improve air quality into the future. That said, we are aware that some states may have 

the necessary experience, but lack similar resources as are available in California. ARB 

believes that it is for these situations that U.S. EPA and its 10 regional offices should 

continue to be fully funded in order to provide the assistance necessary to implement the 

most health protective standards as expeditiously as possible. 

10 
195 


25633.153

CCJMI\t11TlH ON FI\:[RGY AND COMMEfiCE 

Or FiCf n~ !il D;~() 

April II, 2017 

;v1s. Nancy Vehr 

Air Quality Administrator 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

200 West J 7th Str~et 

Cheyenne, \\ 'Y 82002 

Dear Ms. Vchr, 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Environment on Wednesday, March 22, 

:2017, to testify at the hearing entitled "H.R. 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act of2017.'' 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remafns 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (1) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Wednesday, April26, 2017. Your responses should be 

mailed to Grace Appclbe, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House 

Olfice Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e·rnalled in Word format to 

Grace.Appelbe@maiLhouse.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

John 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Environment 

ec: The Honorable Paul Tonko, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment 

Attachment 
196 


25633.154

lfnited States House of Representatives, 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

Sub-Committee on Environment 

Hearing on March 22, 2017 

H.R. 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act 11{2017 

Questions on the Record Submitted to Ms. Nancy Vchr 

Questions from the Honorable .John Shimkus 

Question 1: My understanding is that EPA's Exceptional Events Rule allows states to exclude 

certain emissions data fi·om consideration when determining compliance\\ ith 

national ambient air quality standards. 

a. lf EPA f~1ils to take action with respect to an exceptional event petition. 

docs that mean that your state is effectively penalized because those emissions arc 

considered in determining your compliance with the new standards? 

Response: Yes. An exceptional event is considered to be an excecdanee or a 

"violation" unless and until EPA approves the demonstration. EPA ·s failure to 

act on a petition results in inflated monitor data that misrepresents the condition 

of air quality. Ultimately, EPt\ 's inaction may result in permitting delays and 

inaccurate characteriLation of air quality to the public. inaccurate emission 

inventories and modeling results that EPA then uses to establish federal policies 

and regulations. As a result state resources arc shifted from addressing areas of 

concern to addressing situations that are actually not proble1natic. The attendant 

consequences fi·om EPA inaction. arc mnrc full) addressed in the attached letter 

dated i"vlay 23. 20 16. entitled "Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

( WDEQ) Exceptional Events Demonstration Packages: 2011-2014. 

b. Is the Exceptional Events Rule likely to provide relief to states for 

emissions cxceedances due to wildfires? 

Response: Unlikely. because of the currently burdensome. resource intensive. 

time-consuming and costly process, and the possibility of EPA inaction. See 

attached letter li·om EPA Region 8. received April28, 2016 noting that EPA had 

received. but not acted on, demonstrations tc1r particulate matter cxccedanees due 

to wildfires. 

c. What potential modifications to the exceptional events provisions of the 

Clean Air !\ct would ;ou suggest to provide more meaningful relief'? 

Response: One potential modification would be to require EPA action by a set 

deadline. or in the event otTPA inaction. the demonstration would be 

automatically approved. Other modifications such as workable techniealtools. 

clear and timely guidance, streamlining federal review, and other measures that 

honor and recognize the work undertaken by states, may also be effective for 

providing meaningti.il relief at the agency implementation level. 
197 


25633.155

Question 2: Witnesses noted in testimony that it is unfi1ir that, under current Ia\\, local 

jurisdictions may be subject to penalties f(Jr failure to attain standards, even 

though the failure is due to emissions from sources that are outside the 

jurisdictions' authority to controL 

a. To assist with our identifying the problem Cully, would you provide 

examples of the types oCemissions or pollutants, natural or anthropogenic, that 

are outside your state's control and that may impede your ability to reach 

attainment oCair quality standards so as to subject you to fees or other penalties'' 

Response: Examples oCnatural or anthropogenic emissions that are outside of 

Wyoming's control and may impede Wyoming's ability to attain ambient air 

quality standards include: international transport of emissions; smoke from instate or out-ol:state wildfires: stratospheric ozone intrusions; emissions tl'cJin 

motor vehicles and other EPA-regulated engines; biogenic emissions and 

emissions from other naturally occurring phenomena such as mineral springs, 

geysers, and the like: climatological and meteorological conditions such as 

drought, high-\\inds, excessive precipitation, etc.: and other sources of emissions 

that contribute to background levels. 

b. Are there circumstances in your view in which relief from penalties ma) 

be provided either to local or to state level jurisdictions? 

Response: Under relief mechanisms currently available under the Clean Air 

;\ct and associated regulations, while relief is theoretically possible, it is 

extremely rare to the point that it is unattainable. These relief mechanisms 

include Rural Transport ;\reas, International Transport Areas, and Exceptional 

Event Demonstrations. In their current Corm, these mechanisms are extremely 

resource intensive, costly and rarely approved. For example, Rural Transport 

Areas only provide relief for rural an: as that have been or will be designated 

moderate nonattainmcnt or higher, not marginal nonattainment areas. EPA has 

only approved t\\O such areas and those approvals were in regards to the 1979 

Ozone Standard. Relief under International Transport only applies to areas 

located within a live mik radius of an international border. Thus, such relief is 

not available to inter-mountain west states such as Wyoming. The challenges 

with relief under the Exceptional Event process were addressed in my response to 

Question I. 

Question 3: Your testimony raised concerns about the quality of modeling data. When 

promulgating nonattainment designations in air quality control regions, should the 

Administrator base such designations on modeling predictions that do not 

incorporate state/local air agency input in lieu of the state's air quality monitoring 

data'? 

