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

95–001 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 114–47 

CHALLENGES AND IMPLICATIONS OF EPA’S 

PROPOSED NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY 

STANDARD FOR GROUND-LEVEL OZONE AND 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 638, S. 751, 

AND S. 640 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 3, 2015 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JUNE 3, 2015 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 1 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 4 

Flake, Hon. Jeff L., U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona ............................... 7 

Thune, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota ...................... 9 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 133 

WITNESSES 

Olson, Hon. Pete G., U.S. Representative from the State of Texas ..................... 6 

McKee, Michael, Chairman, Uinta County Commission ...................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Srikanth, Kanathur ‘‘Kanti,’’ Director, Transportation Planning Board, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, on behalf of the Association 

of Metropolitan Planning Organizations ............................................................ 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Moore, Hon. Gary, Judge/Executive, Boone County, Kentucky, and President, 

National Association of Regional Councils ......................................................... 42 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Diette, Gregory B., M.D., MHS, Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology and 

Environmental Health Science, Johns Hopkins University ............................. 53 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55 

Greene, Larry, Executive Director, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District ........................................................................................... 59 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Study on reforestation published in the Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences ............................................................................................................. 135 

Statement from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research—‘‘Voters Overwhelmingly Support Stricter Smog Standards’’ ............................................................ 145 

Letter from the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, to EPA Administrator McCarthy ......................................................................................................................... 148 

Letter from the Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee to H. Christopher Frey, Chair of the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee ...... 149 

Letter from the Portland Cement Association to Senator Inhofe ........................ 151 

Statement from the American Chemistry Council ................................................ 152 

Article titled From rural Utah to Dallas and L.A.: Smog besets communities 

across U.S. ............................................................................................................ 156 

Statement of Utah statistics from Public Opinion Strategies, the Colorado 

College State of the Rockies Project, and Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz 

& Associates ......................................................................................................... 170 

Statement from Utah State University ................................................................. 172 

(1) 

CHALLENGES AND IMPLICATIONS OF EPA’S 

PROPOSED NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD FOR GROUND-LEVEL OZONE 

AND LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 638, S. 

751, AND S. 640 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. James Inhofe (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Inhofe, Barrasso, Capito, Crapo, Boozman, Sessions, Fischer, Rounds, Sullivan, Boxer, Carper, Whitehouse, 

Merkley, Gillibrand, Booker, and Markey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Our meeting will come to order. 

We are going to have myself and the Ranking Member, Senator 

Boxer, give our opening statements and then refer to members by 

the order they come. That will mean you will be going first, Mr. 

Olson, in explaining what your legislation is and the same for the 

rest of the members as they come in. 

The first hearing I ever held as Chairman of the Clean Air Subcommittee was in February 1997 on the ozone standard. It was the 

first of seven hearings held on what was then referred to as ‘‘the 

single largest environmental regulation ever proposed.’’ 

Today, we are again conducting oversight of the EPA and the 

proposed ozone standard, which is set between 65 and 70 parts per 

billion. We will hear directly from officials responsible for implementing and administering EPA’s new standard. 

We like to hear from people in the field who are going to be responsible for upholding all these brilliant things we do here. We 

want to welcome Judge/Executive Gary Moore, from Boone County, 

Kentucky; County Commissioner Mike McKee, from Uinta County, 

Utah; and Kanti Srikanth, Director of Transportation Planning for 

the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board. 

We are also here to examine three pieces of legislation. The first 

bill, sponsored by Senator Thune and Senator Manchin, requires 85 

percent of the counties that have not met the 2008 standard to 

achieve it before EPA can lower the standard further. Congressman 
2 

Pete Olson, who has introduced the House version of this bill, is 

also with us today. 

Additionally, Senator Flake is introducing two bills. The first extends EPA’s existing timeline to review NAAQS to every 10 years. 

The second amends the Exceptional Events rule, which States rely 

on when events out of human control contribute to ozone readings 

exceeding the allowed level. All three of these are commonsense, 

good government bills that strengthen the NAAQS setting process 

while advancing the trend of improved air quality. 

EPA’s ozone proposal is the most expensive regulation in history 

with projected costs of $1.7 trillion and 1.4 million lost jobs. Up to 

67 percent of counties fail to meet the proposed lower standards, 

which means if this rule goes forward, they will face a legacy of 

EPA regulatory oversight, stiff Federal penalties, lost highway dollars, restrictions on infrastructure investment, and increased costs 

to businesses. 

The costs and burdens associated with expanding roads and 

bridges will be exponential. Further concerning is that EPA’s proposal does not even account for high levels of naturally occurring 

ozone present or transported in many parts of the Country, which 

is why pristine national parks like the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone would be placed in nonattainment status. 

Looking at my home State of Oklahoma, significantly, not a single county violates the current standard, but under this new standard, all 77 of my counties in Oklahoma would be out of attainment 

as you can see on this map. Currently, we are in attainment in 

every county. That is what would happen in my State of Oklahoma. 

We have spent a significant amount of time and valuable State 

resources to comply with the 2008 standard, but will have to spend 

an additional $35 billion to meet EPA’s new standard should this 

become reality. Each household will lose an average of $900 a year, 

and the State will lose 35,503 jobs with $18 billion in lost GDP. 

Every State is facing similar losses. 

In 2011, EPA proposed a standard remarkably similar to the one 

we are discussing today. The President rejected it then because, as 

he said, our economy could not handle the burden of its substantial 

price tag. Has our economy really improved so much in the last few 

years that we can easily absorb a $1.7 trillion price tag? I would 

say no. 

Even Steve Beshear, the Democratic Governor of Kentucky, 

agrees. He has pledged to reduce carbon emissions in his State by 

80 percent by 2050. Yet, he wrote President Obama and asked him 

to keep the ozone standard where it is because of the detrimental 

impact it would have on Kentucky job creators and manufacturers. 

That is kind of interesting, isn’t it, because you have the Governor, who is 70 years old, who said we will comply by 2050 with 

the standard in terms of emissions. He would be 105 years old, so 

it is easy to say you will comply with that. Everyone keep that in 

mind. 

I have always stood in favor of clean air. I was an original cosponsor of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and Clear Skies, 

but this proposal, like many of the EPA’s recent proposals, will 

have negligible environmental benefits. 
3 

It is based on questionable health benefits and comes with unequivocal economic costs. Instead of creating a new regime of costly, job-killing mandates, the EPA should focus its efforts on helping 

counties that have not yet met the 1997 and the 2008 standards. 

A new standard at this time is not only irresponsible, but also impractical and economically destructive. 

Senator Boxer. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

The first hearing I ever held as Chairman of the Clean Air Subcommittee was 

in 1997 on the ozone standard. It was the first of seven hearings held on what was 

then referred to as ‘‘the single largest environmental regulation ever proposed.’’ 

Today we are again conducting oversight of the EPA and the proposed ozone standard, which is set between 65 and 70 parts per billion. We will hear directly from 

officials responsible for implementing and administering EPA’s new standard. I 

want to welcome Judge-Executive Gary Moore, from Boone County, Kentucky; 

County Commissioner Mike McKee, from Uintah County, Utah; and Kanti Srikanth 

who is the Director of Transportation Planning for the National Capital Region 

Transportation Planning Board. 

We are also here to examine three pieces of legislation. The first bill, sponsored 

by Senator Thune and Senator Manchin, requires 85 percent of the counties that 

haven’t met the 2008 standard to achieve it before EPA can lower the standard. 

Congressman Pete Olson, who has introduced the House version of this bill, is also 

with us today. Additionally, Senator Flake is introducing two bills. The first extends 

EPA’s existing timeline to review NAAQS to every 10 years. The second amends the 

Exceptional Events rule, which States rely on when events out of human control 

contribute to ozone readings exceeding the allowed level. All three of these are commonsense, good government bills that strengthen the NAAQS setting process while 

advancing the trend of improved air quality. 

EPA’s ozone proposal is the most expensive regulation in history with projected 

costs of $1.7 trillion and 1.4 million lost jobs. Up to 67 percent of counties fail to 

meet the proposed lower standards, which means if this rule goes forward, they will 

face a legacy of EPA regulatory oversight, stiff Federal penalties, lost highway dollars, restrictions on infrastructure investment, and increased costs to businesses. 

The costs and burdens associated with expanding roads and bridges will be exponential. Further concerning is that EPA’s proposal does not even account for high 

levels of naturally occurring ozone present or transported in many parts of the country, which is why pristine national parks like the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone 

would be placed in nonattainment status. 

Looking at my home State of Oklahoma, not a single county violates the current 

standard, but under this new standard, the whole State will be in violation. We 

have spent a significant amount of time and valuable State resources to comply with 

the 2008 standard, but will have to spend an additional $35 billion to meet EPA’s 

new standard. Each household will lose an average of $900 a year, and the State 

will lose 35,503 jobs with $18 billion in lost GDP. Every State is facing similar 

losses. 

In 2011, EPA proposed a standard remarkably similar to the one we’re discussing 

today; fortunately, the President rejected it then because, as he said, our economy 

couldn’t handle the burden of its substantial price tag. Has our economy really improved so much in the last few years that we can easily absorb a $1.7 trillion price 

tag? I would say no and even Steve Beshear, the Democrat Governor of Kentucky, 

agrees. He has pledged to reduce carbon emissions in his State by 80 percent by 

2050, yet he wrote President Obama and asked him to keep the ozone standard 

where it is because of the detrimental impact it would have on Kentucky job creators and manufacturers. I’d like to submit that letter for the record. 

I have always stood in favor of clean air—I was an original cosponsor of the 1990 

Clean Air Act Amendments and Clear Skies—but this proposal, like many of the 

EPA’s recent proposals, will have negligible environmental benefits, is based on 

questionable health benefits and comes with unequivocal economic costs. Instead of 

creating a new regime of costly, job-killing mandates, the EPA should focus its efforts on helping counties that have not yet met the 1997 or the 2008 standards. A 

new standard at this time is not only irresponsible, but also impractical and economically destructive. 
4 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and thank my colleagues for their 

leadership on this issue. 

Thank you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. OK. Here we go. The debate in this committee 

continues. It is a healthy one, by the way. 

Today we examine the critically important steps that the Obama 

administration is taking to strengthen the ozone standard, which 

will save lives and protect the health of our children and families. 

You never heard that from my chairman. He does not talk about 

the impact of smog on our families and I will. 

We know that ground-level ozone, often referred to as smog, is 

extremely harmful to human health. It is not a debatable point. 

Everyone agrees. 

It is hard for me to believe that in this Environment Committee, 

we would be looking at not making further steps that are required 

under the law to protect our families from smog. We know too 

much exposure to smog leads to cardiovascular disease, respiratory 

ailments like asthma, emphysema, and premature death. That is 

all known. 

It is our youngest and oldest generations, as well as those who 

spend the most time outdoors, who are the most vulnerable to the 

impacts of smog pollution. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, there are nearly 26 million people in the U.S. who 

have asthma. 

I always say to my colleagues, when you visit a school to talk to 

the kids, ask them how many have asthma or know someone with 

asthma. I guarantee you 60 percent will raise their hands because 

we know there are 7.1 million children in our Nation who have 

asthma. 

The National Ambient Air Quality Standards are the backbone 

of the Clean Air Act. They set the maximum level of an air pollutant, such as ozone, that is safe for us to breathe. Everyone has a 

right to know that the air they breathe is safe, because if they cannot breathe, they cannot go to school, they cannot work, they get 

sick, they go to the emergency room, and they do not have the 

quality of life they have a right to have. 

The Clean Air Act requires, by the way, brought to you by a Republican President a long time ago and updated by a Republican 

President, requires that these standards be set solely on the best 

available health science. 

To ensure the health impacts of air pollution continue to be addressed, EPA is required to review the standards every 5 years. No 

matter what my Republican colleagues may try to claim today, scientists overwhelmingly agree that EPA needs to adopt a stricter 

standard to protect the health of the American people, especially 

our children and the elderly. We have known since 2008 that the 

current ozone standard is too weak to protect the health of our 

families. 

Last year, EPA proposed updating and strengthening the ozone 

standard from 75 parts per billion to a more protective range, between 65 and 70 parts per billion. It is also considering an even 

more protective standard of 60 parts per billion. 
5 

The EPA is doing what it must do. Otherwise, they will be 

hauled to court. They have to make sure our families are protected. 

