U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

97–556 2015

EPA’S PROPOSED OZONE RULE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 12, 2015 

Serial No. 114–53 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, 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, California 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Chairman 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

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

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

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 4 

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

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

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

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

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 46 

WITNESSES

Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .............................................................................. 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 73 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Resolution of Cabarrus Regional Chamber of Commerce .................................... 48 

Resolution of Rowan County Board of Commissioners ......................................... 49 

Resolution of Cabarrus-Rowan Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ........................................................................................................................ 51

Statement of public health and medical organizations ........................................ 53 

Statement of National Association of Clean Air Agencies ................................... 55 

Results of a survey by the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies .......... 59 

Article entitled, ‘‘Challenges of a lowered U.S. ozone standard,′′ in Science, 

June 5, 2015 ......................................................................................................... 71 

Comments by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality on EPA’s 

Proposed Ozone Rule 1 ......................................................................................... 46 

1 Available at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/if/if03/20150612/103590/ 

hhrg-114-if03-20150612-sd005.pdf 

(1) 

EPA’S PROPOSED OZONE RULE 

FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:45 a.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Whitfield, Olson, Shimkus, Harper, 

McKinley, Griffith, Johnson, Long, Ellmers, Flores, Mullin, Hudson, Upton (ex officio), Rush, McNerney, Green, Capps, Castor, 

Welch, Loebsack, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff Present: Will Batson, Legislative Clerk; Sean Bonyun, Communications Director; Leighton Brown, Press Assistant; Allison 

Busbee, Policy Coordinator, Energy & Power; Melissa Froelich, 

Counsel, CMT; Tom Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy & 

Power, A.T. Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor; Mary Neumayr, Senior Energy Counsel; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Christine 

Brennan, Minority Press Secretary; Michael Goo, Minority Chief 

Counsel, Energy and Environment; Caitlin Haberman, Minority 

Professional Staff Member; Rick Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor 

and Staff Director, Energy and Environment; John Marshall, Minority Policy Coordinator; Alexander Ratner, Minority Policy Analyst; and Tim Robinson, Minority Chief Counsel. 

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to bring the hearing to order. 

This morning’s hearing is going to be focused on EPA’s proposed 

ozone rule. 

I would like to recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening 

statement. 

The proposed rule would lower the standard from the current 75 

parts per billion down to 65 ppb or 70 ppb, but the Agency is also 

taking comments on 60 parts per billion. 

These proposed levels are so low that, in some parts of the country, they are at or near background levels. The proposed levels are 

so low that even EPA admits that it is not fully known in some 

areas how to achieve full compliance. In other words, they have to 

use unknown controls to do it, to meet those standards. 

The marginal costs of ratcheting down the existing standard go 

through the roof, and the EPA estimates that a 65-to-70-parts-perVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:33 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-53 CHRIS
2 

billion standard would cost $3.9 to $15 billion annually and that 

at 60 ppb would cost $39 billion annually. 

Independent estimates are much higher, including a National Association of Manufacturers study that puts the cost of a 65-partsper-billion standard at $140 billion a year, which would make this 

the Agency’s most expensive regulation ever. 

This study also estimates 1.4 million fewer jobs and the household cost averaging $830 per year. These costs come on top of all 

of the other rules we have seen from this administration, many of 

which also impact the energy and manufacturing sectors. 

Moreover, this rule is yet another chapter in the administration’s 

effort to force more extreme climate policies on the American people. I would like to just name a few of them. We have done the 

Utility MACT, the Boiler MACT, the Cement MACT, the CrossState Air Pollution Rule, the PM, the 111(d), the 111(b), the Tier 

3, all on top of this proposed ozone rule. 

I would also like to point out that today in America there are 230 

counties not in compliance with the 2008 standard. And I might 

also add that EPA is just now getting around to providing implementing guidance for the States for the 2008 rule. 

Now, these counties not meeting the new standard would be designated as nonattainment. As I said, there are 230 counties today 

in nonattainment around the country. 

EPA estimates that fully 358 counties that currently have monitors would be in nonattainment if they go to 70 parts per billion 

and 558 counties would be in noncompliance at 65 parts per billion 

based on recent data. Now, this does not include counties nearby 

or without ozone monitors that may also be designated by EPA to 

be in nonattainment. 

Now, a nonattainment designation is like a self-imposed recession for some areas. In such counties, it becomes extremely difficult 

to obtain a new permit to build a factory, to expand a factory or 

a power plant, and even permits for existing facilities would be impacted. 

Just last week, in a survey of manufacturers, over half of them, 

in fact, 53 percent, said they were not likely to continue with a new 

plant or expansion if it is located in a nonattainment area. 

The same permitting challenges apply for roads and other large 

infrastructure projects. In effect, almost all new major job-creating 

economic activity is jeopardized until the nonattainment area 

meets the standard, which could take years, if not decades. 

Even the mere possibility that a location could later be designated to be in nonattainment is enough to scare off prospective 

employers. So the proposed rule may already be doing damage. 

Now, there is something wrong with our system when you have 

Los Angeles, San Joaquin Valley, major parts of California, that 

have the most stringent environment standards in the country and, 

on top of that, EPA and those areas—San Joaquin Valley, Los Angeles—may never be in compliance. And they are certainly not in 

compliance today and have been out of compliance since the beginning of the Clean Air Act. So we have a system that is not working 

very well. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 

3 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD

This morning we will begin our examination of EPA’s proposed new National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. We will start with a focus on the 

agency’s perspective, and I welcome Acting Assistant Administrator McCabe. Next 

Tuesday we will explore other perspectives on this proposed rule, including those 

of the job-creating businesses on which the compliance burdens would fall. 

Before we get into the proposed new rule, I want to touch on a few historical 

points I think are relevant to the conversation. The regulation of criteria pollutants, 

including ozone, is a core component of the Clean Air Act. The agency adopted ozone 

standards in 1971, 1979, and 1997. These regulations have resulted in major reductions, and ozone levels have declined by more than 30 percent since 1980. 

In 2008, the Bush EPA finalized an even stricter ozone standard, the agency’s 

fourth. However, the Obama EPA itself has significantly delayed implementation of 

this rule. In fact, the agency delayed issuing the implementing regulations until last 

March. As a result of this late start, state and local governments are only in the 

very preliminary stages of compliance, which will take many more years. 

In my view, the ozone problem in America is well on its way towards resolution, 

and to the extent that EPA identifies public health concerns they are largely in 

areas out of compliance with the existing standard. However, rather than focus on 

implementing the requirements already on the books, the agency seems intent on 

setting a new rule that would bind future administrations. 

The proposed rule would lower the standard from the current 75 parts per billion 

(ppb) down to 65 or 70 ppb, but the agency also took comment on 60 ppb. These 

proposed levels are so low that in some parts of the country they are at or near 

background levels. The proposed levels are so low that even EPA admits that it is 

not fully known how to achieve compliance. 

The marginal costs of ratcheting down the existing standard go through the roof. 

EPA estimates that a 65 to 70 ppb standard would cost $3.9 to $15 billion annually, 

and that a 60 ppb standard would cost $39 billion annually. Independent estimates 

are much higher, including a National Association of Manufacturers’ (NAM) study 

that puts the cost of a 65 ppb standard at $140 billion per year, which would make 

it the agency’s most expensive regulation ever. This study also estimates 1.4 million 

fewer jobs and household costs averaging $830 per year. 

These costs come on top of all the other rules we have seen from the Obama EPA, 

many of which also impact the energy and manufacturing sectors. Moreover, this 

rule is yet another chapter in the Administration’s effort to force more extreme climate policies on the American people. Those counties not meeting the new standard 

would be designated as nonattainment. EPA estimates that fully 358 counties that 

currently have monitors would be in non-attainment at 70 ppb, and 558 counties 

at 65 ppb based on recent data. This does not include counties nearby or without 

ozone monitors that may also be designated by EPA to be in nonattainment. 

A nonattainment designation is like a self-imposed recession. In such counties it 

becomes extremely difficult to obtain a new permit, build a factory or power plant, 

and even permits for expansions at existing facilities are impacted. Just this week, 

in a survey of manufacturers, over half said they were not likely to continue with 

a new plant or expansion if it was located in a nonattainment area. 

The same permitting challenges apply for roads and other large infrastructure 

projects. In effect, almost all new major job-creating economic activity is jeopardized 

until the nonattainment area meets the standard, which could take years if not decades. Even the mere possibility that a location could later be designated to be in 

nonattainment is enough to scare off prospective employers, so the proposed rule 

may already be doing damage. 

To me, this proposed ozone rule is Exhibit A of skyrocketing marginal costs and 

diminishing marginal returns. Implementation of the current standard has essentially not yet begun. At a minimum, EPA should focus on implementing the ozone 

rule already on the books before imposing a new one. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for his 5-minute opening 

statement. 

4 

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

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, for holding this 

hearing on EPA’s proposed ozone standard. 

I also want to welcome EPA Acting Assistant Administrator 

Janet McCabe and thank her for testifying before the subcommittee 

again. 

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

of health-based air quality standards which help to ensure that all 

Americans can breathe healthy air. EPA must set each air quality 

standard based on science and medical evidence alone. 

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

to breathe. This structure has been extraordinarily effective in 

cleaning the air and protecting public health, including the health 

of children and seniors. 

But the current 75-parts-per-billion ozone standard has fallen 

short. Since 2008, the ozone standard has been weaker than the 

facts would allow. 

As such, the Independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee made crystal-clear that, in order to adequately protect public health, EPA must strengthen the ozone standard to ensure an 

adequate margin of safety for all individuals. But these recommendations, unfortunately, were ignored by the Bush administration. 

To correct this flagrant disregard for the facts, EPA has now proposed, based on yet another exhaustive review of the scientific evidence, to revise the standard to fall within the range of 65 to 70 

parts per billion, as recommended by the Scientific Advisory Committee. 

EPA’s decision is fully consistent with the law and the scientific 

evidence, and there are a litany of adverse health impacts that will 

be avoided with the stronger standard, nearly a million asthma attacks in children, millions of missed school days, and thousands of 

premature deaths. 

These are meaningful real-world benefits, but I have little doubt 

that today we will hear much about cost. Yet, a unanimous United 

States Supreme Court opinion written by Justice Scalia, no less, 

made it clear that EPA’s approach for determining a safe level of 

air pollution is correct and costs may not be considered. 

And that is why Congress designed the Clean Air Act. The standard is set based on the health science, and economic costs are only 

considered later when determining the best way to implement the 

standard. In other words, EPA sets the goal for clean air and the 

States develop the lowest cost way to meet it. 

Although EPA may not consider costs in setting the standard, 

EPA has, nevertheless, worked with the Office of Management and 

Budget to prepare a careful analysis of the projected costs and benefits associated with reducing ozone. EPA estimates that the benefits associated with the new ozone standards would range from $13 

to $38 billion annually, outweighing the cost by approximately 

three to one. 

Industry has prepared dubious and grossly inflated estimates of 

the projected costs, but they fail to consider any of the benefits. 

5 

That paints a completely one-sided picture of the costs of cleaning 

our air, one that ignores the real costs that are borne by those who 

breathe, especially children whose lungs are developing and who 

breathe greater volumes of air for their size. 

We will also hear that EPA’s proposed ozone standard will have 

dire consequences for economic growth. And these doomsday claims 

about the costs of clean air are nothing new. 

The history of the Clean Air Act has a history of exaggerated 

claims by industry that have never come true. The reality is that, 

over the past 40 years, the Clean Air Act has produced tremendous 

public health benefits while supporting America’s economic growth. 

EPA’s ozone standard is long overdue. We need to let EPA do its 

job to reach the goal of the Clean Air Act, clean air for all Americans. And I look forward to Ms. McCabe’s testimony. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

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 the chair. And I will be very brief. 

I spent long hours going over comments that EPA received about 

this new ozone rule. And there was a common theme: ‘‘Will I lose 

my job?’’ Questions came from big cities, members of the Atlanta 

Chamber or the Greater Houston Partnership. They came from 

family farms and ranches, members of the Iowa Farm Bureau or 

the Nebraska home builders. 