2 

Response: No. Multisoun:c and background modeling tools arc complex and 

must be developed to a level that assures accuracy for their intended application. 
198 


25633.156

Inaccurate models may result in the needless expenditure of time and resources on 

a non-existent issue. Such an approach is detrimental to public health and the 

environment because time and time and resources \\ill be directed towards 

addressing a non-existent issue instead of addressing an issue that may provide 

public health and environmental benefits. Farly and meaningful engagement with 

and input fi·om states is critical to the development of modeling inputs and 

adjustments. and also an understanding of modeling limitations. 

Om'stion .t: /\re there any other considerations we should take into account concerning H.R. 

806 that you believe we did not cover sufficiently in the hearing? 

Response: No. 
199 


25633.157

Department of Environmental Quality 

May 23,2016 

Monica V.orales 

Acting 0 [rector 

Air Program 

To protect, conserve and enhance the quality of Wyoming's 

environment for the benefit of current and future generations. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 8 

! 595 \Vynkoop Street 

Denver, CO 80202~ 1129 

RE: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (\VDEQ) Exceptional Events 

Demonstration Packages; 2011-2014 

Dear \11s. ?\1ora!es: 

Todd Parfitt, Director 

The State of Wyoming, Department of Environmental Quality~ Air Quality Division (AQD) has 

reviewed your letter, and offers the following comments, regarding the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) Region 8's preliminary review of, and decision to not act upon, WDEQ's exceptional event 

demonstration submittals for calendar years 2011-2014. The AQD appreciates EPA Region 8's 

notification of preliminary review, but ultimately finds the EPA's proposed inaction on WDEQ's request 

for ~.;oncurrence on monitoring data flagged as influenced by exceptional events to be very disappointing. 

The AQD renews its reqUt:sts for EPA Region 8 action. 

The EPA's inaction- to shelve Wyoming's exceptional event submissions until the EPA views them as 

the subject of an attainment dt.mlOnstration or other EPA regulatmy decision- signals the EPA's general 

disrcgord for the significant time and staff resources committed by the AQD for each individual 

exccptionnl event demonstration. The EPA's response to Wyoming's submittals may discourage other 

state regulatory agencies from performing thorough, meticulous work on future exceptional event 

demonstrations under the presupposition that these demonstrations will be merely shelved once they reach 

federal review. This does not align with the objectivt!s of the EPA or WDEQ, as both entities should be 

wholly committed to providing outstanding responsiveness on environmental policy issues. 

Furthermore, the EPA'sjustification for inaction is also problematic. Although certain exceptional event 

demonstrations that appear on the enclosed tabte ofWDEQ's 20 11~2014 packages may not directly 

petiain to a specific pending regulatory decision- such as whether an area will be considered 

nonattainment- they nevertheless represent exceed<:~.nccs of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) that the AQD has determined \vere caused by circumstances beyond regulatory contra!. Unless 

these flagged data demonstrations arc approved by the EPA, they are ultimately considered to be 

"'violations"-· regardless of whether such a ''violation" is warranted- and \Vyoming is left with possible 

200 West 17th Street Cheyenne, WY 82002 http:/ldeq.wyoming.gov Fax (307)635-1784 

ADMIN/OUTREACH ABANDONED MINES AIR QUALITY INDUSTRIAL SITING LAND D!JAIITY .<:nl m R. >1.11.? Wll<:T~ W!JTI"<> "''I~' 1-rv 
200 


25633.158

undue consequences of delays to New Source Review pennitting actions, performing follow-up casework 

with stakeholders, as we !I as the abiding perceptions of the genera! public. Additionally, the AQD and 

other state agencies face the burden of implementing federal policies that are developed on the basis of 

elevated monitored data··· data that should have been excluded from emission inventories as a result of 

being properly classified as exceptional events- and therefore, exceptional event demonstrations that <we 

not acted upon by the EPA still influence regulatory decisions that directly impact states. Whereas in the 

past, EPA Region 8 had conferred with the AQD in compiling this list of shelved exceptional event 

demonstrations, there was no two-way dialogue in this instance. The AQD does not believe this is a 

reasonable or efficient practice. The AQD respectfully requests that the EPA acts on WDEQ's 

concurrence requests or reopens its dialogue with WDEQ regarding \Vbich flagged monitored data will be 

considered for the EPA's full review. 

Prior State Involvement in Demonstration Selection 

As previously noted. the April 2016 letter from EPA Region 8 nms contrary to prior discussions between 

tlH.'. EPA and the AQD regarding whethertlaggcd data would be fully considered and rcvi~wcd by the 

EPA. The EPA's guidance on exceptional event demonstrations acknowledges that states should 

highlight the significance of each flagged event, and Wyoming has consistently followed this guidance by 

detailing the importance of certain demonstrations in its cover letter to the EPA. In this most recent 

instance, however, the AQD was merely informed that a series of46 exceptional events- event 

demonstrations that AQD staff had invested significant time, resources, and analysis into compilingwould not be acted upon by the EPA unless the demonstrations became the subject of a future attainment 

demonstration or other specific EPA regulatory decision. 

The EPA·s practice is troublesome for tbe AQD on several fronts. It disregards a significant analytical 

and laborious effort undertaken by the AQD over the years- an effOrt that Wyoming unden:ook \Vith the 

full expectation that the EPA would ultimAtely consider and act on the flagged data. The EPA's failure to 

act wastes state agency resources. The AQD maintains that, if it has technically demonstrable 

justification to compile an exceptional event demonstration, and if it has undertaken the effort in 

compiling that demonstration, then the EPA should fulfill its responsibility to take action. The EPA 

should honor the work undertaken hy state agencies hy providing its full consideration. 

