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

20–589 PDF 2016

H.R. 4775, OZONE STANDARDS IMPLEMENTATION 

ACT OF 2016 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 14, 2016 

Serial No. 114–134 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

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, Ohio 

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, California7 

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, Mississippi 

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) 

(II) 

(III) 

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

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

Hon. Pete Olson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

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

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

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

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 91 

Hon. Steve Scalise, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 92 

WITNESSES

Bryan W. Shaw, Chairman, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ...... 9 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 137 

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

Valley Air Pollution Control District .................................................................. 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Ali Mirzakhalili, Director, Division of Air Quality, Delaware Department of 

Natural Resources & Environmental Control .................................................... 33 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 145 

Misael Cabrera, Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ........ 40 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

Alan Matheson, Executive Director, Utah Department of Environmental 

Quality .................................................................................................................. 45 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

H.R. 4775, the Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2016, submitted by 

Mr. Whitfield ........................................................................................................ 94 

Statement of Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air 

and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency, April 14, 2016, submitted 

by Mr. Whitfield ................................................................................................... 106 

Three letters of April 8, 2016, from San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 

District members to Hon. Kevin McCarthy, submitted by Mr. Whitfield ....... 110 

Letter of March 22, 2016, from Paul N. Cicio, President, Industrial Energy 

Consumers of America, to Mr. Olson, submitted by Mr. Whitfield ................. 113 

Letter of April 13, 2016, from Cal Dooley, President and CEO, American 

Chemistry Council, to Mr. Flores, et al., submitted by Mr. Whitfield ............. 114 

Report, ‘‘2015 Ozone Standard Exceedances in National Parks,’’ submitted 

by Mr. Whitfield ................................................................................................... 115 

Resolution 07–8, Environmental Council of the States, September 17, 2013, 

submitted by Mr. Whitfield ................................................................................. 117 

Report of June 2015, ‘‘State Environmental Agency Perspectives on Background Ozone & Regulatory Relief,’’ Association of Air Pollution Control 

Agencies, submitted by Mr. Whitfield ................................................................ 119 

Letter of April 13, 2016, from the Allergy & Asthma Network, et al., to 

Representatives in Congress, submitted by Mr. Rush ...................................... 131 

Page

IV 

Letter of April 14, 2016, from the Center for Biological Diversity, et al., 

to Representatives in Congress, submitted by Mr. Rush .................................. 133 

(1) 

H.R. 4775, OZONE STANDARDS 

IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 2016 

THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:18 a.m., in room 

2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield (chairman 

of the subcommittee), presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Olson, Barton, 

Shimkus, Latta, Harper, McKinley, Kinzinger, Griffith, Johnson, 

Long, Ellmers, Flores, Mullin, Rush, McNerney, Tonko, Green, 

Capps, Doyle, Castor, Sarbanes, Welch, Loebsack, and Pallone (ex 

officio). 

Staff present: Will Batson, Legislative Clerk; Allison Busbee, Policy Coordinator, Energy and Power; Rebecca Card, Assistant Press 

Secretary; Tom Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy and Power; 

A.T. Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor; Mary Neumayr, Senior Energy Counsel; Annelise Rickert, Legislative Associate; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member, 

Oversight; Jeff Carroll, Democratic Staff Director; Jean Fruci, 

Democratic Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Caitlin 

Haberman, Democratic Professional Staff Member; Rick Kessler, 

Democratic Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment; Dan Miller, Democratic Staff Assistant; Alexander Ratner, 

Democratic Policy Analyst; Andrew Souvall, Democratic Director of 

Communications, Outreach and Member Services; and Tuley 

Wright, Democratic Energy and Environment Policy Advisor. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I’d like to call this hearing to order this morning 

and, of course, today we’re going to be considering H.R. 4775, the 

Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2016, sponsored by Vice 

Chairman Olson and others. 

[H.R. 4775 appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

And at this point I’d like to recognize myself for 5 minutes for 

an opening statement. 

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

About 3 years ago, we had a series of forums on the Clean Air 

Act, and at those forums we had regulators from various States 

that came in and testified. 

2 

And the gist of the testimony was that the Clean Air Act needed 

to be revisited. Everyone recognizes that it has been a successful 

piece of legislation. 

But we also know that every State is affected differently by the 

regulations coming out of EPA and certainly that is true on the 

proposed national ambient air quality standard that is being reviewed at this time. 

And as I said, most of the testimony indicated that there are 

some areas of the Clean Air Act, because of ambiguities and deadlines set, that needed to be revisited by the—by the Congress. 

Now, we find ourselves in a predicament though where the Clean 

Air Act is one of those polarizing pieces of legislation that has done 

a lot of good, and it is polarizing primarily because of the Clean 

Power Plan, in my humble opinion. 

As you know, Congress refused to adopt legislation to help the 

president in his negotiations in Copenhagen or Paris because the 

majority in Congress simply disagreed with what was being done 

in that area. 

On the other hand, the proponents of the Paris agreement and 

the Clean Power Plan feel very strongly that the president needed 

to proceed in that way. 

And so, as I said, Congress didn’t act. It was adopted by regulation and what has happened is that it has become a polarizing 

piece of regulation because 27 States have filed lawsuits and we 

see more and more lawsuits being filed on these regulations coming 

out of EPA. 

So on the Republican side, you know, we sort of drew a line in 

the sand. Democrats drew a line in the sand. But on national ambient air quality standards, I think many States, whether they be 

perceived as Republican States or Democratic States, agree that 

there needs to be some adjustments here, and I believe that is 

what H.R. 4775 attempts to do. 

Now, I am going to just read a couple of comments from our commissioner from Texas and then those on the Democratic side will 

say well, that’s from Texas. But then I am going to read a couple 

of comments from the commissioner from California. 

Mr. Shaw, in his testimony, says that Texas detailed our disagreements with the EPA’s conclusions and formal comments during the rule making process. We also traveled to Washington to 

meet personally with Administrator McCarthy to make her aware 

of significant flaws in the studies EPA relied on in coming up with 

this new standard. 

The EPA nonetheless lowered the standard and now my agency 

is challenging the validity of this standard in court, and I won’t go 

into the details of it. 

Now, in California, I want to just read an excerpt from a statement there. I don’t think anyone views California as a red State, 

or a Republican State, but this is what the commissioner says. 

The new ozone and PM 2.5 standards established by EPA approached the background pollution concentrations in many regions 

throughout the Nation including the San Joaquin Valley, and we 

know that Los Angeles can’t meet their existing standard, much 

less this new standard. 

3 

Now, I want to just go on and point out that he goes on to say 

the reality that we face today sets up regions such as the San Joaquin Valley for failure, leading to costly sanctions and severe economic hardships. 

We face these consequences despite having the toughest air regulations on stationary sources, the toughest air regulations on farms 

and dairies, tough air regulations on what residents can do within 

the confines of their own home, $40 billion spent by businesses on 

clean air, over $1 billion of public/private investment, toughest regulations on cars and trucks, toughest regulations on consumer 

products, reduced emissions by 80 percent and still we can’t meet 

the standards. 

So I look forward to our discussion today with our distinguished 

panelists, some from States that are not having a problem, others 

from States that are, and that’s the reality of where we are today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD

This morning we will review the challenges States face in implementing the EPA’s 

recently finalized ozone standards, as well as other challenges with the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards program. The recent ozone standards will impose 

substantial compliance burdens on State and local governments while also jeopardizing economic growth and jobs. 

We will also discuss a bipartisan solution, H.R. 4775, the ‘‘Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2016,’’ which would create a more reasonable and streamlined 

approach to implementing current ozone standards. I want to thank Reps. Olson, 

Flores, Latta, Cuellar, Leader McCarthy, and Whip Scalise for their great work on 

this legislation and I welcome our witnesses who represent a number of State and 

local environmental agencies that are on the front lines of implementing these EPA 

rules. 

EPA’s recently finalized National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone would 

impose an additional layer of regulation on States that are currently in the process 

of implementing stringent ozone standards set by the agency in 2008. Those standards revised the previous standards set in 1997 and established a level of 75 parts 

per billion. However, the EPA did not finalize the necessary implementing regulations for these 2008 standards until March of 2015, and States are only starting to 

comply with them. 

Nonetheless, the agency decided to create an additional ozone standard, this one 

at 70 parts per billion. And because the standards from 2008 have not been revoked, 

States face the prospect of implementing two ozone standards at the same time. 

Under the new standards, States would be required to begin later this year a complex regulatory process involving designations, State implementation plans, and new 

permitting programs, long before the 2008 standards have been fully implemented. 

As a practical matter, the new ozone standards present implementation challenges because for certain parts of the country they are close to background levels. 

EPA projects annualized costs of $2 billion in 2025, including $1.4 billion for areas 

outside California and $800 million for California. Yet these annual costs will almost certainly be much higher since EPA acknowledges that ‘‘unidentified controls’’ 

will need to be discovered to meet the new standards in some of these areas—in 

other words, the agency does not really know how States can comply, so it is unclear 

what the ultimate price tag will be. 

This new burden arrives at a time when State and local governments face other 

expensive EPA mandates. It represents another headwind for job creators, since 

new permitting requirements have already begun to be implemented. Further, potentially hundreds of counties will be designated as being in ‘‘nonattainment’’ as 

early as next year. 

A ‘‘nonattainment’’ designation places limits on new construction, expansions and 

transportation projects, triggers a suite of new planning requirements, and subjects 

areas to potential penalties. Because of the designation, these counties will remain 

subject to continuing EPA requirements for decades, even after air monitoring 

shows the counties have attained the standards. 

H.R. 4775 offers a commonsense path forward, by allowing the 2008 ozone rule 

to continue being implemented, and for the 2015 standards to be phased in on a 

4 

more reasonable timeframe. EPA itself projects the vast majority of areas in the 

country would meet the new 70 parts per billion standard by 2025 under existing 

Federal rules and programs. 

Instead of forcing hundreds of counties to be needlessly categorized as ‘‘nonattainment,’’ this legislation builds on EPA’s own projection that all but 14 counties would 

reach attainment by 2025 based on existing Federal measures. HR 4775 would ensure these areas do not become subject to a suite of new paperwork and requirements that will divert limited State resources but will not contribute to improvements in air quality. 

There is no benefit to stacking a new rule on top of an unfinished earlier one. 

The bill makes practical changes to modify the current requirement that standards 

for ozone and other pollutants be reviewed every 5 years, and places the new deadline at no more than 10 years subject to the discretion of the administrator. 

EPA’s own actions show that 5 years is not enough time and that this arbitrary 

deadline needs to be revised. 

The bill also imposes the commonsense requirement that EPA release implementing regulations and guidance at the same time it releases new standards, 

something that EPA should have been doing all along. 

Overall, the news on ozone is positive and we have seen a 30 percent drop in 

ozone levels since 1980. EPA itself concedes ozone levels are declining and will continue to fall even in the absence of the new standards. This practical bill simply 

ensures that air quality continues to improve while avoiding unnecessary harm to 

State and local governments and to job-creating businesses. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this point, I would like to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, for 5 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 today’s legislative hearing on the Ozone Standards Implementation 

Act of 2016. 

It is unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, but I have some grave concerns 

with this bill. This bill will roll back important provisions of the 

Clean Air Act and hurt our Nation’s efforts to protect air quality. 

For starters, H.R. 4775 would unacceptably delay implementation of the EPA’s 2015 ozone standards for another 8 years, even 

though these standards have not been updated since the Bush administration last did it in 2008. 

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, the bill would also mandate that 

EPA wait a decade before considering any new evidence regarding 

the health implementations from ozone and other harmful pollutants despite what the science may say. 

Mr. Chairman, for those of us who believe that science should inform policy making in regards to public health decisions, prohibiting EPA from revisiting the scientific evidence for at least a decade is an unacceptable risk that could result in potentially disastrous health impacts for the American people. 

Mr. Chairman, we know that breathing dirty pollutants such as 

ozone, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen, sulfur dioxide and many 

other dirty pollutants can lead to a host of health problems including asthma, inflammation of the lungs, respiratory disease and 

even premature death. 

Current research even suggests, Mr. Chairman, that ozone may 

also occur—may also cause damage to the central nervous system 

and may harm developing fetuses. 

Yet, Mr. Chairman, despite all the scientific research, this bill 

would stall the new ozone standards, permanently weaken the 

5 

Clean Air Act and hamstring the EPA’s ability to regulate these 

harmful contaminants both now and in the future. 

And think, Mr. Chairman—under this bill not only would States 

not have to comply with the 2015 standards until 2026, but parents 

were not even being born if their communities were in violation of 

clean air standards until the year 2025. 

Mr. Chairman, I can think of no greater benefit to the public interest denying—than denying citizens information directly tied to 

their health and their well-being. There is no benefit to the public 

interest. 

Mr. Chairman, instead of trying to stall the 2015 ozone standards and prohibit the EPA from updating the national ambient air 

quality standards regularly as H.R. 4775 would do, we should be 

heeding the warnings of doctors and scientists of not acting quickly 

enough to protect the public health. 

For these reasons among many others, I cannot support this bill, 

and I urge my colleagues to support it—to oppose it, rather, and 

I yield the rest of my time to Mr. McNerney from California. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I thank the gentleman. 

I just want to thank Seyed Sadredin from San Joaquin Valley for 

appearing in front of the committee today. You’re from the San 

Joaquin Air Valley Pollution Control District, which has one of the 

biggest challenges in the country. I look forward to your testimony 

and thank you again for showing up. With that, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. Mr. McNerney told me you were 

going to yield in 2 minutes, Mr. Rush, but, at this time, I recognize 

the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE OLSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. OLSON. I thank my friend from Kentucky. 

The Clean Air Act is about cooperation. It is a balance between 

States and the Federal Government. I believe why we are here 

today is that we are not in any balance right now. 

I would ask all my colleagues to listen carefully to what these 

State officials will say this morning. They want clean air and will 

work aggressively to achieve it. 

We all want clean air within these communities, our families, our 

kids, and that is why the Clean Air Act is hugely important, but 

it is not perfect. 

Working together, we can improve it. We’ve picked out the lowhanging fruit to improve air quality. As we push more improvements, we must go after smaller sources. This provides economic 

pain at the local level and hides imperfections in the Clean Air Act. 

We can provide needed balance to this process. H.R. 4775 does 

just that. Now, I would like to welcome one Texan with the cowboy 

hat on the panel, Dr. Bryan Shaw. 

He has been on the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

for almost a decade, has been the chairman since 2009. When he 

does manage to escape Austin, Texas, home of the University of 

Texas, Dr. Shaw returned to his own alma mater, Texas A&M University, where he is an associate professor. He spends much time 

of his research—he spends much of his time researching air polluVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:39 Jul 12, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X134OZONELEGASKOK070716\114X134OZONELEGPDFMADE
6 

tion. He also finds time to drop by the Dixie Chicken for a nice 

Texas meal. 

