    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                             REALITY CHECK PART II:
                          THE IMPACT OF EPA'S PROPOSED
                        OZONE STANDARDS ON RURAL AMERICA

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   ----------

                                 APRIL 29, 2015

                                   ----------

                               Serial No. 114-17

                                   ----------

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             REALITY CHECK PART II:
                         THE IMPACT OF EPA'S PROPOSED
                        OZONE STANDARDS ON RURAL AMERICA

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 29, 2015

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-17

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

                                     ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    95-222 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2015
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      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

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                       HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.          ZOE LOFGREN, California
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL                    SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi       ERIC SWALWELL, California
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             AMI BERA, California
    BILL POSEY, Florida                  ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              MARC A. VEASEY, TEXAS
    JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma            KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
    RANDY K. WEBER, Texas                DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
    JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan          PAUL TONKO, New York
    STEVE KNIGHT, California             MARK TAKANO, California
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   BILL FOSTER, Illinois
    BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
    BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
    DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
    GARY PALMER, Alabama
    BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
                                     ------

                          Subcommittee on Environment

                     HON. JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma, Chair
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR           SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    RANDY WEBER, Texas                   ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    JOHN MOOLENAAR, Michigan             AMI BERA, California
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   DON S. BEYER, Jr., Virginia
    BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas            EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
    GARY PALMER, Alabama

                                C O N T E N T S

                                 April 29, 2015

                                                                       Page
    Witness List.....................................................     2

    Hearing Charter..................................................     3

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman,
      Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................     9
        Written Statement............................................    10

    Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority
      Member, Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on Science,
      Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    11
        Written Statement............................................    13

                                   Witnesses:

    The Honorable Jim Reese, Secretary and Commissioner of
      Agriculture, Oklahoma State Board of Agriculture
        Oral Statement...............................................    16
        Written Statement............................................    19

    Ms. Cara Keslar, Monitoring Section Supervisor, Wyoming
      Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division
        Oral Statement...............................................    24
        Written Statement............................................    26

    Dr. Paul J. Miller, Deputy Director and Chief Scientist,
      Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
        Oral Statement...............................................    37
        Written Statement............................................    39

    Mr. Kevin Abernathy, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Milk
      Producers Council; Vice Chair, Dairy
        Oral Statement...............................................    46
        Written Statement............................................    48

    The Honorable Todd Hiett, Commissioner, Oklahoma Corporation
      Commission
        Oral Statement...............................................    93
        Written Statement............................................    95

    Discussion.......................................................   103

                 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    The Honorable Jim Reese, Secretary and Commissioner of
      Agriculture, Oklahoma State Board of Agriculture...............   114

    Ms. Cara Keslar, Monitoring Section Supervisor, Wyoming
      Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division......   116

    Mr. Kevin Abernathy, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Milk
      Producers Council; Vice Chair, Dairy...........................   120

    The Honorable Todd Hiett, Commissioner, Oklahoma Corporation
      Commission.....................................................   127

                Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

    Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
      Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
      U.S. House of Representatives..................................   132

    Documents submitted by Representative Frank Lucus, Committee on
      Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..   133

    Documents submitted by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman,
      Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................   158

    Documents submitted Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking
      Minority Member, Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on
      Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..   495

                             REALITY CHECK PART II:
                       THE IMPACT OF EPA'S PROPOSED OZONE
                           STANDARDS ON RURAL AMERICA

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2015

                      House of Representatives,
                            Subcommittee on Environment
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:37 p.m., in
    Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim
    Bridenstine [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Bridenstine. The Subcommittee on Environment will
    come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to
    declare recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
        Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``Reality Check Part
    II: The Impact of EPA's Proposed Ozone Standards on Rural
    America.''
        Without objection, our colleague from California, Mr.
    Valadao, is authorized to participate in today's hearing.
        I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
    statement.
        It is Congress' responsibility to provide oversight of the
    executive branch, and that means we must carefully review the
    impact and achievability of this proposed regulation. I am
    deeply concerned lowering the standards at this time will have
    a negative impact, particularly on rural America.
        Ozone levels and emissions of volatile organic compounds
    have significantly decreased over the past few decades.
    Furthermore, according to EPA's own data, their ``projections
    show the vast majority of U.S. counties would meet the proposed
    standards by 2025 just with the rules and programs now in place
    or under way.'' In other words, ozone levels will continue to
    decrease without doing anything else.
        However, it is concerning that the EPA is moving the
    goalposts and proposing to tighten the standards without first
    fully implementing the existing 2008 standard. The guidance for
    state implementation plans was only released earlier this year
    by the EPA. States have not even been given a chance to comply
    with the existing standard.
        Last month, the Full Committee held a hearing to examine
    this complicated and massive regulation that will impact almost
    every sector of the American economy and individual in the
    United States. According to Dr. Allen Lefohn, who testified in
    last month's hearing, it is his expert opinion that the EPA
    Administrator is relying solely on one 2009 study of 31
    participants in order to scientifically justify the costliest
    regulation in the history of this country.
        Just so everyone understands how massive this rule is, a
    February 2015 analysis by NERA Economic Consulting finds that
    GDP will be reduced by $1.7 trillion between 2017 and 2040, our
    economy will have 1.4 million fewer jobs, and households will
    lose an average of $830 per year.
        Another troubling issue is one of natural or background
    ozone. With these low proposed standards, background ozone may
    become the main contributor to exceedances of the standard all
    across the United States. States will be held responsible for
    factors outside their control.
        According to the Western States Air Resources Council,
    there are numerous national parks in the western United States
    with ozone monitors that regularly record concentrations which
    exceed the proposed range of 65 to 70 parts per billion, and
    some that even exceed the existing 75 parts-per-billion
    standard. As this figure shows--you can see up on the screen
    there--monitored ozone levels at rural sites in the West have
    stayed relatively flat. It is possible that all 11 of these
    areas would be considered in nonattainment under this new
    proposal. This would include Yellowstone National Park. There
    is no way this was Congress' intent when it passed the Clean
    Air Act over four decades ago.
        Two sectors of the economy will be heavily impacted by this
    rule are agriculture and transportation. These are incredibly
    vital to my home State of Oklahoma, and I look forward to
    discussing more in detail with our witnesses.
        Rural areas, like a lot of my state, will be especially hit
    hard by the Clean Air Act's transportation conformity
    requirements. A classification of nonattainment would mean that
    the Federal Government can withhold Federal highway funds for
    projects and plans if the individual projects do not meet
    specific emissions and air quality standards. They're talking
    about withholding Federal highway funds to my State of
    Oklahoma. Currently, we're in attainment, and while we're in
    attainment, we're still reducing our ozone. And now they're
    going to change the goalposts, move the goalposts, and then
    they're going to potentially withhold Federal highway funds.
        Those who bear a regulation's compliance costs may also
    suffer a decline in their health status, and these increased
    risks might be greater than the direct benefits of the
    regulation. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the EPA did
    not include premature deaths and increased mortality caused by
    the loss of disposable income when considering this proposed
    rule.
        Low-income Americans and senior citizens living on fixed
    incomes may be forced to choose between medications, food, or
    paying for heat and electricity. This is a continuation of this
    Administration's ``war on the poor,'' to go along with the
    Clean Power Plan and other existing and proposed EPA
    regulations.
        Supporters of the EPA's agenda will say opposition amounts
    to opposing clean air. This could not be further from the
    truth. My home state is in attainment, and has been for years,
    and even still, efforts are being made to further reduce ozone
    and other emissions. I am extremely proud of the work done by
    our state and local leaders. Even with their efforts, a new
    rule would plunge many areas into nonattainment.
        This is all the more reason why any proposed rule should
    not be decided in a hasty and hurried manner, especially since
    the impact of this rule will be widespread and affect every
    American.
        I want to thank each of the witnesses for coming this
    afternoon and I look forward to hearing from you.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Bridenstine follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Environment
                            Chairman Jim Bridenstine

