U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

20–362 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 113–810 

OVERSIGHT HEARING: EPA’S 

PROPOSED NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR 

QUALITY STANDARDS FOR OZONE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR 

AND NUCLEAR SAFETY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DECEMBER 17, 2014 

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

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana (ex officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

DECEMBER 17, 2014 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 1 

Kirsten, Hon. Gillibrand, U.S. Senator from the State of New York .................. 12 

WITNESSES 

Mccabe, Janet, Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ................................................... 3 

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

Wellenius, Gregory A., SC.D., Associate Professor of Epidemiology; Associate 

Director, Center for Environmental Health and Technology, Brown University School of Public Health ................................................................................ 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 23 

Patton, Vicki, General Counsel, Environmental Defense Fund ........................... 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 41 

Ferkol, Thomas William, Jr., M.D., Alexis Hartmann Professor of Pediatrics; 

Professor of Cell Biology and Physiology, Division of Allergy, Immunology 

and Pulmonary Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine ........... 44 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 50 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statements: 

National Association fo Manufactures ............................................................ 63 

Texas Commission of Environmental Quality ................................................ 84 

Commonwealth of Kentucky, Office of the Governor .................................... 103 

Senate Resolution 253, 113th Congress ................................................................. 106 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING: EPA’S PROPOSED NATIONAL AMBIENT AIRQUALITY STANDARDS 

FOR OZONE 

THURDSAY, DECEMBER 17, 2014 

U.S. SENATE 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

Washington, DC. 

The committees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse (chair of 

the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Whitehouse, Gillibrand. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Good afternoon, everyone. I think I will 

call this hearing to order at the exact moment that at least my little BlackBerry says it is 2:30. 

Welcome, everyone, to what is virtually assuredly the last congressional hearing of this Congress. I think most of the building is 

empty but for us, and we are relatively empty here as well. But I 

am very pleased that we are here, and I thank the witnesses for 

coming today. 

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards, which if you initialize that, it turns to NAAQS, 

which in turn gets pronounced as ‘‘nacks.’’ So that is why everybody talks about NAAQS in this area. It requires EPA to review 

NAAQS standards for ozone and for five other pollutants every 5 

years to ensure that they protect public health. 

The current 75 parts per billion ozone standard has been too 

high since the day it was finalized by the Bush administration back 

in 2008. That decision by the Bush administration was so out of 

line that the scientific advisory committee actually pushed back 

after the fact and wrote a very unusual letter to Administrator 

Johnson, telling him that he had made a mistake and that the 

number could not be justified. But given the priorities of that Administration, the scientific advice was not reckoned with. 

So therefore, the standard was set. Since then we have had false 

comfort that the air we breathe every day is safe. The revised 

standard is a significant improvement. It is based on extensive scientific research, including over 1,000 studies that have been published since the 2008 standard. This is a particularly big deal in 

my home State of Rhode Island. The congressional Research ServVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:54 Jul 07, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\20362.TXT VERN
2 

ice has looked at the history of these air quality standards and it 

has in its report a map from the EPA Green Book that shows the 

non-attainment areas and the State of Rhode Island and a good 

deal of the northeast coast is just whack in the middle of the area. 

There is a significant reason for that that I will get to in a 

minute. But Providence and Kent Counties in Rhode Island, as a 

result, get F grades for high ozone days in the American Lung Association’s 2014 State of the Air Report. Regrettably, there is not 

a whole lot that we can do about it in Rhode Island, because the 

causes tend to be out of State. And specifically, they include out of 

State power plants that for years dodged providing adequate pollution controls. At the same time, they used particularly tall smokestacks to launch the ozone-forming pollutants that they produced 

up into prevailing winds that move northeast from the Midwest, 

from the Ohio Valley, from that heavy coal-burning area. And they 

come landing on us. It is actually a pretty deliberate path to ozone 

formation that pollutes the air and the lungs of people in downwind States like mine. 

Now, the industry claims that an ozone standard that protects 

public health will devaState businesses and the economy. But when 

you look at history, over and over again, those claims have been 

shown to be exaggerated and usually the contrary is true. In this 

case, I believe Ms. McCabe will testify that in terms of cost and 

benefit, the benefits of this rule in health and in other areas are 

three times the cost. 

EPA’s analysis shows that health benefits of a 65 to 70 part per 

billion ozone standard translate into economic benefits that, excluding California, which I guess already complies with this, would be 

$4 billion to $23 billion higher than the costs in 2025. These EPA 

regulations have already lowered the number and severity of bad 

air days in the United States. These bad air days are days where 

ozone levels are so high that it is unhealthy for sensitive individuals like the elderly or infants or people with breathing difficulties 

to be outdoors. 

We get those in Rhode Island. We get those in Rhode Island in 

the summer. It is a perfectly nice day, you are driving into work, 

you are listening to the radio and the voice on the radio suddenly 

says, today is a bad air day in Rhode Island, and advises the elderly and infants and people with breathing issues to stay indoors. Basically, the day of those people has just been taken from them by 

out of State polluters who have been reckless about complying with 

the laws. 

As climate change warms things up, it actually makes the conditions for ozone formation more common and therefore, more bad air 

days more likely. CASAC, the Science Advisory Committee, is 

again recommending that EPA set a standard within the 60 to 70 

parts per billion range, noting that 60 parts per billion would offer 

more public health protection than a standard between 65 and 70 

parts per billion. I hope that EPA will set a standard of 60 parts 

per billion that prioritizes public health protection. 

I thank Ms. McCabe for being here, and invite her to proceed. 

3 

STATEMENT OF JANET McCABE, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. MCCABE. Thank you, Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you for 

the opportunity to testify today on EPA’s recently proposed updates 

to the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, 

as you described them. 