Concerns Regarding State-Level Regulatory Decisions 

The AQD is in the unique position of having several industrial ambient monitors required through New 

Source Review permits that must meet EPA requirements, and therefore, dnta that are currently eligible 

for treatment under the Exceptional Event Rule. There have been several instances where data have been 

influenced hy exceptional events at these monitors. In these instances, the AQD has demonstrated the 

regulatory significance of these events and has submitted demonstrations for review by the Region. The 

EPA's follow-through on the regulatory review process would lessen regulatory uncertainty by allowing a 

regulatory mechanism to demonstrate the effect of exceptional events upon ambient data used for 

permitting and regulatory decisions at the state level. This would benefit all regulatory entities involved, 

as it would allow for the AQD to operate as efficiently and decisively as possible in acting upon ambient 

monitored data. 
201 


25633.159

Placing Undue Accountability on State Agencies 

The EPA's approach is further problematic to the AQD because the state agency is ultimately left to deal 

with the lingering consequences ofNAJ\QS "violations" that were entirely beyond the control of any 

regulatory entity. Th~.;se consequences arc not necessarily limited to specific EPA attainment or other 

regulatory determinations. The notion that only such pending regulatory determinations arc relevant in 

evaluating flagged monitoring data is a significant misconception on the EPA's behalf. 

While the EPA's evaluation of a certain exceptional event demonstration may not have specific bearing 

on whether or not a certain area is able to attain the N~\QS, these monitored data are nevertheless 

included in conjunction with national emission inventories and modeling exercises that are ultimately 

considered by the EPA in establishing policy and developing federal regulations. Exceptional event 

demonstrations make compelling cases that ce1iain elevated monitored data should be disregarded when 

creating regulatory policy. When the EPA disregards and fails to act on these demonstrations, however, 

the consequence is the inclusion of inflated monitored data that misrepresents the prevailing air quality 

conditions. For example, the shelved data on Wyoming's exceptional event demonstration list from the 

:2012 summer is attributable to the omnipresence of wildfire emissions in the state, or transported into the 

state, due to an extraordim1rily active wildfire season. The EPA's reluctance to act on Wyoming's 

exceptional event demonstration submissions ultimately menus that these exceedances represent 

'·violations" of the NAAQS ~from a regulatory standpoint, and in the eyes of the public even though 

these events were beyond regulatory control. This is simply an unfair and unsound practice and is 

ultimately counterproductive to the state, the EPA, and the public. 

Additionally, the EPA's inaction is problematic because there arc many circumstances where the 

consideration of exceptional event-influenced data would impact regulatory domains beyond NAAQS 

attainment. One such example is regional haze, where a wildfire-heavy summer~ including wildfires 

burning in other states~ would contribute significantly to pollutant levels in Wyoming and impact the 

presence of regional haze, despite the State of Wyoming having no capacity to control those emissions. 

This was, again, the CllSC in 2012, where levels of PM2 5 in Wyoming increased dramatically between June 

and September because of the omnipresence of wildfires -largely attributable to the extraordinarily dry 

meteorological conditions. 

Although Wyoming still attained the primary annual arithmetic mean and the primary 24-hour average for 

both the 2006 and 2012 PM25 NAAQS, the elevated PM2 ~levels attributable to exceptional events still 

impacted the state's capacity to demonstrate that the state's overall marginal levels of PM2 5 did not 

contribute significantly to regional haze. These exceptional events were significant in number (there were 

several multi-day wildfires throughout the summer) and had impacts beyond the State's regulatory 

capacity. Ultimately, the EPA's consideration of monitored data, bereft of exceptional event 

demonstrations results in a misrepresentation of the adequacy of existing state regulations and shifts state 

resources from addressing areas of concern to addressing situations that are not problematic. 
202 


25633.160

Conclusion 

The AQD hopes that its request and suggestions ensure that the EPA fully considers these exceptional 

event demonstrations. The EPA's action is extremely beneficial for the planning and submittal of 

regulatory documents that may be influenced-- both in scope and in details by the classification of 

exceptional events that impact monitored data, and consequentially impact the regulatory decisions that 

air agencies must make. It is important to the State of Wyoming that the EPA honors its commitment to 

act on these exceptional event demonstrations. 

Thank you for the orportunity to reply to your letter. As always, the AQD is available to discuss any of 

the concerns outlined in this letter. Please fee! free to contact the AQD at 307-777-7 391. 

AQD Administrator 

Cc: Adam Clark, EPA Region 8 

Cara Keslar, AQD 

Amber Potts, AQD 

Mike Morris, AQD 
203 


25633.161

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 8 

Ref: 8P-AR 

Nancy Vchr, Administrator 

Air Quality Division 

1595 Wynkoop Street 

Denver, CO 80202-1129 

Phone 800-227-8917 

WINW.epa.gov/region08 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

200 West 171

h Street 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 

I 

APR 2 8 2016 

Re: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

(WDEQ) Exceptional Events Documentation 

Packages; 2011-2014 Air Q"o"tyD' • . ""Bll IVlSHOliif 

Dear Ms. Vehr: 

This letter is in response to WDEQ's submittals of demonstrations of exceptional event influence on 

P!Vh s, PM to, and ozone monitoring data for calendar years 2011-2014. The demonstration documents 

contain information regarding monitoring data flagged by WDEQ to indicate that PM to National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) exceedances were affected by high winds, PM25 NAAQS 

exceedanccs were affected by wildfires, and ozone NAAQS exccedanccs were affected by stratospheric 

intrusions. 