Dr. Shaw has also worked here in DC. He is acting lead scientist 

for air quality at the Department of Agriculture and served as a 

member of EPA’s science advisory board. He brings an incredible 

amount of depth of knowledge to this hearing. I want to welcome 

him with a proud small Aggie woo. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Would the gentleman yield to the gentleman 

from Texas? 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. That’s whoop. I am an Aggie. 

I just want to welcome Dr. Shaw. Sorry I missed the earlier 

meeting but you’ve testified here before and we look forward to 

hearing what you have to say and, of course, all the other witnesses, and thank the chairman and ranking member for the hearing. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

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

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The legislation that is the subject of today’s hearing, the deceptively named Ozone Standards Implementation Act, has very little 

to do with implementing EPA’s ozone standards and instead is focused on undermining the Clean Air Act. 

Make no mistake, H.R. 4775 is a broad attack on some of the 

most important and successful tenets of the Clean Air Act including health-based standards and protections for all criteria of pollutants. 

Since 1970, the foundation of the Clean Air Act has been a set 

of health-based air quality standards that EPA must set based 

solely on the latest science and medical evidence. 

Essentially, the standard sets the level of pollution that is safe 

to breathe. With these health-based standards as the goalpost, 

States then develop plans to control pollution and meet those goals. 

Costs and technological feasibility are front and center in this 

planning and States can identify which pollution control measures 

are best suited to meeting the standard in the most cost-effective 

way. 

This structure has been extraordinarily effective for 46 years in 

cleaning the air and protecting public health including the health 

of sensitive groups like children and the elderly. 

H.R. 4775 would alter this proven approach. It would elevate cost 

considerations in the standard-setting process not just for ozone 

but also for carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particle pollution and even lead. 

This would allow polluters to override scientists, leading to air 

quality standards based on profits rather than health and reversing decades of progress in cleaning our air. 

7 

But H.R. 4775 goes even further, delaying development and implementation of national ambient air quality standards, or NAAQS, 

for all six criteria pollutants. 

The bill doubles the review period for all NAAQS, meaning any 

new evidence or science would only be considered every 10 years. 

That’s a dramatic move in the wrong direction on science-based decisionmaking. 

The legislation also includes a provision to alter the way that air 

quality monitoring data is interpreted, discounting air quality 

measurements taken during normal weather and climate cycles 

like heat waves and droughts. 

It’s an environmental ‘‘don’t ask don’t tell’’ designed to make it 

appear that air quality is improving when it’s not. We should eliminate pollution, not the record of its occurrence. 

The bill actually does manage to address implementation of the 

new ozone standards directly by delaying implementation by up to 

8 years. When you combine this mandated delay with other features of this legislation we virtually guarantee that people living 

in areas with poor air quality will continue to be exposed to air pollution indefinitely. 

In fact, a number of the provisions in this bill impact the areas 

that have the most persistent problems with air pollution. We have 

some of those areas represented on the panel today. 

There are three fundamental things that we all need every day— 

food, water and air. When we enacted the Clean Air Act, we made 

a commitment to the public to make the air safe and healthy to 

breathe. 

H.R. 4775 breaks that commitment. It’s simply a bad bill. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The legislation that is the subject of today’s hearing— 

the deceptively named ‘‘Ozone Standards Implementation Act’’—has very little to do 

with implementing EPA’s ozone standards and instead is focused on undermining 

the Clean Air Act. Make no mistake: H.R. 4775 is a broad attack on some of the 

most important and successful tenets of the Clean Air Act, including health-based 

standards and protections for all criteria pollutants. 

Since 1970, the foundation of the Clean Air Act has been a set of health based 

air quality standards that EPA must set based solely on the latest science and medical evidence. Essentially, the standard sets the level of pollution that is ‘‘safe’’ to 

breathe. With these health-based standards as the goal posts, States then develop 

plans to control pollution and meet these goals. Cost and technological feasibility 

are front and center in this planning and States can identify which pollution control 

measures are best suited to meeting the standard in the most cost-effective way. 

This structure has been extraordinarily effective for 46 years in cleaning the air 

and protecting public health, including the health of sensitive groups like children 

and the elderly. 

H.R. 4775 would alter this proven approach. It would elevate cost considerations 

in the standard-setting process, not just for ozone, but also for carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particle pollution and even lead. This would allow polluters to override scientists, leading to air quality standards based on profits rather 

than health, and reversing decades of progress in cleaning our air. 

But H.R. 4775 goes even farther, delaying development and implementation of 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards—or NAAQS for all six criteria pollutants. 

The bill doubles the review period for all NAAQS, meaning any new evidence or 

science would only be considered every 10 years. That’s a dramatic move in the 

wrong direction on science-based decisionmaking. 

This legislation also includes a provision to alter the way that air quality monitoring data is interpreted, discounting air quality measurements taken during norVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:39 Jul 12, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X134OZONELEGASKOK070716\114X134OZONELEGPDFMADE
8 

mal weather and climate cycles—like heat waves and droughts. It’s an environmental ‘‘don’t ask, don’t tell’’ designed to make it appear that air quality is improving when it is not. We should eliminate pollution, not the record of its occurrence. 

The bill actually does manage to address implementation of the new ozone standard directly by delaying implementation by up to 8 years. When you combine this 

mandated delay with other features of this legislation, we virtually guarantee that 

people living in areas with poor air quality will continue to be exposed to air pollution indefinitely. 

In fact, a number of the provisions in this bill impact the areas that have had 

the most persistent problems with air pollution. We have some of those areas represented on the panel today. 

There are three fundamental things that we all need every day—food, water and 

air. When we enacted the Clean Air Act, we made a commitment to the public to 

make the air safe and healthy to breathe. H.R. 4775 breaks that commitment. It 

is simply a bad bill. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALLONE. I wanted to—I have about 2 minutes. Did you 

want to make your statement? I will yield to Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. No, I didn’t do my duty and then yell out for the 

Warriors for winning 74 games this season. So, yay, Warriors. 

Mr. OLSON. Seventy-three games. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. My concern here—— 

Mr. OLSON. Seventy-three. They won 73. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Seventy-three. Well, I can give them an extra 

one. 

So anyway, I mean, my concern here is the issue with the Clean 

Air Act is it provides incentives for using new technology and many 

of the emission reductions are achieved through instead of funds to 

use new technology that both reduce emissions and reduce costs 

and that is possible through innovation. 

So we don’t want to see the new law tear down that provision 

at all. But California is the home to two regions struggling with 

the worst air quality in the Nation. 

As I mentioned, the San Joaquin Valley has really struggles. Our 

pollution control district has done tremendous work. They continue 

to do tremendous work and they have a lot of challenges ahead of 

them, and I just want to see that this law actually helps our communities fight pollution rather than puts them in a straightjacket. 

So that is really what I was going to try and say with my earlier 

2 minutes. So and with that, I yield back. 

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

the opening statements. So at this point, I would like to introduce 

our witnesses for the day. 

First of all, we have Dr. Bryan Shaw, who is Chairman of the 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. In fact, what I am 

going to do, I am just going to introduce you and let you give your 

opening statement. Then I will introduce each one of you when we 

call on you. 

So, Mr. Shaw, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

9 

STATEMENTS OF BRYAN W. SHAW, CHAIRMAN, TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; SEYED SADREDIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER, 

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT; 

ALI MIRZAKHALILI, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY, 

DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL; MISAEL CABRERA, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; AND 

ALAN MATHESON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

STATEMENT OF BRYAN W. SHAW 

Mr. SHAW. Thank you. 

Good morning. Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, 

members of the committee, thank you very much. A special thank 

you to Congressman Olson and Congressman Barton. I certainly 

have enjoyed the opportunity to work with you over the years. 

Good morning, and again, I am thankful for the opportunity to 

talk about an important issue this morning, specifically H.R. 4775, 

the Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2016 sponsored by 

Vice Chair Olson. 

My name is Dr. Bryan Shaw and I am the chairman of the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality. My agency’s mission is to 

protect Texas public health and the environment in a way that’s 

consistent with sustainable economic development. 

In carrying out that mission, we seek to bring together common 

sense, sound science and the law to ensure that environmental regulations are safe, fair and predictable. 

I am here today because the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

recent action lowering the national ambient air quality standard 

for ground-level ozone is not consistent with those principles. 

As you all know, the EPA finalized their proposal to lower the 

standard from 75 to 70 parts per billion on October 26th of 2015. 

The State’s initial designation recommendations are due on October 1st of this year. The TCEQ detailed our disagreements with the 

EPA’s conclusion and formal comments during the rule making 

process. 

We even traveled to Washington to meet personally with Administrator McCarthy to make her aware of the significant flaws in the 

studies EPA relied on in promulgating the new standard. 

The EPA nonetheless lowered the standard and now my agency 

is challenging the validity of that standard in court. While our voluminous comments and legal filings elaborating great detail on the 

myriad scientific and legal vulnerabilities with the new standard, 

I would like to briefly raise a few of the most troubling issues. 

First, the EPA claims that the new standard will provide annual 

health benefits between $2.9 billion and $5.9 billion, with a cost of 

only $1.4 billion. My agency’s analysis suggests these figures are 

dramatically incorrect. 

For example, the EPA only includes industry costs in their analysis, not the States’ or taxpayer costs, nor do they look at economic 

impacts like increased electricity costs. 

Another major flaw in the EPA’s analysis is their quantification 

of the benefits that would flow from this new standard. The EPA’s 

10 

own analysis shows that lowering the standard even to the 65 ppb 

level will not significantly reduce asthma attacks. 

In addition, approximately two-thirds of the benefits the EPA 

claims would result from the new standard are not based on ozone 

reductions at all. In fact, they are based on reductions of an entirely different pollutant that is not the subject of this rule. 

Specifically, the EPA reasons that in taking the actions necessitated by this standard, States will also lower levels of fine particulate matter, or PM 2.5. 

The flaw in that reasoning is that, at least in Texas’ case, levels 

of PM 2.5 are already below the standard set by EPA. Chief Justice 

Roberts recently questioned this practice when the EPA’s Mercury 

and Air Toxics Standard was reviewed and rejected by the Supreme Court. 

While the court ultimately rejected the rule on other grounds, 

the Chief Justice suggested that EPA’s co-benefits analysis might 

be an illegitimate way of muddling the differing regulatory 

schemes for each pollutant under the Clean Air Act. 

H.R. 4775 is a welcome step in the right direction. It seeks to 

defer the implementation of the new standard until 2024, and it requires the EPA to spend more time studying and reviewing scientific literature and other factors before implementing new standards. 

By suspending the applicability of the new standard, this legislation will allow States to focus their limited resources on fully implementing the 2008 standard as well as a cascade of other new 

and expensive regulations coming out of EPA. 

Especially considering the cost of the negligible health and environmental benefits embodied by the new standard, a delay in implementing this standard is helpful indeed. 

More broadly, H.R. 4775 also seeks to make the NAAQS—the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards—program applicable to 

all six criteria pollutants more efficient and effective. 

By lengthening the required review period from 5 to 10 years, it 

will ensure the EPA does not rush to lower given standards only 

to comply with a statutory deadline. Furthermore, it will give 

States more time to comply with previous standards before getting 

saddled with more stringent standards and facing economic and developmental sanctions for nonattainment. 

I also support this legislation’s addition of technological feasibility and possible adverse welfare, social, and economic effects to 

the list of factors the EPA can consider in revising a standard. 

As the Act is currently written and interpreted by the Supreme 

Court, the EPA is prohibited from considering whether or not the 

state of our technological capabilities would even make getting the 

required reductions possible. 

Put simply, the EPA could require States to make reductions 

that are literally impossible to achieve. The act’s requirement that 

the EPA ignore technological and economic considerations might 

have made sense 40 years ago when it was initially passed. 

However, pollution levels have been lowered to such a degree 

that the law of diminishing returns has made it more and more difficult to continue to reduce pollutant levels at all, much less in a 

way that is not burdensome economically. 

11 

Finally, H.R. 4775’s directive to the EPA to begin timely issuance 

of implementing regulations and guidance solves a major issue that 

often confronts States like Texas. 

Without this protection, the EPA can and does require States to 

develop and propose new standards before the EPA itself has given 

States specific guidance for the standard. And so I understand how 

charged this issue can be but I appreciate Vice Chair Olson’s efforts to streamline this process. 

And thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shaw follows:] 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Dr. Shaw. 

And now our next witness is Seyed—Mr. Seyed Sadredin, who is 

the Executive Director of Air Pollution Control for San Joaquin 

Valley Air Pollution Control District. 

You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SEYED SADREDIN 

Mr. SADREDIN. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush and members of the committee. It is an honor to be here 

before you today. 

My name is Seyed Sadredin and I am the executive director and 

air pollution control officer for the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District. 

With me today I have a number of local elected officials that 

serve on the governing board of the air district—Council Member 

Baines from the city of Fresno, Chairman of the Board Supervisor 

Worthley from Tulare County, and Supervisor Elliott from San Joaquin County. 

They serve on the District Governing Board and deal with a lot 

of the issues that we are about to talk about today. 

The area of our jurisdiction covers a 25,000 square mile region 

in the Central California, the beautiful area that is a big source of 

food throughout the Nation and throughout the world. 

We are the largest air district in the State of California, and 

today I am here as a public health official as a representative of 

an agency that is charged with protecting public health to urge a 

strong bipartisan support for H.R. 4775. I think it is good for air 

quality, and it also streamlines the act. 

H.R. 4775, in my opinion, provides for much needed streamlining 

of the implementation of the Clean Air Act. It does not roll back 

anything that is already in the Clean Air Act in the form of protections for public health, safeguarding public health and it does nothing to roll back any of the progress that has been made and it will 

not impede or slow down our progress as we move forward to reduce air pollution and improve public health. 

I want to congratulate you and express my gratitude to you, to 

your committee, to the sponsors of the bill for taking reasonable action to provide much-needed and long overdue congressional guidance with respect to the implementation phase of the Clean Air 

Act. 

As you know, it has been more than 25 years since the act was 

last amended by the Congress. To date, as many have said, the act 

has served us well and we have made significant progress in reducing air pollution and improving quality of life all across the Nation. 

We have reached a point, however, in my opinion and many others in our region that have had decades of experience implementing 

the act, that we are reaching a point of diminishing return and 

many of the well-intentioned provisions in the act are leading to 

unintended consequences that are costly. 

In many cases, they are actually adverse to public health. I don’t 

think anyone here believes that Congress meant to put something 

in the act that actually is detrimental to public health, and there 

are a number of provisions in the act now that if you fully implement them the way the courts have read them, the way EPA sees 

18 

them, they are actually detrimental to public health and finally, 

consequences that set regions like ours up for failure with potentially devastating economic sanctions. 

And these consequences are going to be mostly felt in many of 

our environmental justice communities with a great deal of poverty 

and a lot of other disadvantages that they face already. 

