U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

97–678 2016

EPA’S PROPOSED OZONE RULE: POTENTIAL 

IMPACTS ON MANUFACTURING 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, 

AND TRADE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 16, 2015 

Serial No. 114–56 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Chairman 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

Chairman 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

Vice Chairman 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 1 

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

Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, opening statement .............................................................................. 3 

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, opening statement .................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

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

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 7 

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

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 8 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 124 

WITNESSES

Ross E. Eisenberg, Vice President, Energy and Resources Policy, National 

Association of Manufacturers .............................................................................. 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

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

Erin Monroe Wesley, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, 

Baton Rouge Area Chamber ................................................................................ 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

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

Robert L. Glicksman, J.B. And Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Environmental Law, George Washington University School of Law ............................ 42 

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

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

Gregory B. Diette, M.D., Professor of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University 

School of Medicine, on Behalf of the American Thoracic Society ..................... 60 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62 

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

Louis Anthony Cox, Jr., Ph.D., President, Cox Associates ................................... 66 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68 

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

Stacey-Ann Taylor, Director, Product Stewardship, Henry Company ................ 82 

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

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

Michael Freeman, Division President, The Americas WD-40 Company ............. 89 

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

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

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Letter of March 9, 2015, from Dr. Keet to the Hon. Barbara Boxer, submitted 

by Mr. Rush .......................................................................................................... 126 

Letters to EPA Administrator McCarthy, submitted by Mr. Whitfield .............. 128 

Statement of the American Chemistry Council, submitted by Mr. Whitfield .... 156 

Statement of the American Forest & Paper Association ...................................... 160 

List of selected stakeholders supporting retention of the existing ozone standard ......................................................................................................................... 162 

(1) 

EPA’S PROPOSED OZONE RULE: POTENTIAL 

IMPACTS ON MANUFACTURING 

TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER, JOINT WITH THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND

TRADE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in room 

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield 

(chairman of the subcommittee on Energy and Power) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Shimkus, Burgess, 

Blackburn, Latta, Harper, Lance, Guthrie, Olson, McKinley, 

Kinzinger, Griffith, Bilirakis, Johnson, Ellmers, Flores, Mullin, 

Hudson, Rush, Schakowsky, Butterfield, Sarbanes, Welch, 

Yarmuth, Clarke, Loebsack, Kennedy, Cardenas, and Pallone (ex 

officio). 

Staff present: Clay Alspach, Chief Counsel; Will Batson, Legislative Clerk; Leighton Brown, Press Assistant; Allison Busbee, Policy 

Coordinator, Energy and Power; James Decker, Policy Coordinator, 

Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Melissa Froelich, Counsel, 

Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Tom Hassenboehler, Chief 

Counsel, Energy and Power; Kirby Howard, Legislative Clerk; A.T. 

Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor; Peter Kielty, Deputy General 

Counsel; Paul Nagle, Chief Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, 

and Trade; Mary Neumayr, Senior Energy Counsel; Dan Schneider, 

Press Secretary; Lisa Goldman, Democratic Counsel; Michael Goo, 

Democratic Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment; Tiffany 

Guarascio, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Chief Health Advisor; Caitlin Haberman, Democratic Professional Staff Member; 

Ashley Jones, Democratic Director of Communications, Member 

Services and Outreach; Adam Lowenstein, Democratic Policy Analyst; John Marshall, Democratic Policy Coordinator; and Alexander 

Ratner, Democratic Policy Analyst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to call the hearing to order this 

morning and certainly want to thank our panel of witnesses. We 

appreciate your being here with us this morning to discuss the proposed ozone rule. As you know, we have had a number of hearings 

2 

on this subject matter, and today we are doing a joint hearing with 

the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade. And 

each one of us that will be giving opening statements will be given 

3 minutes, and then I am going to introduce each one of you individually right before you give your opening statement, and you will 

be give 5 minutes. We get 3, you get 5. But then we will have the 

opportunity to question you as well. So thanks for being with us. 

And at this time I would like to recognize myself for an opening 

statement. 

We have watched the Obama Administration propose and finalize a litany of rules for more than 6 years now, and I can’t tell you 

now how many hearings we have held. I and many others have 

come to the conclusion that EPA is no longer an independent and 

impartial arbiter of our environmental laws but has become a politicized extension of the White House to implement the President’s 

Clean Energy Plan. 

When EPA testifies, they always refer to the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Committee. Now this is a body appointed by EPA. The public does not really have any idea who is on this Advisory Committee, and truthfully, we all understand the importance of science 

but whether or not they are independent and impartial or have 

they also become a politicized arm of the White House. 

Now, the reason given for adopting a more stringent ozone rule 

relates to healthcare which is vitally important. To quote Ms. 

McCabe, a 70 parts per billion standard would prevent an estimated 330,000 missed school days, 320,000 asthma attacks, and 

710 to 1,400 premature deaths. Now, that is an important statistic, 

all of those are, and one that we all would applaud. But today it 

is a lot different when this Clean Air Act was first administered, 

and it is important that we understand that cost. 

We have listened to many experts over the past 6 years who 

have pointed out that there is a direct correlation between poverty 

and healthy living. That also is important because EPA in its Scientific Advisory Committee do not consider the impact of these regulations on jobs. In April of this year, the Global Market Institute, 

an arm of Goldman Sachs, concluded a study that found for example that the number of small businesses which has been the backbone of America prosperity, the number of small businesses between 2009 and 2014 declined by 600,000. Usually after an economic crisis there is a slow increase. But that is not the case in 

small business. There are 600,000 less today than 2009 and 6 million fewer jobs. In fact, small business jobs have been declining at 

roughly 700 per month the last 3 years for which statistics are 

available. And this report goes on to say the reason for this is one, 

the availability of credit and the high interest cost, the high cost 

of capital because of banking regulations that came out of the crisis. In addition, it specifically lists other regulations relating to 

healthcare, relating to the environmental issues throughout our 

government. 

And so the point is this. Yes, there is a benefit in healthcare with 

new regulations on ozone, but we have to also consider the impact 

of people and their families who have lost jobs and the impact on 

their healthcare. There has got to be some discussion about that as 

well. 

3 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD

This morning, I am pleased to be partnering with the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade in our review of EPA’s proposed new ozone standard. The focus of today’s hearing is the impact of the proposed rule on America’s 

manufacturing sector. 

We have watched the Obama EPA propose and finalize rules for more than 6 

years now, and a familiar pattern has emerged. The agency is inclined to overstate 

both the extent and the certainty of the benefits, while downplaying the costs. At 

the same time, the concerns of state and local governments tend to be ignored, as 

do the issues raised by affected manufacturers. 

The proposed ozone rule has all of these flaws, plus one more—the agency already 

has a stringent rule on the books that it has barely begun to enforce. The ozone 

rule was strengthened in 2008, but the Obama EPA delayed taking action to implement this rule until quite recently. In fact, EPA did not publish its implementing 

regulations until last March. As a result, states are only in the initial stages of formulating their implementation plans for this standard. 

Now, with the ink barely dry on implementing regulations for the existing standard, EPA is proposing an entirely new one. Back in 2011, the President explained 

his decision not to move ahead with a new ozone standard by explaining that ‘‘I 

have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and 

uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover.’’ Well, our economy 

still continues to recover, and this proposed rule certainly won’t help. 

Most of the compliance burden would fall on manufacturers and energy producers. 

Indeed, much of Americas’ manufacturing capacity will be in counties likely to be 

designated as nonattainment under the proposed rule. A nonattainment designation 

makes it very difficult to permit a new or expanded facility, and may impose significant costs on existing manufacturers. A study from the National Association of Manufacturers estimates costs of $140 billion dollars annually and 1.4 million job losses 

as a result of this rule. 

As we will learn today, many manufacturers have already reduced their emissions 

of ozone-forming compounds, and continue to do so. But by pushing too far and too 

fast, the new rule could jeopardize jobs and affect the quality and price of several 

everyday items that consumers need. I look forward to learning more about this proposed rule from the manufacturers who would be on the front lines of compliance. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, for his 3-minute opening statement. 

I am sorry. At this time I would like to recognize the gentlelady 

from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, for 3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield and Chairman Burgess, for holding this hearing, and despite my great affection for Chairman Whitfield, I have to say that I don’t agree at all 

that the EPA is operating in a political manner. And let’s make it 

clear: The EPA is responsible for setting ozone standards based on 

what is considered safe from a public health perspective. The compliance costs to business are not to be considered in its rule-making. 

Health experts, epidemiologists, numerous medical organizations 

have clearly stated that the current ozone standard of 75 parts per 

billion is not adequate to protect public health, particularly for vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, outdoor workers, 

those with chronic medical conditions like asthma. The EPA has indicated its final rule due in October will likely land somewhere between 65 and 70 parts per billion. I strongly support EPA action 

4 

on this issue, although I believe a 60 part per billion standard 

would be more effective to protect the public health. 

The existing standards are not doing enough to protect public 

health. In my home State of Illinois, 13 percent of children, 13 percent, suffer from smog-related asthma, well above the national average. In response to mounting medical evidence and Clean Air Act 

requirements, the federal courts rightly directed the EPA to reconsider existing inadequate health protections against smog last year. 

Let me repeat. This rule-making is court mandated. Federal law 

requires the EPA to maintain clean air standards, and the courts 

have said it must do more to meet that requirement. 

While anticipated business compliance costs have no place in determining ozone standards, industry concerns about the impacts of 

rule-making are overblown. We will hear from some of our witnesses that proposed ozone standards would stifle manufacturing, 

investment, and expansion. That argument is not new but it is 

flawed. Since the Clean Air Act was enacted into law more than 

40 years ago, we have seen tremendous progress in cleaning up our 

air and in protecting thousands of communities around the country. 

That has been done in concert with technological innovation and a 

growing economy. 

Doomsday predictions about the impact of EPA regulations on 

American businesses have never been borne out by the facts. From 

1990 to 2010 emissions of the most common air pollutants have declined by more than 40 percent while Gross Domestic Product has 

increased by more than 65 percent. These standards will save and 

improve American lives. 

I look forward to the EPA finalizing the rule and to the manufacturing sector to continuing its long record of success and expanding 

while at the same time complying with EPA regulations. Again, I 

look forward to hearing from our witnesses, to gain from their perspectives on this important rule-making, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her 

time. At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from 

Texas, the Chairman of the Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade 

Subcommittee that we are having the hearing with, Mr. Burgess. 

You are recognized for 3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, and thank you for 

agreeing to have this joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade along with the Energy Subcommittee. So the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to 

further reduce the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for 

ozone represents perhaps one of the most costly regulations the 

agency has ever imposed upon the United States’ economy, and it 

is a recurring theme with the administration, an unprecedented 

and overly burdensome regulatory proposal while there is still ongoing debate about the science and the public health benefits of enacting such a rule. 

So again, I want to thank my counterpart on the Energy and 

Power Subcommittee, Chairman Whitfield, and I want to thank our 

5 

panel of witnesses for joining us today to talk about both of our 

subcommittees’ work on the impact of EPA’s proposed ozone rule 

on manufacturing. 

The simple fact remains that this type of regulatory overreach 

may be injurious to America’s families and jobs. As a physician, the 

health of all of our citizens is of significant importance to me as 

well as everyone on the committee, and we know from other conversations occurring throughout this committee, the cost of health 

care is a real concern for Americans. However, I have reservations 

about the science and the analysis utilized by the Environmental 

Protection Agency to support the proposed rule and whether it 

would be effective. 

The 43,000 comments filed with the Environmental Protection 

Agency about the proposed rule demonstrate that there is a lot of 

interest, there is a lot of activity, and there may not be a lot of certainty. There is important debate that needs to occur to identify 

the actual benefits to justify the effect on job creation. 

I have written to the Environmental Protection Agency on several occasions over the past few years on issues relating to the rule, 

most recently regarding the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee’s evaluation of the risks and the tradeoffs of the ozone proposal. 

I remain concerned about the scientific process utilized by the Environmental Protection Agency to draw a causal inference about 

the impact of lowering the National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

from 75 parts per billion by as much as 5, 10, or 15 parts per billion. 

Given that the implementation for the regulations for the 2008 

standard of 75 parts per billion were only finalized earlier this 

year, what will be the proposed rule’s impact on states and localities that are already dealing with non-attainment including counties around the Washington Metropolitan Area and counties in the 

North Texas area? 

The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that for 

Texas this rule could result in 300,000 lost jobs and almost a 

$1,500 drop in annual household consumption. When there are disincentives to investment in a local economy, either from businesses 

looking to build and expand or from families trying to make ends 

meet, we have to pay attention. We have to ask the tough questions. There are going to be a lot of questions for the EPA and for 

our witnesses today. I am focused on learning about the expected 

impacts of the EPA’s proposed rule and the effect on public health. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back the time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burgess follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS

Today we are again faced with a troubling theme we have seen time and time 

again from this Administration: an unprecedented and overly burdensome regulatory proposal when there is significant ongoing debate and little science around 

the public health benefits of such a rule. The EPA’s proposal to further reduce the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone represents one of the most costly 

regulations the agency has ever attempted to impose on the U.S. economy. 

I join Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Whitfield in thanking the panel 

of witnesses for joining us today to talk to both of our subcommittees about the impact of EPA’s proposed ozone rule on manufacturing. The simple fact remains that 

this type of regulatory overreach is unsustainable for American jobs and families. 

6 

As a physician, the health of all of our citizens is of the utmost importance to me, 

and as we know from all of the other conversations occurring throughout this Committee, the cost of health care is a real concern for Americans. However, I have serious reservations about the science and analysis utilized by the EPA to support this 

proposed rule and whether it would be effective. The 43,000 comments filed with 

the EPA about the proposed rule demonstrate that there is no certainty here. There 

is a lot of important debate that needs to occur to identify actual benefits to justify 

stifling job creation. 

I have written to the EPA on several occasions over the last few years on issues 

relating to the rule, most recently regarding the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee’s evaluation of the risks and risk tradeoffs in the ozone proposal. I remain 

concerned about the scientific process utilized by EPA to draw causal inferences 

about the impact of lowering the NAAQS from 75 parts per billion to 70, 65, or even 

60 parts per billion. 

Given that the implementation regulations for the 2008 standard of 75 ppb were 

only finalized earlier this year, what will be the proposed rule’s impact on states 

and localities that are already dealing with nonattainment, including counties in my 

district around the Dallas-Fort Worth area? 

The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that for Texas this rule will 

result in over 300,000 lost jobs and a $1,430 drop in annual average household consumption. When there are disincentives to investment in a local economy, either 

from businesses looking to build and expand or from families trying to make ends 

meet, we have to pay attention and ask the tough questions. These are the types 

of scenarios that can decimate entire towns. 

It is a well-known fact that there are several states that are in non-attainment 

status today and are on an extended schedule to come into compliance. However, 

estimates show hundreds of additional counties that will be forced into non-attainment when this proposed rule is finalized in October. By the EPA’s own estimates, 

we are talking about a minimum of about 350 to 600 counties that would go from 

compliant status to non-attainment. 

I applaud my colleagues on Energy and Power for their oversight and scrutiny of 

this proposal. I am very interested to hear from the witnesses for WD-40 and the 

Henry Company about the impact of this proposed rule on their businesses. All the 

Members need to understand the potential for this rule to freeze economic growth 

in their districts. 

While there are lots of questions for the EPA to answer about these issues, today 

I am focused on learning about known or expected impacts of the EPA’s proposed 

rule on manufacturing. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time the chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Illinois, Mr. Rush, for 3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

important joint hearing on EPA’s proposed ozone rule and its potential impact on the manufacturing sector. 