1\ preliminary review of the demonstrations submitted indicates that the flagged PM and ozone data may 

have been influenced by exceptional events; however, at this time the EPA will not take action on 

WDEQ's request for concurrence on the referenced data flags. The data are not anticipated to be 

involved in any pending regulatory decision by the EPA, therefore, the EPA is not making a concurrence 

decision on the demonstrations submitted. If at some point in the future the flagged data would be 

included in an attainment demonstration or involved in other regulatory decisions, the EPA would then 

undertake a full review of the submitted demonstrations to allow a concurrence decision at that time. 

The enclosed table provides a summary of the flagged PM,,;, PMro, and ozone monitoring data WDEQ 

provided for the calendar years 2011-2014 subject to this letter. With this letter, the EPA is determining 

our review of the WDEQ 2011-2014 packages listed in the enclosed table to be complete. As always, the 

EPA staff are available to answer any questions your staff may have and to provide help where needed. 

For additional information, please feel free to contact me, or your staff may contact Kyle Olson, of my 

staff, at (303) 312-6002. 

Monica Morales, Acting Director 

Air Program 

@Printed on Recycled Paper 
204 


25633.162

..----Date ~~~r-::~--

T.n,·Minn Monitor ID Parameter Monitored 

Value 

5/30/2011 2011 South Pass -- 56-013-0099-1 0) 81 ppb 

Ill 1/2012 2012 Naughton 56-023-0820-2 PM;o 312 flg/m3 I 

'lll~2/2 0 12 2012 Naughton 56-023-0820-2 PM;o 167 ~J.g/m3 

1/13/2012 2012 Naughton 56-023-0820-2 PMw 325 J:!:glm3 

--------"-----~"-- --·--~-- ----------- I 1/16/2012 2012 Naughton 56-023-0820-2 PMIO 179 flglm3 

1/18/2012 2012 Naughton 56-023-0820-2 PM;o 174~J.g/m3 

Mountain 56-001-0800-3 PM;o 170 ~tg/m3 

Cement 

I/21/20 12 2012 School Creek- 56-005-0086-1 PM;o 226 ~tg/m3 

': 3 I School Creek - 56-005-0087-1 PM;o 223 ~tg/m3 

I 

2 ,. j N Antelope/ 56-005-0869-2 PMw 200 ~J.g/m 3 

Rochelle R0-1 

Mountain ~------~----· - 1 3/26/2012 2012:' 56-001-0800-3 PM10 204 ,ug/m3 

14112/2012 

Ccmcilt 

2012 Buckskin Mine 56-005-1899-1 PMw 180 )-lg/m3 

'675!2012 

N 

2012 Wyodak 56-005-0901-1 PMw 237 ug/m3 

Bridger Coal 56-03 7-0860-1 PMw 1215~tg/m 3 

JB-4 

1 6/6/2012 2012 Thunder Basin 56-005-0123-1 OJ 88 ppb 

I 6/26/2012 2012 Pinedale 56-035-0101-1 PM2.s 47.0 ):lglm3 

t----~---·--

56-035-0700-1 PM2s 53.8 flg/m3 6/28/2Q_G_j 2012 ~gPiney 

61296012 l2o12-- --c;--

Lander 56-013-1003-1 PM2- 41.8 [tg/m3 

I ' Casper 56-025-0001-1 1 PM2.s 36.5 ftg/m3 

I Big Piney 56-035-0700-1 PM2.s 110.6 ).1gln13 

6/30/2012 I PM;o 

--r---c-:- 2012 Big Piney 56-035-0700-1 190 rtg/m3 

[7Til2o~12 Big Piney 56-035-0700-1 PM2s _ ___l_!i:J_l_J:L:_g/ m J 

2012 Big Piney 56-035-0700-1 I PM2.s 85.4 j..tg/m3 

7/2/2012 2012 Big Piney 56-035-0700-1 I PM2.5 97.4 )-lglm3 I 

7/3/2012 2012 Big Piney 56-035-0700-1 PM2.s 74.7 [tg/m3 ! I 7/4/2012 2012 -Gillette CoL 56-005-0800-1 I PM2.s 56.5 ~J.g/m3 I -,-------,-------- ·------

Belle Ayr BA- 56-005-0892-1 PM2.s 155.3 -[tg/~ 4 

Antelope 3 56-009-0819-1 PM2.s 147.0 ug/m3 

-------- ~----------,---.----'-----~ 

Big Piney 56-035-0700-1 PM2.s I 68.4 rtg/m' 

7/5/2012 2012 Big Piney 56-035-0700-1 PM2.s 38.6 jJ.g/m3 

9/18/2012 2012 Wyoming 56-035-0097-1 PMzs 139.1 ~tg/m 3 J 

R~n~----

l9/20/2012 2012 1 Wyoming 56-035-0097-1 ---·---1---~--------~- -j 

I Range 

PM2s ! 52.3 !J-glm3 

I 

2 
205 


25633.163

'EE Date L Location Monitor ID Parameter Monitored 

Value 

Pinedale '56-035-0101-1 PMzs 44.8 f.lg/m3 

9/2112012 2012-r-=- k . 56-037-0007-1 PM2.s 37.6 IJ.g/m Roc- Spnngs 3 

I Jackson Hole 56-039-1006-1 PM2s 39.2 }lglm3 

12/2/2012 1 2_6_f2 Buckskin Mine 56-005-1899-1 PMIO 167 ~tg/rn 3 

N 

12/20/2012 2012 N Antelope/ 56-005-0869-2 PMIO 188 f!.g/m3 

! Rochelle RO-l _j 

"3i4/2013 2013 Black Thunder 56-005-0891-2 l'M10 166 JJ.g/m3 

3117/2013 2013 Black Butte 56-037-0868-2 PM10 261 f!.g/m3 

#10 ·--

, Black Butte I- 56-037-1868-1 PMIO 432 ~tg/m 3 

I 80 I 

~!1172oT1 . 2013 ---~-

I 273 ~tg/m Kemmerer 3 56-023-0800-1 PM10 

Mine 

1 1/13/2014 2014 Black Butte 56-037-0868-2 PMIO 166 f!.g/m3 

! I #10 

pnl/2014 rmT ---

56-037-0852-1 --------, Black Butte PM10 ! 204 ~tg/m 3 

Lucile Hills i ~- ··-· --·-·-·-.!--···· 

. BlaZkB~1tt~ I 202 f.tg/m3 13117/20!4 I 2014 56-037-0868-2 PM10 I #10 ---·- - ·--