        Good afternoon and welcome to this afternoon's hearing entitled:
    ``Reality Check Part II: The Impact of EPA's Proposed Ozone Standards
    on Rural America''
        It is Congress' responsibility to provide oversight of the
    executive branch, and that means we must carefully review the impact
    and achievability of this proposed regulation. I am deeply concerned
    lowering the standards at this time will have a negative impact,
    particularly on rural America.
        Ozone levels and emissions of volatile organic compounds have
    significantly decreased over the past few decades. Furthermore,
    according to EPA's own data, their ``projections show the vast majority
    of U.S. counties would meet the proposed standards by 2025 just with
    the rules and programs now in place or under way.'' In other words,
    ozone levels will continue decreasing without doing anything else.
        However, it is concerning that the EPA is moving the goalposts and
    proposing to tighten the standards without first fully implementing the
    existing 2008 standard. The guidance for state implementation plans was
    only released earlier this year by the EPA. States have not even been
    given a chance to comply with the existing standard.
        Last month, the Full Committee held a hearing to examine this
    complicated and massive regulation that will impact almost every sector
    and individual in the United States. According to Dr. Allen Lefohn, who
    testified at last month's hearing, it is his expert opinion that the
    EPA Administrator is relying solely on one 2009 study of 31
    participants in order to scientifically justify the costliest
    regulation in the history of this country.
        Just so everyone understands how massive this rule is, a February
    2015 analysis by NERA Economic Consulting finds that GDP will be
    reduced by $1.7 trillion between 2017 and 2040, our economy will have
    1.4 million less jobs, and households will lose an average of $830 per
    year.
        Another troubling issue is one of natural or background ozone. With
    these low proposed standards, background ozone may become the main
    contributor to exceedances of the standard all across the United
    States. States will be held responsible for factors outside of their
    control.
        According to the Western States Air Resources Council, there are
    numerous national parks in the western United States with ozone
    monitors that regularly record concentrations which exceed the proposed
    range of 65-70 parts per billion, and some that even exceed the
    existing 75 ppb standard. As this figure shows (FIGURE 1), monitored
    ozone levels at rural sites in the west have stayed relatively flat. It
    is possible that all 11 of these areas would be considered in non-
    attainment under this new proposal. This would include Yellowstone
    National Park! There is no way this was Congress' intent when it passed
    the Clean Air Act over four decades ago.
        Two sectors of the economy that will be heavily impacted by this
    rule are agriculture and transportation. These are incredibly vital to
    my home state of Oklahoma, and I look forward to discussing more in
    detail with our witnesses.
        Rural areas, like a lot of my state, will be especially hit hard by
    the Clean Air Act's transportation conformity requirements. A
    classification of non-attainment would mean that the federal government
    can withhold federal highway funds for projects and plans if the
    individual projects do not meet specific emissions and air quality
    standards.
        Those who bear a regulation's compliance costs may also suffer a
    decline in their health status, and these increased risks might be
    greater than the direct benefits of the regulation. Unfortunately, but
    not surprisingly, the EPA did not include premature deaths and
    increased mortality caused by the loss of disposable income when
    considering this proposed rule.
        Low-income Americans and senior citizens living on fixed incomes
    may be forced to choose between medications, food, or paying for heat
    and electricity. This is a continuation of this administration's ``war
    on the poor,'' to go along with the Clean Power Plan and other existing
    and proposed EPA regulations.
        Supporters of the EPA's agenda will say opposition amounts to
    opposing clean air. This could not be farther from the truth. My home
    state is in attainment, and has been for years, and even still, efforts
    are being made to further reduce ozone and other emissions. I am
    extremely proud of the work done by our state and local leaders. Even
    with their efforts, a new rule would plunge many areas into
    nonattainment. This is all the more reason why any proposed rule should
    not be decided in a hasty and hurried manner, especially since the
    impact of this rule will be widespread and affect every American.
        I want to thank each of the witnesses for coming this afternoon and
    I look forward to hearing from you.