I have great news for those of you who want to see EPA continue 

to do their job. Just yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit found that the EPA has complied with 

the Constitution in enforcing the ozone standards. Say what you 

might say, they are on the side of the Constitution. They are on 

the side of the public health. 

Here is where we stand. We have a number of bills before us 

that will decimate this rule. That is their purpose. I do not question my colleagues who have written these bills, but I would urge 

them to check out the number of kids in their States and the number of senior citizens who will have problems if we do not clean up 

the ozone. 

The American people strongly support a tighter ozone standard. 

Last November, the American Lung Association found that 68 percent of voters nationwide support strengthening the ozone standards, including 54 percent of Republicans. 

How out of step can you be than to move forward with a bill that 

is going to stop us from protecting the health of our families? You 

are out of step. You are out of touch. Get real about it. These bills 

will have a negative effect. 

I am going to stop there, I am sure you are happy to know, and 

welcome all of our witnesses, regardless of their point of view. 

I want to extend a very special welcome to one of our witnesses, 

Larry Greene, the Executive Director of the Sacramento Air Quality Management District. Larry, thank you so much. 

California is on the front lines in the battle against air pollution. 

He will testify about the tremendous successes our State is having 

in implementing new air pollution standards. 

With that, I would ask to put the rest of my statement in the 

record. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your kindness 

and allowing me to be your counterpoint. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Today’s hearing will examine the critically important steps that the Obama administration is taking to strengthen the ozone standard, which will save lives and 

protect the health of our children and families. 

We know that ground-level ozone, often referred to as smog, results in dangerous 

air pollution that is extremely harmful to human health. It can lead to cardiovascular disease, respiratory ailments like asthma and emphysema, and premature 

death. And it is our youngest and oldest generations—as well as those who spend 

the most time outdoors—who are the most vulnerable to the impacts of smog pollution. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), there are nearly 26 

million people in the U.S. who have asthma, including 7.1 million children. 

The National Ambient Air Quality Standards are the backbone of the Clean Air 

Act, and they set the maximum level of an air pollutant, such as ozone, that is safe 

for us to breathe. Setting an appropriate standard is crucial to protecting the health 

of millions of Americans. Everyone has a right to know that the air they breathe 

is safe—and right now, the science says it is not. 

The Clean Air Act requires that these standards be set solely on the basis of the 

latest available health science. To ensure the health impacts of air pollution continue to be addressed, EPA is required to review the standards every 5 years to 

make sure they are up to date. Despite what some of my Republican colleagues may 

try to claim today, scientists overwhelmingly agree that EPA needs to adopt a stricter standard to protect the health of the American people, especially our children and 
6 

the elderly. We have known since 2008 that the current ozone standard does not 

provide the necessary health safeguards. 

Last year, EPA proposed updating and strengthening the ozone standard from 75 

parts per billion to a more protective range, between 65 and 70 parts per billion. 

It is also considering an even more protective standard of 60 parts per billion. 

And the EPA is doing its job to protect public health. Just yesterday, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld EPA’s determinations 

concerning which regions in the U.S. have met its existing ozone standard. The 

Court found that EPA had complied with the Constitution, had reasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act, and in many cases exceeded its obligation to engage in 

reasoned decisionmaking. 

I often say, if people can’t breathe, they can’t go to work or school. Ozone pollution 

has been proven to cause thousands of lost school days and work days each year, 

as well as an increased number of asthma attacks and bronchitis cases, and more 

emergency room visits and hospital admissions. 

The American people strongly support a tighter ozone standard. Last November, 

the American Lung Association found that 68 percent of voters nationwide support 

strengthening the ozone standards, including 54 percent of Republicans. 

We will also discuss three bills today that would have negative impacts on our 

air quality and public health. These bills would delay the health protections of the 

ozone standards, block implementation of an ozone standard altogether, or create 

new loopholes for how air pollution data is assessed. 

I will continue to work with my colleagues to fight any efforts to undermine our 

environmental laws that protect the most vulnerable populations. No one’s health 

should be threatened by the air they breathe, especially our children’s. 

I would like to extend a special welcome to one of today’s witnesses, Larry Greene, 

the Executive Director of the Sacramento Air Quality Management District. California is on the front lines in the battle against air pollution, and he will testify 

about the tremendous successes our State has had in implementing new air pollution standards. 

For example, in 1976, there were 166 days when health advisories were issued 

in Southern California to urge people with asthma and other people with lung sensitivities to stay indoors. In 37 years, the number of smog-related health advisories 

issued in Southern California dropped from 166 days in 1976 to 1 day in 2013. And 

in March of this year, a peer-reviewed study by researchers at the University of 

Southern California found that reducing air pollution leads to improved lung development and respiratory function in school-aged children. 

Environmental safeguards have improved our quality of life and made our children safer and healthier, and we need to continue down this path. I look forward 

to hearing the testimony of today’s witnesses. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

As we stated earlier, as they come in, the sponsors of the legislation will be heard to explain. Maybe they disagree with Senator 

Boxer as to the purpose of your legislation and if so, feel free to 

say so. 

I will recognize you, Mr. Olson. Thank you for coming across the 

campus. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PETE G. OLSON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Representative OLSON. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking 

Member Boxer and committee members for allowing me to speak 

to you this morning. 

I have worked on Capitol Hill, this side, for 10 years, two on active duty in the Navy, four for Senator Phil Gramm, and four as 

John Cornyn’s first Chief of Staff. I know your time is precious. I 

will be very brief. 

I will describe the bills I have introduced about ozone with support from your fellow colleagues here in the Senate. 

My hometown of Houston, Texas has a great story to tell about 

ozone. When I moved there in 1972, we had the highest ozone levels in America. Hard work and lots of money have put us on track 
7 

to be in full attainment for ozone in the next few years. We have 

driven down the field and are about to kick the field goal to win, 

but EPA is moving the goal posts. 

Nature produces ozone, so levels can only go so low. Much of the 

factors adding to our ozone are out of our control. We have ozone 

coming from China or annual crop burnings in Mexico. 

EPA calls ozone we cannot control ‘‘background ozone.’’ They 

admit that half of the ozone in America is beyond our control. Yet, 

EPA’s new proposed standard for ozone is approaching background 

levels. 

Many parts of our Country, farms and ranches, have very little 

ozone they can control. EPA tells them the tools needed to comply 

are, again, ‘‘unknown.’’ Healthy air and healthy water are priority 

one. 

Impossible rules help no one and they can hurt. The Texas man- ufacturing sector employed 875,000 and generated over $200 billion 

in GDP a few years ago. The proposed new ozone standards will 

stop growth and jobs will be lost. This will not be limited to Houston. The whole Nation will feel the pain. 

That is why I teamed up with Republican conference chairman, 

John Thune, to introduce the CASE Act, the Clean Air, Strong 

Economies Act. The CASE Act simply requires EPA to determine 

the impact of new clean air standards on the economy and jobs. It 

also allows States to achieve current standards before changes are 

made. 

The other bill I want to discuss is the CLEER Act, the Commonsense Legislative Exceptional Events Reform Act. 

Jeff Flake has introduced the same bill here in the Senate. As 

ozone standards are lowered, spikes and emissions beyond our control can push an area out of attainment. My home State has been 

waiting for 4 years for EPA to respond to a request for the massive 

fires near Bastrop in 2011. 

EPA has admitted the Exceptional Events Rule needs reform. 

The CLEER Act is a step in that direction. 

Thank you for your time and your consideration. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. 

I know that Senator Thune will be here to talk about the same 

legislation. Are you handling both legislations from Senator Thune 

and Senator Flake on the House side? 

Representative OLSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. It is very nice to have you here. 

Senator Flake. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF L. FLAKE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority 

Member and all the members. Thank you for allowing me to come 

here and talk about the CLEER Act and the ORDEAL Act. 

As Pete mentioned, with the CLEER Act, we are looking to simply bring some commonsense to the EPA’s approach. 

My family has been in Arizona since 1878 when it was a territory. The dust storms we are talking about rolled through the territory at that time, they do today and will long after my family is 

gone. 
8 

Senator INHOFE. And go straight from there to Oklahoma. 

Senator FLAKE. That is right. It is much like tornadoes in the 

Midwest or elsewhere or hurricanes. It is simply a natural event. 

The problem is the EPA simply will not treat it as such. 

The CLEER Act will simply ease the regulatory burden of States, 

including arid States like Arizona, from these exceptional events. 

When these dust storms occur, they cause a spike in the particulate level and this blip will have a dramatic regulatory impact on 

the States. They will be found in noncompliance, even though, as 

I mentioned, it is no fault of their own. Due to Federal air quality 

standard regulations, it leads to penalties like loss of Federal 

transportation dollars. 

Faced with repercussions they did nothing to cause, States dedicate vast amounts of manpower, countless work hours, and considerable financial resources to reviewing these events that, as I mentioned, they do not control. 

For example, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 

the Maricopa County Air Quality Department, and the Maricopa 

Association of Governments in 2011 and 2012, spent about 

$675,000 and 790 staff hours to prove that the spike in PM 10 levels was caused by a dust storm and not by pollution. Again, they 

spent $675,000 and 790 staff hours just to say it was a dust storm. 

Historically, EPA’s reviews under this exceptional event rule 

have been arbitrary, cumbersome and costly. They have lacked an 

appeals process. We are simply saying let us introduce a little common sense. The CLEER Act would simply require a rulemaking 

and that decisions on such events be based on the preponderance 

of evidence. It would accord deference to the State’s own findings 

of such when such an event happened. 

It would also require the EPA to review States’ exceptional 

events documentation within a reasonable time period. As Pete 

mentioned, you wait and wait and wait for the EPA to actually review this. They drag it out and as I mentioned, there is no appeals 

process. 

As if being wrapped around this regulatory axle is not enough, 

Arizona will soon face the already stringent air quality standard 

for ozone. That is why I have introduced the ORDEAL Act. 

When the EPA reduced ozone standards in 2008, as we know, 

counties across the Country that were in nonattainment were 

forced to enact further expensive and complicated compliance 

plans. Now relying on what I think we all can accept are some dubious scientific bases, the EPA has proposed lowering the ozone 

emissions standards even more to 65 ppb while accepting comments, as mentioned, to lower it even further to 60 ppb. 

By some estimates, as I am certain the committee is aware, the 

proposal of the lower ozone level may be the most expensive regulation in history, as the Chairman mentioned, costing as much as 

$1.7 trillion. Lowering ozone standards from 75 ppb to 65 ppb 

would cost a whopping $140 billion annually. 

EPA’s own science advisors disagree on the very basis of this regulation. Simply put, the lowering of the ozone standard is unnecessary. U.S. air quality has been improving for the past three decades. Since 2000, air quality has improved by 18 percent due to 

lower ozone levels. 
9 

We all recognize, as Pete said, we would love to have lower ozone 

levels. A lot of that is natural and occurs naturally. We all accept 

that you could not lower it to 45 ppb. That would be just unreasonable. There are some standards that are reasonable and some 

standards that are not. 

It is not that we all do not want the same goal of cleaner air. 

We just have to figure out what that standard is. 

As mentioned, there is a 5-year review process. The ORDEAL 

Act would give States flexibility and time to implement their own 

innovative and proactive measures. The bill, most importantly, 

would extend all air quality standards review, including ozone, to 

a 10-year timetable instead of the current 5-year period. That 

would give a little leeway and allow States and all of us to breathe 

a little easier. 

Thank you for your time. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Flake. 

Senator Thune, before you came in, we commented that Congressman Olson is introducing similar legislation to all three pieces 

we are hearing today. You are recognized to explain yours. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator THUNE. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Inhofe 

and Ranking Member Boxer for giving me the opportunity to speak 

in front of the committee this morning. 

I want to thank all the members for the chance to talk about a 

bill I have introduced called the CASE Act. It is a bipartisan bill 

introduced with Senator Manchin that would prevent the staggering blow that a lower ozone standard would deliver to the economy at a time when many of our industries are seeking to turn the 

corner. 

After an area is deemed in nonattainment with the smog standard, communities face stiff Federal penalties, increased business 

costs, restrictions on infrastructure investment and lost highway 

dollars. 

When businesses are restrained by regulatory overreach, they 

cannot expand, jobs are put at risk and innovation is stifled. Areas 

in nonattainment or even those in marginal attainment will face 

steep challenges in promoting economic development or attracting 

new businesses. 