Because the air we breathe is so important to our overall health 

and well-being, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to review the 

NAAQS every 5 years to make sure that they continue to protect 

public health with an adequate margin of safety. For at-risk 

groups, including millions of adults and children who have asthma, 

this is critical. 

Establishing and implementing a NAAQS is a two-step process 

for improving air quality. Setting the standards is step one. It is 

about defining what is clean air to protect public health. Implementing the standards is step two, and involves the Federal Government, States and tribes, if they wish to, putting measures and 

programs in place to reduce harmful pollution. 

For this review, EPA examined thousands of scientific studies 

and, based on the law, based on a full review of the science, based 

on the recommendations of the agency’s independent scientific advisors, and based on the assessment of EPA scientists and technical experts, the Administrator has proposed to strengthen the 

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

protect Americans’ health and welfare. This is a proposal, and taking public comment on a range is exactly how the process is supposed to work. The agency welcomes comments on all aspects of the 

proposal, including on setting the level as low as 60 parts per billion. We will accept comment on retaining the existing standard, as 

well. 

We are also proposing to update the Air Quality Index for ozone. 

The AQI is the tool that you just referred to, Senator, that gives 

Americans real-time information to help them make the best 

choices to protect themselves and their families. And we are proposing to make updates to monitoring and permitting requirements, to smooth the transition and to assure that the public has 

full information about air quality. All of these updates are designed 

to ensure that Americans are alerted when ozone approaches levels 

that may be unhealthy, especially for sensitive people. 

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 to within the same range to protect against harm to trees, plants, and ecosystems. The science 

clearly tells us that ozone poses a real threat to our health, especially to growing children, older Americans, those of us with heart 

or lung conditions, and those who are active or work outside. The 

proposal to strengthen the standards is designed to better protect 

children and families from these health effects of ozone pollution. 

For example, we estimate that meeting a level of 70 parts per 

billion would prevent hundreds of thousands of missed school days 

and asthma attacks and hundreds of premature deaths per year. 

This would yield annual health benefits of $6.4 billion to $13 billion. These estimated benefits include the value of avoiding asthma 

4 

attacks, heart attacks, missed school days and premature deaths, 

among other health effects. 

States will ultimately determine what measures beyond the Federal ones are appropriate for their clean air plans. EPA has estimated illustrative annual costs at $3.9 billion for a standard of 70 

parts per billion. The estimated benefits outweigh the estimated 

costs by as much as a ratio of three to one. And meeting a standard 

of 65 parts per billion is projected to provide additional benefits. 

Implementing a NAAQS has always been and will continue to be 

a Federal, State and tribal partnership. Local communities, States, 

tribes and EPA have already shown that we can reduce ground 

level ozone while our economy continues to thrive. Nationally, since 

1980, average ozone levels have fallen by a third. And 90 percent 

of the areas originally identified as not meeting the ozone standard 

set in 1997 now meet those standards. We have reduced air pollution and our economy has grown. We fully expect that this progress 

will continue. 

Existing and proposed Federal measures like vehicle standards 

and power plant rules are leading to substantial reductions in 

ozone nationwide, which will help improve air quality and help 

many areas meet any revised standard. 

Exposures to ground level ozone, a key component of smog, can 

have very serious consequences for our families’ health and the environment. We are looking forward to hearing what the public 

thinks about the proposal. There will be a 90-day public comment 

period, which I believe starts today. I am told that the rule published today. We will be holding three public hearings, as well, as 

we work toward completing the final standards by October 1st, 

2015. 

Senator, I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCabe follows:] 

5 


20362.001
6 


20362.002
7 


20362.003
8 


20362.004
9 


20362.005
10 


20362.006
11 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Ms. McCabe. Let 

me welcome Senator Gillibrand. Being a fellow Northeasterner, it 

is no surprise to me that she has taken the trouble to come to this 

hearing. Our States are on the receiving end of the ozone that 

other States and the power plants in those States emit. 

Can you describe what you think the methodology is likely to be 

for compliance with this standard in other States? Is it cleaning up 

at the smokestack? Is it policy changes at the State level? What are 

you expecting by way of a compliance method? 

Ms. MCCABE. It will really depend on a couple of things. The 

States are ultimately responsible for designing plants to meet the 

standard. They can take into account any Federal measures that 

have been put in place. EPA, for example, recently finalized the 

Tier 3 engine and fuel standards, which will provide substantial 

benefits, way out into the future, in the timeframe needed for these 

areas. So I would expect that many States would rely on programs 

like that, and other Federal programs that are going forward. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So some things, some compliance regimes 

that will help States achieve the standard are already in place. 

Measuring their effect will be a part of the compliance. 

Ms. MCCABE. That is correct. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Do you expect that there are new requirements that, for instance, power plants will have to apply? 

Ms. MCCABE. When it comes to power plants, we have, of course, 

the mercury rule. We have the cross-State air pollution rule. We 

have the Clean Power Plan, which is moving forward as a proposal 

at this time. There are other tools that either we or States would 

look at. The cross-State air pollution comes from our good neighbor 

provisions in the Clean Air Act. States are obliged to address pollution that they are contributing to downwind areas. We will be 

working with the States to assess whether there are those kinds 

of contributions, in light of the other programs that are in place. 

And as appropriate, then we and the States would work together 

to put in place requirements that might affect large sources like 

power plants. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So a power plant owner looking at this 

proposed rule could expect that the improvements in emissions that 

they would be obliged to make as a result, for instance, of the good 

neighbor policy, would count toward the new ozone standard and 

would likely help reduce their emissions of ozone precursors as 

well, correct? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is correct. It all depends on what the monitors show, and any program that is helping those monitors show 

compliant air quality is helping. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. EPA’s analysis that the benefits are between $6 billion and $13 billion and the costs around $4 billion, 

that analysis is not a first effort by EPA. You have looked at the 

question of cost benefit analysis of clean air regulations for many 

years, have you not? 

