EPA’S 2015 OZONE STANDARD: 

CONCERNS OVER SCIENCE AND IMPLEMENTATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

October 22, 2015 

Serial No. 114–44 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 
EPA’S 2015 OZONE STANDARD: CONCERNS OVER SCIENCE AND IMPLEMENTATION 
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

97–763PDF 2017

EPA’S 2015 OZONE STANDARD: 

CONCERNS OVER SCIENCE AND IMPLEMENTATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

October 22, 2015 

Serial No. 114–44 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DARIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

October 22, 2015 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 17 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Statement by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Enviorment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House 

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 20 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 22 

Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 23 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 25 

Witnesses: 

The Honorable Jeffrey Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 28 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 30 

Mr. Seyed Sadredin, Executive Director and Air Pollution Control Officer, 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 38 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 40 

Dr. Elena Craft, Senior Health Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 56 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 58 

Dr. Michael Honeycutt, Director, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Toxicology Division 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 71 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 74 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 82 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

The Honorable Jeffrey Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP ............ 108 

Dr. Elena Craft, Senior Health Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund ........... 111 

Dr. Michael Honeycutt, Director, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Toxicology Division ........................................................................................ 120 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Documents submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 204 
Page

IV 

Report submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 231 

Documents submitted by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman, Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 256 

Document submitted by Representative Don Beyer, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 260 

Documents submitted by Representative Bill Johnson, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 262 

Documents submitted by Representative Katherine Clark, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 265 

Documents submitted by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 273 

Documents submitted by Representative Barry Loudermilk, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 281 

Documents submitted by Representative Ed Perlmutter, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 284 

Documents submitted by Representative Darin LaHood, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 322 

Documents submitted by Representative Gary Palmer, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 328 

Statement submitted by Representative Elizabeth H. Esty, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 347 
(1) 

EPA’S 2015 OZONE STANDARD: 

CONCERNS OVER SCIENCE AND 

IMPLEMENTATION 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

Chairman SMITH. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time. 

Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘EPA’s 2015 Ozone Standard: Concerns Over Science and Implementation.’’ 

I’ll recognize myself for an opening statement and then the 

Ranking Member. 

Today’s hearing is on the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone. 

The EPA is required to review the ozone standard every five 

years, but the agency is not required to set new standards. The 

2008 standard of 75 parts per billion is just now being implemented, and many states have not had the opportunity to meet the 

2008 standard since guidance from the EPA for this standard was 

not made public until February. However, earlier this month, the 

EPA further reduced the standard to 70 parts per billion. 

At our previous Committee hearings on the EPA’s ozone rule, 

witnesses testified that further reduction of the standard is premature and unnecessary due to the lack of any sound science, and 

the negative impact it will have on our economy. Unfortunately, 

the EPA did not address the serious concerns raised by these witnesses. Our hearing today will review the impact of this final rule. 

According to EPA’s own website—and I think we have a chart to 

show. 

[Slide.] 

Chairman SMITH. There it is. Since 1980, ozone levels have decreased by 33 percent. The air we breathe is significantly cleaner 

and will continue to improve thanks to new technologies. However, 

many of the technologies that the EPA forces states to use either 

do not currently exist or will be overly expensive. 

At the reduced ozone standard, over 60 percent of the costs of the 

program are based on technology that does not currently exist. The 

EPA assumes this technology will somehow be developed to implement their stringent regulations. And these proposed standards are 

impossible to meet in some places where the ozone level that occurs 

naturally would be above the standard set by the EPA. Many of 

these communities would be responsible for ozone that they do not 

have the ability to control. Wind-blown ozone from countries like 

China and Mexico further complicate the ability of the U.S. to meet 

the existing ozone standards. 

Ozone scientists Dr. Allen Lefohn and Dr. Owen Cooper raised 

concerns that ‘‘the air transport of urban pollution to rural areas 

is important for nonattainment considerations.’’ 

The EPA has failed to adequately consider these issues. This new 

ozone rule could cause many areas throughout the United States 

to be out of compliance with the Clean Air Act through no fault of 

their own. 

A nonattainment designation under the Clean Air Act has serious consequences. It could cause new employers to not move into 

the state. Businesses would be forced to deal with additional burdensome permitting and compliance obligations, which slow expansion and economic development. Ultimately, good jobs will be lost 

in these areas. 
10 

I am also concerned that the EPA’s justification for this rule is 

not based on good science. In August, I sent both the EPA and the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) letters in which I raised 

concerns about the proposed rule’s overreliance on one study, parts 

of which contradict previous peer-reviewed studies. My letter also 

questioned if EPA and OMB properly addressed the issue of background ozone that witnesses raised in previous Science Committee 

testimony when EPA determined the final standard. I am concerned that neither agency adequately considered background 

ozone or the overreliance on one study. 

Unfortunately, neither agency has provided the information I requested. While EPA claims to base its regulations on the best 

available science, unless the EPA can prove otherwise, it appears 

that their claims are nothing more than political rhetoric. 

Good science should dictate policy. However, it appears that the 

EPA conveniently cherry-picks the science that supports its extreme agenda. This is not sound science; it is science fiction. Furthermore, the EPA has regularly chosen to disregard inconvenient 

scientific conclusions and muzzle dissenting voices. 

Today’s witnesses will testify on how this proposed rule will impact American small businesses and job creation. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH

Today’s hearing is on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone. 

The EPA is required to review the ozone standard every five years, but the agency 

is not required to set new standards. 

The 2008 standard of 75 parts per billion is just now being implemented. And 

many states have not had the opportunity to meet the 2008 standard since guidance 

from the EPA for this standard was not made public until February. However, earlier this month, the EPA further reduced the standard to70 parts per billion. 

At our previous Committee hearings on the EPA’s ozone rule, witnesses testified 

that further reduction of the standard is premature and unnecessary due to the lack 

of any sound science and the negative impact it will have on our economy. Unfortunately, the EPA did not address the serious concerns raised by these witnesses. 

Our hearing today will review the impact of this final rule. According to EPA’s 

own website, since 1980 ozone levels have decreased by 33 percent. The air we 

breathe is significantly cleaner and will continue to improve thanks to new technologies. However, many of the technologies that the EPA forces states to use either 

do not currently exist or will be overly expensive. 

At the reduced ozone standard, over 60 percent of the costs of the program are 

based on technology that does not currently exist. The EPA assumes this technology 

will somehow be developed to implement their stringent regulations. 

And these proposed standards are impossible to meet in some places where the 

ozone level that occurs naturally would be above the standard set by the EPA. Many 

of these communities would be responsible for ozone that they do not have the ability to control. 

Wind-blown ozone from countries like China and Mexico further complicate the 

ability of the U.S. to meet the existing ozone standards. 

Ozone Scientists Dr. Allen Lefohn and Dr. Owen Cooper raised concerns that, 

‘‘[T]he [air] transport of urban pollution to rural areas is important for nonattainment considerations.’’ 

The EPA has failed to adequately consider these issues. This new ozone rule could 

cause many areas throughout the United States to be out of compliance with the 

Clean Air Act through no fault of their own. 

A non-attainment designation under the Clean Air Act has serious consequences. 

It could cause new employers to not move into the state. Businesses would be forced 

to deal with additional burdensome permitting and compliance obligations, which 

slow expansion and economic development. Ultimately, good jobs will be lost in 
11 

these areas. I am also concerned that the EPA’s justification for this rule is not 

based on good science. 

In August, I sent both the EPA and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

letters in which I raised concerns about the proposed rule’s over-reliance on one 

study, parts of which contradict previous peer-reviewed studies. 

My letter also questioned if EPA and OMB properly addressed the issue of background ozone that witnesses raised in previous Science Committee testimony when 

EPA determined the final standard. I am concerned that neither agency adequately 

considered background ozone or the over-reliance on one study. Unfortunately, neither agency has provided the information I requested. 

While EPA claims to base its regulations on the best available science, unless the 

EPA can prove otherwise it appears that their claims are nothing more than political rhetoric. 

Good science should dictate policy. However, it appears that the EPA conveniently 

cherry-picks the science that supports its extreme agenda. This is not sound science; 

it is science fiction. Furthermore, the EPA has regularly chosen to disregard inconvenient scientific conclusions and muzzle dissenting voices. 

Today’s witnesses will testify on how this proposed rule will impact American 

small businesses and job creation. 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 

Chairman SMITH. That concludes my opening statement, and the 

gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson, is recognized 

for hers. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I must say that at the end of my statement, I have to depart 

to go to another committee where we are marking up for the first 

time in some years a Transportation Committee bill—a transportation bill. 

But I want to thank you for holding this hearing, and say good 

morning and welcome to all of our witnesses. I know that the 

Chairman was very cooperative in postponing this hearing to try 

to accommodate our witness, who suffered a medical emergency. 

And while he’s still recovering and unable to travel, I’m very 

pleased to welcome Dr. Elena Craft, who will be providing testimony this morning. 

There really is no question that reducing ozone levels from 75 

parts per billion to 70 parts per billion will have positive human 

health and economic benefits throughout the country. While the 

new rule is not as ambiguous as health professionals had hoped 

for, it will still have—ambitious, I mean, as the health professionals hoped, it will still have real and meaningful positive impact 

on the health of all Americans. 

Some will likely argue that implementing a lower ozone standard 

would kill jobs and the economy. We hear it all the time. Some of 

my colleagues may also suggest that we wait and not, as they say, 

shift the goalposts with new rules because ozone levels have 

dropped by 33 percent—you just saw that chart—since 1980. In 

short, they will use our current success as an excuse to stop trying 

to do better. They will also attempt to raise doubts about the scientific evidence justifying the new standard and will exaggerate 

the costs of its implementation. 

These kinds of tactics have been used before. Back in the 1960s, 

the tobacco industry devised a strategy to counter a growing body 

of scientific and medical evidence that tobacco products unquestionably caused harm. Publicly available tobacco industry documents 

lay out a detailed strategy that reads in part ‘‘doubt is our product 

since it is the best means of competing with the body of fact that 

exist in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.’’ 

Thus, in any form they could, tobacco industry scientists attempted to raise doubts about the science, doubts about the scientific models used by government scientists that highlighted the 

negative health effects of tobacco and secondhand smoke. Tobacco 

executives also emphasized concerns about the economic impact of 

proposed regulations on the industry and the economy at large. 

This strategy served the tobacco industry well, postponing effective action for years, but the American public paid the price in a 

lower quality of life, increased medical costs, and lost earnings and 

shortened lives. This same strategy has been mimicked by the oil 

and gas industry and its attempt to question the scientific evidence 

pointing to the climate change. 

Unfortunately, the Committee has become a favorite forum for 

rolling out these tactics. We will hear today for the fourth time in 

five years from you Dr. Michael Honeycutt from my home State 
18 

about—from the office of environmental regulations, the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) which appears to 

be employing tactics that I’ve just described. 

Instead of following the science supporting a reduction in the levels of ozone pollution, TCEQ, along with the industry, has waged 

a public media campaign that is not fooling Dallas, a conservative 

city—but people in Dallas don’t believe you—geared toward raising 

doubts about the science and alleging dire economic consequences 

of implementing these new health-based standards. 

Recent news stories have questioned why the agency spent $2 

million hiring a scientific organization that previously did substantive work for the tobacco industry to help TCEQ raise doubts 

about the EPA’s ozone rule. Americans are not fooled by these tactics anymore. 

Time and time again, the evidence shows that, on balance, jobs 

are created and the economy expands following the passage of 

major environmental reforms. Stricter pollution limits force us to 

innovate and create new technologies. With a fair national regulatory system that protects the public, companies do well by doing 

good. 

As it relates to this new ozone rule, EPA estimates the benefits 

to be more than double the cost, that is, benefits of 2.9 to $5.9 billion annually compared to the cost of 1.4 billion. Such a return on 

investment should prove the obvious: that when the environment 

is healthy, the economy is healthy, too. 

For millions of Americans who are suffering from respiratory illnesses such as asthma, ozone pollution has a real and destructive 

effect on them and their families. Hospital records show it and 

prove it. 

As someone who worked in the public health field before I entered politics, I’m very sensitive to the impacts poor air quality can 

have on the health of individuals, especially the young, the infirm, 

and the poor. Unfortunately, those of us from the Dallas-Fort 

Worth region are very familiar with the negative effects of ozone 

causing smog and are accustomed to seeing health alerts warning 

us that the air outside is too polluted for us to breathe safely. 

I am attaching to my statement a report compiled by the minority staff that includes excerpts from some 430,000 written comments on the ozone rule by health professionals and others supportive of EPA’s actions to reduce ozone pollution. 

Mr. Chairman, a strong economy and a healthy environment are 

not mutually exclusive. We can have both, and we should strive to 

continue to improve the environment and the air we breathe. I believe EPA’s new ozone regulations will help take us to the right direction. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson of Texas follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning and welcome to our witnesses. First, I’d 

like to thank the Chairman for agreeing to postpone this hearing to try and accommodate our witness who suffered a medical emergency. Unfortunately, Dr. Mark 
19 

Mitchell is still not well enough to travel, but I appreciate the consideration showed 

by the Chairman. 

Now, as someone who worked in the public health field before I entered politics, 

I am very sensitive to the impact poor air quality can have on the health of individuals, especially the young, the infirm, and the poor. Unfortunately, those of us from 

the Dallas-Fort Worth region are very familiar with the negative effects of smog and 

are accustomed to seeing health alerts warning us that the air outside is too polluted for us to breathe safely. This year, Dallas has already experienced 32 days 

where ozone levels exceeded 75 parts-per-billion for more than 8 hours. 

For the millions suffering from respiratory diseases, including the 26 million 

Americans with asthma, which impacts 10-percent of all children, ozone pollution 

has a real and destructive effect on them and their families. It also negatively impacts the entire economy, resulting in both high healthcare costs and significant lost 

economic productivity. Reducing ozone levels from 75 parts per billion to 70 parts 

per billion will have positive human health and economic impacts throughout the 

country. 