A mom-and-pop store in Pennsylvania wrote EPA: ‘‘Parents tell 

our children, ‘Eat your peas, then you can have dessert.’ EPA says, 

‘Eat your peas, then you can have more peas.’’’ 

The worst came from EPA’s workhorses, the state agencies who 

make this rule work. They have questions about the science used 

for the health impacts. They worry if they can build new roads. 

These voices come from all of America, and I hope EPA starts listening. 

And if one of my colleagues on my side wants some time, I will 

yield. If not, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time I recognize the 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 this hearing 

today on the EPA’s proposed ozone rule. 

And I also want to welcome back Ms. McCabe, the Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation at EPA. She has always 

given us her best, and I always am pleasured to hear her insightful 

and forthright testimony before this subcommittee. 

Mr. Chairman, today, as has been duly noted, we are here to discuss the proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

ozone, which the EPA is legally mandated to put forth by the Clean 

Air Act. 

6 

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards at concentration levels sufficient to 

protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety for certain pollutants that endanger public health and the environment. 

We know that the EPA establishes these standards based on 

medical and scientific evidence as well as the recommendations 

provided by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which, 

Mr. Chairman, you know is an independent scientific review committee. 

The EPA is required to base these standards, which must be reviewed every 5 years, solely on consideration of public health, and 

they must accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge, Mr. 

Chairman. 

We know that, in 2008, the Bush administration failed to heed 

the unanimous recommendations of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, ignoring the ozone air quality standards to between 60 and 70 points per million. 

Instead, the EPA under President Bush set the standard at 75 

ppb, despite the advice of the Scientific Advisory Committee that 

a 60-to-70-ppb standard would be more protective of public health. 

The Obama administration also initially failed to reconsider the 

ozone standard in 2009 until being ordered to do so by the courts 

in April of last year due to a lawsuit brought forth by environmental and public health groups. 

So that leads us to ask the questions, Mr. Chairman: Why is this 

rule so very important? And why did the court force the EPA to 

act? 

Well, we know that there are serious health effects caused by the 

ozone, and the EPA’s proposal will improve air quality and result 

in significant public health benefits. Children, the elderly, and people with respiratory diseases such as asthma will be impacted directly by this rule. 

The EPA estimates that there are currently 25.9 million people 

in the U.S. with asthma, including 7.1 million children. And, Mr. 

Chairman, my city of Chicago has been and is disproportionately 

impacted by asthma and the effect that ozone has on asthma. The 

most recent study shows that Cook County, Illinois, is home to over 

113,000 children and over 340,000 adults with asthma. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I don’t know what value can be placed on 

preventing all of these dire circumstances, all these illnesses, all 

these premature deaths and emergency room visits, but I know 

that the people who sent me here to represent them are some of 

the ones who would be impacted by this procedure and by this action most of all. 

So I look forward to engaging Ms. McCabe on the rationale behind this proposal. And, Mr. Chairman, I think I am out of time. 

So I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 

time. 

At this time, Ms. McCabe, I want to thank you for coming here 

early this morning, at 9:30 a.m. And, once again, we apologize for 

the delay. But we are delighted that Janet McCabe is with us, the 

Acting Assistant Administrator at EPA. 

7 

And you are recognized for 5 minutes for your statement on the 

ozone rule. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JANET MCCABE, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, AIR AND RADIATION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. MCCABE. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member 

Rush, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on EPA’s proposed updates to the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. I will try to be brief so we 

can get to your questions. 

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards every 5 years to make sure that they continue to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. 

For at-risk groups, including, as Ranking Member Rush has noted, 

the estimated 25.9 million people who have asthma in the United 

States, of whom 7.1 million are children, this is critical work. 

For this review, EPA examined the thousands of scientific studies, including more than 1,000 new studies published since EPA 

last revised the standards in 2008. Based on the law, a thorough 

review of all of that science, the recommendation of the Agency’s 

independent scientific advisors and the assessment of EPA scientists and technical experts, the Administrator’s judgment was 

that the current standard of 75 parts per billion is not adequate 

to protect the public health. So she proposed to strengthen those 

standards to within a range of 65 to 70 parts per billion to better 

protect Americans’ health and welfare. 

The Agency invited comments on all aspects of the proposal, including alternative levels as low as 60 parts per billion, and also 

acknowledged interest among some stakeholders in offering comment on retaining the existing standard. 

We also propose to update the Air Quality Index for ozone to reflect a revised standard if one is finalized. The AQI is the tool that 

gives Americans realtime information about air quality each day so 

they can make informed choices to protect themselves and their 

families. 

Ozone seasons are lasting longer than they used to. So EPA proposed to lengthen the ozone monitoring season for 33 states to 

match the season when ozone levels can be elevated. 

To protect the environment from damaging levels of ground-level 

ozone, as required by the Clean Air Act, the EPA has also proposed 

to revise the secondary standard. 

Based upon new studies that add to the evidence that repeated 

exposure to ozone reduces growth and has other harmful effects on 

plants and trees, the Administrator judged that a secondary standard within the range of 65 to 75 parts per billion, the same as the 

primary standard proposal, would protect the public welfare, particularly against harm to trees, plants, and ecosystems. 

In addition, we have proposed to make updates to monitoring 

and permitting requirements, smooth the transition to any revised 

standards, maximize effectiveness in the State, local, tribal and 

Federal monitoring programs, and give areas new flexibilities to 

meet local needs for monitoring ozone precursors. All of these updates are designed to ensure that Americans are alerted when 

8 

ozone approaches levels that may be unhealthy, especially for sensitive people. 

The Administrator’s proposal to strengthen the standards is designed to better protect children and families from the health effects of ozone pollution. For example, we estimate that meeting a 

level in the range of 65 to 70 parts per billion would prevent an 

estimated 330,000 to 1 million missed school days, 320,000 to 

960,000 asthma attacks in children, and 710 to 4,300 or more premature deaths per year. 

Implementing a NAAQS has always been and will continue to be 

a Federal, state, and tribal partnership. EPA stands ready to do 

our part to assist states and tribes with pollution control programs 

and to streamline implementation. 

Local communities, states, tribes, and EPA have already shown 

that we can reduce ground-level ozone while our economy continues 

to thrive. We have reduced air pollution in this country by nearly 

70 percent, and our economy has tripled since 1970. We fully expect this progress to continue. 

Existing and proposed Federal measures like vehicle standards, 

power plant rules, are leading to substantial reductions in ozone 

nationwide, which will help improve air quality and help many 

areas meet any revised standards. 

We received over 430,000 comments during the 90-day public 

comment period, and we are reviewing those comments as we work 

towards completing the final standards by October 1 of this year. 

Thank you very much. And I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCabe follows:] 

9 


97556.001
10 


97556.002
11 


97556.003
12 


97556.004
13 


97556.005
14 


97556.006
15 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Ms. McCabe, very much. 

And I recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions. 

Many of us believe that the Clean Air Act needs to be changed. 

I say that because, just as Mr. Rush mentioned, you mentioned, 

EPA looks at impact on health care by making it more stringent, 

these ozone rules, for example, and you eliminate so many cases of 

asthma, so many premature deaths, whatever, whatever, which is 

important. 

But under the act you do not have any responsibility to look at 

those pockets of the country that are in noncompliance and the impact that these stringent controls have on jobs. And we have had 

economist after economist come in here and talk about loss of jobs 

and the impact that that has on health care for children, for infants. 

And, yet, EPA, every time they come up here, it is all about the 

benefits, the benefits, the benefits. And there are detriments to 

these actions because, as you know, when an area is in noncompliance, they can’t build a new plant unless they can get a permit. 

They can’t built infrastructure projects. And it does have an effect 

on jobs. 

Now, fortunately, areas like Los Angeles that have never been in 

compliance, you know, they rely on the entertainment industry and 

high tech and so forth. So they don’t have to worry about manufacturing jobs or basic industry jobs. 

But how do you account for the fact, for example, that Los Angeles is still in noncompliance and your own rule states that, some 

of these areas, the only way they will ever be in compliance under 

even the 2008 rule is they have to use unknown controls, controls 

that we don’t know what it is. 

And you do understand—I mean, your own testimony, your own 

documentation, shows that many parts of the country are going to 

be in noncompliance, whether it is 70 ppb or 65 ppb. And even 

President Obama tried to prevent the implementation. He delayed 

implementation of the most recent review. 

And now, of course, environmentalist groups who do a good job, 

they have a role to play, but they are driving EPA because they 

are always going in to court. And under the strict construction of 

the language, sometimes which is quite nebulous, the courts say, 

‘‘You cannot delay.’’ 

So many of us are really frustrated that these environmental 

groups are driving the decisions because of the strict language in 

the original Clean Air Act. So I hope you get a sense of the frustration of many parts of the country. 

In Kentucky, we are going to have 11 more counties in noncompliance at 70 ppb. We are going to have 23 more at 65 ppb. And 

every major city in Kentucky will be in noncompliance at some of 

these levels. 

So are you concerned that, after all this time, areas like Los Angeles and San Joaquin still can’t even meet the old standards? 

Ms. MCCABE. Chairman Whitfield, there is a lot in your question 

there, and I will try to address as much of it as I can. 

There are certainly parts of the country where meeting the 

health standard has been extremely challenging due to a variety of 

factors, including particular challenges in southern California. 

16 

What that means is that millions of people who live in those areas 

are exposed to unhealthy air. 

The good news is that air quality has improved in southern California as well as all across the country—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But they are still in noncompliance. 

Ms. MCCABE. They do not meet the standard, but there are way 

fewer days and the levels are lower and the area is making 

progress in a way that still supports a vital local economic and—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. How much time does Los Angeles have to comply? I don’t know if they are severe or extreme. But how many 

years do they have to comply? 

Ms. MCCABE. Los Angeles is in the extreme category. And if the 

standard is revised this fall, they would have until 2037 to meet 

that standard. 

What that means is the area has a lot of time to bring reductions 

into place and—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But they have been working on it for 15 or 18 

years. They are not even in compliance today. 

Ms. MCCABE. That is right. The air is still not healthy there for 

the citizens to breathe. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, I see my time has expired. But many of us 

feel very strongly you should just continue to implement this existing rule for a while and give the country time to catch up, since 

even your implementing guidance has not been issued until just recently. 

I recognize the gentleman from Illinois for 5 minutes. 

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

Assistant Administrator McCabe, in your written testimony, you 

note that nationally, since 1980, average ozone levels have fallen 

by a third. Additionally, 90 percent of the areas originally identified as not meeting the ozone standards set in 1997 now meet those 

standards, 97 percent. 

What would you say to the argument that we have already reduced our average ozone levels enough and further lowering the 

standards from 75 to 70 or even 65 would not give us the additional health benefits as opposed to the cost of trying to reach those 

higher standards? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. Well, Congress in the Clean Air Act directed 

EPA every 5 years to look at the science and make a determination 

about whether the current level is adequate to protect the public 

health. 

And based on all of that review in a very open process with external peer review all along the way, the Administrator made the 

determination that 75 parts per billion is not sufficiently protective. 

That is based on all of this science that we have seen that shows 

that people suffer the effects of ozone air pollution at levels below 

75 parts per billion. That is her job to do under the Clean Air Act, 

and that is what our proposal is all about. 

Mr. RUSH. Well, you also point out that, since 1980, we have reduced our air pollution by nearly 70 percent and our economy has 

tripled. And we know that, by law, EPA cannot consider the cost 

of implementing either the primary or secondary air quality standards, but only can consider the health benefits. 

17 

Has there been any cost-benefit analysis by the EPA or any other 

agency either before, during, or after the proposal? 

Ms. MCCABE. Ranking Member Rush, you are correct to point out 

that there is a separation that Congress laid out in the Clean Air 

Act between deciding what the science says is important for safe 

and healthy air and deciding how to meet that standard, which the 

states are in charge of because it is their air quality, their sources, 

with considerable help from the Federal Government. 