        Chairman Bridenstine. I now recognize the Ranking Member,
    the gentlewoman from Oregon, my friend, Suzanne Bonamici, for
    an opening statement.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you to all of our witnesses for being here today to discuss the
    EPA's proposal to lower the current ozone standard to somewhere
    in the range of 65 to 70 parts per billion.
        I do want to apologize in advance; I'm going to need to
    step out of some point for a meeting. I thought I had things
    perfectly timed and then they called votes and we're getting a
    late start, so my apologies. It does not indicate a lack of
    interest in this important issue.
        At a hearing last month on this very topic, one of the
    witnesses before the Committee, Dr. Mary Rice, stated that,
    ``the scientific evidence available seven years ago . . . has
    been supplemented by an even greater understanding of the
    health effects of ozone exposure, including greater
    exacerbations of respiratory disease in infants and children,
    worse lung function in healthy adults and those with lung
    disease, . . . and increased mortality in adults.''
        In addition to the adverse public health effects of ozone,
    we'll also hear today about how high levels of ozone negatively
    affect vegetation and ecosystems. For example, more than 40
    years of research shows that long-term ozone exposure results
    in decreased forest productivity and diminished crop yields.
    Representing a state where agriculture is a critical economic
    driver, I take very seriously the negative effects of ozone on
    forest and crops.
        Specifically, an analysis by the EPA states that high
    levels of ozone may reduce the value of a whole tree such as
    Christmas trees. Now, Oregon is the number one producer of
    Christmas trees in the Nation. All in all, agricultural
    production accounts for over $5 billion towards Oregon's
    economy.
        Furthermore, the Clean Air Act, as passed by Congress,
    explicitly prohibits EPA from considering cost when setting at
    ozone standard. Congress purposely put the health and well-
    being of Americans first. Now more than ever the American
    people need a strong EPA to protect their right to clean air
    and water.
        Some will argue today that implementing a lower ozone
    standard is not worth it, that it will kill jobs and the
    economy. Now, there is much more evidence showing that on
    balance, jobs are created and the economy expands following the
    passage of major environmental reforms. For example, in a
    report to Congress on the cost and benefit of Federal
    regulations, OMB estimated that major rules promulgated by the
    EPA between 2003 and 2013 in that decade had benefits between
    $165 billion and $850 billion compared to costs of $38 billion
    to $46 billion. Such a significant return on investment should
    prove the obvious, that when the environment is healthy, the
    economy is healthy.
        Let me be clear. I'm sensitive to the concerns we'll likely
    hear today. In fact, my home State of Oregon, we recognize the
    challenges associated with implementing a more stringent
    standard. Wildfires and the long-range shifting of ozone from
    Asia will need to be addressed if we're to achieve a lower
    standard.
        That said, comments submitted by my home State indicate
    Oregon's support for the EPA's proposal. A letter from David
    Collier, the Air Quality Manager at the Oregon Department of
    Environmental Quality, our DEQ, states that ``Oregon welcomes
    EPA's proposal to lower the ozone NAAQS based on advice
    provided by the Clean Air Act Science Advisory Committee in
    order to provide adequate protection to human health and
    welfare.''
        Although significant progress has been made in the past 40
    years, it is our job to build upon this legacy and ensure that
    we continue to improve the quality of our air. A strong economy
    and help the environment are not mutually exclusive. We can
    have both.
        The Clean Air Science Advisory Committee recommended in
    2008 lowering the ozone standard to between 60 to 70 parts per
    billion. They disagreed with the standards set previously of 75
    parts per billion, stating it was not sufficiently protective
    of public health. We should listen to our scientists and our
    public health professionals and set a standard that is based on
    the best available science. I'm confident in the ingenuity of
    Americans to address these challenges. We can and must do
    better for current and future generations.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you to our
    witnesses for being here this afternoon. I look forward to your
    testimony, and I yield back the balance of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Oversight
                    Minority Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being
    here today to discuss the EPA's proposal to lower the current ozone
    standard to somewhere in the range of 65 to 70 parts per billion.
        At a hearing last month on this very topic one of the witnesses
    before the Committee, Dr. Mary Rice, stated that ``the [scientific]
    evidence available seven years ago . . . has been supplemented by an
    even greater understanding of the health effects of ozone exposure,
    including greater exacerbation of respiratory disease in infants and
    children, worse lung function in healthy adults and those with lung
    disease . . . and increased mortality in adults.''
        In addition to the adverse public health effects of ozone, we will
    also hear today about how high levels of ozone negatively affect
    vegetation and ecosystems. For example, more than 40 years of research
    shows that long-term ozone exposure results in decreased forest
    productivity and diminished crop yields.
        Representing a state where agriculture is a critical economic
    driver, I take very seriously the negative effects of ozone on forests
    and crops. Specifically, an analysis by the EPA states that high levels
    of ozone may ``reduce the value of a whole tree such as Christmas
    trees.'' This is important to my constituents because Oregon is the
    number one producer of Christmas trees in the nation. All in all,
    agricultural production accounts for over $5 billion dollars toward
    Oregon's economy.
        Furthermore, the Clean Air Act, as passed by Congress, explicitly
    prohibits the EPA from considering cost when setting an ozone standard.
    Congress purposefully put the health and wellbeing of Americans first.
    Now, more than ever, the American people need a strong EPA to protect
    their right to clean air and water.
        Some will likely argue today that implementing a lower ozone
    standard is not worth it--that it will kill jobs and the economy. There
    is much more evidence showing that on balance, jobs are created and the
    economy expands following the passage of major environmental reforms.
    For example, in a report to Congress on the costs and benefits of
    federal regulations, OMB estimated that major rules promulgated by the
    EPA between 2003 and 2013 had benefits between $165 billion and $850
    billion, compared to costs of just $38 billion to $46 billion. Such a
    significant return on investment should prove the obvious: that when
    the environment is healthy, the economy is healthy.
        Let me be clear, I am sensitive to the concerns we will likely hear
    today. In fact, in my home state of Oregon we recognize the challenges
    associated with implementing a more stringent standard. Wildfires and
    the long-range shifting of ozone from Asia will need to be addressed if
    we are to achieve a lower standard. That said, comments submitted by my
    home state indicate Oregon's support for the EPA's proposal.
    Specifically, a letter from David Collier, the Air Quality Manager at
    the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality states that ``Oregon
    welcomes EPA's proposal to lower the ozone NAAQS [pronounced NACKS],
    based on advice provided by the Clean Air Act Science Advisory
    Committee, in order to provide the adequate protection to human health
    and welfare.''
        Although significant progress has been made in the past 40 years,
    it is our job to build upon this legacy and ensure that we continue to
    improve the quality of our air. A strong economy and a healthy
    environment are not mutually exclusive. We can have both.
        The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee recommended lowering
    the ozone standard to between 60 and 70 parts per billion in 2008. They
    disagreed with the standard set by the Bush Administration of 75 parts
    per billion, stating it was not ``sufficiently protective of public
    health.'' We should listen to our scientists and our public health
    professionals and set a standard that is based on the best available
    science. I am confident in the ingenuity of Americans to address these
    challenges. We can and must do better for current and future
    generations.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again thank you to our witnesses for
    being here this afternoon. I yield back the balance of my time.

