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

21–264 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–363 

EXAMINING PATHWAYS TOWARD COMPLIANCE 

OF THE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY 

STANDARD FOR GROUND-LEVEL OZONE: LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 2882 AND S. 2072 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR 

AND NUCLEAR SAFETY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 22, 2016 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JUNE 22, 2016 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West Virginia ...... 1 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 3 

Manchin, Hon. Joe, U.S. Senator from the State of West Virginia, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 4 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 22 

Flake, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona .................................... 106 

WITNESSES 

Karperos, Kurt, P.E., Deputy Executive Officer, California Air Resources 

Board ..................................................................................................................... 25 

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

Rice, Mary B., M.D., Vice-Chair, American Thoracic Society Environmental 

Health Policy Committee, and Assistant Professor of Medicine, Beth Israel 

Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School BIDMC .......................... 62 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64 

Chesley, Andrew T., Executive Director, San Joaquin Council of Governments, 

Stockton, California ............................................................................................. 74 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 77 

Raymond, Mark, Uintah County Commissioner and Chair, Uintah County, 

Utah ...................................................................................................................... 82 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 84 

Hamer, Glenn, President and CEO, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry .................................................................................................................... 89 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 91 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statement on Examining Pathways Toward Compliance for the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ground-Level Ozone: Legislative Hearing 

on S. 2882 and S. 2072 ........................................................................................ 123 

(1) 

EXAMINING PATHWAYS TOWARD COMPLIANCE OF THE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR 

QUALITY STANDARD FOR GROUND-LEVEL 

OZONE: LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 2882 

AND S. 2072 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Shelley Moore Capito (chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Capito, Carper, Fischer, Inhofe, Cardin, and 

Whitehouse. 

Also present: Senator Flake. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you all for being here. I would like to 

start the committee hearing on the ozone standard bill of the Clean 

Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee ozone hearing. 

I thank all the folks who are here to testify for their knowledge 

and for their willingness to come. 

So I am going to take 5 minutes and make an opening statement, 

and then I will turn to the Ranking Member. 

And the Chairman of the full committee, I would like to thank 

you for being here with us as well. 

So today we are here to discuss the pathways to compliance for 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ground-level ozone 

and to examine two pieces of legislation that offer real solutions to 

improve EPA’s ozone standard regulations, which are, in my view, 

overly complicated and duplicative. One of these bills is my Ozone 

Standards Implementation Act of 2016, which is co-sponsored by 

Senator Flake from Arizona and Senator Manchin from West Virginia, and several of my Republican colleagues, including Chairman Inhofe. 

Last October EPA announced a stricter ozone standard, dropping 

the acceptable amount of ozone to 70 parts per billion from 75 

parts per billion. Currently, there are dozens of counties—I was 

speaking with Mr. Hamer there earlier about this—with the 2008 

ozone standard, showing us that EPA has yet to fully implement 

the previous standard. Moreover, EPA drastically missed its imple-
2 

mentation deadlines and failed to designate non-attainment areas 

under the 2008 standard until May 2012. 

My home State of West Virginia was one of a dozen States to formally oppose the rule. Instead of encouraging States and stakeholders by showing pathways toward compliance for the 2008 

standard, EPA decided to double down and enable an even tougher 

standard before all areas had a chance to get into compliance. 

Proponents of the new standard may claim that it allows for 

cleaner air for our citizens, but that is exactly what we are getting 

under the previous 2008 standard. The EPA itself reported that the 

Nation’s air quality has improved dramatically over the past several decades. Regulated emissions from coal-fired power plants 

have been reduced 60 percent over the last 30 years. And these reductions have been accomplished while electricity from coal has increased approximately 140 percent. 

If the EPA would merely allow the previous 2008 standard to be 

fully implemented, emissions would be cut by 36 percent. Yet the 

Administration has decided to continue its assault on baseload 

power sources while disregarding the economic impacts of newer 

and harsher regulations. 

To address these issues today, we will examine two bills that 

would protect economic growth and job creation while ensuring air 

quality continues to improve. These are both bipartisan bills and 

have been endorsed by over 200 trade organizations representing 

sectors and jobs across the economy, from manufacturing to energy, 

construction, transportation, railroads, iron and steel, consumer 

products, textiles, pulp and paper, mining and agriculture, and the 

chambers of commerce. 

In S. 2882, the bill I introduced, No. 1, it ensures that EPA 

issues timely implementation regulations. Remember previously in 

my statement I talked about how long it took for EPA to do this 

previously. It ensures that for certain ozone non-attainment areas 

States are not required to include economically unfeasible measures in their plans. Charges that the EPA’s mandatory review of 

NAAQS from 5 to 10 years to combat rushed timelines and directs 

the EPA to submit a report to Congress regarding the impacts of 

emissions from foreign countries on NAAQS compliance. 

S. 2072 is sponsored by Senators Hatch and McCaskill, which 

would require the EPA to set up an early action compact program 

that allows counties to take preemptive measures to avoid a nonattainment designation. 

So, without objection, I would like to enter the following documents into the record: Senator Hatch’s statement for the record, 

Senator Manchin’s statement for the record, a letter of support 

from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, a letter of 

support from over 200 impacted industries from across the country, 

a letter of support from 60 conservative organizations, and a letter 

of support from the Industrial Energy Consumers of America. So 

I have Senator Manchin’s statement here, and I will submit for the 

record without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
3 

STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Chairman Capito, today I wish to speak about ozone and current Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) ozone standards. 

Ozone is a naturally occurring phenomenon. In many ways, ozone is good for our 

planet because it shields us from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. On the other 

hand, scientists tend to agree that extreme concentrations of ozone, especially when 

it hovers over cities, can have adverse health effects on human populations. Because 

of this, the EPA regulates ozone levels across the country under the authority of 

the Clean Air Act. 

Now I understand the importance of keeping America’s air clean, especially if too 

much ozone presents a public health risk. But if we are going to alter Federal ozone 

standards, revisions should be both based on science and mindful of economic impacts. Regrettably, EPA’s recently released and updated National Ambient Air Quality Standards fail to meet these two criteria. 

While EPA’s revisions may be well intended, the agency misses several critical 

points. For example, in a rush to create national standards, EPA glossed over regional environmental variables. EPA chose to simply establish a blanket, nationwide 

standard for permissible atmospheric ozone, and in doing so they ignored the science 

concerning naturally occurring ozone—or what many call ‘‘background’’ or ‘‘ambient’’ 

ozone, which varies from region to region. 

Unfortunately, for many areas across the West, this new standard is either at or 

near background ozone levels. As a result, EPA’s new standard will disproportionately impact many Western communities. Even before the updated standard, if you 

happened to live in an area with high levels of ambient ozone you were likely already at risk of being designated as living in a ‘‘non-attainment’’ area. Now that the 

standard has become more stringent, it is likely to push these areas over the edge. 

And to be clear, a non-attainment designation can result in significant and detrimental economic consequences for a community. 

For these reasons, while I recognize the importance of protecting our environment 

and monitoring air quality, I question the practicality of EPA’s recently updated 

standards. In my view, as a matter of responsible governance, we need to push back 

against these types of one-size-fits-all Federal mandates that inadequately account 

for regional dynamics. In this case, especially due to the high potential for economic 

ramifications, ozone regulations need to be based on sound science and must consider regional ozone levels that occur regardless of human contribution. 

Chairman Capito, at a time when Americans across the country are struggling to 

regain their footing and make ends meet, our Federal Government should be facilitating job creation and economic expansion, not stifling these efforts. Without a 

doubt, we should be exploring ways to improve our environment, but I believe that 

economic and environmental progress are not mutually exclusive. The choice between jobs and the environment does not have to be a zero-sum game. With this 

in mind, I have introduced legislation, S. 2072 alongside my colleague and friend, 

Senator Claire McCaskill. Our bill would direct the EPA to implement a program 

allowing communities to enter into voluntary, cooperative agreements with the EPA 

to craft local solutions that improve air quality in compliance with Federal standards. 

Specifically, existing law is failing to energize efforts to improve air quality because it does not permit the EPA to give at-risk communities any ‘‘early action’’ 

credit for environmentally beneficial actions taken before a non-attainment designation. Instead, the EPA can only give credit for improvements that are made after 

a designation is declared and the damage is already done. Early action cooperative 

agreements help address this problem, and they have a strong precedent and a 

proven track record. 