Mr. Chairman, last week we heard from EPA’s Acting Assistant 

Administrator for air and radiation, Janet McCabe, that lowering 

the ozone standard from 75 ppb would literally save lives while 

also preventing hundreds of thousands of missed school days and 

missed work days and preventing hundreds of thousands of asthma 

attacks. 

Today, Mr. Chairman, we will hear from industry groups that 

lower the ozone standard will cause great job loss, will damage our 

economy, and will lead to unprecedented costs. Well, Mr. Chairman, as policymakers, we are always searching to find the right 

balance between protecting our air and water through regulations 

without unnecessarily saddling industry with unreasonable burdens that might stifle growth. And today, Mr. Chairman, we will 

hear about competing studies with conflicting results on everything 

from potential health benefits to economic growth to the impacts on 

7 

employment. However, I think it is instructive to look at how these 

types of regulations have played out in our most recent past, and 

if our most recent past is any indication, Mr. Chairman, then I am 

not fully convinced that this is an either/or proposition that we are 

confronted with, that Americans must choose between either economic strength or clean air. As Ms. McCabe noted in the hearing 

last week, Mr. Chairman, and I quote her, the history of the Clean 

Air Act actually shows us and all of those who are willing to take 

a look at it that the two things go together, two things go together. 

We have reduced air pollution dramatically in this country, and the 

economy has blossomed. It has grown. 

Mr. Chairman, this country and the businesses in this country 

have come up with pollution control technologies that employ 

American workers, and these new technologies have made us leaders in the world through selling this kind of technology. 

So I look forward to engaging the panelists so that we can both 

protect the public health by reducing ozone in our atmosphere, and 

we can also create most needed jobs and economic opportunities for 

American businesses and their families. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time the 

Chair would recognize the Vice Chairman of the Full Committee, 

Mrs. Blackburn, of Tennessee for 3 minutes. 

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

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all of 

our witnesses for the hearing today. This is indeed something that 

we want to drill down a little deeper on and look at these regulations. Everybody is for clean air and clean water, and there is no 

argument about that. What we have tremendous concerns about is 

when you get to the point of diminishing return. And that is something you will be able to help us with today. What we have found 

is if the EPA is not given to doing cost-benefit analysis, and Dr. 

Burgess referenced that and the injurious nature of some of these 

regulations at times and the harm that it does to business, the cost 

that is there, and the outcome that ends up not being delivered. 

And you are not, if you will, getting the bang for your buck when 

you look at these regulations. 

So I think that we will want to look at this cost. A trillion dollars? A trillion dollars is what the compliance cost is for this, for 

industry? What does that do to families? What does it do to jobs? 

What does it do to local communities? 

And those are questions that we are going to want to ask in addition to what does it mean to the environment. If you don’t have 

jobs and if you don’t have local, vibrant communities, you are not 

going to see people who are investing the time and the energy to 

clean up the environment or to innovate to find a better way. 

So we thank you for your participation. We look forward to your 

questions today. Yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady yields back. At this time I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for 3 minutes. 

8 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Chairmen Whitfield and Burgess and 

our Ranking Members Rush and Schakowsky, for holding this 

hearing. I also wanted to welcome all of our panelists. 

We heard some great things about the importance of the proposed ozone rule last week from EPA Acting Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe. Under the proposed standard, we would see 

tremendous public health benefits. EPA’s new standard will avoid 

nearly 1 million asthma attacks, millions of missed school days, 

and thousands of premature deaths. 

EPA estimates these benefits would range from $13 to $38 billion 

annually, outweighing the cost by approximately 3 to 1. In addition, it is consistent with the law and scientific evidence. 

The proposed ozone standard is part of a set of health-based airquality standards which make up the foundation of the Clean Air 

Act. These standards are based on scientific evidence alone and 

have been extremely effective in cleaning the air and protecting 

public health. 

The current 75 parts-per-billion standard is weaker than the 

facts would allow. So EPA has proposed based on a complete review of the scientific evidence to revise the standard to fall within 

65 to 70 parts per billion as recommended. I am sure today we will 

hear more about the cost than the benefits, yet a unanimous Supreme Court opinion written by Justice Scalia made it clear that 

EPA’s approach for determining a safe level of air pollution is correct and costs may not be considered. 

During today’s hearing I urge everyone to keep in mind that the 

grossly inflated estimate of the rule’s projected costs failed to consider any of the benefits associated with reducing ozone pollution. 

This ignores the real cost of poor air quality that are borne by 

those who breathe, especially children. 

We will also be told that EPA’s proposed standard will have dire 

consequences for economic growth, but the history of the Clean Air 

Act is one of exaggerated claims by industry that have never come 

true. In reality, the act has produced public health benefits while 

supporting economic growth. 

As I said last week, EPA’s ozone standard is long overdue, and 

this rule will help put us on the path to reaching the goal of the 

Clean Air Act, clean air for all Americans. Thank you, and I yield 

back my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back, and that concludes 

the opening statements. And at this time we will get to our panel 

of witnesses. 

And our first witness this morning is Mr. Ross Eisenberg who is 

Vice President for Energy and Resource Policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. And Mr. Eisenberg, you are recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

9 

STATEMENTS OF ROSS E. EISENBERG, VICE PRESIDENT, ENERGY AND RESOURCES POLICY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

MANUFACTURERS; ERIN MONROE WESLEY, EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, BATON 

ROUGE AREA CHAMBER; ROBERT L. GLICKSMAN, J.B. AND 

MAURICE C. SHAPIRO PROFESSOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

LAW, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW; 

GREGORY B. DIETTE, M.D., PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE, 

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY; LOUIS ANTHONY COX, JR., PH.D., PRESIDENT, COX ASSOCIATES; 

STACEY-ANN TAYLOR, DIRECTOR, PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP, 

HENRY COMPANY; AND MICHAEL FREEMAN, DIVISION 

PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAS WD-40 COMPANY 

STATEMENT OF ROSS EISENBERG 

Mr. EISENBERG. Thank you. Good morning, Chairmen, Ranking 

Members, members of the subcommittees. I am pleased to represent the NAM, the world’s largest industrial trade association 

here at today’s hearing. 

Manufacturing is building communities and fueling growth all 

over America. The factory that our grandfathers worked in is really 

not what you see today. It has been transformed into a sleek, modern, technology-driven facility that strengthens communities and 

creates jobs for us and for our children. We are building cleaner 

and more efficient automobiles. We are using cleaner fuels, and we 

are operating better, more efficient factories. Since 1990, our NOx

emissions have decreased 52 percent and VOC emissions by 70 percent. As a country, ozone levels have fallen nearly 25 percent since 

1990, and the air is unequivocally better. This fact really has not 

escaped the public, either. Tomorrow, the NAM will release a poll 

showing that over 2⁄3 of Americans rate their local air quality as 

excellent or good. 

Manufacturers support reducing ozone, and we believe in the 

mission of the EPA. But we come before Congress and this committee today seeking help. The EPA has proposed a regulation that 

pushes beyond the limits of what may be technologically feasible 

resulting in what could be the most expensive regulation ever. EPA 

has proposed new ozone standards for which you can only identify 

about 35 percent of the necessary technologies to achieve that new 

standard while relying on so-called unknown controls for nearly 65 

percent of the path to compliance. This is not a balanced policy, 

and it is not an achievable rule. 

We surveyed our members recently, and over 66 percent of manufacturers are concerned with how new ozone standards will impact their business. More than half of them, 53.5 percent, said they 

are not likely to move forward with projects in ozone non-attainment areas. But don’t just take it from us. Take it from the hundreds of governors, lieutenant governors, environmental agencies, 

air directors, attorneys general, mayors, counties, cities, highway 

officials, state representatives, Democrats, Republicans, unions, industry groups, and chambers of commerce who have sent letters to 

the EPA or the White House asking for the current standard to remain in place. 

10 

We recently asked the experts at NERA Economic Consulting to 

quantify the cost of this new standard set at 65 parts per billion. 

They found in fact that it would be the most expensive regulation 

ever: $140 billion annually in lost GDP, $1.7 trillion overall, the 

equivalent of 1.4 million jobs in jeopardy, and $830 in annual cost 

to the average household. 

Now I am sure you will have questions about the study at the 

hearing, so let me try to answer some of them now. First off, NERA 

and EPA’s assumptions in their studies are more or less identical. 

They both assume that the same final regulations will be in place 

going forward. They both assign the same cost to the known controls. They both assume in the base line that a certain amount of 

power plants will be retired due to market conditions, and they 

both assume that a large percentage of the technologies and strategies needed to attain the stricter standard will come from what 

EPA calls unknown controls. The primary difference between the 

two studies really is the cost of those unknown controls. EPA assumed a single, flat cost for those controls, $15,000 per ton. It is 

an assumption that we know based on experience and logic just 

isn’t true. As a society, as we invest in controls to reduce emissions 

and get closer and closer to zero, the cost per ton of those reductions will necessarily increase. 

So what NERA did is they relied on evidence to drive a cost 

curve to estimate that steep incline as we start to get rid of the 

technologies that we know about. And if they can’t figure out what 

those technologies are, then the cost to scrap, modify, or shut down 

certain equipment. Near the bottom of the cost curve is what we 

know the cost per ton for coal-fired power plants retiring. At the 

top then is the cost per ton for vehicle scrappage, sometimes referred to as cash for clunkers. My colleague at the GW University 

claims that no one ever really thought of vehicle scrappage as a 

pollution control technology until we came along with our study. I 

am very flattered by that, but it is also dead wrong. 

California has had a vehicle scrappage program in place since 

the 1990s. It is included in their SIP, their state implementation 

plan, for ozone. Texas also uses a vehicle scrappage program for its 

ozone compliance tool. It is called the Air Texas Drive a Clean Machine Program. 

As Professor Glicksman notes, as a pollution compliance strategy, 

vehicle scrappage is highly inefficient. But that is kind of our point. 

We have been so successful in reducing ozone levels that not only 

is the low-hanging fruit gone, the high-hanging fruit is gone, too. 

We are playing in the margins now. All that is left are the controls 

that are not as cost-efficient, and if we can’t develop new controls 

in time, we will have to deal with the severe consequences of ozone 

non-attainment that you are going to hear about today. 

So this is not a sensible regulation. It is especially frustrating 

when you consider that the implementation of the current standard 

has just barely begun, that EPA’s proposed standard is approaching background ozone levels in many areas, and that the dozens of 

other laws and regulations on the books that limit NOx and VOCs 

will drive ozone levels down 25 percent more in just the next 3 

years. This doesn’t have to be a choice between the environment 

and the economy. 

11 

Two weeks ago the Energy and Commerce Committee worked together to unanimously approve a bill to modernize TSCA. It was 

a wonderful day. We ask that you work to find similar middle 

ground on ozone. Manufacturers cannot cope with the most expensive regulation in history, and we really hope that you will work 

together to help us find a solution to this problem. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eisenberg follows:] 

12 


97678.001
13 


97678.002
14 


97678.003
15 


97678.004
16 


97678.005
17 


97678.006
18 


97678.007
19 


97678.008
20 


97678.009
21 


97678.010
22 


97678.011
23 


97678.012
24 


97678.013
25 


97678.014
26 


97678.015
27 


97678.016
28 


97678.017
29 


97678.018
30 


97678.019
31 


97678.020
32 


97678.021
33 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Eisenberg. I want you all to 

know that I am working the clock. I am introducing the witnesses. 

The next witness is Ms. Erin Monroe Wesley who is Executive Vice 

President and Chief Operating Officer of the Baton Rouge Area 

Chamber. Thanks for being with us, and you are recognized for 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ERIN MONROE WESLEY 

Ms. WESLEY. Thank you. Good morning. Good Morning Chairman Whitfield, Chairman Burgess, and members of the joint subcommittees. Again, my name is Erin Monroe Wesley. I serve as the 

Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Baton 

Rouge Area Chamber. On behalf of BRAC’s 1,400 investors and the 

region’s business community, we stand before you today to express 

our significant concern regarding the proposed NAAQS rule issued 

by the EPA on November 25, 2014. 

The Baton Rouge Area Chamber adamantly opposes the proposed 

reductions in ambient air quality standards from the current level 

of 75 parts per billion. Our opposition is based on three main 

points: Number one, the proposed standards have already cost our 

region thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in capital investment. Two, the standards would drive 18 of the Nation’s 20 top 

performing metropolitan economies into non-attainment and damage U.S. competitiveness for business investment, especially foreign 

direct investment. And number three, the vast majority of U.S. 

counties will meet the EPA’s proposed standards by 2025 with 

practices already in place. 

BRAC believes in and stands for cleaner air and environmental 

stewardship. For roughly 10 years, BRAC has supported and 

hosted the Baton Rouge Clean Air Coalition. On April 4, 2014, 

thanks in large part to the Coalition’s efforts, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality announced that the EPA determined that the Baton Rouge Area attained the 2008 8-hour ozone 

standard. The region has decreased ground-level ozone, improving 

air quality and human health for its 800,000 plus residents. 

Our successes and progress environmentally make the negative 

effects of the proposed standards even more painful. In 2014, 

BRAC worked with four chemical manufacturers that were investigating major investments in the region, including two companies 

that executed purchase agreements on large industrial sites with 

the intent to develop. Since the EPA first proposed lowering the 

ozone NAAQS, all four of these companies indicated that the proposed new standards influenced their decisions to look elsewhere or 

to otherwise not proceed. 

In other words, the proposed standards have cost this region at 

least 2,000 direct and indirect jobs and caused more than $7 billion 

in capital investment to be put on hold or moved elsewhere. Let me 

be very clear: These projects were put on hold or lost at the mere 

prospect of lowering ozone air quality standards to the 65 to 70 

parts per billion range. Should these proposed standards be adopted, the Baton Rouge Area will be thrust into non-attainment status. Economic development professionals have projected that under 

this scenario, the Baton Rouge Area will not even be approached 

for these types of projects, much less compete for them. 

34 

Baton Rouge would not be alone in suffering economically should 

the proposed standards be adopted. If the EPA were to lower the 

ozone standard to 65 parts per billion, all but two of the Nation’s 

top 20 metropolitan area economies, as ranked by the Brookings 

Institution, would be relegated to non-attainment status. These 

proposed standards would stifle the growth and investments in 

U.S. manufacturing, exports, and development taking place in metropolitan areas that have been the most successful in helping the 

country get back its footing economically. 

The proposed actions to lower the ozone NAAQS rule run counter 

to the U.S. Government’s interest to grow the national economy, attract foreign direct investment, and increase U.S. exports. 

Clean air is a priority for the Baton Rouge Area’s business community. Economic development and environmental stewardship do 

not have to be mutually exclusive goals. This region’s businesses 

are committed to both, as evidenced by the efforts put forth to gain 

attainment status. Policies that have a significant adverse effect on 

local economies, as the proposed NAAQS rule does, should be enacted sparingly, only when absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, the 

rule at hand spares nothing, and is unnecessary. 

Despite the EPA’s own assertion that a vast majority of the country will be in compliance with the regulations by 2025 under the 

current regulatory scheme, the Agency seeks to enact rules that 

will immediately bring the punitive status of non-attainment to 

areas around the country. We cannot stand by and allow our economy to be collateral damage. 

It is therefore the strong recommendation of the Baton Rouge 

Area Chamber that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for ozone rule not be reduced from 75 parts per billion. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wesley follows:] 

35 


97678.022
36 


97678.023
37 


97678.024
38 


97678.025
39 


97678.026
40 


97678.027
41 


97678.028
42 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Ms. Wesley. At this time I recognize 

the gentleman, Mr. Robert Glicksman, who is the Shapiro Professor 

of Environmental Law at George Washington University Law 

School. We appreciate your being with us this morning, and Mr. 