In fact, it was for these exact reasons, regulatory burdens and 

regulatory uncertainty, that the Obama administration withdrew a 

similar proposal in 2011. The cost of a lower smog standard has 

hardly lessened and the hit this could have on manufacturing and 

other economic sectors nationwide would be unprecedented. 

The bipartisan CASE Act strikes a balance between economic 

growth and environmental progress by requiring the EPA to first 

focus on the most polluted areas that are in nonattainment with 

the current standard before it can implement a lower one. 

We have made great progress in cleaning up our air and pollution levels are at an all time low. However, 40 percent of Americans live in the 227 counties that have not yet met the 75 ppb 

standard set in 2008. The CASE Act would require 85 percent of 

these counties to achieve compliance with the existing 75 ppb 
10 

standard before the EPA can impose a stricter regulation like the 

one proposed in November. 

The EPA needs to focus its efforts on areas already struggling 

with attainment where smog remains a consistent problem. We 

should first tackle smog where it is the worst, in places like Los 

Angeles and not go after regions like the Great Plains where there 

clearly is not a smog problem. 

The EPA contends that a lower standard will benefit public 

health, yet most of these benefits will come from reductions of 

other criteria pollutants like particulate matter which are already 

subject to their own regulations. 

Moreover, the EPA would be well served to acknowledge that it 

has not yet sufficiently implemented the existing 2008 standard 

and prioritized its efforts to combat smog in the most polluted 

areas. 

The CASE Act would also require the EPA to consider the cost 

and feasibility of a lower standard which it currently does not consider. At a standard of 65 ppb, approximately 75 percent of the projected costs are attributed to unknown controls or technologies and 

emission reduction strategies that have yet to be developed. Hinging a regulation of this magnitude on unknown controls could hamper economic growth with staggering costs for years to come. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to come before this committee and introduce the CASE Act today. I hope you will agree 

that this bipartisan bill is a reasonable way forward to prioritize 

smog in the most polluted areas while not imposing undue costs on 

the American economy and work force. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present this legislation and encourage its consideration. 

Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Thune. I thank all three of 

you. 

You are certainly welcome to stay but we will excuse you now. 

We will now be hearing from witnesses. 

In my opening statement before you came in, Senator Thune, I 

pointed out that Oklahoma is in a situation where we are in total 

compliance today but with the passage of this, all 77 counties 

would be out of attainment. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, if I could just thank the colleagues before you leave. I just wanted to make a point. 

You were very eloquent about you do not want to pay the price 

for pollution that comes from elsewhere. There is a whole set of exceptional event rules that the EPA has which they are updating. 

I hope you will take a look at it because that might satisfy you. 

You make a very important point. 

They say ‘‘They have ways to exclude the impacts of other pollution.’’ I just wanted you to know that. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. We would ask all the witnesses to come to the 

table. 

Mr. Kanathur ‘‘Kanti’’ Srikanth is Director, National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, Metropolitan Washington 

Council of Governments. Michael McKee is Chairman of the Uinta 
11 

County Commission. The Honorable Gary Moore is Judge/Executive, Boone County, Kentucky and President, National Association 

of Regional Councils. Gregory B. Diette, MD, MHS, is Professor of 

Medicine, Epidemiology and Environmental Health Science, Johns 

Hopkins University. Larry Greene is Executive Director, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. It is nice 

to have all five of you here. 

We will go ahead and start. We do have a request from one of 

our members who happens to be the leader of the Senate who 

wants to participate in the introduction of one of you. We will stop 

when he comes in. 

We will recognize you now, Mr. McKee. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL McKEE, CHAIRMAN, UINTA COUNTY 

COMMISSION 

Mr. MCKEE. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, I 

am Michael McKee and I serve as the Chairman of the Uinta 

County Commission located within the Uinta Basin in eastern 

Utah. 

I am honored to testify before the Committee today to discuss the 

issues we face in controlling ozone levels in the Uinta Basin, especially the unique occurrence of high winter ozone levels. 

Only two places in the Nation experience high levels of winter 

ozone: the upper Green River Basin in Wyoming and the Uinta 

Basin in Utah. High winter ozone levels are a result of a complex 

mix of geographic, meteorological, and emission conditions. 

Primarily, winter ozone levels rise when snow cover and multiday temperature inversions occur. An inversion is what occurs 

when high level warmer air traps low level cold air inside the 

Basin. Snow reflects the sunlight back up to the cloud cover and 

this becomes the perfect mix to allow pollutants close to the surface 

to build and react to produce ozone. In the absence of these conditions, exceedances of EPA’s ozone standard have not been observed. 

Although it is clear that our oil and gas industry contributes to 

ozone precursors through the release of NOx, VOC and formaldehyde, those same releases do not create high levels of ozone absent 

precise weather conditions. 

The county, the State of Utah, the Ute Tribe and industry have 

spent several years and millions of dollars to study, monitor, and 

model winter ozone. After all of this work, what we know for sure 

is that we need several more years of scientific research and monitoring to ensure that investments we make are effective and that 

we have a precise model in order to formulate an appropriate regulatory structure. 

We are currently under the threat of nonattainment under current EPA ozone standards. However, not the State, the EPA, nor 

the county understand what measures would be effective to reduce 

elevated winter ozone episodes. 

Even if EPA were to force the Uinta Basin into nonattainment, 

absent several additional years of scientific studies, monitoring, 

and modeling, a State implementation plan would unlikely be effective, yet would devastate our economy by implementing a regulatory scheme at great cost to industry and perhaps with few results. 
12 

The proposed lowering of the ground level ozone standard would 

of course make our situation nearly impossible to avoid nonattainment status, yet would do nothing to improve our air quality. 

The Clean Air Act simply does not contemplate the multifaceted 

nature of winter ozone nor does it provide the necessary tools to 

deal with the issue. 

Uinta County wants to improve our air quality. That is not a debate. Our oil and gas industry is willing to make major investments to reduce emissions controls but will only do so if these investments are recognized and credited by EPA. 

In the case of the Uinta Basin, we need more scientific resources 

dedicated toward the problem and we need flexibility to implement 

regulatory actions to determine the most effective controls to improve our air quality. 

The oil and gas industry is responsible for 60 percent of our economy and 50 percent of our jobs. We need this industry to stay in 

the Uinta Basin to feed our economy and provide the resources necessary to tackle our ozone problems. Under non-attainment, the industry and their investment will simply relocate to other areas if 

not to other countries. 

Mitigating winter ozone requires new authorities and opportunities for collaboration between State, tribal and local governments. 

A lower ozone standard does not improve our air quality. It simply ties our hands and prevents Uinta County and areas from the 

west where we have high elevations opportunities to find creative 

solutions. 

I would ask the committee to explore new authorities and look 

to successful efforts that have actually improved air quality. I 

would draw the committee’s attention to the Early Action Compact 

process that the EPA implemented in early 2000 and was very successful but litigation forced the agency to withdraw the program. 

The Early Action Compact program allowed several communities 

to comply with ozone standards in a very short time. The program 

allowed communities and States to enter into agreements with the 

EPA to implement actions in a creative fashion that proved to be 

very effective and the majority of communities that participated in 

the program were able to lower ozone levels to within the Federal 

standard. 

The program required the achievement of milestones, reporting 

to the EPA, completion of emissions inventories, modeling, and control strategies. Flexibility is a key component to allow communities 

to implement solutions to air quality issues that are unique to their 

area. 

We believe that an authority similar to the Early Action Compact 

program with provisions that contemplate the complexities of winter ozone is an appropriate mechanism for communities to improve 

its air quality without destroying its economy. 

We all want to improve our air quality. A lower ozone standard 

does not achieve that goal. It actually makes it more difficult to 

achieve. We oppose increasing ozone restrictions and standards and 

request the committee to explore new tools in our efforts to improve our air quality. We look forward to working with the Committee toward that end. 
13 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify today and thank you 

for this opportunity. I would be happy to answer any questions or 

provide additional information. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McKee follows:] 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. McKee. 

I think I failed to say we are going to try to stay within our 5- 

minute limit. Your entire statement will be made a part of the 

record. 

Mr. Srikanth. 

STATEMENT OF KANATHUR ‘‘KANTI’’ SRIKANTH, DIRECTOR, 

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BOARD, METROPOLITAN 

WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, ON BEHALF OF 

THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. SRIKANTH. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Boxer 

for this opportunity to provide testimony. 

I am testifying today on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations. I would like to submit my entire testimony for the record. 

I am here to present a practitioner’s perspective on the implications of changes to the existing ozone standards and the potential 

issues for transportation planning and programming in metropolitan areas. 

I have no position on where the standards should be set. Wherever it is set, the MPOs in the Country will have to comply with 

it and my MPO, I am sure, will comply with it. 

I am the staff director of the National Capital Transportation 

Planning Board which is the metropolitan planning organization, 

called MPOs, for the Washington, DC region. 

As you know, MPOs are required to develop transportation plans 

and programs for metropolitan areas as a condition of receiving 

Federal transportation funds. If an MPO is located in an area that 

has been designated as nonattainment of EPA’s air quality standards, the MPOs are also required to do something called transportation conformity analysis in order to receive transportation funds 

from the feds. 

I would like to note that my MPO has not taken an official position on the range of the proposed ozone standards. 

Senator INHOFE. I am going to ask, if you do not mind, as I mentioned earlier, if you would hesitate for a moment and allow Senator McConnell to introduce our guest from Kentucky. Would that 

be all right? 

Mr. SRIKANTH. I would be pleased to. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Senator McConnell. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am sorry to interrupt your comments. I appreciate Chairman 

Inhofe giving me a chance to come by and introduce a friend of 

many years, a very important public servant in our State, Judge 

Gary Moore. Gary, I do not know if you have already testified or 

not. 

Judge Moore is the current Judge/Executive of Boone County. In 

our State, that is like the CEO of the county, like the County Executive they have in Maryland. He was first elected in 1998. In his 

time as a public servant, he has achieved much success on behalf 
20 

of the people of Boone County through the application of consistent, 

conservative policies. 

Judge Moore was raised in Pendleton County where his father 

served as sheriff. Years of watching his father enforce the law and 

serve the people of his county instilled in Gary a commitment to 

public service and community involvement. 

In addition to serving as the Boone County Judge, he is the current President of the National Association of Regional Councils and 

serves in the leadership of the National Association of Counties. 

Judge Moore is here today to discuss the possibility that EPA 

may lower the national ambient air quality standards for ground 

level ozone. 

The National Association of Manufacturers issued a report stating this regulation could be the costliest in U.S. history. This regulation would have a serious, detrimental effect on jobs, electricity 

prices and could have the most devastating impact yet on Kentucky 

coal jobs. 

For these reasons, I am proud to support my colleague, Senator 

Thune, in his efforts to stop this regulation by co-sponsoring the 

Clean Air Strong Economies Act. 

Judge Moore is uniquely qualified to speak on these matters 

given his leadership roles in both the National Association of Regional Councils and the National Association of Counties. He has 

a broad perspective on how this proposed rule would affect not just 

Boone County but counties across the Nation, rural, suburban and 

urban. 

He will be able to give a real world perspective on what this proposed rule will mean to folks across the Country who have to deal 

with the consequences. 

I am pleased that my friend, Judge Moore, is here today to share 

his timely thoughts on this rule. 

Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the opportunity to come by 

and say a few words about my friend of longstanding. I am sure 

he will make a positive contribution to your session today. 

Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. I am sure he will. 

Thank you very much, Senator McConnell. 

Mr. Srikanth, you may continue and take a little extra time. I 

apologize for the interruption but I told you that was going to happen. 

Mr. SRIKANTH. My pleasure. No problem. Thank you. 

As I was saying, my MPO has not taken a position on the proposed range of standards for ozone. The Metropolitan Washington 

Air Quality Committee, the regional air quality planning committee for this area set up under the Clean Air Act, has taken a 

position. 

Its position is that the committee supports the range of proposed 

ozone standards between the 65 ppb and 70 ppb as being more protective of human health and the environment. The committee also 

notes that the standard will pose a fresh challenge to the metropolitan Washington region and believes that it is imperative that 

the EPA help States and local governments meet the new standards by providing assistance and adopting national rules as part of 

a national strategy to address air pollution. 
21 

A new ozone standard lower than the current level for this region 

will mean this region will not be in attainment of the new standard. According to the most recent 3-year average measurements in 

the region, most of the region’s monitors will be exceeding the 

standards proposed by the EPA. 