Ms. MCCABE. We do, yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. What is the track record of your estimates? 

Ms. MCCABE. We generally are conservative in estimating the 

costs of the measures that would be put in place. I think there is 

12 

a fairly steady track record of technologies coming in at lower costs 

than we expected. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So you are pretty confident in the track 

record of your previous estimates, and that gives you some confidence that these estimates have merit? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, and I should note also that these costs are illustrative, because as I said, it will be up to the States ultimately 

to determine what makes the most sense for them, and they will 

look for the most cost-effective approaches. We do our best to do 

an illustrative case. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And would costs that would be required to 

meet this standard also be costs that would be pertinent to meeting 

the good neighbor rule? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, we don’t double-count things, so if costs have 

already been assumed in other rules, then we don’t count them 

again here. So we try to make very clear that the costs for each 

rule are associated with that rule. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Gillibrand. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you so much, Senator Whitehouse, 

for chairing this hearing today. I am very eager that we have a 

chance to address the EPA’s proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone. 

I also want to thank Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe for 

joining us today. I am very grateful. 

At a time when pictures of smog-filled foreign capitals are making front pages around the world, the United States should be taking the lead on the issue of air quality. I believe it is an urgent 

public health challenge and we have to take it very seriously. We 

are long overdue in this Country for updated air quality standards 

from the EPA. 

This past April, the American Lung Association released its annual State of the Air Report. They found that nearly half of all 

Americans, more than 147 million people, live in counties where 

ozone or particle pollution levels make the air unhealthy to 

breathe. Although some air quality indicators improved, levels of 

ozone and smog are much worse than they were last year. The report also found the 22 out of 25 most smog-polluted cities, including New York City in my home State, had more high smog days 

on average than last year. 

In the richest and most innovative Country on earth, it is stunning that our air quality is moving back in this direction in the 

year 2014, and we have to reverse the trend. Because as global 

temperatures continue to rise, and it is clear that they are doing 

so, the risks for smog in our communities will continue to grow. 

I have heard from many New Yorkers whose children have asthma about the challenges they face in addressing air quality in their 

own communities. So this is something that we all have to be concerned about, not just for kids, but for our seniors and anyone with 

any type of lung or heart disease. I find it especially disturbing 

that more than 35.6 million children under 18 right here in the 

United States live in counties that have poor air quality. I am very 

13 

concerned particularly about the levels of bronchitis and lung infections that we have in our communities. And we are failing them 

if we can’t enact more stringent air quality controls. 

The Southern California Children’s Health Study looked at children who grew up in more polluted areas, and it came to the stunning conclusion that lung function for those kids dropped by 20 

percent from what was expected for their age. It is as if these children grew up in a home with parents who smoke, except the side 

effects just came from playing outside. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. So I have a couple of questions to ask you 

that I can submit for the record if we don’t have enough time. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We are good, it is just us. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Just us, OK. 

Ozone values for New York City, Staten Island and Long Island 

have been dropping since 1990. But values are still at or above the 

current 75 parts per billion standard, especially during summer 

months. What are some of the standards that could be put in place 

to help New York and other States meet the proposed lower standard? 

Ms. MCCABE. Sure. I mentioned the Tier 3 engine and fuel 

standards that the agency finalized at the beginning of this year. 

Those will go into effect starting in 2017 and will significantly reduce the NOx emissions from motor vehicles. In a populated place 

like New York, Rhode Island, the east coast, that will have a tremendous and very quick impact. 

Reductions by power plants of NOx will also have an impact and 

that has been mentioned already. Ozone is a regional pollutant, so 

emissions reductions that happen many miles away can help reduce impact in local areas. 

There are also a number of local measures that areas can take 

to reduce local emissions. Many areas have put a lot of those in 

place already, New York City, Rhode Island, those areas certainly 

have done that. But we know that there continue to be reductions 

that can be achieved out there, both locally and regionally. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. 

Throughout the history of the Clean Air Act, we have continually 

heard claims by polluters and other opponents of strong clean air 

standards that they can’t afford to clean up emissions, that it just 

costs too much. This implication is that somehow we can’t have 

both a clean environment and a healthy economy. This is something I strongly disagree with and we have not seen the doomsday 

scenarios that they have predicted time and time again. 

Now, we are hearing the same industry chorus again saying that 

it is too costly to implement the new proposed ozone standards. 

Can you address some of these claims head-on, and how do you see 

the ability of industry to adapt and innovate to meet strong ozone 

standards? Can you describe the benefits that we will see as a society and the cost savings for families that will come from taking 

more pollutants out of the air? 

Ms. MCCABE. The first thing to really emphasize in response to 

your question, Senator, is that the decision that the Administrator 

proposed just recently and that is out for public notice today is all 

about what is the right level that means safe air quality. It is not 

about implementation, it is not about the costs associated with imVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:54 Jul 07, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\20362.TXT VERN
14 

plementation. There are processes laid out in the Clean Air Act to 

address that. This is about making sure that Americans can know 

what is a safe level for them to have in their air. So that is what 

we are all about here. 

However, I will go on to say that over the last 40 years, 40-plus 

years now that the Clean Air Act has been in effect, air pollution 

in this Country has declined by 70-plus percent. The economy has 

tripled. The record jus doesn’t bear out that a clean economy and 

clean air don’t go together. I share your view on that. 