And while those of my colleagues and the industries who are opposed to virtually 

all environmental regulations often forget this point, the Clean Air Act requires that 

the ozone standard be based on science alone. It explicitly prohibits the EPA from 

considering economic costs when setting the standard, and rightfully puts the health 

and well-being of Americans first. The new rule is not as ambitious as health professionals had hoped for, but it will still have a real and meaningful positive impact 

on the health of all Americans. The scientific evidence supporting the benefits of reduced levels of ozone is clear, consistent, and growing. 

Some will likely argue that implementing a lower ozone standard will kill jobs 

and the economy. Some of my colleagues may also suggest that we wait, and not, 

as they say, ‘‘shift the goal posts’’ with this new rule because ozone levels have 

dropped by 33 percent since 1980. In short, they will use our current success as an 

excuse to stop trying to do better. They will also attempt to raise doubts about the 

scientific evidence justifying the new standard and will exaggerate the costs of its 

implementation. 

These kinds of tactics have been used before. Back in the 1960’s, the tobacco industry devised a strategy to counter a growing body of scientific and medical evidence that tobacco products unquestionably caused harm. Publically available tobacco industry documents lay out a detailed strategy that reads in part: 

‘‘Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘‘body of 

fact’’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.’’ 

Thus, in any forum they could, tobacco industry scientists attempted to raise 

doubts about the science, doubts about the medical harm from cigarettes, and 

doubts about the scientific models used by government scientists that highlighted 

the negative health effects of tobacco and second-hand smoke. In addition, tobacco 

industry executives emphasized concerns about the economic impact of proposed tobacco regulations on their industry and the economy at large. 

This strategy served the tobacco industry well, postponing effective action for 

years. The profits enabled by these public relations-based attacks on science went 

to the companies, but the American public paid the price in a lower quality of life, 

increased medical costs, lost earnings, and shortened lives. This same strategy has 

been mimicked by the oil and gas industry in its attempt to question the scientific 

evidence pointing to climate change. Unfortunately, this Committee has become a 

favorite forum for rolling out these tactics during consideration of federal regulation 

of harmful chemicals that harm the environment and endanger the public’s health. 

We will hear today, for the fourth time in five years, from Dr. Michael Honeycutt, 

from my home state’s office of environmental regulation, the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality or T-C-E-Q; which appears to be employing the tactics that 

I’ve just described. Instead of following the science supporting a reduction in the levels of ozone pollution, TCEQ along with industry has waged a public media campaign geared to raising doubts about the science and alleging dire economic consequences of implementing these new health based standards. Recent news stories 

have questioned why the agency spent nearly $2 million hiring a scientific organization that previously did substantive work for the tobacco industry to help TCEQ 

raise doubts about the EPA’s ozone rule. As a Texas resident, I have questions 

about why my tax dollars would be used that way too. I hope that in her testimony 

Dr. Elena Craft from the Austin office of the Environmental Defense Fund can help 

describe the body of scientific data on which the new ozone rule is based and also 

explain the criticisms of both TCEQ and the tactics used by industry to oppose the 

new ozone rule. 
20 

Americans are not fooled by these tactics any more. Time and again, the evidence 

shows that on balance, jobs are created and the economy expands following the passage of major environmental reforms. Stricter pollutions limits force innovation and 

create new technologies. With a fair national regulatory system that protects the 

public, companies can do well by doing good. As it relates to this new ozone rule, 

EPA estimates its benefits to be more than double the costs—that is, benefits of $2.9 

to $5.9 billion annually compared to costs of $1.4 billion. Such a return on investment should prove the obvious: that when the environment is healthy, the economy 

is healthy too. 

The American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American Medical 

Association, and many other public health organizations have all supported lowering 

the ozone standard to 60 parts-per-billion, which they argue would prevent up to 

7,900 premature deaths annually, 1.8 million asthma attacks in children and 1.9 

million missed school days nationwide. But they believe any lowering of the ozone 

standard is a good first step. The community of medical and public health professionals does not believe there is any doubt that reducing ozone levels is a necessary 

step to help better protect the public’s health from the real effects of ozone pollution. 

I am attaching to my statement a short compilation that includes a small segment 

of the 430,000 written comments on the ozone rule by health professionals and others supportive of the EPA’s efforts to do their job and protect the environment and 

the public’s health. 

Mr. Chairman, a strong economy and a healthy environment are not mutually exclusive. We can have both, and we should strive to continue to improve the environment and the air we breathe. I believe EPA’s new ozone regulations will help take 

us in the right direction. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

And the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Bridenstine, the Chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, is recognized for an opening statement. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

To remind folks, today’s hearing focuses on the EPA’s final rule 

announced earlier this month to lower the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for ozone to 70 parts per billion down from the 

current standard of 75 parts per billion. Nothing in today’s hearing 

is regarding tobacco necessarily, as far as I know. 

This hearing comes at a critical time as we must carefully review 

the science, impact, and achievability of this final regulation, a regulation with heavy compliance costs but questionable environmental benefits. 

Across the country, ozone levels and emissions for volatile organic compounds have been reduced significantly over the past few 

decades. My home State of Oklahoma is among those constantly 

working to improve air quality. Despite this, it is concerning that 

the EPA is proposing to tighten the standard, and I will remind my 

colleagues that the existing standard set in 2008 has yet to be fully 

implemented, and the guidance for State Implementation Plans 

was only released this past February by the EPA. States must be 

given a chance to comply with the existing standard before being 

imposed another onerous set of standards that are not achievable. 

This year, this committee has had several hearings to examine 

this complicated and massive regulation. Here are some of the important facts that we have learned from these hearings: Number 

one, just one study consisting of 31 participants is being used as 

the main scientific justification of the costliest regulation in the 

history of the country according to Dr. Allen Lefohn, a leader in 

ozone research. 

Number two, witnesses testified that natural background ozone 

contributes a significant amount to the observed total ozone con-
21 

centrations, and with this proposed standard, background or natural ozone may become the main reason areas across the United 

States exceed the standard. Further, there are even many national 

parks in the West which regularly will exceed the new standard 

based on natural ozone. 

Contributions from wildfires to the ozone level are considered a 

part of background. Tightening the existing ozone standards may 

cause even more unintentional fires of greater intensity as the use 

of prescribed controlled fires may be limited. This has serious implications, especially to rural and remote areas. 

While EPA claims that there are mechanisms to deal with background ozone, EPA has yet to provide details. This is especially 

true regarding implementation of its Exceptional Event Rule demonstrations. According to testimony of Ms. Cara Keslar from Wyoming’s Department of Environmental Quality, ‘‘Wyoming has submitted five stratospheric intrusion demonstrations.’’ They submitted five. ‘‘One demonstration has been concurred with, and four 

have yet to be even acted on by the EPA.’’ This is an unacceptable 

track record, and it is imposing costs on people that can’t do anything about the background ozone level. 

Number five, rural areas will be hit especially hard by the Clean 

Air Act’s transportation conformity requirements, which could 

mean withholding of federal highway funds if an area is in nonattainment. Again, this is bureaucratic bullying by the federal government against the states, and it needs to stop. 

According to the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, ‘‘rural 

areas do not have the resources to achieve sufficient reductions of 

pollutants. The proposed action would be detrimental to social and 

economic development for rural areas across the State of Oklahoma.’’ 

Beyond these concerns, it remains troubling to me that those 

who will bear this regulation’s compliance costs may also suffer a 

decline in their health status. Not surprisingly, the EPA did not include the premature deaths caused by the loss of disposable income 

when considering the true impact of this standard. 

Furthermore, millions of senior citizens living on fixed incomes 

and low-income Americans may be forced to choose between medications, paying for heat, or paying for their food. Moreover, other 

existing and proposed EPA regulations such as the proposed Clean 

Power Plan will further exacerbate the negative economic impact. 

This hearing is critical because Congress has the obligation to 

ensure the EPA adheres to the intent of the Clean Air Act, that 

the science behind any rule is sound, and that the totality of the 

impact of any rule is taken into account. We need to understand 

the totality of the impact. 

Before I yield back, I would like to submit a few documents for 

the record. The first is a group of letters from state and local officials opposing the rule. 

The next is a map showing that nearly the entire State of Oklahoma, even some of the more rural areas, will be in nonattainment. 

This would be devastating to my state, which is already working 

very hard on its own, and has been successful, as a matter of fact, 

to reduce ozone. 
22 

I want to thank each of the witnesses for coming this morning, 

and I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bridenstine follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN JIM

BRIDENSTINE

Today’s hearing focuses on the Environmental Protection Agency’s final rule, announced earlier this month, to lower National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

ozone to 70 parts per billion, down from the current standard of 75 ppb. 

This hearing comes at a critical time as we must carefully review the science, impact and achievability of this final regulation, a regulation with heavy compliance 

costs but questionable environmental benefits. 

Across the country, ozone levels and emissions for volatile organic compounds 

have been reduced significantly over the past few decades. My home state of Oklahoma is among those constantly working to improve air quality. 

Despite this, it is concerning that the EPA is proposing to tighten the standard, 

especially since the existing standard, set in 2008, has yet to be fully implemented— 

and I will remind my colleagues that this is due to the fact that the guidance for 

state implementation plans was only released this past February by the EPA. States 

must be given a chance to comply with the existing standard before being imposed 

another onerous set of standards that are not achievable. 

This year, this Committee has held several hearings to examine this complicated 

and massive regulation. Here are some important facts that we have learned from 

these hearings: 

1. Just one study consisting of 31 participants is being used as the scientific justification of the costliest regulation in the history of this country, according to 

Dr. Allen Lefohn, a leader in environmental research. 

2. Witnesses testified that background ozone contributes a significant amount to 

the observed total ozone concentrations, and with this proposed standard, background or natural ozone may become the main reason certain areas across the 

U.S. exceed the standard. Further, there are many national parks in the west 

which regularly exceed the new standard. 

3. Contributions from wildfires to the ozone level are considered a part of background. Tightening the existing ozone standards may cause more unintentional 

fires of greater intensity as the use of prescribed, controlled fires may be limited. This has serious implications, especially to rural and remote areas. 

4. While EPA claims that there are mechanisms to deal with background ozone, 

EPA has yet to provide details. This is especially true regarding implementation of its Exceptional Event Rule Demonstrations. According to the testimony 

of Ms. Kara Keslar from Wyoming’s Department of Environmental Quality: 

‘‘Wyoming has submitted five stratospheric intrusion demonstrations. One demonstration has been concurred with and four have not yet been acted on by EPA.’’ 

This is an unacceptable track record. 

5. Rural areas will be hit especially hard by the Clean Air Act’s transportation 

conformity requirements, which could mean the withholding of federal highway 

funds if an area is in non-attainment. According to the Oklahoma’s Department of Transportation, ‘‘Rural areas do not have the resources to achieve sufficient reductions of pollutants. The proposed action would be detrimental to 

social and economic development for rural areas across the state of Oklahoma.’’ 

Beyond these concerns, it remains troubling to me that those who will bear this 

regulation’s compliance costs may also suffer a decline in their health status. Not 

surprisingly, the EPA did not include the premature deaths caused by the loss of 

disposable income when considering the true impact of this standard. 

Furthermore, millions of senior citizens living on fixed incomes and low-income 

Americans may be forced to choose between medications, paying for heat, or for 

their food. Moreover, other existing and proposed EPA regulations such as the proposed Clean Power Plan will further exacerbate the negative economic impact. 

This hearing is critical because Congress has the obligation to ensure the EPA 

adheres to the intent of the Clean Air Act, that the science behind any rule is sound, 

and that the totality of the impact of any rule is taken into account. 

I want to thank each of the witnesses for coming this afternoon and I look forward 

to hearing their testimony. I yield back the balance of my time. 
23 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Bridenstine. 

And the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, the Ranking 

Member of the Environment Subcommittee, is recognized for an 

opening statement. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you to our witnesses for being here today to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency’s final National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for ozone. 

Last week, the EPA took a step in the right direction to maintain 

clean air and healthy environment for our country. The new standard of 70 parts per billion is not as ambitious as some might have 

hoped for, but it will have a real and meaningful effect on the 

health of all Americans. 

At a hearing earlier this year on the topic of ozone, one of the 

witnesses before the Committee, Dr. Mary Rice, stated that there 

is clear, consistent, and conclusive scientific evidence in support of 

a standard lower than the current level of 75 parts per billion. She 

also indicated that the scientific evidence available seven years ago 

has been supplemented by an even greater understanding of the 

health effects of ozone exposure. 

We must not overlook this point. The Clean Air Act, as passed 

by Congress, requires that the ozone standard be based on science 

and health. It prohibits the EPA from considering costs when setting the standard, and it rightfully puts the health and well-being 

of Americans first. 

Despite this fact, we will hear today that implementing a lower 

ozone standard will have devastating consequences to the economy, 

but has been shown time and time again, the evidence shows that, 

on balance, jobs are created and the economy expands following the 

passage of major environmental reforms. 

Regarding this rule, the EPA estimates the benefits to be more 

than double the costs, that is, benefits of 2.9 to 5.9 billion annually 

compared to costs of 1.4 billion. Such a return on investment 

should prove the obvious: that when the environment is healthy, 

the economy is healthy. 

We are already seeing positive results from strong action to protect the air. Since 1980, ozone levels have dropped by 33 percent. 

Now is not the time to rest on our accomplishments. The only way 

to ensure we maintain our progress is to keep moving forward. 

It’s important to point out that the Bush Administration ignored 

the experts on EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee in 

2008 and implemented a standard they viewed as not sufficiently 

protective of public health. Thankfully, the Obama Administration 

is basing its decision on the science, not industry interests. 

Now, let me be clear. In my home State of Oregon, we recognize 

the challenges associated with implementing a more stringent 

standard. And I’m glad Mr. Bridenstine raised this point. Wildfires 

and long-range shifting of ozone from Asia will need to be addressed if we’re to achieve a lower standard. That being said, comments the State of Oregon submitted support the EPA’s proposal. 