Glicksman, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your opening 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. GLICKSMAN 

Mr. GLICKSMAN. Chairmen Burgess and Whitfield, Ranking 

Members Schakowsky and Rush and members of the subcommittees, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on why strong 

standards to reduce ozone air pollution are both necessary to fulfill 

the Clean Air Act’s congressionally-mandated public health goals 

and consistent with a strong economy in which manufacturers can 

prosper and thrive. 

My written statement makes 4 key points. First, a strong national ozone pollution standard that fulfills the public health goals 

of the Clean Air Act will deliver significant health and environmental benefits. 

Second, regulations such as EPA’s pending ozone standard can 

and do provide important economic benefits for U.S. businesses, including those in the manufacturing sector. 

Three, a frequently cited study purporting to find catastrophic 

economic effects from a strong ozone standard fails to provide a reliable accounting of the rule’s potential impacts. 

And finally, to the contrary, the available evidence confirms that 

strong national standards for ozone pollution are not an impediment to economic growth. 

I will start with the first point. EPA’s National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards have provided enormous benefits, but the need 

for more protective standards is clear. Ozone pollution adversely affects people of all ages including pregnant women, children, 

healthy young adults, and the elderly. EPA’s rules reduce the incidence of impaired lung function and other health problems for all 

these populations. 

Ozone pollution control rules also strengthen the U.S. economy 

by preventing billions of dollars of damage to agricultural crops 

and forest products and through rubber textiles and paints. Controls and ozone precursor emissions also increase the productivity 

of America’s current and future workforces by cutting the number 

of missed work and school days resulting from health problems 

linked to ozone exposure. 

Despite the air quality improvements achieved under EPA’s current ozone standards, more than 140 million Americans continue to 

live in areas with harmful levels of ozone pollution. In a recent 

study of the National Center for Atmospheric Research projected 

that warming temperatures could cause the number of unhealthy 

ozone pollution days to increase 70 percent by the year 2050. As 

a result, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to adopt more protective 

air quality standards that would produce air quality that is safe to 

breathe. Specifically EPA must set the standards at levels sufficient to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety 

as well as protect the public welfare which includes effects on propVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:22 Jun 15, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-56 CHRIS
43 

erty and economic values. The current standards do not meet that 

requirement and therefore need to be strengthened. 

It is important to recognize that EPA’s proposed standard is not 

the product of whimsy or executive overreach. EPA’s proposals are 

a response to demands placed on it by the Clean Air Act itself. 

That law and the specific duties it imposes on the EPA was adopted in 1970 with overwhelming bipartisan support and was 

strengthened in 1990 through amendments supported and signed 

into law by President George H. W. Bush. 

In the 45 years since the Act’s adoption, EPA’s critics have repeatedly argued that EPA must consider the cost of controlling pollution under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The 

courts have repeatedly and resoundingly rejected that claim, most 

notably, the unanimous Supreme Court opinion written by Justice 

Scalia. The court ruled that the Clean Air Act prohibits EPA from 

considering cost when it adopts these standards. 

Now, it is critically important not to misunderstand these rulings. They don’t mean that compliance costs and economic impact 

are irrelevant to the statute’s operation. Instead, the courts have 

recognized that the statute empowers the states to take costs into 

account in designing and implementing plans to achieve the national standards by adopting adequate control strategies that meet 

their own economic and social needs. The statute therefore accommodates public health concerns and economic needs through a process that respects state sovereignty and discretion. 

The economic benefits of air pollution controls are significant, 

even if they tend to be overlooked. They provide a productivity dividend by reducing work and school days lost to illness-related air 

pollution exposure. EPA estimates that its Clean Air Act regulations prevented 13 million lost work days in 2010 alone. These regulations also can create new markets and opportunities for entrepreneurs as federal and state energy efficiency regulations have 

done. Environmental regulation can spur businesses to revolutionize their production processes in ways that lead to greater productivity and profitability as numerous examples under the statute 

and other laws have shown. 

I will be happy to answer any questions the committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Glicksman follows:] 

44 


97678.029
45 


97678.030
46 


97678.031
47 


97678.032
48 


97678.033
49 


97678.034
50 


97678.035
51 


97678.036
52 


97678.037
53 


97678.038
54 


97678.039
55 


97678.040
56 


97678.041
57 


97678.042
58 


97678.043
59 


97678.044
60 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Glicksman. And 

at this time I would like to recognize Dr. Gregory Diette who is the 

Professor of Medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and he is testifying on behalf of the American Thoracic Society. Thanks for being with us today, and Dr. Diette, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY B. DIETTE 

Dr. DIETTE. Thank you, Mr. Whitfield, and thank you to the 

other chairman and the ranking members and all the members at 

these important subcommittees. I really appreciate the opportunity 

to talk to you today. As you said, my name is Dr. Gregory Diette, 

and I practice at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. I am a pulmonologist there which means I take care of sick 

people with lung diseases, especially people that are very sick with 

lung diseases. These are people that have trouble breathing. 

You have my written testimony in front of you, and I just wanted 

to try to elaborate on a couple of points that I wanted to clarify. 

One is and the first thing is that ozone is bad for people with lung 

disease. That is not news. That is not news to anybody on these 

subcommittees, but it is an irritant that bothers the lungs. Multiple research studies in different parts of the country, different 

parts of the world, have shown that people with diseases like asthma, COPD, and other lung diseases, when they are exposed to 

ozone, they get sick. 

What sick means is—sometimes it means you might need to increase the amount of medicine you are taking. Sometimes it means 

you are going to go to your doctor’s office. Sometimes it means 

staying in the hospital overnight, and sometimes it means dying 

from an attack of COPD or from asthma. 

The second point that I want to make is that ozone pollution is 

bad for otherwise healthy people, too. That’s really important. We 

use different ways in order to try to irritate the lungs to prove if 

somebody has asthma. Ozone does that in normal, healthy people. 

It is scary. 

Third, it doesn’t matter if ozone is from the next city, the next 

county, or from a neighboring state. Ozone is ozone, and it bothers 

the lungs whether or not it started where you live or it started 

somewhere else. 

The fourth point I want to make is about public health, and I 

think public health sometimes gets sort of lost. We talk about a lot 

of numbers, millions of people with this, hundreds of thousands 

with that. I think what is important about public health is it is actually a collection of stories from all over America about people 

who have illnesses and suffer from them sometimes. What it can 

mean, for example, is it can mean a mom that is in the emergency 

department with her kid hoping that he survives that asthma attack, and in the back of her mind wondering, is she going to be 

able to take off another day from work. And that is an important 

point. She might not be able to go to work, to her job, because her 

son is sick. 

The issue that she will face also is how she pays for the care that 

she gets there. You have to understand what an asthma attack is, 

too. It is terrifying. People say they can’t get enough air. Some peoVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:22 Jun 15, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-56 CHRIS
61 

ple say they can’t breathe. Other people say it feels like there is 

an elephant on my chest. They think they are going to die. People 

feel panic. They can’t stop coughing. Sometimes they can’t walk, 

and their medications sometimes work and sometimes they don’t. 

I asked a patient of mine by e-mail if she could help describe for 

these subcommittees what the role is of ozone in her particular life, 

and she is a 29-year-old woman who is fully employed, college-educated, and she has lung damage from being born prematurely and 

now has asthma. And she says things like I am very sensitive to 

air quality, specifically areas with large amounts of pollution on 

code red and code orange days. She talks about those days that she 

is unable to work, right? She is unable to work. She can’t go outside to do her normal-life activities. These are her words. She said 

even stepping on the balcony of her condo can cause her to have 

a severe flare-up of her asthma. She can’t do simple errands, like 

going to the grocery store. She can’t make it sometimes from the 

door to her car without difficulty. She is very dependent on her rescue inhaler on those particular days. 

She said that she is very dependent on the forecasts that are 

available for when there is going to be high ozone days because she 

needs to remember to take her inhaler with her, and she said unfortunately, sometimes she has to change plans with her friends 

and her family due to the air quality. 

The final point I want to leave you with is that the science is 

strong and compelling. Since 2006 when the Bush Administration 

EPA looked at the ozone standard, the American Thoracic Society 

recommended a more protective standard of 60 parts per billion. 

We are confident of our recommendation then. We are more confident now. There are additional studies that have come out since 

that time period which have strengthened our understanding of the 

science. 

The EPA is not basing their proposed protective ozone standard 

on 1 study. It is not ten studies. It is literally hundreds of studies 

that have helped to inform this rule. It includes multiple scientific 

methods including animal studies, mechanistic studies, human population studies, natural experiment studies, and meta-analyses. 

What these studies show is that the current ozone standard is not 

protective of public health and that the EPA must issue a more 

protective standard. 

Thank you very much for inviting me here, and I appreciate any 

questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Diette follows:] 

62 


97678.045
63 


97678.046
64 


97678.047
65 


97678.048
66 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you, Dr. Diette. And at this time I 

would like to recognize our next witness, Dr. Louis Anthony Cox 

who is the president of Cox Associates and the Chief Science Officer for NextHealth Technologies. Dr. Cox, you are recognized for 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LOUIS ANTHONY COX, JR. 

Mr. COX. Chairman Burgess, Chairman Whitfield, and members 

of the subcommittees, thank you for inviting me to discuss the 

human health aspects of EPA’s proposed ozone rule. I am testifying 

on my own behalf today, understanding that well-informed policy 

making must consider the likely and foreseeable impacts of the proposed rule on human health, as well as on economic end points. I 

have lived in Denver since 1987, so I care a lot about air pollution 

personally. But today I want to focus on what science and data tell 

us about how changes in ozone affect public health. 

I have provided the committee members with a detailed CV describing my academic, publishing, professional, and consulting affiliations and my service as a member of the National Academy of 

Engineering and as clinical professor of Vital Statistics and 

Informatics at the University of Colorado, School of Public Health. 

In evaluating whether costly proposed regulations are in the public interest, we should ask first, how well will a regulation really 

work? That is, will it actually cause the desired benefits that motivate it which we have been hearing about? Second, how sure can 

we be? For how sure we can be, EPA’s Health Affects Risk Assessment Report for Ozone clearly warns that their estimation of 

health impacts uses inaccurate models with significant uncertainties that they have not been able to quantify. Unfortunately this 

leaves policymakers and the public uninformed about how likely it 

is that the proposed ozone rule will really cause the substantial 

public health benefits that EPA estimates and how likely it is to 

instead produce other outcomes, such as no public health benefits. 

We can summarize EPA’s uncertainty analysis very simply, by 

saying that no one can tell from their published risk assessment 

documents what the true effects of the proposed rule on public 

health would be. Fortunately, despite this important gap, it is quite 

easy to find out the correct answer. For decades EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have kept data on the 

ozone levels and public health, mortality, and morbidity rates at 

hundreds of locations across the United States. It is straightforward to examine what has happened to ozone and what has happened to health risks in hundreds of counties. It is also easy to 

apply objective, statistical methods for causal analysis to these 

data to determine how, if at all, ozone levels and mortality and 

morbidity rates are causally related. 

Such analyses revealed the following key points: First, as reported in hundreds of studies, there are positive, statistical associations between ozone levels and mortality and morbidity rates in 

many locations. Both tend to be higher in some places and at some 

times than others. For example, both ozone levels and cardiovascular mortality rates used to be higher decades ago than they 

are now. 

67 

EPA interprets such repeated findings of positive associations as 

evidence of causation, but in fact, they are only evidence for correlation. Dr. Diette says that ozone bothers the lungs, but they are 

not bothered less at lower concentrations. 

Second, mortality and morbidity rates have fallen just the same 

where ozone levels have increased as where they have decreased. 

Both short-run and long-run studies that have rigorously examined 

changes in ozone levels and changes in public health risks pray 

possible causal relation between them have not found one. How 

ozone changes does not help to predict or explain how mortality 

rates will change. This means that the statistical association between them is coincidental, not causal. 

These facts answer the question that EPA’s Health Risk Assessment for Ozone left unanswered. The human health benefits that 

EPA and others predict from the proposed ozone rule will not materialize. We know this because they have not materialized in the 

past. Reductions in ozone much larger than those now being proposed have already occurred without causing any detectible improvements in public health. To predict they will do so in the future is simply wishful thinking and bad statistics based mainly on 

using uncertain and inaccurate models and are confusing historical 

correlation with future causation. 

Current ozone levels are already low enough so the further reductions should not be expected to cause improvements in public 

health. 

EPA’s conclusions about the causal impacts of ozone reductions 

on public health run against these empirical findings, but their 

conclusions are based on unreliable, subjective judgments of selected experts on models that they concede are inaccurate and have 

large but unquantified uncertainties and unmistakenly treating 

correlation as causality. None of these methods produces trustworthy conclusions. 

In summary, we know from extensive real-world experience that 

EPA’s predicted health benefits from the proposed rule are only artifacts of inaccurate modeling assumptions. Assuming that smaller 

future reductions in ozone will accomplish benefits the previous 

larger reductions have not is unwarranted. There is no need to repeat the costly effort to obtain better public health by further reducing ozone levels. We already know from abundant historical experience that doing so does not work. 

Thank you for your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cox follows:] 

68 


97678.049
69 


97678.050
70 


97678.051
71 


97678.052
72 


97678.053
73 


97678.054
74 


97678.055
75 


97678.056
76 


97678.057
77 


97678.058
78 


97678.059
79 


97678.060
80 


97678.061
81 


97678.062
82 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you, Dr. Cox. And our next witness 

is Ms. Stacey-Ann Taylor who is the Director for Product Stewardship at Henry Company, and thanks for being with us, Ms. Taylor. 

And you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF STACEY-ANN TAYLOR 

Ms. TAYLOR. Good morning. Thank you Chairman Whitfield, 

Chairman Burgess, Ranking Members Rush and Schakowsky, and 

members of the subcommittees for the invitation to testify regarding the EPA’s proposed ozone rule and the potential impacts on 

manufacturing. 

My name is Stacey-Ann Taylor, and I am Director of Product 

Stewardship at Henry Company. Henry Company is a privately 

owned building products manufacturer based in El Segundo, California, right next to LAX airport. Henry Company has manufacturing facilities in 6 states and employs about 450 people. We manufacture roof coatings, roofing adhesives and sealants, driveway 

sealers, air and vapor barriers, and a number of other residential 

and commercial building products. 

Henry Company is a very active member of the Roof Coatings 

Manufacturers Association, RCMA, and I am also pleased to represent RCMA with my testimony as well. RCMA is the national 

trade association representing manufacturers of asphaltic and solar 

reflective coatings and their raw material suppliers. 

Typically, legislative and regulatory discussions on the impact of 

lowering the EPA’s NAAQS for ozone focus on a few key industries, 

especially oil and gas production, utilities, and motor vehicle manufacturing. However, these discussions rarely include an explanation 

of how lowering the NAAQS for ozone will have an impact on everyday consumer and commercial products. 

In November 2014, EPA issued a proposed rule to lower the 

NAAQS for ozone from the current 75 parts per billion to 70 parts 

per billion or possibly lower. When the EPA lowers the NAAQS for 

ozone, this requires the states to update their State Implementation Plans to try and meet the EPA’s new regulatory requirements. 

These State Implementation Plans have to be approved by EPA. 

Understandably, the states will have to include a variety of air 

quality management methods in their State Implementation Plans 

to meet the lower standard. One of these air quality management 

methods is the regulation of Volatile Organic Compounds, VOCs, in 

consumer and commercial products. 

VOCs are gases emitted from certain chemicals found in consumer and commercial products. VOCs are also emitted from natural sources, such as plants and trees. VOCs react with nitrogen 

oxides and sunlight to form ground-level ozone. As we all know, 

breathing in ground-level ozone can result in adverse health effects, especially for sensitive populations. 