We have found time and time again that American industry, 

American engineers have innovated, have developed technologies 

that we didn’t know existed at the time that standards were established or existed but were not in widespread use or were costly. 

And those costs came down, and those technologies have become 

the norm now. Things like selective catalytic reduction, catalytic 

converters for cars, low or zero VOC coatings. All these things are 

technologies that have developed and have helped to bring clean 

air and to grow business and industry in this Country. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. One last question with respect to the NOx

emissions from the power plants. How are those reduced? 

Ms. MCCABE. Typically, technology like selective catalytic reduction or non-selective catalytic reduction are the two main technologies that are used. There are low-NOx burners, other technologies like that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Equipment that is manufactured in order 

to clean up the emissions? 

Ms. MCCABE. That is correct. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Great, thank you. Thank you very much 

for your testimony. Good luck with the rule. I know that you have 

a lot of input ahead of you before you finalize it. And thank you 

for your efforts. 

Ms. MCCABE. Thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I will now call the next panel. What I 

would like to do is introduce the witnesses who are here and then 

invite them to speak sequentially. Our first witness is Greg 

Wellenius, who is an Associate Professor of Epidemiology and Associate Director of the Center for Environmental Health and Technology at Brown University School of Public Health. His work is 

primarily focused on studying the effects of ambient air pollution 

on the risk of cardiovascular events and its effects on cardiovascular physiology. He received his Bachelor of Science and Master of Science in Physiology from McGill University and his doctorate in epidemiology and environmental health from Harvard 

University. He has been doing ground-breaking work in Rhode Island studying heat-related deaths and hospitalizations. So I am 

particularly proud that Dr. Wellenius is with us today. 

He will be followed by Vicki Patton, who is Environmental Defense Fund’s General Counsel, and manages the organization’s national and regional clean air programs. Prior to joining EDF, Patton worked at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of 

General Counsel here in Washington, where she provided legal 

counsel on a variety of national air quality initiatives. She serves 

as a member of EPA’s National Clean Air Act Advisory Committee. 

15 

She received her B.S. in hydrology from the University of Arizona 

and her J.D. from NYU School of Law. 

Dr. Thomas Ferkol is the Alexis Hartmann Professor of Pediatrics and a professor of cell biology and physiology and director of 

the multi-disciplinary division of Pediatric Allergy, Immunology 

and Pulmonary Medicine at the Washington University School of 

Medicine. In addition to his work at Washington University School 

of Medicine, Dr. Ferkol is the President of the American Thoracic 

Society, an international organization with over 15,000 members. 

He also serves as a member of the American Board of Pediatrics 

sub-board of Pediatric Pulmonology. Dr. Ferkol is a graduate of 

Case Western Reserve and the Ohio State University College of 

Medicine. 

The remaining two witnesses on our panel, Mr. Ross Eisenberg 

and Dr. Bryan Shaw are no-shows. They were invited, they accepted the invitations and they confirmed their attendance. We informed them that the hearing would proceed as clearly as allowed 

under Senate rules. So it is unfortunate they have chosen not to 

attend this official Senate hearing. But we will go ahead with the 

witnesses who did choose to attend. 

If you would proceed, Dr. Wellenius, thank you very much for 

coming down from Rhode Island for this hearing. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY A. WELLENIUS, SC.D., ASSOCIATE 

PROFESSOR OF EPIDEMIOLOGY; ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, 

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND TECHNOLOGY, 

BROWN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 

Mr. WELLENIUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to 

be here. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

My name is Dr. Greg Wellenius, and I am an associate professor 

of epidemiology at the Brown University School of Public Health 

and associate director of the Brown University Center for Environmental Health and Technology. I earned my doctorate in environmental health and epidemiology from the Harvard School of Public 

Health, and previously served on the faculty at Harvard Medical 

School. I have been conducting research on the health effects of air 

pollution for more than 15 years and it is my pleasure to provide 

testimony in this area today. 

There is broad scientific and medical consensus that the current 

standard of 75 parts per billion is outdated, and that a protective 

standard should fall within the range of 60 to 70 parts per billion. 

Reducing ozone pollution will save lives and improve air quality for 

everyone, especially vulnerable populations like children and those 

with asthma. 

For the reasons I will detail in a moment, I encourage the EPA 

to give full consideration to setting a 60 parts per billion standard 

and to finalize a standard that will protect the public’s health. 

As I mentioned, there is a broad consensus in the scientific and 

medical communities that ambient ozone is harmful to human 

health. In 2011, 14 leading medical and public health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American 

Heart Association, the American Lung Association and the American Thoracic Society, co-signed a letter to the Obama administration saying that ‘‘To safeguard the health of the American people, 

16 

help to save lives and reduce health care spending, we support the 

most protective standard under consideration, 60 parts per billion, 

averaged over 8 hours.’’ 

EPA staff and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, a 

panel of external, independent scientists, have also concluded that 

there is a causal relationship between short-term ozone exposure 

and respiratory health effects. This conclusion is based on the findings of more than a thousand studies carried out over decades and 

overall demonstrating that ozone exposure leads to increased risk 

of respiratory deaths, hospital admissions and emergency department visits, increased respiratory symptoms and medication use, 

reduced life function and increased airway reactivity. 

As one example out of very many, a 2010 study by the scientists 

at Emory and Georgia Institute of Technology found that in the Atlanta metropolitan area, ozone was linked to higher rates of pediatric emergency department visits for asthma, even at levels well 

below the current standard. Many other studies also indicate measurable adverse health effects at levels below the current standard. 

For example, meaningful and statistically significant reductions in 

lung function have been observed in exercising young, healthy 

adults exposed to ozone levels as low as 60 parts per billion. Other 

studies have found increased respiratory symptoms during controlled exposures to ozone at levels of 70 parts per billion. Of note, 

these controlled exposure studies have been conducted in healthy 

adults. It is expected that people with asthma, including asthmatic 

children, would be even more sensitive to these effects. 