These readings also indicate that the metropolitan Washington 

area would need to reduce significant amounts of ozone precursors 

to comply with the new standards. The transportation sector will 

certainly have to do its part in achieving these reductions. 

My MPO has been conducting transportation air quality conformity analyses since the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. It 

is currently classified as marginal, nonattainment of the EPA’s 

2008 ozone standards which is set at 75 ppb. 

The MPO also annually spends something in the range of $6 million to implement a host of programs explicitly designed to reduce 

emissions in this region. As a planning exercise, the MPO sets 

aside 15 percent of its annual budget to conduct the air quality 

conformity analysis. 

The National Capital Region has significantly reduced emissions 

over the years. It has attained all of the previous ozone standards 

and it is on track to attain the 2008 ozone standards within a year 

or so. 

This has really been made possible due to a number of Federal 

control programs supplemented by local land use and transportation investments. These are outlined in my testimony. 

The critical thing here is without Federal control programs, the 

region would have had a difficult time attaining those standards. 

We are very thankful for that. 

With all of the actions this region has taken, current analyses 

show that while the emissions will continue to reduce into the future, beyond 2025, transportation emissions are going to remain 

steady. 

The Federal assistance will be very critical, especially in this region which does experience significant amounts of transport ozone 

coming into this region. The Federal assistance should encompass 

control programs that address the transport in a timely manner. 

I would also note the Federal assistance should provide some certainty that the timely realization of emission reductions from other 

EPA programs is made available to regions such as ours. 

Additionally, the effects of Federal involvement can help by harmonizing and simplifying some of the conformity regulations within 

the existing law. As always, increased transportation funding to 

help projects that help reduce emissions is always welcome and 

needed. 

In conclusion, I believe the examination of current ozone standards is needed from the public health perspective. Federal assistance to States, localities and metropolitan areas to help attain the 

standards is also needed. 

I thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak before 

this committee. I will be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Srikanth follows:] 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Srikanth. 

Mr. Moore. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GARY MOORE, JUDGE/EXECUTIVE, 

BOONE COUNTY, KENTUCKY, AND PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL COUNCILS 

Judge MOORE. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Boxer, and all the members of this committee, for the opportunity to testify on the impacts of more stringent ozone standards. 

I would also like to thank Leader McConnell. What a pleasant 

surprise. I was not expecting that. 

I am Gary Moore, the elected Judge/Executive of Boone County, 

Kentucky and here today representing the National Association of 

Regional Councils and the National Association of Counties. 

Boone County is a suburban county in the Cincinnati metropolitan region. Throughout my region, I hear concerns about the impact of tighter ozone standards and the effect they would have on 

local governments’ ambient economy. Similar concerns have been 

echoed nationally by regions and counties of all sizes. 

My region is currently classified in marginal nonattainment but 

we would be in full nonattainment and face additional requirements under the proposed rule. Nonattainment designations impact the economic vitality of local governments, regions and the 

Nation. 

Areas across the Nation face significant challenges under the 

current ozone standard. NARC and NACo, along with the U.S. 

Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities, have requested that EPA fully implement the current ozone standard before issuing a new, more stringent standard. 

Today, I will discuss several on-the-ground impacts of more stringent ozone standards on regions and counties nationwide. 

First, local and regional governments play a significant role in 

protecting local air resources, ensuring a strong transportation system and strengthening the local economic development efforts. 

Counties and local governments own a large portion of the Nation’s public road system. My county alone owns more than 400 

public road miles. Many transportation projects would have to be 

reconsidered if the ozone standard was tightened. 

Additionally, areas designated as nonattainment can have a 

more difficult time in attracting and keeping industries due to the 

concerns that their permits and other approvals will be too expensive and even impossible to obtain. 

Second, a more stringent ozone standard would create unfunded 

mandates for State and local governments. EPA estimates that 

hundreds of counties would be impacted by the new ozone standard. 

A more stringent standard would be especially difficult for rural 

countries and small metropolitan areas, many of which have not 

previously been subject to nonattainment designations. Very limited Federal funding is available to help these regions and counties 

comply with air quality standards. 

Additionally, the Federal Government can withhold Federal highway funds for projects and plans in nonattainment areas which 
43 

would negatively impact job creation and economic development for 

these impacted regions. 

In 2008, EPA issued the existing 75 ppb ozone standard. In 2010, 

a more stringent standard was proposed but EPA later withdrew 

it over concerns about resulting regulatory burdens and uncertainty. 

During this period, however, implementation of the 2008 standard was effectively halted. That process was recently restarted. In 

February of this year, a few months ago, my county received the 

implementation guidelines for the 2008 standard. Now here we are 

again discussing a new standard before we know whether the current standard is working. 

This process has created confusion in regions and counties and 

about where they stand under the current standard which is crucial to gauging the effects of an even more stringent standard. 

Due to 2014 court decisions, two separate ozone standards must 

be met as part of the transportation conformity process. A stricter 

ozone standard will only complicate matters further. 

In conclusion, the health and well being of our residents is a top 

priority for regions and counties. We urge that EPA fully implement the current ozone standard before issuing a new, more stringent standard. 

We look forward to working with members of this committee and 

the EPA to craft policies and protect public health without inhibiting the economic vitality of our communities. 

Thank you again for the opportunity. I am pleased to address 

any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Moore follows:] 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Moore, for that excellent statement. 

Dr. Diette. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY B. DIETTE, MD, MHS, PROFESSOR 

OF MEDICINE, EPIDEMIOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

HEALTH SCIENCE, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY 

Dr. DIETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and 

members of the committee for inviting me here. I appreciate the 

time to talk to you. 

My name is Dr. Gregory Diette. I am a practicing pulmonary or 

lung doctor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. 

To put it simply, my job is to take care of very sick people with 

lung diseases including things like asthma, COPD and other lung 

diseases. 

You have my written testimony before you and I just wanted to 

make a few more points with the time that I have. 

First of all, ozone pollution is very bad for the lungs. I think it 

is pretty obvious to most people but I think it is worth repeating. 

It is a very potent oxidant and when you inhale it, it irritates the 

lungs and causes people to have symptoms. 

There are multiple research studies throughout the United 

States and the globe that have shown this. They provide a coherent 

story about what happens when people inhale ozone. 

When you get sick from inhaling ozone, there is a range of things 

that can happen. One can be as simple as having to take more of 

the medication you are already taking. 

In some cases, it means going to the doctor to have an adjustment and in some cases, to the emergency department of the hospital or the ICU. Worse than that, you can die from it. These are 

very serious issues in terms of the problems people have. 

Second, something I think gets lost sometimes, because we are 

talking about vulnerable people, is ozone is bad for normal people 

too. Normal, healthy people are affected by ozone. If a healthy 

adult inhales ozone, it affects their lung function and causes inflammation in the lungs. If we have time, I will elaborate on why 

that is so important. 

Another issue is that ozone is ozone, so the person who inhales 

it does not care whether it came from their city, the nearby county 

or another State. It is still ozone and it is still irritating. 

Another point I wanted to make was about public health. I think 

public health is a concept that sometimes seems like a high level 

concept and things get lost in translation. Public health is really 

a collection of stories about individuals who live in America and 

what their individual story is and how it contributes to the health 

issue. 

If you think about what happens to someone as an individual, a 

mother of a child in an emergency room wonders if her child is 

going to survive that asthma attack, wonders if they are going to 

be discharged from the hospital and wonders whether or not she 

can afford to take off one more day from work in order to take care 

of her child, when and if he is discharged to go home. 

The issue about the symptoms, somebody talks about something 

like an asthma attack, can seem very abstract, here is what it 
54 

sounds like when somebody describes it. They say, it feels like 

there is an elephant on my chest, I cannot breathe, I am panicked, 

I feel like I am going to die. That is the experience people have. 

It is not subtle; it is very scary. 

The last thing I want to address is the state of the science. I 

think it is very strong and very compelling. It was compelling in 

the Bush administration when the EPA looked at the ozone standard and proposed a standard of 60 ppb. The evidence was supportive of that standard. It has only gotten stronger since 2006 to 

now. 

We have additional information about the adverse effects of 

ozone on human health. These come from a variety of types of studies, not just one type of study. The EPA has available to it not one 

study, not ten studies but literally hundreds of studies performed 

around the United States and the globe to support this idea. 

In particular, these studies include necronistic studies, animal 

studies, toxicology studies, epidemiology studies, natural experiment studies, met-analyses and others. 

I think the evidence is sufficient to say the EPA can and must 

strengthen the standard for the sake of human health. 

Thank you very much. I look forward to answering any questions 

you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Diette follows:] 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Dr. Diette. 

Mr. Greene. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY GREENE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

Mr. GREENE. Good morning, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member 

Boxer, and members of the committee. 

My name is Larry Greene, and I am the Executive Director of 

the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. 

As a military officer for over 20 years, and now as an Air Quality 

Director for a similar period, I have always taken seriously my responsibilities to protect public interests, formerly through a national security lens, and currently from a public health perspective. 

It is with this background that I would like to provide the committee with comments related to our Sacramento experience with 

the Federal Clean Air Act. 

In California, meeting the requirements of the Federal Clean Air 

Act has clearly been difficult. California’s geography and weather 

patterns provide optimal conditions for the formation of summer 

ozone and winter particulate pollution. Whatever the contributing 

factors, Federal designations are based on real public health 

threats from dangerous levels of air pollution. 

One of the pillars of the CAA is the establishment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which must be supported by 

sound science and set at levels that protect public health with an 

adequate margin of safety and without consideration of cost or 

other implementation issues. 

The CAA provides for this by establishing the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and mandating a review and revision, 

only if deemed necessary, of each NAAQS every 5 years to ensure 

the standards remain protective of health. 

Based on years of direct experience seeing the public health benefits of the Act, we support the Clean Air Act measures. These core 

principles ensure that public safety is the first filter through which 

air quality initiatives are measured. 

At the same time, we are certainly cognizant of the potential 

costs of regulatory compliance borne by our local business community. For that reason, we closely evaluate the provisions of EPA implementation rules and guidance documents, provide optimizing 

comments and have worked hard locally on a range of measures to 

mitigate and moderate the cost of regulation. 

A key measure in reducing monitored ozone and particulate pollution levels has been incentivizing early adoption of cleaner on 

and off-road equipment. Since 1998, we have provided over $230 

million of State and local funds to businesses in the Sacramento region for purchasing clean equipment in advance of regulatory deadlines. 

We also collaborate with a range of regional partners, including 

our metropolitan transportation agency to enhance public transportation alternatives. Other programs help schools purchase cleaner 

vehicles. 
60 

For Sacramento, the result tells the story, and it is a positive 

one. We have attained the original 1994 1-hour ozone standard. We 

are on track to attain the 1997, 85 ppb standard by the mandated 

2017 attainment date. 

With continuing support from State and Federal programs, we 

anticipate we will submit a State Implementation Plan, or SIP, 

next year that will demonstrate attainment of the 2008, 75 ppb 

standard by the target year of 2027. If EPA takes final action to 

tighten the 75 ppb standard in October, we anticipate that, as with 

other standards, we will be successful in meeting this public health 

goal. 

The key message is that meeting NAAQS targets takes committed partnership between local, State and Federal agencies. 

Along those lines, I would like to make a few observations about 

a new ozone standard, at whatever level it is set. 

First, it is important that EPA follow the science and tighten the 

standards to within a range set by its independent science advisors. Second, the progress we are making to comply with the current 75 ppb standard will bring us that much closer to achieving 

any new and tighter standard. 

Third, the co-benefits from reducing greenhouse gases can help 

reduce smog forming emissions and other air pollutants. We already see this occurring in California. 

Fourth, there are a number of sources for which Federal controls 

are the most efficient, cost effect and at times, the only avenue 

available. It is essential that the Federal Government continue to 

support effective programs for reducing emissions from sources 

under Federal responsibility. 

Finally, if Congress wishes to contribute to our success in achieving clean air and public health goals, we urge you to increase Federal funding to State and local air agencies to support our work 

and a wide range of areas related to air quality regulations. 

With that, I thank you for inviting me to testify on this critically 

important issue. I am happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Greene follows:] 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Greene. Thank all of you for 

your excellent statements. 

We will be having a round of 5 minutes in the order that our 

members have arrived, starting with myself and Senator Boxer. 

Judge Moore, you heard testimony from Mr. Greene talking 

about not just the ozone but also CO2 and other emissions. Your 

Governor is a fine person, I know him, and he is committed to CO2

reductions by 2050. 