Specifically, a letter from David Collier, the Air Quality Manager 

at the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, on EPA’s proposed rule states that ‘‘Oregon welcomes the EPA’s proposal to 

lower the ozone NAAQS based on advice provided by the Clean Air 
24 

Scientific Advisory Committee in order to provide the adequate protection to human health and welfare.’’ 

In its comments to the EPA, Oregon also recommended the development of guidance and tools to address exceptional events like 

wildfires and the long-range transport of ozone. Thankfully, the 

EPA is listening to the needs of states and has expressed in the 

final rule its commitment to addressing the implementation challenges faced by Western States. 

I want to point out that the EPA has concluded that most U.S. 

counties will be able to reach the new standard without imposing 

emission controls beyond those already in place or proposed. Specifically, the EPA has estimated that federal regulations like the 

Fuel Economy Standards, the Interstate Transport Rule, and the 

Clean Power Plan will reduce emissions to such a degree that only 

14 of the 213 counties expected to exceed the 70 parts per billion 

are likely to find themselves in nonattainment by 2025. 

Mr. Chairman, although significant progress has been made in 

the past 40 years, it is our job and responsibility to build on this 

legacy and e sure that we continue to improve the quality of our 

air. A strong economy and a healthy environment are not mutually 

exclusive. We can have both, and EPA’s rule will continue to take 

us in the right direction. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again to our witnesses 

for being here today, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:] 
25 
26 
27 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. 

And let me introduce our witnesses. Our first witness today is 

Mr. Jeff Holmstead, a Partner at Bracewell & Giuliani, LLP. Mr. 

Holmstead is one of the country’s leading air quality lawyers and 

heads the Environmental Strategies Group at Bracewell & 

Giuliani. He previously served as the Assistant Administrator at 

the EPA for the Office of Air and Radiation. He also served on the 

White House staff as Associate Counsel to former President George 

H.W. Bush. Mr. Holmstead received his bachelor’s degrees in economics and English from Brigham Young University and his law 

degree from Yale. 

Our next witness is Mr. Seyed Sadredin, the Executive Director 

and Air Pollution Control Officer of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Under his leadership, the district developed 

a clear mission to improve the valley’s health and quality of life 

through effective and innovative strategies and provide quality customer service to the general public and the regulated community. 

Mr. Sadredin initiated the implementation of the Technology Advancement Program, which promotes new clean air technology development in the valley. He received his bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from California State University at Sacramento. 

Our third witness today is Dr. Elena Craft, Health Scientist at 

the Environmental Defense Fund. Dr. Craft has worked on air toxic 

issues specifically to reduce criteria and greenhouse gas emissions 

from the energy and transportation sectors. Her efforts have led to 

the creation of Clean Truck Programs in Houston and other ports 

around the Southeast. Dr. Craft has been appointed to serve a twoyear term on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board Environmental Justice Technical Review Panel. That’s 

the longest name of any panel I’ve heard of. Dr. Craft received her 

bachelor’s degree in biology from the University of North Carolina, 

Chapel Hill, her master’s degree in toxicology from the North Carolina State University, and her Ph.D. in molecular technology from 

Duke University. 

Our final witness is Dr. Michael Honeycutt, the Director of the 

Toxicology Division of the Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality. Dr. Honeycutt has been employed by the TCEQ since 1996 

and has managed the division of 14 toxicologists since 2003. His responsibilities include overseeing health effects reviews of air permit 

applications, the review of the results of ambient air monitoring 

projects, and the reviews of human health risk assessments for 

hazardous waste sites. Dr. Honeycutt is an Adjunct Professor at 

Texas A&M University, has published numerous articles, and 

serves as—or served as—or served on numerous external scientific 

committees. Dr. Honeycutt received his bachelor’s degree and Ph.D. 

in pharmacology and toxicology from the University of Louisiana at 

Monroe. 

We recognize and appreciate all of you being here today and look 

forward to hearing what you have to say. 

And, Dr. Holmstead, we’ll begin with you. 
28 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JEFFREY HOLMSTEAD, 

PARTNER, BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP 

The Hon. HOLMSTEAD. Thank you very much for giving me the 

chance to testify here this morning. 

While I know other people will talk a fair bit about the controversies regarding the health science and the effects of ozone, 

what I’d like to do is just put that to one side and say this: Regardless of what you think about that, the way that we deal with ozone 

today just no longer makes any sense. Ozone is not a new issue. 

EPA and state agencies have been focused on reducing ozone levels 

for more than 40 years. As a country, we have spent much more 

money on ozone than on any other type of pollution, even though 

all experts believe that other types of pollution pose a greater risk 

to public health. 

Now, because of EPA’s new ozone standard, we will be forced to 

spend much more money—tens of millions of dollars—for very 

small incremental reductions in ozone. This is easy to understand. 

This is because for almost 40 years, most of the cost-effective, reasonable things that can be done to reduce ozone have already been 

done. Additional reductions will be much more expensive. 

Some people think this is okay because the cost is paid by big 

business, but this is not true. The cost is paid entirely by real people. We all pay the cost in the form of higher prices, smaller retirement accounts, and lower levels of economic growth. This is why 

we should all care about the cost of regulations, as well as the benefits. 

I would like to highlight just two issues. First, the new ozone 

standard will effectively ban new industrial development in many 

parts of the country. In many areas, it will be impossible to build 

or expand an industrial facility even though it would be built with 

state-of-the-art emission controls and even though the local community might desperately want the jobs it would bring. 

Here is why: Anyone who wants to build or expand an industrial 

facility must first obtain a Clean Air Act permit. In some areas, 

you can’t get such a permit unless you can first show that emissions from the new facility will not ‘‘cause or contribute to a violation’’ of the new ozone standard. But this will not be possible in 

areas that met the old standard but do not meet the new one. You 

can’t show that a new facility will not contribute to a violation of 

the new standard because the area, according to EPA, is now in 

violation. And if you can’t make this showing, you can’t build a new 

plant, no matter how clean it is. 

EPA says that you might be able to get around this problem by 

paying another facility in the area to reduce its emissions enough 

to offset emissions from the new plant. This is called ‘‘getting offsets.’’ But in many cases, this will not be possible either. Any areas 

that exceed the new standard are rural areas where there is little 

or no industry. They exceed the standard not because of local emissions but because of background ozone and emissions in other 

areas. In these cases, there are no offsets to be purchased so no 

plants—no new plants can be built. 

A related problem will occur in areas that don’t meet the previous standard. To build a plant in these areas, a company has no 
29 

choice but to purchase offsets. In fact, it must obtain offset that are 

between 10 and 50 percent greater than the emissions from the 

new facility. Now, please note that offsets cannot be created by 

emission reductions that are required by EPA or state regulations, 

only by reductions that go beyond what is required. 

But remember, for more than 40 years, EPA and States have 

been looking for every conceivable way to reduce ozone. Where 

there are any additional reductions to be had, they are very expensive. For example, in the Houston area where there is so much industry, it is possible to purchase offsets, but they are enormously 

expensive, as much as $300,000 a ton. Even a relatively small facility with state-of-the-art pollution controls would need to spend tens 

of millions of dollars just to purchase enough offsets to get a permit. 

I will summarize the second issue very briefly. The Clean Air Act 

program for dealing with ozone was established in 1970 when Congress believed that air pollution was primarily a local problem and 

that States could solve it by regulating local industry. We now 

know differently. Ozone is a global issue. When there are high 

ozone levels, they are largely caused by things outside of a State’s 

control: by cars and trucks, which are regulated by EPA; by natural background; and by emissions from other States and other 

countries. 

The State only has control over emissions from its own industrial 

facilities, but under the Clean Air Act, it has the sole legal obligation to meet the new standard. In a number of States, however, a 

State could shut down all the industrial facilities in the whole 

State and still not meet the standard. Because 70 parts per billion 

is so close to background ozone levels in some areas, there is simply nothing a State can do to meet the new standard. 

As a result, the Clean Air Act now appears to give a rather remarkable authority to EPA, the authority to impose a legal obligation that is impossible to meet. To me, this seems contrary to our 

long-standing notion about the rule of law and the way the federal 

government should operate. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of the Hon. Holmstead follows:] 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Holmstead. 

Mr. Sadredin. 

Chairman SMITH. Make sure your microphone is on. Push—— 

TESTIMONY OF MR. SEYED SADREDIN, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER, 

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Mr. SADREDIN. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bonamici, Members of the Committee. Good morning. It’s a 

great honor and a pleasure to be here before you today. Thank you 

for the invitation. 

I come from the beautiful and bountiful Central Valley of California, San Joaquin Valley. Over the last three decades, we’ve done 

quite a bit of work to improve quality of life and reduce air pollution in San Joaquin Valley. 

I’m not here today to urge your committee to curb EPA’s authority to set new standards or to—or ask you to—ignore them—— 

Chairman SMITH. Yes, ignore those bells. Yes. 

Mr. SADREDIN. —or ask you to roll back any of the health-protected safeguards in the Clean Air Act that have really brought us 

to where we are today. 

At the outset, I want to say that the Clean Air Act over the last 

40 years has resulted in a great deal of reduction in air pollution, 

improved public health and quality of life in many regions, including our region. What I’m hoping to do, though, is to give you a preview of what might seem to be coming to your neighborhood with 

the new standard that EPA just published because we have been 

at the forefront of what we have to do even with old standards that 

EPA published because of our geography, topography. The problems that we have faced over the last two, three decades are going 

to be exactly the problems that you might face in your neighborhood soon with the new standard. 

And I’m here really today to ask the Congress to provide guidance to EPA. We believe the world is a different world today compared to 25 years ago when the Congress last amended the act, or 

40 years ago when the Congress passed the act unanimously—virtually unanimously. There was only a handful of ‘‘no’’ votes. 

I think if the Congress understood at the time that you would 

face a circumstance like we do today, that after having reduced air 

pollution by over 80 percent in our region and having imposed the 

toughest regulations on every sector of your economy from the 

small ma-and-pa operations, drycleaners, paint shops, all the way 

to your largest power plants and refineries, that you would still 

face a major gap that would dictate a tremendous penalty on the 

residents of your region, the businesses that operate in your area. 

I don’t think the bill would have passed unanimously, let alone— 

even if it would pass at all. 

So I just wanted to share with you some of our experiences and 

really what we’re asking the Congress to do in the form of a finetuning of the act as we call it. It’s our 2015 Clean Air Act modernization that has five specific proposals in it. The first proposal 

that we have in our legislative initiative that we are taking is to 

eliminate duplication—duplicative requirements, confusion, and 
39 

costly bureaucratic red tape that are—that is—currently happens 

with our chaotic establishment of the new standards by synchronizing the new standards. When EPA publishes the new standards, 

let’s synchronize the old standards without any rollback. Let’s have 

a unique set of requirements that we have to follow instead of having multiple plans in place. 

In our region, for instance, right now, we have six attainment 

plans in place with four more attainment plans being due in the 

next four years, all with redundant, duplicative requirements that 

we have to deal with. 

The other requirement—the other change that we’re asking—and 

I agree with what the Ranking Member said—that a good economy 

and good environment, good public health are not mutually exclusive. In fact, we believe you do need a vibrant economy to have the 

wherewithal to do all the difficult things that we need to do to improve our air quality. 

So in our proposal we are asking that, instead of the formulabased deadlines that the Congress set 25 years ago, to take into account the economic feasibility and technological achievability in 

setting deadlines. Give us time to get to these tough standards. 

Don’t set impossible deadlines that we’re not able to meet. Banning 

fossil fuel combustion, which is really what it takes for us to meet 

the new standard, is not doable in—simply in 20 years. We need 

more time to be able to develop the technology and the infrastructure to do that. 

We also ask that the act be amended to really treat different pollutants differently. Not all pollutants are created equally. When 

the Congress passed the act some 25 years ago with the latest 

amendments, they thought it was all about VOCs, volatile organic 

compounds. We are finding today that science dictates that different pollutants have different impacts on air quality, and we 

need to be able to take—have a system that allows us to have a 

weighing—appropriate weighing of those pollutants and deal with 

them. 

With respect to extreme nonattainment areas such as we are 

in—and I’m almost finished—we ask that you remove the requirement for having contingency measures. It is one of those well-intended provisions in the act that are leading to unintended consequences, and I’d be happy to give you more details on that. 

And we also ask that, for regions such as California where we 

have done many things to reduce pollution from mobile sources 

early on, give us the ability to take credit for those, as opposed to 

taking those credits away in a way that some of the court rulings 

are being interpreted by EPA. 

And I have details about all of these in my presentation and 

would be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sadredin follows:] 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sadredin. 

And, Dr. Craft. 

TESTIMONY DR. ELENA CRAFT, 

SENIOR HEALTH SCIENTIST, 

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND 

Dr. CRAFT. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ms. Bonamici, Members 

of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify here today about 

EPA’s revision to the Nation’s health-based ambient air quality 

standard for ground-level ozone. 

My name is Elena Craft. I serve as Senior Scientist at Environmental Defense Fund, a national nonpartisan science-based environmental organization where I manage a team working to identify 

strategies and opportunities to reduce harmful air pollution such as 

ozone from pollution hotspots. 

EDF has over 1 million members. Our organization links science, 

economics, law, and private sector partnerships to solve our most 

serious environmental challenges. In addition, I have an adjunct 

appointment at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center in 

Houston. And as I was seven months pregnant the last time I testified in front of this committee, I am also the mom of a very busy 

toddler. 

The Clean Air Act is a bedrock public health statute representing 

the best of a bipartisan America encompassing the values of environmental protection and healthy air that we espouse as a nation. 

The unanimous vision forged into law by the U.S. Senate has secured healthier air for millions of Americans netting benefits valued at over $21 trillion between 1970 and 1990. 

Indeed, by 2020, EPA estimates the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments will prevent a projected 230,000 deaths, 2.4 million asthma 

attacks, 200,000 heart attacks, and 5.4 million lost school days. 