So we don’t know exactly how the states will go about meeting 

the standard because we know that they will—as they have over 

the years, they will find cost-effective ways to do that with the help 

of rules provided by the Federal Government. 

But we do provide, as part of the rulemaking process, a regulatory impact analysis, an RIA, to show illustrative costs. And that 

goes through the review of the Office of Management and Budget 

and is done consistently with the obligations and the requirements 

that they put on us to do those sorts of economic reviews. 

Mr. RUSH. Ms. McCabe, the chairman talked about Los Angeles 

and other places. What is your viewpoint? Why do they stand out? 

And what direction is the EPA going to try to bring them more into 

compliance? 

Ms. MCCABE. There are a lot of pretty unique features that make 

southern California very challenging for air quality. 

It is obviously a very populated area. So there is a lot of activity 

there that creates emissions. But there is also the unique geography and topography, of being the mountains and the ocean and 

the meteorology there, that just makes it very challenging. 

As a result, EPA, as well as really progressive and smart and innovative agencies and businesses in California, have really led the 

way in figuring out how to reduce emissions in cost-effective ways 

to protect the citizens and improve air quality there. 

And EPA, in fact, has provided significant support and assistance 

through grant programs, through technology assistance over the 

years, and certainly will continue to do that in order to bring the 

kinds of programs that need to be in place there. 

One of the advantages of that is that the innovations in California have helped the rest of the country in terms of bringing new 

ideas and new approaches into use in ways that can benefit the 

rest of the country and benefit the economy. 

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair. 

Welcome back, Ms. McCabe. 

We all know that much of the ozone in America is beyond our 

control. EPA calls this background ozone. Some of this ozone is natural, blows from other countries. 

I have a slide here. This was Houston. Some of that is not our 

ozone. Some belongs to Mexico. We get it because of annual crop 

burnings. 

I have another poster. Last time Ms. McCarthy was here I 

showed her this map of ozone pouring into America from China 

and Asia. 

18 

In your proposal, you admit that natural ozone and ozone from 

Mexico and China can be a huge problem. Your rule says, ‘‘There 

are times where ozone levels approach or exceed the concentration 

levels being proposed in large part due to background sources.’’ 

In small Needville, Texas, you are saying that ozone we can’t 

control makes us violate your new rules. That seems very unfair, 

ma’am. 

My first question is: Is it true that nearly one-half of the ozone 

in America is here naturally or comes from overseas? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t know that I would agree with that formulation exactly. We do address the background issue, and background 

levels vary across the country and they vary across different times 

of year. And, as you note, they come from a variety of sources. 

I will note that the Clean Air Act does not hold States responsible for pollution that they do not control, and there are provisions 

and mechanisms in the Clean Air Act to help States that—— 

Mr. OLSON. Ma’am, I am sorry. I have only have 5 minutes and 

thousands of questions back home people have asked. So I have got 

to cut you off. I apologize. 

And, also, your answer goes against your own data. I will give 

you copies of the EPA’s data that says foreign ozone is all over this 

country. 

We know that natural and foreign ozone are not going away and 

are likely to get much, much bigger. That means we must squeeze 

more and squeeze more from smaller and smaller sources of ozone. 

EPA can’t say how this can be achieved. You don’t know. 

Is it true the EPA says that much of the technology needed to 

meet these new rules are unknown today? Is that true? Yes or no. 

Ms. MCCABE. I wouldn’t characterize it as much of the technology. We do recognize that, in some parts of the country, there 

may need to be controls identified that are not in existence today. 

But there are many controls that are in existence today that can 

be implemented that will reduce the air pollution that causes 

ozone. 

Mr. OLSON. Ma’am, one example: EPA admits that 43 percent of 

NOx controls needed in the northeast are now unknown. Stark contrast to your answer. 

One other question: Is it true that EPA won’t even consider 

whether an ozone rule is achievable? Is that true? In your formulation, will you consider is this achievable? Can we do this with technology? 

Ms. MCCABE. Our job under the Clean Air Act is to identify the 

standard that is necessary to protect the public health. That is 

what this rule is about, is letting the American people know what 

is safe and healthy air for them to breathe. 

Mr. OLSON. So you can’t take into account achieve-ability. You 

just can’t do that. 

By law, is that what you are saying, ma’am? 

Ms. MCCABE. The Supreme Court has spoken to this, and this 

is about the science and about what is healthy for the American 

people. 

Mr. OLSON. Well, it sounds like we need to change that law. 

19 

One final question, ma’am. The law does not require, as you 

know, EPA to change the ozone rule every 5 years. You just have 

to review it, as you said in your opening comments. 

You say you have to change the current rule because the 2008 

rule doesn’t protect human health, and, yet, back home the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality points out that your own 

modeling in your ‘‘Health and Risk Exposure Assessment, appendix 

7, page 73–2’’ would result in more deaths in Houston, Texas, with 

a lower standard. 

TCEQ concludes that our EPA can’t read their own data or you 

are accepting a lower ozone standard that makes health worse. 

Any comments about that fact, ma’am? 

Ms. MCCABE. I would very much disagree with the way TCEQ 

characterized the data. And if you look at the entire body of data, 

you will see that the health benefits of the proposed ozone standard 

are substantial. 

We welcome everybody’s comments on the rule, and TCEQ has 

provided a lot of analysis which we are looking very closely at. 

Mr. OLSON. I will make you a deal. Get a copy of our assessment. 

Have it to you today, ma’am. Thank you very much. 

Yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Time has expired. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 

McNerney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Ms. McCabe. 

Early in your testimony and, also, in response to Mr. Rush’s 

question, you said that you looked at thousands of reports, a thousand more recent reports, and it concluded that, to protect the 

health and safety of the communities, 75 was a little too high. 

Now, are we splitting hairs here or are we talking about largescale effects? 

Ms. MCCABE. We are talking about millions of people that are 

suffering the effects of ozone pollution that at a lower level would 

not suffer those effects. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So one of the EPA’s primary missions is to protect the health of this country and our communities. 

Wasn’t there a rule recently that ensured that the EPA must 

look at health and safety of the community first before looking at 

economic impacts? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is exactly what courts have said with regard 

to setting these air quality standards. Yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

The chairman mentioned San Joaquin Valley, which is my home. 

So I appreciate your attention, Mr. Chairman. 

But I have seen over the last several years improvement year by 

year in the air quality in our community, and I think a lot of this 

is due to the kind of standards that the EPA has initiated. 

And one of the things that we do is incentivize some of the old 

diesel equipment to be replaced by new diesel equipment, but that 

takes time. 

That is not something we can require all the farmers or diesel 

truck owners to do over a period of a year or two. It takes time. 

20 

So I appreciate that we are going to continue to look at those and 

keep those standards in place. 

And I just want to say the Bay Area contributes a lot of the 

ozone to the San Joaquin Valley. Sort of like what Mr. Olson was 

saying, we get a lot of it from outside of our region. 

So we ask you to take special consideration to that in helping us 

make those attainments and then the sort of penalties that are assessed when you don’t make those attainments. And I appreciate 

Mr. Olson’s comments on that. 

What is the EPA going to do or how is the EPA going to assess 

drought impacts on air pollution and ozone? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. So we know that the drought situation is incredibly severe and challenging and troubling in California and 

elsewhere. That can contribute to poor air quality because of increased dust. But we also have tools in the Clean Air Act that can 

allow States to evaluate their air quality as it is being influenced 

by natural conditions such as that. 

And we are working closely with the States to make sure that 

our guidance and expectations are current with situations like 

drought and wildfires, which are also a challenge, to make sure 

that States aren’t responsible for natural conditions and that sort 

of thing that can create ozone situations. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Would you confirm my observation that the air 

quality is improving in the San Joaquin Valley? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, sir. Yes. I certainly would. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Do you have something you could say here about 

that? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, I don’t have figures with me, Congressman, 

although I would be happy to get those to you. But certainly over 

recent years air quality has been improving, and it is due to the 

kinds of programs that you mentioned: replacing older, dirtier engines with cleaner, newer ones and working very closely with the 

agricultural community and everybody in the San Joaquin Valley 

to find sensible things to do. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So nonattainment doesn’t penalize us in the 

sense of backtracking the actual air quality in the region? 

Ms. MCCABE. No. No. Not at all. It is all moving in the right direction. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Could you explain the difference between secondary standards 

and primary standards. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. Primary standards are focused on protecting 

human health. Secondary standards are focused, as the Clean Air 

Act says, in protecting public welfare. 

So those are other things that we care about, as people who live 

in this country: economic impacts, effects on ecosystems, effects on 

crops, effects on buildings, the other things that make our economy 

and our quality of life what it is. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. So then you said you are going to set the 

primary and secondary standards the same with regard to ozone. 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, it turns out we do an independent analysis 

of the information that exists on human health and then on these 

secondary impacts and there is an extensive discussion of that in 

the preamble in the proposal. 

21 

And our Clean Air Act Science Advisory Committee spoke to that 

directly. Our review of the science shows that a standard set in the 

range of 65 to 70 will provide the protection that the science tells 

us the welfare impacts require. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Assistant Administrator, welcome. It is good to have you 

back. 

Just personally, just you as an individual, don’t you believe that 

having a good-paying job with health benefits is also protective of 

human health? 

Ms. MCCABE. I think it is important for everybody to have a job 

and—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And healthcare benefits of some sort. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, I do. Of course I do. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And that is part of our—I mean, when you hear 

the questions and the responses back and forth, that is kind of 

our—part of our challenge is—especially as I follow up on this 

question, is that you all, as an EPA, don’t really have the authority 

to evaluate that with respect to your primary mission, which is protective of human health via the air regulations. Right? 

I mean, you just can’t weigh in. You are not making those costbenefit analyses. We say we are to some extent, but they are so far 

down the decision tree that many of us believe that they just don’t 

happen. 

So let me go to another question based upon a comment you 

made. Because a lot of this is—75 parts per billion in 2008, many 

states have not met those yet, but now we are ratcheting down 

even more and there is a lot of uncertainty. Now that will move 

on to my third question once I get there. 

But in your response you talked about background is different in 

different areas. So are you considering a different regulation standard based upon the variance of background? So could one area of 

the country have a 70 parts per billion and another one have a 65 

parts per billion? And if—— 

Ms. MCCABE. Well—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. Answer the question. I can follow up. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. Sure. 

Well, the standard is supposed to reflect what is safe for people 

to breathe. And so a child living in Florida and a child living in 

Oregon should be entitled to the—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But background is background. Background is 

there without, in essence, human contact. 

Ms. MCCABE. That is right. And that comes into play when 

states are putting their plans together and EPA is working with 

states to figure out how much time and what needs to be done in 

order to reach those standards so that areas that have more—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But if an area has 70-parts-per-billion background, 

you can’t get them to 65—— 

Ms. MCCABE. But—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS [continuing]. Through the power of government. 

22 

Ms. MCCABE. But there are two very important elements to the 

standard. One is for the people who live in that area to know 

whether the air that they are breathing is healthy or not. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So they should move. Is that the answer? Get out 

of that 70-parts-per-billion area because it is not healthy. 

Ms. MCCABE. No. But they should know that, when the air quality is bad, that they might want to—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. What should they do? It is naturally occurring. 

That is the background. 

Ms. MCCABE. Right. But understand, too, that ozone changes 

from day to day and there are—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So they should take a vacation during those days. 

You see our problem. I think—in rolling this out, I would hope 

that—background is important. Background should be a standard. 

We should not try to have government force something that is not 

naturally occurring based upon nature without man’s intervention. 

Ms. MCCABE. If I could clarify a point on the background because 

I think people may be thinking that this is pervasive, in fact, 

across the country, most of the ozone that is contributing to high 

values is locally or regionally created. 

There are very few areas, very few parts of this country, where 

background can get as high as approaching the level—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. But you understand our concern, even if it is 

very low possibility. If—anyway, I want to move on to the last 

question. 