My observation was that at that time he will be 110 years old, 

so it is pretty easy to make those commitments. However, I appreciate very much that he has made this commitment and concern 

and sent this letter to the President of which you are aware. 

Gina McCarthy wrote, in a CNN op-ed which I suspect you probably saw, ‘‘The agency’s air standards will help communities attract new business, new investment and new jobs.’’ Is this your experience in the State of Kentucky? 

Judge MOORE. We have seen amazing economic growth and job 

creation in our county. We believe that can best be done by letting 

the private sector do what it does best. That is to create jobs. We 

try to keep regulations and requirements off them that might get 

in the way. 

Our Governor has been a great partner with us. We were just 

recognized as the No. 1 State per capita in new job creation last 

year at a recent conference. Our Governor came back home and 

talked about that. 

We work in a bipartisan way to create jobs, build our transportation system, but do that in a responsible way. We were in nonattainment but now we are in moderate attainment. We have done 

that through good planning. 

We have doubled in population in our county since 1990. We 

have seen new homes, new residential, but also new commercial 

and industrial development. By planning wisely, protecting our environment and doing that in a way that incorporates multimodal 

opportunities, more mass transit, bike lanes, pedestrian capacities, 

we can do that. 

To answer your question, these regulations can get in the way 

of job creation and economic vitality. We feel we are doing quite 

well in making improvements. 

Senator INHOFE. I know you are doing a good job. That was not 

my question. My question was what these new standards are going 

to be doing. 

I was in the private sector for 20 years. I know what it is like 

to receive the edicts that come from Washington. That is why we 

are having hearings like this with people who at home are having 

to carry out these things. 

Your successes are admirable and I appreciate that. If you are 

looking down the road and having to come up with these new requirements, is that going to create new jobs? 

Judge MOORE. No, that would get in the way of new jobs, to answer your question. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Srikanth, what about your situation? Do 

you think that would have the effect, as stated, of attracting new 

business, new investment and new jobs? 
67 

Mr. SRIKANTH. My own experience and expertise falls short of 

economic development in this region. From a technician’s perspective, I can say this region has seen significant growth and economic 

development. It is forecast to grow a lot more. 

Federal help and assistance will certainly be critical to complement and accommodate the future growth. The accomplishments 

of the past alone will not be sufficient to carry us into the future. 

The future-needed emission reductions will certainly have to have 

Federal assistance in achieving them. 

Senator INHOFE. Do you think with the new standards, there 

would be a disruption of Federal funds, significant cost increases, 

and new prohibitions on much needed capacity projects? In other 

words, you will continue to have good successes. Would this be because of or in spite of the new standards? 

Mr. SRIKANTH. My testimony alluded to one of the things with 

clean air standards of any pollutant, ozone, particulate matter or 

others, is transportation has to do its part and do the air quality 

conformity analysis. If it is not done, then Federal transportation 

funding could be impacted. For areas which will have problems 

demonstrating attainment, that could impact the timely availability of Federal funding. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. McKee, there was talk in all five of the 

opening statements about the natural conditions in the States that 

cause elevated ozone levels. What can States do to control such 

natural events? 

Mr. MCKEE. Really very little, because if you look at the ozone 

problem, what causes ozone is the closer you get to the stratosphere, the higher those ozone levels are going to be. 

In my own area, we are a mile higher, and this is the case in 

much of the West. In these higher elevations, in particular for summer ozone, there is very little you can do. I do not know that we 

want to cut down all trees and all vegetation and bury it so that 

we do not have ozone. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. 

Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

I wish the whole Country could have seen this panel. You are all 

so good. There was one star witness, if I could say. You would normally think I would point to my Sacramento friend, who was pretty 

good, but I have to say Dr. Diette, thank you. 

You are not a politician and you are not a bureaucrat. You came 

here and you told us the impact of smog on the human body. You 

told us and did it very, very clearly, exactly what happens. You did 

not do it in some confusing manner. 

You said, ozone pollution is bad for the lungs. That is pretty 

straightforward. We all have lungs. It is bad for the lungs. You 

said it irritates the lungs, it causes symptoms. When you have 

ozone, sometimes in cases you can die from it. You said that. You 

further said that normal people also are impacted by ozone. 

What I loved about my second star, Larry Greene, was his point 

that he served in the military and he views his job as cleaning up 

the air and similar to that, protecting the lives of people. 
68 

It just confuses me that we would argue over this in light of 

what you said, Doctor, which I do not think anyone at all would 

ever refute because they are facts. 

I would ask unanimous consent to place in the record, if I might, 

Mr. Chairman, By the Numbers, this shows us the cost of this regulation at the different standard, if it is 70 ppb or 65 ppb. It shows 

you how many asthma attacks will be prevented, up to 960,000, 

Mr. Chairman, and 4,300 premature deaths. 

Close your eyes and think if it is someone you love whose lives 

will be saved. There would be a million days when kids would not 

miss school, 180,000 days when people would not miss work, and 

4,300 asthma-related emergency room visits. Doctor, you expressed 

that well, of a mother or father panicking and leaving work to rush 

their child to get help. Also, 2,300 cases of acute bronchitis would 

be avoided among children. 

Everybody else, it is going to be hard. Yes, it is going to be hard. 

You know what? It is hard. When we passed the Clean Air Act, everybody said the same thing that my dear friend, the Chairman 

said, the same thing my friend the Majority Leader said, and Senator Thune, a staggering blow to the economy. They used the same 

words in 1970 and when we reauthorized the Act, the same words. 

Mr. Moore, Hon. Gary Moore, you are very good at expressing 

your view and you stand for a lot of people in your State. I agree 

with that, but honest to God, if you really want to look at what 

happens when there is no regulation on air, look at communist 

China, look at communist Eastern Europe. They have no regulations. The state did not want any. They did all the business and 

there were no regulations. People could not breathe. When that 

wall came down in Eastern Europe, they knew if they wanted economic growth, they had to clean up the air. 

I would ask unanimous consent to place in the record the number of jobs that have been created since we passed the Clean Air 

Act. Can I do that? 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
69 
70 
71 
72 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

It is very clear that while the aggregate emissions of common air 

pollutants dropped 72 percent, the U.S. Domestic Product grew 219 

percent. 

Mr. McKee, earlier this year, a poll in Utah found that 67 percent of voters there stated that air pollution and smog are extremely serious problems facing their State. Are you aware of that 

poll? 

Mr. MCKEE. I am aware of the information. 

Senator BOXER. You are aware of the poll. In 2013, ozone levels 

in one of your counties exceeded the Federal standard on 54 days 

and concentrations spiked as high as 142 ppb, more than double 

the level of EPA’s rule. 

Do you believe air with ground level ozone concentrations of 142 

ppb is safe for people to breathe, especially for children? 

Mr. MCKEE. Senator—— 

Senator BOXER. Can you just say if you think it is safe because 

my time is running out. I want to ask Dr. Diette if you do not answer it. 

Mr. MCKEE. If I could real quickly, we have spent millions of dollars. Our group did a study with admissions to our local hospital 

to see what effect respiratory illness had to do with ozone. They did 

not see any correlation with admissions. 

Senator BOXER. You do not think that 142 ppb is safe? 

Mr. MCKEE. We did not see it. 

Senator BOXER. What do you think, Doctor? 

Dr. DIETTE. One hundred forty-two ppb is an extraordinary 

value. It is lethal for people with heart disease, lung disease, diabetes and other conditions. It is a lethal dose of ozone. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. That is enough. It says it all. 

We are here to make life better for people, not to fight for the 

polluters, period, end of quote. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Boxer. 

Judge Moore, in your testimony, you discussed the potential impacts of a lowered ozone standard and state the proposed standard 

will dramatically increase the number of counties classified in nonattainment. 

As you noted, under this proposal, 16 States that currently have 

no counties in nonattainment would be subject to a new conformity 

process. This includes my State of Nebraska where 57 out of our 

93 counties would be classified in nonattainment. I will note that 

these are rural, agricultural counties. 

Can you speak about the potential costs that State and local governments will face in order to come into compliance and reach that 

attainment? 

Judge MOORE. Yes. Actually, that number, according to our statistics, is if the 70 ppb standard were passed, it would be 358 more 

counties nationally. At 65 ppb, it would be 558 more counties would 

be impacted. 

We know the challenges that Congress is having with passing a 

long-term transportation reauthorization. One immediate impact 

would be in the area of CMAQ funding, congestion, mitigation and 
73 

air quality funding for transportation, to help improve our transportation system and congestion. 

I suspect that those dollars are not going to increase at the same 

percentage as the number of counties that will be competing for 

those dollars. Immediately, the program that is supposed to help 

nonattainment counties become in attainment will be impacted. 

Right there is an immediate financial impact. 

Road projects, as we continue to try to move our communities 

forward, rural communities depend on highway improvements to 

get people to jobs and jobs to the people as well as other services. 

More regulation will do nothing but delay projects, if not prohibit 

them, and increase costs. The impact on economic development is 

dramatic as well because of these similar challenges. 

If we saw transportation spending enhancements along with 

some of these requirements, it could potentially lessen the impact 

but it will never meet the additional financial impact these standards would have on local governments. 

Senator FISCHER. Do you know if the EPA has considered or accounted for these costs with their analyses of the rule? 

Judge MOORE. I have seen their statistics of their estimates and 

they do not fully capture the total cost that local governments and 

communities would face. 

Senator FISCHER. Like Kentucky, Nebraska’s counties and our 

local governments, they own and maintain a very vast road and 

transportation system. As I pointed out, the counties that will be 

affected are very rural counties. In Nebraska, it is not unusual to 

have one person per square mile in many of these areas. 

We already see maintenance projects that undergo what I view 

as a very cumbersome environmental review process and the costs 

of time involved which means money as well. These counties and 

the State cannot afford that. 

Can you briefly describe the current review process and what you 

see as burdens placed on our local governments under the proposed 

ozone rule for counties in nonattainment? 

Again, I would just like to say we all want clean air, we all want 

clean water, but we also need to recognize costs that are involved 

in I believe the expansion of the rule where we see areas in nonattainment that have not even met the current rule. 

We are talking about an expansion instead of focusing on areas 

where we need to focus. Let us take care of business. If you could 

answer that, I would appreciate it. 

Judge MOORE. We do care about the health of our citizens, obviously. It is a huge responsibility we have. 

By the way, in Boone County, Kentucky, we were recently selected as the healthiest county in the Commonwealth. We are very 

proud of that statistic. We have done that by developing our community in a responsible way. We are working toward the 2008 

standards. 

The 2008 standards are having an impact. They are improving. 

We would like to see it play out and see if that does continue to 

develop. We believe it will. Let’s let the 2008 standards play out. 

Specifically to your question as to cost, those rural communities 

that will be added to the list of nonattainment are the counties 

that can least afford it. They have smaller budgets. Many times 
74 

they have little to no staff to deal with these added requirements. 

I think you could see a dramatic impact on progress in those counties. 

The modeling that is required to be done, in order to construct 

or improve a highway system, requires substantial modeling. My 

colleague has spoken to the modeling question. Who is going to pay 

for that additional cost? It is either going to be on the local taxpayers or added to the cost of the project. 

As I stated earlier, there already are not sufficient funds to deal 

with our transportation needs. If you add delays and costs, you are 

adding additional responsibility to a system that already is not 

paying for itself. 

I really feel for my colleagues in the rural counties that would 

be asked to try to meet these new requirements. Let’s let 2008 play 

out and continue to make progress and someday discuss where we 

go from there. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Judge. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. 

I would ask unanimous consent that letters from two Democratic 

Governors, of Virginia and Kentucky, be made a part of the record. 

Both object to lowered standards. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for your testimony. I want to clarify a couple 

points I found interesting in the discussion. 

The first is related to the challenge of complying with potential 

new standards. It is my understanding that the areas of the Country that have the biggest challenge with ground level ozone would 

have until 2037, 22 years from now, to comply. 

I do not know who would like to respond to that. I just want to 

clarify that is the case, because I do not think that has really been 

highlighted in the conversation. Mr. Greene. 

Mr. GREENE. The worst areas would probably be San Joaquin 

and South Coast. They would get substantial time and I believe 

that is correct, sir. 