I Black Butte 56-03 7-0852-1 l'M10 242 f.tg/m3 

Lucite Hills i 4/28/2014 1 56-037-0852-1 - 219 f.tglm3 i 2014 Black Butte PMIO 

r,,,,,,,,4 I Lucite Hills I 

2014 Black Butte 156-037-0852-1 PM10 294 JJ.g/111 3 

Lucile Hills I 

3 
206 


25633.164

Dr. Homer Bou:shcy 

Professor of Medicine 

April!!, 2017 

Division of Pulmonary/Critical Care Medicine 

University of California, San Francisco 

505 Parnassus Avenue; RM Ml292 

BoxOIJO 

San Francisco, CA 94143-0130 

Dear Dr. Boushey, 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Environment on Wednesday, March 22, 

20 l?, to testify at the hearing entitled "H.R. 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act of2017." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (I) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions \vith a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Wednesday, April 26, 2017. Your responses should be 

mailed to Grace Appelbe, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House 

Office Building. Washington. DC 20515 and e-mailed in Word format to 

Grace. A p pe I be@mai 1. house. gov. 

Thank you again for your time rtnd effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on En\'ironment 

cc: The Honorable Paul Tonka, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment 

Attachment 
207 


25633.165

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO 

I iO\Ill~ .\ HOl'Siii:Y \1 D 

Fm/('IVJI' o/.\l.:didt/1.: in Residence. t~·maitus 

/)il·t.lion 1:/ J>ufmonuly. ( 'rirical Care & Slet!p \ !edidne 

/)i!JMI"fmen/ !?f,\./.:dictne 

\cnior .lssodure. Carditn·n'>cular Research lnstirute 

April 2~. 2017 

Cirace i\ppclbc 

Lcgislati\c Clerk 

Com mince on Energy and Commerce 

2! 25 Ra~ burn !louse Office Building_ 

\1 ashington, D.C 20:i IS 

1 :.mai !: uracc.appelbc'a'mail.housc.!.WV 

HE: H.R, 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act of20l7 further questions and responses 

Dear Ms. i\ppclbc, 

Please lind below my anmcrs to the further questions of'I-Ion, John Shimkus and lion, Frank Pallone, Jr. 

llomcr i\. Boushcy, ,1.D. 

!!espouses to questions from the Honorable John Shimkus: 

1. Is there a high degree of variability in individual performance on lung function tests 

from day~to-day and season-to-season'? 

Yes, there is variability in even a healthy individuai's perfonnancc on pulmonary function testing 

performed correctly on consecutive days. ror the most commonly u~cd mea~ures, the ror1.:ed expired 

\olumc in one second and the forced vital capacit). the values var: by about _L?:,S 5.0%. That is 

different. ho\\cver. fl·om the variability in the mean values fOr a group of subjects measured on 

consecutive da)s over time. or heforc and atkr an intervention. So. for example. a decline in FE VI of 

2.5% after o;one c:xrosure in an individual might simply reflect the natural --wobble" or the test. Ho\\Ch':r, 

the ~atnc change in the mean value j(,r FEY I in a group of subjects would have greater significance. 

indicating a true crtect of the exposure. 

a. What are the factors unrelated to asthma that can affect performance? 

Factors unrelat12d to asthma that can afJCct performance of the test arc other lung diseases. like chronic 

obstructi\'C pulmonary disease (COPD. i.e .. emphysema and chronic bronchitis), acute bronchitis. c;stic 
208 


25633.166

librosis. trachcoma!acia. vocal cord dysfunction. and others. The test can be affected as well by obesity. 

\\Cakncss. chest wall deformity. and other mechanical problems of the skeletal and neuromuscular 

illllction. These. however. arc usually recognizable when the test is pcrf(mned or fi·om the pattern of the 

curves ol' expiratory llo". typically displayed along with the test results. 

b. How common is it for clinicians to arrive at different diagnoses for people 

who present asthma symptoms'! 

lhc fiTquency with which sympllnns of asthma arc misdiagnosed as due to another illness varies b; the 

population in which they occur. Asthma is prohably over-diagnosed in children under 6 :car or age." here 

1\hee;ing can be caused by viral respiratory inl'cction in the absence elf asthma. It is like!; underdiagnosed in older patients, in whom wheezing may he mis-attributcd to COPD. Among patients bct\\Cen 

the ages ol'o and 60 years of age, however. the cluster oftypieal symptoms. abnormal pulmonar; llmction 

tests. and the coincidence of evidence of allergy make the diagnosis pretty straight-f'orward. 

c. What other illnesses or conditions could affect lung function 

performance? 

Please r,;ce response to question 1 a. above. 