The scientific evidence clearly shows that the current standard 

for ozone is inadequate to protect the public’s health. The Clean Air 

Scientific Advisory Committee concluded that there is ‘‘clear scientific support for the need to revise the standard’’ and 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.’’ 

Lowering the primary ozone standard would have significant 

public health benefits, including fewer deaths, fewer hospital admissions and emergency room visits for respiratory diseases, fewer 

respiratory symptoms and improved lung function, especially 

amongst the most vulnerable members of the population. In Rhode 

Island, the State that you represent and where I work, at Brown 

University, asthma rates in adults and children are above the national average. Ensuring ozone pollution is at safe levels will save 

lives and improve the quality of life for the people of Rhode Island 

and for people across the Country. 

Rising temperatures from climate change could further exacerbate the health effects of ozone. Research has shown that formation 

of ground level ozone is affected by weather and climate and that 

there is a strong link between higher temperatures and increased 

ozone levels. Ozone itself is also a major greenhouse gas and an important contributor to global climate change. Thus, reducing ozone 

pollution today would not only provide immediate and long-lasting 

public health benefits, it would also help slow the pace of future 

climate change. At the same time, addressing climate change could 

help reduce ozone pollution. 

17 

In conclusion, EPA’s proposal to revise the ozone standard is 

based on scientific and medical consensus and supported by extensive scientific evidence. I encourage the EPA to give full consideration to setting the primary ozone standard at the health-protective 

level of 60 parts per billion. 

Thank you for your attention, and I would be happy to answer 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wellenius follows:] 

18 


20362.007
19 


20362.008
20 


20362.009
21 


20362.010
22 


20362.011
23 


20362.012
24 


20362.013
25 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Dr. Wellenius. I very much appreciate that you have come down to give not only your scientific 

perspective, but your Rhode Island perspective. 

Ms. Patton, thank you. 

STATEMENT OF VICKI PATTON, GENERAL COUNSEL, 

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND 

Ms. PATTON. Chairman Whitehouse, thank you very much for 

your leadership on behalf of clean, safe air for our communities and 

families. We sure appreciate it. 

The United States’ commitment to clean air is a broadly shared 

American value, whether you live in a red State, a blue State or 

a purple State, or in the case of my own home State, in the heart 

of the Rockies in Colorado, which is all of the above. Americans 

want clean, healthy air for our communities and for our families. 

The establishment of the health-based air quality standards for 

ozone is really the bedrock foundation of our Nation’s clean air 

laws. It is why Congress has instructed the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency to establish those standards on 

the basis of human health. The question for the Administrator is 

whether the air in our communities is safe to breathe. 

This determination on the basis of human health was affirmed 

in a landmark Supreme Court decision, penned by Justice Antonin 

Scalia, who broadly affirmed that it is EPA’s solemn responsibility 

to establish health-based standards for ozone on the basis of 

whether the air in our communities is in fact safe to breathe. And 

we know, as others have already commented, that it is not safe to 

breathe on the basis of the current health-based standard. The 

Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which was established by 

Congress under the Nation’s clean air laws, to give EPA rigorous, 

independent advice on the scientific foundations of the national 

health-based air quality standards, has in fact concluded that the 

current health-based standards is not adequate to protect our children’s health, our Nation’s health, and that we do in fact need to 

strengthen that standard in a range between 60 and 70 parts per 

billion. And indeed, they further recommended that a standard in 

the lower end of the ranges would be appropriate, and questioned 

whether a standard in the higher levels of those ranges, up toward 

70 parts per billion, would in fact carry out the Administrator’s responsibility to protect human health with an adequate margin of 

safety. 

We know that the effects of ozone are profound. There is difficulty breathing on high ozone days, there are asthma attacks, 

emergency room visits, hospital admissions and premature deaths. 

Indeed, one of the most significant findings since the Bush administration reviewed and revised the ozone standard in 2008 is the 

strong basis of science linking ozone concentrations to premature 

death. 

The populations at risk include our children, it includes individuals with asthma, elderly, those who are outside working, exercising and living. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee 

looked at a whole host of information in concluding that these effects are significant and the populations at risk are imperiled, inVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:54 Jul 07, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\20362.TXT VERN
26 

cluding clinical studies, epidemiological studies, animal toxicological studies, exposure and risk assessments. 

We have heard the numbers. We have heard the numbers of 

health impacts at stake. But if you are a mother or a father of a 

child with asthma and that child suffers an asthma attack on a 

high ozone day, the impacts are profound on your family. It 

changes your family’s fabric in so many fundamental ways. 

This is why Congress has long instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to establish the health-based standards, on the 

basis of science, on the basis of public health. We have already 

talked about how we are well on our way to achieving those standards. Senator Gillibrand talked about sort of the fact that our Nation can achieve both vital human health protections and grow our 

economy. Indeed, in her own home State of New York, there are 

manufacturers that are going to be making the clean air technologies that will help deliver fundamentally cleaner vehicles 

under the Tier 3 tailpipe emission standards that others have 

talked about, and that will reduce ozone-forming pollution by 80 

percent beginning with model year 2017 vehicles. 