We just finished our congressional baseball game last night. We 

lost again. But it makes me think about what Chairman Whitfield 

was addressing. Had we started the game and then halfway 

through the game the strike zone changed or in the second inning 

the number of outs changed or the fourth inning the foul lines 

changed or the outfield walls got moved in, that would make for 

a very frustrating, impossible game. Don’t you agree? 

Ms. MCCABE. But this is about—ozone is not about rules. It is 

about science. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. This is about Utility MACT, Boiler MACT, Cement 

Rule, Cross-State Air Pollution, 111(d), 111(b), ozone, different 

standards, particulate matter, Tier 3. 

We are changing the rules on the fly, and the people who are creating jobs in this country cannot manage it. That is our problem 

with what is going on with the EPA. 

And I yield back my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentlelady from 

California, Mrs. Capps, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

Thank you, Ms. McCabe, for your testimony. 

And maybe it is a bias because I have been a public health nurse 

a long time, but when it comes to air quality, I believe our focus 

must be primarily on protecting public health. 

This is the standard set by Congress in the Clean Air Act. It is 

a standard that has been upheld by the Supreme Court and for 

good reason. Clean air has very real and significant impacts on the 

health and well-being of all Americans. 

And this was underscored by our Ranking Member Bobby Rush 

from Chicago, where they know a thing or two about air pollution, 

23 

too. Healthier children, parents, and employees translate into very 

real economic benefits. 

I would say to my colleague Mr. Shimkus, who made a case in 

the other direction, that good jobs with health benefits, which he 

was arguing for, are even better in the context of clean air. And 

even polluters benefit from healthier employees taking fewer sick 

days. 

So my question is just asking you to elaborate on this fact. What 

is the economic value? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. It is absolutely true. And I think many agree 

that a clean and healthy environment is very positive for the economy as well as for public health. 

Our illustrative analysis shows that, at a standard of 60 parts 

per billion, there would be benefits in the range of $6.4 to $13 billion to the economy and, for 65 parts per billion, $19 to $38 billion. 

And that comes from some of the things that you have cited, 

which is fewer missed school days, less missed work, fewer visits 

to the emergency room and that sort of thing. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Right. Some oppose strengthening ozone standards—and we have heard it today—because it would increase the 

number of nonattainment areas. 

Ms. McCabe, does the Clean Air Act require EPA to set ozone 

standards based on how many areas currently meet that standard 

or based on protecting public health? 

Ms. MCCABE. It is based on protecting public health. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And for those areas that need to make improvements—and many of these are in my home State of California— 

what resources are available to help lower the ozone layers? 

I think the word ‘‘smog’’ was invented in the Los Angeles area. 

I live just a tiny bit to the north of it, but we still struggle every 

day. 

Are these areas on their own or does the Federal Government 

provide assistance? 

Ms. MCCABE. Absolutely. This is a partnership between the Federal Government and the State governments. The Federal Government assists in a number of ways. 

One is by promulgating national rules like Tier 3 to apply to 

automobiles nationwide, bring tremendous benefits, and other rules 

that make sense to do at a national level. 

We also help the States by providing financial assistance and 

support, technical assistance and grants. And your area has certainly benefited from those sorts of programs that can be very targeted to the specific needs of a particular area. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. 

And, as you know well—and I would like to turn to the topic of 

climate change just briefly—this is increasingly impacting all aspects of our economy and our daily lives. Storms are getting stronger. Floods are getting worse. Droughts, as I know very well in California now, and wildfires are getting more severe. And climate 

change also increases the levels of ozone in the air we breathe. 

Would you explain just very simply how climate change is expected to impact ozone levels. And how will this affect our human 

health? 

24 

Ms. MCCABE. Sure. As the climate gets warmer—warm conditions are what is conducive to ozone formation. So it can lead to 

increased ozone formation. And, circularly, ozone is also a climate 

pollutant. So it helps contribute to the kinds of effects that we are 

seeing. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And then, just briefly, finally, I hear so often the industry as well as some here in Congress cite high cost estimates 

as the reason to oppose strengthening environmental public health 

standards. It is the same argument being used against the proposed ozone standards. 

While I believe cost of new regulations should certainly be considered and there is a way that you are talking about doing that, 

these costs must also be weighed against the benefits. It is important to remember that health benefits represent real people and 

real lives saved. 

So how do the estimated health benefits of EPA’s proposed ozone 

standards compare to the costs? In other words, what is that balance—— 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. As we laid out in our illustrative case, the 

benefits outweigh the costs by $3 to every $1 that is spent. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And this is based on studies that actually do demonstrate this? 

Ms. MCCABE. It is based on all the information that is available 

to us about the things that people are likely to do and the cost benefits associated with the health benefits. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you very much. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Harper, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here today. Seems like you do hang out here 

quite a bit. So it is good to have you back. 

Ms. MCCABE. I do. I am happy to. 

Mr. HARPER. Well, look, just a quick question. 

If we were able to somehow eliminate all ground-level ozone, 

there would still be people that would have respiratory illnesses. 

You would agree with that, wouldn’t you? 

Ms. MCCABE. Sure. Thereare lots of things that contribute to respiratory illness. 

Mr. HARPER. Sure. And as we learn how to measure more minute 

levels of any type of item, that is something that I know we have 

to look at. 

But I am really concerned, as we look at this, if we revise the 

current ozone standards, how that is going to affect transportation 

conformity requirements. 

And so if you could just briefly say what is transportation conformity, what does that mean? 

Ms. MCCABE. Transportation conformity is a provision in the act 

that wants to make sure that as States and municipalities are 

working to improve their air quality, that transportation planning 

is taken into account and that transportation planning takes air 

quality into account so that areas won’t undermine their efforts to 

improve air quality inadvertently through transportation projects 

that could increase air pollution. 

25 

Mr. HARPER. So states and localities will have that responsibility. 

Ms. MCCABE. They do have that now. 

Mr. HARPER. Obviously. 

Ms. MCCABE. And working with the Federal Government. 

Mr. HARPER. And in order to make that demonstration—— 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Mr. HARPER [continuing]. What kind of modeling tools will these 

cities need to use? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, there are tools that are in existence now and 

tools that EPA and Federal highway provide so that we work with 

the States on to analyze those impacts. 

Mr. HARPER. Well, how—— 

Ms. MCCABE. We have been doing this for a long time. 

Mr. HARPER. How reasonable or what type of situation is it for 

smaller cities? What about those that have that? Are you expecting 

the smaller cities to do the same analysis, and is that reasonable, 

and what are you anticipating? 

Ms. MCCABE. We would certainly provide any assistance that we 

needed to for any community. This is a focus in larger communities, more populous communities, but we would provide whatever 

assistance was needed to help. 

Mr. HARPER. So if the focus is for larger communities, are you 

planning on extending it to every community? 

Ms. MCCABE. The Clean Air Act provides the areas that need to 

look at transportation conformity. So we would follow the guidance 

and the requirements in the act and the regulations. 

Mr. HARPER. So if EPA allowed existing Federal measures to 

work, existing now, wouldn’t many cities avoid having to do these 

time-consuming transportation conformity analyses? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, we actually are—RIA looks at the—what we 

expect to happen to air quality in the future, looking at the rules 

that are in place now and the ones that are under development 

now, and we show that the vast majority of the areas that right 

now would have levels exceeding these standards by 2025 will come 

into attainment of those standards through these measures. 

Mr. HARPER. We have lots of important issues. 

And one of those issues is what to do about our highway, bridges, 

infrastructure, issues that we have in this country, and then many 

of those need to be repaired. We need new ones that need to be 

built. Stringent ozone standards, obviously, are going to make it 

harder for States to show that proposed highway projects conform 

with ozone standards. 

Has EPA considered the economic and safety impacts that could 

result if these more stringent ozone standards block crucial transportation projects? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t think that we anticipate or have historically 

seen that conformity blocks important transportation projects, especially ones that are needed for safety reasons. 

Mr. HARPER. Well, you haven’t seen that under the current, but 

if we have more stringent requirements and that causes additional 

cost, can you explain that? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t expect that the system would work differently in any areas. We don’t expect a lot of new areas to be coming into nonattainment under these standards, so the areas are 

26 

generally familiar with and already working with the transportation conformity system. But all of the provisions that are in there 

about making sure that important safety projects go forward and 

other important projects go forward, those will all continue to 

apply. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you. And I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Ms. McCabe. Has previously EPA ever delayed the 

NAAQS standard? 

Ms. MCCABE. The NAAQS standard? 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. 

Ms. MCCABE. There is the NO2 standard, maybe that is what you 

are referring to. EPA, in the past, has not always met its deadlines, 

I would say, on—— 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Well, that is the other thing. If EPA hadn’t delayed the standards when the law required EPA to review the 

ozone standard again, what would be the regular timeline? Would 

it be 2015? 

Ms. MCCABE. The last time the ozone standard was revised was 

in 2008. Clean Air Act says every 5 years. So 2013 would have 

been 5 years. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. In your testimony, you stated EPA examined 

thousands of scientific studies, including more than 1,000 new 

studies published since EPA last revised the standard. The ozone 

NAAQS proposal, EPA acknowledged there is a brandnew scientific 

data the EPA couldn’t consider. Also, EPA states there are significant uncertainties regarding some of the studies that EPA did include regarding lowering the standard. 

Most importantly, by 2017, the following standards will be in 

place that would significantly affect ozone and precursors. Ozone 

NAAQS at 75 parts per billion, Tier 3 vehicle emission standards, 

mercury and air toxic standards, from the Utility MACT, new 

source performance standards for volatile organic compounds, and 

particulate matter that NAAQS is important because EPA acknowledges reduction of particulate matter would account for twothirds or three-fourths of those ozone NAAQS benefits. 

Why is lowering the standard not more appropriate after the 75- 

parts-per-billion standard has time to take effect and EPA reviews 

all the new and related information and data, say, 2017? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, because the Clean Air Act gives us a timetable of every 5 years, and we are late on that, and because this 

is about letting the American people know what is healthy air 

quality for them. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, in earlier NAAQS, the EPA stated in earlier 

decisions, based on the applicable statutory requirements and the 

volume of material requiring careful evaluation, the EPA estimates 

it will be take 2 to 3 years to incorporate over 1,000 new health 

studies and criteria documents. Given various legal constraints and 

the fact that EPA has already missed deadlines for completion of 

ozone review cycles, the Administrator concluded that the best 

course of action would be to complete the current review based on 

the existing air standard and proceed as rapidly as possible with 

27 

the next review. Why would EPA not make a similar decision now 

since we are in 2015 now? 

Ms. MCCABE. Because we are now in that regular review, we are 

past our statutory deadline, and in fact, we are subject to a court 

schedule to finalize this rule. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, my earlier question, there have been times 

that EPA has delayed it in the past. Is that true? 

Ms. MCCABE. On our regularly required 5-year review—— 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. 

Ms. MCCABE [continuing]. There have been times when we have 

not met that deadline. I think you are referring to the ozone reconsideration, which was not a mandatory requirement under the 

Clean Air Act. But for our mandatory 5-year review cycle, we have 

not deliberately delayed. We have missed deadlines, and we are in 

that situation now. 

Mr. GREEN. I guess the concern I have, and you have heard it 

from other members, is that we haven’t met the current standard, 

and yet we are getting ready to see some really things happen. And 

so to put a new standard on with all this is maybe starting too 

early before we see what the benefits are of the other things that 

the industries and everyone else is complying with. 

And, again, EPA has delayed it in the past. But, for a 2-year 

delay, while all these other things come into play, and we will have 

better data then to be able to look at it. 

Ms. MCCABE. I will say, Congressman Green, that the effect of 

those various measures will affect air quality. And so if a standard 

is revised, and folks need to look at which areas do and don’t meet 

the standard, all of those programs, like mercury and air toxic 

standard, Tier 3, will be bringing air quality down so that fewer 

areas will be in nonattainment, and those programs will provide 

assistance in order to improve air quality in those areas. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, one of my concerns is that part of our 

particulate matter in my area is because of the lack of infrastructure improvements. And so we can actually be hindering those infrastructure improvements if we make it more difficult. But, anyway, I am out of time, but I appreciate you being here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I will recognize the gentleman from 

West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What is the timeframe on getting some written—because I don’t think we are going 

to be under 5 minutes to be able to get through our questions. Is 

there a timeframe to be able to submit written questions? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, 10 days. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. Within 10 days, thank you. 