        Chairman Bridenstine. I would like to thank the Ranking
    Member for her opening statements.
        We'll now introduce the witnesses. I will yield to the
    gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, to introduce our first
    witness, the Hon. Jim Reese, Secretary and Commissioner of
    Agriculture for the Oklahoma State Board of Agriculture.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    opportunity to introduce my old colleague from my state
    legislative days.
        The Secretary acts as Governor Fallin's Chief Advisor on
    Policy Development and Implementation related to agriculture,
    food, and forestry issues. Reese grew up on a wheat and dairy
    farm--you never mentioned that in the past, Jim is still a
    wheat farmer near Nardin, Oklahoma, to this very day, a fellow
    who has a lifetime of experiences in dealing with the issues
    that we're talking about here.
        He served in the Oklahoma House of Representatives from
    1987 to 2001. After that, he was Executive Director of the USDA
    Farm Service Agency in Oklahoma, a bachelor's degree from
    Oklahoma State University in engineering technology, a fellow
    who lives it, does it, understands it, and I appreciate that,
    and it's a pleasure to have him here today, my old mentor from
    legislative days.
        And, Mr. Chairman, if you would indulge me for one further
    moment, without objection, I'd like to introduce the following
    ten documents into the record, including comments from the
    California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association, the
    California Farm Bureau Federation, the Georgia Farm Bureau, the
    Iowa Farm Bureau, the Kansas Farm Bureau, the Michigan Farm
    Bureau, Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, South Dakota Farm Bureau, and
    the Texas Farm Bureau. And I'd also like to submit comments
    from Mr. Howard Pearl, who's a small business and farm operator
    in New Hampshire who runs Pearl & Sons Farm, LLC.
        As a former Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I
    am very sensitive to what's going on in this area and would
    note if nothing else perhaps we should have finished
    implementing the 2008 standards before we moved on to something
    else.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, without objection, I'd like to
    submit these letters to the Committee.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Without objection, they will be
    included in the record.
        [The appears in Appendix II]
        Chairman Bridenstine. Does the gentleman yield back?
        Mr. Lucas. The gentleman yields back.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Roger that. The gentleman yields
    back.
        Our next witness is Ms. Cara Keslar, Monitoring Section
    Supervisor for the Wyoming Department of Environmental
    Quality's Air Quality Division. Ms. Keslar has 18 years of
    experience in the environmental field, including 13 years in
    the Air Quality Division. Ms. Keslar has a bachelor's degree in
    chemical engineering from Clarkson University and a master's
    degree in environmental and occupational health from the
    University of Illinois at Chicago.
        Our next witness is Dr. Paul Miller, Deputy Director and
    Chief Scientist for Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
    Management, NESCAUM, a nonprofit association providing
    scientific, technical, analytical, and policy support to the
    air quality and climate programs of eight Northeast States.
        Before joining NESCAUM, Dr. Miller was a senior fellow at
    Princeton University's Center for Energy and Environmental
    Studies and a National Research Council Associate at the Joint
    Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics at the University of
    Colorado at Boulder. Dr. Miller has a Ph.D. in chemical physics
    from Yale University and a J.D. from Stanford University.
        I will now yield to the gentleman from California, Mr.
    Valadao, to introduce our next witness, Mr. Kevin Abernethy,
    the Director of Regulatory Affairs for the Milk Producers
    Council, and the Vice Chair of Dairy CARES.
        Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate the
    opportunity to come and spent some time in your committee and
    introduce a personal friend.
        As many of you know, I am a dairy farmer from Hanford,
    California, and I've watched the industry struggle for many
    years trying to survive under these regulations. And the
    frustrating thing is when you see how the impact has really
    changed the dairy world. It's forced all the smallest of our
    producers, those who are just starting out, those who are
    trying to get into the business, it's basically prevented them
    from actually ever being successful because of the cost. It's
    typically the larger farmers who've been around a lot longer
    that have the ability and the financial ability to actually
    hire the engineers, hire the consultants, and hire all the
    crews they need just to survive.
        But Kevin Abernathy I've known for long time as my time at
    California Dairy Campaign. I was actually the Vice Chairman.
    And through that whole process of watching all these
    regulations start to be implemented, Kevin has always been
    someone that's spent a lot of time not just in an office
    pushing papers but actually out in the field working with the
    dairymen, looking for ways to make sure that we do our job for
    the environment but at the same time do it in a way that
    actually makes sense, that is actually doing what it's supposed
    to do on the environmental side but also have the ability
    that's feasible that a business owner can do it, and to make
    sure that the regulators understand what they're doing.
        He's on the USDA Agriculture Air Quality Task Force, San
    Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Districts, Dairy Producer
    Advisory Group. He's on the Central California Ozone Policy
    Committee, California Department of Food and Ag. He's got a few
    committees that he sits on as well, and obviously, like you
    mentioned earlier, Chairman, the Dairy Community Alliance for
    Responsible Environmental Stewardship.
        His background, animal husbandry over at Fresno State, so a
    good local Central California school, and he's been an expert
    that we've always leaned on to make sure that we have great
    representation in the dairy business so that our farmers have a
    fair shot at survival in producing food for our nation.
        So again, thank you, Kevin, for being here, and thank you,
    Chairman. And I yield back.
        Chairman Bridenstine. I'd like to thank the gentleman from
    California for his great introduction.
        Our final witness is Hon. Todd Hiett, Commissioner of the
    Oklahoma Corporation Commission. I know Todd personally. He's a
    friend of mine from the great State of Oklahoma, born in
    Kellyville, Oklahoma, graduate of Oklahoma State University,
    first elected to the Oklahoma House of Representatives at age
    27, served six terms, including his final term as the first
    Republican Speaker of the House in Oklahoma in eight decades.
        After eight years in the private sector experiencing the
    hardships put on business by excessive regulation, Todd was
    elected to be one of three Commissioners of the Oklahoma
    Corporation Commission, which is responsible for regulating
    fuel, oil and gas, public utilities, and transportation
    industries. He and his family still live on a ranch south of
    Kellyville near my hometown of Tulsa, Oklahoma.
        In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your
    testimony to five minutes each. Your entire written statement
    will be made a part of the record.
        I'd like to now recognize Secretary Reese for five minutes
    to present his testimony. Mr. Reese, you are recognized.
        Mr. Reese, could you turn on your mike, please? There's a
    button there.
        Mr. Reese. To talk? Okay. I'm sorry.