There has been lots of skepticism throughout the history of the 

Nation’s clean air laws that we can’t meet these challenges, that 

we can’t deliver cleaner, healthier air for our communities and families and grow our economy. When the Nation confronted this challenge in 1997, there was one Senator, Senator Whitehouse, who 

commented at the time that if we moved forward with strong ozone 

health standards, that our hair salons would be imperiled. In fact, 

we have achieved cleaner, healthier air, and those businesses are 

up and running and strong. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Hair salons are not extinct. Glad to hear 

it. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. PATTON. And Senator, you indicated at the outset that not 

all the Senators are here today. I want you to know who is here 

today. Moms Clean Air Force is here today, they are here in the 

audience listening to this hearing. And Moms Clean Air Force represents over 400,000 moms across our Nation, moms who are faithbased moms, moms who live in purple States and red States and 

moms who are united by their abiding commitment to clean air for 

our children. Those moms know that when we tuck our children 

into bed at night, we are overwhelmed by our love for them and 

we are overwhelmed by our commitment to ensure a clean and safe 

and healthy environment for our children. 

Your leadership in ensuring that we have strong, health-based 

ozone standards is really one of the single most important gifts you 

can give to our communities, to our families and to all children who 

are threatened by unhealthy air. So thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Patton follows:] 

27 


20362.014
28 


20362.015
29 


20362.016
30 


20362.017
31 


20362.018
32 


20362.019
33 


20362.020
34 


20362.021
35 


20362.022
36 


20362.023
37 


20362.024
38 


20362.025
39 


20362.026
40 


20362.027
41 


20362.028
42 


20362.029
43 


20362.030
44 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Ms. Patton. And welcome to 

Moms Clean Air Force. As a dad, I will be the first one to admit 

that when a young child is in an emergency room with an asthma 

attack, it is likely to be the mom who had to take off work and go 

and sit there with them. When a child has had to miss a day of 

school, it is likely to be a mom who is called home and has to organize coverage for the child who is not in school. So even if it is not 

affecting the lungs of the moms, it sure is affecting their lives. 

Dr. Ferkol. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS WILLIAM FERKOL, JR., M.D., ALEXIS 

HARTMANN PROFESSOR OF PEDIATRICS; PROFESSOR OF 

CELL BIOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY, DIVISION OF ALLERGY, 

IMMUNOLOGY AND PULMONARY MEDICINE, WASHINGTON 

UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE 

Dr. FERKOL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

speak today. 

I am Tom Ferkol, I am a division director of Pediatric Allergy, 

Immunology and Pulmonary Medicine at Washington University in 

St. Louis, Missouri. To put it simply, I care for children with lung 

disease, some with severe, even life-threatening disease. You have 

my written testimony before you. Dr. Wellenius has already provided scientific background on why reducing ozone pollution is important for public health. 

I just have a few brief points that I would like to make that I 

think adds to the discussion. First, with each breath, the lungs and 

airways are exposed to the outside environment. Breathing is not 

an option. Airborne pollutants, if present, are unavoidable. And 

children are far more vulnerable than adults to the effects of air 

pollution. 

The lung is not completely formed at birth. It is still growing, it 

is still developing. The developing lung is particularly susceptible 

to the harmful effects of air pollutants. Air pollution is associated 

with impaired lung growth that may be permanent. So what is 

happening during childhood does not end in childhood, but continues on well into adulthood. 

Ozone exposure increases the risk of developing asthma in childhood, including children that seemingly were previously healthy. 

Ozone pollution is particularly harmful to children who do have 

lung disease. That is not surprising, and it has been said before, 

but it is worth repeating. For children with asthma, the most common chronic disease of childhood that affects nearly 7 million children and adolescents in the United States alone, ozone levels below 

the current EPA standards are associated with increasing respiratory symptoms and the need for rescue medications. In some 

cases it requires greater medications, higher doses, to control their 

asthma systems. That may sound OK, except that often these 

medications or these increases in doses lead to unintended side effects. 

School absences, emergency room visits, hospital admissions, are 

all clearly associated with ambient air pollution. This is common 

knowledge. Every pediatrician who cares for a child, especially a 

child with asthma, understands this relationship. Sometimes it 

45 

means children with asthma die, which is tragic and I like to think 

avoidable. 

Third, ozone exposure as a child can lead to deficits that persist 

well into adulthood. I mentioned that before, but I felt the need to 

repeat it. The data is emerging, and there are several lines of evidence that are clearly showing that early exposures to air pollution, 

including ozone pollution, have long-term effects. It is not surprising that the cumulative exposures during childhood would impact lung health later in life. Indeed, very few people begin their 

lives as adults. 

Fourth, when we in the medical community talk about the ozone 

impact on public health, it sounds like public health is a high-level 

concept. It really is not. Public health is just the accumulation of 

all the personal stories that make up America. Public health includes the mother of the child with asthma who is in the emergency room, worried whether their son will recover from a severe 

asthma attack. She is also thinking that she cannot afford to miss 

another day of work to stay home with her son. 

Air pollution not only leads to direct costs for medical care of the 

ill child, but also increases indirect costs from lost productivity due 

to missed work and school. 

Last, as has been stated by the previous speakers, the science is 

strong and compelling. Since 2006, when the Bush administration 

reviewed the ozone standard, the American Thoracic Society recommended a more protective level of 60 parts per billion. We were 

confident of a recommendation then, we are even more confident of 

that recommendation today. The research evidence is growing. The 

medical community has no doubts about air pollution’s adverse effects on pediatric health. 

The EPA is not basing their proposed protective ozone standard 

on one study or 10 studies. The proposed rule is based on literally 

hundreds of studies that demonstrate that the current standard is 

not protective. These studies deployed multiple scientific methods 

and models, as mentioned by the previous speaker. 

But the data are clear. The current ozone standard is not protective of public health, and the EPA must issue a more protective 

standard. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Ferkol follows:] 

46 


20362.031
47 


20362.032
48 


20362.033
49 


20362.034
50 


20362.035
51 


20362.036
52 


20362.037
53 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Doctor. 