As background, in 2002 the EPA initiated a plan similar to the one outlined in 

S. 2072, called the Early Action Compact Program (the Program), which allowed 

areas struggling to comply with Federal standards to enter into an agreement with 

the EPA. The goals of these agreements were to improve air quality, to avoid a nonattainment designation during implementation, and to provide credits for investments made as part of the compact. Under the Program, 29 areas from over 10 

States entered into agreements by December 2002. Of those areas, 14 successfully 

deferred non-attainment status and 15 achieved attainment. Ultimately, only one 

area—Denver, Colorado—failed to complete the Program. The Program’s ability to 

provide flexibility provided communities with the tools they needed to control emissions more efficiently. Most importantly, the Program achieved success in a way 

that didn’t come at the cost of jobs and the economy. 
4 

Unfortunately, far left environmental activists—more interested in blocking industry than preserving our environment—sued the EPA. By 2007 the EPA scrapped 

the Program due to litigation which argued that there was no authority under the 

Clean Air Act for the program. Thus, after 2007, the Program ended. 

The legislation I introduced with Senator McCaskill will give clear authorization 

and direct the EPA to implement a program similar to the program of the early 

2000s. Our bill will allow vulnerable areas across the country to again have the option of taking early action at the local level where it is most effective. This way, 

our communities can actually improve air quality and avoid a non-attainment designation and the negative economic consequences that come with it. If enacted, the 

EPA will be granted clear authority to give early action credit to at-risk areas across 

the country looking for help in complying with Federal standards. In turn, communities will be able to propose local, proactive solutions, in voluntary cooperation with 

the EPA, to improve air quality without risk. 

To conclude, Chairman Capito, compromise isn’t a bad word. You understand that 

improving good governance, the economy, and the environment is not a zero-sum 

game. Empowering our cities and counties with tools to implement locally crafted 

solutions to our problems will always deliver better results than big, one-size-fitsall Federal mandates, standards, and rules crafted by unelected bureaucrats in 

Washington. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

I want to thank Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Carper and the subcommittee for holding this hearing on S. 2882—the Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2016. 

Senator Capito’s leadership on this issue is to be commended, and I am delighted 

to be a co-sponsor with her on this legislation. Her continued work on this issue 

is of critical importance to our Nation, and I fully support her efforts. 

Our Nation has made great strides in achieving cleaner air. Since 1980 ozone levels have dropped 33 percent—this trend will continue as States implement the 2008 

ozone standard and additional counties reach attainment. But States need time to 

catch up. 

As the committee is aware, I previously sponsored legislation with Senator Thune 

regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2015 national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for ozone. That bill—the Clean Air, Strong Economies Act— 

would have prevented the EPA from finalizing a new rule lowering the standard for 

ozone causing emissions unless and until 85 percent of non-attainment counties 

were in compliance with the 2008 standard. 

Despite our efforts, the EPA moved forward with promulgating a new standard 

that imposes overlapping and burdensome new schedules on States and has the potential to cause both immediate and long-term economic harm across our Nation. 

In fact, the EPA estimates that the new 70 parts per billion standard will increase 

the number of counties impacted from 217 counties to 958 counties. 

That represents nearly one-third of the Nation, which will experience negative effects on job growth and development. Businesses will have to install expensive control technology and acquire a PSD permit in order to build or expand operations and 

create jobs in these counties. Yet, the EPA itself estimates that almost the entire 

Nation will be in compliance with the 2008 standard by 2025 using current methods. 

The new EPA standard will hit our manufacturing community hard at a time 

when we are desperately in need of economic development in many areas of the 

country, including Appalachia. 

S. 2882 is a common sense measure that allows for thoughtful implementation of 

ozone standards and reforms the law to improve how and when the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are reviewed and updated. 

Specifically, this bill will ease the negative effects of the new standard by extending compliance deadlines and facilitating implementation of the rule in a pragmatic, 

thoughtful way. It allows States to catch up and prevent undue economic harm. 

The bill also changes the required review period for NAAQS from 5 years to 10 

years. In practice, a 10-year review period is more appropriate particularly in light 

of the fact that the EPA is not meeting the existing 5-year deadline. 

For example, the next major NAAQS will be for particulate matter (PM). The statutory deadline by which EPA must promulgate a new PM standard is 2017, but the 

EPA has stated it will likely need until 2021—that’s 9 years, not 5 years. 
5 

The bill also authorizes the Administrator of the EPA to consider technological 

feasibility as factor when revising these standards and provides a pathway for 

States to seek relief in certain exceptional situations. 

When this bill recently passed the House, the National Association of Manufacturers commented that, it ‘‘would ensure continued air quality improvements across the 

country, while better aligning the rule’s requirements with the realities of the economy, technology and existing policies.’’ 

S. 2882 bill will provide greater predictability and certainty for American businesses while continuing the national trend toward cleaner air. I commend Senator 

Capito and the subcommittee for its consideration of this legislation and urge the 

full committee to pass the bill as soon as possible. 

Thank you. 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 

Senator CAPITO. Hearing no objection, I would like to recognize 

the Ranking Member and recognize him for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Madam Chair. Thank you for holding 

our hearing today. 

I do want to thank each of our witnesses. Some of you have been 

here before. It is nice to see you again, whether it is your first time 

or not your first time. We are delighted that you are here. We welcome your testimony and your counsel for all of us. 

Today is a day to remember not just because they are having a 

sit-in over in the House of Representatives; that is not memorable 

enough. But this morning a number of our colleagues, Senator 

Inhofe, myself, other members of this committee had the privilege 

of witnessing the signing of a major piece of environmental legislation, something that hasn’t happened in this country in really a 

couple of decades. Today the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety 

Act for the 21st Century was signed into law, due in no small part 

to the good work of Senator Jim Inhofe, Chairman of our full committee, David Vitter, and others. Also in a supporting role here, 

this young man here to my left, Ben Cardin, our colleague from 

Maryland. 

This legislation overhauls a 40-year-old law that never worked, 

a law that was supposed to regulate chemicals used in products 

that we rely on every day. It never worked in 40 years. Finally we 

just worked through all of our differences and decided to replace 

it with legislation that will do good things for our environment, do 

good things for our health, including especially the health of young 

people, very young people and very old people, and also provide 

businesses with certainty and predictability that they need in order 

to be successful, grow jobs, create jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector. 

The legislation was built off of work done by Frank Lautenberg, 

a former colleague from New Jersey. He was a true champion of 

chemical safety. It was fitting that it is on the same day our subcommittee discusses another of Frank Lautenberg’s passions, and 

that is clean air. For years, Senator Lautenberg and I sat together, 

along with Ben Cardin and our Chairman. He was fighting for 

clean air all those years, for Americans. 

Frank and I, and Ben Cardin as well, we represent something I 

called America’s tailpipe, an area of our country where emissions 

from other States, especially my native West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, they put bad stuff up in the air 

in order to get cheap electricity, and it just drifts, with the westerly 

wind, over to our States and fouls our air and makes us have to 

spend more money to clean up our air, and we end up with more 

expensive energy. Not fair. 

But for Senator Lautenberg the fight was deeply personal. He 

had a sister who had problems with asthma, and she was a member of the school board, and she always had a machine in her car 

that she would use if she had an asthma attack. One day she was 

at a school board meeting and suffered a really severe asthma at-
23 

tack, and raced to try to get to her car and didn’t make it. So for 

Frank, clean air and asthma are really very special issues. Dad, I 

think, worked in a factory, maybe a silk factory, for many years in 

New Jersey and suffered lung impairment as a result of his work. 

So I wish that the situation with Frank’s late sister and his dad 

were unique and the kind of things that didn’t happen much, asthma or other lung disorders, but they are not. There are millions of 

people in this country who live with asthma. A lot of them are 

young. According to the Centers for Disease Control, almost 6.5 

million kids in this country have been diagnosed with asthma. That 

is 6.5 million kids who worry that they may not make it to their 

inhaler in time if they have an asthma attack. 

For decades we have known that ozone pollution is linked to serious health problems like asthma attacks, strokes, heart attacks, 

and other respiratory ailments. More recently, ozone has even been 

linked to early deaths. 

Since 1970 Congress has asked EPA to provide our country with 

national health standards protecting Americans from the most 

harmful and common air pollutants. Since 1970. EPA promptly did 

so in 1971, setting the first national health standard that covered 

ozone pollution. Congress wanted to make sure that the ozone 

health standards reflected the best science available, which is why 

Congress requires EPA to review the standard every 5 years. It is 

not something that EPA does on their own; that is a requirement 

that they face under the law. 

Last year EPA finished its congressional mandated review of the 

2008 ozone health standard. After reviewing more than 1,000 scientific studies, EPA has concluded the 2008 ozone health standard 

was too weak and no longer adequately protected public health. 

Despite what many may say today, the EPA rule is purely a 

statement of fact. To protect our health, we need less ozone pollution. To protect the 6.5 million kids with asthma, we need less 

ozone pollution in our air. 