EPA also found that these vital health protections would provide 

2 trillion in monetized benefits. Additionally, EPA projects a net 

overall improvement in economic growth due to the benefits of 

cleaner air. 

The Clean Air Act is sharply focused on ensuring the Nation’s 

health standards that are established solely on the basis of public 

health. On October 1, EPA established a revised ozone standard of 

70 parts per billion, improving America’s national air quality 

standard for ground-level ozone. Why? Because scientific evidence 

overwhelmingly demonstrates that the previous 75-part-per-billion 

standard is not requisite to protect human health with an adequate 

margin of safety as required by the Clean Air Act. 

The recommendations of the statutorily established and independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee underscored the 

need, as determined by the latest scientific evidence, to strengthen 

the ground-level ozone standard. CASAC found clear scientific support for the need to revise the standard. While recommending a 

range of 60 to 70 parts per billion, the committee went on to emphasize the inadequacy of a standard at the upper end of the 

range. At 70 parts per billion, there is substantial scientific evidence of adverse effects, including decrease in lung function, increase in respiratory symptoms, and increase in airway inflammation. 
57 

And CASAC is not alone in concluding that the 2008 ozone 

standard was inadequate. The American Thoracic Society, the 

American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, Children’s Environmental Health Network are just a few of the medical and public 

health organizations that have supported strengthening the standards. 

Some claim that adopting strong ozone standards will cause economic harm. Unfortunately, these sky-is-falling prognostications 

are not new. The fact is that we can do it and we have done it. 

Since 1970, our nation has reduced the six pollutants regulated 

under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards program by almost 70 percent, while GDP has grown by nearly 240 percent. And 

currently, 90 percent of areas designated for the 1997 ozone health 

standards now meet those standards. 

Regions are not alone in meeting the new health-based standards. America has already taken steps over the past few years that 

will help reduce ozone smog pollution and help restore healthy air 

in a cost-effective manner. Some of these protections include the 

Tier 3 tailpipe standards, recently finalized greenhouse gas and 

fuel standards for medium and heavy-duty trucks, and EPA’s Clean 

Power Plan. 

The Clean Air Act is a vibrant, bipartisan, made-in-America law 

that has stood the test of time, delivering a stronger, healthier, and 

more prosperous nation. Let’s build on this legacy of bipartisan collaboration and follow the time-tested commonsense path forward in 

protecting the health of our children and our communities. Thank 

you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Craft follows:] 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Craft. 

And Dr. Honeycutt. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. MICHAEL HONEYCUTT, 

DIRECTOR, TEXAS COMMISSION 

ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 

TOXICOLOGY DIVISION 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of 

the Committee. I’m Dr. Michael Honeycutt, Director of the Toxicology Division at the TCEQ. I lead a division of 14 toxicologists, 

who are responsible for evaluating a broad spectrum of environmental quality issues, including deriving acceptable levels of air 

contaminants. 

The TCEQ has derived acceptable air contaminant levels for 

many thousands of air contaminants over the last 30-plus years, 

and our current team of toxicology risk assessors has over 280 combined years of experience in these fields. We derive these levels 

using a scientific, peer-reviewed method, and many of these levels 

and their derivation process have been published in independent 

scientific journals. Other state governments, federal agencies including the EPA, and other countries use the TCEQ’s acceptable 

air contaminant values. 

On October 1 of this year, the EPA decreased the level of the 

ozone standard from an annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8- 

hour concentration of 75 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion. 

Today, I will address considerations of overall health risk, but first, 

I would like to set the record straight on the ozone science. 

Based on our extensive background in deriving acceptable air 

contaminant levels, we independently reviewed thousands of studies on ozone, including the studies the EPA reviewed as a part of 

setting the final standard. Ozone is a simple oxidizing chemical 

that, at high enough concentrations, can cause inflammation in the 

lungs, and it can reversibly limit the body’s ability to inhale and 

exhale a normal volume of air. However, there remains large uncertainty and variability in the scientific literature. 

With regard to changes in lung function and asthma exacerbations, eight out of nine studies investigating lung function 

changes caused by ozone showed no difference between asthmatics 

and healthy individuals. As we stated in our comments to EPA, the 

dose that a person would be expected to receive at 75 parts per billion is almost no different than 70 parts per billion or even 65 

parts per billion. And you can see figure 1 in my comments to see 

that. 

Consistent with this finding, the EPA does not predict—let me 

state it again. The EPA does not predict that a decrease in the 

ozone standard will cause a statistically significant decrease in 

asthma attacks. You can see figure 2 for that information. 

The basis for setting the standard at 70 parts per billion was to 

make it lower than the lowest exposure concentration where adverse effects were observed in human controlled exposure studies, 

which was 72 parts per billion. However, in order to observe any 

effects at this low ozone concentration, the authors had to expose 

the human subjects to ozone while they were exercising at moderate to heavy exertion for 50 minutes out of every hour for 6.6 
72 

hours. This is an unrealistic exposure scenario for the general public, much less for sensitive groups. Therefore, it would take higher 

exposure concentrations to have the same effect noted in that 

study. 

Although asthma exacerbations and changes in lung function are 

the most important and biologically relevant effects, most of the 

monetary benefits that EPA ascribes to reductions in ozone are 

from reductions in premature mortality. They do this despite the 

fact that, from a toxicology standpoint, there is no explanation for 

how eight hours of ozone exposure at ambient, present-day concentrations on one day can cause premature mortality the next 

day. In addition, the EPA Administrator has expressed a lack of 

confidence in the studies associating ozone with premature mortality due to the inherent study uncertainties. 

The results from these studies are also contradictory and inconsistent. For example, in the main mortality study that the EPA 

uses, Smith 2009 showed that only seven out of 98 U.S. cities have 

a significant association between eight hour ozone concentrations 

and mortality. Also, astonishingly, the EPA’s analysis shows mortality increasing in certain cities, including Detroit and Houston 

when decreasing the ozone standard from 75 to 70 parts per billion. 

And no, I did not misread that. 

Some inconsistency between study findings is not uncommon. 

Scientists who are experienced in risk assessment can incorporate 

these disparate pieces of information into a cohesive characterization of health risk. The EPA would be better advised and critiqued 

on their risk assessment if a risk assessor was included on the 

CASAC. A chemical risk assessor is essential to put the potential 

risk highlighted by the other CASAC experts into content—into 

context with the inherent background risk present in our daily 

lives. The Clean Air Act does not require that risks are reduced to 

zero, and risk assessment with uncertainty analysis can demonstrate the reduction in risk, or lack thereof, from a reduction in 

a regulatory standard. 

The lack of consideration of overall risk is perhaps more apparent—most apparent when reviewing the revisions to the EPA’s Air 

Quality Index in the final rule. According to the new category 

breakpoints, sensitive members of the public will now be cautioned 

to consider reducing prolonged or heavy outdoor exertion at 55 

parts per billion ozone, a number that has no experimental basis. 

Beginning at 71 parts per billion, the EPA advises the public to 

keep their asthma inhalers handy. Anecdotally, we are told that 

some schools in Texas will cancel recess when they receive this 

alert. 

The problem is that this is based on a single study that showed 

a mild lung function effect after exposure to 72 parts per billion 

ozone for 6.6 hours with vigorous exercise. And it is being used to 

cancel a 20-minute recess. In the Dallas-Fort Worth area of Texas 

in 2014, there would have been 23 such days that children might 

not have been able to play outdoors. 

These health messages and the new frequency with which they 

will be released can lead to growing public concern over air quality 

that is actually getting better and can lead to keeping our children 
73 

and ourselves from the well-documented physical and psychological 

benefits of outdoor exercise. 

Let me be clear. Under certain circumstances at high concentrations, ground-level ozone can have negative implications for respiratory health, but our investigations conclude that low concentrations that we see today, the risks to respiratory health are small 

and are not significantly diminished by the decreased ozone standard. 

I have a tremendous amount of respect for the intent of the 

Clean Air Act, the EPA, and the role that science plays in setting 

meaningful policy. 

I thank you for the opportunity to be here and I’m happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Honeycutt follows:] 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Honeycutt. 

I recognize myself for questions. 

And, Mr. Holmstead, I would like to direct the first one to you, 

and that is you’ve mentioned several examples, but would you just 

summarize the adverse consequences of this new ozone regulation? 

The Hon. HOLMSTEAD. Well, the most immediate one is really 

that it will ban industrial growth in many parts of the country. 

That’s not universally true, but there will be many parts of the 

country where, no matter how hard a local community wants to attract new industry, it won’t be able to do so because they can’t get 

the permits they need to build or expand a new industrial facility. 

The longer-term consequence is that it really does drive up the 

cost of virtually everything we consume, not only energy, but other 

products as well. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Holmstead. 

Mr. Sadredin, you mentioned the San Joaquin Valley. Does the 

technology exist today to actually enable that region to attain the 

standards that it needs to attain under the proposed rule? 

Mr. SADREDIN. The simple answer is no, but that is not limited 

to the newest standard alone. As we speak, EPA has already classified the San Joaquin Valley as extreme nonattainment even for the 

75 parts-per-billion standard and the previous standard of 84 parts 

per billion. And extreme by definition means that technology today 

does not exist. 

Chairman SMITH. Any idea when the technology might exist or 

is it just totally unknown? 

Mr. SADREDIN. At this point it’s unknown. EPA in their own— 

you know, latest regulatory impact analysis, they talk about technology that does not exist and they don’t know when it would be 

available. And that is why we are urging the Congress to take that 

into account, make some fine-tuning of the Clean Air Act to allow 

that to be considered in setting up the deadlines and what it takes, 

how long it takes to come into attainment. 

Chairman SMITH. I know you’re considering this but I think 

you’ll find the courts on your side and if you can’t comply because 

the technology is not available, you can’t be held accountable. So 

I hope you succeed in that regard. 

Mr. SADREDIN. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Dr. Honeycutt, would you spend a little time 

explaining to us the single study that the entire ozone regulation 

relies upon and why there are limitations to the science that were 

relied upon in that study? First of all, I can’t believe we’re just relying upon one study. That clearly smacks of cherry-picking. But if 

you’ll go into some detail about the flaws in the one study and why 

only one study was used. 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. Sure. It is based on—or the level of the standard is based on one study, the Schelegle 2009 study where 31 people were exposed to ozone at various levels for 6.6 hours, exercising 

moderately to vigorously for 50 minutes out of every hour during 

the 6.6 hours. And at the 72 part-per-billion exposure concentration, six of the 31 people had lung decrements—lung function 

decrements greater than ten percent, which EPA considers adverse. 

The problem is the group mean was only 5–1/2 percent, a little 

over 5 percent. And the group mean wasn’t adverse, but what EPA 
83 

did was pick out the six that were, so they cherry-picked those six 

people out of the group, and you’re not supposed to do that. That’s 

not scientific. That’s why the study authors didn’t publish the journal article that way because it wouldn’t have been published because nobody would accept that. So that’s what it’s based on. 

Chairman SMITH. If any other organization relied upon a single 

study involving six out of 31 people, it would be laughable, and the 

fact that the EPA is going to subject millions of people to an unworkable standard at great cost because of that one flawed study 

is just amazing. And so I agree with your conclusion. 

That also concludes my comments, and we’ll go now to the gentleman from Virginia. Do you want to recognize somebody else 

first? 

Okay. Mr. Beyer is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you very 

much for being here. And I’m actually pleased to be part of this 

this morning just thinking how far we’ve come, that we have four 

witnesses representing both people for and against the ozone rule 

who are here testifying that clean air is a good thing and that 

we’ve come a long way, and all committed to making it better. 

And the debate is about the level that was set and the costs and 

benefits, and that for me the factor of this debate is progress, so 

thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, we have a witness from California here today, 

and California really has some unique—okay. I don’t need to do 

this for the record so never mind. I’m going to go on. Thank you. 

Also for the record, you know, I’m a businessman, family business. We have our 42nd anniversary tomorrow in retail automobile 

sales and service, and so for 42 years I’ve been hearing about the 

devastating consequences of new regulations. I just want to say 

that that’s nuts. I remember 1982 Ronald Reagan’s Federal Trade 

Commission was coming out with the used-car disclaimer on the 

windows, and everywhere in America, all the things were this is 

going to be the end of the free market, the end of automobile sales. 

We adapted to it in about a week. 

2009 CAFE standards have been set at 22 miles per gallon from 

’92 through 2008. President Obama raised it to 35 by 2016, again, 

devastating consequences. We were told the technology does not 

exist. Well, it’s almost 2016. We’ll be at 35 miles per gallon. We’re 

about to sell 17 million new cars in America this year, and manufacturers and dealers are having all-time profit years. If anything 

has pulled down profits, it’s been the internet and the 

quantitization of our product. 

Dr. Craft, we just heard Dr. Honeycutt say that all this is based 

on this one study, six out of 35 people. It’s my understanding, 

though, that before the Schelegle study was done, in the George W. 

Bush Administration, his EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Ozone Review Panel wanted it to be set between 60 and 70 

parts and unanimously recommended that and were disappointed 

when the President, you know, recognizing business pressure, put 

it at 75. How do you respond to that? And is this really based on 

one study and six people? 

Dr. CRAFT. Thank you. No, it’s not. We have sound evidence of 

the health effects of ozone from three branches of science, con-
84 

trolled human exposures, community health studies, and toxicology 

studies. EPA reviewed thousands and thousands of papers. They 

have summarized their scientific findings in the Integrated Scientific Assessment, which was under review by three different 

Science Advisory Committees. They have published those findings. 

The public was able to participate in looking at the review that 

EPA scientists had done. 

And just a couple of examples of the—from the summary—from 

EPA’s summary, they looked at respiratory effects, causal relationship between short-term ozone exposure and respiratory health effects. They have looked at cardiovascular effects likely to be causal 

relationship for short-term exposures to ozone and cardiovascular 

effects, central nervous system effects suggestive of a causal relationship between ozone exposure and CNS effects, total mortality 

likely to be a causal relationship between short-term exposures to 

ozone and total mortality. These are not summaries that were derived from a study that picked out six people. 