Welcome back. My question is that should a rule like this, that 

helps public health, be withheld? Be withheld because of a regulatory burden that we have been referring to here? 

Ms. MCCABE. I am not sure I understand your question, Congressman. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Well, if there is regulatory burden that is going 

to be imposed with this, should the EPA withhold the bill or the 

rule? 

28 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, the Clean Air Act directs EPA to set the 

standards, and the Supreme Court has said that that is our job to 

do and that the issues related to implementation are a separate 

matter of separate consideration not to be considered in determining what the proper public health level is. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. So the Court has ruled on that, but I am just curious because it goes back that—and you have heard it several 

times mentioned here that the President did step in and say there 

were some—this was going to cause regulatory burden. And, therefore, he asked that the rule be held back for a period of time. That 

is an accurate statement, isn’t it, that the President did intercede? 

Ms. MCCABE. That was in a reconsideration event, which is—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. That was in 2011. I am just curious. So I 

guess part of me is—part of the question is, what has changed? If 

he felt that this rule should not have proceeded because it had regulatory burdens with it, what has improved since 2011 that is it 

going to be less burdensome to industry? 

Ms. MCCABE. No. The decision to—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Just those were his words. 

Ms. MCCABE. The decision—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. He just said if it has a regulatory burden, I think 

we should hold it back. 

Ms. MCCABE. I respectfully I disagree that that is what he said, 

Congressman. That decision was made in the context of knowing 

that there would be the required 5-year review, and the decision 

there was to defer and stop with the reconsideration process in deference to the review that we are doing right now. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. He just said that: I underscore the importance of 

reducing regulatory burden and regulatory uncertainty. I have requested the Administrator Jackson to withdraw the draft ozone 

standards. 

I think that is interesting because I am curious to see what has 

changed, how the economy is improved or the regulatory burden is 

less. But you have answered about as much—I have just limited 

questions here, time on this. I am just curious a little bit about 

how a county is supposed to work in actual functioning through it. 

I have got up to my 20 counties that I represent, 75 percent of 

those counties are going to be in noncompliance if you go to 65— 

75 percent. So how are they supposed to—in a real world, not from 

academia, but how are they supposed to function when they are 

going to be in a nonattainment county? Seventy-five percent of my 

counties, 15 of those counties are going to be in nonattainment— 

what are they supposed to do? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, there are counties all across the country that 

have experienced poor air quality, have been designated nonattainment in the past, and states work with those counties to get programs in place to improve air quality in those areas. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Can you give me an example? Give me—you are 

talking—— 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. 30,000 feet. 

Ms. MCCABE. OK. 

29 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Just go down to how are they going to change 

the air quality in Jefferson County, West Virginia that has a—right 

now is at 81? 

Ms. MCCABE. OK. Well, I can talk better about my own home 

State of Indiana. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. No, please just talk—these are just three counties in a row that they average 73, so there are already going to 

be so far over. Are we telling them and their kids and their families, when they sit at that kitchen table and they can’t get a job, 

it is because their air quality is—it was fine at 75, but now that 

they get the 65, there are no jobs coming to West Virginia? 

Ms. MCCABE. So what states do in nonattainment situations is 

they look at the local sources of air pollution and put in place sensible measures to reduce those, and it might be local industry. It 

might be transportation. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. Local industry. You’re telling me that local 

industry change how it produces. 

Ms. MCCABE. Industry has controlled air pollution remarkably 

over the years. I come from Indiana. I was the air director there. 

We have an area in northwest Indiana that—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. We have some counties like Tyler County, and 

they may have just—well, I won’t give—we have some counties 

that just have one industry. 

Ms. MCCABE. Right. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. And yet they are in nonattainment. 

Ms. MCCABE. And there are many counties for which—from 

which the air pollution is not generated right within that county, 

but it is generated regionally. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Right. 

Ms. MCCABE. That is why States work with metropolitan areas. 

That is why the Clean Air Act has provisions to make sure that 

if upwind States are contributing to downwind States, that those 

upwind States take responsibility, that is why EPA moves forward 

with Federal programs, such as the Tier 3, which makes motor vehicle traffic much cleaner everywhere, including in your State. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. I will get back to you. I would like to have 

more of a written answer from you because I have got a series. 

I want to follow a metric here. How are we going to go down 

through to make these—so there are job opportunities. 

I want to close very quickly. Why are the tribes excluded from 

this regulation? 

Ms. MCCABE. The tribes aren’t excluded. The tribes have the opportunity to regulate themselves, and if not, then EPA—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. But the proposal says that the tribes are not obligated to adopt or implement any of the ambient air quality standards for ozone. In addition, tribes are not obligated to conduct ambient monitoring for ozone or adopt the ambient monitoring requirements. That sounds like an exemption to me. 

Ms. MCCABE. No. The Federal Government implements the 

standards in Indian country, unless the tribe chooses to seek to do 

it itself. So the standards apply in Indian country. Regulations get 

put in place in Indian country. It is just that the Federal Government has the initial responsibility to do that. 

30 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I know I am way over time. I would just be curious how they are going to change their operation. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired, and he can 

submit those questions. 

At this time, I recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, 

for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CASTOR. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

calling this hearing. 

And welcome. 

Listening to my colleagues’ comments today takes me back to a 

time when I was younger. Now, the Clean Air Act was originally 

adopted by the Congress in the 1960s. Is that right? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Ms. CASTOR. And there have been significant amendments in the 

1970s and especially in 1990. And, I think back to we have all kind 

of lived through this era. And I don’t think anyone can argue that 

America is better off because we breathe cleaner air. And we have 

been able to balance environmental progress with economic 

progress. We have the strongest economy in the world today. 

Yes, we have our challenges. We have had our setbacks, but we 

have been able to combine environmental progress, cleaner air, 

cleaner water, oversight of chemicals with economic progress and 

good jobs. I remember very well in the late 1960s and 1970s walking outside in my home in Tampa, Florida, and the air was awful. 

And we are a warm climate, so we have very smoggy days. 

Now, it is much better. It is noticeably better. And anyone that 

lived in the 1960s and 1970s, whether you were in an industrial 

area or not, you understand the progress that we have made. So 

I want to thank you for your attention to cleaner air that we 

breathe. What a privilege it is to live in a country that has been 

able to show such environmental stewardship and balance it 

against economic progress. 

And that is the history of this country, and I am confident that 

we can continue to make that kind of progress. 

Now, Ms. McCabe, what is the ozone standard right now? 

Ms. MCCABE. Seventy-five parts per billion. 

Ms. CASTOR. And what does that mean exactly? 

Ms. MCCABE. That means that in a billion units of air, no more 

than 75 of those should be ozone in order to provide healthy air 

quality. 

Ms. CASTOR. And how long has it been at 75? 

Ms. MCCABE. That was adopted in 2008. 

Ms. CASTOR. And what was it before that time? 

Ms. MCCABE. It was 85. 

Ms. CASTOR. And now the proposal, EPA’s proposal directed by 

the Court, directed by the Congress in statute is to go where now? 

Ms. MCCABE. What the Administrator proposed was a level 

somewhere between 65 and 75 parts per billion. 

Ms. CASTOR. And that was after significant discussion by the 

Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. What is the Clean Air 

Scientific Advisory Committee? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is an external expert advisory panel that EPA 

convenes and has assisted us with all reviews of National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards. So it is a special panel convened to review 

31 

all of the science that EPA develops, our Office of Research and Development, and the Office of Air and Radiation. And they go 

through a very lengthy process of reviewing multiple documents, 

both science documents and then policy documents, and give us 

feedback on the science that we are looking at. 

Ms. CASTOR. So they considered all sorts of levels? 

Ms. MCCABE. So, yes, right, right. And they looked at all the 

studies that we looked at. They considered all of that information 

and our evaluation of it. 

Ms. CASTOR. And, in fact, that committee indicated that—and it 

concluded that—there is adequate scientific evidence to recommend 

a range of levels for a revised primary ozone standard from 70 

parts per billion to 60 parts per billion. And with regard to the 

upper bound of 70 parts per billion, the committee said, based on 

the scientific evidence, a level of 70 parts per billion provides little 

margin of safety for protection of public health, particularly for sensitive subpopulations like children, elderly folks with respiratory 

problems. 

Although a level of 70 parts per billion is more protective of public health than the current standard, it may not meet the statutory 

requirement to protect public health with an adequate margin of 

safety. What are they saying there? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, they are acknowledging, first of all, that it 

is the Administrator’s job to make this judgment about what protects the public health with an adequate margin of safety. What 

they are saying is that they looked at all of this information and 

that they see evidence in the science record from the level of 70 

down to a level of 60 that shows adverse impacts on public health 

from ozone at these levels of exposure. And what they are saying 

is that at the top end of the range, there is less cushion, there is 

less margin of safety than at lower levels within that range. 

Ms. CASTOR. So this was taken into account as you develop—as 

the Administrator developed the proposal. 

Ms. MCCABE. It was. 

Ms. CASTOR. And when you consider that the public health benefits for children, the elderly, respiratory diseases, we all know 

someone in our family or we know someone with asthma—26 million people in the U.S. are estimated to have asthma, 7 million 

children—certainly we can continue the environmental progress to 

improve the public health and balance it against the economic 

needs of the country. I think this is the United States of America, 

and it can be done, so thank you for staying true to the law. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. MCCABE. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Griffith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

As you know, I represent a fairly rural district, includes the Appalachian Mountains, Appalachian Trail, Blue Ridge Mountains, a 

stone’s throw from the Smokies. My understanding is, is that under 

EPA requirements, in order to construct a new source of emissions 

or expand an existing source, there is a need to find offsets. Is that 

accurate? 

32 

Ms. MCCABE. It depends on how an area is designated. So areas 

that are the least polluted areas in terms of ozone, it changes as 

the area gets more and more severely polluted. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. Kentucky’s air regulator has raised concerns 

about the impacts on rural counties. In particular, he stated the 

statutory and regulatory offset requirements would severely restrict economic development in these rural counties since, by definition, the areas have no existing offset emissions available for any 

new sources. Rural counties would be disproportionately negatively 

impacted with little opportunity for economic development. 

For rural counties, would states be able to seek relief from some 

of these offset requirements? 

Ms. MCCABE. There is actually a provision in the Clean Air Act 

that specifically focused on rural counties that may be in nonattainment because of transported air pollution. So we would work 

with any state that wanted to come forward and talk about rural 

counties. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. You represented or you said transported ozone. 

The problem that I fear that some of my areas may have with the 

newer requirements as well is that it is not transported, but it is 

natural. As you know, trees produce volatile organic compounds, 

which combined with sunlight, produce ozone. Thus the name 

Smoky Mountains. Thus the name Blue Ridge Mountains because 

the mountains themselves with their trees produce ozones. So it is 

not necessarily transported ozone. It is ozone because we are in 

fact rural and have trees that produce some of this. It is not 80 

percent, as Ronald Reagan once said, but it is a significant contributor, particularly in the rural areas like mine in the eastern Appalachians. 

In fact, Scientific American in a June 1, 2014, story singled out 

or said, according to their research, black gum, poplar oak, and willow are significant producers of volatile organic compounds. So is 

there anything that would give us that offset, or do we have to go 

out into the forest, national or private, and say you got to cut the 

black gum, the poplar, the oak, and the willow, but it is OK to 

leave the birch, the linden, and the tulip, which apparently are low 

producers of VOCs, or volatile organic compounds? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, as I mentioned in response to a previous 

question, what our science shows is that the areas that have significant challenges with background ozone are in the Rocky Mountains, the higher elevation areas. We are not seeing that kind of 

a situation with background in other areas of the country. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. So you think the central Appalachians will be OK? 