2. In your testimony, you also cite studies by Schclcgle ct. al. and Kim ct al. as 

affirming lung function decrements in healthy adults after exposure to 60 to 70 ppb 

of ozone. The studies reported average lung function FE VI (forced expiratory 

HJiumc in I second) deficits ofJ.S and 1.7 percent respectively. In 2005 the 

American Thoracic Society and the European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS) 

issued a paper (Pellegrino ct al.)l to provide guidance in interpreting pulmonary 

function tests. This paper notes: "When using per cent change from baseline as the 

criterion, most authorities require a 12-IS'Yo increase in FE VI and/or FVC as 

necessary to define a meaningful response. Increments of8% (or ,150 mL) arc likely 

to be within measurement variability [107, 115J." It also notes: "Thus, in sub.il'cts 

with relatively "normal" lnng function, year~to-ycar chan~es in 'FEVl OYer I yr 

should exceed 15% before confidence can be given to the opinion that a clinically 

meaningful change has occurred (SJ." 

a. Please explain the significance of the menn responses found in the Schelegle 

et al. and Kim et al. studies in light of the A TS/ERS guidance. 

The ATS/ERS statement refers to changes in an individual patient. not to changes in the mean value of a 

group of subjects measured bcl(we and after an experimental exposure to ozone (please sec response to 

question I. above). 

3. You state in your testimony that a recent publication by Gaudcrman and colleagues 

2 "demonstrated improvements in lung-function development in children as air 

quality improved." However, the study authors state that "(Cjhanges in ozone 

(Figure 2)) and PMI 0 P'\12.5 (Fig. S4 in the Supplementary Appendix) were not 

associated with ditTcrcnccs in mean FE VI or PVC values at II or 15 years of age or 
209 


25633.167

with 4-ycar growth in these values." The study also notes that the evidence 

regarding the long-term effect of ozone on children is mixed: "Only a few other 

studies have addressed the long-term effects of ozone on lung function in children, 

and the results have been inconsistent." 

a. Please explain the significance of the Gauderman study to legislation 

addrcssint?; ozone regulations. 

I he remarkable finding reported by Claudcrman et al. is that of improvement in pulmonary function in 

three large cohorts of children in southern California recruited over consecutive periods in \\hich air 

pollution improved ( 1993. 1997. and 2003). They demonstrated an association between improvements in 

air quality. especially in nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter (P'vl2.5) and increases in lung function 

gnm th. The demonstration of a statistically significant association docs not prove causality. of course. but 

the data reported are consistent with the findings of other studies showing improvements in lung f(mction 

in children "ho moved hom areas with polluted air to areas with less air pollution. Because impairments 

in ltmg !IJnLtion in childhood are predictors of chronic respiratory and curdiovascular discast.?. these 

lindings arc heartening evidence of the value of protection of air qual it) as a public health measure. 

CJaudcrman·s study did not find an association bct\vccn reductions in ozone levels and improvements in 

lung function. but since tail-pipe emissions arc the major source of nitrogen dioxide. ozone. ami 

particulate matter in southern California. the measures to reduce cvone (which did decrease. though 

modc:;tl). over the stud) periods) contributed to the reductions in nitrogenous products and particulates as 

\\ell. 

4. You note in your testimony the results of one study by Rice ct al. that reported 

lower FEY! values in a cohort of generally healthy adults after days of ambient 

exposure to ozone under 59 parts per hill ion (ppb), compared to exposures that 

ranged from 59 to 74 pph. The study hy Rice ct al., however, also states that: "The 

magnitude of the average difference in FEVI between "good" and "moderate'' 

exposures is small (20 ml for PM2.5, 31 ml for "iOz, and 56 ml for OJ) and unlikely 

to be clinically perceptible to the average individual." 

a. Please explain whether you agree with that statement. 

rhc declines in mean values of pulmonary function aflcr relatively bricf~xposures of a group of health) 

subjects to wone indicate a true effect. We know fi·om prior studies that these effects ofomnc exposure 

arc associated with lung intlammation. The changes themselves may not have been associated" ith 

symptoms noticeable to the study participants over the short term. hut repeated exposure. and repeated 

inflammatory in.sult to the lungs over time. appear to result in accelerated loss of lung function in aJults. 

and in increased like I ihood of development of asthma and reductions in lung growth in chi lclren. 

Responses to questions from the Honorable Frank Pallone, .Jr.: 

1. Dr. Boushey, although the title of this bill suggests that it deals only with ozone, in 

fact it amends the ."iational Ambient Air Quality Standards program of the Clean 

Air Act for all criteria air pollutants- lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon 
210 


25633.168

monoxide, and for both fine and course particulate matter. Of course, when we 

breathe the surrounding ai•· we get any and all of these air pollutants that arc in the 

immediate area. And, while each of them presents different specific health impacts, 

taken together I imagine they make a very unhealthy brew. 

a. Is it possible we arc underestimating the impacts of ozone or other individual 

pollutants because of the challenge of evaluating and quantifying the 

cumulative impacts of the mixture of pollutants that people actually are 

exposed to? 

The thrust of this question is correct- that what research scientists have generally attempted to assess is 

the independent etfcct Llf each criteria pollutant. whereas what people inhale in day-to-day life is the mi-. 

o!'pollutants present in ambient air. 1\ is much harder to assess the effects of complex mixes of pollutants 

in exposure studies, and it is entirely possible that the effects of a mix of pollutants is greater than the sum 

of their individual effects. This may indeed account for the consistency of epidemiologic studies sho\\ ing 

an increase in asthma exacerbations requiring emergency room treatment to be a:-~sociated with increases 

in the ozone lcvl'ls in "summer fog" a mix of ozone. nitrogen oxides, sulfates. and particulate matter-

\\hen contn)lkd exposures to the same levds or ozone do not induce exacerbations in asthmatic 

volunteers. There is also an enlarging body of evidence that sho\VS associations bel\\ ccn exposure to the 

traffic 1nixturc of emissions and asthma exacerbations. 

2. Unfortunately, California's topography and climate create conditions that arc truly 

challenging for improving air quality. But, as I understand it the current ozone 

standard of 70 parts per million, even when we achieve it, may still result in health 

impacts. Is that true? Did the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the 

public health community recommend a stronger standard? 