Finally, many of our biggest emitters today of ozone pollution, 

which include coal plants, older diesel engines, are already scheduled to be cleaned up, and this means the costs of compliance are 

not as high as they might have been 2, 4, or 6 years ago. I look 

forward to hearing today how we might meet these new ozone 

standards to protect public health and how we can meet these new 

health standards to ensure that we all achieve cleaner and 

healthier air. 

I would just finally say advances in science and technology that 

we use to understand what is making our air dirty has given us 

a more thorough understanding of how we can make our atmosphere safer for all of us, and I just hope we now seize the opportunity, seize the day, which is really not an opportunity at all, but 

I think a responsibility to do a good job today of cleaning up our 

air so that generations of Americans can live healthier lives and 

longer lives, and also still have a good job. 

Thanks so much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] 
24 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

I would like to thank the Chairman for having this hearing today and thank our 

witnesses for taking the time to be here. Today is a monumental day. This morning, 

many of my colleagues and I had the privilege to witness the signing of a major 

piece of environmental legislation—the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for 

the 21st Century Act was signed into law, which overhauls a 40-year-old law that 

regulates thousands of chemicals used in products Americans rely on every day. 

The bill that was signed today builds off the work done by the late Senator Frank 

Lautenberg, who was a true champion of chemical safety. I think it is fitting that 

on the same day our subcommittee discusses another of Senator Lautenberg’s passions—clean air. 

For years, Senator Lautenberg and I sat together on this committee fighting for 

cleaner air for all Americans. We both represented States whose residents live in 

what I like to call ‘‘America’s tailpipe.’’ Other States’ dirty emissions from cars and 

power plants drift east to our States, impacting the health of our constituents. 

For Senator Lautenberg, the fight was deeply personal. It is hard to forget his 

story. His sister was diagnosed with asthma and had a machine in her car that 

would help her breathe during asthma attacks. One day at a school board meeting, 

his sister felt an asthma attack coming on. She raced to her car to get to her machine. Tragically, she didn’t make it in time and as a result passed away. 

I wish this were a unique case—but sadly, there are thousands of mothers, fathers, brothers and grandparents in this country that have lost a loved one because 

of asthma. 

Millions in this country are living with asthma. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 6.3 million children in this country have been diagnosed with 

asthma. That means that more than 6 million children worry every day if they will 

make it to their inhaler in time if they have an asthma attack. 

For decades, we have known that ozone pollution is linked to serious health problems like asthma attacks, strokes, heart attacks and other respiratory ailments. 

More recently, ozone even has been linked to early deaths. 

Since 1970 Congress has asked EPA to provide the country with national health 

standards protecting Americans from the most harmful and common air pollutants. 

The EPA promptly did so in 1971, setting the first national health standard that 

covered ozone pollution. Congress wanted to make sure the ozone health standard 

reflected the best science available, which is why Congress required the EPA to review the standard every 5 years. 

Last year, the EPA finished its congressionally mandated review of the 2008 

ozone health standard. After reviewing more than a thousand scientific studies, the 

EPA has concluded the 2008 ozone health standard was too weak and no longer adequately protected public health. 

Despite what many may say today, the EPA’s rule is purely a statement of fact— 

to protect our health, we need less ozone pollution. To protect the 6.3 million children with asthma, we need less ozone pollution in our air. Fortunately, many of today’s biggest emitters of ozone pollution—such as old coal plants and older diesel 

engines—are already scheduled to be cleaned up. This means the costs of compliance are not as high as they might have been 2, 4 or 6 years ago. 

Since Senator Lautenberg’s sister passed away over 30 years ago, we have made 

remarkable progress in cleaning up harmful ozone air pollution. But let us honor 

her memory by never letting the challenge we face to ensure our air is clean and 

healthy for children and adults alike slip out of sight. Advances in science and the 

technology we use to understand what is making our air dirty have given us a more 

thorough understanding of how we can make the atmosphere safe for everyone. We 

must now seize the opportunity—which is really not an opportunity at all, but rather a responsibility—to do a good job today of cleaning up our air so that the generations of tomorrow can live healthier and longer lives. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Senator. 

And with that I would like to welcome the witnesses. I will just 

introduce you as you begin your testimony. I would ask that you 

keep your statements to 5 minutes, as you know. I know you have 

submitted written statements for the record. 

Mr. Kurt Karperos, who currently serves as Deputy Executive 

Officer on the California Air Resources Board. Welcome. 
25 

STATEMENT OF KURT KARPEROS, P.E., DEPUTY EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

Mr. KARPEROS. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Ranking Member 

Carper, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Kurt 

Karperos. I am Deputy Executive Officer for the California Air Resources Board. In this role I am responsible for implementation of 

the Clean Air Act statewide, including meeting Federal air quality 

standards in areas with the most persistent pollution, the greater 

Los Angeles area, that we refer to as the south coast, and the San 

Joaquin Valley. 

Today I want to cover three points in my testimony: first, meeting Federal health-based standard for air quality is achievable in 

California; second, economic growth and development, while taking 

steps to reduce emissions, is not only possible, it is a reality in 

California; and third, delaying the standards, as Senate bill 2882 

and 2072 would do, is unnecessary and would negatively impact 

the health and well-being of millions of people. 

About one-third of California’s 38 million residents live in regions 

with pollution levels that exceed the standard. That includes almost 5 million children, with nearly half a million suffering from 

asthma. California supported EPA’s setting of the more health protective ozone standard because reaching that standard would reduce premature mortality, emergency room visits for asthma, hospitalizations, and lost work days and school days. Simply putting, 

meeting the ozone standard is a public health imperative. 

California has a long history and successful history of meeting 

health-based standards. Of California’s 19 areas that once exceeded 

the 1-hour ozone standard and the original 8-hour ozone standard, 

only 4 exceed those today. Continued progress has occurred in the 

San Joaquin Valley. This extreme non-attainment area now meets 

the 1-hour ozone standard. And just last week the San Joaquin 

Valley Air District adopted a plan to meet the 8-hour ozone standard. 

The south coast is more challenging, but progress is also significant. The region once measures 1-hour ozone values above the 

standard on over 200 days per year. Today that has dropped to 10. 

Similarly, the number of days over the 8-hour standard has been 

cut in half since 1990. This progress has occurred at the same time 

that California’s population has increased by over 25 percent and 

the State’s gross domestic product has more than doubled. 

At the same time we have been reducing emissions, California’s 

economy has continued to grow and prosper. Over the last year, 

California grew to be the world’s sixth largest economy, and job 

growth in the State over the last 12 months was 2.8 percent, outpacing the national average of 1.9 percent. This while pursuing the 

Nation’s most aggressive air quality and climate policies. 

Today the air pollution control industry in California generates approximately $6 billion a year and employs over 30,000 people. 

The clean energy sector generates an additional $27 billion a year 

and employs approximately 125,000 people. Looking forward, EPA 

estimates that achieving the new ozone standard would save Californians an estimated $0.4 billion to $1.3 billion per year when accounting for both the cost of reducing emissions and avoided costs 

of health care. 
26 

With its health-based air quality standards, meaningful deadlines, and requirements for comprehensive plans, the Clean Air Act 

has been the tool for achieving this combined air quality and economic success. The Clean Air Act requires early comprehensive 

planning. Delay can increase costs. And California uses the early 

planning required by the Clean Air Act as a tool to minimize costs 

in the long-term. In fact, California will adopt a plan this year that 

will not only provide the reductions needed to meet the 75 parts 

per billion ozone standard in 2031; it will also provide most of the 

emissions reductions needed for the new 70 parts per billion ozone 

standard in 2037. 

California has used advanced technology provisions of the Act to 

drive innovation. Electric cars are the prime example. And now 

California is working with EPA to demonstrate that trucks can be 

90 percent cleaner by optimizing the technologies on the trucks 

today. Finally, working with EPA, businesses, and the public, we 

take advantage of the flexibility of the Clean Air Act to tailor control strategies to best fit California. 

California’s success is proof that Senate bill 2882 and 2072 are 

unnecessary. The bills would mean more people would breathe 

dirty air longer because they push off deadlines, erode requirements for incremental progress, and undermine the Clean Air Act’s 

requirements for comprehensive air quality strategies. Senate bill 

2882 would inappropriately insert control costs into EPA’s sciencebased process for setting air quality standards. How healthful our 

air needs to be is not a function of the cost to clean it up; it is a 

function of what air pollution does to the human body. 

In closing, let me stress that meeting the Federal health-based 

ozone standards is achievable. Clean Air Act provisions provide the 

needed flexibilities to effectively accomplish these goals, including 

in the areas with the Nation’s most persistent pollution problems. 