Therefore, it is appropriate for EPA and the states to regulate 

VOCs. However, VOC regulation of consumer and commercial products in certain air quality management districts around the country are approaching the point of diminishing returns in terms of actually contributing significantly to air quality improvement. 

EPA and the states should carefully consider whether requiring 

manufacturers to achieve further drastic reductions in VOC content 

83 

in consumer and commercial products is technically feasible at this 

time and also worth the time and resources spent by manufacturers to comply for a low return on investment in terms of improved 

air quality. 

In addition, it should be noted that if manufacturers can’t find 

reasonably priced technology to achieve these further VOC reductions, there will certainly be fewer consumer and commercial products available in the marketplace for purchase. Manufacturers will 

have to restrict non-compliant products from sale, and if replacement products can’t be manufactured and sold at prices the market 

will bear, then the result will be fewer products available for people 

to purchase. 

In closing, I hope that I have provided a clear explanation of how 

EPA’s lowering of the NAAQS for ozone will eventually result in 

further regulation of VOCs in consumer and commercial products 

that may not significantly help air quality management districts 

achieve attainment status and may actually result in less product 

choice in the marketplace. As manufacturers of consumer and commercial building products, Henry Company and its representative 

trade association RCMA believe that EPA should not be allowed to 

further lower the NAAQS for ozone until the vast majority of the 

air quality management districts across the country have reached 

attainment status under the current level of 75 parts per billion. 

The primary focus of the EPA should be to provide additional 

support to those air quality management districts currently in nonattainment status to help them reach attainment status under the 

current level, before making the goal of reaching attainment status 

even more difficult for the states to obtain. 

Thank you very much for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Taylor follows:] 

84 


97678.063
85 


97678.064
86 


97678.065
87 


97678.066
88 


97678.067
89 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Ms. Taylor, and our next witness is 

Mr. Michael Freeman who is the Division President of The Americas for WD-40 Company. Thanks for being with us, and you are 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL FREEMAN 

Mr. FREEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking members, and 

members of the subcommittees. It is an honor and a privilege to 

be sharing the views of WD-40 Company and its partner trade associations, the National Aerosol Association, or the NAA, and the 

Consumer Specialty Products Association, CSPA, with you today. 

I join you as the President of the Americas for the WD-40 Company. We have our global headquarters in San Diego, California. 

Our products are found under the sink, in the garage and in the 

toolboxes of loyal fans in over 176 countries around the world. In 

the United States, WD-40 is in over 80 percent of U.S.A. households. We are also in over 80 percent of U.S. businesses. That 

makes us appear a lot larger than we really are. My dentist was 

horrified the other day when I told him in the USA more people 

use WD-40 every day than use dental floss. He didn’t like that, but 

it is a true story and really, really testifies to our brand power and 

uses for all of our brands: WD-40, Lava, 3-IN-ONE, Spot Shot, and 

the other brands. Which brings me to the national ozone standard. 

We know from experience that lowering the national ozone 

standard has resulted in lower VOC state regulations that drive us 

to reformulate many of our products, and we are not alone. This 

happens with other consumer products also. 

What are consumer products? Well, if you go look underneath 

your kitchen sink, your bathroom sink, you go to your pantry, your 

laundry room, you can go out to the garage. All those products 

there that make your life better, that is us. Now, it makes us a bigger industry, and that makes us also a target for VOC emissions, 

even though we are one of the smallest sources of VOC emissions 

nationally. 

So in our opinion, reducing the standard right now can have a 

serious impact on consumer products. Household products like WD40 could become much less effective and/or much more expensive 

for a consumer to buy, and that has been our experience with past 

regulations. 

Reducing the standard now could also create a confusing patchwork of compliance regulations across and within states. And that 

has been our experience now, too. 

The current regulation is not being implemented anywhere close 

to the same way across all 50 states, and even in the great State 

of California, which has over 35 air districts, we now have air districts doing something different than the State of California. So you 

can imagine how complex and confusing this is for everybody involved. 

Reducing the standard now would also add significant costs that 

can adversely impact the entire aerosol industry and others because it is not just your R&D product development cost, it is also 

the marketing cost. You are constantly changing labels where you 

can put label claims on for your product, changing labels out due 

90 

to the evolving nature of the regulations. It also moves into your 

supply chain. 

In California there are certain plastic bottles that we like to use 

of a certain size, and if we use them, we have to make sure they 

have 25 percent recycled content. So you have a compounding of 

different regulations, and unfortunately, I don’t have the impression that all the regulators talk to each other. And so the combined 

impact on business is rather amazing. 

All these costs can become embedded into our business going forward. Sometimes we can pass them on, sometimes we can’t. But 

the tip of the spear is the R&D, and we know from experience that 

it takes years of diligent research and millions of dollars for the 

WD-40 company to develop products that meet the statutory regulations. 

Let me give you an example. WD-40 company has lowered the 

VOC content of its flagship brand, WD-40, from 65 percent VOC to 

50 percent VOC to the current 25 percent VOC standard in California in the last 15 years. By the end of 2018, California presently 

requires that we get the VOC content down to 10 percent. Now, we 

have been working on this for years, and we have not yet discovered the way to do it that is technologically or commercially feasible. But we will keep working on it. We still have time. And all 

this is being done underneath the current regulation. What do you 

think happens if you dogpile another regulation on top of that as 

far as confusion and complexity? 

The NAA, the CSPA, the WD-40 Company, and many other consumer product companies have a long and successful history of 

working with the California Air Resource Board, the Ozone Transport Commission, the EPA, and several individual air districts. 

So our recommendations are essentially this. First off, can we 

celebrate the success that we have had? We have cleaned a lot of 

air over the last several years working together. I grew up in smoggy Southern California in the ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s, and at the end 

of a lot of days I couldn’t do that without having a smoker’s hack. 

And I wasn’t smoking. I was just doing water polo and swimming. 

So we would like to celebrate. We would like to make sure that 

many of the regulations that have been developed have not yet 

been fully implemented with known results. And we just ask, can 

we finish one job before we start with another? I would rather go 

into a regulation with actual results and facts and reality than 

modeling. 

Our final recommendation is for Congress to keep the current 

standard unchanged at 75 parts per billion until states have been 

able to fully implement that standard and learn from those regulations and results so that we can all move forward in the fact-based, 

more aligned and successful way to achieve our common clean air 

goals. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Freeman follows:] 

91 


97678.068
92 


97678.069
93 


97678.070
94 


97678.071
95 


97678.072
96 


97678.073
97 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you, Mr. Freeman, and thank all of 

you for your testimony and for taking time to give us your insights 

and thoughts on this important topic. At this time I recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. Freeman, you touched on trying to come in compliance with 

these regulations, and there has been a litany of regulations, I 

mean, more so in this administration than at any other administration in recent memory. And you mentioned this also, Mr. 

Eisenberg, about the fact that unknown technology or controls—to 

me, unknown controls means that it is simply not there yet to meet 

the standard. Is that what your understanding is, Mr. Freeman? 

Mr. FREEMAN. Yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, some people would say and many people 

make the argument that, well, we are so innovative in America 

that we come up with new solutions, and I think that is true. And 

you have indicated yourself that you have gone from 65 down to 

25 percent of VOCs, and California by 2018 wants you to go down 

to 10. So more than likely you will be able to do that I assume, 

right? 

Mr. FREEMAN. Right now we don’t really know. Life is full of ambiguity, whether it is personal life or business. But because we 

work together well with the California Air Resource Board, that 

2018 date was actually supposed to be in effect at the end of this 

year, and we were able to go back to them and say do you know 

we have been working hard on this? And they actually delayed it 

for 3 years. So we have 3 more years. But that is an example of 

people working together. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, another frustrating thing about this is 

EPA came up with this standard in 2008 and only a few months 

ago did they provide the implementing guidelines to the states. 

And so now the states are just getting this, and they are already 

moving onto a new standard. 

Now, we heard a lot of comments about this is good for the economy, and there is no question that since the first Clean Air Act 

that was adopted in ’70 and the major changes in ’90, the economy 

has grown. But I don’t think we can just throw under the rug this 

report that came out in April from the Global Market Institute of 

Goldman Sachs that point-blank says, in small businesses 500 employees and less, for the first time ever after an economic crisis, as 

we try to come out of there, the number of small businesses has 

decreased by over 600,000, 600,000 less. 

So if you are a small businessman with this cumulative impact— 

and they say that the cause is banking regulations because capital 

is not available and costs are higher, and then other regulations, 

like healthcare and so forth, that cumulative impact has been responsible for 6 million fewer jobs. 

And so I think it is one thing to say, well, this is good for the 

economy, but for the first time ever, that is not proving to be the 

case. And so a lot of the arguments being made today, we all recognize the great success of the Clean Air Act. But at some point, you 

do get to diminishing returns, particularly when ozone is affected 

by what is going on in China, India, elsewhere. And I think you 

folks from California—I guess you are from California, Ms. Taylor. 

Los Angeles has never been in compliance. San Joaquin Valley has 

98 

never been in compliance, and there are other parts of the country 

that have never been in compliance, and they are not going to be 

in compliance now, either. 

So let me just ask you, Mr. Eisenberg, when Ms. McCabe comes 

here, every time she says our rules promote economic growth. Do 

you agree with that? 

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, in the case of ozone, we actually did ad- dress that in the study. The 1.4 million jobs number and the $140 

billion that the study has concluded, that is actually net jobs. So 

they took into account the comment regulations create jobs. They 

create, people and so on, pollution control technologies and things 

like that. The study actually has that in it, and we still come out 

as negative as it does at 1.4 million jobs lost. 

So, you know, yes, they do, but they are so far outweighed with 

this regulation from all of the jobs that would be lost overall. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And you know, this whole issue raises another 

question. The Clean Air Act has been sort of sacrosanct, and rightfully so, because healthcare is vitally important, and we have made 

great strides because of what is going on with our physicians and 

our healthcare delivery system. 

But the truth of the matter is EPA cannot look at costs when setting the standard. States can look at costs when implementing 

under the State Implementation Plans, but maybe we should consider cost particularly when you have 6 million fewer jobs in small 

businesses. Isn’t that a relevant factor? What is the impact on the 

healthcare of those families who may not have health insurance? 

Is that a valid point to consider? 

Mr. EISENBERG. We would certainly agree with that. We would 

add that a couple of weeks ago the GAO put out a report that EPA 

actually does have a duty to at least look at the cost through 

CASAC, its panel, and CASAC has never done it because EPA has 

never asked them to. 

So while it is legally correct that they are not to consider cost 

while considering the actual number, they should be informed and 

CASAC should be informed, and they didn’t do it this time. We 

think they should go back and do it again. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. My time is expired. At this time, I recognize the 

gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Glicksman, 

currently the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to issue standards 

based solely on consideration of the public health, and these rules 

must ‘‘accurately reflect the latest scientific technology.’’ What 

would be the impact on public health if, as the chairman has suggested, that the majority party would rewrite the Clean Air Act to 

make cost to industry rather than the benefits of public health the 

primary driver of EPA rules? And Dr. Diette, you can chime in on 

that. I want to ask Mr. Glicksman first. What would be the impact, 

in your opinion? 

Mr. GLICKSMAN. Yes. The statute has been in effect for 45 years, 

and throughout that time cost has been a factor that has been irrelevant to the establishment of the national standards, as I indicated in my statement. Cost is highly relevant in the implementation phase, and it appears to me at least in my study of the statute 

that that has provided a good balance of attempts to achieve public 

99 

health protection with cognizance of the economic impact of regulation. 

I think if EPA were required to consider cost at the standard 

promulgation stage, you would inevitably find weaker protection of 

the public health because cost considerations would, I think in 

many cases, wind up trumping public health considerations. 

Mr. RUSH. Dr. Diette? 

Dr. DIETTE. Thank you. I think it is a great point and a great 

question to ask. I think one of the issues here is to consider, since 

there is so much focus on employment and jobs and so forth which 

I think is highly appropriate, that we need a well-educated healthy 

workforce in order to go to work, right? And so one of the benefits, 

and it doesn’t stop at 70 or 65 parts per billion, is more work days 

for people who actually breathe in ozone and more children going 

to school, right? And so there is evidence that children who miss 

many school days because of asthma score worse on standardized 

tests. 

So I just want to point out if the entire focus, which it is not, 

was on the workforce, there is a really good argument to be made 

that you need to keep your workforce healthy and well-educated, 

and you are fighting against that when people are in the emergency department or in the hospital or otherwise not able to go to 

work or school. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. Professor Glicksman, for the past 2 years 

we have constantly been debating the impact that regulations have 

on employment, and we have continuously heard from industry 

groups that any and all regulation will stifle economic growth and 

lead to job losses. However, in your testimony, you cite an ETI 

study that reported that few jobs are lost because of regulation. In 

fact, the EPA study you cited notes that extreme weather events 

have caused more extended mass layoffs than regulations. Additionally, the report states that the number of workers who lost 

their jobs because of government regulation ‘‘pales in comparison 

to any accounting of the jobs lost in this period due to regulatory 

failures that contributed to the economy’s financial crisis.’’ 

Does federal regulation always lead to economic decline and job 

loss or is it possible to both regulate our air and water and also 

grow our economy and provide jobs? 

Mr. GLICKSMAN. Environmental regulation does not inevitably 

lead to job losses, and it is indeed possible to accommodate both 

public health and economic growth concerns. 

There have been many examples of situations in which the regulate community has predicted massive job losses and other adverse 

economic effects as a result of proposed environmental regulations. 

And rarely if ever have those predictions come true. 

One good example is the adoption in 1990 of the Clean Air Act 

provisions that phased out the use of ozone-depleting chemicals. At 

the time that the phase-out was first proposed, the manufacturers 

of chlorofluorocarbons predicted that there were no available substitutes, there could not be available substitutes in the foreseeable 

future, and that even if available substitutes became feasible, they 

would cost many times the cost of the products being replaced. 

Well, none of those predictions panned out. It turned out that when 

the handwriting on the wall became clear to companies like DuVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:22 Jun 15, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-56 CHRIS
100 

Pont, they engaged in an intense effort to develop new technologies 

that would allow them to manufacture products that serve the 

same functions as CFC-containing products did, and not only were 

they able to make that shift much quicker than the statute required, they did so at a much lower cost than had been predicted, 

even by EPA. And finally, companies like DuPont found themselves 

as market leaders. They had developed these substitutes far earlier 

than any of the competing companies in countries abroad. They 

were also subject to Montreal Protocol phase-out. 

So the U.S. industry had a competitive advantage over foreign 

producers because of their response to the phase-out adopted in 

1990. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. At this time 

I will recognize the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BURGESS. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Wesley, let me 

ask you something. Mr. Freeman actually touched on it, but I rather suspect the Greater Baton Rouge Area is very similar to the 

area that I represent just north of the DFW airport. And a recent 

report showed in our area the 8-hour ozone levels have improved 

21 percent in the last 15 years during which time our population 

has increased by 29 percent. I think that speaks to some success, 

in our area, I suspect your area as well. And in controlling this 

issue at—had nothing been done 15 years ago, had no activity been 

undertaken to try to improve things with a 29 percent increase in 

population, I don’t know. I suspect we would be in deep trouble in 

the North Texas area, and yet, we are not. 

Most of the ozone in our area actually does come from mobile 

sources, and I will just tell you that mobile sources have not diminished. Drive on our roads in North Texas, and that becomes painfully obvious. Mobile sources continue to be one of the main drivers, no pun intended, of air quality issues. But I wonder if you 

would speak to that in the Baton Rouge Area? 

Ms. WESLEY. Certainly. We have done a lot of work over the last 

several years with the Baton Rouge Clean Air Coalition, working 

with other partners to really get ourselves up to the 75 parts-perbillion standard. I am looking a little bit at the Brookings Institute 

study and talking specifically about Texas. If you look at that study 

in terms of the top-performing economies, Austin, Houston, San 

Antonio, Dallas, and others, they are similarly faced with this 

ozone attainment issue. 