I guess I wanted to also mention that while the Administrator 

noted the study in her announcement of the standard, there are 

other studies that have shown that there is a significant effect 

below 72. It’s the Kim study from 2011. So, you know, the idea that 

we’re relying on just one study is not accurate, and it has been a 

process where EPA has included the public and has been very 

transparent in this process. 

Mr. BEYER. Great. I’d also like to point out quickly that in the 

pharmaceuticals, they’ll spend hundreds of millions of dollars testing new drugs, and if they get one or two or three adverse effects 

out of 100,000, they’ll take the drug off the market. So six out of 

35 actually seems like an awful lot to me. 

Dr. Keet at Johns Hopkins had a paper that has been misinterpreted to say that poverty makes asthma worse rather than ozone. 

Can you respond to this mischaracterization of Dr. Keet’s letter? 

And I’d like to enter her response for the record, please, without 

objection. 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection. 

[The appears in Appendix II] 

Dr. CRAFT. Sure. That paper, I think, was misunderstood. The 

study did not actually look at air pollution at all, so any characterization that air pollution is caused by poverty was not the subject 

of the study itself. And I think that’s what Dr. Keet has sent and 

submitted as part of her letter. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So we had one person telling us that this is 

all based on one study, and we have another witness telling us that 

there are thousands of studies that indicate this. Could you name 

a few studies, Ms. Craft, that have actually been accepted by the 

EPA Administrator as being legitimate studies that went into this 

decision? 

Dr. CRAFT. In the Integrated Science Assessment, the EPA derived—they include all of the studies that they looked at in referencing—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Could you name me a couple of the studies 

that they—that the—is my understanding that the EPA Adminis-
85 

trator has said that there are thousands of studies that have happened on this but none that can be trusted. Maybe you could name 

us two or three other studies that have been trusted that would be 

accepted by the EPA Administrator on this. 

Dr. CRAFT. Yes, I guess I’m not sure what you mean by trusted. 

I mean the EPA looked at all of the available studies. So, for example, Jarrett et al. 2009—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay, so you’re saying—say this again now. 

You’re giving us a specific now because I’m going to want Dr. 

Honeycutt’s response to this. So there was a—what study you’re 

talking about now specifically? 

Dr. CRAFT. Well, I guess it—is the question what are some of the 

studies the EPA examined as part of their Integrated Science Assessment? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. Which ones were accepted by the EPA 

Administrator as being specific to this decision? We are being told 

by Mr. Honeycutt that you—that there’s only one study and that 

we’re naming it now that specifically justified these EPA rules. 

You’re telling us that—and that the EPA used as an example of 

this is why we are putting this new rule out. And you’re saying 

that there are thousands of other studies. Could you name us several that the EPA has cited as reasons for their decision? 

Dr. CRAFT. I guess the question is about EPA relying on only one 

study, and I guess my opinion is that that is a mischaracterization, 

and I’m not sure where that is characterized in the—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, maybe you could tell us the name of 

three or four studies that—you’re saying there are thousands of 

them—that the EPA has used to justify this change. 

Dr. CRAFT. Well, they’ve looked at—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I’m not saying—— 

Dr. CRAFT. —a lot of studies. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No, no, what have they said this is what justifies our change, not that there is an amorphous over here. We’ve 

looked at thousands of things for and against. As far as we know, 

the thousands—for all we know, maybe half of them, they believe, 

were against what they have decided on. What two or three studies—this guy is saying we’ve—there’s only one. You’re saying there 

are thousands. Give us two or three studies that the EPA has used 

to back up this change in regulation. 

Dr. CRAFT. The Jarrett et al. 2009 study, the Kim et al. 2011 

study. There is—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Dr. CRAFT. —the Stevens study. I mean I can name—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Now, we have—— 

Dr. CRAFT. —a lot of ozone studies. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. You’ve just named three, is that correct? 

Dr. CRAFT. Right. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Now, go for it, Mr. Honeycutt. What— 

why—you’ve said there’s only one. 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. Actually, the Kim study did not find effects. 

Well, it found significant decrease in FEV1, a 1.8 percent decrease 

at 60 parts per billion, but by nobody’s definition is that an adverse 
86 

effect, not the American Thoracic Association—Society’s, not by 

EPA’s, by nobody’s. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So you’re just saying that there has 

only been one study that shows—— 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. The Schelegle study. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —an actual detrimental impact, but—— 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. Well, it depends on your definition, okay? By 

EPA’s definition it’s not unless you pick out the six people. So—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. —the previous—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So is this—— 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. The previous a standard was set based on epidemiology data. This one they switched it and based it on the clinical data. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. And CASAC spent a whole day talking about 

this one study and where they should—how—the phraseology they 

should use—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. —in—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I want to get to the one that was just given 

as an example, and you say that one did not—— 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. Jarrett 2009. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And that is not—and that did not justify—— 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. That is the only long-term study out of 12 that 

found effects—associations with ozone. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yeah, but we just had—what was the—I’m 

sorry. I’m new to this. I’m a novice on these specific studies now. 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. I actually have the studies right here. I can 

share them with you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Oh, so you have—Dr. Craft, you have—the 

specific study, you just mentioned three studies, is that correct, to 

us? 

Dr. CRAFT. Yes, I mentioned three. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. And you’re saying those three do not 

indicate that—and have not been—meet the EPA’s justification for 

the standard change—— 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. Well, there’s different things, okay? There’s 

the—the single study was used to say 72 is the number—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yeah. 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. —okay? And then they said, well, all these 

other thousands of studies support that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. Okay? But there was one study that the EPA 

says, okay, this is the reason we’re going to set it at 72. And 

CASAC spent a whole day talking about that one study. I watched 

it. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But the other studies do indicate that with 

the—— 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. The Kim study doesn’t. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Does not. You’re saying that this study does 

or you’re saying—— 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. And actually, the Jarrett study does not either. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Please go right ahead. 
87 

Dr. CRAFT. Well—— 

Chairman SMITH. The—— 

Dr. CRAFT. —I guess I just wanted to mention that these studies 

were done in perfectly healthy individuals. So the fact is is that the 

Clean Air Act requires that you set a standard that’s requisite with 

an adequate margin of safety. And so that is one of the issues. So 

maybe a 1.8 percent decremented lung function in a perfectly 

healthy person is not considered an adverse health effect, but if 

someone has asthma or COPD, then in fact it is so—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But that’s your opinion and not the EPA’s? 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman’s time has expired. Thank you, 

Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. And the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. 

Bonamici, is recognized. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to start by aligning myself with Mr. Beyer’s comments. 

I think we can all agree that our constituents, our children, our 

families expect and deserve to live in an environment where the air 

they breathe and the water they drink is healthy. So start with 

that premise. 

Also, I want to talk a little bit about how there’s been a conversation about the cost and technological challenges associated 

with implementing the new ozone standard. And we’ve had this 

conversation many times in the Committee, that oftentimes the 

regulation drives innovation and technology. We’re a very innovative country and certainly when there’s a requirement, our companies step up and develop new technologies. I have confidence in 

that. 

I want to talk, Dr. Craft—we had this conversation in your testimony and my statement about how the Clean Air Act does not permit the EPA to consider the costs or the attainability of technological feasibility. They determine the standard based on public 

health concerns. So I want you to comment on why that’s important, but then I also want you to expand a bit, please, on your comments in your testimony about the prevention of premature death, 

asthma attacks, and more. Can you talk about the costs saved 

under the lower standard, costs like healthcare costs and lost productivity? 

Dr. CRAFT. Thank you. You know, Congress intentionally set the 

Clean Air Act to specifically not consider cost, and I think the reason that they did that is because they wanted the integrity of the 

science to be maintained. The science is a separate and distinct 

issue from costs or implementation. The primary goal of the standard is that it will protect the health of the population with an adequate margin of safety. I think in past history cost estimates have 

been overblown and overestimated. If you were to let costs be considered as you evaluate the science, you may come to different conclusions, conclusions that would be unduly influenced by cost estimates. I think that’s why Congress is so explicit on this point. 

And just as a note on the devastation to the economy, I’d like to 

read a section from a report from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. In 2009, the Houston region reached attainment with a 1997 ozone NAAQS. According to an economic analysis 
88 

completed by the TCEQ, the Houston area exhibited the highest 

economic activity of any three-year period on record during the 

2007 through 2009 time period. The analysis further describes that 

over the last two decades, ozone concentrations and economic 

growth have rarely been correlated in the Houston area and that 

many of the years that saw a robust economic growth coincided 

with declines in the 8-hour and 1-hour ozone design values. 

According to TCEQ’s analysis, ‘‘reducing ozone concentrations in 

the presence of continuing economic growth through the development of State Implementation Plans and implementing control 

strategies for emission reduction is possible. Expansion of emitting 

activities during phases of economic growth certainly makes the 

task of attaining clean air standards more challenging, but it 

should not prevent and has not prevented the HGB area, among 

many others, from making substantial progress in improving air 

quality.’’ 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Doctor. I want to get one more question in. My time is about to expire. 

I would like you to comment, please, on the issue that I mentioned about—like in my home State of Oregon, they have a concern about the background and the long-range transport of ozone 

or precursors. So I know that the act allows for these exceptional 

event exceptions when there’s something like a wildfire or transport of air pollution from overseas, so can you please talk about 

what recommendations you might have for the EPA as they begin 

revising the Exceptional Events Rule? 

Dr. CRAFT. Sure. First of all, instances of elevated background 

ozone in Western States are actually infrequent and have been 

shown to rarely contribute to exceedances in the NAAQS. Even 

where background ozone levels can reach a considerable fraction of 

seasonal mean ozone levels, anthropogenic emission sources are the 

dominant contributor to the most modeled ozone exceedances of the 

proposed NAAQS. And the days when ozone levels are elevated do 

not have higher levels of background ozone. 

And then just recently, Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, issued some guidance. ‘‘Under 

the Clean Air Act, States are not responsible for reducing emissions from background sources. We intend to work directly with responsible air management agencies in these areas to ensure that 

all Clean Air Act provisions that would provide regulatory relief associated with background ozone are recognized.’’ And they are currently developing those revisions to the Exceptional Events Rule, 

and I think the process there is that they want to streamline the 

procedures that the state environmental agencies have to go 

through to have approval of the exceptional events. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Dr. Craft. 

My time is expired. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. [Presiding] I thank the gentlewoman for 

yielding back. 

The Chairman has stepped out and I’m pleased to sit in, and I’ve 

got a few questions now if I might. And I’m going to start by submitting two items for the record. The first is a map that shows the 

nonattainment areas in Ohio, areas that would violate the 70 

parts-per-billion standard. 
89 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. And the second item is a letter by Ohio’s 

Lieutenant Governor Mary Taylor to EPA Administrator McCarthy, and this letter is from March 2015 in which the Lieutenant 

Governor expresses serious concerns with the proposed rule to 

change the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for groundlevel ozone from 75 parts per billion to a standard in the range of 

65 to 70 parts per billion, and asks that the EPA Administrator reconsider these burdensome regulations. And as we all know, the 

EPA has moved forward with their proposal to lower the standard 

to 70 parts per billion. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. So, Mr. Holmstead and Mr. Sadredin, 

how do these stringent ozone standards and regulations discourage 

economic development? Mr. Holmstead, you can go first. 

The Hon. HOLMSTEAD. Well, as I’ve tried to say, I think the biggest issue in the near term is that it just stops people from building new industrial facilities. And I think what’s especially pernicious about this standard is that it will bring all these rural 

areas into nonattainment. And the way the act works—and this is 

one of the things I just don’t think makes any sense—is if you want 

to build a plant in this rural area where there’s no other pollution 

sources, you can’t do it because the only way you can build that 

plant is if you pay someone else in that area to reduce their emissions. And so you have these communities that would like to have 

state-of-the-art, best-controlled plants in their communities to provide jobs and economic opportunity, but you can’t do it because the 

Clean Air Act prevents it because of this new standard. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Mr. Sadredin? 

Mr. SADREDIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Every time you establish a 

standard, it essentially establishes a tolerance limit for your region 

for pollution above which you simply will be in violation of the 

standard and the Clean Air Act regulations, which then kicks in 

very expensive sanctions. 

In our region in San Joaquin Valley in California, the background ozone concentration is about 50 to 60 parts per billion, and 

that is not, you know, on days when—Dr. Elena mentioned that, 

you know, you should not be worried about attainment because 

those are not the days you violate the standard. We’re talking 

about ground-level ozone concentrations on the days when our region exceeds the standard. Just simply the background ozone concentration is about 50 to 60. So when you have that and then you 

look at the standard of 70 parts per billion, you only have that 10 

parts-per-billion margin that can be tolerated by manmade local air 

pollution, which means essentially in your area you have no tolerance for growth. You cannot let new businesses come in. In addition, you have to go after existing businesses to reduce air pollution. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. If that’s the case where you’ve got that 

10 parts-per-billion margin, if that’s going to stymie growth, is it 

accurate to say then, is a safe to say that those areas that are in 

nonattainment, there is no growth? I mean they are squelched in 

terms of being able to grow economically? 
90 

Mr. SADREDIN. Right. As it’s written right now, it requires that 

even if you’re in attainment right now, let’s say with the existing 

standard, before you can permit a new facility, you have to make 

a finding—scientific finding that the new permit, new facility will 

not cause a violation or contribute to violating a new standard. In 

this case, you know, with that 10 parts-per-billion margin of error, 

that’s a very tight standard that is quite difficult to meet, and then 

you need offsets. As Mr. Holmstead mentioned, you don’t have 

credits to be able to bring in facilities, and so it makes it very costly. 

In California we are essentially in the position that businesses 

do not locate in California unless they have to. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Okay. You know, One of the things that 

has really spurred America’s economic energy boom here over the 

last few years has been the shale play in eastern and southeastern 

Ohio. Do you think these more stringent ozone standards undermine the benefits that we’ve seen in the energy revolution, the energy boom with oil and gas? 