Second, setting healthful air against economic prosperity is a false 

choice, as California has demonstrated. Third, delaying the standards will harm the health and well-being of millions of people in 

this country. The San Joaquin Valley is home to high rates of poverty and environmental pollution, so it is especially critical to continue progress in that region. The economic costs of health care associated with polluted air are substantial and far exceed the costs 

of cleaner technologies. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Karperos follows:] 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Our next witness is Dr. Mary Rice, who is the Vice-Chair on the 

American Thoracic Society’s Environmental Health Policy Committee. She also works as an Assistant Professor of Medicine at the 

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, an affiliate of Harvard Medical School. And I know she has been here at least one other time 

because I remember her testimony. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MARY B. RICE, M.D., VICE-CHAIR, AMERICAN 

THORACIC SOCIETY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH POLICY 

COMMITTEE, AND ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE, 

BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER, HARVARD 

MEDICAL SCHOOL BIDMC 

Dr. RICE. Thank you. 

Chair Capito, Ranking Member Carper, and other members of 

the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 

behalf of the American Thoracic Society about why EPA’s new 

ozone standard and the Clean Air Act requirement of regularly reviewing and implementing health standards for the major air pollutants are so good for the health of American adults and children. 

I am a pulmonary and critical care physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at Harvard Medical School, and I care for 

adults with lung disease, many of whom suffer from asthma or 

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, commonly known as COPD. 

Let me begin with a discussion of ground-level ozone, also known 

as smog. Ozone pollution is bad for people with lung disease, and 

this has been known for decades. Ozone is a powerful oxidant that 

irritates the tissue of the lung and damages it. Hundreds of research studies in different areas across the U.S. and around the 

globe have demonstrated that when people with common diseases 

like asthma or COPD are exposed to ozone, they get sicker. 

One of my patients with severe asthma tells me that on high 

ozone days in the summertime he feels his chest tighten, and he 

can’t get enough air. He stays home from work, and he uses his inhaler around the clock, but it is not enough; and that is when he 

calls me, asking me for stronger medications. One summer his 

breathing difficulties were so severe that he landed in the hospital 

twice, and he had to take a leave of absence from his job. 

This is just one story. But hundreds of studies have demonstrated that increases in ozone result in children and adults having to increase use of medication to control asthma, having to miss 

school or work to visit the doctor or going to the emergency room, 

and hospitalization for respiratory illness. For some, especially the 

most vulnerable people, such as older people and people with 

COPD, high ozone days can result in premature deaths. 

The more that scientists and physicians have studied the health 

effects of ozone, the more confident the medical community has become about ozone’s harmful effects on the respiratory health of 

children, adults, and the elderly. 

The new ozone standard is based on literally hundreds of studies 

that demonstrate that the previous ozone standard of 75 parts per 

billion was not sufficiently protective of human health because 

there are serious harms to human health at ozone levels below 75. 

These serious harms include high risk of asthma attacks for people 
63 

with asthma, high risk of hospitalization for respiratory infection 

among babies and very young children, and a higher risk of death 

for older adults. 

What often gets lost is that ozone pollution is bad for otherwise 

healthy people, too. Research has shown that when normal healthy 

adults are exposed to ozone, including levels below the previous 

standard, lung function is reduced. 

Based on this wealth of medical evidence, professional medical 

societies across the country have called for a more protective ozone 

standard. These societies include the American Thoracic Society, 

the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and others. The evidence of health effects of ozone above 70 

parts per billion, even among young and healthy adults, is conclusive and undisputed in the medical community. Based on this 

strong evidence, the U.S. EPA set a public health standard for 

ozone of 70, and this new standard is expected to improve lung 

health, prevent asthma attacks, and save lives. 

As a physician, I need to keep up with the pace of medical discovery and incorporate those advances in my care of patients. The 

pace of scientific discovery is rapid, and we need the U.S. EPA to 

review the most up to date medical evidence at regular intervals 

to ensure that we set health standards that are sufficiently protective. Our knowledge about the health effects of air pollutants and 

their treatment is growing dramatically each year, which is why 

the American Thoracic Society is very concerned about proposals 

that would relax the interval for reviewing air quality standards 

from 5 to 10 years. 

When a new drug is approved to cure disease, we don’t wait 10 

years to update practice guidelines. In the past 2 years alone, several new and important studies which advance our understanding 

of ozone’s health effects have been published, and these include the 

studies showing that long-term exposure to ozone is associated with 

the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome, which is a 

major cause of mortality in American ICUs. 

Why would we delay 10 years to consider and act on new information that is showing the adverse health effects of air pollution? 

That is not consistent with the standard of care that my patients 

expect of me. 

My patients and every American depend on the U.S. EPA to review the most up to date evidence at regular intervals and keeping 

with the pace of medical progress and to establish and implement 

standards based on those reviews to protect the health of Americans. Above all, we must protect the health of the most vulnerable 

members of our society, including young children and the elderly, 

who have no other way of protecting themselves from the health 

effects of outdoor air pollution. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee, 

and I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Rice follows:] 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Our next witness is Mr. Andrew Chesley. He is the Director of 

San Joaquin Council of Governments in California. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW T. CHESLEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

SAN JOAQUIN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, STOCKTON, 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CHESLEY. Good afternoon, Chair Capito, Ranking Member 

Carper, and members of the committee. My name is Andrew 

Chesley. I am the Executive Director of the San Joaquin Council 

of Governments in Stockton, California. My region is located just 

east of the Bay Area, and each morning 65,000 of our residents 

make their way into the East Bay to work. We are one of the fastest growing counties in California, with a median income well 

below the State of California average. 

I am here on behalf of the eight San Joaquin Valley Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations in Fresno, Kern, Keen, Madera, Merced, 

San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare. All are striving to seek was 

to address the underlying causes of poverty, poor health, and unemployment that rank our valley among the worst in the country. 

Silicon Valley covers an 8-county geographic area, and it is approximately 4 million people, about the size of West Virginia. We 

are known for our agricultural prowess, but we also have 3 of the 

100 largest cities in the country, so on any given day our air quality challenges rival those of the Los Angeles Basin. 

As a valley, we will deliver over $40 billion in transportation 

projects over the next two decades if we are not tripped up through 

a labyrinth of air quality tests requiring massive coordination 

among numerous regional, State, and Federal agencies. These 

transportation projects put people to work, move agricultural goods 

to market, move freight from northern to southern California, and 

increase the mobility of Californians, all valuable public policy objectives. 

As of right now, we want to put the new resources and the facts 

back to work. I have attached Figure 1, which highlights the magnitude of the air quality challenge before us. We must reduce our 

pollution levels by over 90 percent over the next two decades to 

meet the 2015 ozone standard. 

I am here today to support a strong Clean Air Act with common 

sense revisions that actually results in improved air quality. I am 

also here to speak about the risks regions like the San Joaquin 

Valley face in implementing the Clean Air Act as we strive to 

maintain our region’s crumbling transportation infrastructure. 

Since its adoption, the Clean Air Act has led to significant improvements in air quality and public health throughout our region. 

We support provisions of the Clean Air Act that call for review of 

health-based standards, clean air objectives that are technology 

forcing and clean air delays that ensure expeditious clean up and 

timely action. However, the Clean Air Act was last submitted in 

1990. Over the last 25 years, local, State, and Federal agencies and 

affected stakeholders have learned important lessons from implementing the law, and it is clear that a number of provisions of the 
75 

Act are leading to unintended consequences and misdirected resources. 

I am here to support the San Joaquin Valley Air District’s pursuit to, in a very small way, make the Clean Air Act more workable 

as part of Senator Capito’s bill. 

In the San Joaquin Valley we have eight MPOs in one non-attainment area. Sometimes we are eight MPOs, and sometimes we 

have to function as one. Action on any one MPO’s regional transportation plan requires the other seven be not just in compliance 

with the Act but also with every process test in the endeavor. This 

means there are years where if one MPO fails, we all fail, and that 

results in losing transportation funding. We are connected at the 

hip in that way. 

We are in non-attainment for two ozone standards: three PM2.5

standards and PM10. We anticipate being designated non-attainment for the 2015 ozone standard as well. Each of these standards 

requires a separate air quality plan which leads to multiple requirements and deadlines. Currently, there are 51 different air 

quality tests each of the eight transportation planning agencies 

must pass. Regionally, that is 408 tests before we spend $1 of Federal transportation funding. Eighty of those tests are for ozone alone. Failure 

of one test by one MPO can result in the loss of funding for all 

eight, and we are set to do this on a schedule that averages about 

once every 2 to 3 years. 

Needless to say, the process is complex and difficult to explain. 

We have tried to do that in Figure 2, which is attached. If any one 

of the processes is not completely in perfect harmony and done on 

schedule with the others, the result equals project delivery delays 

or the loss of funding. Should synchronization of 11 processes not 

occur, we face the potential for air quality conformity lockdown. 