And so for us, it is about looking at our partners, learning how 

we can do better in terms of reaching that standard and not shooting that standard down the road. Right now we are at 75 parts per 

billion. We know that the EPA is shifting that standard, you know, 

on its own will. And so why, one, are we shifting the standard 

when we are still trying to get there, not only for the Baton Rouge 

area but certainly areas across our state? And so we are working 

toward that standard. We are working with partners across states 

who work toward that standard. But in the meantime, we are certainly opposed to what is being proposed right now by the EPA because of the costs associated with it. 

101 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you. Dr. Diette and Dr. Cox, I want to ask 

each of you a question, and it is probably not fair. And as a consequence, I am prepared to also offer the question in writing and 

would look forward to your responses on this. 

But Dr. Diette, you say in your testimony, in sum, there is accumulating evidence that ozone pollution at levels permitted by the 

current standard is damaging to human lungs and contributes to 

disease. And then Dr. Cox, in your statements, you say the EPA’s 

conclusions rely on unreliably subjective judgments of selected experts on models that they concede are inaccurate and have large 

but unquantified uncertainties and on mistakenly treating association correlation as causality. 

So we seem to have a scientific standoff, if you will, as to these 

two competing hypotheses. And let me let each of you just take a 

few minutes and talk about that. But I actually would ask you to 

respond to that discrepancy in written form as well. Dr. Diette, you 

are first. 

Dr. DIETTE. Sure. Thank you for the question. I think it is a 

great one, right? I would first of all like to point out that just because there are 2 of us here representing different points of view, 

it doesn’t mean that there is a 50/50 balance. I think the scientific 

community is strongly behind the evidence being strongly supportive of lowering the standard. So I don’t think it is a 50/50 

issue. 

What I would say is that the issue about associations I think can 

be overblown. There are association studies, but when you look at 

how people put together evidence to decide that there is causality, 

you can go back to Sir Bradford Hill. There are many criteria that 

fit together for assigning causality. Part of it includes the strength 

of association or not, but other things such as experimentation 

which has been available here—— 

Mr. BURGESS. Let me stop you there to give Dr. Cox a chance to 

respond. 

Dr. DIETTE. Thank you. 

Mr. COX. I think we are on substantially the same page which 

is that many people use many criteria to make decisions about causality. But there are better, more objective methods that don’t require subjective decisions. They actually get at causality from the 

data. Those methods unambiguously show that there is no causal 

relation detected between changes in ozone and in changes in public health. Subjective decisions do overwhelmingly support the converse proposition. 

Mr. BURGESS. Again, I would actually look forward to each of you 

expounding upon that a little bit in written form, and I will submit 

the question in writing. But Mr. Chairman, I learned something 

this morning from Dr. Diette. I had no earthly idea that ozone was 

used as a provocative test for asthma. It seems a little dicey to me 

as an asthma patient and as a physician. 

Dr. DIETTE. I either misspoke or you misheard. I am not sure 

which, but my point was we use other agents as a provocative test, 

not ozone. But what is so powerful a message to me is where we 

have to try to provoke the airways in an asthmatic with other 

chemicals, ozone does it in a normal person. So you don’t even have 

102 

to be asthmatic to see an asthma-like response in a normal person. 

That is powerful stuff. 

Mr. BURGESS. If I can interrupt you there just to briefly interject 

that I Googled that, and indeed, some people have used ozone as 

a provocative test for asthma. But it is actually in the parts-permillion range, not the parts-per-billion range. So there is a significant quantitative difference. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will yield 

back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time I would 

like to recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky for 

5 minutes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So this discussion about whether ozone is involved at all in public health is interesting. I am just wondering 

if either one of you want to go further in talking about why this 

regulation is so important and the costs of health, et cetera. 

Dr. DIETTE. Sure. It is a great question, right? So why is it important in order to think about a lower threshold, right? And a 

lower threshold is meant to protect human health. And the issue 

is that this is a potent, oxidizing agent, right? There is no question 

about it. This isn’t something that is in debate, right? We know 

that it bothers the airways of people, whether or not they have a 

lung disease. But when you have a lung disease, you are especially 

bothered by it. So what you are trying to prevent is the catastrophic chain of events which leads to somebody being in the 

emergency department or in the hospital, not able to work, not able 

to go to school, those sorts of things, and in the worst case, dying. 

The evidence base is expanded so that we have evidence beyond 

just respiratory diseases, and there is emerging evidence about 

whether there are neurologic conditions that may be attributable to 

ozone exposure. There is also other evidence, too, that goes beyond 

just short-term effects but looking at long-term effects, and that is 

starting to emerge as well. 

So there are a lot of reasons to worry about it from a human 

health standpoint. If you are a human, you should care about it. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. I wanted to follow up on the track 

that my colleague, Mr. Rush, was going down in terms of cost because it seems that in general, those who focus on costs are not 

talking about the costs from exposure to unsafe air, they are talking about the costs to polluters of actually cleaning up the air. 

So I would like to ask our witnesses about the real costs associated with this rule, the costs of health impacts associated with unsafe air that affect the lives of millions of Americans. 

So Dr. Diette, during the current 75 parts per billion ozone 

standard, have we seen those adverse effects on public health? 

Dr. DIETTE. Yes, that is one of the points I think, right? I mean, 

at least in my written testimony especially I was trying to highlight the fact that since 2008 when the standard was considered to 

be changed then that the studies that have been done since then 

are done in an era when the 75 parts-per-billion standard exists. 

So we continue to see adverse effects in the current era, even 

after the implementation of the 75 parts per billion. And the range 

goes down quite low. So 60 is comfortably within the range of 

where we see adverse health effects. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So you are saying that 60 even is—— 

103 

Dr. DIETTE. Sixty parts per billion, yes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes. Dr. Glicksman, would you like to add to 

that? 

Mr. GLICKSMAN. I just want to actually respond to the last two 

questions, in particular why it is important to adopt this standard. 

The Clean Air Act is a precautionary statute, as the courts have 

interpreted it. It is a preventive statute. In other words, the statute 

demands that EPA err on the side of over-protection of the public 

health. Congress was aware when it adopted the statute that there 

inevitably will always be scientific uncertainty about the causes 

and effects of public health consequences, and it mandated that 

EPA resolve doubts in favor of protection. And I will give you a 

good example of why it did that. 

In 1978, EPA adopted National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for lead. Over the years, it has amended that standard, and science 

now tells us that the standard that EPA thought was safe in 1978 

was 10 times too high. Many think that even the current standard 

is not sufficiently protective. 

So history shows us that over time science is able to detect adverse effects in public health, that it was not able to detect previously and that the statute mandates EPAs overprotection in 

order to mitigate that tendency. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Going back to the issue of cost for just the 

minute that I have, you have already talked about the lost school 

days, et cetera, but I am wondering—and if you have already answered this, I really apologize for having been gone. There are multiple hearings going on at the same time. 

How many emergency room visits, if we have any calculation on 

that, are expected to be avoided with the strengthened ozone standard? Does anybody have that kind of data? 

Dr. DIETTE. Yes. Thank you. I mean, there are different estimates of it. I think that one of the papers that I have sort of 

thought was very valuable was there is one by Jesse Berman, 

which is in Environmental Health Perspectives, and it talks about 

what the estimates would be if we achieved the current 75 parts 

per billion standard and then also what would happen at lower 

thresholds including 70 and 60 and so forth. And so when you mentioned school, for example, at 70 parts per billion, the estimate is 

approximately 2 million school days saved. If it is at 60 parts per 

billion, it would be closer to 4 million as well. 

And so there is an incremental advantage at each one of those 

thresholds for the types of things that you are talking about. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you and I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady yields back. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair. Welcome to all seven witnesses. 

My first question is for you, Ms. Wesley. Last week EPA’s ozone 

guru, Ms. McCabe, told me that many Americans will meet this 

rule by 2025. In essence she says our concerns are much ado about 

nothing. EPA has made some big assumptions to get America to 

that point in a decade. 

For example, they say that technology that hasn’t been identified 

will show up and make meeting these rules affordable. They also 

104 

say that their 111(d) carbon rule will come off without a hitch and 

cut some pollution, too. 

People back home have their doubts. I share them. But let’s 

imagine they are right for a moment. Even if some counties can’t 

comply in a decade, won’t there be dramatic changes and negative 

impacts in every sector of the American economy from day one? 

Ms. WESLEY. Well, I think the biggest concern on behalf of the 

Baton Rouge Area Chamber and other economic development organizations across the state is if you change that standard today, we 

are then placed into non-attainment status. And so what does that 

mean, as we have an economic development toolkit. We look at 

rules and regulations and laws, and we are trying to attract jobs 

and companies to Baton Rouge and to the State of Louisiana. 

And so if we are placed in non-attainment status, that would be 

detrimental harm done not only to BRAC but other areas across 

our State. So even though looking toward 2015 that may be one solution, the biggest concern for us is right now and what that impact means if that standard is changed today. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, ma’am. Mr. Eisenberg, I was about to shoot to 

you, my friend. Will impacts happen automatically, day one, if this 

new rule goes into effect? 

Mr. EISENBERG. They absolutely will. If this thing goes live on 

October 1 and October 1 you have to get a new—if you are in the 

middle of a permitting process for your facility and you are not at 

the very, very, very, very, very end, then yes, you have got to comply with the new standard. And remember what our poll said, over 

half of our members believe that it is very unlikely that they are 

going move forward with a project if they get stuck in non-attainment. 

Mr. OLSON. Another question, Mr. Eisenberg. As we proved at 

last week’s hearing with Ms. McCabe, we can never fully eliminate 

ozone in America. God gave us natural ozone. Half or more of the 

ozone in America is beyond our control. That means that at a certain point we can’t go lower. This is why so much of this compliance technology EPA expects to make this rule work is unknown. 

And yet EPA can’t even consider whether these rules are achievable. 

My question is, do you think this is sound law, that EPA doesn’t 

even consider whether its rules are achievable? 

Mr. EISENBERG. We absolutely do not. It is actually written in 

our policy statements that our members put in place every 4 years. 

We believe EPA should be considering costs in this process and especially feasibility given that that is such a big challenge here. It 

is a big reason why we support your bill because it would actually 

inject cost and feasibility into this decision-making process. 

Mr. OLSON. A balance between health and actual costs. It is bipartisan, bicameral, myself, Mr. Latta, Mr. Cuellar on this side of 

the Hill, and Mr. Thune and Mr. Manchin on the other side of the 

Hill support this bill. So thank you for the little plug there, my 

friend. 

My next question is for Mr. Freeman and WD-40 and Ms. Taylor 

from the Henry Company. Driven by the Port of Houston, my district is in the middle of a manufacturing petrochemical boom. Many 

people at home are worried about what this rule would do, whether 

105 

it can hurt their jobs along the Gulf Coast. But it seems clear to 

me that the impact will hit average consumers even far away from 

the Port of Houston. Mr. Freeman, WD-40 is a staple of American 

life. I have it in my garage, my Jeep parked down in the garage 

here. I am going to have my daughter take it to school, college next 

year. My question is, is it fair to say that these products that every 

American family has to make their home a home, how would that 

be impacted by these new rules? Will my grandkids have WD-40 

like I have had, like I want my kid to have? What do you think? 

Mr. FREEMAN. Well, I would say based on our experience already 

with the existing regulations and the state regulations that come 

out of that, that we have had to reformulate WD-40. Now, we have 

kept the secret juice, the concentrate, the same, but the solvents 

that we have to mix into it which do affect the formula and also 

could affect performance and also can affect cost, with this 2018 

standard right now, my honest answer would be to you I don’t 

know what WD-40 your grandkids would have because we have to 

clear that hurdle first. 

And so we are dealing with that ambiguity and trying to get 

there with a lot of great hard work, and I think we are not alone 

in that. I think a lot of consumer product companies are concerned 

that maybe we are at that point in diminishing return at least for 

consumer product goods which is one of the things we want to look 

at. And then the other part of it is we are still working underneath 

the current standard and trying to make sense out of that. 

Mr. OLSON. Let’s not move the goal posts before you achieve 

those current standards. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from New 

Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. During our hearing 

last week we heard some of my colleagues argue that EPA’s proposed ozone standard will hurt the economy and that Americans 

have to choose between clean air and economic growth. But history 

tells us that reducing pollution can benefit the economy as well as 

human health and the environment. 

Since its enactment in 1970, the Clean Air Act provides a perfect 

example of how we can make steady progress in cleaning up the 

air while growing the economy. In fact, over the past 45 years, we 

have been able to cut air pollution by 70 percent while our GDP 

has tripled. 

So I am going to ask Mr. Glicksman some questions. What does 

the history of the Clean Air Act tell us about the relationship between environmental health and safety regulations and a strong 

economy? 

Mr. GLICKSMAN. I think the history tells us it is possible to 

achieve environmental protection goals without sacrificing economic growth and productivity and that the major statutes, like 

the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation Recovery Act demonstrate consistently that American businesses are 

innovative enough and creative enough to figure out ways to comply in a cost-effective manner that achieve the public health goals 

of those statutes without resulting in adverse effects on economic 

growth. 

106 

Mr. PALLONE. But Mr. Glicksman, yet almost every time the EPA 

proposes a significant new requirement, we hear a litany of arguments for why it can’t be done. These arguments rely on exaggerated claims about implementation cost, job losses, minimal health 

benefits. But we have heard all of these doomsday claims before, 

and throughout the history of the Clean Air Act, industry has made 

claims that cleaning up air pollution would impose huge costs and 

harm our economy. Over and over again these claims have turned 

out to be simply wrong. 

One of the exaggerated claims being circulated about the new 

ozone rule is that estimating the costs would be $140 billion annually, making it the most expensive rule-making in history. However, as we heard last week, EPA’s cost estimate approved by OMB 

was much lower. So again, my question. EPA estimates that implementation would cost approximately $3.9 billion for a 70 parts-permillion standard and $15 billion for a 65 parts-per-million standard. Those numbers are a far cry from the $140 billion. So based 

on your experience with the environmental regulations, does the 

$140 billion price tag seem reasonable to you? 

Mr. GLICKSMAN. I am skeptical of the $140 billion price tag. 

There was a similar apocalyptic prediction made when Congress 

was considering adopting the acid rain control provisions of the 

1990 amendments. National Association of Manufacturers at that 

time predicted serious and lasting damage to the economy as a result of the acid rain provisions that would make the United States 

a second-class industrial power by the year 2000. Obviously that 

hasn’t happened. What instead happened was that the cost per ton 

of controlling SO2 was about a tenth of the amount that the industry predicted at the time those controls were being considered. 

Mr. PALLONE. So what is going on here? How have the opponents 

of the ozone rule landed on such a large estimate? You venture a 

guess? 

Mr. GLICKSMAN. I am not an economist. I can’t parse the numbers in any knowledgeable way, but it is clear in the interest of industry to over-predict cost so that it will wind up with less protective regulations that are less costly to comply with. 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, I thank you. No matter how high the cost estimate may be, in my opinion there is no reason to oppose the new 

ozone rule. 

I might have time for one more question. Dr. Diette, the Clean 

Air Act requires the ozone standard to be based solely on consideration of public health establishing the level of pollution that is safe 

to breathe. Why is it so important to separate considerations of cost 

from setting the standard? 

Dr. DIETTE. Well, there are many reasons. I didn’t write the law, 

right? But I think it has worked out pretty well since 1970 that it 

has provided us with very clean air compared to some of the countries that I have visited around the world which have horrible air 

quality. And I think the reason to do that is because the public 

health is good for people, right? People have a right to breathe 

clean air. They have a right to not become sick by the air that they 

breathe, and I think that we have a more productive and a more 

functional population when people are not sick and they are not 

107 

running to the emergency department. So I think that is the reason 

to do it. 