I believe good governance and common sense dictates that after 

25 years we reexamine our policies, and I am hoping that our decades of experience in our region can be helpful as your committee, 

as the Congress moves forward to chart the course for our future. 

In our region, we have imposed the toughest air regulations on 

all businesses and all agricultural activities. 

We have imposed the toughest regulations on cars, trucks, consumer products. We have imposed even tough regulations on what 

people can do inside their homes, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman. 

We have left no stone unturned in reducing emissions from all 

sectors of our economy and from every source of air pollution in our 

region. 

We have reduced air pollution by over 80 percent. We have reduced population exposure to ozone by over 90 percent. Unfortunately, at this point, despite all that progress we are nowhere near 

meeting the latest standards. 

If you could just take a quick look at Figure 2 that I provided 

in my written testimony it basically breaks down the sources of air 

pollution from various sectors. 

Today, if we eliminate all businesses in San Joaquin Valley, 

small and large, we will not come anywhere near meeting the 

standard. If we eliminate all agriculture—and I have to tell you, 

seven of the top ag producing counties in the Nation are in our region—if we eliminated all agriculture in San Joaquin Valley we 

will not come close to meeting the standards. 

If we removed all passenger vehicles in our area—2.7 vehicles— 

if we removed all of them we will not meet the standard. If we removed all the trucks that travel up and down the valley we will 

not come anywhere near meeting the standard. 

I don’t think this is what the Congress envisioned when they 

passed the act when it was last amended and I will take a few 

more seconds, Mr. Chairman, if I could, to finish. 

I don’t think the Congress envisioned a scenario like this where 

you reduce air pollution by 80 percent and you were at a point that 

you are not anywhere near meeting the standard. 

I believe, as I have detailed in our written testimony, H.R. 4775 

puts in place a number of streamlining measures without rolling 

back any of the existing provisions and without impeding our 

progress and it will go a long way and finally bring in some order 

into the implementation phase of the Clean Air Act. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sadredin follows:] 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much. 

And our next witness is Mr. Ali Mirzakhalili, who is Director of 

the Division of Air Quality for the Delaware Department of Natural 

Resources & Environmental Control. 

Thank you very much for being with us and you’re recognized for 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ALI MIRZAKHALILI 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. Thank you very much. Chairman Whitfield, 

Ranking Member Rush, and members of the subcommittee, my 

name is Ali Mirzakhalili and I serve as Delaware’s Director of Air 

Quality. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 4775, the 

Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2016. 

Since the Clean Air Act was last amended over 25 years ago, it 

has prevented literally hundreds of thousands of premature deaths 

as well as averted millions of incidents of morbidity including, for 

example, heart disease, chronic bronchitis and asthma. 

The health benefits associated with this landmark legislation 

have far outweighed the costs of reducing pollution by more than 

30 to 1. 

Moreover, we have acquired these health benefits over the same 

period as our Nation’s gross domestic product has grown. It is fair 

to say that the Clean Air Act has not only been one of our Nation’s 

most effective environmental statute, it will likely go down in history as one of the most effective domestic laws ever passed. 

Accordingly, it is imperative that consideration of any significant 

amendment to the act be deliberate and thoughtful and ensure that 

fundamental tenets of the legislation, which is protection of public 

health and welfare, remain intact. 

Unfortunately, after reviewing H.R. 4775, Delaware has concluded that it cannot support this bill. I believe the bill substantially weakens the existing Clean Air Act by delaying important 

deadlines and considerably altering the process of setting healthbased national ambient air quality standards. 

One of my primary concerns with H.R. 4775 is Section 3(b), 

which would revise the criteria in the act for establishing healthbased NAAQS by allowing the consideration of technological feasibility in determining the level of the standard. 

I believe this provision could unravel the entire framework of the 

Clean Air Act. Congress and the courts, including the United 

States Supreme Court, have been very clear over the past several 

decades on the issue of setting the NAAQS, requiring the EPA to 

set these standards solely on the basis of health so that communities will know whether or not the air they are breathing is safe. 

Costs and other factors such as technological feasibility have 

never been allowed to be considered in these critically important 

decisions. Once the health-based standards are set, the act appropriately allows cost and other factors including technological feasibilities to be considered as States develop implementation strategies to meet the standard. 

By removing this important firewall, separating the setting of 

the standards from their implementation, the public will never 

know what level of air quality is truly safe. 

34 

Imagine an oncologist discovering through the best medical tests 

that her patient has cancer, but because the treatment is not feasible she tells the patient he simply has a bad case of flu. 

The diagnosis is not dependent on the feasibility of the treatment. I am also very troubled by Section 2 of the bill, which would 

delay deadlines for implementation of 2015 ozone standard by up 

to 8 years. 

Arbitrarily extending the compliance deadlines would leave the 

old, outdated and unprotective standard in effect, resulting each 

year in hundreds of premature deaths on top of many thousands 

of morbidity and related impacts. 

To make matters worse, Section 3(a) would permanently lengthen the NAAQS review cycle from 5 to 10 years, bar EPA from completing any review of those standards before October 26 of 2025. 

I am concerned with Section 3(d) of H.R. 4775, which appears to 

reward the regulative community with no consideration of health 

of our citizens for EPA delays in publishing important guidelines. 

The bill would allow industries to meet preconstruction permit 

requirements based upon an outdated standard if EPA were unable 

or unwilling publish its rules and guidance at the time—at the 

same time it promulgates its health-based standard. 

One way for Congress to overcome these delays is to ensure that 

EPA has sufficient resources to do its job. The provisions of Section 

3(f) and (g) of the bill are also troubling because they would weaken the progress requirement of the Clean Air Act by allowing 

States under the guise of economic feasibility and technological 

achievability to circumvent these important requirements. 

It will seriously interfere with Delaware’s and other downwind 

States’ ability to provide our citizens with clean air. 

In Delaware, we are meeting all of our deadlines and taking our 

responsibilities seriously. We fully expect the same from others. 

In conclusion, the proposed legislation would undercut requirements of the Clean Air Act that are crucial to obtaining healthy air 

quality as expeditiously as practicable. 

Further, the proposed amendments would wholly change the 

thrust of the Clean Air Act from expeditious protection of public 

health to one of delay. 

Delaware supports efficient and expeditious implementation of 

NAAQS. H.R. 4775 bill, however, would weaken and delay public 

health protection. My State, therefore, must oppose this bill. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I am happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mirzakhalili follows:] 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much. 

And our next witness is Mr. Misael Cabrera, who is the Director 

of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, and you’re 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MISAEL CABRERA 

Mr. CABRERA. Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush and 

members of the committee, my name is Misael Cabrera and I am 

the director of the Arizona Department of the Environmental Quality. 

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to share testimony today. As 

the lead State challenging the 2015 ozone standard in the court, 

Arizona does not support 70 parts per billion as the appropriate 

ozone standard. 

We believe that the new standard is simply not achievable in 

many areas of our State. Although the Clean Air Act has five 

mechanisms to bring nonattainment areas into compliance or provide relief, these mechanisms are inadequate for Arizona and likely 

other Western States. 

These mechanisms include improving air quality through State 

regulation, designating rural transport areas, designating interstate or international transport areas and demonstrating exceptional events. 

I will discuss each mechanisms and its shortcomings in the context of a rural county in Arizona. Yuma County is located in the 

southwest corner of Arizona bordered by both California and Mexico. 

The county contains a few small towns and the city of Yuma, 

which has an estimated population of about 100,000 and an unemployment rate of about 20 percent. 

Yuma is predominantly an agricultural community and despite 

its lack of urbanization or industrialization, Yuma County will be 

designated as nonattainment under the new ozone standard. 

As you may know, precursors for ozone include volatile organic 

compounds and oxides of nitrogen. According to EPA’s 2011 National Emissions Inventory, industrial sources account for only 0.2 

percent of the total VOC emissions and 5.3 percent of NOx emissions within the county. All other sources are either naturally occurring or not regulated by the State. 

No matter how many local emissions controls are placed on 

Yuma County businesses, Yuma County will not achieve compliance under the new standard. 

In addition, Yuma County would not qualify for the rural transport mechanism because the Clean Air Act states that a rural area 

seeking relief cannot be adjacent to or include any part of a metropolitan statistical area, defined by the U.S. Census as an entire 

county comprising 50,000 people or more. 

The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule often mentioned as a relief 

mechanism is yet another option that does not apply to Yuma 

County. Although 20 percent of ozone concentrations in Yuma 

County emanate from California manmade sources, the rule only 

helps downwind nonattainment areas receive emissions reductions 

from upwind attainment areas. 

41 

This approach will not work for Yuma County because California 

has already implemented the most stringent controls in the country, is still unable to achieve compliance with the standard and has 

no emissions reductions to contribute downwind. 

Further, the exceptional events rule is of dubious value to Yuma 

County, if not the whole country. Although Arizona has been a national leader in the development of exceptional event documentation or dust events, the process for documenting and receiving EPA 

approval of ozone-exceptional events has not been well explained, 

will almost certainly be resource intensive and is difficult to predict. 

The best case scenario for Yuma is that our agency can make an 

international transport demonstration, given that EPA’s own modeling shows that international sources are responsible for 68 percent of ozone emissions affecting Yuma on modeled exceedance 

days. 

Unfortunately, that demonstration is only valid after the area 

has been designated as nonattainment and has exceeded the 3-year 

deadline. 

This means Yuma would still have to comply with higher nonattainment classification requirements—requirements that would 

limit economic growth in a high unemployment area in perpetuity 

as a consequence of emission sources that originate primarily outside of Arizona and/or outside of Arizona’s jurisdiction and control. 

Yuma County is but one of many such counties in Arizona and 

the West. For all these reasons, Arizona is challenging the new 

ozone standard in court. 

We also request that consideration be given to interstate and 

international transport demonstrations before areas are classified 

as nonattainment. 

Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cabrera follows:] 

42 

43 

44 

45 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you very much. 

And our last witness today is Mr. Alan Matheson, who is the executive director for the Utah Department of Environmental Quality. 

Thanks for being with us and you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN MATHESON 

Mr. MATHESON. Thanks, and I’ll, Mr. Chairman, just note initially that Mr. Cabrera is credible, despite the fact that he has far 

too much hair for this panel. 

Mr. Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, members of the 

committee, I am Alan Matheson, the executive director of the Utah 

Department of Environmental Quality. 

Improved air quality is a high priority for Utah. Under the direction of Governor Gary Herbert, we have taken aggressive action to 

clean our air—imposing stringent new control requirements, expanding public transportation, implementing travel-reduction strategies and a public education campaign and conducting research to 

understand Utah’s unique atmospheric chemistry. The results have 

been meaningful. 

In the appropriate pursuit of cleaner air, we need to ensure that 

our regulatory system is rationally aligned with that goal. Today, 

I share Utah’s concerns with the periodic review cycle of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards—or NAAQS—the implementation schedule for the ozone standard, and the challenges our 

State has in meeting the new 70 parts per billion threshold. 

In general, extending the 5-year NAAQS review cycle so that it 

better aligns with the prescribed NAAQS implementation time 

lines is appropriate. An area designated as moderate nonattainment for ozone has 8 years from the date the NAAQS is set to 

achieve attainment. 

At the very least, there should be 8 years between NAAQS reviews to accommodate this compliance schedule. Extending the review cycle to 10 years would more closely align it with the prescribed planning period of an area designated as serious nonattainment for ozone. 

Further, EPA has been unable to provide States with timely and 

necessary implementation guidance under the current 5-year 

NAAQS review cycle. The implementation rule for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS was published in March 2015, only seven months before 

the ozone standard was lowered to 70 parts per billion in October. 

As another example, new PM 2.5 nonattainment areas were designated in 2009. State implementation plans for those areas were 

due to EPA December 2014, but EPA has yet to promulgate the 

guidance establishing what is required in those plans. 

EPA cannot even review for completeness the plans that they 

have received. Extending the time line for implementing the 2015 

ozone NAAQS will allow better coordination among States, tribes, 

and the Federal Government. 

One of the areas in Utah experiencing difficult challenges with 

ozone and expected to be classified as nonattainment is the energyrich Uinta Basin. The unique chemistry underlying winter ozone 

formation differs from the typical summer urban chemistry anticipated by the Clean Air Act of 1990. 

46 

In addition, this region has a complex mix of State, tribal, and 

EPA air jurisdictions. Utah has coordinated a significant multiagency study into the causes of winter ozone and is working with 

EPA and the Ute Tribe in developing State, tribal, and Federal implementation plans for the area. 

These efforts take an extraordinary amount of time and an extension of the implementation period is needed. Under the Clean 

Air Act, another review of the ozone NAAQs will occur in 2020. If 

EPA sets a new standard then, it will hamper the coordination efforts that are already underway. 

Background ozone levels present an additional challenge in meeting the new 70 part per billion standard. International transport 

can, at times, account for up to 85 percent of the 8-hour ambient 

ozone concentration in some Western States. Many areas in the 

West have little chance of identifying sufficient controls to achieve 

attainment, leading to severe consequences. 

Utah recommends that EPA work with States to determine what 

portion of ozone pollution and its chemical precursors is coming 

from background ozone and to clarify how exceptional events and 

international transport will affect attainment designations and 

compliance. 

Making the right choices to improve air quality in ozone nonattainment areas will depend on how well we understand the 

science, and our understanding of science needs to improve. The 

tools available to States to account for nonanthropogenic ozone are 

administratively burdensome and subject to second guessing, often 

due to a lack of reliable supporting data. 

Effort spent analyzing uncontrollable pollution to satisfy EPA’s 

administrative requirements is simply administrative overhead 

that does nothing to improve air quality or people’s health. 

The Department of Environmental Quality’s mission is to safeguard public health and the environment and our quality of life by 

protecting and enhancing the environment, and it is a mission that 

we take seriously. 

We must address the public health impacts of ozone with reasoned approaches. As we move forward with this more stringent 

ozone standard, EPA needs to have in place the necessary tools to 

allow States to succeed. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Matheson follows:] 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Matheson, and we appreciate 

the statements from all of you, and at this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the Chair. 

My first questions are for Dr. Shaw. As you know, this bipartisan 

bill got Mr. Costa from California to sign up on it yesterday. It 

would require the EPA to review air quality standards every 10 

years instead of every 5. 

It would also make sure that EPA actually puts out timely guidance on how to implement the rule when they do make a change. 

It ensures we avoid the mess of the last decade. 

Lower standards in 2008—rules to make those happen 2015. 

Seven months later new standards. That should never ever happen 

again. 

Do you think that these changes in this bill will help States 

clean up the air in a more straightforward way and more health 

benefits with this law—this new bill? 

Mr. SHAW. Thank you, Congressman. 

Yes, the reason that I am encouraged by the effort that is underway here is because I sincerely believe that it will enhance our 

ability to have more meaningful environmental regulations that do 

indeed help to protect the health of those individuals that we are 

sworn to help to protect. 