                 TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JIM REESE,

               SECRETARY AND COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE,

                  OKLAHOMA STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE

        Mr. Reese. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
    Committee. I've presented my written testimony so I will try to
    summarize quickly.
        My visual presentation--my only visual presentation is a
    picture of my farm near Nardin, Oklahoma. My daughter took that
    on Easter Sunday of last year and it just happened to cover the
    beautiful sky in the background. There are skies all over
    Oklahoma and the rest of America that look exactly like this,
    but there are some things we cannot control.
        We cannot control the heat in the summer of 2011. Oklahoma
    had the highest average maximum temperature during the three
    summer months of any state since records began in 1895 at 100.4
    degrees. It was also our third driest in history with four
    inches of rain over those three months.
        We had numerous exceedances of 75 parts per billion that
    summer because of the heat and drought and circumstances that
    were beyond Oklahoma's control. Despite that beautiful sky on
    the screen, it may be very difficult for Oklahoma to meet the
    ozone standard of 65 to 70 parts per billion. In fact, that
    picture is in a county that EPA currently estimates to run
    above the 65 to 70 parts per billion average standard.
        The Clean Air Act directs the Administrator to set a
    standard based on criteria requisite to protect the public
    health. Biology teaches us the most important ingredients to
    support human life are air, water, and food. One of those three
    most important ingredients are to protect public health is
    food, not only public health but human life. Many may think
    food just appears in grocery stores but it does not.
        Providing the safest, most affordable food supply in the
    world requires a great deal of commerce that both cleans the
    air and also contaminates the air. Agriculture and forestry on
    one hand are among the greatest assets in improving air quality
    in that growing plants consume carbon out of the air. Growing
    agricultural crops consume carbon from the air. Those crops are
    fed to livestock, which then is turned into protein and
    delivers to your grocery stores and to your homes.
        But it does require fertilizer inputs, transportation
    inputs, diesel fuel inputs, food processing inputs, food
    shipment inputs, until finally it is on the plates of Americans
    supplying the third-most important necessary ingredient to
    sustain human life and public health.
        This proposed standard means greater cost to our producers,
    retrofitting engines, increased energy costs for dairy barns,
    poultry houses, possibly curtailing pesticide applications and
    fertilizer applications. One of the most critical issues in
    agriculture today is timing, planting, harvesting, applications
    of fertilizer and pesticides. These critical decisions cannot
    be made timely with EPA prescribing the formula. American
    agriculture has never been more efficient but it must continue
    to grow more efficient if it is going to continue to feed a
    growing world.
        Agricultural engines are more efficient and more air
    friendly than ever before. We are making great strides and
    great progress cooperatively. Much has been said about the
    prevalence of asthma and its sensitivity to ozone. In Oklahoma,
    we have an invasive nuisance that is also a major health risk,
    and that is eastern redcedar. Pollen from eastern redcedar
    causes itchy eyes, runny nose, congestion, migraines, and many
    more. The solution to the health problems associated with
    redcedar is effective land management, which does include
    prescribed burning, prescribed burning that would be prevented
    in Oklahoma counties if they are in nonattainment status.
        Now, I would suggest--I would not suggest that we rate one
    health concern over another, but many times a solution to one
    health concern aggravates another. When does government finally
    decide that it cannot know all of the answers? Our ozone levels
    are moving in the right direction and they have for the past 20
    years. Prescribed burning is a technique that prevents
    wildfires. It manages smoke contributions to the atmosphere. It
    saves lives and property. It improves grassland and forest
    health. All of these things are beneficial to the health of the
    environment, the economy, and human health. Being in
    nonattainment because of these EPA proposed rules can prohibit
    these beneficial aspects of prescribed fire.
        Americans working together these past 20 years have
    resulted in lower ozone levels. I'm grateful for the efforts of
    EPA and of Americans who have invested in protecting and
    improving our precious air and water resources. However, at
    some point we have to stop and consider competing interests in
    protecting human health, and protecting natural resources, and
    in protecting our food supply and our economy that are all
    equally important.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for the
    opportunity to provide this testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Reese follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Reese.
        I now recognize Ms. Keslar for five minutes to present her
    testimony.

