MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, Chalr 

RON WYDEN, Oregon	 LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota	 JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington	 JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont	 MIKE LEE, Utah 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan	 DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

MARK UDALL, Colorado	 JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota	 TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia	 LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii	 ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

MARTINHEINRICH, New Mexico	 JOHN HOEVEN. North Dakota 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ELIZABETH LEOTY CRADDOCK, STAFF DIRECTOR


SAM E. FOWLER. CHIEF COUNSEL


KAREN K. BILLUPS, REPUBLICAN STAFF DIRECTOR


PATRICK J. McCORMICK III, REPUBLICAN CHIEF COUNSEL

Unitcd ^tatcs ^cinatc 

COMMITTEE ON


ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6150 

WWM/.ENERGY.SENATE.GOV 

November 13, 2014 

The Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Dear Administrator McCarthy, 

We write to encourage the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to request comment 

on the full range of policy options when proposing any revisions to the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone. At the outset, we note our strong support for reasonable 

air quality standards that protect human health and welfare. According to EPA data, such 

standards have already reduced emissions that are the cause of high ozone levels by over 30 

million tons per year since 1980, resulting in a 25% reduction in ozone. Similar air quality 

improvements should continue. 

In 2008, however, EPA strengthened the ozone NAAQS from 84 to 75 parts-per-billion 

(ppb), but then suspended state implementation during a reconsideration process in 2010-11. 

While implementation is again ongoing, EPA has not issued all relevant guidance, and though 

states are still in the relatively early stages of implementation, they have committed substantial 

time and resources to compliance with the 75 ppb standard. Notwithstanding states' ongoing 

implementation of the current 75 ppb ozone NAAQS, we understand that EPA staff recently 

recommended lowering the standard to between 70 ppb and 60 ppb. We are concerned that 

^ further revising the ozone standard prior to full implementation of the 2008 standard risks 

depleting already strained state funds and, in mid-implementation, forces local communities to 

comply with ever-changing regulatory requirements. 

Moreover, we have seen analysis that shows a new standard in the low end of range 

proposed by EPA staff will push nearly the entire United States into "nonattainment." We are 

concerned a proposal in this range would encumber states and communities with burdensome 

new regulations that will challenge local economies and threaten job growth. Indeed, the 

National Association of Manufacturers estimates that each year through 2040, an ozone NAAQS 

at 60 ppb would reduce the GDP by $270 billion, result in 2.9 million fewer job years, and cost 

the average U.S. household $1,570 in the form of lost consumption.
Joe nnelly, United Sta Se ator 

^0^ 

Heidi Heitkamp, United States Sen

As you know, the permit requirements and persistent EPA oversight that accompanies 

non-attainment designation carries significant consequence for communities trying to increase 

job growth and build economic momentum. Established companies seeking to expand 

operations within non-attainment areas face challenges, as existing facilities are often required to 

install controls more restrictive than required outside a non-attainment area. Businesses seeking 

to move into a non-attainment area or expand existing operations there must install additional 

ozone emissions reduction technology — regardless of cost — and find offsets for ozone 

emissions. If no cost-effective offsets can be found, a new project cannot proceed. Furthermore, 

federal funds for transportation projects in non-attainment areas are cut off unless the state can 

show such projects do not increase ozone emissions. Additionally, areas receiving a designation 

of non-attainment face increased regulatory costs and must implement measures to curb ozone 

precursors, both of which pose threats to continued economic growth. Should more areas move 

into non-attainment, we are concerned that this will have a negative impact on economic growth 

and job creation. 

We support EPA's mission of protecting air quality and appreciate the progress made 

over the last thirty years toward achieving that goal. We are concerned, however, that the range 

of ozone NAAQS reportedly being studied will not consider giving states more time to fully 

implement the current 75 ppb standard and is laden with potential harm to job creation and 

economic growth in our communities and states. 

Given potential economic impact and that states have not yet implemented the current 

standard, we believe that EPA should engage in fulsome public dialogue on a full range of policy 

options when reviewing the ozone NAAQS, and we ask that EPA request comment on the 

existing standards when proposing any revision to the ozone NAAQS, in addition to any range 

contained in the proposal. Doing so will help advance the Clean Air Act's tradition of protecting 

the environment while preserving the economy.

Sincerely,