Not that we fail to meet the standards, but we fail to meet the 

process requirements. 

It is something of a credit to the agencies involved that we have 

only once fallen into a lockdown, until now. It is inevitable that we 

will go into a lockdown in the coming weeks. Target review dates 

in the case have slipped for the EPA, placing us in a lockdown situation. In the Valley, about $450 million in potential project delays 

are on the table. Our expectation is that we will exit the situation 

in 3 to 6 months, quite likely missing whole construction seasons. 

Examples of projects that will be impacted are a brand new 

interchange, the widening of a local arterial that is presently a 

mish-mash of two three-lane segments, and an operational project 

to provide a continuous left turn lane for drivers on residential 

streets. 

How we get into a lockdown is complex, but this is nothing new. 

We have been there before, and we will get out of it again. But 

these will become more frequent and even intractable. Updating 

the Clean Air Act is needed to simplify and streamline the process 

because this is not the reason a region should lose transportation 

funding. 

In closing, we support a strong Clean Air Act with common sense 

revisions that actually result in improved air quality. We need a 

way to greatly reduce the almost biannual updates with 51 tests 
76 

that place our transportation funding at risk constantly. Common 

sense amendments to the Clean Air Act that you are considering 

today will benefit our efforts in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chesley follows:] 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Our next witness is Mr. Mark Raymond, who serves as Commissioner and Chair of the Uintah County in Utah. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF MARK RAYMOND, UINTAH COUNTY 

COMMISSIONER AND CHAIR, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH 

Mr. RAYMOND. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of 

the committee. I am Mark Raymond, and I serve as the Chairman 

of the Uintah County Commission, located within the Uintah Basin 

in eastern Utah. 

I am honored to testify before the committee today to support the 

legislation being considered, S. 2882 and S. 2072, and discuss the 

issues we face in controlling ozone levels in the Uintah Basin, especially the unique occurrence of high winter ozone levels. Additionally, I want to thank our own Senator Hatch for his efforts to craft 

and introduce S. 2072 and his willingness to work on this very difficult issue. 

Uintah County stands ready to assist in the passage of both legislative proposals that will allow communities to deal with ozone in 

a rational and responsible manner, without the scarlet letter of 

non-attainment under the Clean Air Act. 

Only two places in the Nation experience high levels of winter 

ozone, the Upper Green River Basin in Wyoming and the Uintah 

Basin in Utah, both very rural areas. Higher winter ozone levels 

are a result of a complex mix of geography, weather, and emission 

conditions. Winter ozone levels rise when snow cover and multiday 

temperature inversions occur. Snow reflects the sunlight back up 

to the cloud cover, and this becomes the perfect mix to allow pollutants to build and react to produce ozone. 

However, in the absence of these conditions, exceedances of 

EPA’s ozone standard have not occurred. Ozone levels in the 

Uintah Basin became the focus of local and State governments and 

the EPA as we experienced several winters of high ozone levels, 

higher energy production, and EPA’s new standard of 70 parts per 

billion. Although it is clear that our energy industry contributes to 

ozone precursors, those same releases do not create high levels of 

ozone absent the precise weather conditions. 

The energy industry is responsible for 60 percent of our economy 

and 50 percent of our jobs. We need this industry to feed our economy, which in turn provides the resources to tackle our ozone problem. Under non-attainment, the industry and their investments 

will relocate to other areas, leaving few, if any, resources to fund 

and implement air quality controls. 

Voluntarily, we have spent years and millions of dollars to study, 

monitor, and model winter ozone. All we really know after this 

work is that this is a very complex issue that requires more years 

of research and monitoring to ensure that investments are effective 

and that our modeling is accurate in order to formulate appropriate 

controls. 

It is our fear that EPA, armed with the new ozone standard, will 

put Uintah Basin into a non-attainment status, and we will go into 

what could be decades of Clean Air Act compliance, which may not 

actually improve our air quality. 
83 

While EPA’s current ozone standard is the hammer over my community’s head, the real driving force of our efforts is to improve our 

air quality for our citizens. The Clean Air Act provides limited tools 

for communities to proactively improve air quality and provides 

disincentives to reduce emissions ahead of a non-attainment designation. 

In 2002 the EPA initiated a strategy known as the Early Action 

Compact Program. This program allows communities to enter into 

compacts with EPA to improve air quality, hold off non-attainment 

designation during compact implementation, and allowed credits 

for investments made pursuant to the compact. Twenty-nine areas 

from 12 different States submitted signed compact agreements. Of 

the 29 areas, 14 areas were able to defer non-attainment status 

and 15 areas were successful and reached attainment due to their 

implementation in the Compact Program. 

Pursuant to an EPA study, the Compact Program was successful, 

gave local areas the flexibility to develop their own approach to 

meeting the ozone standard, provided communities with the tools 

to control emissions from local sources earlier than the Clean Air 

Act would otherwise require, and it improved air quality faster and 

promoted regional cooperation. Unfortunately, EPA scrapped the 

program due to litigation. 

Under S. 2072, State, tribal, and local governments would initiate the application process and craft a proposed compact plan for 

EPA’s approval. Compact plans must ensure public involvement, 

provide credits for emission reductions, contain measurable milestones leading to attainment within 10 years, emission inventories, 

modeling, and planning for future growth. During the implementation period, the administrator agrees to withhold non-attainment 

designation so long as the compact is being implemented. 

S. 2072 puts local, tribal, and State governments in control of improving air quality, fosters cooperation with the EPA, and will provide true air quality improvements. So. 2072 also requires EPA to 

issue separate guidelines for communities with winter ozone issues. 

These separate provisions are critical to ensure that winter ozone 

compacts will accommodate additional research and monitoring 

necessary for fully understanding this complex issue. 

S. 2072 provides a proven, bipartisan, and successful mechanism 

for communities to improve air quality without destroying their 

economies. This is the goal of S. 2072, and we urge the committee 

to approve this legislation. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I would be 

happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Raymond follows:] 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Our final witness is Mr. Glenn Hamer, who is President and 

CEO, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF GLENN HAMER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

ARIZONA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY 

Mr. HAMER. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Carper, 

and members of the committee. 

My name is Glenn Hamer, and I am President and CEO of the 

Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and we are the leading statewide business advocate in Arizona. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify here this afternoon about 

the challenges and the economic impact to Arizona and other 

States with a western focus of the EPA’s new standard for groundlevel ozone. I have also submitted for the record a written statement, along with a copy of our latest paper by the Arizona Chamber Foundation and Prosper Foundation, entitled A Clear and 

Present Danger: How the EPA’s New Ozone Regulations Threaten 

Arizona’s Economy. That is a more comprehensive examination of 

the issue. 

I would like to first thank the Chairwoman for her extraordinary 

leadership in sponsoring S. 2882. We were thrilled that earlier this 

month the House companion, H.R. 4775, passed the House. This is 

arguably one of, if not the most important bills pending right now 

in the Congress for the State of Arizona, and I will explain why in 

a bit. 

We agree that delaying the implementation, the 70 parts per billion standard, is necessary, at the very least because it relieves the 

immediate burden of complying with it. But the legislation you 

have sponsored, Senator, also provides with the flexibility and the 

roadmap we need going forward. This is a smart piece of legislation. 

I also want to commend our State’s Attorney General, Mark 

Brnovich, for leading the legal challenge against the new ozone 

rule in Federal court, which now nine other States have joined, including Oklahoma. 

The economic impact of the new one-size-fits-all national standard on Arizona and other western States is significant. The 70 

parts per billion standard will be virtually impossible for Arizona 

and other parts of the country to meet. For Arizona it is because 

of our unique location in the southwestern region and because the 

primary sources of Arizona’s ozone precursors are outside our 

State’s control. 

Protecting Arizona’s air quality is obviously of utmost importance 

to those here in Arizona. Tourism is one of our largest industries, 

and we want to make sure the air is clean. But the imposition of 

this new standard will unfairly punish Arizona for things we simply can’t control. 

First, Arizona’s No. 1 source of nitrogen oxide emissions is cars. 

Our State’s location as a border State to Mexico and as a gateway 

to southern California means that Arizona’s highways are heavily 

traveled. Yet because vehicle emissions are regulated at the Federal level, any possible reductions are really in the hands of the 
90 

Federal regulators responsible for setting those standards. This 

says nothing of the cars crossing into the Arizona from Mexico that 

aren’t even regulated by the U.S. Government. 

Second, Arizona has incredibly high levels of biogenic or naturally occurring background ozone. With our State’s vast ponderosa 

pine forest and high incidents of wildfires and lightening—some 

are raging right now, unfortunately—biogenic ozone emissions account for 43 percent of Arizona’s volatile organic compound emissions. In fact, major industrial sources—this is an important 

point—only account for a mere 2 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions in Arizona’s largest and most populous county, in Maricopa 

County, and just 1 percent of that county’s VOC emissions. 