                     TESTIMONY OF MS. CARA KESLAR,

                     MONITORING SECTION SUPERVISOR,

              WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,

                          AIR QUALITY DIVISION

        Ms. Keslar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Lower ozone NAAQS with design values influenced heavily by
    background ozone leaves Wyoming and Intermountain West States
    faced with new challenges in implementation.
        This testimony will focus on the implementation issues with
    the proposed ozone NAAQS that are of particular concern to
    rural Intermountain West States like Wyoming and specifically
    the effects of background on rural areas and the available
    policies for addressing nonattainment issues, in particular,
    exceptional events.
        At ground level, ozone is formed by complex reactions of
    pollutants in the atmosphere. Because of this, every
    geographical area has a unique mix of sources and meteorology
    that can govern its formation. Additionally, at high elevations
    like in Wyoming, ozone can be injected into our atmosphere from
    the ozone layer. This is called stratospheric ozone intrusion.
    This makes ozone exceedingly complex to understand and control.
    So far, EPA has focused on urban areas with highest ozone
    concentrations to protect public health and their tools and
    planning policies reflect that.
        As the ozone standard is lowered, rural and mountainous
    areas will also have difficulty attaining and implementing the
    ozone NAAQS but have fundamentally different issues to contend
    with such as more transported and natural pollution.
        In the NAAQS proposal, background ozone refers to
    components of international transport, transport into rural
    areas, and ozone from natural sources, including wildfire and
    stratospheric intrusion. This can account for a significant
    portion of measured ozone in the Intermountain West and is
    usually beyond a state's ability to control.
        In its proposal, EPA suggests that these background
    contributions can be addressed by existing regulatory relief
    mechanisms, including the exceptional event rule. While we
    appreciate the efforts to retain these mechanisms in their
    current state they require extensive resources to document
    uncontrollable pollution. It is imperative that EPA make
    improvements to these mechanisms and streamline the
    demonstration and approval process so states and EPA resources
    are properly allocated to reducing emissions rather than
    performing paperwork exercises.
        The DEQ has extensive experience in implementation of the
    exceptional event rule since its promulgation in 2007. We have
    produced several demonstrations showing that fire, high wind,
    and stratospheric intrusion have clearly caused exceedances of
    the NAAQS for PM 10, PM 2.5, and ozone. Specifically for ozone
    we've submitted five demonstrations to EPA Region 8 for
    stratospheric intrusion and we're the only agency and the
    Nation that has received a concurrence on intrusion event.
        Based on this experience, each stratospheric intrusion
    demonstration takes between four and eight months to produce.
    The effort to produce those demonstrations use internal staff
    expertise, as well as assistance from federal, state, and
    academic staff focused on researching and diagnosing these
    intrusion events.
        While we've not produced a demonstration to show ozone
    exceedances caused by wildfire, we're familiar with those
    demonstrations that EPA has concurred with. And to prepare
    comparable demonstration, it requires 15 months and contractor
    assistance of $150,000 per event.
        In order for states to implement the exceptional events
    rule in the practical fashion, EPA must update and streamline
    the process. A key to this is developing workable technical
    tools to help states analyze these exceptional events. The EPA
    and other governmental agencies already have several online
    systems to provide data and analyses. There should be a
    concerted effort by EPA to consolidate these tools into a
    workable system to provide the necessary technical products.
        Concurrently, EPA needs to follow through on their plans to
    provide clear requirements to demonstrate an exceptional event
    and produce very specific guidance for wildfire and
    stratospheric intrusion demonstrations for ozone. Furthermore,
    EPA needs to commit well-defined timelines for the region's
    review and decision on exceptional event.
        At this time, there are no timelines for EPA's review and
    decision. This leaves air agencies with uncertainty when making
    regulatory decisions that can be affected by the inclusion or
    exclusion of exceptional data.
        We recognize that EPA's responsibility to protect public
    health is the driving cause of lowering the ozone standard.
    However, overburdening state resources with administrative
    exercises will not help to achieve this objective. In addition
    to protecting public health, it is also the EPA's
    responsibility as the promulgators of this rule to provide
    states with the tools and guidance necessary to implement its
    standards and commit to doing so in a timely fashion.
    Therefore, EPA needs to devote the necessary resources to this
    issue to resolve concerns of rural and Intermountain West
    States.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Keslar follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you for your testimony.
        I now recognize Dr. Miller for five minutes to present his
    testimony.