I believe that this planning time frame will help us to analyze 

and do the heavy lifting to understand better what is causing the 

respiratory health issues, to be able to develop plans to make sure 

those are being addressed and those regulations will indeed have 

a reasonable likelihood of yielding those environmental and health 

benefits. 

So I think that providing that time frame and requiring a more 

detailed analysis of the standard before it is lowered will be very 

helpful. 

Otherwise, we tend to have—find ourselves in a cycle where we 

lower the standard trying to achieve the health benefits that we 

failed to the last time we lowered the standard and I think there’s 

some science that needs to be done to answer that. 

Mr. OLSON. Is it true too that ozone concentrations are lower 

when—as medical reactions are higher in Texas so there’s no coordination between more ozone and health, correct? 

Mr. SHAW. That’s correct. In the State of Texas we have a higher 

asthma hospitalizations in the winter time during our low ozone 

concentrations and nationally as well we have seen significant reductions in ozone concentrations and yet the level of asthma continues to increase. 

Mr. OLSON. Sounds like need more studies. 

As you know, last year EPA decided to pick a new standard of— 

well, they had a goal between 70 and 60 parts per billion. They 

chose 70. Their advisor said that rule net range would keep people 

healthy. 

Under our bipartisan bill, we call on EPA to give secondary consideration to whether a standard is achievable. It doesn’t tell them 

to set an unhealthy standard but it keeps them available—it keeps 

63 

that technology available, that edge, so they know they’re protecting our air. 

Do you think this bill is a reasonable approach? 

Mr. SHAW. I do. I think that, you know, one of the other things 

that EPA has talked about is that even in absence of this standard 

being lowered that I believe that you talked about 85 percent of 

counties would achieve the standard by doing nothing. 

I think that there is an opportunity for us to provide reason to 

this and let the market and let some of these innovations take 

place and I think that this bill helps to ensure that we are investing our environmental efforts from the State from dollars and from 

what we are asking our regulated community to invest to actually 

lead those health benefits that we look at—that we are looking for. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you. And now Mr. Sadredin. Wow. Seventy 

parts per billion really hurts the San Joaquin Valley, huh? 

As was mentioned, one section of this bill deals with what’s 

called exceptional events. That part of the law is designed to make 

sure that our communities aren’t punished for pollution they can’t 

control such as droughts or fires. 

But, as you know, EPA does not provide relief relating to certain 

events beyond an area’s control. My question is, Can you explain 

why this exception is so important to this change for your county? 

Mr. SADREDIN. Thank you, Congressman Olson. 

In 2012, San Joaquin Valley was on the verge of meeting the 65 

microgram per cubic meter standard for PM and then we had the 

drought that I am sure you heard about, have experienced it in 

other regions, where we had concentrations never seen before in 

terms of the magnitude of PM concentrations that we were monitoring throughout the valley. 

Unfortunately, the Clean Air Act as it is written right now, it 

says you cannot take into account a stagnation or precipitation. 

Now, this is another one of those well-intentioned provisions that 

is leading to unintended consequences. I think the Congress, when 

they put that in there, they meant, you know, you cannot come on 

a daily basis. 

Well, say, today is hot, today is stagnation. So this is an exceptional event on a daily basis. But when you have a situation like 

we experienced in San Joaquin Valley where we had a 100-year 

drought, conditions that had not been seen before for 100 years, 

and they have already gone away this year thanks to El Nin ̃ o and 

almost a normal weather condition, the language in H.R. 4775 simply says that when you have extraordinary circumstances such as 

what we experienced in California you should not be held responsible, have the valley businesses, residences be penalized for something that we have zero control over. 

Mr. OLSON. And so you’re saying 100-year drought is exceptional. 

Is that right? 

Mr. SADREDIN. That is all we are asking, yes. 

Mr. OLSON. Wow. I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time, I will 

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

Mr. RUSH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Mirzakhalili, as I referred to in my opening statement, the 

ozone standards have not been updated since 2008. H.R. 4775 

64 

would further delay any new standards from being implemented for 

up to another 8 years. 

Are there any health implications that would be impacted if this 

bill were to become law and we waited for a period of almost 16 

years before updating these standards? 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. Thank you, Mr. Rush. Obviously, the sequence of events that takes place by setting the standard—when 

the standard is set, the designations take place, the States begin 

taking action to reduce their emissions. 

We depend on our upwind State emissions reductions to help us 

achieve attainment. If they are not designated, if they are not implementing measures to reach attainment, we are not going to—as 

a downwind State, we are not going to see the benefit. 

Moreover, the standard—we are telling the people probably an 

untruth saying that standard—they are being protected by the 

ozone standards. We issue forecasts. We issue air quality alerts. 

We issue advisories based on the standard. If the standard is not 

protective, the forecast obligation is not going to tell people the 

whole story. 

Mr. RUSH. What are the implications, Mr. Mirzakhalili—what 

would the implications be if we were to extend the renew period 

for all air pollutant standards from every 5 years to 10 years? 

For instance, there is a concern that new developments in scientific research in regards to health impacts may occur more frequently than every decade. 

Also, just because the EPA is required to review the data every 

5 years does not mean that the agency must automatically update 

the standards every 5 years. 

Do you have any comments on—— 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. Absolutely. The 5-year review—we need to 

follow science. The decision regarding the standards should be 

science-driven. 

As everybody here on the panel has talked about, we need additional information. We need to do research and we need to be informed by that—by the research. 

We can’t just arbitrarily prohibit and prevent EPA to lengthen 

the time that they go back and revisit the standard to some period 

of time because it is not convenient. 

I think 5 years has been a good timer and tied with—if we want 

an alignment with implementation your marginal areas have to 

come in with 3 years of the standard. 

So if you are going to—one could argue that there should be a 

3-year review of the standard as opposed to a 5-year. As the new 

science becomes available, EPA doesn’t have to, and they have a 

number of occasions, not changed the standard. 

They have reviewed it, said science doesn’t indicate that we need 

to change the standards and they have moved on. That’s the case 

with carbon monoxide. That is the case with the last time there 

was a motion for reconsideration of the 75 standard. 

We are not happy with 70 ppb. I don’t think it was—you know, 

I would have been happier with a lower standard. We think that 

some of the science indicated that 65 would have been a more protective standard. 

65 

However, EPA followed the science advisory committee’s recommendation and adopted that. And so we are trying to implement 

that. They should not be barred from implementation. There 

should not be a provision that would delay the review of available 

scientific data that will come before it. 

Mr. RUSH. H.R. 4775 would also change the reporting requirements for States by allowing them to claim, quote, exceptional 

events, end of quote. 

Can you discuss the practical implications of changing air quality 

monitoring protocols in ways that could lead to under reporting of 

poor air quality conditions and how this might impact mostly 

health and environmental conditions for an affected community? 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. I just go back to what triggered the—prompted the Clean Air Act and us, the Congress, acting on adopting 

clean air measures. The northern Pennsylvania event was an exceptional event. It killed people. We had a bad inversion that 

caused a high air quality event and a number of people died as a 

result of air pollution. 

Just because meteorology is adverse it doesn’t mean air pollution 

doesn’t occur and you should be dismissed. The language that is 

being proposed here it opens the door that we say if there is a hot 

day we don’t—it doesn’t count. An inversion doesn’t count. 

So we are reduced to managing air quality on good days and I 

don’t think that’s the way you intend us to do. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman’s time has expired. At this time I will 

recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to ask most of my questions to Chairman Shaw, but 

if anybody wants to answer them, they can. I just know him a little 

bit better. 

What was the original ozone standard set back in 1971? 

Mr. SHAW. The standard has, obviously, changed over time and 

we had a 1-hour standard and the number was 120 parts per billion, I believe, was the standard. 

Mr. BARTON. It was over 100. 

Mr. SHAW. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. BARTON. But it was set in a different way on a 1-hour. 

Mr. SHAW. Correct. 

Mr. BARTON. We’ve changed it to an 8-hour. 

Mr. SHAW. That is correct. 

Mr. BARTON. And has consistently gone lower every time it’s 

been set. Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. SHAW. That’s correct. 

Mr. BARTON. How low can it go? I mean, why not just put into 

law every 5 years we are going to reduce it 5 parts per billion and 

be done with all this? Because that is what happens, basically. 

Mr. SHAW. It is certainly part of where I am encouraged by a 

longer time period between the review. But that is most effective 

if that is a more thorough review because as I alluded to earlier 

it is my perception that we are in a cycle to where we are—the 

process that is being used by EPA to determine whether to lower 

the standard is flawed and this is certainly characterized and captured in our comments we submitted. 

66 

But we are looking at epidemiological studies that show a correlation and therefore they are assuming that there must be a 

causal relationship. 

And yet, in order to get clinical studies to show an impact on the 

ability of people to bring air in and out of their lungs they had to 

subject folks to 6—over 6 and a half hours per day of moderate to 

extreme exercise while being exposed to levels we are talking about 

just to get a measurable degradation in lung function. 

And by the way, those levels were reversible. Those weren’t permanent. And so in order to get any response they had to have people exercise it in a way that—I won’t speak for you but certainly 

I can’t do on a regular basis and it is—while we agree that EPA 

used them as a surrogate for the sensitive populations, it is unreasonable to expect people to be exposed to that. 

And the key point I am making, Congressman, is that EPA is 

continuing to lower the standard but we are continuing to get the 

same result. If you lower the standard over and over again but 

you’re not providing those health benefits then one would question 

maybe we are missing something. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, now, the standard is parts per billion. Isn’t 

that right? 

Mr. SHAW. That is correct. 

Mr. BARTON. And we are going from 75 parts per billion to 70. 

So we are changing it five parts per billion. Can I tell the difference? If I breathe air right now, can I tell the difference between 

70 parts per billion and 75 parts per billion? 

Mr. SHAW. I would argue that in order for EPA to get a measurable difference that you would have to follow that protocol and exercise rigorously for 6 and a half hours each day while you were 

being exposed to that in order to potentially, and not all parties 

would show a measurement. So, unlikely that you would experience 

that. 

Mr. BARTON. I tried to exercise for 6 and a half hours, that would 

kill me. That would be a measurable impact on my health. 

Mr. SHAW. I am with you, Congressman. 

Mr. BARTON. What is the sensitivity of the best air quality monitors—in other words, the variance—they measure parts per billion 

plus or minus—it used to be about 10 parts per billion, but it may 

be better now. 

Mr. SHAW. We are better than that now, and certainly we can 

measure to the parts per billion and that is getting—you know, the 

science an ability to monitor is improving significantly. 

Unfortunately, that doesn’t necessarily—because you can measure it to a finer detail it doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re—that 

you are better able to understand what those implications are. 

We can measure it very accurately. But the bigger errors aren’t 

in the measuring the concentration at the monitor. The bigger errors are the fact that folks that we are comparing them to that are 

hospitalized and/or unfortunately, pass away we are tying them to 

a monitor that they may never have been around. 

And in fact, in all likelihood someone who is in a hospital or, unfortunately, passing away likely didn’t spend their final days exercising 6 and a half hours a day. 

67 

In fact, they probably spent most of their time indoors, which we, 

as a general population, spend about 90 percent of our time indoors 

where ozone levels are about 30 percent, I believe, of ambient and 

we are exposed to much other pollutants in the indoor environment 

than we see in the ambient environment. 

And so in all likelihood, any environmental input into that person’s hospitalization and mortality were effectively something besides ozone and I think that is where we need EPA to assess and 

help us to come up with —— 

Mr. BARTON. Let me ask Mr. Cabrera a question. 

What do you do in these rural counties like you mentioned where 

the natural occurring ozone is probably higher than the standard? 

You just—there is nothing you can do. What—I mean—— 

Mr. CABRERA. Congressman Barton, that is exactly why we are 

challenging the standard in court. 

There are many areas that would be forced to put requirements 

on industry for air pollution that they did not create and that the 

State cannot regulate, and that puts rural counties in a very odd 

position. 

We have looked at this very, very hard. Our stance as an agency 

is typically to cooperate with EPA whenever we can and on this 

particular issue we have looked at all of the mechanisms for relief 

that EPA provides and none of them work well for Arizona. 

And so rather than holding counties accountable for air pollution 

that they did not create, we decided to challenge the standard in 

court. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you. 

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

At this time, I will recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, 

Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to ask my questions of Mr.—is it pronounced 

Mirzakhalili? OK. 

I see you share many of my concerns about this bill. In my opinion, H.R. 4775 is a major rollback of valuable Clean Air Act protections and will give any area that has air quality problems numerous new avenues to avoid cleaning up the air. 

So, first, I would like to ask some questions about the air quality 

monitoring provision. Exceptional events—large wildfires, for example—are accounted for now in air monitoring. I mean, that is 

true. Do you want to just briefly explain that? 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. Certainly. Thank you, Congressman. 

Right now, the policy—as exceptional events come into play when 

we look at the air quality and see what—whether or not the violator attained the standard or met the standard and that is the communication that we make back to our community. 

During certain events—you know, Canadian wildfires, for instance, contributed—caused a problem for certain areas in our region—we were able to go back, make the case those are exceptional 

events and eliminate those—reading those air quality data points 

from our overall assessment of air quality and attainment/nonattainment. 

So to go back and say well, and that is very limited—EPA works 

on it. They have—they’re working on the guidance. There was just 

68 

recently a meeting where they brought up and trying to address 

Mr. Sadredin’s and others’ issues regarding, you know, what should 

or should not be exceptional events. 

But I think what this proposed language does, it creates a big 

gaping road for inversions, fires, having hot days and those are not 

supposed to be considered exceptional events. We are supposed to 

protect the public from—— 

Mr. PALLONE. So then if now you expand this definition, you 

know, this—these exemptions, what are some of the real world implications for such a policy change? 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. Well, ozone is formed during the hot days and 

require hot days to create ozone. It’s a secondary pollutant. You 

need VOC and NOx in the presence of sunlight and hot temperatures. 

So if you take out days we eliminate hot ozone days. So we can— 

we can declare victory that way and before that we have met the 

standard whereas we are not meeting the standard. 

Mr. PALLONE. So for downwind States like yours and mine also, 

by the way, I am concerned that this change, you know, makes the 

air quality problems from transport a lot worse. 

I mean, is it possible that downwind States could receive additional air pollution? I mean, they are likely going to receive a lot 

more air pollution. 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. Absolutely. Like I mentioned, if the trigger 

for controls is by designation on air quality, nonattainment areas 

usually have to implement more requirements, and to the extent 

that they are not part of the planning, if they manage—if the open 

area manages to exclude their poor air quality that is based on exceptional events they will not be required to implement the reduction strategies that would then directly benefit the downwind areas 

such as ours and your State, obviously. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. So as I understand it, the monitoring 

data is also used to report the daily air quality index, which gives 

people warnings when the air pollution is at unsafe levels. 