The other is that there is a cost-shifting thing here, right? I 

haven’t heard a lot of talk about the people who inhaled the ozone 

and missed work. I have only heard about the people that produced 

the ozone and could theoretically miss work. So there is an imbalance there in terms of the thinking I think. 

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate that. I will just say again that, since 

the beginning of the Clean Air Act, polluters have cried wolf every 

time EPA has passed a new rule to protect public health, and the 

truth is we can have a strong economy while cutting pollution and 

cleaning the air. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from New 

Jersey, Mr. Lance, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I certainly understand the position of all of the distinguished members of the 

panel, and of course, from my perspective, this is part of the larger 

debate on the state of the American economy, the better health of 

the Nation. It could even tangentially affect the debate we are having in Congress at the moment regarding trade. 

To Professor Glicksman, does the Clean Air Act require the establishment of the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee? 

Mr. GLICKSMAN. The statute created the Clean Air Act Scientific 

Advisory Committee, and it mandates that EPA consult with the 

committee prior to adoption or revision of national standards. 

Mr. LANCE. And that is a committee whose members are appointed by the EPA or—— 

Mr. GLICKSMAN. Yes. 

Mr. LANCE [continuing]. By Congress or both? 

Mr. GLICKSMAN. EPA. 

Mr. LANCE. By EPA? In your written testimony you state that, 

‘‘Scientists have known for a long time that the current national 

standard for ozone of 75 parts per billion set in 2008 is far too 

weak.’’ And then I believe you go onto recommend the 60 parts per 

billion. Is that accurate, Professor? And then a little less than a 

year ago, in November, the EPA announced it was proposing to revise the standard to within 65 to 70 parts per billion. Am I reading 

that testimony accurately? 

Mr. GLICKSMAN. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. LANCE. And you believe that that revision is ‘‘much weaker 

and appears to be inconsistent with the clear statutory language 

adopted by Congress and interpreted by the Supreme Court decision.’’ 

So from your perspective, would 65 to 70 be illegal? 

Mr. GLICKSMAN. I think it would be an improvement over 75, but 

I don’t think—— 

Mr. LANCE. Yes. Yes, I can count. 

Mr. GLICKSMAN. I don’t think it would fully comply with the 

mandate to protect the public health with an adequate margin of 

safety. 

Mr. LANCE. And would it be illegal? 

Mr. GLICKSMAN. If not supported by substantial scientific evidence it would be arbitrative of the EPA to set the standard between 65 and 70. 

108 

Mr. LANCE. And would there be a legal remedy for those who 

thought it illegal? 

Mr. GLICKSMAN. Regulations issued by EPA are routinely challenged in the courts, in the Courts of Appeals, and the Courts of 

Appeals have the authority to invalidate and remand or send back 

to the agency regulations that don’t comply with the statute. 

Mr. LANCE. And has that occurred regarding ozone? 

Mr. GLICKSMAN. It has occurred in the past regarding ozone. 

Mr. LANCE. And the standard has had to be changed as a result 

of that? 

Mr. GLICKSMAN. Yes. 

Mr. LANCE. And therefore there would likely be a suit if the EPA 

were to decide this should be 70 or 65 or somewhere—— 

Mr. GLICKSMAN. My experience is that there is going to be a lawsuit no matter where EPA sets the standard. It is going to be challenged by those who think it is overly protective and those who 

think it doesn’t go far enough. 

Mr. LANCE. Mr. Eisenberg, your opinion on what I have just 

asked. 

Mr. EISENBERG. So first of all, there is a certain irony to the folks 

that are pushing for a standard of 60 are the same ones that say 

that we should only be considering science. And 60 is something 

that EPA dismissed on science grounds. I mean, they said the 

science doesn’t support 60. So I always find that a little odd. 

That being said, so the current standard, 75, was challenged, and 

as Professor Glicksman says, by both sides. And the court upheld 

that standard. 

Mr. LANCE. Yes, that is my understanding. The court has upheld 

the 75 standard. And then Mr. Eisenberg, I have an industry in my 

district that manufactures critical water infrastructure components. This is in Phillipsburg in Warren County, and I believe that 

this could be very damaging to that for the reasons you have suggested. Mr. Eisenberg, could you comment on the cost of non-existing pollution control methods and how that adds to this debate? 

Mr. EISENBERG. Sure, and the term, EPA’s term, is actually unknown controls. I mean, non-existing—they basically just haven’t 

told us what they are. We don’t know if they exist or not. We are 

pretty sure they don’t exist because they didn’t tell us. But they 

call them unknown controls. That is sort of their term of art. 

And modeling the unknown is the chief difference between our 

two studies, to answer the question from before. That is kind of the 

issue here. What do you consider the unknown? And we took an 

evidence-based approach. EPA just kind of arbitrarily picked a 

number and assigned a flat line. That is about the same cost as a 

lot of the known controls. So we think it is a lot steeper. We hope 

we invent a better mousetrap, but if we don’t you got to start shutting down, and that gets expensive. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. My time has expired. I respect all the 

members of the panel. I think this is a very challenging and difficult situation, but we should move forward for the economy of the 

Nation and the better health of the Nation. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from 

Kentucky, Mr. Yarmuth, for 5 minutes. 

109 

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

Thanks to all the witnesses. Mr. Cox, I listened carefully to your 

testimony. I want to be very clear. It is my understanding that you 

said that there is no evidence that reducing ozone has resulted in 

any public health benefit. Is that correct? 

Mr. COX. Yes, or to be very precise, studies that have looked objectively at causality have failed to find evidence of a causal impact 

of changes on ozone on changes in public health. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Well, I represent Louisville, Kentucky. We are a 

non-attainment community making progress. We have an area of 

town called rubber town that has I think 32 chemical companies 

operating in it. Historically we have had tracking. You can see the 

cases of asthma and other respiratory ailments where they have 

been admitted from the hospital, where they come from. There is 

no doubt that there has been a disproportionate amount of those 

cases surrounding rubber town, and as we have made progress in 

ozone, those cases have gone down. 

Now, obviously they haven’t done pathological studies I think or 

analyses of that. But Dr. Diette, would you like to respond to that 

because I think that is the fundamental question we have to deal 

with. If there is no benefit to reducing ozone, no health benefit to 

reducing ozone, then obviously, none of these rules would make 

sense. But in terms of your clinical experience and knowledge, how 

would you respond to that? 

Dr. DIETTE. It is a great question, and I think but for Dr. Cox 

who I respect his opinion, we wouldn’t be talking about this. I 

think the world has mostly moved beyond this question. So this 

isn’t really something that in 2015 we should be talking about, 

about whether ozone affects human health. We are way beyond 

that. And I saw in your written testimony, I saw some interesting 

things. I think one was that this idea that there might be a statistical test which you could assess causality. That is not the way we 

assess causality. Statistics are part of it. They are supportive of it. 

But causality is a judgment. It is a judgment. And you know, I 

know you would like a statistical test, but that isn’t the way it 

works. 

The other thing is is that you cited my friend, Francesca 

Dominici, for one of her articles where she talked about the need 

to advance the science past just observational studies and to consider things like natural experiments. And I think that is a good 

idea. I mean, I endorse that as well. And I think the idea of a natural experiment is when these things happen, right, because we 

can’t do a randomized control trial the way we can with a new 

drug. But when these changes occur, we can study what happened 

as a result of them. And MIT did I thought a great study, looking 

at the effect of the NOx trading and with the NOx going down and 

the ozone level going down by several points showing an improvement in healthcare costs among other things. 

So I think we have got that sort of evidence as well. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you for that. Mr. Eisenberg, I am interested in your survey of members because among the many fine 

companies that operate in my district, I have two Ford plants, 

major Ford plants, one major appliance manufacturer, General 

Electric. I haven’t heard from any of them about these ozone rules. 

110 

As a matter of fact, I was with the manager of the Ford plant, the 

Ford truck plant, over the weekend, and he suggested that there 

were expansion plans on the way, new jobs being contemplated. We 

already have over the last 5 years 4,000 more employees at Ford 

in my district. 

And we quite frankly haven’t heard from any of those 32 chemical companies about the ozone rules. We haven’t heard from anybody. So I am curious as to whether—Louisville is a very special 

place where people just don’t complain or whether—and there is 

probably some of that there—or whether you know, the responses 

that you got in your survey were kind of the natural inclination of 

people to say yes, regulation is bad. I would resist that. 

Mr. EISENBERG. So I think it is a legitimate question. You know, 

I can certainly say that a lot of those companies in your district 

are talking to us. So you know, we will urge them to also talk to 

you about it. You know, certainly a lot of the more energy-intensive 

industries are extremely concerned about this. Auto Alliance who 

represents the auto industry joined our comments I believe and 

came down on the same place we did. 

So you know, the voices are out there. I think we probably could 

do a little bit more to amplify them. But that being said, we are 

hearing it. We were a little surprised by the results in our study, 

too, in our poll, too. We kind of didn’t know what we were going 

to get. We tried to be as unbiased as possible. We were very surprised, number one, that the folks really understood this issue because it is a technical issue. And number two, we are pretty adamant about the fact that it was going to be a real barrier to doing 

their business. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Right. I would suggest just in closing that with 

corporate earnings being at very, very high levels—even WD-40’s 

earnings, I saw they had a nice earnings report in April. And it is 

kind of hard to say that this regulation is having a very significant 

adverse effect on American business. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am sorry. Like 

many people, I have been bouncing back and forth to the hearing 

below. But I am sure many of you saw the beginning of this hearing of last week when I was talking about really—and I am glad 

my friend from Kentucky is still here because although this is 

about the ozone, but for many of us, this is about the cumulative 

effects of regulation and the cost and challenges of responding by 

either the producers of energy or the manufacturing sector. 

And we weave the story about changing the rules midway 

through a baseball game. If you change the strike zone, you change 

the outs per inning. You bring in the fences. You take the fences 

out. You change the foul lines. How can business keep up with 

those changes? And then I talked about utility MACT, boiler 

MACT, cement rule, cross-state air pollution, 111(d), 111(b), particulate matter, tier 3, and ozone. That is a lot. I believe that is a lot 

for manufacturers to respond to. 

And so when we have these hearings, right, like we did last 

week, we have it on one emission standard with the EPA saying 

there are health benefits. But we never have this full debate 

111 

about—there are health benefits of being poor. There are health 

disadvantages of being poor, when people are dislocated by job and 

they lose their employment, they lose their health benefits. 

So the cumulative effects of these regulations—and they are 

going on at the same time. This ozone PM is a perfect example. We 

don’t even have states complying with 75 parts per billion, and the 

EPA wants to ratchet it down to 65 or 60, while we are doing the 

other, 111(d) and 111(b) and all these other rules and regs that is 

very difficult for people to get their hands on. 

So in my time, if Mr. Eisenberg, Ms. Wesley, Mr. Freeman, and 

Ms. Taylor would—the basic question is do you think the EPA adequately evaluates the cumulative effects of the regulations? 

Mr. EISENBERG. So I think they—I mean, they are supposed to 

by executive order, by 13563. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Which is a recent permutation. This is a recent executive order. 

Mr. EISENBERG. They don’t seem to be doing it here. They really 

don’t seem to be doing it here, and in particular, when you look at 

the conflict between this and some of the other regulations, I mean, 

first things first. There are dozens of regulations already on the 

books that take out the same pollutants that we are talking about 

here, NOx and VOCs. I mean dozens on almost every industry, 

which is why we are getting the reductions we are getting in addition to the ozone standard. 

But at the same time you start to think about, OK, so we had 

a truck manufacturer come in the other day. And they are dealing 

with a new fuel economy rule. And one of the challenges they have 

got is they are also dealing with, in expectation of the new ozone 

standard, a stricter NOx standard. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Right. 

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, the controls that go on in an engine to deal 

with NOx use fuel. So it is another piece of equipment. And so you 

kind of can’t have the two together. So as they are trying to ratchet 

one, they can’t ratchet the other. They are really struggling with 

it. Hopefully they will figure it out, but it is a real challenge. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I had an industry come in and say we can get to 

the NOx standards, but by doing so we increase the greenhouse gas 

standards. We just can’t meet the same standards. Anybody else of 

the four that I offered want to respond? 

Ms. WESLEY. I had—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Just echo him? 

Ms. WESLEY. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. You want to add? OK. Then we had also Mr. 

Freeman and Ms. Taylor. Did you have any? 

Ms. TAYLOR. I definitely agree that I don’t think at this time the 

cumulative effects of regulation are carefully being considered. 

That is very obvious. I can tell you from my standpoint. I am an 

environmental regulatory attorney by training. I mean, this is my 

bread and butter, and even with the subject matter expertise, it is 

just an enormous amount of information to manage. And quite 

frankly, compliance execution is very challenging. But that is nothing new. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Freeman? 

112 

Mr. FREEMAN. I am not aware that a lot of agencies if any of 

them do the cumulative overview. I haven’t personally experienced 

that, but I do think that it is getting more and more complex and 

that is one of the challenges we have had. We have actually had 

an instance where we had a can of WD-40 that was under 100 percent California Air Resource Board regulations. Get another regulation. So we had regulatory overlap on the same product against two 

agencies that did not agree how they measured VOCs, let alone 

what the metric for success was. 

So we have actually gone beyond it just being complex to now 

they are getting into conflict at times. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. And I will just end on this. I chair another subcommittee, and we deal with the NRC and we had a great 

hearing on the NRC. And the NRC evaluated this standard, it costs 

this much, and the next standard costs this much and the next 

standard costs this much. But it was not just additive. The true 

cost was multiplicative, and that is the challenge that we have 

with these multiple regulations. I yield back. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time I recognize the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just trying to 

absorb all this information. I don’t come from a medical background. Mine is an engineering background. So I am trying to understand a little bit, except some of the discussion about the health 

risks. But I have heard fairly consistently here the inclusion of 

asthma included. My son has asthma, so I have been sensitive to 

that from the day he was born. 

But I am curious that we seem to be attacking our industries as 

part of a solution. I am just going to deal with asthma, if we could. 

And those of you with a medical background, I want to accept that, 

that there could be something there. But I am also, since we have 

been talking about this the last couple of years have done additional research. And I find that there are other factors that are 

seemingly far more reasonably the cause of asthma attacks. Genetics, ethnicity, why we have more asthma attacks in our Afro-American community and in our Puerto Rican/Hispanic communities. He 

deals with poverty, poor diet, stress, overweight, and lack of exercise in our children, exposure to cigarette smoke, smokers. You 

have a greater likelihood of having an asthma attack if you also 

have dermatitis or hay fever allergies. Indoor air quality are all of 

these factors. Indoor air quality. We have dust mites, cockroach 

and mouse allergens, mold, animal dander, formaldehyde, dust. I 

could go on with all—but we are not addressing that at all. We are 

going to say let’s go after manufacturing and have them lower from 

75 down to perhaps 60. But we are not addressing what other reports are saying are far more causational than others. In fact, this 

report, Dr. Diette, from your Johns Hopkins institution, they have 

come out with a report themselves just recently and said that they 

can’t find a connection. They say there is no statistical difference 

between the rate of asthma attacks in high-pollution areas than in 

non-pollution areas. I thought, that is interesting because I thought 

113 

all the studies said there is directly a tie. Yet Johns Hopkins came 

out in opposition to that. So did the—— 

Dr. DIETTE. Is that the Keets study? 

Mr. MCKINLEY [continuing]. University of Utah at Los Angeles 

study. I could go on with that but—— 

Dr. DIETTE. Is that the Keets study? 