Ms. MCCABE. I do. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. But what about this offset? If it is not transported, 

would that rule also cover naturally occurring ozone? 

Ms. MCCABE. So as we look forward, I would be happy to get you 

this information—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Please do. 

Ms. MCCABE [continuing]. Mr. Griffith, on Virginia, particularly, 

but as we look at areas that are likely to be in nonattainment, we 

will look at air quality in future years to make those determinations, and I don’t think we are seeing widespread nonattainment 

33 

in rural areas. But in those areas where we do, there are opportunities there to work with those areas. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. I appreciate the opportunity to work on 

it. I am concerned about it. 

I am going to have to ask you some of these questions offline because time is precious and we don’t get but so much, but if you 

could get us just some basic process on what the states have to do. 

What is the process for reviewing the state implementation plans? 

What is the range of time this process can take to complete, 

months or years? And if the EPA doesn’t approve—and I guess this 

is one I would ask you to answer at this time—if the EPA doesn’t 

approve a state’s implementation plan, what happens to the state? 

Does it become subject to a Federal plan? And would there then be 

litigation between the States and the EPA over that? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. So the Clean Air Act lays out a lot of steps, 

depending on the severity of the area that dictates how much time 

the states have. But, typically, if an area is considered—most areas 

the last time around were designated as marginal nonattainment, 

which means that they were not obliged to do a plan because they 

were expected to come into attainment and many do. 

For ones that are moderate or above, they typically have 3 years 

to put a plan together. EPA works with those states to try to make 

sure that those plans are going to be approvable when they—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. What happens if their state plan is not approved? 

Ms. MCCABE. Generally, we work back and forth with the state 

to get it to a place where it is approvable. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. But what if it is not, what do you do? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Do you come up with a Federal plan? 

Ms. MCCABE. If a state really didn’t want to make a plan that 

was approvable, which most states do, the Clean Air Act does provide that EPA would step into a Federal plan. But I have to say 

that that is very, very rare in this situation because—both because 

states want to do their plans because they are possible to do them 

and because we work hard with the states to make sure they can 

be successful. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And I have got to go. But in those places where 

they don’t want to because you have made the standard so low, you 

may see more litigation. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from 

New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Some of my colleagues are quick to argue that EPA’s proposed 

ozone standard will hurt the economy, but history tell us that 

cleaning up pollution can benefit the economy as well as human 

health and the environment. Since its enactment in 1970, the 

Clean Air Act provides a perfect example of how we can make 

steady progress in cleaning up the air while growing the economy. 

So, Ms. McCabe, do we have to choose between clean air and economic growth? What does the history of the Clean Air Act tell us 

about our ability to cut pollution while building the economy? 

Ms. MCCABE. It actually shows us that the two things go hand 

in hand. We have reduced pollution dramatically, air pollution dramatically in this country. The economy has grown. We have also 

34 

shown that this country has—and businesses in this country have 

innovated, have come up with pollution-control technologies that 

employ American workers and make us leaders in the world on 

selling this kind of technology. 

Mr. PALLONE. When we talk about air pollution regulation, my 

Republican colleagues often focus on cost, but they aren’t talking 

about the cost from exposure to unsafe air. They are talking about 

the cost of polluters of actually cleaning up their act. 

So, again, Ms. McCabe, how do the costs and benefits of implementing the proposed ozone standards stack up? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, we look at both. We lay both of those out, 

and in our analysis that we put out with our proposed rule, it 

showed that the benefits of this rule would outweigh the costs by 

three to one. 

Mr. PALLONE. And along those lines, the National Association of 

Manufacturers estimates the cost of this rule would be $140 billion 

annually, making the new ozone standard the most expensive rulemaking in history. My understanding is that EPA’s cost estimate— 

approved by the Office of Management and Budget—was much 

lower. So would you tell us how much does EPA expect this standard to cost? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, our estimates—and, again, these are illustrative because the States will make their own choices—but our estimates are that at a level of 65 parts per billion, it would be in 

the range of 19 to 38 billion in the first standard of 70 parts per 

billion—oh, sorry. I said that completely wrong. 

The costs range from 3.9 billion to 15 billion, depending on where 

the standard is. 

Mr. PALLONE. So this, based on your experience, that $140 billion 

price tag doesn’t seem reasonable to you? 

Ms. MCCABE. It does not match our evaluation. 

Mr. PALLONE. Yes. I mean, this concentration of cost, I think, has 

been misguided. Over the history of the Clean Air Act, industry has 

consistently exaggerated the potential cost of controlling pollution. 

How have these doomsday predictions measured up to reality? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, they haven’t, given the information that folks 

have in front of them. In 1997, there were similar claims made that 

1997 standards were going to kill the economy, and that absolutely 

hasn’t come true. 

Mr. PALLONE. You know, I just wanted to ask you something 

based on some of my Republican colleagues. And I am not trying 

to be critical of them, but can you confirm this? Can you confirm 

that under EPA’s projections for West Virginia and Virginia, there 

will be zero counties in 2025 that will exceed 65 or 70 parts per 

billion? Does that sound right to you? 

Ms. MCCABE. That does sound right to me. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. I have a little over a minute. Let me just get 

to some other questions about health- and science-based standards. 

The Clean Air Act requires that EPA review the science behind 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standards every 5 years to ensure the best information is used. EPA examined thousands of scientific studies when reviewing the ozone standard, and given this 

body of evidence, what are some of the health impacts associated 

35 

with breathing air that contains ozone? And what groups of people 

are most at risk from breathing air containing ozone? 

Ms. MCCABE. So ozone can have a range of impacts on the respiratory system, inflammation of the lungs exacerbated, asthma, 

and this is especially significant for people who have asthma, for 

children, for the elderly, for people with compromised respiratory 

systems. The studies also show an association between premature 

mortality and exposure to ozone. 

Mr. PALLONE. So I understand that the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and EPA scientists recommended that the Agency 

strengthen the ozone standard from 75 parts per billion to a level 

within the range of 60 to 70. So the Administrator has proposed 

to strengthen the standard to a level within the range of 65 to 70. 

Is the proposed ozone level an aggressive or overzealous action 

by EPA as some may claim? 

Ms. MCCABE. We believe that the range that the Administrator 

proposed is very well supported by the scientific information and 

affirmed, as you just noted, by our external peer-review panel. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from 

Missouri, Mr. Long, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. McCabe, at the same time the EPA is moving forward with 

its proposed, or excuse me, with its proposed ozone rule, it is also 

proposing its clean power plan, which would require states to prepare plans to submit to the EPA. 

How can we realistically expect the EPA to manage several new 

rounds of state plan revisions that will be needed with the new 

ozone standard at the same time that they are reviewing plans for 

the clean power plan? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, these are—— 

Mr. LONG. That is going to take a lot of money and a lot of people, isn’t it? And do you have those people and that money? 

Ms. MCCABE. These are important programs that the Clean Air 

Act directs us to implement, so we expect to use our resources to 

work with the states to get this work done. 

Mr. LONG. You expect to, but is it practical? Is it feasible? I 

mean, a lot of people want to do a lot of things, have lofty goals, 

but when push comes to shove, they can’t get it done. Do you realistically think that this is something that the Agency can handle? 

Ms. MCCABE. I do, Congressman. This is our job to do, and we 

will make sure that we get it done. 

Mr. LONG. OK. I know it is your job, but I just question how it 

can possibly, how you can have the resources, the time—you are 

behind on several things already—the time, the money, and the 

employees to accomplish the goal. 

Ms. MCCABE. Some of this work is overlapping as well, some of 

the technical work that we do in terms of air quality modeling, and 

it is efficient to do some of these things together. So—— 

Mr. LONG. Some of the state plan revisions overlap? 

Ms. MCCABE. So the technical work that underlies the work that 

EPA and the States need to do in order to implement these programs. 

36 

Mr. LONG. OK. A few months ago, I met with some city officials 

from Springfield, Missouri, which is my hometown. I represent 

Springfield; Branson, Missouri; Joplin, Missouri; southwest part of 

Missouri. And they are one of the most forward-thinking cities and 

done more work on an integrated plan than about anyone. In fact, 

they were invited out to I believe it was Alexandria, and just them 

and one other city, I can’t remember now the other city, but there 

was only two cities in the United States that were invited out to 

present how they did their plan and what they do. 

But, anyway, they discussed this integrated plan for implementing mandates from the Environmental Protection Agency, and 

after analyzing the cost of the mandates over the next 20 years, 

and I have heard some people speculate that, here today, that 

things are never as bad as they seem, but if this was even 50 percent accurate, it is not doable. It is devastating. And they found 

that complying with the EPA mandates would cost each individual 

in my district, each of my 751,000 constituents, $46,000. Now, you 

can cut that in half if you would like and say 23, but anyway, and 

cut it in half again if you would like, but it is not feasible. It is 

not doable. 

Missouri alone is looking at billions of dollars in compliance cost 

with the proposed ozone regulation and financial impact that it will 

have on everything from manufacturing to transportation. And it 

is going to, like I say, have an impact on each one of my constituents. 

Do you all look at the comprehensive financial and economic impact to these regulations at all that they are going to have on the 

states and our constituents? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, I am not familiar with exactly the study that 

you are talking about, Congressman, so I can’t speak to that. 

Mr. LONG. I will get it to you. Integrated plan for the city of 

Springfield for the next 20 years, I will be glad to provide that to 

you and your staff. 

But let’s say that you were familiar with it. At what point—my 

question is, do you all look at the economic impact? 

Ms. MCCABE. So each rule looks at its impacts in light of the 

rules that have come before it, and so there is an understanding 

of the rules and the impacts, both benefits and costs, that are associated with trying to use programs. 

Mr. LONG. But there is a weight given to cost? 

Ms. MCCABE. I am sorry? 

Mr. LONG. There is a weight, there is a consideration given to 

the cost? 

Ms. MCCABE. Whenever we do regulations, there is an evaluation 

of cost and of benefits. 

Mr. LONG. OK. I guess that that is—I am about out of time anyway, and Morgan stole some of my notes, I think, and asked some 

of my questions. 

So, anyway, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

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

from Texas, Mr. Flores, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator McCabe, thank you for joining us today. How does 

the market price risk? I mean, if you know something and you 

37 

know what the cost is of something, it has a price, and you know 

that price. But if you don’t know something, then the price is higher because you have risk, right? 

Ms. MCCABE. I—— 

Mr. FLORES. Yes. OK. In 2010, the EPA, when they proposed going to 60 parts per billion, said that that would cost $90 billion, 

cost the economy $90 billion. In 2014, you reduced it to $40 billion. 

What happened over that 4-year period to make the cost go down? 

Ms. MCCABE. So I think what you are comparing is the proposal 

that was put out under the ozone reconsideration compared with 

the most recent one. 

Mr. FLORES. Now, just tell me what made it go down. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. So, in that first one, we were looking at a 

change of the standard from the previous standard of 85 parts per 

billion to that level of in the range of 60 to 70. 

Mr. FLORES. So this is not a 75 to 60. 

Ms. MCCABE. That is right. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. All right. 

Ms. MCCABE. Because that was a reconsideration of the prior 

standard. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Thank you. And in your proposal to go to either 

70 or 65, a significant amount of the control technology doesn’t 

exist today, and that is where the risk question comes in. So do you 

know what it costs to offset a ton of ozone in the Galveston-Houston area today? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t. 

Mr. FLORES. It is about $170,000 a ton. So where did EPA price 

its unknown risk technology on a per ton of what is ozone? 

Ms. MCCABE. So we looked across the types—— 

Mr. FLORES. Just give me a number. 

Ms. MCCABE. Oh, the number? 

Mr. FLORES. Yes, just give me a number. 

Ms. MCCABE. I believe it was—— 

Mr. FLORES. About $15,000. 

Ms. MCCABE. That is what I was going to say. 