Senator MERKLEY. Certainly that is a factor in the cost. Virtually 

all of my home State is in compliance with the new standards. Yet, 

the cost estimates done by the National Association of Manufacturers said it would take Oregon $8 billion to comply. How would it 

take Oregon $8 billion to comply if Oregon is already in compliance 

with the standards? Can anyone explain how those costs would be 

incurred? 

I see no answer. If the estimates are so grossly off for my home 

State, how much are they off for the rest of the Country? The estimates from NAM are so different from the estimates from EPA 

that I think we need additional insight from third parties to get an 

understanding of this. 

My understanding is from the EPA side, the health care savings 

would far exceed the cost to our economy and health care costs are 

a cost to the economy. Certainly that is something that makes 

sense. 

I was interested in the question of the pollution from China. I 

have been over to China a couple of times. Anyone who has visited 

for any length of time, you are probably going to have days you can 

hardly see the length of a football field. It is not fog, it is pollution. 

They had a recent documentary called ‘‘Under the Dome’’ that 

highlighted the vast impact on the health of the citizens of the 

Country. It is equal to smoking something close to two packs a day 

of cigarettes. Our diplomats are reluctant to be there. It does make 

sense that some of that pollution is making it to the U.S. 

While looking that up, the best estimates I could find, the biggest 

impact in southern California is in lower elevations, 3 ppb to 8 ppb 

and in higher elevations, 15 ppb. Most of that arrives in the spring, 

not in the summer when California has the greatest compliance 

challenge. 

Mr. Greene, is that correct? 

Mr. GREENE. That is correct. It occurs in the spring and that conforms with the numbers I have seen on California. 

Senator MERKLEY. I tried to find some sense of the contribution 

from Mexico. I did see the charts that showed no correlation between the areas of the U.S. most adjacent to Mexico or weather 

patterns that brought that pollution into the U.S. Does anyone 

have any insight to the direct impact from Mexico? Mr. Greene. 

Mr. GREENE. Senator, I do know that our southern districts in 

California do have some significant impacts from Mexico, particu-
81 

larly dust. You would imagine that counties or areas right next to 

each other would exchange some pollution across the border. 

Senator MERKLEY. Is there a particular time of year that really 

affects compliance? Is it storms that blow north or certain winds 

that bring that dust into the U.S.? 

Mr. GREENE. I would not know that answer, sir. 

Senator MERKLEY. The thing I find interesting is the health testimony. Thank you very much, Doctor, for your testimony. Asthma 

is a significant concern among my citizens. The other health impacts are substantial. 

I like the idea of our planning being based on the science of 

health impacts. Doctor, could you clarify again, am I understanding 

from what you are saying that there is a significant difference on 

health between the current standard and the proposed standard, 

that there would be a substantial improvement, reduced health 

costs and improved quality of life? 

Dr. DIETTE. All of those things are true. One of the reference 

points that has come up from time to time is about being currently 

in attainment with the present standard, for example, 75 ppb. For 

example, the Chairman mentioned that his State, every county, 

was in compliance. 

If you look at another resource, the American Lung Association’s 

website, they have a state of the air statement about different 

counties. You would see in Oklahoma, for example, every county 

would get a grade F but for one, which would get a grade D. That 

is because that is based on science, not regulation. 

The science has advanced. Our interpretation of the science has 

advanced at a much faster pace than the regulation has. People are 

being harmed by it. It is very clear. I think that is the standard 

about which we should be thinking, the one that is fully protective 

of human health as opposed to the legacy of another era. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Ranking 

Member and I want to thank the panelists. 

Mr. Srikanth, I wanted to ask you to explain to me the threat 

of conformity in terms of the threat of conformity lapses which 

could effectively shut off Federal highway funds due to the stringency of the standard. 

Both in D.C. and around the Country, smaller, more rural MPOs 

will have significant burden on these MPOs. Can you explain to me 

the conformity issue? You brought it up in your statement, but 

could you flesh it out a bit more for me, please? 

Mr. SRIKANTH. I would be happy to, Senator Capito. 

The transportation conformity is associated with the Clean Air 

Act. Metropolitan planning organizations have to follow the rules 

put out by the EPA on how to conduct this. 

One of the key drivers of the transportation conformity rule is 

when an area is designated as not being in attainment of a standard, they are required to submit what is called a State Implementation Plan, a plan on how that area will attain the standard. 

That document, the State Implementation Plan, will identify the 

amount of emissions from different sectors, from power plants, area 
82 

sources and transportation. The amount of emissions for transportation listed in the State Implementation Plan is often referred to 

as the emissions budget. 

A metropolitan planning organization’s long-term transportation 

plan is required to be developed in order to get Federal funds. The 

emissions from all of those projects, at a minimum of 20 years into 

the future, have to be below these levels in the State Implementation Plan. If it is not, then the plan will not be approved. 

The plan has a time limit. If the plan remains not approved, then 

the plan would lapse. If the plan lapses, the Federal transportation 

funding will not be provided until the plan is corrected. 

Senator CAPITO. To your knowledge, has that occurred under the 

standards we have now? Do you know of anyone across the United 

States who has not been in conformity and had their Federal highway dollars withheld? 

Mr. SRIKANTH. We have had instances. I will have to get back 

to you on specifics. I think my colleagues might be able to recall 

specific jurisdictions. Atlanta certainly comes to my mind. 

Senator CAPITO. Judge Moore, are you aware of any of that? 

Judge MOORE. From a couple of my colleagues, I believe Atlanta 

would also be an example of where that has happened. 

If I may also comment, the recent court ruling is requiring, in 

many cases, that modeling of conformity not only be applied to the 

2008 standards but also the 1997 standards. You would have to 

meet both. 

If new regulations were passed, there may be three different 

standards and models that some regions would have to run in 

order to make sure we were compliant and eligible for Federal 

funds. There is also that confusion and the overlap that MPOs and 

regions are facing. 

Senator CAPITO. I would have to add myself to that confusion. 

Certainly drawing up three implementation plans would be costly. 

I think one of you mentioned the amount of your budget dedicated strictly to this issue, a quarter of the budget you are using 

to measure and make sure you are measuring properly. 

I heard a comment that people are advocating for no regulation. 

I have not really heard that in this committee and I have not heard 

it from any of the testimony today. I certainly do not believe that 

to be true. 

When you look at what is going on in terms of ozone and put on 

top of that the Clean Power Plan and EPA possibly looking at 

redoing their emissions plan for methane, particularly in the western States, we have a lot of oil and gas in the State of West Virginia, it begins to become a burden. 

If we have to do three implementation plans and devote all the 

resources to that, it begins to lack the thing I think Senator Flake 

was calling for, basically common sense here. Let us move with 

common sense. 

Mr. McKee, could you comment on all of the different moving 

parts that EPA is going to be putting forward if they are successful 

with the regulatory environment we see right now? 

Mr. MCKEE. We certainly find it difficult in the area where we 

are, and as I stated, in the West, because particularly with the low-
83 

ering of the ozone standard itself, much of the United States will 

not be able to meet attainment. 

If you go down to 70 or 65 ppb, as you realize, ozone itself does 

not just happen. It is a mixture with VOCs and NOx and that 

comes together. It just does not happen on its own. As I talked 

about the trees and vegetation, it is somewhat of a decaying of 

those products that in summertime elevates those standards. 

Then the higher elevation we have, the more difficult it is to be 

able to correct that. It is very possible, even absent all emissions, 

we would have significant areas in the United States that would 

still be in nonattainment. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Capito. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to make a few points that I do not think have been 

made yet. 

The first is that the present regulation is one that was conceived 

in scandal. To set the present standard, the Bush administration 

EPA, under Administrator Johnson, departed from the consistent 

recommendations of his agency scientists, public officials and the 

agency’s own Scientific Advisory Committee. 

The standard then set was inadequate to protect the public, especially children and the elderly, from the harmful effects of ozone 

pollution from asthma and lung disease. Indeed, it was so inadequate that EPA’s own Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee 

took the unique step of writing to the then-Administrator to state 

that they ‘‘do not endorse the new primary ozone standard as being 

sufficiently protective of the public health.’’ 

They went on to say that EPA’s decision ‘‘fails to satisfy the explicit stipulations of the Clean Air Act that you ensure an adequate 

margin of safety for all individuals, including sensitive populations.’’ That was the finding of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

Committee at the time. 

Since then, Dr. Diette, as the science on this gotten clearer or 

less clear? 

Dr. DIETTE. It has become increasingly strong. There are additional studies in multiple regions of the Country and throughout 

the world that have strengthened the evidence base. They have 

also been conducted in the era when the current standard has applied, so it is in an era where there are lower concentrations of 

ozone and people are still finding substantial signal for health 

issues. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We also know overall that, at least at the 

70 ppb standard, the estimated health care savings and benefits, 

the estimated environmental savings and benefits, the estimated 

economic savings and benefits from that rule could add as much as 

$13 million, whereas the costs would only be $3.9 billion. It creates 

a $10 billion immediate benefit according to those calculations. 

The third thing I would like to point out is on the path of Rhode 

Island. Rhode Island is a downstream State. We are often out of 

compliance on ozone. We have days in the summer when, as you 

are driving in to work, what you hear on the radio is the announcer 
84 

saying today is a bad air day in Rhode Island. Children should stay 

indoors. Elderly should stay indoors. People with lung or breathing 

difficulties should stay indoors. 

It looks like a beautiful day but it is ozone. Where does the ozone 

come from? It comes from power plants in the Midwest. 

Judge, your State of Kentucky has 22 smoke stacks that are 

higher than 500 feet. When you build those high smoke stacks, you 

shoot the pollution, the SOx and the NOx, according to the GAO 

study, 56 percent of the boilers attached to tall stacks lack scrubbers to control sulfur dioxide and 63 percent do not have controls 

to trap emissions of nitrogen oxides. As Mr. McKee just pointed 

out, those are the precursors to ozone. 

You build high smoke stacks, you eject the stuff out of your 

State, and it goes up into the heat and into the atmosphere. It creates ozone and our kids in Rhode Island have to stay indoors on 

an otherwise good day. 

I do not see how that is fair. I do not see how there is any way 

in the world Kentucky is ever going to pay attention to that problem when the harm is taking place in Rhode Island. 

It is really important, Mr. Chairman, that this be a rule that protects States that are not just pollution-emitting States. We are a 

downstream State that pays the price of 22 tall smoke stacks. 

Let me ask one last question about altitude. We have heard from 

Mr. McKee a couple of times about the problem of being a high altitude State. Dr. Diette, could you react to that? What is the reality 

of that? 

Dr. DIETTE. I think there is a lot to know about altitude and regional transport of some of the pollutants. In some cases, pollutants are generated near where they are found and in some cases, 

they are transported from a distance. 

If you think about places like some parts of Utah, for example, 

where there are thermal inversions, there are pollutants created 

there that cannot escape into the upper atmosphere. Sometimes 

that is what happens. Other times, there is transport from a distance and also ends up there. 

I wanted to remark about a point you made because we say it 

so often that I think it is really remarkable. As you talked about 

telling kids to stay indoors on a day when there is transport of 

ozone into their State, that is a remarkable statement. 

It is a remarkable thing to have to tell your entire population, 

today is not a safe enough day for you to go outside and play. If 

you go outside and play, you have to wait until the sun is down, 

you have to wait until it is dark when maybe it is safe or not. It 

is an unbelievable message. 

When my patients come to me and say, what can I do about my 

asthma, one of the things I can say is, I can keep giving you more 

medications. They say, what about pollution, what can I do and I 

say, there is nothing you can do. The free market does not change 

that. You cannot buy a different product and not be exposed to pollution. 

This process here, which is the only way to control it in the 

United States, is to do it at the Federal level and try to keep the 

pollution from reaching them. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much. 
85 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Doctor, I appreciated your comments. I have a grandson who has 

a challenge with asthma. This is something I think all of us care 

about. 

Some of the information you laid out for us today indicates that 

140 ppb would be fatal. Could you work a bit backward from there? 

I am assuming 100 ppb is still perhaps not fatal but absolutely critical in nature and one that should be attained, a fair statement? 

Dr. DIETTE. That is a great question. I thank you very much for 

it. 

It is not simply a threshold. The reason I reacted to 110 or 120 

ppb is that is an extraordinarily high value. It is a value that 

would set off alarm bells for a region. That is one of the days we 

would be talking about not having the kids go outside. There is a 

dose response effect, so we see it even at much lower concentrations than that. 