Mr. MCKINLEY. That was a study performed by Keets—— 

Dr. DIETTE. Yes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY [continuing]. McCormick, Pollack and—— 

Dr. DIETTE. Just so it is clear, the conclusion of that study is not 

what you said it was, right? So the conclusion of that study has to 

do with the asthma prevalence, right, so not the asthma attack 

rate. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Asthma prevalence. 

Dr. DIETTE. Asthma prevalence. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Yes. 

Dr. DIETTE. And what that determined was that race and poverty 

were strong determinants but urban dwelling was not a strong determinant of the prevalence of asthma. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. So I want to go to—— 

Dr. DIETTE. There is no—well, excuse me. There is no indication—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I reclaim my time. I want to learn more from 

this but—— 

Dr. DIETTE. I appreciate it. 

Mr. MCKINLEY [continuing]. I also want to figure out a little bit 

about Hawaii. Hawaii operates right now from what I understand 

in their attainment counties, are operating at about right now currently at around 50 parts per billion, and they have been lower. 

But yet the rate of asthma, whether it is prevalence, attacks or 

what, is 42 percent higher than the national average here on the 

continent. I am puzzled with the disconnect. 

So I want to go back to yours, Dr. Cox, if we could because I was 

fascinated with one remark that you made and that was just—I 

heard and maybe you can clear it up—is that the concentration 

ozone may not be the issue. Ozone in and of itself, someone exposed 

to ozone, even at a lesser level, is going to have a triggered attack. 

Did I misinterpret that? 

Mr. COX. No. I think that indeed people who have asthma may 

be triggered even at lower concentrations of ozone. I think you 

have hit the key point which is that ozone has many causes. I 

think the key policy question is what happens to asthma attacks 

and other health effects when there is a change in ozone level? And 

the discussion that Dr. Diette and I will put in writing has to do 

with the difference between statistical associations between levels 

of pollutants, pet dander, and other factors and what happens 

when you remove or reduce one of them. I think the most important scientific fact for us today is that decades of reduction in ozone 

levels have not produced the predicted health benefit. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. My time is out, but I just was hoping that you 

might have been able to help clarify this. There are other issues 

that are far more prevalent in causing an asthma attack, and that 

is what I was looking for. 

Dr. DIETTE. I would interject, though. I would tend to ask—— 

114 

Mr. MCKINLEY. We don’t seem to be addressing that. 

Dr. DIETTE. Well, I think you should direct your question to me, 

though, and not a biostatistician. It is honestly not the statistician’s job to determine what causes asthma, and I think you have 

done a wonderful job of laying out many of the different causes of 

asthma, and what you have highlighted is how generally complex 

it is as you must know from your son, right? And one of the principles of treatment of asthma is that you have to do environmental 

control on everything at once that you can identify that matters. 

So it is not sufficient to just take care of the mice or the cockroaches or the dust mites that you mentioned, nor is it enough to 

get rid of cigarette smoke. You have to do all of those things simultaneously for the asthmatic airways to be in the best state of inflammation and therefore not have an attack. 

So that is why it sounds complicated, and that is why it is complicated because all those factors coalesce together and form the 

syndrome of asthma. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. But these reports say that is the biggest cause. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. At this time 

I will recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Cox, would you 

like to respond to what you just heard? 

Mr. COX. Certainly. I fully agree and emphasize that there are 

multiple causes of asthma. I think the idea that we should expect 

benefits from removing or reducing one of them without reducing 

the rest, as Dr. Diette describes, leads directly to the empirical 

question, does it work? Does reducing ozone reduce the desired 

health benefits? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Mr. COX. For that question, for the question of how do changes 

in exposure change health effects, there is ample evidence, there is 

evidence from decades of measurements on ozone levels and measurements on hospitalization and indeed death rates, and it is I 

think very much the job of the biostatistician to say opinion aside, 

subjective judgment aside, political motivation aside, what do the 

data tell us about what has actually happened when ozone has 

been reduced? And the answer from the few studies that do not 

take a correlational approach or a judgment-based approach but 

take an empirical data-driven approach, give the perhaps disappointing but clear answer that there is no detectable health benefit or health effect from reducing ozone. 

Therefore, the belief that if we pour more energy and effort into 

further reducing ozone, we should expect fewer asthma attacks, 

better attendance at school, fewer mortalities, and the other benefits that we have heard about. That expectation is inconsistent 

with decades of empirical results to show that it just ain’t so. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Thank you very much. I have got 4 children. 

I have got 6 grandchildren. I am very concerned about making sure 

that our air is clean, that our water is clean, that my children are 

drinking and eating and breathing the right kinds of things. 

But I think when we throw out and in most cases make secondary and oftentimes ignore the economic implications of some of 

the things that we are doing, take an area like mine where I repVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:22 Jun 15, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-56 CHRIS
115 

resent 18 rural Appalachian counties. You rule out the economic 

implications of these rules, and you shut down companies and you 

eliminate opportunities, even if the health implications—and I am 

not a doctor—even if the health implications are bona fide, and I 

am not saying they are not, people don’t have the money to buy insurance. They don’t have the money to go to a doctor. Doctors 

aren’t going to come to those areas to treat those patients. We can’t 

ignore the economic implications. 

Mr. Eisenberg, your organization released two studies over the 

past year looking at the economic impacts from a lower ozone 

standard, and I have found the analysis by NERA Economic Consulting both informative and concerning. I looked at how many of 

my 18 counties would be out of attainment with the standard set 

to 65 parts per billion, and to my dismay, I learned that all 18 of 

those counties would be in non-attainment. 

In my district we are seeing signs of life due to increased production of oil and gas, thanks to advances in fracking and horizontal 

drilling technologies. But the regulations that accompany this new 

ozone rule standard will most certainly slow and ultimately shackle 

the growth that we have seen in our communities as I pointed out 

to Ms. McCabe at our last hearing last week. 

In fact, let me read for the committee’s benefit what NERA said 

about the new ozone rule and its impact on oil and gas production. 

A tightened ozone standard has the potential to cause non-attainment areas to expand into relatively rural areas. Where there are 

few or no existing emission sources that could be controlled to offset increased emissions from new activity. If non-attainment expands into rural areas that are active in U.S. oil and gas extraction, a shortage of potential offsets may translate into a significant 

barrier to obtaining permits for the new wells and the pipelines 

needed to expand or even maintain our domestic oil and gas production levels. Equally concerning is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan 

which envisions a major shift nationwide from coal-fired power to 

natural gas, but with the rollout of these ozone regulations, I am 

afraid that our manufacturing industry will not have a source of 

reliable and affordable energy. This is really, really bad news for 

my constituents, for my state. I have spent all of my time talking 

and asking somebody else’s question, and I don’t get a chance to 

ask my own. So I think I have made my point. We can’t throw out 

the economic concerns. Throwing out the baby with the bath water 

doesn’t solve the problems. If we don’t have an economy that can 

attack these problems with confidence and resources, we are never 

going to solve them. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. At this time 

I will recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks 

for holding today’s hearing. And thanks to all of our witnesses for 

being here. I really appreciate your time and your patience. 

Ms. Taylor, if I could start with a question to you, in your testimony you say that the EPA and states should carefully consider 

whether requiring manufacturers to achieve further drastic reductions in VOC content in consumer commercial products is technically feasible at this time and also worth the time and resources 

116 

spent by manufacturers to comply for a low return on investment 

in terms of improved air quality. 

Would you like to comment on lowering the VOC content at the 

Henry Company’s types of products that you have? And how long 

does it take to reformulate the products for roofing material out 

there to achieve those VOC content and then have to bring that to 

market? 

Ms. TAYLOR. Sure. Well, first let me say that my comment was 

specifically related to the State Implementation Plan phase. So not 

at the statutory level where we have already heard that cost is not 

considered, but really at the implementation plan phase where 

EPA and the states really work together to design the appropriate 

plan for the individual state. 

In terms of the impact on a company like Henry—and this is my 

job. That is what Director of Product Stewardship means. I mean 

I basically manager our SKUs. So I am the person responsible for 

restricting a specific SKU that, you know, for whatever reason 

can’t comply with a VOC content limit in a certain jurisdiction. 

In terms of what we initially tried to do, when we receive new 

regulatory guidelines, and of course we make every attempt to comply because we are responsible corporate citizens, we go through 

our SKUs. We sort out our products in terms of what currently 

complies and what does not. That process alone probably takes a 

few months. Then after that process is over, we then look at the 

products that do not comply because those are the products obviously that we are concerned about in terms of the regulation. And 

we see if any of those are fairly easy to reformulate. Fairly easy, 

by the way, means like probably a year—fairly easy to reformulate 

and would go about making those changes. 

Then we take a look at the products that are not easy to reformulate, and by not easy, I mean the reformulation process could 

take 3 to 6 years. And that is not an exaggeration. We have a number of products where that has been the case. 

Mr. LATTA. May I ask you, how many at the company would be 

working on that? 

Ms. TAYLOR. Oh, great question. Several. That would probably 

involve—in an approximately 450-person company like Henry, I 

would say probably between 15 and 20 would be involved in that, 

and quite frankly, we may even bring in outside consultants to assist us. 

Mr. LATTA. So really not developing a new product, just making 

sure that the one or those products are compliant? Nothing to advance a new product? 

Ms. TAYLOR. That’s correct. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. 

Ms. TAYLOR. That’s correct. 

Mr. LATTA. Let me ask you another follow-up if I could because 

I thought what you said was kind of interesting, really, your closing line in your testimony. You said that the primary focus of the 

EPA should be to provide additional support to those air quality 

management districts that are currently in non-attainment status 

to help them reach attainment status under the current level before making the goal of reaching attainment status even more difficult for those states to obtain. 

117 

And I think that maybe what you just said kind of answers that 

when you are looking at the amount of time that you are putting 

in for products that are already—I am going to assume we are 

going to meet those attainment where you were. But would you 

just want to elaborate just a little bit on that? What would you like 

to see the EPA out there doing? 

Ms. TAYLOR. Well, I think in terms of working with—so still 

working under State Implementation Plans because obviously they 

would have to be revised with any new statutory, regulatory 

changes. But really, taking a look at what are the main sources. 

For example as we are talking about VOCs and ozone, what are the 

main sources? And we know and Mr. Freeman has echoed this as 

well that consumer products are one of the smaller sources. And so 

from our perspective, we quite frankly often feel as though we have 

been given perhaps more attention than we deserve based upon the 

amount of pollutants that are coming from our particular industry. 

So in terms of what EPA could do, I would respectfully suggest 

that they work with the states to look at the larger sources of pollution and perhaps review available technology at the time, perhaps you know, just have even better—quite frankly, even something like better communication would help this entire process. 

As we have alluded to, Mr. Freeman and myself before, just in 

terms of EPA working with the individual state air districts, there 

are a number of challenges with that. So that would be quite frankly a good start. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I see my 

time has expired, and I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. At this time 

I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would 

like to follow up on one of the comments that the Assistant Administrator said last week when she testified. I asked her the question 

about why has the EPA cost calculation gone down from $90 billion 

to take ozone requirements from 84 down to—why the 2010 estimate was $90 billion and why their 2014 estimate was $40 billion, 

and she said that it was because the 2010 estimate was taking the 

ozone estimate from 84 parts per billion down to 65 parts per billion. That turned out to be a slightly disingenuous answer because 

she knew full well that the cost embedded to take it from 84 to 75 

was 8.8 billion which means that 81 billion was left to take it from 

75 down to the 65 estimate. So I will be sending her a letter to ask 

her to explain why the difference, the $39 billion difference in the 

estimate from $81 billion down to $42 billion in their 2014 estimate 

so that we can try to get that cleared up for the benefit of the committee. 

Mr. Eisenberg, you had mentioned in your testimony that the 

EPA is proposing a new standard—and we have talked about this 

before, that we only can identify 35 percent of the necessary technologies to get to a 65 parts per billion standard and that therefore 

the unknown controls were 65 percent in terms of a path to compliance. 

So this being essentially that the EPA is proposing a standard 

where the majority of the control technology does not even exist. 

Is that correct? 

118 

Mr. EISENBERG. They certainly haven’t identified it. So that is 

our view. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. And so that is obviously an area of concern. So 

one of the questions I have raised to the administrator last week 

was how should that be priced? And they relied on past calculations which were the easier ozone reductions to achieve than the 

one we are getting now because we are getting to the point of diminishing returns. 

So I would ask you a two-part question. As you get to the part 

of diminishing returns on control technology, how should the pricing work? Because you are getting diminishing returns, should it 

be higher or lower? And also, if it is unknown, therefore there is 

a higher risk that that technology doesn’t exist, how should that be 

priced? 

Mr. EISENBERG. So that is an excellent question, and that is one 

of the real challenges in looking to the past, including the immediate recent past as a predictor of the future on this issue. 

NOx was controlled by CARE and a lot of other statutes, but that 

is why it is more expensive now because those technologies are now 

gone. And so the low-hanging fruit is gone. The high-hanging fruit 

is gone. Things are getting a lot more expensive. And in fact, you 

just run out pretty quickly when you start to do this. 

The question of modeling unknown controls, we continue to be surprised that EPA just draws this flat line at $15,000 per ton. I 

don’t want to say they don’t explain it. They do explain it. We just 

don’t necessarily agree with where they are coming from. But the 

real issue is, they are essentially modeling hope, right? You are 

modeling the hope that we will figure this out. 

Mr. FLORES. Yes, and that takes me to sort of the real world. My 

question to her was if the cost by an offset today is $170,000 a ton 

in the gulf coast area of Texas, wouldn’t you price the offset technology at some premium over that versus coming up with the price 

of hope at $15,000 a ton. So shouldn’t it be priced more at $300,000 

a ton or something more reasonable? What is your comment on 

that? 

Mr. EISENBERG. So, the current offset prices in Houston are $175,000 per ton of NOx and $275,000 per ton of VOCs. In South- ern California, they are $125,000 per ton of NOx. So there is definitely a disconnect there. 

Mr. FLORES. So theoretically, the price of an unknown technology, since you have got the risk that it may never develop, 

should be higher in coming up with the—— 

Mr. EISENBERG. We certainly expect it to be higher than $15,000 

per ton. 

Mr. FLORES. Ms. Taylor, I appreciate your prior testimony because you give a real-world perspective on these issues. And I don’t 

think you answered this in your last—this is kind of a modification 

on the questions asked to you before, and this is more specific. 

Does the roof coating industry currently have the technology to 

achieve further significant reductions in the VOC content of their 

products? 

Ms. TAYLOR. That is an excellent question. It really depends 

upon the product. If you are talking about roof coatings, you can 

make an argument on both sides that perhaps the technology is 

119 

currently available where we could achieve further significant reductions. If you are talking about roofing adhesives and sealants, 

which have different performance characteristics obviously than a 

traditional paint coating, then I would say no. We currently don’t 

have the technology. We have been researching the technology for 

the past 2 1⁄2, 3 years, and we will have to do some—I don’t know, 

we will have to get fairy dust or something. We will have to sort 

it out if further drastic reductions are required. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Thank you for your answers. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. At this time 

I will recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it very 

much. Mr. Freeman, you indicate cost to your company and industry to meet existing volatile, organic compounds to regulations have 

been very significant. Could you elaborate on the costs to date for 

your industry? 

Mr. FREEMAN. I am over here. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Oh, OK. Very good. Thank you. 

Mr. FREEMAN. Cost per day? 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes, per day. 

Mr. FREEMAN. That is not a measure that—— 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. No, cost to date for your industry. 

Mr. FREEMAN. If I look at our R&D effort alone, it would be several million dollars. Not included in that would be our ongoing supply chain costs I talked about a little bit earlier that can be a result 

of regulatory compliance, our ongoing marketing costs and our ongoing people costs. I have not added it all up. I am almost a little 

afraid to, but they are not easy costs to track necessarily, completely, and accurately. But we know that it has been significant—— 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you—— 

Mr. FREEMAN [continuing]. The view that we do have. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. Ms. Taylor, have the costs of compliance so far been substantial for your company and the roof coatings 

industry? 