So how would expanding what can be considered an exceptional 

event impact those alerts to the public? Would it lead to fewer 

warnings or would the public wonder why the numbers of warnings 

of bad air quality days are increasing while their area was declaring that they were meeting the air quality standards? I mean—— 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. It certainly would create a confusion and 

mixed messages to the public. You know, we provide access to air 

quality data to the public. 

Our monitoring stations are—you know, you can go online to our 

Web site and get near real-time air quality data and they will see 

it is measuring, you know, above the standard and yet we are saying well, that this doesn’t count. 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, is there any justification for this change 

other than making bad air quality look good to avoid controlling air 

pollution or what is the justification other than that? 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. That is what I get, and that is why we are 

not supporting it. I believe there are instances that are truly exceptional events that EPA already considers. 

But to open it up to the extent that is being proposed is not warranted. 

69 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Well, I just—I want to thank you, because as I see it this Section 3(h) would create a loophole that 

would allow localities to disregard dangerous air pollution and, basically, the bill requires the EPA and the States to pretend that 

real harmful air pollution doesn’t exist and isn’t hurting our kids 

when in fact it may very well be. 

So thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, 

Mr. Shimkus, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. This has been a great hearing. I am 

sorry, I just had to step out. 

So I want to start with Mr. Mirzakhalili. I am sorry if I butcher 

it. I am Shimkus. I get it butchered all the time, too. 

The—you don’t question anybody on the panel with you and their 

concern about air quality, do you? I mean, all your colleagues 

there, in essence, you don’t—you don’t question that they are doing 

their best for the air quality of the areas that they represent? 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. Absolutely not. I copy their programs quite 

often. I go through—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me go on because—yes, I mean, this is great 

testimony that we have heard from some of your colleagues, and 

Mr. Sadredin, I think we would pull up—I would encourage people 

to look at his testimony and look at the two charts he refers to in 

his testimony. 

I don’t know if you can pull it up. We are having trouble, and 

so that is why I was bouncing back and forth. 

The reality is in San Joaquin Valley the success of what you 

have been doing is undeniable, and you are coming before us. 

Then you go to chart two, then you are coming to us and it says, 

‘‘Even if I stop all this activity, I can’t meet it.’’ Is that how I observe your opening statement and your testimony? 

Mr. SADREDIN. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. 

As we speak today, the San Joaquin Valley is on the verge of 

having 10 active State implementation plans for 10 different standards for ozone and particulate matter. 

There is nothing in this bill that would take this impossible mandate that is before us as we speak that by next August our region 

is required to put a new State implementation plan together to reduce emissions down to zero from all these sources, very near zero, 

and even then it is questionable whether we meet the standard because the background concentration that we have. 

So when people talk about this bill rolling back or holding back 

requirements, there is nothing like that. Just meeting the current 

standards we have to go to the Nth degree of throwing more than 

the kitchen sink because we’ve already thrown that in. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And let me go to Mr. Cabrera because I saw you 

shaking your head when the ranking member was talking. 

I mean, you are in the same position, in essence. So what do you 

do? 

Mr. CABRERA. There is very little that we can do. And so to answer the question about the exceptional events, the Clean Air Act 

and the rule will regulate an area that exceeds the standard on 

four days only the same as an area that exceeds the standard every 

day. 

70 

So an area that exceeds the standards on four days of the year 

versus an area that exceeds that standard every single day of the 

year get treated the same and that is the reason why you need exceptional events. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, and Congressman Olson showed me a picture 

of an exceptional event in Texas and actually told me that there 

were 10 exceptional events that he could speak to. 

How many of those got kind of a waiver or whatever the EPA 

does to say OK, we will take that into consideration, Dr. Shaw? 

Mr. SHAW. I don’t have that number but I will speak to it general 

and it is challenging and it is uncertain whether you’re going to 

have success. 

It takes an awful lot of personnel input to get there and oftentimes before you get there the damage is done from that. 

And so I can’t speak, unfortunately, to the number of those that 

were successful. But in general those are some of the challenges 

with those exceptional events. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So Mr. Mirzakhalili, part of the—why I focused on 

you at first because in your opening statement you made a comment—this is why we find this debate troubling—that even though 

there is not technologically a feasible way to get to a level, you are 

testifying that we should meet it anyway. 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. What I said was—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That is what you said in your opening statement. 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. I said that in setting the health—air quality 

standard should be independent of technological feasibility because 

so the science indicates—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, so even though there is not technology to get 

there, they need to have that as a standard. That is why we have— 

let me go real quick. I am almost done with—I only have 30 seconds, and I apologize. 

So the other issue that I have dealt with numerous times is the 

public domain doesn’t understand the multiple different environmental rules and regs that are—that are imposed upon air quality 

folks in this country. 

So here we are talking about ozone, PM. So the public out there, 

the C–SPAN viewers are saying, ‘‘What’s the deal? It’s one air provision.’’ 

Well, we know it’s not, right? You guys deal with it, and I always 

bring it up and I am going to do it again. You are dealing with 

MACT. It was mentioned in some opening. We got mercury air 

toxics. 

We have got air quality standards for particulate matter. We 

have got cooling water intake rule. We have coal ash startup shutdown malfunctions, Clean Power Plan, ozone rule. 

This is just one of a multitude of a cavalcade of rules and regulations that are imposed upon people who are trying to protect the 

air quality for their citizens and they—you all need help and you 

all need a delay in implementing this and that is why this is—this 

is a good bill and I appreciate my colleague for bringing it forward 

and I yield back my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes. 

71 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I thank the chair. You know, the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District has done an excellent job over 

the years and I think should be a model for some of the districts 

across the country. 

For example, the last couple years have been some of the cleanest on record. Would you discuss some of the accomplishments of 

the Air District and how you have attained those accomplishments? 

Mr. SADREDIN. Yes. Thank you, Congressman McNerney. 

We have been doing this, as you know, for over three decades 

now in San Joaquin Valley. 

But, unfortunately, as we speak today, the congressman mentioned, you know, when was the first ozone standard published— 

1979, when our ozone standard—we made significant reductions in 

emissions and we are just barely in the process of meeting that 

standard because the way the Clean Air Act is constructed if you 

have 1 hour of exceedance—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. But, I mean, that wasn’t my question. How did 

you meet those? 

Mr. SADREDIN. Well, we have imposed the toughest regulations 

on valley businesses from small Ma and Pa operations, service stations, paint shops, all the way to our largest power plant refinery 

that we have. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Have you—have you been able to use technology—new technology? Has there been incentive for you to use 

new technology that you’ve implemented? 

Mr. SADREDIN. Yes. We support regulations or mandates that 

force technology. But we have to take a close look at, you know, 

where we are at this juncture in our history. This is not 25 years 

ago when cars did not have catalytic converters and there was a 

lot of low-hanging fruit. 

There is nothing in this bill, in my opinion, that would hold us 

back in continuing to push technology because of the current standards. There is nothing in this bill that would make us go back and 

have any of these tough regulations that we have imposed to roll 

them back. 

Technology has been the savior. As we have moved forward, 

more technology is available. But today, unfortunately, even if 

money were not object, technology does not exist today even on the 

drawing board to get to some of the reductions that we need. 

And as I said, even if we eliminated everything, just say we don’t 

have technology, let’s shut down agriculture—let us shut down all 

businesses, it will be difficult to meet the standard. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. You have mentioned that the new standards will 

be detrimental to public health. Could you explain that? 

Mr. SADREDIN. I said that there are a number of provisions in 

the Clean Air Act right now that are detrimental to public health 

and a couple of them are being addressed by this bill. 

The obvious one, which is a classic case of well-intentioned provisions that has led to unintended consequences is a requirement 

that extreme ozone nonattainment areas such as ours have to have 

contingency measures. 

Of course, contingencies make sense. Everybody said, Whatever 

you do let’s have a contingency measure in place. But an extreme 

72 

nonattainment area by definition is an area that has to throw everything in the mix in their plan. 

There is not an A list of measures that we say oh, let’s just do 

those and hold back. Some of those measures were contingency 

ARB’s policy and the way the rule is written will force areas like 

ours to not put in place all the technology that is available. 

Hold some of it back for contingencies later. To me, that is detrimental to public health. 

The other thing that is detrimental to public health the way the 

Clean Air Act is constructed right now it does not distinguish the 

fact that various pollutants have different impact on public health. 

Not all PM 2.5, for instance, has the same impact. Some of it is 

ammonium nitrate, which might be, you know, respiratory irritant, 

whereas you have diesel carcinogens which cause cancer, toxic. 

In the Clean Air Act, it says you treat them all the same and 

waste a lot of resources and efforts on reducing pollutants that 

have much less benefit to public health versus what we could do 

with others. 

And then, finally, the whole bureaucracy of having 10 plans—it 

takes a lot of resources that are diverted from being able to do 

things to actually reduce air quality and improve public health. To 

me, those provisions are detrimental to public health. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Mr. Mirzakhalili, does Delaware 

have any regions that are having difficulty meeting standards because of noncontrollable sources? 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. Certainly. Our struggle with ozone are—is 

mainly I attribute to emissions that are outside of our jurisdiction 

and are transport related. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So have you been able to work with the EPA to 

develop the flexibility you need to deal with that? 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. What we have—we have been struggling with 

EPA trying to get them to actually expand in nonattainment areas. 

That was a case that we delegated with EPA, saying that more 

areas outside of Delaware should be designated because they contribute to our nonattainment. 

As nonattainment be subject to the requirements of—that we are 

subject to to get—put the emissions reductions in place in order for 

us to attain. 

We are not successful in that effort but by delaying the standards, by not implementing the reductions Mr. Sadredin’s problems 

aren’t going to go away and if the emissions reductions don’t take 

place in upwind areas our problems aren’t going to go away. In 

order to solve air pollution we need to reduce air pollution. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from 

Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and very good hearing 

today and thanks to our panelists for being here today. 

If I could start, Mr. Sadredin, if you would like to respond if you 

can remember exactly what Mr. Mirzakhalili comments on—exceptional events. Could you comment maybe on what he had commented on? 

Mr. SADREDIN. Yes. There are a couple of areas that I don’t agree 

with, let’s say. 

73 

First, Congress, even 25, 40 years ago when the act was passed 

recognized the fact that exceptional event provisions make sense 

because there are times when everything is overwhelmed by things 

you have no control over and regions should not be penalized. 

The misunderstanding that I see in some of the discussions there 

is that somehow what is in this bill or allowing a more reasonable 

approach to an exceptional event is being characterized as misleading the public or not letting the public know what’s going on. 

There is nothing with exceptional events that says you do not 

measure air quality and do not report to the public what the air 

quality actually is, and if you have programs like we do, working 

with the school districts on bad air quality—to stay indoor—whether that air quality is bad because of an exceptional event or a 

source of air pollution, those things will stay in effect and the public is fully aware of those. 

The only thing that an exceptional event provision that says it 

will keep the area being penalized from having had this violation 

that they have no control over—and, as you know, there a number 

of penalties, sanctions in the Clean Air Act when you don’t meet 

the standards—as was mentioned, if you have one day of exceedance in the region you still have all the requirements applying to 

you. 

It is just when you have an exceptional event we say don’t hold 

that against us for the sanctions and other obligations that come 

into play. 

There is nothing in this bill that would take that away in terms 

of communicating to the public what true air quality is and all the 

protections that you need to put in place with respect to that. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. 

If I could turn to Mr. Matheson, and this has come up before. 

But when you see that the National Park Service released data 

that at many national parks—this is the Joshua Tree National 

Park, Sequoia, Kings Canyon National Parks, even Yosemite—had 

ozone exceedances in 2015 you note in your written testimony that 

many rural Western national parks, the canyon lands in Utah are 

located far from any emission sources yet routinely are above the 

new ozone standard levels of 70 parts per billion. 

And so I guess my question is are you concerned that from many 

parts of the western United States there may be few if any options 

I know we just heard a little bit about, but what options are there 

then to complying with this—these regulations? How do you do it? 

Mr. MATHESON. It is a significant challenge, and I know the 

Western States Air Resources Council, which is the 15 States in 

the West and their air directors, have been looking at this issue 

and they found that there has been some recent research suggesting that there are 12 counties in six States in the inter-mountain West where the design values exceed the 70 parts per billion 

but the human in-State contribution to that pollution is 10 percent 

or less. 

Mr. LATTA. Let me interrupt for one second because, again, I am 

from Ohio. We have 88 counties. My home county is one of the top 

10 counties in size. It’s 619 square miles. 

I noticed Yuma County—I did a quick check—is 5,519 square 

miles. You know, we are looking at size differences and you are 

74 

lumping everybody together as a county. How do you adjust for 

that and how do you account for it? How are you going—— 

Mr. MATHESON. And I will give you another example in Utah. 

San Juan County, where Canyonland National Park is far away 

from any urban areas, it’s about the size of New Jersey, has a population under 16,000. The industrial emissions for NOx are 400 

tons a year total. For VOC it is 100 tons a year total. 

So if you look at the standards that are applied based on ozone 

formation typically in the East and in urban areas, the requirements are looking at fuel reformulation, looking at emission testing 

for cars, control requirements on business, traffic controls, et 

cetera. Those provisions don’t apply and don’t work in a county like 

San Joaquin County that does at times exceed the 70 parts per billion. 

Now, we are committed to clean air and we are looking at every 

option available. But at times those options just aren’t available. 

We have seen many situations in the southwestern part of the 

State where we measure the air mass coming into the State, and 

it is above the standard. 

It goes through the metropolitan area of St. George and measured on the other side. The ozone is just the same. And in fact, if 

you measure at night, ozone goes down because of NOx scavenging. 

It’s a—you have a chemical reaction that takes some of the ozone 

out of the air. So, again, we are finding it hard to justify how in 

the East you reduce NOx and VOCs and ozone has gone down. In 

many parts of the West, we have dramatically reduced NOx and 

VOCs and over the last 20 years ozone has stayed relatively constant. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. My time has expired. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and certainly having worked, 

before entering Congress, on a number of environmental and energy concepts, it is nice to know that we can protect the environment and public health and grow the economy and that they are 

not mutually exclusive. 

In fact, they do indeed support each other, and I know that Representative Rush had quizzed some of you about the 5-year review 

cycle, the rationale there, and citing some of the experiences. 

I would like to dig a little deeper into that and, if I could, as you, 

Mr. Mirzakhalili, the—about some of the 5-year cycle. 

Were there significant amounts of new research and scientific 

knowledge that informed the recent revision to this standard? 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. I am sorry. Could you repeat that? 

Mr. TONKO. Yes. Are there significant amounts of new research 

and scientific knowledge that informed the recent revision to this 

standard? 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. Absolutely. There was a wealth of additional 

studies. I don’t recall the exact number of additional studies that 

were a part of the record of the decision. 

But CASAC considered all of those and there are—we are getting 

at additional studies coming out every day. Right now, a new study 

that came out tying air pollution to preterm, for instance. 