Mr. SADREDIN. Well, for our region and California in particular, 

even southern California, to be able to meet the new standard, we 

have to ban fossil fuel combustion emissions. That has to happen 

either through totally eliminating fossil fuel combustion—and I’m 

not only talking about mobile sources—cars and trucks—we’re talking about industrial facilities no longer being able to use natural 

gas, any kind of fuel in their—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. In an area like eastern and southeastern 

Ohio where we still get over 60 percent of our energy from coal, 

that’s a heavy lift for us. 

My time has expired. I’d like to now go to our colleague, our gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Ms. Clark. 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all the 

panelists for being here today. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a letter supporting the lower ozone standard from locally elected officials from across the country, including 

Mayor Rob Dolan from my hometown of Melrose. And in that letter 

they state ‘‘the current George W. Bush-era standard of 75 parts 

per billion has been widely acknowledged by the medical community as insufficient to protect public health. As mayors, we are on 

the front lines of protecting the safety and well-being of our constituents, and this long-overdue update will reap tremendous benefits for our communities.’’ 

I ask that this letter be submitted for the record. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Ms. CLARK. And I would also like to refer to another letter that 

I will ask also be submitted for the record, and this is a letter I 

would like to ask Dr. Craft about. It’s dated April 7, 2008, and this 

is under the Bush Administration. This is from the members of 

CASAC, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. And in this 

letter 18 members of that committee, those scientists, unanimously 

wrote that they recommend decreasing the primary standard within the range of 60 to 70 parts per million—I’m sorry, per billion. 

‘‘It is the committee’s consensus scientific opinion that the decision 

to set the primary ozone standard above this range fails to satisfy 

the explicit stipulations of the Clean Air Act that you ensure an 
91 

adequate margin of safety for all individuals, including sensitive 

populations.’’ 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Ms. CLARK. Dr. Craft, could you comment on the difference between what we’re hearing today, that this is based on something 

new and perhaps one study in this letter of April 7th, 2008, where 

we had 18 members unanimously recommending an even lower 

standard than the one we’re looking at implementing? 

Dr. CRAFT. Yes, thank you. There is strong scientific consensus 

that the ozone standard must be significantly strengthened. Since 

the last review, scientific evidence has only grown on the many 

health risks associated with ozone. It’s documented in EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment. The assessment is a result of a rigorous multiyear expert review process with several public hearings 

and comment, and it concluded that ozone harms lung health, including causing asthma attacks and increasing the risk of hospital 

and emergency room visits. 

It also concluded that ozone likely caused premature deaths and 

identified new threats, providing strong evidence linking ozone to 

cardiovascular harm and low birth weight in newborns. 

There have been multiple doctors that have testified in some of 

these hearings. I’d like to just point out some that were given by 

Dr. Greg Wellenius. He presented to the Senate Environment and 

Public Works Committee in December. In his testimony he noted 

the physiologic mechanisms occurring with ozone exposure: activation of neural reflexes, initiation of inflammation, sensitization of 

bronchial smooth muscle, changes in immunity, and airway remodeling as some of the underlying physiological mechanisms associated with ozone concentrations below the current standard that 

contribute to those increased hospital visits, those increased asthma attacks, and those days of missed work and missed school. 

Ms. CLARK. Dr. Craft, in the letter from the mayors from across 

the country, they estimate that taxpayers would save as much as 

75.9 billion through lower healthcare costs. Is this in line with the 

numbers that you’ve seen? 

Dr. CRAFT. Yes, it is, and I’d like to point out that six of the top 

10 fastest-growing cities in the country are in Texas and California, 

so the idea that, you know, we’re trampling economic growth because of an onerous ozone standard is not held up in the economic 

development that’s been reported. 

Ms. CLARK. And going back for a second to the April 2008 letter, 

it’s my understanding that this was based—this unanimous recommendation of 60 to 70 parts per billion was based on almost 

1,300 scientific studies at that time in 2008. Is that correct? 

Dr. CRAFT. Yes, that’s correct. 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 

back. I now go to—I recognize our colleague Mr. Bridenstine from 

Oklahoma. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So it’s really difficult if not impossible to prove a counterfactual, 

which means if the economy in Texas is growing, there’s a whole 

host of reasons that could be, and more regulations does not grow 

the economy in Texas, same in California. 
92 

In fact, I’d like to address the issue specifically that we’ve been 

talking about. I grew up in Arlington, Texas. I represent the 1st 

District of Oklahoma now. I went to college at Rice University 

down in Houston, Texas. And I’d like to address my question to Dr. 

Honeycutt. 

In your testimony, you wrote ‘‘astonishingly’’—and every time I 

read testimony and the word astonishingly shows up, what comes 

next is critically important. ‘‘Astonishingly, EPA’s analysis’’—that’s 

the EPA’s own analysis—‘‘shows mortality increasing in certain cities, including Detroit and Houston, when decreasing the ozone 

standard from 75 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion.’’ That is 

astonishing. Did that get taken into account? What they’re suggesting is that it’s worth maybe increasing mortality for these regulations? Can you address this for us? 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. Sure. That’s called the NOx disbenefit. And if 

you look nationwide, there would be a net—according to EPA, a net 

decrease in mortality, but if you look at a couple—some specific cities, they looked at 12 in particular, those two cities, lowering the 

standard would actually increase mortality. And it’s because NOx 

both creates and destroys ozone. So what you’re going to be doing 

is increasing ozone concentrations in the inner cities while decreasing it in the suburbs. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. That is good information that we on the Committee need to hear. 

Question for Mr. Sadredin. Maybe you could say that for us. 

Sorry. 

Mr. SADREDIN. Sadredin. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Sadredin, thank you. How many different 

State Implementation Plans does the San Joaquin Valley have in 

effect today? 

Mr. SADREDIN. As we speak today, we have six different State 

Implementation Plans for ozone and particulate matter, all with 

multiple milestones, redundant, duplicative timelines that we have 

to comply with. And as we speak today, we’re in the process of 

writing another plan for the standard that was just replaced, and 

in the next three years we have to write four additional State Implementation Plans for a total of 10 State Implementation Plans 

just for ozone and particulate matter. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. And how difficult is it for your agency to keep 

up with these SIPs? 

Mr. SADREDIN. Yes, you know, that’s the least of the problems, 

you know, the government inefficiency that this brings about, the 

staff work. The bigger concern that we have with this is the confusion that this brings to the public, to the business community that 

is subject to these redundant, duplicative regulations, and a tremendous number of lawsuits that each of these same deadlines, 

same targets that are established in, you know, 10 different vehicles create opportunities for attorneys. Of course, that’s good job security for them, but good government it is not. Good public education it is not. 

And it is something that could easily be fixed in our opinion. One 

of the suggestions that we are making in this 2015 Clean Air Act 

modernization that we’re proposing is that, when EPA establishes 

a new standard, for them to subsume the old standards into the 
93 

new one, pick the most stringent requirements from the previous 

standards, give us a single set of timelines and deadlines to meet, 

to be able to educate the public, and also make sure we can enforce 

them effectively in a rapid fashion. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. And I would just like to conclude by saying 

that we’ve heard folks suggest that, you know, certain local officials 

are in favor of more stringent National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, certain local officials are opposed to it. I can tell you 

for my State of Oklahoma, local officials are very opposed to it. 

I hope everybody understands that if the State of Oregon or the 

State of California, if other states want to have more stringent 

plans, that’s not going to bother my constituents in the State of 

Oklahoma. They can go ahead and do those things without having 

to do it in Oklahoma. And so I just want everybody to understand, 

when states become implementers of federal policy and then they 

end up getting bullied by the federal government, if you do this, 

then X, Y, or Z will happen, that’s not the role of the federal government to say that we’re going to cut off your highway transportation funding if you don’t comply with this new standard. This is 

federal bullying. It needs to stop. And if Oregon or another state 

wants to implement more stringent standards, I’m okay with that. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I’ll yield back. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. 

I now recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m pleased that we have a witness from California on today’s 

panel, as our State has unique challenges when it comes to addressing air pollution. 

However, I think the changes to the Clean Air Act suggested by 

Mr. Sadredin’s testimony would have the effect of delaying future 

efforts by EPA to protect health and the environment, and that’s 

a position that’s not supported by most Californians. 

In fact, I have a letter from the Coalition for Clean Air based in 

California that says, ‘‘what will not help Californians to breathe 

easier is the proposal from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District to weaken the Clean Air Act.’’ 

And I also have a letter from the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition which says, ‘‘we learn more every day of the impacts of air 

pollution on our health, and our valley has become numb to the information because Mr. Sadredin and the Valley Air Board disregarded, blame external factors, and have failed to find a balance 

between supporting business and protecting public health.’’ 

And lastly, I have an op-ed by two current members of the San 

Joaquin Valley Air District Board, Dr. Alexander Sherriffs and Dr. 

John Capitman, who write ‘‘we cannot support a policy direction 

which threatens to extend the time valley residents are breathing 

unhealthful air. The district needs to focus on policy and advocacy 

to increase the tools and resources to meet more healthful air 

standards, not on how to delay attainment.’’ 

And I’d like a unanimous consent to put these three documents 

in the record, Mr. Chairman. May I have unanimous consent, Mr. 

Chairman? 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Without objection. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 
94 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

You know, the Central Valley is—I chair the California Democratic Delegation, and we have a diverse State, and the Central 

Valley is a key and important element of our State. It’s much valued. 

It suffers from pollution that comes from the bay area where I 

live. It blows in on I–5 from—even from Asia but also created in 

the valley itself, including significant volatile organic compound 

emissions from dairies and also oil and gas operations. And those 

things have created a problem in the valley. We have the highest 

asthma rate among children of any place in the United States right 

in our Central Valley, and it’s a huge problem. 

Now, we can change the impact by technology. I come from Silicon Valley, and we know that if you have a problem, you don’t 

have to suffer. You can set standards and meet those standards. 

And you can—for example, farmers have switched from diesel 

pumps to electric pumps. They’ve purchased cleaner-burning tractors thanks to incentive programs. We have—along I–5 we’re 

switching. We now have a very aggressive standard in the State for 

switching to alternative energy we’re going to meet. 

You know, we have 1,000 premature deaths every year in the 

valley because of air pollution, and among all air pollutants contributing to cancer, diesel emissions is number one. So I think we 

have a great opportunity to promote even cleaner technologies and 

to create a cleaner environment for the people of the Central Valley 

and most especially for the children. 

So here is my question for you, Dr. Craft. The—with so many 

children with asthma out in the Central Valley, what is the adverse physiological effects on kids with asthma from ozone pollution, and how can increased exposure to ozone impact the health 

of children? It costs—the lost time because of health impacts out 

in the Central Valley is costing the valley $1 billion a year. I realize you’re looking at just the health impacts, not the economy, but 

we are losing money in the valley because of these adverse health 

impacts. What can you talk to us about with these children and 

others with asthma? 

Dr. CRAFT. Well, I’d like to say that children are especially vulnerable to the harms of air pollution, particularly those kids with 

asthma, and so it leads to increases in emergency room visits, 

missed school days, missed workdays for parents. And it can also 

lead to permanent long-term damage. Actually, the Gauderman 

study didn’t—looked and saw that air pollution in general showed 

that if air pollution is reduced, it leads to better lung health later 

in life. It’s—I think there is a lot of evidence supporting the fact 

that cleaner air is good for lungs of all ages, but especially for our 

most vulnerable, our kids. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. I’d just like to note that I think some 

of the objections from these outside groups that are running ads reminds me of the tobacco companies fighting control of tobacco, 

which caused lung cancer. And, you know, there’s a lot of comments made about how regulation and control harm the economy. 

I’d just like to point out that California, that is embracing the 

green, looking for health, beat Texas in job growth by 30 percent—— 
95 

Mr. JOHNSON. [Presiding] Well, very good. 

Ms. LOFGREN. —with our approach and—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

Ms. LOFGREN. —I would yield back. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. Mr. Sadredin and Dr. Honeycutt, your 

names were mentioned there for the last few minutes. Would either 

one of you care to respond to that? 

Mr. SADREDIN. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, just very quickly. 

I appreciate the good advice from the Congresswoman, and we always look to the bay area, our neighbor, to do their part to help 

us with the pollution that they sent our way. 

But make no mistake, although San Joaquin Valley is a conservative region in California, today, we have put in place the most 

stringent regulations that you can imagine to the point that Los 

Angeles now looks up to us in terms of what could be done. And 

by no means we’re asking for delays in getting there, but I urge 

you to take a look at the chart that I gave the Committee in my 

testimony on page 5 that talks about how much reductions we have 

to make. 

If you look at that chart, it breaks down emissions by various 

source categories of air pollution. The top part where it says the 

stationary and area sources, that’s all the valley businesses, oil 

production, farming operation. As you can see, even if we eliminated all of those sources, just simply said move out of the valley, 

we’ll come nowhere to meeting the standard. The bottom—the two 

lines that you see on the bottom are where we need to go to meet 

those standards. 

So I know industry cries wolf many times, and as a regulator, 

I’ve seen that over the years. But once in a while that boy is right, 

that the wolf might be coming, and I think this is one of those 

cases. If you look at the numbers that I have here for you, we have 

to essentially eliminate all pollution sources in San Joaquin Valley 

to meet that. 

And just one final comment regarding the health impact and the 

cost, and a lot of times people misrepresent these numbers by saying there’s a healthcare cost that you’re going to avoid for ozone. 

It’s very minimal and a big part—90 percent plus portion of this 

cost is the life insurance value that they put on a premature death, 

which is questionable but it’s not a real contribution in a lot of the 

economy that we are referring to. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure. Dr. Honeycutt, would you like to respond? 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. Sure. The Gauderman study that Dr. Craft just 

mentioned specifically said that ozone does not affect lung development. And I have it here if you want to read it. And the followup that they just released found the same thing, that ozone does 

not affect lung development. And I have both of those. I’d be happy 

to read you the conclusions if you’d like. 

