March 3, 2011

Dr. Holly Stallworth Designated Federal Office Science Advisory Board U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004

RE: RECONSIDERATION OF NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALIT Y STANDARDS FOR

OZONE

Dear Dr. Stallworth:

On behalf of Manufac ture Alabam a, we are wr iting to you to reiterate our concerns regarding Environmental P rotection Agency’s (EPA) R econs ideration of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone.

Manufacture Alabam a is Alabam a’s only trade association represen ting exclusive ly the com petitive, legislative and related interest s of m anufacturers. Manufacture Alabama represents hundreds of companies in a wide range of indu stries including chem ical, pulp and paper, shipbuilding, and steel. Our m embers shar e co mmon interests and go als and f ace common com petitive c hallenges in today’s tough global m arketplace. Som e of our m embers are among the nation’s larg est, m ost recognized corporations. Many are mid-sized or small family-own ed manufacturers or manu facturing suppliers and vendors. All of them are vital pa rts of a m anufacturing base crucia l to Alabam a’s and the nation’s economy and job base.

Changes to the NAAQS for ozone under the Clean Air Ac t (CAA) will directly im pact the operation of manufacturers, power plants and othe r sources of energy. Of particular concern, is the lowering of the current 8-hour NAAQS for ozone from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to the proposed 60 to 70 ppb. A recent study conducted by the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI concluded that EPA’s proposed ozone standards will result in 7.3 million job losses by 2020 if the EPA moves forward with a 60 parts per b illion (ppb) primary standard. Economic Implications of EPA’s Proposed Ozone Standard (ER-707) , Donald A. Norman, Ph.D., (Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI econom ist). In addition, the study concluded that lowering the standard would result in the annual attainm ent cost to be $ 1.013 trillion between 2020 and 2030 (in 2010 dollars). This is equi valent to 5.4 percent of projecte d constant dollar gross dom estic product (GDP) in 2020.

Given the heavy job loss potential this policy could result in and the ab sence of any new scientific data, we strongly believe changing the current NAAQS standard outside of the ongoing five year reviewThe Honorable Holly Stallworth March 3, 2011 Page 2 process is u nnecessary and will ex acerbate efforts to m ove our country’s econo my out of t he Great

Recession. For the reasons stated below, we urge the E PA to preserve the cu rrent 8-hour ozone

standard.

EPA has br oad policy discretion to establish air quality standards, but the CAA de fines the required legal framework through which it m ay set these standard s. After developm ent of “air quality criteria” documents and review by the Clean Air Act Scien ce Advisory Committee (CAS AC) - the CAA requires the Adm inistrator to ex ercise her p olicy judgm ent to estab lish national prim ary air quality standards requisite to protec t th e public he alth w ith an adequate margin o f safe ty . See 42 U.S.C. Secs. 7408(a)(2) (requiring developm ent of criteria docum en ts), 7409(b)(1) (defini ng level of protection required by standards), and 7409(d)(2) (requiring review by CASAC(). This means that EPA must set the NAAQS at the level that is “sufficient but not more than necessary’ to protect public health. ” Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’n , 531 U.S. 457, 473 (2001).

Manufacture Alabama opposes any em issions regulati ons that would impose m ore compliance costs on manufacturers, especially when those regulation s do not demonstrate tangible environm ental or healt h benefits through thorough sc ientific study. The current 8-hour ozone standard is fulfil ling EPA’s duty to protect the environm ent a nd public health. EP A’s own data dem ons trates tha t am bient air qu ality is improving significantly even when our economy grows. Between 1980 and 2008, total emissions of the six pr incipal air po llutants dropped by 54 pe rcent. (See http://www.epa.gov/ai rtrends/aqtrends.html )

Measured am bient concentrations of ozone have dropped 25% since 1980. (See http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html ). During this same time period, our nation’s gross domestic product increased 126 percent, vehicle m iles trav eled increased 91 percent, energy consum ption increased 29 percent, and the U.S. population grew by 34 percent.

EPA’s action to tighten the current ozone standard would unnecessarily result in many areas of Alabama and across the nation being designated as non-attainm ent areas. If the cu rrent ozone standard of 75 ppb is revised to 60 ppb, the num ber of counties designated as non-attain ment areas would increase from 75 monitored counties to 650 m onitored counties, out of a total of 675 m onito red counties. Being designated as a non -attainment area adversely impact s communities, making it m ore difficult to attract and retain industry and sustain econo mic growth and vitalit y. For manufacturers, being located in a nonattainment area r esults in incre ased operating co sts, permitting delays, a nd restrictions on expan sions, which increases tim e needed to bring i mproved products to markets. Furthermore, facilities located in counties designated as in “severe” or “extreme” non-attainment will f ace significant Section 185 fees for circumstances beyond their control, even though m any of these fac ilities have already spent m any

millions of dollars to reduce emissions and be in compliance with the current NAAQS.

Manufacture Alabama believes that new non-attainment area designations will hurt both large and small manufacturers and prevent expansio n and growth in many urban, suburban, and rural counties, hindering their ability to create jobs. Our nation is sufferi ng through the m ost severe recession since the 1930s. Manufacturers have los t more than 2.1 m illion high- wage jobs acro ss the nation. Econom ic recovery

will not be swift and individual States will not recove r from the economic downturn at the same pace. It is unfairly burdensom e to im pose a new ozone sta ndard when states are facing serious budgetary and

financial issues and businesses and industries are laboring to rem ain open. A tighter and m ore costly

ozone standard would result in incr eased state and local tax es, higher consumer prices and a significant increase in the cost of doing bus iness at a tim e when th e American economy is struggling to recove r from this significant recession. Manu facturers may be forced to relocat e out of non-attainment areas, orThe Honorable Holly Stallworth March 3, 2011 Page 3

relocate overseas to countries with less strict e nvironmental regulations sim ply be cause they cannot afford to operate under extrem e financial conditions in the United States. W i despread leakage would competitively disadvantage America and si gnificantly impede economic recovery.

New standards will also operate as an energy tax. The manufacturing sector uses about one-third of the nation’s energy, including one-third of its natural gas and alm ost 30 percent of its electricity. Compliance with regulations promulgated pursuant to the CAA such as the ozone NAAQS, am ong others, com prise a larg e percen tage of energy a nd electricity cos ts for Am erican m anufacturers and

consumers. The EPA e stimates that the cost of a new ozone standard could reach $90 billion. As of 2007 - prior to the onset of the gr eat recession - the U.S. spent more than $180 billion on all CAA programs. A m ore stringent ozone standard could cost industry approximately $22 billion in ad ditional annual compliance costs, further undermining compe titiveness and diverting resources from investments in technological innovation.

For the above stated reasons and in the interest of improving the environment and the economy, we urge you to maintain the current 8-hour oz one standard and allow businesses to continue their current efforts to protect the environment.

Sincerely,

Blake Hale Hardwich

Director of Public Relations &

External Affairs

Manufacture Alabama