Arbitrarily, investigators choose things like 5 ppb or 10 ppb as 

an increment but very small increments, even in the lower range, 

can affect health, even during low increments. 

Senator ROUNDS. What do we call the lower ranges? What are 

the numbers you have seen studied in terms of lower ranges of 

ozone? 

Dr. DIETTE. I think the best evidence I have seen comes in the 

60 ppb and higher. There has been a lot of attention to that range 

between the current standard of 75 ppb and 60 ppb which is the 

proposed lower bound of the new standard. 

Senator ROUNDS. The reason I ask is that I have a study I would 

like entered in the record, Mr. Chairman. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator ROUNDS. It is a reference out of Atmospheric Environment done by Mr. Emery back in 2011 in which he indicates that 

a significant amount of the geographic area in the western part of 

the United States actually has a background of about 70 ppb, apparently not caused by us but simply background. 

I am curious, in your studies looking at the sound science side 

of this, is it even attainable, is it even possible to get to something 

under a 70 ppb when in those States in which literally there seems 

to be some pretty sound evidence that is a natural background 

level? 

Dr. DIETTE. I think you have brought up an important issue 

which is, what is the background concentration? For one, it is not 

measurable. You cannot measure it directly, because we do not 

have the time and the space where there is not manmade contribution to the ozone concentration. The only thing you can do is estimate. 

There are different estimates and most of the estimates I have 

seen are between 20 and 40 ppb. In terms of background, we are 

talking about a couple of phenomena. Some definitions include 

transport into an area where it is being measured for another area 

and others are that being generated by things that have nothing 

to do with man. 
86 

For example, a forest fire, if man had nothing to do with it, that 

is going to happen anyway, or lightning strikes, things of that sort. 

Seventy parts per billion sounds really high. That is not a value 

that I have seen reproduced otherwise. I would probably defer to 

my other colleagues here about what it takes in order to attain 

standards since that is their expertise and not mine. 

Senator ROUNDS. I am curious. We have used references in terms 

of the number of packs of cigarettes per day and so forth that an 

individual would utilize. 

If you were to take a reference, if 100 ppb of ozone was comparable to a pack a day, is there relevance to saying it is very important that we bring down ozone from very, very high levels in 

those areas where there is significant and direct and acute damage 

being caused? 

Are we putting our resources and attention into the right locations by saying we want to work to get everybody to 65 ppb or 60 

ppb when in essence we could be saving a lot more lives if we were 

to focus on those areas such as those in California which have very, 

very high numbers? Where is our best bet for saving the most 

lives? 

Dr. DIETTE. You raise a bunch of very important and interesting 

points. One of the issues I have heard here is ideas such as we 

should get everyone into attainment first before lowering the other 

people who are already in attainment. 

As a health care provider, that strikes me as very unusual. To 

me, the analogy would if we had a new drug that could cure asthma, we would say, you are not going to get it yet because all the 

people who can benefit from the existing drugs do not have them 

yet. That is the way it sounds to me. 

It sounds as if we are going to keep people who could benefit 

from benefiting while we are waiting for other people who are not 

benefiting already to catch up. It seems very strange to me from 

a health care standpoint. I would not advocate it for my patients. 

Senator ROUNDS. Let me go to Judge Moore for a second. You did 

not get an opportunity to respond and I thought perhaps you would 

like to. 

When we start talking about NOx and the references with regard 

to the creation of ozone in your particular State where you have 

power plants, are you currently in compliance with those standards? What would be your thoughts in terms of the reference our 

friend from Rhode Island made? 

Judge MOORE. Thank you for the opportunity. I did want to respond. 

Our county is a suburban county. We are not a smokestack county. We are in moderate nonattainment currently because of emissions that are flowing into our county from other parts of the Country. 

I think Senator Whitehouse helped make our case that you are 

putting regulations on counties that really cannot control the ozone 

level in their counties. Those rural counties that maybe are reaching levels under a new standard that would require additional costs 

and regulations, you are putting those requirements on them when 

it is not going to have an immediate impact or possibly a long term 

impact on the issue. 
87 

I would also differ with him on smokestacks. I think he is referring to Kentucky Coal and Energy, coal-fired power plants. I do believe there are clean coal technologies that are working and moving 

forward. The 2008 standards put substantial requirements upon 

those power companies to make sure they meet the 2008 standards. 

Again, we would come back to let’s let that play out. Improvements are being made. Let’s continue to make those improvements 

before we put regulations on communities that are not going to 

have an immediate impact. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Rounds. 

Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank our witnesses for testifying today. This is an important topic for my State. There are few, if any issues, more important than the health of our children and the air they breathe 

every day. 

Now that it is summer, more children will be spending more time 

outdoors. We know how active young people are when they are outdoors, playing sports, games, and activities. You also know children’s lungs and immune systems are still developing, leaving 

them particularly susceptible to the negative health effects of increased ozone layers. 

In fact, a 2010 study conducted in New York City found that 

ozone associated with warmer weather aggravates children’s asthma leading to severe asthma attacks that could have been avoided. 

Asthma rates are rising in our young people. They are missing 

school days and emergency room visits for respiratory distress are 

on the rise. 

I introduced legislation last month, the School Asthma Management Plan Act, to assist schools in helping young people when they 

have asthma attacks. I am committed to taking active measures to 

make the air that we breathe safer for the whole population. 

There is significant evidence that lowering the ozone standard 

will do that. I applaud the EPA for heeding the science and proposing to strengthen the ozone standard to be more protective of 

public health. 

The cost of inaction is immense, increased number of hospital 

visits, increased health care costs, even premature death. The current value of 75 ppb of ground level ozone is outdated and does not 

reflect the current science. 

I would like to ask Mr. Greene and Dr. Diette the following. The 

EPA has an air quality alert system that allows caregivers to easily 

determine if the air quality is safe for kids to play outside. We 

talked about that earlier. 

For children who have compromised immune systems or preexisting respiratory conditions like asthma, this alert system is 

very important. Air Quality Index values are reported daily and 

fall into the following levels: good, moderate, unhealthy for sensitive groups, unhealthy, very unhealthy and hazardous. 

I assume both of you are familiar with the alert system. Under 

this current system, an ozone level of 75 ppb or higher is considered unhealthy for sensitive groups. Based on the current stand-
88 

ard, do you think families are being sufficiently informed and protected against the dangers of air quality on a given day? 

Dr. DIETTE. I think there is a bunch that is important in what 

you mentioned which is the alert system is based on acute spikes. 

That means today is a bad day or tomorrow is about to become a 

bad day and you should take care. 

That is also part of the story. There is chronic exposure and 

acute exposure. There is increasing evidence that chronic exposure, 

even at lower levels than would set off the alarm bells, are harmful 

to people with preexisting diseases like cardiac disease and respiratory diseases. 

The spikes you talked about are very important. It is a good alert 

system, but it does not mean you would want that system to have 

to be in place. The ideal is to not have those spikes coming so there 

would not be those dangers. 

Telling people to not go outside is not fully protective. Ozone 

comes inside from outside. All pollutants come inside from outside. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. The CDC reports 1 in 11 children and 1 in 

12 adults have asthma. This costs the United States economy 

about $56 billion a year. More specifically, for a family with a child 

suffering asthma, the cost is at least an additional $1,000 in health 

care charges a year. 

Over the last decade, the proportion of people with asthma in the 

U.S. grew by 15 percent. How does poor air quality further impact 

those who suffer from asthma? 

Dr. DIETTE. Someone who has already developed asthma is a vulnerable person. Since you have been talking about children, children born prematurely also, there is a strong signal that whether 

or not they go on to develop asthma, they also are a vulnerable 

subset. Children born early or prematurely are vulnerable. 

Ozone is a very provocative substance. It is an oxidizing substance that irritates and bothers the airways of someone with asthma so it can provoke an attack. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I am also concerned about extended exposure. Can you describe why children, in particular, are among the 

most vulnerable to elevated ozone levels and are health impacts for 

children exposed to this type of pollution long lasting? 

Dr. DIETTE. Kids are different than adults in a lot of ways. One 

is that they tend to be outside playing, for example. When you are 

outside playing, you breathe more, so you breathe deeper and you 

breathe more frequently, so you inhale more of whatever it is that 

is around you. That is one of the reasons. 

Also, their lungs are developing. One of the goals in life, if you 

are thinking about your lungs, is to grow you lungs to the biggest 

they will ever be, which happens by about your twenties. 

Things that interfere with that are a problem because you do not 

get as good a lung function to start your adulthood. We all lose 

lung function after that. 

Part of it is an issue about what is aggravating at the moment. 

Another is trying to grow your lungs to the biggest they can be. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
89 

Dr. Diette, in the Journal of Pediatrics, 2004, you conducted a 

study with a host of other authors entitled, Emotional Quality of 

Life and Outcomes in Adolescents with Asthma. The study, in its 

conclusion, says, ‘‘Adolescents reporting worse asthma specific emotional quality of life reported more frequent school absence, doctors’ 

visits for asthma,’’ also poor asthma-specific emotional quality of 

life was strongly related to worse asthma control. What causes specific emotional quality of life issues? 

Communities and businesses across the Country are telling us 

counties that are designated as in noncompliance with this new 

ozone standard will see construction jobs and economic activity 

grind to a halt. It has been mentioned according to a story from 

the National Association of Manufacturers, EPA ozone rules could 

cost up to 1.4 million jobs. 

Based on your research, what would be the impact to children 

with asthma in communities that have high unemployment, chronic high unemployment due to joblessness? 

Dr. DIETTE. That is quite a string of events you are connecting. 

Senator BARRASSO. I am connecting parents that are more likely 

to be alcoholic, more likely to have problems of substance abuse, 

spousal abuse, all related to chronic unemployment based on positions of this Administration going after jobs for hardworking Americans. 

I think it is not a string of events. I practiced medicine for 25 

years. I have taken care of lots of families under chronic, long-term 

unemployment and know the health of those families is documented as worse and the stresses on those children are worse and 

aggravated. 

Did you say I am right? Is that what you said? Did you say I 

am right? 

Dr. DIETTE. Yes. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Dr. DIETTE. Excuse me, though. You brought up a good point 

about the study because the report you talked about was one of 

several that came from that particular study. 

Another one in that same series was also looking at the impact 

of poorly controlled asthma on subsequent school attendance and 

parents attending work. 

If you are going to string all these things together, I think you 

need to be careful to look at the entire chain of events. When someone’s asthma, particularly a child’s asthma, is aggravated, just like 

any other illness that a child has, it impacts the family immensely. 

That means when you talk about jobs, if that is your target, mom 

or dad is not going to work the next day after there is an asthma 

attack. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mom and dad are not going to work because 

they are one of those 1.4 million who have lost their job as a result 

of this policy. 

Dr. DIETTE. It does not matter what industry an asthmatic is in, 

if they are sick, they cannot go to work. That is true for adults and 

it is true for the parents of the children who are sick. 

I think that is the important point. You are right that we are not 

just talking about jobs in one sector. We are talking about jobs 
90 

across the United States, if you are talking about the impact of the 

millions of days of work days lost. 

Senator BARRASSO. We are talking about jobs that are lost as a 

result of a policy by an Administration and the impact on the families impacted by the loss of the job and the chronic unemployment 

that comes with this. 

Certainly I think it worsens quality of life across the board. 

Johns Hopkins has done studies to that effect. It affects peoples’ income levels if they are not working. 

Dr. DIETTE. To be clear, my studies do not look at the issue you 

are bringing up. It does not look at the issue of that chain of 

events. 

Senator BARRASSO. Emotional quality of life, you would agree, is 

impacted if families are out of work? If dad or mom do not have 

a job, take-home pay has gone away, then there are subsequent 

things that happen in those families and impacts the quality of life 

not just the person who lost the job but the whole family. 

Dr. DIETTE. That is true. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. McKee, activist groups, like the Sierra 

Club, are pursuing aggressive strategies to support extreme reductions in ozone. They are encouraging the EPA to go as far as they 

can with their ozone rule. 

Last week, Politico ran a story entitled, Inside the War on Coal: 

How Michael Bloomberg, Red State Businesses and Lots of Midwestern Lawyers are Changing American Energy Faster Than You 

Think. 

The author highlighted the Sierra Club has now launched their 

beyond natural gas campaign to begin to eliminate natural gas 

from our electric grid. On the website, the Sierra Club says, ‘‘Increasing reliance on natural gas displaces the market for clean energy, harms human health,’’ blah, blah, blah. 