75 

It is—need to be considered. They need to be in front of the scientific community and inform EPA of our policy decisions. 

Mr. TONKO. So if we create this construct of a 5-year window or 

have, new and significant research can become available. Is it fair 

to say that delay of this proposal—of the proposed—of this proposed legislation would hinder the agency’s ability to ensure the 

latest science being incorporated into EPA’s decisionmaking? 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. It would certainly bar them from using it and 

will not—as is the agency is—can review it in a timely manner and 

make revisions as necessary. What lengthening the cycle would do 

is just set it aside until the time comes up. 

Mr. TONKO. And under the current law, if EPA finds that a 

change is not warranted in that 5-year cycle does it have to revise 

the standard? 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. No, they do not. 

Mr. TONKO. Is it correct that the recently revised standard is 

consistent with the recommendations of the Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee and the latest science? 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. It is. 

Mr. TONKO. In fact, that committee, I concluded, I believe, that 

the latest science supports a standard within a range of 70 parts 

per billion down to 60 parts per billion. So EPA’s standard is on 

the high end of that range. 

The purpose of these standards is to establish a level of air quality that adequately protects public health based on the latest scientific knowledge. 

The increase to a 10-year review cycle would undermine that effort. The current 5-year cycle provides a reasonable amount of time 

for the development of new research. 

So the intent of this bill, I believe, is to obstruct EPA from performing its duty to promote public health by increasing the length 

of its review cycles. But I see the possibility for that to backfire. 

Apparently, EPA has discretion to not change standards and in 

its last revision it decided on the high end of the range suggested 

by the independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. 

And after a 10-year span existing standards will no longer be 

based on the latest scientific evidence and proposed regulations 

may have to be even more ambitious to meet future long-term public health needs. 

Now, you may be changing the standard less often but the 

changes may have to be much more drastic. So do you think that 

may be a possibility, what I just said? 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. I completely agree with your assessment. 

Mr. TONKO. I think that, you know, what we have here is an opportunity for us to move forward with science and technology to assist us in strengthening the outcomes and would strongly encourage the community to—your given technical community to encourage us to do the most effective outcome here. 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. I completely agree. I think it is—the large 

number of health care community out there that also agrees with 

you. 

Mr. TONKO. And erring with that great growing sentiment I 

think is the way that will allow us to achieve the best results. So 

with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back and thank you. 

76 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman yields back. At this time, the Chair 

recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me try to understand. I want to cut to the chase a little bit 

on this. I think the whole rationale for lowering from 75 to 70, as 

I recall, with McCarthy and others who have come in and testified, 

was it was to improve our health, particularly address asthma. 

Is that a fair statement, that that is generally why they lowered 

it from 75 to 70? I am hearing that from testimony. 

But yet, we have—time and time again others have come in here 

and said there is not relationship between ozone and asthma. 

We have—Utah State came out with a report on that. A Los Angeles study came out in 2011 on it. Johns Hopkins just came out 

a couple years ago, said there was no connection. So I am troubled 

with the rationale of lowering it from 75 to 70 when there is no 

connection, especially when we hit rural areas or States with nonattainment zones and the impact of it. 

I don’t think—and I refer to a lot of Mildred Schmidt—I don’t 

think the lady on the street understands what has just happened 

when we’ve lowered this. 

So for Mildred Schmidt—in West Virginia I have got the most— 

these are the absolute latest, just printed today, that our capital 

this year hit 72. Another city was 74. My city was 72. Another community was 77. 

Morgantown, home of the Mountaineers, 74. I am just troubled 

with where we are going with this. I guess it is fundamentally goes 

to that—just because Government can change or modify a regulation doesn’t mean that it should. It has the power to do that but 

why are we doing this. 

So let me ask the question. If you are in a nonattainment county, 

what are you supposed to do? It is my understanding we can’t get 

air permits—or excuse me, you won’t be able to get a construction 

permit. 

In West Virginia, in these towns I just referred we are the 51st 

unemployment rate in the Nation. We are the eighth most impacted by regulations in the country and yet we are just now going 

to put another layer on it that I am not sure is going to improve 

public health. 

Mr. SADREDIN. I believe you bring an important issue to the light 

here that is really at the heart of this legislation that is before you 

which really gets to the implementation phase of the Clean Air Act. 

People could argue where the standards should be set or where 

it shouldn’t be. There could be—there are various opinions on that. 

But there is a misnomer out there that people equate cleanup in 

the air and improved public health by just setting a new standard. 

But the realities that we face today after 25 years, after 40 years 

is that we are—the best way you can describe it—the process that 

we face right now when standards change it’s the chaos that leads 

to a lot of litigation, a lot of delay and no cleanup in the air. 

And then they, I think, the more—what this bill essentially does 

it doesn’t say ultimately the 70, if that’s the best standard, will not 

take effect. It just says let’s bring some order to the process. 

77 

We have, in our case, 10 other State implementation plans already for the existing plans that we have to deal with. Let’s deal 

with those and then in 8 years there’s no rollback, no change in 

the progress that we have made. Let’s bring some order into the 

implementation phase of it. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. But, Dr. Shaw, if I could—you touched on something that has been dear to my heart because I think many people—I was a professional engineer before I came here, one of just 

two in Congress and we dealt with a lot of indoor air quality—and 

so the fact that you mentioned the 90 percent I am with you. 

That is exactly what it is. We focus a lot on indoor air quality. 

Are we chasing the wrong rabbit here? Should we really be looking 

at indoor air quality versus the exterior? 

Because if we are spending 90 percent of the time indoors, where 

should we—so I would like to hear from you in the time remaining. 

Which should we be addressing? Which rabbit should we be chasing? 

Mr. SHAW. Thank you, Congressman. You used one of my favorite adages and that is that we are chasing the wrong rabbit and 

that is the reason that I am so motivated and why my staff has 

dedicated significant resources to trying to better understand both 

the ozone standard as well as helping to try to provide some input 

into a better process. 

Because what we do know is, as you point out, there’s dubious 

connections between the respiratory health issues that we are trying to address at this point and the ozone standard. 

The justification for lowering the ozone standard to try to improve asthma is primarily associated with epidemiological studies, 

looking at the correlation between ozone and people’s hospitalization associated with that. 

Those don’t hold up uniformly across the country and certainly 

I think we are missing the opportunity to chase the right rabbits 

and we need to find out if it is indeed indoor air quality, which I 

think probably plays a large part to that, or it is ozone plus something else or it’s something else in the ambient environment. But 

just simply lowering the ozone standard, I am convinced, is not 

going to give us the health benefits that we seek. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you very much. I yield back my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman yields back. At this time, I will recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CASTOR. Good morning, everyone, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this important hearing on the Clean Air Act, and 

I hope the committee and this Congress will not weaken the Clean 

Air Act or undermine the important progress America has made in 

cleaning our air since the 1960s. 

The Clean Air Act does require EPA every 5 years to review the 

air quality standards that govern the air we breathe and the law 

says make revisions as appropriate. 

So last October after thousands of studies and comments and recommendations from the Independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

Committee, the EPA proposed lowering the air quality standards 

by 7 percent, from 75 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion. 

This is an important revision and it keeps America on the track 

of continuing to make progress, and if you look back since the 

78 

Clean Air Act was adopted in the 1960s and then amended in the 

’70s and especially the ’90s we have been able to—we have the 

strongest economy in the world and we have been able to make 

progress still with better air to breathe. 

And this is especially important because it has such great consequences for our families and neighbors back home. We have been 

able to reduce smog across country. According to the American 

Lung Association, inhaling smog pollution is like getting a sunburn 

on your lungs and it often results in immediate breathing trouble. 

And long-term exposures to smog pollution is linked to chronic 

asthma and other respiratory and lung diseases, reproductive and 

developmental harm and even premature death. 

The American Lung Association has determined that there are 

currently almost 150 million Americans living in areas with levels 

of smog pollution that are linked to health problems. 

It is particularly harmful to children whose lungs are still developing, particularly harmful to older adults because of their age and 

all of our bodies become increasingly susceptible to the assault 

from dirty air and it is particularly harmful to our neighbors and 

communities of color and in low income areas that often struggle 

with environmental justice issues because they live and their children grow up next to industrial plants and other large-scale polluters. 

But you have to compliment the industrial community in America. They have been able to make great progress, and the ag community too. 

So it’s a balance, as we move forward. But I am concerned that 

the bill we are considering today is really going to throw a wrench 

into the progress that we are making and despite the importance 

of continuing to make progress, this is not—this rule and these 

new standards aren’t going to happen overnight. 

They say States will have between 2020 and 2037 to begin to— 

or to address it and to make progress, and I know the EPA has 

said, ‘‘We are going to work with the States.’’ 

After reviewing the bill, it is clear to me that H.R. 4775 would 

drastically alter the Clean Air Act to weaken air quality protections. It would allow more pollution and threaten the public health. 

The bill also undercuts our national ambient air quality standards process for all other pollutants. That is not appropriate. 

These proposed changes would undermine significantly the features of the Clean Air Act that have driven important progress in 

improving air quality and public health. 

And I have one specific problem that I wanted to ask 

Mirzakhalili about. It is the definition of exceptional events for air 

pollution such as it would expand that definition to include hot 

days, drought and stagnant air. 

And, unfortunately, what we used to think of as exceptionally hot 

days is now your typical summer day in Florida and in other 

places. 

So what’s the practical impact of including these types of occurrences in the definition of exceptional events? 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. You are spot on, Congresswoman. It is why 

declaring those conditions which are required to create pollution as 

an exceptional event you are essentially barring—defining a—you 

79 

must also define clean air and not—you know, whereas before 

was—there were exceptional events they were subject to rigorous 

demonstration to EPA in order to exclude them from assessing the 

air quality designation. 

Here, we are just—it broadly opens up the definition to exactly 

what you suggested, which is hot days, inversions can be now included in a definition of an exceptional event. They are everyday 

events. They are not—they can’t be considered and shouldn’t be 

considered exceptional. 

Ms. CASTOR. Well, I share your concern and, as climate change 

continues to exacerbate droughts and heat waves, these events are 

becoming even more common and I have to say this is America, we 

can do this together with industry and with all of you as technological experts in concert with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Congress. But we shouldn’t take a step backwards and 

we shouldn’t undermine the Clean Air Act and not continue to 

move forwards. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

At this time, we’ll recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to talk about the impact of the conflicting regulations that 

have been proposed by the EPA on State resources. I will start 

with you, Mr. Sadredin. 

You testified that your local air district is subject to four standards for ozone and four standards for fine particulate matter and 

that each standard, quote, requires a separate attainment plan 

which leads to multiple overlapping requirements and deadlines, 

unquote. 

And so how does your agency harmonize all of these overlapping 

requirements? 

Mr. SADREDIN. Unfortunately, under the current state of the act 

with the current framework, we are not able to do that, which 

causes a great deal of confusion for the public, for the businesses 

that have to comply with these redundant requirement with multiple deadlines and time lines that they have to comply with. 

What we hope this process would allow by giving some additional 

time before the next standard kicks in that perhaps we could make 

a case to EPA that if we took the most stringent parts from all 

these eight standards that we are subject to, put them in a single 

plan with a single set of regulations to be able to do that. 

So that is why I don’t think this legislation rolls back anything. 

It just gives us the time to do it right and do it in a harmonious 

fashion. 

Mr. FLORES. So what you have to deal with now requires significant staff and resources and you’ve got—so you are spending all 

this time and resources on these conflicting plans and are we getting any corresponding health benefits out of this? 

Mr. SADREDIN. We are not, because as I was trying—when Congressman McNerney asked me about your accomplishments the 

reason that I mentioned the 1-hour ozone standard is that we have 

been working on the existing standards, throwing in the kitchen 

sink at all of them. Simply setting a new standard will not clean 

the air. 

80 

We still have to get to zero emissions with the existing standards. The new standards just make it impossible even if we get to 

zero emissions meet the standards. 

Mr. FLORES. Right. Right. The prior questioner talked about rolling back—that the bill rolls back several regulations. Does it— 

Mr.—Dr. Shaw, does it roll back any regulations? 

Mr. SHAW. No, it does not. As I understand and read the bill, it 

does not roll back. It simply provides for additional time with the 

implementation of the latest standard but it does not roll back 

those requirements that are in place. 

There is a lot of technological advancements that are—that are 

in place that will continue to be in place and those areas that can 

meet this standard likely will. The challenge is those areas that are 

having difficulty because the technology is not there will be additionally penalized. And so this does not slow down the progress 

that we see underway to meet the current standards. 

Mr. FLORES. Back to the same question that I asked Mr. 

Sadredin—sorry, I am messing your name up—what is the impact 

of the multiple—the conflicting standards on your resources? 

Mr. SHAW. Certainly it takes a huge impact on staff resources 

but also I think it’s important to add to—the comments are that 

it also prevents us or minimizes our ability to work cooperatively 

to find those things—when we work and engage with the regulated 

community to find approaches that make sense for multiple pollutants that we are trying to obtain. 

It’s often misperceived that what you do to reduce one pollutant 

also reduces others. Oftentimes, that’s not the case. There’s sometimes a parasitic component to that and raising one lowers another, 

lowering one raises another. 

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Cabrera, any comments from you on the multiple standards that exist today? 

Mr. CABRERA. Well, we just want to clarify that the Clean Air 

Act has an escalation so you have time lines to meet the various 

standards. 

You have 3 years, then 6 years, then 9 years, and there is increasing regulation on businesses every time you don’t meet the 

standard. And that is why the background issue, the international 

transport issue is so big because you would be increasing standards 

on localities that have not caused the air pollution in the first 

place. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. And Mr. Matheson, would you like to comment 

on the conflicting standards? 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you. We share some of those concerns and 

I think we’ve been talking generally about two different issues. 

One is the standard itself and its health impacts. The other is 

how you implement that, and the implementation does have an impact on our air quality. 

When we’ve got limited resources and are spending that time on 

paper exercises rather than on working on getting the information, 

the science, the data to ensure that in the unique chemistry that 

we see sometimes we are actually targeting those emissions that 

make the biggest difference, not just those that are imposed on it. 

81 

Mr. FLORES. OK. And there was some commentary that going to 

a 5-year review period—going to a 10-year review period from a 5- 

year review period causes great harm. 

I look at the rollout of various standards over the years. There 

was 8 years between the first two—I mean, from ’71 to ’79 before 

you changed standards. 

Then there was 18 years between ’79 and ’97, and then there was 

9 years. So in all this time our environment situation has gotten 

better. 

So it doesn’t sound to me like the world ended because we 

weren’t adhering to a 5-year standard. Do any of you all disagree 

with that? OK. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman yields back. At this time, the Chair 

recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the ranking member. 

I thank the witnesses for being here today, specifically Bryan 

Shaw, the chair of our Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. It’s always nice to have a Texan testify here. 