Congressman Pallone is correct. l-lealth impacts from ozone exposure will occur even with exposure to 70 

ppb. This is \\h) the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee recommended a new standard of between 

60 and 70 ppb. a recommendation widely supported in the public health community (see R. Dey ct al. . 

. ·lmerican.Journa! o/RespiraiOI)' and Crilicul Care Medicine, 20 I 0; 181 :297-299). 

3. Even the extreme non-attainment areas are going to have until 2036 or 37 to achicw 

compliance with the 70 parts per million ozone standard. So, a child born today in 

areas with high ozone levels will be 20 years old by the time we achieve compliance 

with this standard. Doesn't a lik- time exposure to air pollution canJ· a significant 

health cost for these individnals'! 

:\gain. the Congressman is correct. The evidence suggests that exposure to ozone and other air pollutants 

impairs lung gro11 th in children. and reductions in pulmonary function at the end of childhood arc 

assuciatcd with higher risk of chronic respiratory and cardiovascular disease (see DW Docker; and .1! I 

Ware. Yew Lnglund Journal o/}fcdicine. 20 15; 372:970-972) 
211 


25633.169

Mr. Seyed Sad red in 

Executive Director 

and Air Pollution Control Officer 

Aprilll,2017 

San Joaquin Vn!ley Air Pollution Control District 

1990 East Gettysburg Avenue 

Fresno, CA 93726-0244 

Dear Mr. Sadredin, 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Environment on Wednesday, March 22, 

2017, to testify ilt the hearing entitled "'H.R. 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 20 17." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business d[lys to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (1) the name of the 

0-1embcr \Vhose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you arc addressing in 

bold) and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To t:1cilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions \Vith a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on \Vednesday, April26, 2017. Your responses should be 

mailed to Grace Appel be, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House 

Office Building, Ws.shington, DC 20515 and e-mailed in \Vord format to 

Grace. Appclbc@mai l.h ou se. gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Environment 

cc: The Honorable Paul Tonka, Ranking Memhcr, Subcommittee on Environment 

Attachment 
212 


25633.170

San Joaquin Valley /] 

AIR POllUTION CONTROL !JISTRICT HEAlTHY AIR liVING~ 

GOVERNING BOARD 

Oliver L. Baines Ill, Chair 

Councilmember. City of Fresno 

Buddy Mendes, Vice Chair 

Supervisor. !-resno County 

David Ayors 

Mayor, C1ty of Hanford 

John Capitman, Ph.D. 

Appomted by Governor 

David Couch 

Supervisor, Kern County 

Bob Elliott 

Supervisor. San Joaqwn County 

Christina Fugazi Counclimcmber. City of Stl.lclo;ton 

Kristin Olsen 

Supef"l/lsor Stanislaus County 

Lloyd Pareira 

SupeiviS()f. Merced County 

Craig Pedersen 

Superv,sor, Kmgs Cour.ty 

Monte Reyes 

Gounc11member. C1ly of Porte'Viiie 

Alexander C. Sherriffs, M.D. 

App01ntea by Governor 

Chris Vierra 

Mayor, C1ty or Ceres 

Tom Wheeler 

Supel"'.·isoc Madera County 

J. Steven Worthley 

Superv1sor, T u~are County 

Seyed Sadredin 

Execul1ve D:rector 

Air Pollution Control Officer 

Southern Region Office 

34946 Flyover Court 

13akerslleld, CA 93308-9725 

(661) 392-5500 • FAX (661) 392-0005 

April 24, 2017 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515-6115 

Dear Chairman Shimkus: 

Thank you for the invitation to testify before the Subcommittee on 

Environment on March 22, 2017. The following is the response to 

your follow-up questions as presented in your April 11, 2017 letter. 

1. Would you elaborate on your comments in your testimony 

concerning "formula-based milestones and deadlines that 

EPA and courts have established in the absence of clear 

Congressional direction"? 

a. What are some specific examples of these milestones 

and deadlines and how are these actually inhibiting your 

ability to implement air quality standards? 

b. To what extent do these comments relate to formulas and 

milestones established in the 1990 amendments to the 

Clean Air Act? 

c. Are any assumptions that served as a basis for the 

formulas you reference no longer applicable, given 

current air-quality conditions or scientific understanding, 

to enable effective implementation of air quality plans? 

Since the 1970's, EPA has established numerous ambient air quality 

standards for individual pollutants. We have now reached a point 

where various regions throughout the nation are subject to multiple 

iterations of standards for a single pollutant. For instance, there are 

currently 4 pending standards for ozone and 4 pending standards for 

PM2.5. Each of these standards requires a separate attainment plan 

which leads to multiple overlapping requirements and deadlines. 

This in turn results in a great deal of confusion, costly bureaucracy, 

and duplicative regulations, all without corresponding public health 

benefits. 
213 


25633.171

April 24, 2017 

Page 2 

The formula-based deadlines and milestones that were prescribed in the Act 25 years 

ago now lead to mandates that are impossible to meet within the formula-based 

deadlines mandated by EPA as illustrated in Tables 1 and 2, below. 