My question is, under the EPA’s ozone rule, if they listen to 

these outside groups and put forward a strict standard, is there a 

likelihood that natural gas development, which the Sierra Club is 

against, will be under threat? 

Mr. MCKEE. It definitely would be. We can see what has happened with coal. Natural gas is the next target. Natural gas is the 

clean carbon fuel that we are using today. Yes, we are very concerned about that. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you all for being here. 

When I was Governor of Delaware, we launched a mentoring initiative urging companies to adopt kids as mentors, high schools to 

adopt elementary schools and we recruited about 10,000 mentors. 

I was one of them. 

I started mentoring a young man when he was in the fourth 

grade until he graduated from high school, ready for this, at the 

age of 20 and a half. He missed a lot of school growing up. So did 

his brothers. 

One of the reasons he missed a lot of school was because he had 

asthma. He had a hard enough time coping even when he was 

going to school regularly, sitting in class and had an even harder 
91 

time when he was not there. It was hard on his mom having to 

support five kids, five boys, working and trying to do her job and 

be a nurse as well. 

I just wanted to share that with my friends. This is real. We do 

not just make up this stuff. It really does happen. 

Mr. Greene, a retired Navy Captain, thank you for your service. 

My understanding is EPA already has regulations in the works 

to help States reduce ozone. If these rules are not delayed, hopefully they will not be, we are likely to see, I am told, somewhere 

between 9 to maybe as many as 59 counties in nonattainment outside of California in 2025. Those are the numbers I have been 

given, 9 if the standard was set at 70 ppb and could be as high 

as 59 if the standard was set at 65 ppb. Can you confirm that for 

me? Does that sound right? 

Mr. GREENE. I cannot confirm that, sir. 

Senator CARPER. That is fine. I will. Thank you. 

Many of these counties would have to do more to find reductions, 

these 9 to as many as 59, depending on what the standard is but 

the majority of America will meet the standards that are proposed. 

If this is not your understanding, how important are Federal 

rules to help States reduce ozone? Whether it is 9 or 59 counties 

outside of California in 2025, how important are Federal rules to 

help States reduce ozone? 

Mr. GREENE. I think the point made earlier was really critical, 

that what we have here is clear evidence that public health is impacted by ozone at a level that is lower than the standard. That 

occurs across many parts of the U.S., many of which are in attainment and many have that problem. 

You have citizens across the U.S. with impacts that the EPA, 

doctors and much research has shown that their health is impacted. Yet, they are told they are in attainment areas and their 

air quality is fine. From our perspective in our district, we are a 

public health agency and are there to protect the public. We follow 

the science, work very closely with our business community and 

have been very successful. 

Our economy is doing well. We are building a new basketball stadium, so lots of good things are happening in Sacramento, but we 

are severe nonattainment area. We will be for quite a number of 

years. 

We expect to continue with the success we have had for our business community. We work with our NT on a regular basis. We do 

very well. We are using up our Federal money but we are doing 

it in slightly different ways than we used to because of the conformity issues, but they are in conformity and we are doing fine. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

I have one quick question for Mr. Srikanth. You mentioned in 

your written testimony that Federal efforts should include ‘‘timely 

enactment of implementation rules and guidance for all new standards.’’ 

Does this mean you are not supportive of any delays in EPA’s 

proposal for a new health standard or delays in EPA’s efforts to 

help States address ozone pollution across State boundaries such 

as stronger vehicle standards on emissions? 
92 

Mr. SRIKANTH. In my testimony, I am referring to a current set 

of emission controls that the EPA has promulgated. Within the 

transportation sector, there is one that addresses vehicle emissions 

called the Tier 3 standards. There is the fuel the vehicle uses, low 

sulfur fuel. 

Those have been enacted. They have just been enacted. The Tier 

3 standards go into effect on a rolling cycle between model years 

2017 and 2025. 

It is important that one, the implementation and benefits from 

those control programs realized so regions depending on those to 

demonstrate attainment can do so. There should not be any delay. 

Similarly, for transport pollution, EPA is currently working on 

another rule. That needs to be enacted in a timely manner so that 

the regions can realize those benefits and then attain the standards. At the end of the day, it is very important to attain those 

standards for public health reasons. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you all for being here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The Clean Air Act mandates that we protect public health from 

known threats based on science and the science is clear that the 

current ozone level should be lowered. Whenever it becomes clear 

that new actions are needed to protect public health, opponents of 

the actions use the same old arguments. 

Before the 2008 ozone standard was finalized, we heard this 

standard would cripple the economy, but this was just not true. In 

Massachusetts, both air quality and our GDP increased even as the 

ozone standard tightened. Our GDP increased significantly. 

A new ozone standard will require changes in some industries. 

America is a Country of problem-solvers. Pollution is a problem 

that we can solve. As a State downwind of most of the rest of the 

Country, it is critical that we have national standards that create 

solutions to a national problem. Massachusetts cannot solve the 

problem alone. 

My first question is to Dr. Diette. There were 20 studies cited in 

your testimony on the health hazards of ozone, all published in an 

8-year timeframe, all adding to the mounting justification that the 

current ozone standard must be lowered to protect public health. 

Given the pace of scientific research on the health impacts of pollutants, do you believe changing the assessment period of a new 

standard from every 5 years to every 10 years would have a negative impact on public health protections? 

Dr. DIETTE. I think it sure could. It depends upon which pollutant we are talking about or which substance in general, but you 

are right that the science does change. I think we should reevaluate what the science tells us periodically. If we allow a whole decade to go back, that may be too long. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Greene, you said with adequate compliance 

times and good partnerships among government agencies and the 

business community, Sacramento is on track to meet the ozone 

standards within your compliance timeframe. Under the pressures 

of our national ozone standards, your region has made significant 
93 

progress cleaning up its smog problem even with the unusual population and geographic challenges that promote ozone buildup. 

Do you agree waiting until a past standard has been met to set 

a new standard would weaken the momentum of clean air innovation? 

Mr. GREENE. I think the biggest place that is going to impact is 

in our area, 80 percent of the pollution comes from mobile sources. 

That occurs more and more as we get further into the ozone problem around the Nation. 

You are not only impacting the health of people around the Nation where they should be protected by the Clean Air Act, but you 

are also slowing down other regulations on vehicles, planes, trains 

and automobiles, for example, that would help those areas that are 

in nonattainment. 

Senator MARKEY. Dr. Diette, I will come back to you, if I can. 

The national ozone standard has real world impacts on the health 

of kids, workers across our Country, hospitalization, and even 

deaths caused by ozone pollution. 

If the ozone standard was set at 60 ppb, do you believe a significant number of deaths and life threatening respiratory events could 

be avoided? 

Dr. DIETTE. I do. I think there is really good evidence for it, both 

from the observation of the evidence that at very small increments 

of ozone, there are measurable increases in death rates from a variety of conditions. 

I could refer you to a very good article from Berman and colleagues in Environmental Health Perspectives in 2012 which provided an estimate of what would actually happen if everyone came 

into compliance with the 75 ppb which would improve mortality 

but showed successively greater benefits from dropping to 70 ppb 

and to 60 ppb. 

Senator MARKEY. In 1900, the average age of death in the United 

States was 48 years of age. We have gone from the Garden of Eden 

to 1900, when the average age of death in the United States was 

48 years. 

Then we began to implement public health policies, clean air, 

clean water, safe meat, and safe drinking water. The meat industry 

did not like it. They said it was going to kill jobs and the industry. 

The truth is whether it be the automotive industry or the meat 

industry, you name it, these new standards wound up extending 

life expectancy in the United States to 79 years of age, 31 years 

of bonus life that has been added to the average American just in 

the last 100 years with these public health interventions. 

What value do you put on that, seeing your grandmother, seeing 

your grandfather live to an older age, knowing that young children 

do not die from the things that used to cause death in our Country? 

What value do you put on that? 

Yet, we do it simultaneous with having a robust economy in our 

Country with unemployment actually going down right now. It has 

been going down since we began the recovery from the economic 

collapse created completely unrelated to any clean air, clean water, 

or safe drinking laws in our Country. It was economic malfeasance 

on Wall Street that caused it. 
94 

In each one of these instances, we see that innovation develops 

new catalytic converters, new ways of generating energy, and new 

ways of solving the problem are developed once Americans are told 

there is now a requirement that we must innovate. I would say this 

is just going to be one more instance where that occurs. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

That will conclude the number of individuals here. Senator Boxer 

would like to have an additional 2 minutes and I would also. 

Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

No one has refuted Dr. Diette’s simple eloquence on the dangers 

of smog, no one. You all respected that. 

The argument is, cleaner air means fewer jobs. As Senator Markey said, and as I have proven with my documents, that is so much 

baloney. It is disproven by the facts. The facts are, as we clean up 

the air, more jobs are created. 

Everyone knows California is a leader on environmental matters. 

We are. I am going to ask unanimous consent to place in the 

record, today’s San Jose Mercury News, Jobs in the Region Nearing 

Record. It underscores what my friend from Sacramento said. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
95 
96 
97 
98 

Senator BOXER. To sit here and say there are going to be no jobs 

and no development as you meet the standards is totally false. It 

is ridiculous. That is why 64 percent of people in our State, Mr. 

McKee, say, protect us. We are not supposed to protect the polluters. We are supposed to protect the health of the people while 

ensuring that we have an economically robust society. We have 

done it over the years. 

I ask unanimous consent to place in the record a letter from ten 

public health groups including the American Lung Association, the 

Heart Association, the Stroke Association, the Allergy and Asthma 

Network and others, supporting the EPA rule. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
99 
100 
101 

Senator BOXER. I also ask that a letter from Colorado supporting 

the rule, three letters from Maine, six letters from Illinois, a letter 

from Michigan, four letters from Pennsylvania and four letters 

from Virginia be placed in the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, I thank you so much for this. I 

know we are at odds on this, but to me, it is so clear what our job 

is. As a committee, we are the environment committee. We are not 

the pollution committee. We are supposed to protect people from 

harmful pollution and do it in a way that is smart. 

EPA has developed the numbers. The cost benefit ratio is there. 

When I listened to Senator Rounds talk about his family member 

with asthma, I think to myself how lucky he is to be in a position 

to protect that child and all of America’s children. 

I thank you so much for this opportunity. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. 

Since you were mentioned by name, Judge Moore, is there any 

final comment you would like to make? 

Judge MOORE. I would just say that we do care about the health 

of our community. From early childhood development programs I 

have started in my community to elderly programming, it is important. 

I have three grandchildren that live in my county. I have two 

grandchildren who live in Senator Boxer’s State. We do want them 

protected. 

We are making improvements with the 2008 standard. We are 

doing it while the economy is growing and the Nation is prospering. We want the opportunity to continue to do that under the 

2008 standard because we are doing it right. 

Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. 

As I said earlier, in Oklahoma, we are doing it right too, because 

all 77 of our counties, as I mentioned, are all in compliance now. 

However, with the standard lowered, all 77 of our counties would 

be out of attainment. 

We appreciate all five of you. It has been an excellent meeting. 

We appreciate the time and inconvenience you went through to be 

here. Thank you so much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today’s hearing on the EPA’s Proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ground-Level Ozone. 

I would like to thank Dr. Diette for joining us here today to discuss the EPA’s 

proposed ozone standards. Dr. Diette is Professor of Medicine at Johns Hopkins University and Professor of Epidemiology & Environmental Health Science at the 

Bloomberg School of Public Health. His research focuses on identifying factors that 

cause or provoke asthma. He has been especially interested in air pollutants and 

allergens that are problematic in inner city homes and has done a significant 

amount of research on the health effects of air pollution in Baltimore in particular. 

In 2009, 13.9 percent of Maryland adults and 17.1 percent of Maryland children 

had a history of asthma. From 2005–2009, an average of 66.6 people died per year 

due to asthma. 

Further, low income households (those with household incomes less than $15,000) 

had an asthma rate of nearly twice that of households with incomes more than 

$75,000. Finally, between 2007 and 2009, asthma prevalence for Black, non-Hispanic children (14.9 percent) was nearly double that of White, non-Hispanic children 

(7.5 percent). 

Dr. Diette is also a practicing physician specializing in pulmonology, caring for 

people with lung disease, asthma and other respiratory diseases. He was appointed 
134 

by the Maryland Governor as a Commissioner for the Children’s Environmental 

Health and Protection Advisory Council. Dr. Diette, welcome. 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
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