And also, as far as asthmatics, the data is very clear. Asthmatics 

are no more sensitive to ozone than non-asthmatics are. And again, 

I have those studies here. I’d be happy to share them with you. 

Mr. WEBER. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia. Barry, you’re up. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
96 

And I also noticed that every time Mr.—is it Sadredin—speaks, 

the alarm goes off like it’s highlighting we better listen to what 

he’s saying. It’s some type of—— 

Mr. WEBER. Ozone levels must really be high when he speaks. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. I appreciate the testimony here. This is a very 

important issue because of the impact that it’s going to have. And 

I’ve always been one that it takes—in business and in everything 

else, you can only do so much and then you have diminishing returns because you’ve gone too far. 

Mr. Holmstead, does the Clean Air Act allow for special treatment for places where air quality may be affected by emissions 

from other countries such as Mexico or China or even in other 

areas of a state or region? My understanding from the testimony 

I’ve heard and what I’ve read is that we’re not giving an account 

for pollution that may be created in another area and move into 

an area that would cause the receiving area to be in non-attainment. Is there an exemption? Is there allowance for those? 

The Hon. HOLMSTEAD. I’m sorry to have to say it’s complicated. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. 

The Hon. HOLMSTEAD. In theory, some of those things can be excused. In practice, EPA has never really allowed that. And one of 

the things you’re hearing about is this exceptional events policy. 

It’s been almost impossible for anyone—I mean it takes hundreds 

of thousands of dollars and years to try to get EPA to excuse one 

exceptional event. 

The other thing I would point out, though, is the Clean Air Act 

itself—and that’s why—you know, we’re talking about these levels. 

What we really should be talking about is the implications of the 

standard. Everybody agrees that we ought to be improving air pollution, but the way the standard setting works with all the other 

regulations just doesn’t make any sense anymore. 

And right now, the Clean Air Act specifically says that certain 

weather events, the things that cause high episodes of ozone, cannot be excused. It says meteorological inversions and stagnant air. 

Those are events that are completely outside the control of any 

State, and yet you’re held accountable for those things. And under 

the Clean Air Act, that’s just one other thing that just ought to be 

changed. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Well, it’s interesting you bring that up because 

I’m looking at a map here which, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to submit 

for the record, which is the impact area on the State of Georgia 

that the new standards would have as far as the areas that would 

be out of attainment at this point. 

And I also have a letter from our governor of our state, Hon. Nathan Deal, who also served in this body at one time, who says that 

in these areas, it would be impossible for us to reach attainment 

because of the way the standards are written, and I also point out 

that the area that is highlighted here that would be in nonattainment is not only the economic center of the State of Georgia but 

the entire Southeast. 

So what is the cost that we could see in an area that is so important—you’re talking about one of the largest airports in the nation. 

Atlanta Hartsfield Airport is in this area; one of the largest power 

plants in the Southeast is in this area. What type of economic im-
97 

pact or hidden cost would we expect to see with the implementation of this standard? Mr. Holmstead? 

The Hon. HOLMSTEAD. The only thing we know is—for sure is 

that the cost of everything will go up, right, because energy is embedded in everything we do. So you’re going to be paying more for 

lots of different things. 

The thing that’s really hard to judge—and people have said it’s 

certainly true that we’ve had economic growth even with tighter 

standards, but that doesn’t mean that this next increment isn’t 

going to be enormously expensive. So maybe you can continue to 

have economic growth there, but it will be much less than it would 

otherwise be in part because you’re making it very difficult for 

businesses to expand in that area. They just have nowhere to go. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Dr. Honeycutt, let me read a portion of this 

letter and maybe you can respond to the same question. Our Governor says, ‘‘these rules are in addition to the fuel economy standards and the Tier 3 tailpipe emission standards for cars and trucks 

implemented by the federal level, which increases costs for businesses and consumers in my State and others.’’ This is after he’s 

gone through a litany of other EPA regulations that have affected 

our area. ‘‘All of these regulations have required substantial investment on the part of Georgia companies and consumers and constitute a moving target for Georgia companies.’’ The moving target 

is one of those areas that I hear a lot about with federal regulations, that they are unattainable. Could you and Mr. Sadredin comment on that? 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. Yes, sir. He’s absolutely right. EPA needs to 

provide the States guidance as soon as they put a rule out, not 

years later as they have in the past, because their deadlines are 

flexible, ours are not. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Sadredin? 

Mr. SADREDIN. You know, it was mentioned earlier that Congress 

was very clear about not including economic costs in certain standards. The fact of the matter is if you actually read the Supreme 

Court case, it said Congress failed to give any guidance on that. 

Therefore, absent guidance from Congress, judges, bureaucrats 

such as myself, and my colleagues at EPA have become policymakers and they have come up with a scenario where they say 

don’t worry about the cost-effectiveness or economic feasibility 

when we set this standard. During the implementation, we’ll take 

care of that. And unfortunately, the Clean Air Act, as written right 

now, does not give them the flexibility and the latitude that they 

need with those very fixed timelines, deadlines that you have to 

come into attainment to actually be able to do what they claim the 

Clean Air Act allows them to do to incorporate the economic feasibility during the implementation phase. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I move to have both of these documents submitted to the official record. 

Mr. WEBER. Without objection. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. And I yield back. 

Mr. WEBER. The gentleman yields back. 
98 

Now, the gentleman from Colorado has five minutes to see if he 

can make Mr. Sadredin make the alarms go off. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just a couple things I’d like to introduce into the record if I 

could. First is an article published in the Durango Herald supporting the decrease from 75 parts to 70 parts dated October 5, 

2015. If I could introduce that into the record, sir? 

Mr. WEBER. Without objection. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. The second thing is a little more cumbersome. 

That’s just 1–1/2 pages. This is 1,251 pages, which is the compilation, Dr. Honeycutt, of all the studies, some 2,300 undertaken to— 

and reviewed by the EPA in preparation for the reduction in the 

use of ozone numbers. And so I’d like to introduce the 1,251 pages, 

which compiles the 2,300 studies for the record. 

Mr. WEBER. I will allow that if you’ll start reading them. Without 

objection. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Well, I will—okay. So Martin, R.V.; Fiore, 

A.M.; Van Donkelaar, space diagnosed—diagnosis of surface ozone 

sensitivity to anthropogenic emissions. 

Mr. WEBER. They will be admitted, Mr. Perlmutter. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. All right. I guess—and then I’m going to yield 

to Mr. Beyer. 

And I just say to the folks on the panel, you know, in the Denver 

area we’ve had ozone issues for years and years and years, and our 

State prides itself on being very outdoorsy, you know, wanting to 

get outside, take advantage of, you know, the beautiful climate that 

we have. But our air is always something that has been difficult 

and because we do have some of the things that you mentioned in 

your testimony. You know, we’re in a pocket where the weather, 

you know, creates inversions and things like that. 

But each year and each time industry complains that this is 

going to be unattainable, we can’t do it, but then over a course of 

time, they do. And it’s improved the health of Coloradans. And 

we’ve got to continue to improve that. Our State has continued to 

grow, and we have a substantial oil and gas industry. And so as 

hard as these things are, the economy of Colorado has flourished 

because people want to come there for a great environment. And 

part of that is cleaning up our air as best we can from time to time. 

And so I appreciate the testimony of everybody. I understand 

this is hard and it can be expensive, but the rewards are substantial as well, and that’s not been so clear today. But in Colorado 

we’ve experienced that success and we’ve experienced that growth, 

and the health of the population has been improved, I think, over 

the years, you know, from growing up as a kid and having the 

brown cloud. It’s improved a lot. 

And I yield to my friend from Virginia, Mr. Beyer. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, my good friend, distinguished colleague 

from Colorado. 

I was confused by Dr. Honeycutt’s comment on Houston and Detroit. The excellent Democratic staff at the Science Committee dug 

out a Texas Tribune article that says that ‘‘paradoxically, lowering 

levels of nitrogen oxygen—nitrogen oxide (a pollutant that contrib-
99 

utes to forming ozone) can temporarily increase ozone levels because NOx also helps dissipate fully formed ozone. That’s why EPA 

predicts a slight increase in premature deaths if ozone standards 

are lowered.’’ 

But, Dr. Craft, can you please elaborate on this phenomenon? Is 

this a reason to not implement these new lower standards? 

Dr. CRAFT. No, it’s not. It’s actually a simulation that’s done, and 

that simulation was done looking specifically at NOx reductions. It 

did not include reducing some of the other precursors that form 

ozone, including VOCs. And so when a region has to put together 

a plan to reduce ozone, what they do is they identify an optimized 

plan to reduce both NOx and VOCs. And so the idea of NOx scavenging can be addressed through the way that you implement the 

new standard. 

Mr. BEYER. That’s great. And one more quick thought. There are 

25 seconds. They talk about how, gosh, even the national parks 

can’t get to these ozone standards because of background ozone levels. How high are background ozone levels? Is Dr. McCabe’s comment that the EPA will work around that? And does the ozone in 

the parks come from the parks or as it blown in from somewhere 

else? 

Dr. CRAFT. Well, there aren’t a lot of power plants or a ton of 

mobile sources in the national parks. Most of that is actually coming from sources that are downwind of those national parks. And 

so addressing those sources will help the areas where we have national parks that are having an occasional exceedance back into attainment. 

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

Mr. WEBER. Dr. Honeycutt, you’ve been mentioned a couple of 

times now. In the 1,200 page study that Congressman Perlmutter 

refused to read and here with the article in the Texas Tribune, 

would you like to take time to respond? 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. Sure. Thank you. Yes, I’ve actually read the 

human health portions of that document. I didn’t read the atmospheric chemistry portions or the welfare portions, but I did read 

the human health portions. 

Yes, as far as the NOx disbenefit, it—if you believe that ozone 

causes premature mortality, which EPA does, then you have to accept the disbenefit along with the benefit, because if you believe 

ozone causes premature mortality, then you will see it if you lower 

NOx in—around highways. So there’s no getting around it. There’s 

no doubling down to hurry up and get the emissions because you’ll 

just hasten the deaths then. 

So—and as far as asthma again, the question is not does ozone 

exacerbate asthma? The question is, will lowering the standard 

from 75 down to 70 or even 60 reduce the number of asthma exacerbations? And according to EPA, the answer is no. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Thank you. 

And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

LaHood. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the panelists 

here today. 

I guess in looking at my home State of Illinois and looking at the 

impact that this proposed rule would have on jobs and economic 
100 

growth, I have real concerns about that. And I want to cite a recent 

analysis and study done by NERA Economic Consulting that is titled ‘‘What Could New Ozone Regulations Cost Illinois?’’ And this 

is dated August of 2015. In looking at the proposed rule and the 

effect it would have on Illinois specifically, $47 billion in gross state 

product loss between 2017 and 2040, 35,000 lost jobs or job equivalents per year, $12 billion in total compliance costs, $650 drop in 

average household consumption per year, $1 billion more for residents to own/operate their vehicles statewide in this period. And I 

will submit this for the record. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Mr. LAHOOD. And I guess looking at that and a number of other 

studies that look at what this would do, what causes concern for 

me as I look at companies, particularly in my district in central 

and west central Illinois, Caterpillar is based in my district, a Fortune 40 company, very benevolent, generous company, but also has 

been very proactive in the environmental movement and what 

they’ve done at their companies, a company like John Deere, ADM 

that’s in my district. And I look at how they are trying to compete 

worldwide in the marketplace, and they are trying to obviously create jobs and opportunities, and when I look at this proposed rule, 

what that would do locally to those companies. 

And I guess I couple that with when you look at the statistics, 

air quality in American cities is the best that it’s been in a century. 

Ozone pollution has declined 33 percent since 1980, nine percent 

since 2008. And so when I look at those companies and what 

they’re trying to do proactively and then they have to look at this 

coming down on top of them, I guess, Mr. Holmstead, in looking at 

that, competing in the world marketplace and whether you’re going 

to create jobs in Illinois or you’re going to go to India or China or 

someplace else, can you talk about that a little bit? 

The Hon. HOLMSTEAD. There’s one observation I like to make. 

Certainly, you know, California has done very well economically 

over the last number of years. There was a time when we used to 

manufacture things in California. We don’t do that anymore; it’s 

just too expensive because heavy manufacturing requires energy. 

And so that’s been to the benefit of other States. 

We’re getting to the point now where if we turn the rest of the 

country into California, we will have no choice but to export those 

jobs. And it’s not because companies are bad citizens, but if they 

compete economically with everybody else on the globe and all of 

a sudden you drive up their costs too much, the same thing that 

happened to southern California is going to happen to central Illinois. 

And I just think that we—we just need to be smart in how we 

continue to make environmental progress. That’s my—we can continue to make progress but we can do it in a way that’s much more 

reasonable, that is not going to disadvantage U.S. businesses and 

consumers. 

Mr. LAHOOD. And would it be fair to say, Mr. Holmstead, there’s 

a direct correlation between what this rule is going to do and job 

loss or economic loss with companies like I mentioned and others? 

The Hon. HOLMSTEAD. There is no doubt that this will hurt the 

rate of economic growth. I think it’s hard to know—and I have a 
101 

great respect for NERA. I think that study looked at even a lower 

standard, and so that probably overstates the cost. But there’s no 

doubt that it will impose additional costs on businesses. It will 

make it harder for them to grow and expand, and ultimately, 

you’re going to drive people out of these areas and they’re going to 

have no choice but to go somewhere else. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Dr. Honeycutt, I wanted to ask you, so in terms of the effect this 

will have on state and local resources, you know, when these 

EPA—if this rule is implemented, in terms of agencies catching up 

on implementing the current standard when they’re already working on a standard now, can you talk a little bit about that? 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. Sure. It is substantial. It costs TCEQ—we’ve 

put money to the numbers—$1 million to do a SIP for a moderate 

area. And so that’s just the SIP. That’s not even looking at the exceptional events, the long-range transport and things. Those are 

hundreds of thousands of dollars. So—and that’s tax money. So, 

yes, it’s substantial. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I’d like to 

submit this study I just referenced and also a letter from the TriCounty Regional Planning Commission in Peoria, Illinois, asking 

for a delay in the attainment designation. 