Let me ask a few questions, and let me start with Dr. Wellenius. 

You have done some impressive work in Rhode Island, studying 

heat-related deaths and hospitalizations. Is ozone formation exacerbated by climate change, in your view? What is the linkage between added heat and added ozone? 

Mr. WELLENIUS. Thank you, Senator, for that question. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It is a local question, in Rhode Island. 

Mr. WELLENIUS. Yes. In Rhode Island, what we have looked at 

is the relationship between warm temperatures and extreme heat 

and the number of emergency department visits and deaths in the 

State of Rhode Island. We found a strong association. That means 

that more people are hospitalized and die for heat-related illnesses 

on those hot days. 

What we are trying to explore right now in Rhode Island is 

whether that is made worse on high ozone days. We think from 

other studies in other parts of the Country and across the world 

that days that are both hot and high ozone are generally worse for 

people than days that are either hot or high ozone, but not both 

together. So we are looking at that currently in Rhode Island. I 

don’t have the results to share with you today, but I would be 

happy to provide those in the near future. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Dr. Shaw did not choose to attend the 

hearing, but he did file pre-filed testimony with us, in which he 

told us that asthmatics are not in fact at greater risk of adverse 

health effects from ozone. Do you have any reaction to that statement? 

Mr. WELLENIUS. I think it is just not true, to be frank. There is 

substantial evidence that asthmatics are at least at as great a risk 

as non-asthmatics to the health effects of ozone. There are, as with 

any body of science, body of evidence, not every study shows that, 

but the overwhelming consensus in the field is that people with 

asthma are at greater risk. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Ms. Patton, the existing standard, the previous standard, the 75 parts per billion standard, was criticized at 

the time that it was adopted by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

Committee, saying, they actually took the step of writing to Administrator Johnson to say that they do not endorse the new primary 

ozone standard as being sufficiently protective of the public health. 

And that that decision ‘‘failed to satisfy the explicit stipulations of 

the Clean Air Act’’ that you ensure an adequate margin of safety 

for all individuals, including sensitive populations. 

You were at EPA for a while, and you are familiar with the Scientific Advisory Panel, the CASAC. Was that an unusual step for 

them to take? 

Ms. PATTON. It was an unusual step, Senator Whitehouse. It also 

highlights why the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, in its 

recommendations to the Administrator in June, was so clear about 

its findings. It wanted to leave really very little room for ambiguity 

about the foundational science that supports two really central conclusions. One is that the current standard is not adequate to protect public health. That is what that body found in June in its recommendations to the Administrator, and also that there is clear 

evidence warranting a stronger standard. 

54 

The 2008 standard was criticized sharply at the time, not only 

by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee that had advised 

EPA to establish a stronger standard, but a number of other leaders in the medical and health community. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Somebody obviously didn’t find the Clean 

Air Scientific Advisory Committee to be very credible, in ignoring 

their recommendations back in 2008. What can you tell the committee for the record of this hearing about the credibility and the 

credential of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee? Should 

we pay attention to what they say? 

Ms. PATTON. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee is established under the law to provide the Administrator with independent scientific and medical advice on these really important 

public health questions. So this particularly advisory committee 

that most recently communicated to the Administrator in June is 

comprised of leading scientific experts at institutions across our 

Country from leading academic institutions in North Carolina to 

the research arm of the U.S. power industry, the Electric Power 

Research Institute. A wide variety of experts, a wide variety of perspectives, wide and deep expertise in epidemiology, toxicology, the 

leading scientific foundations. They have communicated clearly to 

the Administrator, it is her solemn responsibility to strengthen the 

health-based standard for ozone. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So a private citizen listening to this hearing can take comfort that the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee is a reputable and reliable body? 

Ms. PATTON. That body is a reputable, highly regarded body of 

leading scientific experts. Its recommendations are also confirmed 

by the leading medical and health associations, the American Lung 

Association, the American Public Health Association, the American 

Thoracic Society. So there is an extensive body of just leading public health and medical associations and experts that further confirm the findings and recommendations of the Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You have made a perfect segue to Dr. 

Ferkol. For the record, tell us a little bit about the American Thoracic Society, and presume that I have challenged the credibility of 

the American Thoracic Society. Presume that I come at you with 

the point of view that this is an irresponsible, liberal organization 

and explain what the American Thoracic Society actually is. 

Dr. FERKOL. I would say we are anything but that. We are somewhat egalitarian when it comes to our political leanings. 

The American Thoracic Society is an organization, professional 

organization of over 15,000 members. It includes scientists, physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, patients, families, all of whom 

are interested in improving the pulmonary health of patients, dealing with patients who are critically ill, as well as focusing to some 

extent on sleep disorders. It is a very proud organization. There are 

a lot of different people with a lot of different views, with a lot of 

different political leanings. I would say that we are neither left nor 

right in that respect. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And so the American Thoracic Society, in 

your view, is also reputable and reliable when it makes a recommendation like this on a matter with its expertise? 

55 

Dr. FERKOL. I would hope so. Otherwise, I don’t think I would 

want to be the president. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

So let’s say you are a mother in Rhode Island, or a father. It is 

a summer day and you wake up in the morning and you are preparing breakfast, and you are listening to the radio and your kids 

are home, and they are small. And the radio announces that today 

is a bad air day in Rhode Island and that infants should be kept 

indoors. You are not really sure what that means. You take your 

child out to get some sunshine, to run around a little bit. Is there 

harm that could be happening to that child that wouldn’t be to a 

parent, to the dad or mom? 

Dr. FERKOL. The scenario that you give is a very common one, 

and it is a dilemma that families have, especially when you hear 

about particularly bad air days. We have them in St. Louis as well. 