                    TESTIMONY OF DR. PAUL J. MILLER,

                  DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND CHIEF SCIENTIST,

                    NORTHEAST STATES FOR COORDINATED

                           AIR USE MANAGEMENT

        Dr. Miller. Good afternoon. My name is Paul Miller and I am
    Deputy Director and Chief Scientist of the Northeast States for
    Coordinated Air Use Management, or NESCAUM. I thank Mr.
    Chairman, Ms. Ranking Member, and the Members of the
    Subcommittee for providing NESCAUM with the opportunity to
    provide these comments today on U.S. EPA's proposed ozone
    standards.
        NESCAUM is a regional association of state air pollution
    control agencies representing Connecticut, Maine,
    Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode
    Island, and Vermont. NESCAUM provides policy and technical
    support for our state member agencies in furtherance of their
    air quality and climate programs. Our member state agencies
    have the primary responsibility for developing strategies that
    will attain and maintain current and potentially revised ozone
    standards in their states and in downwind areas affected by
    transport.
        My testimony today reflects the majority views of NESCAUM
    as a state membership organization. Individual NESCAUM member
    states do hold separate views regarding issues specific to
    those states' circumstances, which may differ from NESCAUM
    states' majority consensus.
        Over its 45-year history, the Clean Air Act has saved
    hundreds of thousands of lives and generated trillions of
    dollars in health and welfare benefits for our nation.
    Compliance with national ambient air quality standards have
    consistently proven less costly and more beneficial than either
    its critics or supporters predicted.
        Within the NESCAUM region, states have successfully met the
    challenge of reducing air pollution over the years while their
    economies, populations, and energy use have grown. While air
    quality has improved markedly under the existing Clean Air Act
    framework, the science clearly demonstrates that adverse
    impacts continue to occur and more protective ozone standards
    are needed.
        NESCAUM supports a health-based ozone standard within the
    range recommended by the Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory
    Committee, or CASAC, of .060 to 0.070 parts per million, eight-
    hour average. Ground-level ozone is a respiratory irritant that
    adversely affects both people with respiratory disease and
    healthy children and adults. It can cause premature death.
        The science was sufficiently strong in 2007 to justify a
    more protective ozone health standard, but the standard set by
    EPA at that time fell short of what was needed. The science
    remained sufficiently strong in 2010 when EPA tried to
    reconsider its earlier vision but ultimately could not do so.
    It is now 2015 and the science has only become stronger. By
    extension, the current ozone NAAQS of 0.075 parts per million
    remains inadequate. Retaining this as a standard should not be
    an option.
        As today's hearing encompasses impacts on rural and
    agricultural sectors of America, I would like to focus the
    remainder of my comments on EPA's proposal for the revised
    secondary standard. The main focus of EPA's proposal is to
    provide increased protection against vegetation-related
    impacts.
        Ozone is the most important air pollutant affecting
    economically valuable agricultural crops and other vegetation
    in North America and elsewhere. Long-term exposure to ground-
    level ozone above natural background concentrations results in
    diminished crop yields and in decreased forest productivity. In
    the United States, studies of estimated crop losses due to
    ozone damage are in the billions of dollars annually.
        In light of the existing science, NESCAUM supports a
    secondary ozone standard of the W126 index form, which is
    intended to better reflect biologically relevant ozone levels.
    EPA is proposing to revise the secondary ozone NAAQS to a level
    within the range of 13 to 17 parts per million hours average
    over three years, but setting the standard within the range of
    an eight-hour average, .065 to .070, which it asserts would
    provide equivalent protection.
        We believe that the W126 basis of EPA's proposed secondary
    NAAQS is at and above the CASAC recommended range. As a result,
    EPA's proposed level is not entirely consistent with the
    existing science.
        In achieving more protective ozone standards, mobile
    sources remain an important emissions sector. EPA needs to be
    forward-looking in addressing these as the full benefits of
    their emissions reductions take time to be realized due to
    fleet turnover rates and other factors. Strategies to reduce
    ozone forming nitrogen oxides or NOx from mobile sources such
    as lower emission standards for heavy-duty on-road diesel
    vehicles, updated federal aftermarket catalytic converter
    policies, diesel inspection and maintenance programs, and
    idling reduction measures are significant opportunities for
    lowering ozone pollution going forward.
        In sum, NESCAUM firmly believes that science must drive the
    ozone standards. EPA's most recent proposal generally better
    aligns with the long-standing science but may not adequately
    reflect levels needed to protect farms and forests.
        I thank you for your attention and I'm happy to answer any
    questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Miller follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you, Dr. Miller.
        I now recognize Mr. Abernathy for five minutes to present
    his testimony.

                   TESTIMONY OF MR. KEVIN ABERNATHY,

                    DIRECTOR OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS,

                        MILK PRODUCERS COUNCIL;

                        VICE CHAIR, DAIRY CARES

        Mr. Abernathy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished
    Members of the Committee. I appreciate you holding this hearing
    today to discuss the EPA's proposed new standards on ozone.
        I've lived in the San Joaquin Valley of California all of
    my life, and as you might already know, there's three things
    that make unique--that are very unique to California. We are
    the Nation's agricultural powerhouse. We're in the middle of a
    terrible drought and we remain one of the most challenging air
    basins in the Nation for meeting air quality standards.
        While these things are true, there's much more to our
    story. Valley agriculture, business, and regulators have worked
    together to dramatically improve air quality while producing
    more crops in hopes of a stronger economy, and we can continue
    this if we act wisely, but we have to face the harsh reality.
    That reality is as the air gets cleaner, achieving further
    incremental improvements becomes technologically and
    economically challenging. As we move toward near background
    levels, it becomes almost impossible. A change in strategy is
    certainly needed.
        As the current act monitors air quality agencies and
    bureaucracy and forcing them to implement multiple redundant
    standards for criteria pollutants, this wastes time and money.
    They're held accountable for these standards without regard to
    whether they're achievable. They're asked to literally do the
    impossible, control pollution and in some cases from sources
    they don't regulate, achieve reductions from technologies that
    don't exist today.
        California dairy families produce nearly a fifth of the
    country's milk generating $63 billion in the economy, over
    443,000 jobs, and agricultural production and processing
    accounts for 37.8 percent of the regional employment. It's to
    be said that for every dollar that comes onto the dairy farm,
    $8 are stimulated in the local community.
        With the Valley's unique topography, temperature
    inversions, we face very tough challenges. With 10 times less
    pollution per square mile than Los Angeles with our stagnant
    air conditions, we struggle to meet ever-tightening air quality
    standards with pollution that's not only imported from the San
    Francisco Bay area but also from countries as far away as Asia.
    Slide one, please.
        [Slide.]
        We are very, very proud of this slide. It shows that we
    have had a 97 percent reduction in the 1-hour ozone standard
    with over 600 rules that have been implemented in the San
    Joaquin Valley, such as Rule 4574 stationary engines, Rule 4702
    on stationary engines, 4570 for VOCs from CAFOs. 4570 is an
    interesting note from the standpoint that it's the San Joaquin
    Valley's most expensive individual rule ever passed on Central
    Valley dairy families. All told, businesses have spent more
    than 40 billion in complying with these rules.
        Slide #2.
        [Slide.]
        We've been committed. We made the comment that we would--we
    wanted rules that were based on sound science and guided by
    sound science that we would live with the results. With that,
    we have spent more than $50 million studying air quality in the
    Central Valley and in California. Now that the low-hanging
    fruit has been picked, our air quality in the San Joaquin
    Valley has the daunting task--we've reduced emissions by 80
    percent but we have to find another 90 percent to meet the
    current standard, let alone a reduced standard.
        Slide #3.
        [Slide.]
        What's interesting about the past slide that I missed on
    was the fact that we're potentially looking at shutting down
    all combustible sources of emissions in the Central Valley to
    meet the current standard. With that, Slide #3. Thank you.
        [Slide.]
        As you see here, with the potential lowering of the
    standard, we're potentially looking at having a lot of the
    country coming in to noncompliance.
        Let me finish with, in summary, California dairy families
    are under the Nation's most strict environmental regulations
    from water quality to energy cost from the climate change
    regulations--and this is all happening during the middle of the
    historic drought in the Central Valley as farmers have been cut
    back between 65 and 100 percent of their water allocations.
        We must ask the question: How long will California remain
    the number one agricultural state with nearly 500 dairy farms,
    as Representative Valadao noted, have closed in the past five
    years. As prominent states around us that have been luring our
    farmers out of California, they've actually made public
    comments thanking us for sending us ``your best farmers.'' It
    may draw a chuckle but I would say beware; you possibly could
    be next. California is just the canary in the coalmine. We
    strongly urge leaders like yourselves to take careful
    considerations of the testimony provided today.
        Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
    Subcommittee, for your attention and opportunity to provide
    testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Abernathy follows:]