Approved without objection, thank you. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Mr. PALMER. [Presiding] I will assume the Chair for the time 

being and begin my questions. 

And my first question is to Dr. Honeycutt. The EPA admits that 

much of the control technology to comply with these new standards 

does not yet exist. I think the latest estimate is only about 40 percent of the emission reductions can be attained with the current 

control technology. Can you give me some idea how Texas plans to 

comply with this if we’re dealing with—basically with a black box? 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. I wish we knew. Most of these sources out there 

are vehicle emissions or non-road emissions, so we’re going to do 

something with those and we’re really not quite sure what yet. 

This is unchartered territory for not only Texas but for most of the 

country. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, I think the answer is going to be that you will 

shut down whatever industry is producing these ozone emissions 

that prevent you from meeting these reduction standards. So if you 

don’t have the control technology to install, and earlier in my career, I worked for Combustion Engineering in the Environmental 

Systems Division so I have a pretty good idea of what it costs to 

design, build, and install this equipment. You can’t design, build, 

and install stuff that doesn’t yet exist, so the only option is to shut 

down whatever’s producing the emission. So would you concur with 

that? 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. I think at this point in time everything is on 

the table. 

Mr. PALMER. Okay. In regard to these issues of air quality, and 

I pointed out in this hearing before that since 1980 our GDP has 

gone up 467 percent, vehicle miles have gone up 94 percent, population has increased 38 percent, energy output has gone up 32 percent, yet emissions have gone down 50 percent. The air is demon-
102 

strably cleaner than it has ever been. Our economy is continuing 

to grow. I think when we talk about the balance between health 

and economic growth, one of the interesting things—and asthma 

has been mentioned several times here—is that there’s peer-review 

studies out from the medical community, including UCLA, that indicate that even though air quality is dramatically improved, asthma rates have spiked. And particularly in California, the UCLA 

study, Mr. Sadredin, that the single biggest predictor is low income. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Mr. SADREDIN. Mr. Chairman, people often mistake the impact of 

air pollution on asthma claiming that air pollution actually causes 

asthma. That is a scientifically—there’s little evidence of that in 

science. We’re talking about exacerbation, and if you look at cases 

of asthma in some of the more pristine areas on the coast in California, asthma rates are going up much—at a much higher rate 

compared to Los Angeles and Central Valley where our pollution 

is higher. So the relationship is not there but it’s something that 

tugs at your heart when you talk about children with asthma, and 

that’s a good bumper sticker sort of a justification for the enormity 

of the Clean Air Act that we’re talking about. 

In San Joaquin Valley we have reduced pollution by over 80 percent over the last 20 years. We’ve imposed the toughest regulations 

you can imagine on farming operations, agriculture, dairies. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues from, you know, urban areas, they 

think food just shows up on the grocery shelf somehow magically. 

They don’t really understand all the work that has to go into producing it. 

We’re at the point in our region with double-digit unemployment 

and low level of education with a large portion of our Hispanic population. It is very difficult to envision a scenario where we can 

meet those new standards without having to actually shut down 

businesses, as you mentioned. And that’s the point I wanted to get 

into. 

Congressman Lofgren introduced a letter from Central Valley Air 

Quality Coalition earlier saying that everybody’s okay in California 

with this. This same group had actually recommended to our agency that we have no-farm days, no-construction days, no-drive days. 

And we’re not talking about a day or two here and there. We’re 

talking about 100 days a year during summer having no commercial activity. They thought that’s something that’s reasonable. 

Mr. PALMER. Dr. Honeycutt, if you’d like to respond in the time 

that I have remaining, but I would like to—the NERA study was 

mentioned earlier. Those numbers have been adjusted to reflect the 

new standard that the EPA is requiring, and it is a devastating impact on the economy if you’d like to respond. 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. Sure, just real quickly. As far as asthma causation, Gina McCarthy testified in July of this year in front of this 

committee that ozone does not cause asthma, as did a minority witness earlier. However, EPA says that it is likely causal, that ozone 

likely does cause asthma, which is the same designation they give 

to premature mortality—total premature mortality and which the 

benefits are based on. So that’s why there’s some confusion in this 
103 

because EPA says one thing and Gina McCarthy said another 

thing. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you. My time is expired. 

I would now like to recognize the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. 

Westerman. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let’s see. Dr. Craft, you work for an organization that’s very concerned about protecting the environment, making sure we have 

clean air quality. And is—on the concept of diminishing returns, do 

you think we’ll ever get to a point where we are trying to achieve 

something that the cost to achieve it is more than it’s worth achieving, or should we just make improving air quality the ultimate goal 

at any cost? 

Dr. CRAFT. Well, Environmental Defense Fund uses marketbased principles as a foundation for our work. So we’ve worked successfully with oil and gas industry, for example, to implement control technologies on equipment that saves money and also reduces 

the amount of pollution in the air. 

Getting to the question of diminishing returns, I don’t think 

we’re anywhere near where we need to be in terms of reducing the 

amount of pollution. The question of, you know, how could—how is 

Texas going to comply, well, you know, we have VOC emissions in 

Houston that, through studies funded by TCEQ, show that those 

emissions are underestimated by a factor of five to ten. So looking 

at reduction of upset events, looking at one million—— 

Mr. WESTERMAN. I need to—I’m from Arkansas. I’m not from 

Texas so I need to move on here. 

It says here in your testimony that to reduce harmful air pollution such as ozone from pollution hotspot areas—have you ever 

been to Arkansas? 

Dr. CRAFT. Yes, I have. We work closely with Walmart, and so 

we have an office in Bentonville. I’ve been there several times. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Okay. So I was there last week in my district, 

which happens to have about 18,000 square miles of forest. To put 

that in perspective, just the forests in my district are about 264 

times larger than Washington DC. And I like to get out in my district in the forest and breathe the fresh air. Actually, I think the 

air quality is much better there than it is here, but if you look at 

the ozone monitors, it’s really not that much different than the air 

quality here in Washington DC. And actually, if you look at some 

of the information from the EPA, it talks about trees creating a lot 

of ozone through their VOC emissions. So, you know, if—should we 

go cut down all the trees in my district so we can improve air quality? 

Dr. CRAFT. Well, actually, it’s funny that you mention that. We 

are actually looking into trees as an intervention strategy for 

places like Houston. So there is evidence that some species of trees 

release VOCs, but not all species. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So maybe we should just plant plantations of 

monocrops in Houston to fix the air quality down there. I’m trained 

in forestry, so that would be kind of interesting if we started doing 

stuff like that. 

Moving along, Mr. Holmstead, are you familiar with EPA’s claim 

that the proposed ozone standard will only impact nine counties? 
104 

The Hon. HOLMSTEAD. Yes, that’s just silly. They, first of all, assume all kinds of things and run their models and say, look, there’s 

only going to be nine counties that don’t attain the standard. The 

problem—that’s not the way the Clean Air Act works. It’s not only 

counties where there might be a monitor; it’s everywhere elsewhere 

EPA predicts using models that you’re going to have an area that 

violates the standard. So that actually really makes me angry. EPA 

should be at least honest about the implications of this because it’s 

going to affect many, many more parts of the country. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So it’s a very dishonest of them not to include 

non-monitored counties because we know the air mixes and you got 

these autogenic effects. 

What about using the year 2025? Is that dishonest as well? 

The Hon. HOLMSTEAD. Well, yes, because all of these regulatory 

consequences happen now. The permitting problems happen now. 

All the other regulations happen now. If the Clean Air Act said, 

great, if EPA says that everyone is going to come into attainment 

within ten years, if that’s the way it worked, that would be great. 

But we don’t wait around. You impose all these obligations now regardless of what EPA projects for 2025. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. And so can you explain quickly the actual impact of the ozone rule for those of us not inclined to use EPA’s 

fuzzy math or their fuzzy logic or whatever it is they use? Maybe 

we need to pump some of the clean air from Arkansas over into the 

EPA building. 

The Hon. HOLMSTEAD. Just very quickly, it will be very hard to 

expand new businesses in many rural parts of the country. That’s 

the most kind of—the thing people don’t understand. This is—what 

this affects is—rural parts of the country would like to attract new 

business. That is going to be difficult or impossible. 

And then in other areas you just drive up the costs even more, 

and you do so unnecessarily. There’s just a better way to clean the 

air, but unfortunately, we’ve become so dug into this statute that 

was created 45 years ago that just doesn’t really work anymore for 

the way that the world works today. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. You can just cut down all the trees in my district and we could meet the air quality. 

The Hon. HOLMSTEAD. Well, at some point afterwards I’ll tell you 

a story about VOC emissions and trees. It’s actually kind of sad to 

see what EPA has done in the past about that issue. But we don’t 

have time to talk about it here. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALMER. The gentleman’s time has expired, but I do want to 

comment on the gentleman’s line of questions and the responses 

that apparently the EPA has now gotten in the business of determining that there are some good trees and some bad trees and 

maybe the solution is just clear-cutting. I hope not. 

The Chair now recognizes Dr. Abraham, the gentleman from 

Louisiana. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I’m going to just hit this from a medical perspective. The 

tone and the verbiage from EPA has changed over the past several 

months to this theme of childhood asthma. Gina McCarthy touted, 

everybody in the EPA touted, and this is what they’re trying to 
105 

sell, that the ozone is causing this exacerbation. Again, I am limited in my practice as to—I have to do what we call standard of 

care, and we have to do things based on only evidence-based scientific data. And I usually go to the CDC for my talking points and 

when I’m trying to determine what’s best for my clientele. 

I’ve practiced medicine all my life and I’ve practiced it in places 

all over the world, and I look at CDC charts and maps and I see 

where there are the lowest emissions standards there’s the highest 

asthma. And, Gary, it goes back to your statement of socioeconomic 

factors being the major cause of exacerbation of asthma, and I can 

tell you from a practitioner’s point, that’s very true. 

I look at some of these other studies from these nonprofits, and 

the first thing that we as physicians and any scientist is taught is 

to look at who’s funding the study because of the conflict-of-interest 

possibility. Where are you getting your money? And, Dr. Craft, 

when the Congresswoman asked you a question about ozone and 

the possible developmental lung function, I noticed that you didn’t 

use the word ozone. You admittedly shifted to air pollutants to answer that question. 

So, Dr. Honeycutt, I will start with you. I am concerned that we 

are seeing a lot of bias and conflict of interest in this—in our Scientific Advisory Board, especially the Clean Act Scientific Board. 

What can we do to combat that? How can we tell our constituents 

and our patients that what we are being told by EPA, by everyone, 

are actually based on facts and just not theory and not being 

pushed by specific interest groups that want to sell a product? 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. By the way, I was born and raised in your district and you represent my parents so—— 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Hey, I didn’t know that. 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. The CASAC is appointed by EPA. Whenever we 

do a board like that, we have an external party to vet people and 

pick them for us. And the panels need to be balanced and—as far 

as—— 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Are they now balanced in your opinion? 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. No, actually not. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Nor in mine. I will agree with your statement. Go 

ahead. I’m sorry. 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. Oh, they need to be balanced in terms of bias 

and who they represent, and right now they’re not. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Okay. And I think you’ve answered the question 

but I’ll ask you to answer it again. Will lowering the ozone standards from 70 to 60 do anything for asthma? 

Mr. HONEYCUTT. According to the EPA, no. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes, and I’ve seen those studies, too. And is there 

any evidence—and any panel member can answer this—that 

ozone—specifically ozone exacerbates asthma? Dr. Craft? 

Dr. CRAFT. Yes, I’d like to comment and I guess give the reason 

for why I didn’t mention ozone specifically with the Gauderman 

study. Ozone actually didn’t decline that much over the time period 

that the Gauderman study focused on, so that’s why I discussed air 

pollution in general. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. But—— 

Dr. CRAFT. To get to your question about—— 
106 

Mr. ABRAHAM. But you understand, Dr. Craft, that was not the 

question she asked. I was just referencing the question, the specific 

question, and I was just looking for a specific answer. And I just 

didn’t see that, and that’s the reason I brought that up. 

Dr. CRAFT. Right. So to give an example of a study that you requested, I’ll refer to, again, the testimony of Dr. Wellenius, who 

mentioned a 2010 study by scientists at Emory and Georgia Tech 

looking at a 30 percent increase—— 

Mr. ABRAHAM. And may I ask who financed that study? Do you 

know who financed that study? 

Dr. CRAFT. I’m not sure who financed that study. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Okay. And see, that’s I guess my point. We—like 

the gentleman from Colorado, he had a 2,200 page study, and there 

are millions of studies, but I want to know who’s got skin in the 

game as to how the study is going to be presented. So that’s all I’ll 

say. I’m out of time and I appreciate the panel being here. 

Mr. Chairman, I’ll yield back. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Dr. Abraham. 

I thank the witnesses for their testimony and the Members for 

their questions. The record will remain open for two weeks for additional written comments and written questions from Members. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(107) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
108 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by The Hon. Jeffrey Holmstead 
109 
110 
111 

Responses by Dr. Elena Craft 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 

Responses by Dr. Michael Honeycutt 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 

(203) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
204 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 

REPORT SUBMITTED BY COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE JIM BRIDENSTINE
257 
258 
259 
260 

DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE DON BEYER
261 
262 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE BILL JOHNSON
263 
264 
265 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE KATHERINE CLARK
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE ZOE LOFGREN
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE BARRY LOUDERMILK
282 
283 
284 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE ED PERLMUTTER
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE DARIN LAHOOD
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE GARY PALMER
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
340 
341 
342 
343 
344 
345 
346 
347 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE ELIZABETH H. ESTY
348 

Æ