Third, Arizona receives a significant amount of ozone from California. This cross-border transmission is also referred to as interstate transport. The EPA does not permit exclusions for interstate 

transport, so even if our State’s Arizona Department of Economic 

Quality proved that this ozone originated in California, a complicated and expensive process, Arizona is still being penalized for 

ozone we did not create. 

Fourth, Arizona receives significant international transport from 

Mexico, Canada, and Asia; and we like that this bill requires a 

study on that issue. But because of the EPA’s rule, even if, again, 

we prove this, at great cost, we still would not be placed out of nonattainment status. 

Finally, almost 70 percent of the land in Arizona is tribal land 

or controlled and managed by the Federal Government. Yet, we are 

still held responsible for emissions originating there. Simply put, 

although Arizona has been making great strides from the regulation just put into place in 2008, we will be really hit very hard by 

this new regulation. 

I would like to also say we appreciate what Senator Hatch and 

Senator McCaskill are moving toward in S. 2072 in terms of providing additional flexibility. If I could leave the committee with a 

couple of thoughts, we need to make sure we get away from onesize-fits-all regulations. We simply can’t penalize States and regions that have issues beyond their capability. 

In terms of Arizona, I just want to say that we are working very, 

very hard to do everything possible under the 2008 standards to 

meet those, so for this to come up while we are making such great 

progress is a real problem. And again, we urge passage of the 

Chairwoman’s very important legislation. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hamer follows:] 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 

Senator CAPITO. Right on the number there. 

Thank you all very much for your testimony, and I will begin the 

questioning. 

First of all, let me just make a statement. Neither one of these 

bills would raise the standard of ozone allowed in the atmosphere; 

it simply is asking for flexibility, longer timelines, and to wait until 

some of the places that haven’t been able to get into attainment 

catch up before they are further asked to squeeze down, which we 

have heard from Mr. Chesley, obviously causing an issue. 

I did not realize, but I learned today, that one-third of the 38 

million people living in California don’t meet the standard, the 

2008 standard. I think that is what our testimony was. So, Mr. 

Chesley, can you tell me what is the deadline for the San Joaquin 

Valley to comply with the 2008 ozone standard, the 75 parts per 

billion? 

Mr. CHESLEY. Chair, I would actually prefer Mr. Karperos to answer that specific question, but I have to say that what we are 

doing in the San Joaquin Valley in terms of trying to address those 

various standards that have been set, we have, I think, 11 different 

ones that we have to be able to meet, comply with this on this has 

been heroic and herculean. In terms of the standards themselves, 

we are prepared to meet those standards, but we need a schedule 

to do it that actually is achievable and that does not place valuable 

public policy interests, such as transportation infrastructure, at 

risk. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. I think the testimony was somewhere 

around 2031, 2032 for California. 

Mr. CHESLEY. Yes. Yes. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. So that is an extension. That is a longer 

timeline for California to be able to meet the standard to be able 

to hang on your transportation dollars and also some of your economic development issues. So, in my view, that is an acknowledgment from EPA that just extending the deadlines is not necessarily 

an advocacy for dirtier air or having a higher ozone standard. They 

are trying to, at least in the case of California, build into the flexibility that I hear other members of the panel are asking. 

It was also testified that delay increases costs. The costs to California obviously are going to be very good. I think the part of the 

bill, my bill that says that we are going to have a study that submits and looks into the impacts of emissions from foreign countries, 

in my view, that would be welcomed, I think, nationally, particularly from the State of California, Arizona, and others on the West 

Coast. 

Mr. Hamer, the 2015 ozone standard saddled States with significant new costs, one of which we heard is just the cost of actually 

performing the tests and figuring out where you are. That is not 

a reason to not do them, but I think some flexibility there and 

some better technologies would probably help as well. 

The Director of Environmental Protection in West Virginia pointed out that the EPA has admitted that 30 percent of the controls 

necessary to achieve the NAAQS at 70 parts per billion are unknown. In other words, 30 percent of the technologies that are 

going to be needed to meet the new standard are still undiscovered 
106 

or untested or unable to be put into an economic model that can 

be actually used. 

So you mentioned to me, when I first met you, that Maricopa 

County just now achieved the status of attainment. What do you 

envision for your largest county in your State to be able to move 

forward under a 5-year timeline as opposed to, say, a 10-year 

timeline? 

Mr. HAMER. Madam Chair, thank you for that thoughtful question. There is a difference between difficult to meet and impossible 

to meet right now, and we are in the impossible to meet. So out 

of the 10 counties in Arizona that have had to go and to work to 

meet the 75 per parts standard, 9 of those counties, including those 

in our most populous regions, would be out of attainment. 

You mentioned another important part, that the EPA has acknowledged that there should be flexibility, given the action they 

have taken in California. We have been working very, very hard, 

since 2008, which is not that long ago, to implement the 75 per 

part standard. 

But Yuma County would be a good example. In fact, our director 

of the Department of Environmental Quality, Misael Cabrera, recently testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee and he specifically mentioned Yuma as a place where 

there is not a lot of industry, but because of the geographic region, 

right next to California and Mexico, it would simply be impossible 

for that county to become in compliance with the new standard. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you very much. 

I would now like to recognize my cosponsor on S. 2882, Senator 

Flake from Arizona, to make an opening statement about the bill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF FLAKE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Senator FLAKE. Well, thank you so much, Madam Chair. I appreciate you and Ranking Member Carper allowing me to speak in 

support of the Ozone Standards Implementation Act. I am pleased 

to join the Chairwoman in sponsoring this bill. 

Since I testified last June on ozone reform, the EPA finalized its 

rule on the ozone emission standard at 70 parts per billion. In my 

opinion, this rule demonstrates complete tone deafness on the part 

of the EPA, and it is particularly detrimental, as we were hearing, 

to my home State of Arizona, where the impacts of the EPA’s failed 

air regulatory regime are apparent. With these costly compliance 

requirements, this rule will burden counties and businesses already working in good faith, as we have heard, to meet the previous standard. 

I am particularly pleased to see Glenn Hamer here representing 

the Arizona Chamber, giving a perspective from Arizona businesses 

that are trying, in good faith, to meet these standards, but were 

very much, in the case of the EPA changing the rules in the middle 

of the game. 

I, for one, believe it is time for Congress to step in, and this legislation includes a provision from the bill that I introduced previously, called the Ordeal Act, that would change the mandatory 

review of National Ambient Air Quality Standards from 5 to 10 

years. Among other provisions, the legislation also phases in imple-
107 

mentation of the 2000 and 2015 ozone standards, extending the 

compliance date for the 2015 standards to 2025. It remains crucial 

that States have the flexibility and the time to implement their 

own innovative and proactive measures here. 

Now, in response to the EPA tightening the standard despite 

public outcry, I introduced a congressional resolution that would 

permanently halt the implementation of EPA’s final rule on ozone 

tightening. I can tell you the outcry has not dimmed in my State. 

I hear it statewide with the decision of the attorney general to file 

suit over the rule and to be joined by other States in that effort. 

I hear it in Phoenix as members of the business community, such 

as Glenn here, realize that it is impossible, not just difficult, but 

impossible for Arizona to ever comply with that standard. And 

most recently my staff in Yuma attended a Board of Supervisors 

work session on this very topic, just last week, hoping to find a way 

to be protected from this last tightening. This effort I pledge to 

work on and achieve. 

I am pleased that Congress is focusing on this and other legislative remedies. I am committed to pushing this legislation and will 

continue to introduce provisions providing regulatory relief and 

flexibility to lessen the impact of this devastating rule on Arizona’s 

community. 

With that, Madam Chair, thank you so much for allowing me to 

speak. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

I will turn it over to the Ranking Member, Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. 

Senator Flake, always good to see you. Thank you for doing this 

today. I know you have other things to do. If you could just stay 

for a couple minutes. 

I make a unanimous consent request, if I could, to enter a couple 

letters from the environmental and health community expressing, 

believe it or not, opposition to S. 2702 and S. 2882. I would also 

like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record taxable assistance from EPA that provides a description on the EPA’s earlier 

Early Action Compact Program, as well as a comparison between 

the agency’s earlier Early Action Compact Program and S. 2702, 

and a conclusion that S. 2702 could result in delayed reduction of 

pollutants. 

Since Senator Boxer is going to be unable to join us today, she 

has asked that I ask unanimous consent that her statements be entered into the record. 

Senator CAPITO. Without objection. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you so much. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer was not received at 

time of print.] 