I would also like to acknowledge Alan Matheson, cousin of our 

longtime colleague from this committee, former Representative Jim 

Matheson. I miss Jim because on my side of the aisle he voted with 

me a number of times. 

But it is not secret in Houston we have air quality challenges. 

Just yesterday the EPA granted the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 

region an additional year of compliance. 

The region currently sits on 80 parts per billion, which is still 

above the 2008 ozone standard. So we needed more time. 

That being said, we have come a long way in Houston since the 

1970s when the ozone measure was 150 parts per billion. I think 

today’s discussion is an invaluable exercise. 

While I don’t support the majority’s legislation, I think there is 

reasonable efforts that can be made to improve implementation of 

NOx. 

Chairman Shaw, in your testimony you stated the Clean Air 

Act’s requirement of the EPA ignore technological and economic 

considerations may have made sense 40 years ago but now pollution reduction is economically burdensome. 

We’ve repeatedly discussed the issue of technological feasibility 

and economic achievement. But the Supreme Court has stated the 

most important forum for consideration of technological and economic claims is before the State agency where you sit. 

Can you—your agency consider the cost in technology in drafting 

a SIP? 

Mr. SHAW. No, sir. We have to come up with a plan that meets 

the standard and we have to satisfy the model. So we have to find 

what approaches where we can make arguments. But we have to 

develop a plan that will achieve the standard. 

Mr. GREEN. But are you allowed to consider the cost in technology? 

Mr. SHAW. I don’t believe that I have had any success or that we 

were asked to be able to offer to do anything besides meet the 

standard because of cost and technology. We basically have to find 

a way to get there, even including very draconian if necessary. 

82 

Mr. GREEN. My big concern is if we want to do what’s technologically possible and hearing the testimony from parts of the country that just—unlike in Houston. 

You know, part of our problem is that we need some better roads 

instead of all the dirt that flows up and dust that flows up into the 

air, particularly an industrial area like I represent. 

So there’s things we can do. But if it is not technologically possible I really do think that the State agency, as the court said, or 

maybe EPA ought to consider it. I am just glad we got another year 

so we can continue to work. But I wish I could say we would pave 

those places in my district in the last year. I’ve been working on 

that for a dozen years now. 

But if the State can already consider it by the court order why 

is it not sufficiently flexible to meet the new requirements? 

Mr. SHAW. I think the key there is somewhat similar to the issue 

here where we talk about concerns over exceptional events. It’s 

that we have no process where we have some certainty and ability 

to actually get—to move the needle based on those options. 

We can talk about exceptional events but those are very challenging and oftentimes the damage to the location is already done 

because the jobs that you need to be able to afford the new environmental benefits get impacted because you basically have to go 

through this process and hoping that you get some relief. 

But we typically don’t find that relief. And so the implications is 

while there may be the potential for it, it’s long coming and often 

not available. 

Mr. GREEN. What will we do in Texas for the year extension we 

have? Because we still don’t meet the standards that, you know, 

that we were earlier. 

Mr. SHAW. Right. Well, we will continue doing the things that we 

are doing, which is looking for new technologies, better ways to 

move forward. 

We continue to try to attack 60 percent of the ozone challenges, 

NOx emissions from mobile sources in this area and so we have the 

innovative programs, the TERP program—Texas Emissions Reduction Plan—where we incentivize turning over older vehicles. 

So we try to get any fruit we can, recognizing that we need a ladder or an extension bucket to get to that fruit these days. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, and in my area we have industrial facilities, 

refineries, chemical plants. But they’re stationary. You know what 

they’re doing. 

But our problem is we also have tremendous truck traffic not 

only from those plants but also the ship channel and so the mobile 

sources are an issue. 

Is there a split between what the stationary sources are as compared to the mobile sources? 

Mr. SHAW. About 60 percent of our NOx emissions are from the 

mobile side of that. So that’s where—and the stationary sources 

have been controlled to the point where there is not—it is very difficult to find technologically and, certainly, economically feasible 

but technologically even feasible reductions. 

And so our primary areas for opportunity are continued in the 

mobile sources but those we are not—we are not regulating. The 

Federal Government regulates those. So we can incentivize proVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:39 Jul 12, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X134OZONELEGASKOK070716\114X134OZONELEGPDFMADE
83 

grams to turn over trades trucks and railroad locations and diesel 

engine retrofits. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Director Sadredin, in December ’15 as part of 

the 2015 ozone standard the EPA released a white paper on background ozone, which discussed exceptional events. 

The white paper requested comments from stakeholders. Last 

month, EPA had a workshop to follow up on these. During the 

workshop none of the participants raised the issue of drought or 

stagnation. Some stakeholders are interested in development of 

further guidelines and templates for exceptional events. A few, 

however, were concerned, that spending limited resources on development of exceptional events guidance. 

In Texas, we know the issue of drought and in fact I am worried 

we are getting back into it in some cases. Would your control district consider additional guidance regarding qualifying events a 

worthwhile use of time or recourse? 

Mr. SADREDIN. Thank you for the question. Unfortunately, EPA 

has closed the door on considering drought and these extraordinary 

conditions from being considered as exceptional events because the 

Clean Air Act as written is silent on that and EPA has interpreted 

that as meaning no, you cannot do that. 

So with that door closed we didn’t think that we could have any 

productive discussions with EPA because they’ve already told us 

no. 

We just think a 100-year drought—we’ll argue, well, maybe 100- 

year droughts that we are facing that will become ordinary because 

of climate change. But we are not quite there yet even if you accept 

that on the face value. 

All this, though, says if you have extraordinary conditions such 

as a 100-year drought under EPA’s guide, EPA ultimately will be 

the arbiter on that—does it qualify as an exceptional event. 

You still have to follow all the procedures and guidelines that 

EPA has laid out for any exceptional event. 

We are saying that should—the door should be open to have that 

discussion that this was—this was extraordinary and should qualify as an exceptional event. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you for you answer. Thank you for your time. 

I know I’ve run over a lot. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sadredin, my understanding is is that even after a nonattainment area is redesignated as being in attainment it is still 

subject to EPA oversight and maintenance plans for an additional 

20 years. Can you explain if I am right on that understanding and 

how that works? 

Mr. SADREDIN. That is correct. As I have said, you know, we 

have made major progress over the years to meet the standards. 

We used to be nonattainment until 2010 for PM 10 and we came 

into attainment. 

But what happens right after that you write a maintenance plan, 

which is essentially identical to a State implementation plan. You 

still have to maintain all of those regulations that you had in place 

84 

if all of a sudden you end up in, you know, not meeting the standard or various new requirements that kick in. 

So it’s a never-ending process in terms of maintaining the control 

and you will never have an opportunity or a circumstance where 

you can roll back any of the existing measures that you have put 

in place to come into attainment. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. So let me—let me see if I can clarify and 

go from there, and I see some other, particularly Dr. Shaw, nodding his head. 

So you’ve now—you’ve now hit the attainment and you said you 

have to put a maintenance plan in which, to me, makes some 

sense. But then you said you have to keep all the controls. 

Does that mean that your new—you can have a new plan that 

says here’s what we are going to do to maintain or do you have to 

keep all the controls in place that were in place even if there’s no 

evidence that a particular control was relevant to bringing you into 

attainment? 

Mr. SADREDIN. Essentially, when you put a maintenance plan 

you cannot roll back any existing regulations that you had. If there 

is a potential scenario like that, that would be the case. That is exactly as you describe it. 

But given that we have four—eight other plans to meet with 

there is always regulations that are needed to meet those new requirements and they can also be used to satisfy the existing maintenance plan. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And I just want to make sure that I am not 

miscommunicating because my wife accuses me of doing that sometimes. So as I understand it, even if there is—even if there is evidence that one of the plans had nothing to do with you coming in 

to attainment and may just be superfluous, you still have to maintain that particular component? 

Mr. SADREDIN. Yes. There is a general legally accepted provision 

that once a particular control measure becomes part of a State implementation plan you can never relax that regulation. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. Yes, sir. My time is running out so if you 

could be brief. 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. I will be—I will be quick. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. You disagree? 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. I disagree. I think, first of all, the way EPA 

has addressed it, the standards of clean data determination in a lot 

of areas get—be designated to attain them without having to develop a maintenance plan. 

So there isn’t another way of getting to where the requirements 

don’t carry over. For a maintenance plan developments if the plan 

is—it can, it gives you the flexibility to show that you are achieving 

the reductions and maintaining those reductions while mixing and 

matching. 

We can do that under our attainment plan strategies. I can take 

and measure out what I have to replace it with something else that 

gives me that reduction so that I can—I can show that attained. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. So the distinction would be, however, if you’ve 

got a—if you’re taking something out that does nothing but you 

have to put something back in, based on what I am hearing from 

both of you but it’s a legalese thing, I may still have to put someVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:39 Jul 12, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X134OZONELEGASKOK070716\114X134OZONELEGPDFMADE
85 

thing back in even if I don’t think it does any good if I am taking 

something out that doesn’t do any good because you have to replace 

it with something that does the same type of thing. 

And so—and we could debate this all day, but it sounds like to 

me that while there may be a slight distinction between what the 

two of you are saying it is basically the same. 

You still—you’ve still got to plan. You’ve got a component. You 

can’t just eliminate that component if it turns out to be not accurate. 

I’ve got to move on because I do have another question I want 

to get in and I don’t have much time left. Mr. Sadredin again, 

when the EPA revokes a standard, do States or localities continue 

to be subject to obligations under those standards? 

Mr. SADREDIN. I looked at Ms. McCabe’s testimony and that was 

cited as one the streamlining measures in the act currently, that 

if you revoke a standard, say ‘‘no harm, no foul,’’ you can move on. 

I have to say, first of all, before I comment on Ms. McCabe’s testimony she has always been gracious, generous with time and creativity in helping us do everything that we need to do and we 

worked well together with her and with EPA. 

And in fact, I was happy that in her testimony she did not object 

to a couple of things that are in this bill that we had advocated 

for the contingency measure elimination for extreme areas and also 

economic feasibility with relation to RFPs. 

But on that particular issue relating to revocation of the standards, I think it’s a bit misleading to say when the standard goes 

away we don’t have to do anything. 

As I am sitting here before you, June of this year we have to 

write a plan for the 2008 ozone standard, which is about to be revoked. 

We have a plan in place actively for the 1997 ozone standard. We 

still have a plan in place for the 1979 ozone standard. Everything 

that is in the act remains in place when you revoke a standard. 

The only thing that goes away is you can do a new transportation budget. Otherwise, every other requirement stays in place 

and to somehow say revoking the standard takes away requirements it’s absolutely incorrect. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I appreciate it, and I yield back. That’s the end of 

my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, 

Mrs. Capps, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield and 

Ranking Member Rush, for holding this hearing. Thank you to 

each of you witnesses for your testimonies today. 

You know, I am sort of like the catch-up questioner now, and 

many of the things probably I will say or ask may have been said 

one way or another. But I want to make sure we get some things 

on the record. 

Over 40 years ago, our predecessors in this place recognized they 

had the power to protect the health—this is about health—of all 

Americans and the environment in which we live. 

Several landmark laws were created to do just this right about 

that sort of pivotal time. During the 1970s, even before we saw the 

creation of the National Environmental Policy Act—NEPA—the 

86 

Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Endangered 

Species Act—so many at that particular time. 

In addition, Congress passed a significant overhaul of the Clean 

Air Act in 1970. All of these laws have provided the foundation for 

a safer, cleaner environment and have drastically improved our 

public health, and it goes without saying we are still benefitting 

from the creation of these landmark laws. 

However, since the enactment of the laws we have seen countless 

attacks to weaken them despite the fact that we are benefitting 

from them, and I think this is the nature of the society in which 

we live. 

Instead of prioritizing the public health and the environmental 

safety issues, we have seen push after push to marginalize these 

protections that are in place. 

So my questions are now for you, Mr. Mirzakhalili. In your testimony, you highlighted—I probably butchered your name—some serious concerns with this legislation we are discussing and I share— 

I will just be honest—I share many of these concerns with you. 

One of my major concerns relates to Section 3(b), which changes 

the criteria for establishing an air quality standard from one that 

is based solely on protecting public health—true to confession, I am 

a public health nurse by background—to one that includes the consideration of the, quote—and we have been using this phrase a 

lot—‘‘technological feasibility’’ of the standard, and my background 

tells tells you that I have always appreciated that we should recognize that protecting our health is really the number-one priority. 

In fact, you stated that this provision that we are discussing 

today could—I quote from your testimony—unravel the entire 

framework of the Clean Air Act. Those are pretty strong words. 

My first question—do you believe that economic or technological 

feasibility should be considered in the air quality standard-setting 

process at all? Is there a reason that we should stray from the 

precedent of only considering public health? 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. I do not. 

Mrs. CAPPS. You probably said this, but if you’d say it again. 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. Yes. No, I say it again because I think it’s 

worth repeating that the economic affordability shouldn’t be something that is used to set the standard. It is the science that should 

dictate what the lungs can handle, how the body responds, and we 

are charged with protecting the sensitive individuals and the population. The standards need to reflect that. 

Now, how we manage to implement that, that’s where the rubber 

hits the road and the economic and technological feasibility come 

into play. 

We should not put the target where an arrow lands. That is just 

not the way we do things—not as a nation. That’s not how we’ve 

done it and that’s not how we should proceed. I understand the 

challenges of Mr. Sadredin’s exasperation with meeting a real stubborn problem with air quality. 

I understand my colleagues to my left here about their issues as 

well and, you know, the difficulties that Mr. Shaw—that Dr. Shaw 

has with the science behind this. I think it’s something that’s going 

to get litigated and debated. But that’s where it should end. 

Science should dictate where the standard is. 

87 

Mrs. CAPPS. And you’ve sort of said this too even just now, but 

why is it so important to separate the cost—consideration of cost 

from setting the standard? 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. It becomes what can we afford. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Right. 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. This is the health care that we can afford. 

This is the health protection that we can afford and let’s—and 

where does this slippery slope end? 

On the East coast we can—we like to pay more and therefore we 

get better protection, better standard and some localities get—they 

can’t afford it so they get a higher standard. 

How do we do this? This is—this just doesn’t make sense. There 

has to be a standard that science indicates is going to protect the 

public health and that’s what we should follow. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And so, again, you touched on this but is there—are 

we really clear in your mind of the charge to the United States 

Congress in the—in this area and is there a more appropriate place 

for the kind of consideration that is brought up in this legislation? 

Mr. MIRZAKHALILI. I think the consideration for—goes to the implementation phase of it and I think it can be done administratively through how EPA implements—it does implementation rules 

and how us as professionals manage to meet the air quality challenges that we face. 

Mrs. CAPPS. OK. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from 

Oklahoma, Mr. Mullin, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, panel, 

for being here. 

I don’t think it’s any secret where my heart lies with the EPA. 

I think they overreach every day and are putting more and more 

pressure on States, on counties, manufacturers, job creators and 

the whole nine yards. 