Mr. FLORES. Yes, $15,000. So if we know in Texas what the cost 

to offset a ton of ozone is and it is $170,000, where did we come 

up with $15,000 for imaginary technology that doesn’t exist? Where 

in the world did that come from? 

Ms. MCCABE. By looking at the history of the costs of pollution 

control technology over the years, and this is actually a conservative estimate based on the actual cost to control pollution that we 

have seen over time. 

Mr. FLORES. Is that a publicly available document? 

Ms. MCCABE. All of our assumptions are publicly available. 

Mr. FLORES. Well, let me say that it doesn’t pass the smell test 

when we know today what the cost is for an offset, and then you 

have imaginary technology that does not exist, and we just price 

it at a fire sale, give it a Wal-Mart price. That is crazy. 

Let’s talk about background ozone for a minute. Here is a map, 

background ozone map. Texas has about 70 parts per billion on average, 72 parts per billion, of background ozone. So if you take the 

level to 65, what is Texas supposed to do, get a big vacuum and 

send it down to the ozone hole in Antarctica or what? 

38 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, I am not familiar with that map, but that 

number doesn’t sound right to me, Congressman. 

Mr. FLORES. Well, that is all right. OK. Let’s use something a little bit more discreet. How about Rocky Mountain National Park 

has a background of 77. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Mr. FLORES. There is no industry in Rocky Mountain National 

Park. 

Ms. MCCABE. As I mentioned, there are—particularly in that 

part of the country, there are a few areas where we are seeing high 

background. 

Mr. FLORES. So what do you do? You said you had to have a national standard a minute ago, so how are you going to clean up 

Rocky National Park to take it to 65? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, it is not responsible for cleaning up air pollution that it doesn’t create, and the Clean Air Act provides mechanisms to make sure that—— 

Mr. FLORES. So what is the mechanism? How do you clean up 

Rocky Mountain National Park? 

Ms. MCCABE. To the extent that pollution is coming from places 

that we can control. 

Mr. FLORES. Well, in this case, it is not. 

Ms. MCCABE. Well—— 

Mr. FLORES. And 77-parts-per-billion background means, by definition, is not being produced there, it is coming from somewhere 

else. 

Ms. MCCABE. Right, so—— 

Mr. FLORES. Natural occurring causes, or China. 

Ms. MCCABE. It it is coming from motor vehicles around the 

country that—where that air pollution is coming into that area, our 

rules will help reduce that if it is coming—— 

Mr. FLORES. Let’s talk about RFS for a minute. Under your 2010 

regulatory impact analysis of the renewal fuel standard, the EPA 

concluded that the program would contribute to ozone as a consequence of increased ethanol use. 

Disregarding that all together, EPA recently proposed that its 

latest targets for RFS through 2016 would lead to higher levels of 

ethanol. And according to the studies of the Journal of Geophysical 

Research that measured emissions of ozone forming VOCs from 

methanol refineries, it is five times higher than the EPA’s original 

estimate. 

So the EPA, on one hand, is saying: OK, you have got to reduce 

to 65 to 70 parts per billion. On the other hand, you are trying to 

cram more ethanol in the system, which has a five times worse 

ozone impact on the economy than does the production of regular 

gasoline. I will submit the rest of my questions in writing. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time, I recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 

Hudson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Administrator, for being here today. I represent 

rural North Carolina. I grew up with a love for the outdoors, and 

I certainly understand our—the importance of protecting the enviVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:33 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-53 CHRIS
39 

ronment. But like many of my colleagues, I do have concerns about 

this proposed rule, and I thought it was fascinating my colleague 

from Florida, Ms. Castor said that the air in Tampa, Florida, is 

clean, that it used to be polluted but now it is clean. But I looked 

up Hillsborough County, Florida, and the ozone levels are 71. So 

even by her definition it is clean, I believe her, but even Tampa, 

Florida, would be out of attainment. 

And what I really want to talk about is one of my counties, 

Montgomery County, North Carolina. It is a very rural county. A 

majority of the county is part of Uwharrie National Forest. This 

county has been disseminated with job loss. We have lost manufacturing jobs. There is no major significant industry in the county. 

Yet this county has 66 parts per billion in ozone, so it would be out 

of attainment if the standard were 65. 

And, again, this is a beautiful county. It has got two rivers. It 

has got a lake. The air quality is wonderful. It is a rural beautiful 

community. What would the EPA do with a county in a situation 

like that? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, I think we need to be careful about making 

assumptions about which counties will be and won’t be nonattainment, because we don’t know that. We don’t know what a final 

standard will be if a decision is made to revise it, but also those 

decisions will be made based on future air-quality data. The numbers that I believe you are citing are based on air-quality data from 

2011 to 2013. 

We will use current, most recent air-quality data when we make 

those decisions. And air quality is trending in a good direction. So 

I think we need to not assume an area will or won’t be nonattainment based on information that is from prior years. 

Mr. HUDSON. So do you think the level will stay above 70? 

Ms. MCCABE. Which level? 

Mr. HUDSON. That EPA sets for air quality? 

Ms. MCCABE. No, I am not speaking to what decision might be 

finally made. I am speaking to the information that people are citing about whether areas based on air quality now will be in attainment if there is a revision to the standard, and we just don’t know 

that. 

That being said, we have talked, and I understand the comments 

that many of the members have made about being concerned about 

rural areas. And we do have the ability to work with those areas. 

The Clean Air Act does recognize that there are areas that don’t 

control their air quality, and the Clean Air Act doesn’t hold those 

areas responsible for reducing pollution if it is not being produced 

there. 

Mr. HUDSON. Well, I appreciate that. And, obviously, a county 

like Montgomery County desperately needs jobs, and if we get to 

a nonattainment situation where we can’t hire new people, we can’t 

attract new industry, it is devastating. 

So what specifically would Montgomery County, North Carolina, 

do if hypothetically it were in nonattainment? Do we file a lawsuit 

against a local city? Or, I mean, how do you—— 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, programs like the motor vehicle standards 

will improve air quality everywhere in the country where motor vehicles are used. This is an example of how the Federal-State partVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:33 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-53 CHRIS
40 

nership works where Federal programs bring cleaner air all across 

the country and will take care of the air pollution in many areas 

where there is not a lot of local industry that is contributing. 

Mr. HUDSON. So we would have to give up our pickup trucks and 

Suburbans? Is that—— 

Ms. MCCABE. No, no, no. As the fleet turns over, as people buy 

newer cars, the fuels are getting cleaner, and so air quality will improve. 

Mr. HUDSON. What percentage do you think motor vehicles contribute to that? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, motor vehicles generally contribute about a 

third of the air pollution in the country, and see it is not just cars 

driven in Montgomery County. It is cars driven in the region that 

are contributing to regional air pollution. 

Mr. HUDSON. Well, I appreciate that. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I have three resolutions I would like to insert in the record: One is from Cabarrus Regional Chamber of 

Commerce; another is from Rowan County Board of Commissioners; and a third is from the Cabarrus-Rowan Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. All these organizations oppose 

this new standard, and I seek unanimous consent to have them inserted in the record at this time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. HUDSON. Well, thank you. I would again thank you for your 

testimony, but I just have concerns that we are setting standards 

so low that they are not attainable, and when rural areas that 

aren’t near industrial areas or not near big cities can’t reach the 

attainment, a significant portion, 10 of the 12 rural counties in my 

district, I think we may be using the wrong metric. So that is my 

concern. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time, I recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina, 

Mrs. Ellmers, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Ms. McCabe, for being with us today. 

I just want to start off, as my colleague from North Carolina was 

pointing out, basically the concerns that we have in North Carolina, just in our home state alone, this rule will kill over 13,000 

jobs a year and decrease the state’s GDP drastically at a time when 

we can afford it the least. This proposal raises serious concerns, 

and I look forward to this discussion. I definitely have some questions for you. 

Starting off with, in September of 2011, President Obama requested that your agency withdraw its proposed ozone standard 

based on his ‘‘concerns about the importance of reducing regulatory 

burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy 

continues to recover.’’ 

Your agency agreed to withdraw the proposed standard, and now 

you are issuing the revised standard. Can you tell us what changes 

you made to decrease the regulatory burden which now allows you 

to move forward? 

41 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, first, let me explain that at that time, the 

Agency was engaged in a reconsideration of the 2008 ozone standard, which was not a mandatory duty. We are under a mandatory 

duty to relook at the standard every 5 years. It was last reviewed 

in 2008, so this is our required review. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. So there are less regulations now? 

Ms. MCCABE. This is about science. This particular decision is 

about science and public health and what the science says about 

what is healthy in the air to breathe. Implementation—— 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Not to interrupt you, but to point out that the 

President said that he was asking for you to decrease the amount 

of regulations. What regulations have you decreased which can 

move us forward? I understand you are looking at the science. I am 

a nurse. I understand science. But what is it that you have done 

to make this process move forward so that we can all come together 

and work on it? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, we put out regulations like the Tier 3 regulation that I mentioned a minute ago, which will bring improved air 

quality all across the country. That is—things that States won’t 

have to do themselves. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Is that less cumbersome than what existed in 

2008? 

Ms. MCCABE. It is a provision that will help states and municipalities meet the ozone standard. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. OK. Moving on. 

The first question that any economic developer asks when locating new plants or considering expansion of an existing plant is the 

attainment status, and I know my colleague from North Carolina, 

we were having this conversation just a moment ago. 

Areas designated as nonattainment are immediately excluded 

from consideration. The Clean Air Act requires that the Clean Air 

Scientific Advisory Committee to advise the Administrator of any 

adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects 

which may result from various strategies for attainment and maintenance of such National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

Given the adverse economic impact of a revised standard, why 

are you not requiring CASAC to take all of these things into consideration in regard to economic development? 

Ms. MCCABE. In setting the health standard, we have been specifically directed by the Supreme Court that looking at the implementation implications is not part of setting the health standard. 

And so in this—— 

Mrs. ELLMERS. So the Supreme Court told you that economic development is not significant and should not be considered. 

Ms. MCCABE. Is not relevant to the setting of the public health 

standard. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. OK. Moving on. 

Nonattainment designation indiscriminately reduces development, including development associated with military bases. This 

is particularly important for North Carolina as we have many 

strong military presence there. 

This standard of the level at the near national background as is 

currently being considered will potentially limit military expansion 

and place at risk our military readiness. How is your Agency planVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:33 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-53 CHRIS
42 

ning on ensuring that your revised ozone standard will not jeopardize national security? 

Ms. MCCABE. Congresswoman, I am not aware of any instance 

in which the ozone standard has interfered with our military readiness. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Well, then I would love to work with your office 

because my understanding is there are some situations especially 

affecting some of our North Carolina bases now that this will dramatically affect, so I would like to continue that conversation. 

Ms. MCCABE. We will be glad to follow up. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Great. Now, lastly, and I have got 31 seconds. 

Part of this continued problem is how are manufacturers going to 

be able to deal with this technology. If a manufacturer simply cannot meet these standards, what are their options? Are they to buy 

expensive offsets? Are they to close their doors? What do we do? 

How do we help our manufacturers? 

Ms. MCCABE. We work with the states and with the business industry, we look at where the pollution is coming from, and we develop programs that are targeted towards addressing the most costeffective reductions, and that is what we have done through the 

whole history of the Clean Air Act, where manufacturing has 

moved forward, has implemented new technologies, has been able 

to grow. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Do existing controls exist right now to achieve the 

60-parts-per-billion standard or the 65-parts-per-billion standard? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, keep in mind the Administrator has not proposed the 60 parts per billion standard. When we looked at the 

range of 65 to 70, which is what she proposed—— 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Yes. 

Ms. MCCABE. We identified a number of already existing controls 

that will get—— 

Mrs. ELLMERS. What are those existing controls? 

Ms. MCCABE. Things like cleaner engines, scrubbers, NAAQS 

controls, lower VOC paints and coatings, a variety of technologies 

that have been developed over the years that many areas are not 

yet employing that could be employed. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

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

At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Ms. McCabe, thanks for joining us again today. You know, 

increased access to low-cost sustainable domestic natural gas production has helped tremendously in fueling the manufacturing renaissance in this country. This expansion has resulted not only in 

cleaner gas and electricity for manufacturers but also provides a 

new source of natural gas liquids, which are essential feed stocks 

in many major manufacturing applications, such as chemicals and 

plastics. 