Senator CARPER. The situation that they face in Arizona reminds 

me of the situation that we have faced in Delaware, and I have explained that here before. When I was Governor of Delaware, we 

could basically shut down our State’s economy and still have been 

out of compliance because of all the pollution that is put up in the 

air to the west of us, States to the west of Delaware and the west 

of Maryland and so forth. So I am not unsympathetic to the concerns that he raised. 

My staff has given me a map of the United States, and it is too 

small for me to share with all of you, but it is a map of the United 

States with a look ahead to 2025. It says EPA projects that the 

vast majority of counties across the country would meet the updated ozone standards in 2025 without additional actions to reduce 

pollution. The map shows that they still have quite a bit to do in 

California, but most of this map is like there are no markings on 

the States, and it looks they are free of any kind of additional actions that would be required to be in compliance in 2025. 

I don’t know who to ask here, but maybe Mr. Karperos, can you 

take maybe a minute or two and show us how States can address 

out-State pollution and their State implementation program? I believe there are Federal programs already being implemented that 

could go a long way to help reduce ozone pollution across the country. As a result, I am told that only 15 counties outside of California are expected to be in non-attainment by 2025. None of these 

counties expect to be out of attainment in 2025 are in Arizona. 

Is that your understanding? 

Mr. KARPEROS. In my review of the modeling that U.S. EPA did 

to lead to the map that you were showing, Senator, it is my understanding that, yes, without any additional programs, just implementation of the programs that are on the books, that Arizona 

would achieve both the 70 and the 75 parts per billion standard. 

I am not surprised by that. A similar situation in California. We 

currently have approximately 19 areas that we would expect, if the 

designations would be made today, would be non-attainment for 

the 70 parts per billion standard. By the time the designations are 

made next year, I expect it to be much fewer than 19. 

There are a number of Federal programs that are absolutely critical for dealing with this sort of situation and the transport of 

emission from upwind. Certainly, Federal vehicle standards are 

critical of the Clean Power Plan, and the interstate provisions that 

EPA administers to help shield the downwind States for responsibility for emissions that are currently impacting downwind. 

So there are critical provisions that the Federal Government 

needs to implement. In particular, when it comes to both California 

attainment, as well as attainment throughout the State and then 

downwind, Federal action to tighten standards for trucks and locomotives is absolutely critical. Right now we are partnering with 

U.S. EPA and the engine and truck manufacturers, as I said in my 

opening statement, to demonstrate that trucks, just by optimizing 

the technology that is on the trucks today, would be 90 percent 

cleaner. 
116 

That sort of Federal action, similar action on locomotives, absolutely critical. There is sort of a two-fer in that sort of issue: the 

emissions blow downwind plus those trucks drive downwind. So 

you are getting actually a two-fer for that sort of Federal action. 

Absolutely critical. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks for that clarification. 

Sometimes, Madam Chair and colleagues, I think people think 

that they wake up in the morning over at EPA and they say, well, 

what can we tighten up today to make life miserable for the other 

States. As it turns out, my understanding is that EPA gets sued, 

not every day, but they get sued a lot because they are not doing 

enough to comply with the laws that are already in the books, and 

then they get sued because they are trying to comply, work something out and comply with these laws that were adopted under Republican administrations, if you can believe that. 

EPA putting out every 5 years these standards for ozone, why do 

they do this? Dr. Rice, why do they do this? Are they doing this 

on a whim? Is there some kind of requirement that they do this? 

Dr. RICE. So the EPA is required to review the medical evidence 

at regular intervals so that—— 

Senator CARPER. Required by law? 

Dr. RICE. By law in order to incorporate the most up to date 

science and health standards that they set. 

Senator CARPER. If they didn’t do that, would they be sued? 

Dr. RICE. I believe they would be. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, they would. 

Dr. RICE. I would like to make the point that that is particularly 

relevant for the health of children. So, for example, if we delay the 

review period for another 10 years, that means that findings that 

have been made about ozone, which there have been in the last few 

months, won’t even be considered until 2025 at the earliest. 

That means that babies that are born today, they are already 

going to be in grade school, and children’s lungs continue to develop after they are born all the way until they are teenagers. 

There is evidence to show that air pollution is harmful for child 

lung development. So it is a big deal. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thank you. 

My time has expired. Madam Chair, I would just say those of us 

whose roots are in West Virginia were raised by parents who believe in common sense. Maybe you and I can just sit down with our 

staffs and just figure out how we can use some common sense. 

Those of you who express some interest particularly in some 

changes to, I don’t know, legislation that pertains to transportation 

projects and that kind of thing, I would be interested in a further 

conversation with you folks too. Thank you. 

Senator CAPITO. Sounds good. Thank you. 

Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would say, 

Senator Carper, Rhode Island and Nebraska have common sense as 

well, so I know Senator Whitehouse and I would be happy to join 

in any discussion. 

Senator CARPER. Well, I heard Rhode Island has common sense. 

Senator FISCHER. Oh, now, just a minute. Come on. 

[Laughter.] 
117 

Senator FISCHER. No. Nebraska, we are known for our common 

sense. Please. 

Senator CARPER. Oh, that is right. I am sorry. 

Senator FISCHER. Mr. Hamer, nice to see you again. The EPA updated ozone standards in 2008. However, the EPA delayed implementing the 2008 ozone standard for 2 years while it pursued reconsideration. States are now catching up with implementing that 

standard, particularly since the EPA just issued implementation 

rules for the standard last March. And now EPA has finalized a 

new ozone standard that overlaps with the 2008 standards. 

So do implementation delays like this challenge local communities and businesses that are tasked with putting ozone air standards in place? And would legislation that we are discussing today 

help to mitigate this type of harm? 

Mr. HAMER. Senator Fischer, very nice to see you again. It is a 

great question and the issue that you are raising is that while this 

new standard is finalized in 2015, Arizona continues to make sure 

that it has everything buttoned up with the 2008 regulations. 

The new regulation certainly ratchets things up in a way that we 

believe is impossible to meet at this time for the 9 out of the 10 

counties that are already monitored. But it is a very, very difficult 

situation. And I am trying to put this in concrete terms. 

So here you have areas that are becoming in attainment, and 

they are able to get the permits and do the things they need so 

manufacturers could add jobs and things like that, and now you 

have this new standard that would clearly throw big areas of Arizona and other portions of the country out of containment. I mean, 

this map really gives an idea. It is not just an Arizona thing. They 

may have a disproportionate effect on the West, but this hits a lot 

of different parts of the United States. 

And again, I just want to say that we are deeply concerned about 

clean air in Arizona, deeply concerned. Human beings like moving 

to our State. We are now the 14th largest State in the country. We 

just passed Massachusetts. 

Senator Carper, you began your statement—— 

Senator FISCHER. This is my time. 

Mr. HAMER. Oh, I am sorry. But I was going to tie it to your 

question. 

Senator FISCHER. OK. 

Mr. HAMER. The issue is there is a formula that brings, just like 

with the legislation that the President signed, there is a formula 

that brings industry, environmental groups, States together in a 

common sense way so we move away from one-size-fits-all legislation. 

Senator FISCHER. Right. And in the policy brief that you included 

with your testimony, it discusses exceptional events, and it describes them as an event natural or caused by human activity that 

affects air quality is unlikely to occur and cannot be reasonably 

controlled or prevented. 

This past spring Nebraskans were affected by two events, the 

Anderson Creek fire from Kansas and Oklahoma, as well as the Alberta wildfires, and that did result in air quality issues in the 

State of Nebraska. So if air quality standards were exceeded because of these wildfires, it seems as though they should be consid-
118 

ered exceptional events under the Clean Air Act so that Nebraska 

can exclude them from regulatory consideration. 

In your experience, can you describe how successful States have 

been in having submissions for these exceptional events granted by 

the EPA and what the costs are associated with that process, and 

what is the typical timeframe that we can see when the EPA is 

going to make a decision on those? 

Mr. HAMER. Senator, thank you for that question. And I want to 

just commend Senator Flake for his extraordinary leadership here. 

He has been a leader in the Congress on dealing with exceptional 

events. I think he has put the word haboob in the national lexicon. 

And those are things you can see from outer space. It still is very, 

very difficult and very, very expensive to work with the EPA to get 

these exceptional events designated. 

Now, I will say we are making progress, but here is another 

area—— 

Senator FISCHER. How long does it take? What are the costs? 

Mr. HAMER. I hope I am completely accurate, but I believe it is 

about 4 to 8 months. Some of these, according to our Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, could cost $50,000 per event. 

That is real money for a State government. Some take longer and 

some cost more. 

Again, the legislation that is pending before this committee is vitally important to including exceptional events as something to be 

considered. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

As is often the case, where you are helps determine where you 

stand on these things, and like Senator Carper, where I am is 

Rhode Island, and Rhode Island is a downwind State. I distinctly 

remember driving to work in the morning on a nice summer day 

and hearing the radio station tell me that today is a bad air day 

in Rhode Island and that children and elderly folks and people 

with breathing conditions should stay indoors. 