Yes, there is in fact harm, and it is invisible. You don’t smell 

ozone, you don’t see ozone, but you are being exposed to ozone. The 

effects of this noxious agent in the air is cumulative. It is not just, 

you go out, you get exposed to ozone and you suddenly have an 

asthma attack. This is something that certainly can precipitate 

asthma, we think that is very clear. That is one of the causative 

factors. But it also can lead to cumulative damage the airways, to 

the lungs, that makes your lung function, as was mentioned previously, that makes your lung function worse and may lower the 

threshold for the next time that you have an asthma exacerbation. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So the risk is not that the child or the vulnerable person is going to suddenly begin coughing or having shortness of breath or have an asthma attack, it is that lasting, permanent insidious damage that is being done to the lung that is not 

apparent that day. 

Dr. FERKOL. That is exactly right. I mean, certainly, I am sure 

that it is contributing to the inflammation of the airway that leads 

to an asthma exacerbation. But I think the cumulative effect, that 

is, you used the exact right word, insidious, it sort of sneaks up on 

you, sneaks up on the patient, sneaks up on the family. And how 

much of that influences the progression of lung disease, how much 

of this contributes to lung disease in adults is something that is a 

very interesting question. But we, needless to say, have more than 

a few concerns that this is happening. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So a vulnerable person who goes out on a 

bad air day and experiences no apparent, immediate ill effects, 

doesn’t feel shortness of breath, doesn’t cough, doesn’t in any way 

have a present sense during the bad air day that they have been 

affected, nevertheless could suffer, could be suffering harm as a result. 

Dr. FERKOL. It doesn’t mean that there hasn’t been some incremental injury to the airways that then predisposes the child or, 

when the child grows up, the adult to later problems with their 

lungs. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And does the harm tend to be cumulative? 

Dr. FERKOL. That is a very good question. I would probably defer 

to Dr. Wellenius to answer. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Dr. Wellenius, could you answer that 

question? The type of harm that we have been discussing, that is 

56 

not manifest in a particular discomfort or coughing or shortness of 

breath or anything else during the day, nevertheless is happening, 

and could potentially manifest months or years later, correct? 

Mr. WELLENIUS. Yes, absolutely. The strongest evidence is for 

the short-term effects, for those effects on the same day. You could 

be outside 100 high-ozone days and not suffer an obvious effect and 

then on the 101st, you could suffer an asthma attack that lands 

you in the emergency department, or have really bad respiratory 

symptoms. 

But then there are also these cumulative effects that we have 

been talking about. Those are not just respiratory effects, but there 

is increasing evidence that those could also be cardiovascular effects. So we are very concerned, not just about the short-term effects of ozone, but about the longer, life-long effects of ozone. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And you did say that they were cumulative. Could you explain that? 

Mr. WELLENIUS. Yes. Again, the science still needs to be refined 

in the area of over what timeframe they can be cumulative. But for 

instance, some of the cardiovascular effects can be seen even in 

young adults with having enhanced cardiovascular damage from 

their lifetime exposure to ozone. There are some studies demonstrating that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. All right. Let me ask you to stand by one 

moment. 

I think at this point I will conclude the hearing. I do want to, 

with unanimous consent of all present, put into the record a combination press release and letter issued by the ranking member of 

the committee, actually inviting the Republican witnesses not to attend. So their failure was not just a failure to appear of their own. 

They were invited not to appear by the ranking member. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

57 


20362.086
58 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And I would also like to State for the 

record that the question about proceeding with this hearing after 

the adjournment of the Senate last night was one that we have 

taken up with Senate legal counsel. We have been advised that we 

can proceed, that this is a legitimate hearing. So we have gone forward with that advice. 

So we are going to continue to treat this as a legitimate hearing, 

I believe that it is. That means that the record of the hearing remains open for an additional week after the conclusion of the hearing. 

Let me also add to the record a statement for the record by Senator Inhofe, ‘‘Chairman Whitehouse, thank you for holding this 

hearing,’’ and so forth. Senator Inhofe’s hearing statement will be 

also admitted to the record, alongside Senator Vitter’s press release 

denying that this is a hearing. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

59 


20362.081
60 


20362.082
61 


20362.083
62 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It is getting interesting around here already. 

Anyway, for a week, the record of the hearing will remain open. 

Let me thank you again, all of our witnesses, for coming down. 

This is, in my view, a long overdue change in a rule that had no 

validity from the very beginning. And thank you very much for not 

only your support for the EPA action, but for your support for EPA 

pushing toward the lower 60 part per billion standard, which I believe is the unanimous recommendation of the assembled panel. 

Without further ado, we will adjourn the hearing. Again, thank 

you all very much for your participation. 

[Whereupon, at 3:28 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

63 


20362.038
64 


20362.039
65 


20362.040
66 


20362.041
67 


20362.042
68 


20362.043
69 


20362.044
70 


20362.045
71 


20362.046
72 


20362.047
73 


20362.048
74 


20362.049
75 


20362.050
76 


20362.051
77 


20362.052
78 


20362.053
79 


20362.054
80 


20362.055
81 


20362.056
82 


20362.057
83 


20362.058
84 


20362.059
85 


20362.060
86 


20362.061
87 


20362.062
88 


20362.063
89 


20362.064
90 


20362.065
91 


20362.066
92 


20362.067
93 


20362.068
94 


20362.069
95 


20362.070
96 


20362.071
97 


20362.072
98 


20362.073
99 


20362.074
100 


20362.075
101 


20362.076
102 


20362.077
103 


20362.078
104 


20362.079
105 


20362.080
106 


20362.084
107 


20362.085
108 


20362.088
109 

Æ 


20362.087