A study conducted by the consulting firm NERA, frequently contracted by the Department of Energy, among others, shows dramatic cost increases in the price of natural gas under a 60-partsper-billion standard. The study projects a 52-percent increase in 

43 

the cost of natural gas for industrial use under a 60-parts-per-billion standard. 

So quick question. Can we expect our manufacturing renaissance 

to continue under this type of scenario? 

Ms. MCCABE. I can’t speak to that study specifically, but I know 

that there certainly has been a significant increase in the development of natural gas. It is a very important—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. We know that, but what I am asking you is when 

we are essentially taxing it with these standards. And I might 

point out to you that in a recent trip that we made to Europe, ratepayers, businesses and residential ratepayers in Europe are taking 

a strong second look at their energy profiles because of this exact 

problem, making their businesses noncompetitive and their unwillingness to pay the exorbitant high prices for energy that is going 

to result from a rule like this. 

So how can we expect the manufacturing renaissance to continue 

when we are taxing essentially the very energy that is providing 

that renaissance? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, I don’t think we are taxing the energy—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, sure you are. If you get a 52-percent increase 

in the cost of natural gas under a 62-parts-per-billion standard, 

that is essentially a tax. 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, I—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. You can call it whatever you want to, but it is a 

tax on the industry. 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, I am not sure that I agree with the—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Well, we will agree to disagree. Let me move 

on. Let me focus on how the EPA has calculated the benefits of its 

proposed ozone standard. And here is the issue in a nutshell: Instead of calculating only the benefits from reducing nitrogen oxides 

and volatile organic compounds, the constituents of ozone, which 

are emitted from cars, trucks, and stationary sources, EPA also incorporated the cobenefits from reducing particulate matter, or PM, 

from those same sources. Of course, this rulemaking has nothing 

to do with particulate matter. EPA has a separate National Ambient Air Quality Standard for particulate matter, not to mention 

multiple other rules to regulate it under the Clean Air Act. 

But without the benefits from PM reductions, the ozone rule 

would have very little to show for it. In fact, Dr. Anne Smith of 

NERA has pointed out that these PM cobenefits are actually larger 

than the direct ozone related benefits from the rule. If you don’t accept NERA’s assessment, then how about Cass Sunstein, the 

former head of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. 

He reviewed the ozone reconsideration in 2011 and helped prevent 

that proposal from being finalized because it was too costly. 

Here is what he said about this, and I quote: But on some of the 

Agency’s estimates of the 2011 ozone proposal, the net benefits 

would have been zero. Moreover, a strong majority of the benefits 

would have resulted not from ozone reductions but from cobenefit 

reductions in particulate matter, which come as an incidental benefit of the technologies that reduce ozone emissions. 

So, Ms. McCabe, this prompts a number of questions. First, can 

you explain to me and our committee the EPA’s legal justification 

for engaging in this kind of double counting? How is it that you can 

44 

justify a lower ozone standard using benefits from an entirely different pollutant? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, it is not double counting. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is not science. That is a shell game. That is 

what that is. That is not science. 

Ms. MCCABE. It is not double counting. Those benefits are real. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Those benefits—this rule is supposed to be going 

after ozone, not particulate matter. 

Ms. MCCABE. But it is having additional benefits to the—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. But very little in terms of the ozone. Very little 

in terms of the ozone in comparison with the benefits that are coming from particulate matter. 

Further, talk to me about how transparent you have been with 

this to the American public. I mean, there are charts buried in the 

proposed rule where somebody maybe with a Ph.D. can go infer 

this information about double counting, but have you or the Administrator explained this issue in your speeches and public statements about the ozone? Have you told the American people that 

the benefits are coming from somewhere else, from a pollutant that 

is already well regulated by the EPA? 

Ms. MCCABE. We’re very clear. And I myself personally have 

talked about co-benefits that are achieved by programs that we implement. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. Well, I think it is a shell game, Ms. McCabe, 

and I think it is economically destructive to my region of the country and to other industries that are providing the jobs and the economic vitality of America today. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

I have a couple of other questions I want to ask her, Mr. Rush, 

and then—— 

I wanted to ask you a couple of other questions, Ms. McCabe. 

The Science Advisory Committee is appointed by who? 

Ms. MCCABE. The Science Advisory Committee is—there is an office within EPA that administers the Science Advisory Board and 

has a very open process for—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But the people who serve on the Science Advisory Committee, how are they selected? 

Ms. MCCABE. They are nominated. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. By who? 

Ms. MCCABE. Either by themselves or by others, and that is 

through a public process. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And then who makes the decision of who serves? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is a decision made within the Agency by our 

Office of the Science—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So EPA decides who serves on the science committee? 

Ms. MCCABE. Through a robust public process. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. And how long do they serve? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t know the answer to that. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And how many people serve on that committee? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t know the answer to that. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Could you get us a list of the names of people 

on the committee and how long their term of office is? 

45 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. Yes. I believe it is, you know, on the order of 

4 to 6 years, something like that. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. Ms. McCabe, how long has that committee been in existence? 

Ms. MCCABE. How long has—— 

Mr. RUSH. How long has it been in existence? 

Ms. MCCABE. The Agency? 

Mr. RUSH. No. The science committee. 

Ms. MCCABE. Gosh, I don’t know, Congressman Rush. But we 

can certainly find out. Many, many years. Many years. 

Mr. RUSH. Through both Republican and Democratic administrations? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. Absolutely. And the committees and the panels are very well balanced to make sure that there is a range of 

views represented. 

Mr. RUSH. Would you say that it is bipartisan? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, I would. 

Mr. RUSH. OK. Oh, yes. Mr. Chairman, I have one more question. 

Ms. McCabe, we keep hearing about the President’s decision in 

2010 on the ozone standard, and let me read from that. With that 

in mind, this is what I want to read. 

Statement by the President: ‘‘Work is already underway to update a 2006 review of the science that would result in the reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013. Ultimately’’—and this comes 

directly from the President on the ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards issued on September 2, 2011—‘‘Ultimately, I did 

not support asking State and local governments to begin implementing a new standard that will soon be reconsidered.’’ 

Do you have any comments? Do you remember that statement by 

the President? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. So the President was recognizing that the regular 5-year review of the ozone standard was already underway, 

and that is what he was directing the Agency to focus its attention 

on. 

If I could just clarify something I said before, Congressman 

Rush, I agreed with your characterization of the Science Advisory 

Board as bipartisan. I think it is probably more accurate to call it 

nonpartisan. 

Mr. RUSH. Nonpartisan. OK. All right. Well, thank you so much. 

Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any additional questions, but I do 

have a unanimous consent request to enter into the record a letter 

from public health organizations opposing legislation or amendments that would block or delay EPA’s work to update ozone standards and, also, a letter from the National Association of Clean Air 

Agencies supporting the EPA’s proposal to revise the current ozone 

air standards. And I ask for unanimous consent that they be entered into the record. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. RUSH. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And then I would also like to ask unanimous 

consent that the following documents be entered into the record: 

46 

1The comments have been retained in committee files and are also available at http:// 

docs.house.gov/meetings/if/if03/20150612/103590/hhrg-114-if03-20150612-sd005.pdf. 

Number one, a survey released by the Association of Air Pollution 

Control Agencies entitled ‘‘State Environmental Agency Perspectives on Background Ozone and Regulatory Relief’’; number two, a 

June 2015 article from the Journal of Science entitled ‘‘Challenges 

of a Lowered U.S. Ozone Standard’’; and, number three, comments 

of one of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality on 

EPA’s Proposed Ozone Rule—a Texas commissioner’s comments. 1

Without objection, that will be entered into the record as well. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And that concludes today’s hearing. 

Once again, Ms. McCabe, thank you for being with us. We look 

forward to continuing engagement with you as we move forward. 

And we will keep the record open for 10 days for any additional 

questions or comments or materials. 

And, with that, the hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

This morning, we’re here to examine the EPA’s latest proposed new National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ground-level ozone. I welcome Acting Assistant Administrator McCabe. 

In 2012, President Obama set a goal of creating one million new manufacturing 

jobs during his second term—which certainly was a goal we all could get behind. 

The following January, the president’s New Year’s resolution was to do ‘‘whatever 

it takes’’ to create jobs. Yet the administration’s policies do not match the president’s words. When you couple this ozone rule with other EPA rules like the Clean 

Power Plan and ‘‘Waters of the United States’’ rules, the likely outcome will be stifled growth, missed opportunities, and lost jobs. 

Make no mistake, the new ozone rule would be a jobs killer—especially in the 

manufacturing industry. An ozone nonattainment designation would make it significantly more difficult for industries to invest and create businesses in communities 

across the United States. Even existing factories would face higher operating costs 

and red tape. EPA estimates that hundreds of counties across the country would not 

meet the proposed standards, including many in my home state of Michigan. We 

also need standard that make sense. In southwest Michigan, in Allegan County, you 

could remove all of the human activity and the region would still be in nonattainment because of ozone generated in Chicago, Milwaukee, and Gary, Indiana. 

A study conducted by NERA for the National Association of Manufacturers tells 

the story with predictions that are truly frightening. The total cost of the new rule 

could reach $140 billion annually, making it EPA’s most expensive regulation ever. 

In fact, the study states that Michigan could face $1 billion in compliance costs and 

stands to lose 20,000 jobs per year over the next couple decades. Not exactly the 

right medicine in times of recovery. 

At a time when America’s natural gas abundance has given domestic manufacturers an edge over the global competition, regulation after regulation is chipping away 

at that advantage—and a new ozone rule may well prove to be the last straw that 

shifts the advantage back to foreign-based facilities. 

Job creators are paying attention. In a recent survey of manufacturers conducted 

by NAM, more than half the respondents said they would not undertake a new 

project or a major expansion in an ozone nonattainment area. 

Not surprisingly, NAM, the Chamber of Commerce, the Auto Alliance and just 

about every other organization that represents manufacturers has come out strongly 

against this proposed rule. And it should be noted that the NAM study focused solely on manufacturing and did not consider the very real threat these new regulations 

pose to America’s energy renaissance. Energy producing regions may have to cut 

back on oil and natural gas output to comply with the new ozone standard. 

To make its case, EPA declares ozone still poses a serious public health threat, 

but that raises the question why the agency has delayed implementation of the curVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:33 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-53 CHRIS
47 

rent ozone rule. The 2008 ozone standard has languished at the agency for years. 

It was only last March—more than 6 years into the administration—that the agency 

finally issued the implementing regulations necessary for state and local governments to begin putting the new standard in place. 

I strongly support efforts to reduce smog and I supported the ozone standard finalized in 2008. We have seen significant progress and I endorse reasonable measures to ensure that air quality continues to improve but we must strike a balance 

that doesn’t hinder economic growth and job creation. For these reasons, I believe 

that we don’t need a new ozone standard—we need EPA to implement the existing 

one. 

48 


97556.007
49 


97556.008
50 


97556.009
51 


97556.010
52 


97556.011
53 


97556.012
54 


97556.013
55 


97556.014
56 


97556.015
57 


97556.016
58 


97556.017
59 


97556.018
60 


97556.019
61 


97556.020
62 


97556.021
63 


97556.022
64 


97556.023
65 


97556.024
66 


97556.025
67 


97556.026
68 


97556.027
69 


97556.028
70 


97556.029
71 


97556.030
72 


97556.031
73 


97556.032
74 


97556.033
75 


97556.034
76 


97556.035
77 


97556.036
78 


97556.037
79 


97556.038
80 


97556.039
81 


97556.040
82 


97556.041
83 


97556.042
84 


97556.043
85 


97556.044
86 


97556.045
87 


97556.046
88 


97556.047
89 


97556.048
90 


97556.049
91 

Æ 


97556.050