And it goes into—it goes into questions what are they thinking. 

Are they listening? Are they paying attention to what’s actually 

happening out there? I’d say no. 

And Dr. Shaw, I’ll start with you just simply because you got a 

hat on the table and I—Lord, I appreciate seeing that. Don’t see 

that enough up here. 

But I am kind of interested to know, you don’t look like you had 

to be bald. Did you just choose to do it? I mean, if I wore a hat 

all the time, it would be sticking to my head if I was—— 

Mr. SHAW. My wife has breast cancer, and when the chemo took 

her hair I decided to lose mine in support of her. 

Mr. MULLIN. Well, what’s her name? 

Mr. SHAW. Dana. 

Mr. MULLIN. Dana. I will tell you right now, just because I feel 

like I stuck my foot in my mouth, I will be praying for Dana. 

Mr. SHAW. Thank you. Thank you. 

Mr. MULLIN. And God bless you for being such a supporting husband. 

Mr. SHAW. She’s got the tough role, but thank you. 

88 

Mr. MULLIN. Yes, but you’re there and you’re going to be walking 

her through the whole thing. So God bless you for that. 

Switching gears just a second, you know, you’re from Texas, and, 

even though we beat you in football all the time, I really do appreciate the idea that we work together and we have similar experiences. 

Explain to me a little bit about what this ozone rule is going to 

do to the State and maybe even the cost that is going to require 

you all to take on at a time when really the—you know, we are an 

oil and gas State, too—at a time when really we need to be looking 

at shoring up our State and the jobs within it, not costing jobs by 

spending money where it’s not needed. 

Mr. SHAW. Thank you. I’ll start with saying we recognize that we 

are not—as a State agency we are not choosing between the environment and the economy. 

We have to have both or we’ll have neither and a big part of 

what we are looking at also when we think about the public health 

component of this is especially for a standard that has very limited 

and questionable benefits. 

We’re at a point now with the great success we’ve had in lowering our pollution and cleaning up our air and water across the 

State and across the country is that your health impact is likely 

more driven by your opportunity for economic success than it is by 

the environment that you’re faced, and we want to continue to 

clean that environment. 

But we take very seriously that some of what we can do to help 

our people to have a better healthier life is to pick them up out of 

poverty and make sure they have good job opportunities. 

And so when we look at this issue, one that has questionable scientific value for moving forward and we look at the fact that we 

are compounding by putting a number of regulations on top of one 

another and it makes it difficult both for the agencies to develop 

the rules but also for industry to be able to be implementing those 

and us to work with them, I see this as an opportunity to improve 

our environmental outcome as opposed to one as might be otherwise suspected as one that helps industry to compete. 

I think it does help industry to have more reasonable time 

frames. But I am convinced if we take advantage of a length and 

time opportunity especially and we look at a better scientific—more 

rigorous scientific evaluation we’ll actually get the better environmental health outcomes. 

Mr. MULLIN. Well, and by the EPA’s on a mission they said that 

the 2015 ozone standard will be reached by 2025 by just implementing the 2008 rule. So it calls into question why. 

Mr. SHAW. It certainly does, and that’s one of the comments I 

sort of alluded to earlier. Their own data suggests that most places 

are going to get there without the rule so why do you need the rule, 

especially if it’s going to cause undue economic impact on a number 

of areas that really can’t afford it. 

And, quite frankly, the market does a very good job of driving innovation and we have a lot of innovation in place that if we can 

allow that to move forward we could instead of going through this 

process of developing complex rules to try to meet a standard that 

is very close to background in many areas—we have some areas 

89 

where 65 parts per billion is an often background—we could instead focus on what are the real environmental and health issues 

that are out there that need to be tackled next. 

Mr. MULLIN. And just to kind of make a point here and maybe 

it’s been brought up already, but even the National Park Service 

is saying that the Grand Canyon and the Sequoia National Forest 

where I am sure there’s a tremendous amount of industry and 

work going there, it is going to be out of compliance with this. 

So it does leave us all the question what is the motive. Other 

than just busy work, what is the motive behind this? 

And, look, I live—my kids are the fourth generation on our farm 

and I want clean air and clean water, too. A creek runs in front 

of our place. I used to drink out of it as a kid. 

I don’t think we are arguing that, and we are doing—we are good 

stewards of the land behind us, but we don’t need this rule. It’s 

undue cost and undue harm to States and manufacturers around. 

And so we’ll be praying for Dana—— 

Mr. SHAW. Thank you. 

Mr. MULLIN [continuing]. Sir, and I do sincerely mean that. God 

bless you for being such a supporting husband to her, and I yield 

back. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SHAW. Thank you. 

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

the questions today except for me, and I’ve waited patiently for 

quite a while now, Mr. Rush. 

But I would just like to make this comment, that certainly Congress has a lot of purposes but one purpose is to provide an opportunity for constituents who have a problem to come and petition 

the Government for some help, and that is what I view this panel 

as. 

I mean, some of you are having some problems in your States of 

meeting a Federal requirement. I know that Mr. Mirzakhalili has 

a different view on some of this than some of you, although he has 

admitted, I believe, that there are some areas in Delaware that are 

in nonattainment, as well, but not to the extent that we have in 

the San Joaquin Valley or certainly Arizona, parts of Utah, or even 

in Texas. 

And one question I wanted to ask you, Mr. Sadredin: In the past 

the EPA has advised our committee that, while it doesn’t consider 

technological and economic feasibility in setting the standard, it 

does consider it when implementing it. Would you agree with that, 

or has that been your experience? 

Mr. SADREDIN. That’s definitely a bit misleading and incomplete 

view of the world and the realities that we face. There has been 

a number of discussions here about economic feasibility and setting 

the standard. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. 

Mr. SADREDIN. I believe that standards should be set with 

science only and I don’t think this bill really goes away from that. 

What it says is that when CASAC makes a recommendation and 

they give a range to the administration to consider, right now it 

goes through the administration. 

Depending on who’s in charge they make these various assumptions and set the standard where it needs to be and then they come 

90 

up with something. This really brings some order, some law into 

how you can actually pick within that range what is an appropriate 

standard. 

But to your exact question, unfortunately, Supreme Court ruled 

that since Congress was silent economic feasibility cannot be considered. It wasn’t that Congress intentionally—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. 

Mr. SADREDIN [continuing]. And specifically said do not consider 

economic feasibility. But the bottom line is when the standard is 

set it says you have to come into attainment by such and such 

year. 

You have X number of years. There is no cost effectiveness economic feasibility you can—argument you can use to say we are not 

going to meet that deadline. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. And that’s how many of us feel and the 

forums indicated that that when you have laws that have been out 

there for a while even the Clean Air Act, relating to EPA, Congress 

should be able to respond to address some of these problems that 

are there. 

Now, you know just from the questions today there are a lot of 

members of Congress who say because it’s EPA nothing should be 

changed because health is the most important issue. 

And yet, we do understand that poverty does have a direct impact on health. Clean air is not the only thing. And so the thing 

that struck me today is listening to the four of you. I mean, you 

all touched on it a little bit more than our gentleman friend from 

Delaware. 

But you can’t meet the standards in many areas. It cannot be 

done, and so what is the impact of that? What does that mean for 

the people in your area when you cannot meet the standard? Mr. 

Cabrera. 

Mr. CABRERA. What it means is those requirements on business 

that keep business from opening up. What it means is that there’s 

requirements on agriculture that keeps agriculture less efficient 

and what it means is that we are imposing restrictions on American business for pollution that’s coming from international 

sources. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Correct. Correct. 

Do you want to make a comment, Mr. Sadredin? 

Mr. SADREDIN. In San Joaquin Valley, unfortunately we have a 

lot of communities of color with great deal of poverty, where economic well-being is the key factor in quality of life. 

If we are not able to meet these standards, draconian sanctions 

will kick in. No new businesses can locate in the area without significant costs. We will lose highway funding, Federal takeover and 

then nonattainment penalties to the tune of about $40 million a 

year. Right now we are paying for the 1979 1-hour rules on standards. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And Mr. Matheson, I know up in Utah, I mean, 

even things going on in Asia has an impact on you, right? 

Mr. MATHESON. It does, and we’ve been able to measure that and 

see that in several counties we’ve seen pollution come in that’s very 

close to the standard or above. 

91 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. We know the International Monetary 

Fund is having their meeting in Washington right now and they’re 

talking about world stagnation. 

They’re talking about excessive regulations, and so Congress does 

have a responsibility when you have a predicament where a Federal standard cannot be met. 

Now, this is the standard for the country but yet under the clean 

energy plan, which was stayed by the Supreme Court, EPA went 

to individual States and set different standards in the States for 

the States. Yet, this is the standard that applies and even when 

EPA looks at cost they automatically exclude any costs relating to 

California because California is not going to be able to meet the 

standard. 

And so we have a real problem and one comment I would make 

about Mr. Olson’s legislation is some have suggested that we are 

mandating that only—it be reviewed every 10 years. 

That is not the case. 4775 does not bar EPA from setting a new 

national ambient air quality standard whenever they want to but 

they’re not required to review it for at least 10 years. 

Every 10 years they’ve got to be required instead of five. So that 

information is misleading. 

And so I want to thank all of you for being here today. We appreciate your time and we look forward to continuing our efforts to try 

to pass this legislation. 

I have some documents here I want to introduce into the record. 

Have you all seen it? You all seen that one? 

So without objection, we’ll enter those into the record, and did 

you—— 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. RUSH. I have two letters, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to enter. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Without objection, we’ll enter those two letters into the record, as well, and we’ll keep the record open for 10 

days. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. RUSH. All right. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And yes, well, unanimous consent for any member who wants to enter a statement in the record, we’ll do that as 

well. 

I think all of them are here, though, aren’t they? Oh, I felt like 

all of them were here. But it’s an important issue. 

So that will conclude today’s hearing. Thank you all once again 

for joining us and for your invaluable input. 

Hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the hearing was concluded.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

This committee takes seriously its oversight responsibilities under the 1970 Clean 

Air Act. It is important for us to look back and acknowledge what this law has accomplished—a 30 percent reduction in ozone levels since 1980. But it is equally important to recognize what is no longer working and needs to be fixed for the 21st 

century, and the agency’s current ozone program with its two overlapping regulations is a prime example. Fortunately, there is a bipartisan solution that works to 

simultaneously protect jobs, economic growth, and public health—H.R. 4775, the 

‘‘Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2016.’’ The legislation cuts red tape and 

92 

puts EPA’s ozone program back on track towards achieving cost effective reductions 

for ground-level ozone. 

EPA itself delayed the implementation of its 2008 ozone standard and last year 

the agency finally provided States with necessary implementing regulations. But instead of focusing on working with States to achieve the 2008 standard, the agency 

went ahead and finalized a new standard and is now requiring States to simultaneously comply with both. 

Even EPA admits that the second rule would not significantly contribute to ozone 

reductions that are already occurring under existing regulations, but the rule instead would increase permitting and other compliance costs, as well as present administrative challenges for States and local communities. Make no mistake, counties 

designated as in nonattainment with EPA’s ozone standard face serious limits on 

new economic activity. It’s essentially a kiss of death for economic growth for communities in Michigan and every State. Factory expansions to new construction may 

have to be placed on hold until the necessary pre-construction permits are obtained. 

Backyard barbeques could even be limited. 

And even after compliance is achieved, EPA would still impose constraints-all for 

reductions that EPA claims will largely occur regardless of new compliance regimes. 

Regulations that are unnecessarily costly and restrictive, and that result in overlapping requirements and deadlines, are the last thing job-creators in Michigan and 

across the country need. Businesses will go out of their way to avoid setting up shop 

in any area that’s close to being in noncompliance. 

H.R. 4775 introduces a dose of needed commonsense to EPA’s ozone program. It 

extends the implementation schedule for the new ozone standard to allow the 2008 

standard to be implemented first. It would also harmonize the new ozone standard 

with other existing regulations that EPA projects will reduce ozone levels across the 

Nation. Most importantly, the bill provides States with a reasonable path forward 

for implementing new ozone standards while also updating the Clean Air Act to 

make this law workable for States and communities in the years ahead. 

A Clean Air Act that continues to drive down pollution without causing undue 

damage to jobs and the economy is an environmental legacy we should be striving 

for and one that the bipartisan Ozone Standards Implementation Act will help 

achieve. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SCALISE

Here in the United States, we have achieved something extraordinary: economic 

growth and expansion have not led to dirtier air. Quite the opposite, we have seen 

background levels of pollution steadily decline in recent years, and the quality of 

the air we breathe continues to improve. However, looking at the onerous regulations coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), you might believe 

that no gains have been achieved. You see, EPA—through its periodic review and 

implementation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)—seems to 

think that even background levels of certain pollutants must be eliminated. Which 

begs the question: how will this be accomplished? The short answer is: EPA has no 

idea. 

The Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2016 goes a long way toward bringing some clarity and sanity to the EPA rulemaking process related to ambient air 

quality standards. To that end, the bill requires that the new standard for groundlevel ozone not be implemented until 2025—which makes sense, since EPA does not 

estimate that any of the benefits will be realized until that time. Further, the bill 

changes the review period for criteria pollutants under the Clean Air Act from 5 

years to 10. This is a practical change that will give stakeholders more certainty. 

Instead of reviewing the criteria pollutants every 5 years, the EPA has chosen to 

change the standards for those pollutants every 5 years. This has resulted in a kind 

of intra-agency competition of which set of bureaucrats can promulgate the most 

stringent air quality regulations without regard for cost or economic impact. A 10- 

year window in which to review criteria pollutants is simply better than 5. 

When it comes to transparency, I am glad that language from my Promoting New 

Manufacturing Act has been included in the Ozone Standards Implementation Act 

of 2016. As it stated last Congress, the language requires EPA to put out guidance 

on how to comply with the new standard at the same time the rule is published. 

If EPA does not do this, the standard does not take effect until the agency gives 

guidance. This is critically important for manufacturing investment—particularly in 

the petrochemical sector, in which investment decisions are made 3, 5, or even 10 

years in advance—as companies need to know what the rules will look like in the 

93 

years ahead. In addition, it took EPA 7 years to put forth guidance on the ozone 

standard that was issued in 2008. This is unacceptable. 

These much-needed changes will bring our clean air laws into the 21st Century 

and will send the necessary signal to the investment community that the United 

States is still open for business. No longer will nameless, faceless Washington bureaucrats be able to stifle American innovation. Therefore, I am proud to give my 

strong support to the Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2016 and look forward to its favorable consideration by this committee and the full House of Representatives. 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

112 

113 

114 

115 

116 

117 

118 

119 

120 

121 

122 

123 

124 

125 

126 

127 

128 

129 

130 

131 

132 

133 

134 

135 

136 

137 

138 

139 

140 

141 

142 

143 

144 

145 

146 

147 

148 

149 

Æ