Table 1: Federal Air Quality Standards and San Joaquin Valley Attainment Plans: 

Ozone 

Ozone 

1979 1-hr ozone 1997 8-hr ozone 2008 8-hr ozone 2015 8-hr ozone 

EPA sets NMOS 

1979-1997 (1997): 84 ppb 

1998- 2003 

SJV attainment plan EPA finalizes 

2004 attainment 

designations 

2005 Standard revoked EPA implementation 

rule 

2006 Litigation reinstates 

portions of 

2007 implementation SJV's attainment plan requirements under 

2008 the revoked standard EPA sets NMOS: 

75 ppb 

2009 

EPA approves SJV Midcourse review EPA proposes to revise 2010 plan NMOS: 60 to 70 ppb 

EPA announces it won't 2011 revise the standard 

EPA withdraws EPA approves SJV EPA attainment 

2012 approval of 2004 plan plan designation (SJV: 

extreme nonattainment) 

2013 SJV adopts new plan EPA proposes 

implementation rule 

2014 

2015 EPA final EPA sets NAAOS at 

implementation rule 70 ppb 

2016 District adopts 2016 EPA proposes 

Ozone Plan implementation rule 

2017 EPA to finalize 

classifications 

SJV to adopt 

2018 "redesignation 

substitute" 

2019 

Attainment 2017 2024 2032 Up to 20 years after 

attainment deadline designations 

2 
214 


25633.172

April 24, 2017 

Page 3 

Table 2: Federal Air Quality Standards and San Joaquin Valley Attainment Plans: 

Particulate Matter 

PM10 PM2.5 

1987 PM10 1997 PM2.5 2006 PM2.5 2012 PM2.5 

NAAQS (1 987): EPA sets NAAQS (1997): 

1979-1997 Annual: 50 ~g/m' 24-hr: 65 ~g/m', annual: 

24-hr: 150 ~g/m' 15 }Jgim' 

1998- 2003 SJV Attainment Plan 

2004 

2005 EPA finalizes attainment 

designations 

EPA revokes the EPA sets NAAQS: 

annual PM10 24-hr: 35 }Jg/m'. annual: 

standard 15 ~g/m' 

2006 

PM1 0 Attainment 

finding lor 2003-2005 

and 2004-2006 

2007 SJV Maintenance EPA implementation rule 

Plan 

2008 Ef'A approves SJV adopts plan 

Maintenance Plan 

2009 EPA attainment 

designations 

2010 

2011 EPA approves plan 

Dec. 20: Dec. 14: EPA 

2012 District adopts plan sets NMOS: 

annual: 12 ~g/m' 

District adopts Jan. 4 Court ruling: EPA 

2013 contingencies should have used CAA 

EPA proposes approval subpart 4, not subpart 1 

2014 EPA designates SJV 

Moderate Nonattainment 

SJV reclassified as EPA proposes plan EPA designates 

Serious (effective 5/7115); approval and Serious SJV Moderate 

District adopts new plan & reclassification Nonartainment 

2015 request deadline effective 

extension EPA proposes 4/15/2015 

Implementation Rule 

(Subpart 4) 

EPA announces it will not SJV reclassified as SJV plan, 

act on the 2015 PM2.5 Serious nonatta!nment impracticability 

Plan; Deadline to adopt area (effective 2/19/16) and 

5% Plan as a result of reclassification 

2016 EPA's inaction 12/31/2016 EPA publishes request 

Implementation Rule 

EPA publishes EPA publishes 

Implementation Rule EPA approves Moderate Implementation 

, Plan effective 9/30/16 Rule 

2017 Second Maintenance Serious plan due 8/1 9/17 

Plan due to EPA 

Attainment NA 2015 2019 2021 Moderate 

deadline 2025 Serious 

3 
215 

Æ 


25633.173

April 24, 2017 

Page 4 

Mobile and stationary sources throughout the nation have now been subject to multiple 

generations of technology forcing regulations that have achieved significant air quality 

benefits. Meeting the new standards that approach background concentrations call for 

transformative measures that require time to develop and implement These 

transformative measures require new technologies that in many cases are not yet 

commercially available or even conceived. 

2. You noted in testimony that it is unfair that, under current law, local 

jurisdictions may be subject to penalties for failure to attain standards, even 

though the failure is due to emissions from sources that are outside the 

jurisdiction' authority to control. 

a. In addition to the mobile-source emissions you discussed, would you 

provide examples of other types of emissions or pollutants, natural or 

anthropogenic, that are outside your control and that may impede your 

ability to reach attainment of air quality standards so as to subject you 

to fees or other penalties? 

b. Your comments focused on relief from penalties for local air quality 

jurisdictions that cannot reach attainment due to emissions beyond 

their control; are there circumstances in our view in which relief may 

also be applicable to state level jurisdictions? 

Through decades of implementing effective air quality strategies, air pollution from San 

Joaquin Valley businesses has been reduced by over 80% through an investment of 

over $40 billion by regulated sources. The pollution released by industrial facilities, 

agricultural operations, and cars and trucks are at historical lows for all pollutants. San 

Joaquin Valley residents' exposure to high smog levels has been reduced by over 90%. 

Unfortunately, after all this investment and sacrifice, we have reached a point where we 

cannot attain the federal standards even if we eliminated all Valley businesses, 

agricultural operations, or trucks traveling through the San Joaquin Valley. 

Federal law specifically preempts local jurisdictions, such as the Valley Air District, from 

imposing tailpipe emissions standards on mobile sources. The San Joaquin Valley 

cannot attain the federal standards without significant reduction in emissions from these 

federal sources. Another example of a pollution source for which we have no local 

jurisdiction or control is the trans boundary transport of pollution. Observational and 

modeling studies have shown that international ozone precursor emissions can lead to 

ozone formation within the atmospheric boundary layer over far-upwind areas and 

under favorable conditions can be transported within mid-and upper- troposphere and 

contribute to local ozone concentrations. 

In the case of California, during spring and summer transboundary ozone is delivered 

onshore by prevailing tropospheric wind currents flowing across the Pacific Ocean. 

Some of this transboundary ozone is from natural sources but an increasing proportion 

is due to a dramatic increase in fossil fuel combustion in Asia over the past two