Ms. TAYLOR. Yes. The cost—for us especially at Henry in particular, I think the most adequate measure would just be in the 

number of products that we have had, already have had to restrict 

from sale in certain air quality management districts. As I said, we 

have over 1,200 SKUs. There are certain parts of this country 

where we sell, you know, less than 50 or 60 individual SKUs. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. Ms. Wesley, for the Baton Rouge 

Area, have the costs to meet ozone regulations in the past been significant? Do you believe that EPA’s estimate to implement the proposed ozone rule are accurate or do you believe it will be more costly than expected? 

Ms. WESLEY. I certainly believe it will be more costly than expected. We are hearing from our companies in the Baton Rouge 

Area and across the State of Louisiana the costs are excessive. I 

don’t have an exact number for you, but we are hearing from our 

companies that it is significant. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. OK. Very good. Thank you. Just this past week 

a survey was released indicating that 26 states have raised conVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:22 Jun 15, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-56 CHRIS
120 

cerns about the role of background ozone, including both naturally 

occurring and internationally transported contributions to groundlevel ozone as an achievability or implementation challenge. Mr. 

Eisenberg, what happens to permitting for new and expanding 

businesses when ozone standards are set close to background levels? 

Mr. EISENBERG. Thanks for the question. It makes it extremely 

hard. You can’t get out of it. Think of the San Joaquin Valley for 

a minute. So in the San Joaquin Valley the air regulators there— 

and they are in really bad non-attainment, probably the worst in 

the country. The air regulators there have said to meet the 70 or 

75 parts-per-billion standard, it is going to require—and this is the 

regulators saying this—it would require zeroing out emissions from 

all stationary sources, all off-road vehicles, all farm equipment, and 

all passenger vehicles. That is how you get there to account for the 

ozone. So we have got a real problem. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes. Do you believe EPA’s proposal to bring down 

levels lower than the current levels which many are still in the 

process of being compliant will have a positive or negative impact 

on the manufacturing sector? 

Mr. EISENBERG. So we believe it will have a—the numbers show 

that it will have a manufacturing-wide negative impact. No sector 

is really spared here. Everybody gets hit. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time I will 

recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the members of the panel for being here today. I apologize I have not been 

here for the whole hearing because I have been at another hearing 

downstairs, a very important hearing as well. So I do apologize for 

that. 

Mr. Eisenberg, I want you to go over that again because it is 

staggering. You just indicated to Mr. Bilirakis that in order to comply based on background or foreign ozone levels you were talking 

about the San Joaquin Valley in California. I don’t represent anything close to that, but I think it might be important to hear that 

again because it was staggering. Could you tell us again? 

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. And this comes from their regulators. Because of geographic factors, because of ozone that is wafting in 

from Southeast Asia and just because of naturally occurring background, they have got a real problem. And so you could literally 

zero out all the industry there and you still couldn’t make it. 

That is obviously an extreme case, but the problem is we are getting to levels that this is becoming a more normal problem. I don’t 

think it is ever going to be quite that bad for anybody in Virginia. 

I hope it won’t. But it is a real challenge, and this is why our members, the manufacturers in this country, are on edge because it 

means that we can’t grow if we are in a place like that. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I think you told Mr. Bilirakis you would have to 

eliminate, what did you say, all the farm equipment? 

Mr. EISENBERG. All stationary sources, so all plants, all off-road 

vehicles, all farm equipment, and all passenger vehicles. Period. 

121 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Wow. And so what we are in essence doing is that 

we are shipping our jobs to other countries, say in Asia, and they 

are shipping us back the pollution that then causes this level to be 

so high that we would have to eliminate all passenger vehicles? 

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, in that area you would. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. In that area, right, in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Been a long day already. Ms. Taylor, let’s talk about something 

that you said in your written testimony. You indicated that the 

volatile organic compound regulation of consumer and commercial 

products in certain air quality management districts around the 

country are approaching the point of diminishing returns in terms 

of actually contributing significantly to air quality improvement. 

Ms. TAYLOR. Yes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. So what you’re saying is is that you are really not 

going to have much impact if they go further on your industry? Am 

I interpreting that correctly? 

Ms. TAYLOR. That is correct, yes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. So they are really not going to have much accomplishment—— 

Ms. TAYLOR. Well, the greatest gains which is not uncommon— 

the greatest gains in terms of VOC reduction were made over a 

decade ago, maybe more than two decades ago. And so now what 

we are working with, especially for certain categories of consumer 

products—I would imagine for these regulatory agencies, the goal 

is to get to zero grams per liter of VOC. And so we now have products that have very honestly gone from 200 grams per liter down 

to 100, down to 75, down to 50, down to 25. There is just not much 

further for those products to go in terms of being able to sell a 

product at a price point that consumers will accept and that has 

performance characteristics that accurately reflect what we market 

the product for. So that is where we are. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And Dr. Cox, I know others have hit on this, but 

I thought that it was interesting in your testimony that there is a 

real question, and you testified, and I am quoting, ‘‘EPA’s insistence that further reducing ozone is necessary to protect improved 

human health contrasts with decades of experience revealing no 

such benefits actually occur.’’ Can you explain that? 

Mr. COX. Yes. The current usual approach to assessing causation 

and to predicting whether benefits will occur is to ask selected scientists to form a judgment in light of the evidence that they consider to be relevant, and the scientists that EPA invited to form 

such judgments have made a judgment that because ozone is deleterious to the lung, reducing its level will have benefits. It is a very 

common-sense proposition. However, there is an alternative approach to looking at what will happen which is to adopt the natural 

experiment. The natural experiment says in hundreds of counties 

across the United States, ozone has gone down in some cases and 

has gone up in others. Let’s look and see what difference those different histories have made to the corresponding histories of health 

defects. When that analysis is done, not based on judgment but 

based on data, no health benefit from reduction of ozone is seen. 

That doesn’t mean that no reductions in health risks have occurred, but they have occurred just as much where ozone has gone 

up as where it has gone down. 

122 

So based on empirical analysis for causation, the science would 

say there is no evidence of a causal impact of further changes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Let me see if I can translate that because I only 

have a few seconds left. 

Mr. COX. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. So what you are saying is if you take a look at the 

country as a whole, you don’t see any health benefits gained where 

the ozone level has gone down. You might see that in individual 

patients but you don’t see it across the board when you are looking 

at the entire population. 

Mr. COX. That is correct. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time we have 

just a couple more questions, and then we will conclude this hearing. But I will recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, for 

3 minutes. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Diette, I wanted to 

give you a chance to respond to anything that you have heard here 

but particularly the Keets study that was the subject of controversy 

and how the study was mischaracterized. I want you just to respond to the mischaracterization of the study and any other thing 

you might want to add. 

Dr. DIETTE. Sure. Thanks very much. So it is being misrepresented, right? So first of all what we heard from the member was 

not even the facts from the study, but the study was simply one 

that looked at a few different factors and whether or not somebody 

actually has asthma, so not whether they have asthma attacks. It 

was not a study of air pollution. So it wasn’t a study of air pollution, right? So we can’t reach a judgment about ozone from the 

study. And what it showed was that being African-American and 

being poor were independent risk factors of having asthma and 

that living in a city was not. 

It can’t even potentially have anything to do with the ozone question because ozone isn’t concentrated in cities. It is in valleys. It 

is in suburbs. It is in rural areas and so forth. So it doesn’t inform 

that question whatsoever. So that is why it is being misrepresented. 

But other things that I have heard that I think are unusual, 

right, so one, there are a whole bunch of issues here we have been 

talking about. One is I heard earlier in the day that somehow that 

the parts per billion is going to get down from 75 to 70 on its own 

with the current regulations, and then I am also hearing at the 

same time that there is no way to get below 75. So I think there 

is an inconsistency with what we are expecting to already happen 

and then what we are saying we can’t do. 

And I would also just say, too, just probably the last comment 

I will have with Dr. Cox here, but what he is describing about 

there not being any benefit is not a mainstream view, right, that 

there a strong consensus among people who actually take care of 

sick patients with asthma and other lung diseases that ozone is 

harmful. It causes illnesses. It causes them to die. It is in our 

guidelines to tell people to avoid the outside when there are high 

ozone days. It is not made up stuff. This is based on science. So 

I just want to clarify that as well. 

123 

Mr. RUSH. Let me just ask you this. Is there any correlation between diet and ozone as was indicated or lack of exercise? Diet and 

asthma and lack of exercise and asthma? Are those some preconditions for asthma? 

Dr. DIETTE. So like a lot of things, it is very complicated, right? 

So the relationship between exercise is that for people that exercise 

outdoors, there is some evidence that somebody who exercises 

around the time when ozone is high, that that can affect their lung 

function among other things. So that is an issue. Diet, I don’t think 

we know yet, right? Diet has the potential to be very helpful to us, 

and so to the extent that people have things that help fend off pollutants, there may be an issue with the American diet that we and 

others are working on about whether or not modifying that would 

be protective. But that is not a settled issue. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you so very much for 

your giving me this time. I really appreciate it. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. You are welcome. At this time I would also recognize—did you want to enter into the record—— 

Mr. RUSH. Yes, I want to enter into the record a letter, Mr. 

Chairman, from the Johns Hopkins University. This letter is Ms. 

Corinne A. Keet’s response, Dr. Keet’s response to a letter of inquiry from Senator Barbara Boxer. I want to enter it into the 

record. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And at this time, I am going to give 3 minutes 

to Dr. Burgess of Texas for additional questions. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but in the interest of 

full disclosure, I don’t have a question but I would like to deliver 

a soliloquy on the Montreal Protocol, and we are here today talking 

about things we can do to reduce the number of asthma episodes. 

But I just got to tell you as someone who has suffered with asthma 

his entire life, the withdrawal of an over-the-counter remedy for an 

acute asthma attack has been more injurious than anything else 

that I have seen in some time. And we can talk about whether or 

not we are reducing by 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 the number of attacks 

that may occur across the country if we lower the makeup of ozone 

by an additional part per billion. But regardless of how the asthma 

attack starts, when it starts, for people who have reactive airway 

disease who are not on constant chronic treatment, it is generally 

2:00 in the morning or weather changes, somebody brings a dog in 

the house, some trigger mechanism that you may not even know. 

But when it happens, there used to be a remedy, and the remedy 

was drive down to your all-night pharmacy and buy a Primatene 

mist inhaler. You can’t do that anymore, and you can’t do that because of the Montreal Protocol enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency. People tell me that the EPA or I am sorry, the FDA 

withdrew my asthma inhaler from the market, but that is actually 

not true. It was the EPA under the Montreal Protocol. 

Now, we had a great discussion about this a Congress or two ago, 

and I attempted to prevail or to get Congress to allow the continued sale of over-the-counter asthma medications. Let me just 

stress. There is no over-the-counter asthma rescue inhaler available now. There was one for a brief period of time that the 

124 

gentlelady from Florida’s district produced, but then that was 

taken off the market. So there is nothing out there for the person 

who has an asthma attack in the middle of the night. But no less 

than our former Chairman Emeritus, Mr. John Dingell, who had 

been on this committee for a long time, in precise, quantitative 

terms, said that the amount of chlorofluorocarbon in an asthma inhaler was, and I am quoting him directly, ‘‘only a piddling 

amount.’’ It seems nonsensical to have removed that from the market, and we have only done a disservice to asthmatics across the 

country. And it was the EPA that delivered that disservice. 

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you both, and I might say that that 

illustrates one of the concerns that we do have because when that 

was taken off the market, the price increase for people suffering 

from asthma as a replacement was significant, which raises the 

issue Ms. Taylor I think touched on this and Mr. Freeman. We do 

live in an innovative country. We have innovative people in business, and they are able to come within the guidelines with a lot of 

money and effort and time. But frequently, and not unusual, it 

does affect the performance of the product. And so eventually you 

sometimes reach the point where the product is not what it was, 

and so the market goes away. 

So this has been an informative hearing, and we genuinely thank 

all of you. Many of you came from long distances, and some of you 

just came from down the street. But we do appreciate your taking 

time to be with us and giving us your perspective on this important 

issue. And we look forward to containing to work with you as we 

continue to address this issue. And I am also going to ask unanimous consent to entering the following documents into the record: 

We have a March 17, 2015, letter to EPA Administrator McCarthy 

from the Baton Rouge Area Chamber and 15 other chambers regarding EPA’s proposed ozone rule. And we have about 10 letters 

here to EPA Administrator McCarthy from Louisiana chambers 

outside the Baton Rouge Area. We have a statement of the American Chemistry Council and a statement of the American Forest 

and Paper Association requesting retention of the current ozone 

standard. Without objection, I will enter that into the record. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. WHITFIELD. We will keep the record open for 10 days, and 

once again, we look forward to the reply of Dr. Diette and Dr. Cox 

from—someone asked you all a question. You said you would get 

back with them. I appreciate that, and with that, we will conclude 

today’s hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Today we continue our work examining EPA’s proposed new National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard for ground-level ozone, and in particular its impact on jobs 

and the manufacturers who will bear much of the compliance burden. 

At the beginning of his second term, President Obama set a goal of creating one 

million new manufacturing jobs. Unfortunately, President Obama’s rhetoric has 

failed to match up with the economic realities of the policies coming out of the EPA. 

The new rules have been wide ranging, and each one on their own, like the Clean 

125 

Power Plan, will harm our economy. Taken collectively, the results could be disastrous. 

This proposed rule is a tough pill for the manufacturing industry to swallow. An 

ozone nonattainment designation would make it significantly more difficult for industries to invest and create businesses in communities across the United States. 

Even existing factories would face higher operating costs and red tape. EPA estimates that hundreds of counties across the country would not meet the proposed 

standards, including many in Michigan. In southwest Michigan, in Allegan County, 

you could remove all of the human activity and the region would still be in nonattainment because of ozone generated in Chicago, Milwaukee, and Gary, Indiana. 

The economic consequences of this proposed rule are very real. I recently received 

a letter from Southwest Michigan First, an economic development organization in 

Kalamazoo, Michigan. The CEO Ron Kitchens wrote to me yesterday voicing their 

concerns with the EPA’s proposal. 

In the letter, Ron wrote, ‘‘The addition of red tape and more severe requirements 

in these non-attainment areas would stifle economic development and job growth including much needed highway funding in our region and state.’’ 

Any proposal must take into account economic growth and job creation—and the 

ozone revisions do not. I strongly support efforts to reduce smog and I supported 

the ozone standard finalized in 2008. We have seen significant progress and I endorse reasonable measures to ensure that air quality continues to improve. I believe 

that we don’t need a new ozone standard—we need EPA to implement the existing 

one. Thank you. 

126 


97678.074
127 


97678.075
128 


97678.076
129 


97678.077
130 


97678.078
131 


97678.079
132 


97678.080
133 


97678.081
134 


97678.082
135 


97678.083
136 


97678.084
137 


97678.085
138 


97678.086
139 


97678.087
140 


97678.088
141 


97678.089
142 


97678.090
143 


97678.091
144 


97678.092
145 


97678.093
146 


97678.094
147 


97678.095
148 


97678.096
149 


97678.097
150 


97678.098
151 


97678.099
152 


97678.100
153 


97678.101
154 


97678.102
155 


97678.103
156 


97678.104
157 


97678.105
158 


97678.106
159 


97678.107
160 


97678.108
161 


97678.109
162 


97678.110
163 


97678.111
164 


97678.112
165 


97678.113
166 


97678.114
167 


97678.115
168 


97678.116
169 

Æ 


97678.117