There wasn’t much that we could do about it because most of this 

came from out-of-State sources that were pumping it up into the 

sky, and then it was drifting over Rhode Island. Particularly 

NAAQS wasn’t being sun treated during that time, and by the time 

it hit Rhode Island we were not in attainment, and there wasn’t 

a thing we could do about it. 

So the enforcement of these standards has meant a big deal to 

Rhode Island. We are back in attainment; our bad air days are diminished; there are fewer asthma and hospital visits. And that is 

all very real to people in Rhode Island. 

We are still looking at plants in West Virginia and Pennsylvania 

that, by my calculation, are releasing 45,000 tons more of NAAQS 

than they did just 7 years ago, which suggests that it is not either 

the best technology or they are not operating it at efficiency, that 

they have tailed off and haven’t upgraded their protections. So we 

downstream States take this very, very seriously. 
119 

To add to what Senator Carper said, if they are local conditions, 

like in Uintah Basin there is a peculiar geographic phenomenon 

that you can’t get around, we are more than happy to work with 

you on something like that. If there is a particular unique event 

like a forest fire. But anything that takes a broad cut at the baseline standards here puts States like mine in real peril, and it is 

very frustrating. 

Let me ask a question. Let me ask Mr. Karperos. Clearly, you 

would concede that there are costs to cleaning up air and avoiding 

ozone and so forth, correct? 

Mr. KARPEROS. Absolutely, Senator. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And would you also concede that there are 

benefits and values from having cleaned up air? 

Mr. KARPEROS. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. What would you think of a study that 

counted the costs to clean up the air but didn’t count the value or 

the benefits from the cleaned up air? 

Mr. KARPEROS. Missing half the equation. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. Pretty basic? Are there values, for instance, the value of a child being able to play outside, that are hard 

to put a monetary value on, but that ought to count in considering 

whether or not the air should be clean? 

Mr. KARPEROS. Oh, absolutely. I would agree with you completely. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So if you go to a purely monetary standard, you are likely to understate the benefits. 

Mr. KARPEROS. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And there is a place in Mr. Hamer’s testimony. By the way, welcome back. I really enjoyed working with 

Senator Kyl. Any staffer of his I am for, so than you for being back 

here. 

Mr. HAMER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You say in your testimony, this would be 

a question for Dr. Rice, some studies, while inconclusive, suggest 

that ground level ozone, on its own or when mixed with other potential pollutants such as particulate matter, can have adverse 

health consequences like asthma and bronchitis. 

Let me ask you first, Dr. Rice, is this an area in which you have 

some expertise? 

Dr. RICE. Yes, it is, Senator. I study air pollution in addition to 

taking care of patients. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And how do you react to the suggestion 

that the studies that link ground level ozone to health consequences like asthma and bronchitis are inconclusive? 

Dr. RICE. I disagree with that statement. There is a preponderance of evidence spanning decades of ozone, chamber studies, observational studies, looking at thousands and thousands of people, 

and they have conclusively shown that there health effects of ozone 

exposure, particularly for the lungs. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. As we go forward and as people learn 

more about these illnesses and how the pollutants relate to the illnesses, are there scientific advancements that are made that can 

indicate that the standard needs to change? 
120 

Dr. RICE. Certainly, Senator. The Clean Air Act is an amazing 

success story, and air quality has improved dramatically, and that 

has allowed us to look at the health effects of air pollution exposure 

at lower and lower levels. In my own research, I found that exposure to ozone within the previous standard caused the lung function of healthy people to be worse, and that is one small piece of 

information that is added to the wealth of research that has been 

informing how the EPA sets air quality standards. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And if in fact it is scientific evidence about 

human health that drives the change in the exposure levels, is it 

fair to describe that as just changing the rules in the middle of the 

game? 

Dr. RICE. Can you explain that better? I am not I understand the 

question. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We had a comment earlier that to change 

this is the equivalent of changing the rules in the middle of the 

game. 

Dr. RICE. Right. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. If you are changing the rules because the 

science indicates that that is where the safe level is, is that a fair 

characterization of what is going on to just call it changing the 

rules in the middle of the game? 

Dr. RICE. Certainly not. I wouldn’t put it that way. The rules 

have all along been that the EPA is obligated to set air quality 

standards based on the protection of human health with an adequate margin of safety. As we learn more and more about the 

health effects of air pollution, we have set those standards lower 

and lower because we want to protect the health of adults and of 

children. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank you for this 

hearing. I was here listening to most of the presentations, then I 

had a meeting in my office and was listening to the question and 

answer, and I just really wanted to come back and thank particularly Dr. Rice and Mr. Karperos for your comments in regards to 

the health related issues, because I think that is the key point. 

Dr. Rice, I was reading your testimony in preparation for today’s 

hearing, and I was impressed by the fact, if I asked the people in 

Maryland what the difference is between 75 or 65 ppbs, they 

wouldn’t have the faintest idea what I am talking about. But they 

do know the impact of a bad smog day, and parents particularly 

know that when I hear from parents that they can’t let their kids 

go to camp on a given day. And then the parents stay home from 

work, and they see the impact of that. 

I want you just to elaborate a little bit more because one would 

say, well, is reducing it by this amount, does it really make any 

difference? What does 1 ppb really mean? And I was impressed by 

your written testimony where you indicated that each point means 

people are going to be dramatically impacted. Can you just tell us 

the difference on these standards as to what it means? 

Dr. RICE. Certainly, Senator Cardin. So ppb refers to parts per 

billion. It is a concentration of the pollutant in the air, and the 
121 

standard is set according to an average over 8 hours. But what we 

are really talking about is relationships between how high the level 

of the pollution is and health effects. 

So if I can give you another example, in the city of Atlanta during 1996, during the Olympics, there were changes that were made 

that reduced the level of traffic in the city for a short interval during the Olympic Games. When scientists looked back at the experience during those Olympics, not only did traffic levels go down, but 

ozone concentrations went down from 80 ppb to 60 ppb. That resulted in a 44 percent decrease in asthma admissions for kids during that time interval who were on Medicaid. 

So there are real children. When you looked at the rate of kids 

coming in with asthma attacks before the Olympics, you looked at 

the rate during the Olympic period, and then you looked at it afterwards, you found that there was a real decrease in the number of 

kids getting sick when the ozone level decreased. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Karperos, California is usually used as the 

example of the State where the challenges are the greatest. Your 

testimony is that this rule is doable and that California will be able 

to move forward and be able to accomplish this. So these are 

achievable goals? 

Mr. KARPEROS. Thank you, Senator Cardin. Absolutely they are 

achievable goals. The San Joaquin Valley, to use an example, an 

extreme non-attainment area, one of the two in the Nation, has 

achieved the 1-hour ozone standard. They have developed a plan 

and are in fact implementing the plan and U.S. EPA has approved 

the plan for attainment of the 80 ppb standard in 2023. 

Just last week, the local air district adopted a plan to achieve the 

75 ppb standard in 2031. Part of my written testimony was that 

ARB staff report reviewing that plan saying it meets all the requirements of the Clean Air Act. In fact, it is the Clean Air Act for 

the reason they have made sort of progress. 

Finally, my agency will be considering a plan to further reduce 

emissions from cars and trucks that we think for the San Joaquin 

Valley, again, to use them as an example, will provide most, if not 

all, of the reductions needed for the 70 ppb standard even before 

it is designated non-attainment. 

Senator CARDIN. Of course, what the law envisions this review 

to be done is to determine, first and foremost, what the health 

standards should be to protect the public health of our children and 

our families and our population; and then, second, it needs to be 

within a realm of what can be achieved, because otherwise it would 

not be achievable and we wouldn’t have effective regulations. 

From your testimonies, you believe that this change is, first, 

needed for the purposes of public health and can be achieved; and 

if we do stick with this schedule, families will be healthier and will 

save not only misery, but will also save resources in regards to 

health care and lost days at work, and things on that line. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

I think that concludes. I thought Chairman Inhofe might return, 

but he has been detained, so I would just like to thank the witnesses. 
122 

Just a final 2-second comment. I would like to say to Senator 

Carper that I certainly want to look for common sense solutions, 

ways to maybe massage the issue to make it so that some of the 

concerns that we have heard voiced today would be addressed. But 

I would also like to point out that the title of the hearing is Examining Pathways Toward Compliance. 

So I think that shows that we are on the same pathway. Sometimes we try to get there different ways. Hopefully we can get together and find some easier methods for some folks who are having 

more difficulty. 

Thank you all very much. With that, I will call the meeting adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
123 
124 

Æ