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Abernathy.
        I now recognize Commissioner Hiett for five minutes to
    present his testimony.

                   TESTIMONY OF THE HON. TODD HIETT,

                             COMMISSIONER,

                    OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION

        Mr. Hiett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
    Committee. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to be here.
    It's quite an honor and certainly important to our State of
    Oklahoma to weigh in on this very important issue.
        This is a complicated issue, as you well know, subject to
    requiring technical, legal, and environmental expertise.
    However, without minimizing the importance of this issue, I
    would like for us to keep in mind just a few basic concepts.
    Number one, the proposed changes to NAAQS for ozone are
    unwarranted at this time. On March the 6th, 2015, the EPA
    finalized state implementation plan requirements for the
    current standard. That was just a little over a month ago. And
    these standards, we should note, are the most stringent ozone
    standards to be imposed yet. It leads me to ask why, and why
    now before the EPA has even had the opportunity to measure the
    achievements under the current standards that are beginning to
    go into place.
        The second thing that I would like for us to keep in mind,
    retaining the current NAAQS for ozone would result in
    substantial compliance with the more stringent proposed
    standards. In other words, the rules that are already in place
    will actually work toward substantial compliance for the
    proposed standards. The EPA's projections show that the vast
    majority of U.S. counties with monitors would meet the proposed
    standards by 2025 with the rules that are already in place.
        Third, the proposed rule is arguably the most expensive air
    regulation in U.S. history with a disproportionate negative
    impact on rural America. The EPA's own numbers say that the
    cost will be in excess of $15 billion. NERA, as was noted
    earlier, performed a study that indicated that that estimate
    may be way understated. Furthermore, they said that this would
    cost the United States gross domestic product $140 billion and
    cost us 1.4 million jobs. This is a lot of expense for a
    questionable return as to the ozone levels.
        I'd like to narrow the focus now to the rural part of my
    testimony. As I stated earlier, the rural areas will be
    disproportionately affected by the proposed rules. The
    Department of Environmental Quality, the Oklahoma Department of
    Environmental Quality, explained that the areas primarily at
    risk for a violation would most likely be the rural areas that
    possess no ability to establish attainment through control of
    ozone precursors.
        Next, I'd like to address--and it's been addressed a couple
    of times already--but I'd like to also address controlled
    agriculture burns. These prescribed burns are so important in
    so many different ways from environmental reasons to
    agricultural reasons to protecting--to public safety reasons.
    If we are limited, which is very possible under these proposed
    rules, if we are limited and possibly prohibited from
    prescribed burns in Oklahoma, I have no doubt we would
    experience more wildfires.
        In 2012--in the fall of 2012, my home area experienced a
    wildfire that burned 60,000 acres and completely destroyed 209
    homes. This was an area that unfortunately prescribed burning
    had not been practiced by the owners in that general area, and
    as a result, you see what happened. There are consequences to
    these actions.
        Next, I'd like to address the emissions controls on trucks
    and heavy machinery. It's the farmer that will pick up the cost
    on that, and as you well know, the farmer doesn't get to pick
    his prices. He is a price-taker.
        Another challenge facing rural Oklahoma is healthcare, a
    huge challenge that we address every day. Nearly 1/2 of the
    rural hospitals in the State of Oklahoma are experiencing
    negative trend lines according to a study recently done by the
    Oklahoma Hospital Association. Seven are currently in
    bankruptcy.
        You wonder why does that have anything to do with energy
    costs? Energy costs are important to rural hospitals, to all
    hospitals. As a matter of fact, we have over a billion-dollar
    rate case before us at the Commission currently. The hospitals
    in Oklahoma have joined together and have become an intervenor
    in that case. So they obviously feel that it is important to
    them.
        In conclusion, I'd just say the far-reaching effects of the
    proposed rule--proposed rules are immeasurable. The economy
    cannot face the unjustified expense associated with proposed
    rule and we owe to Americans to offer a balanced plan with
    achievable goals, as has been proposed previously in current
    standards.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hiett follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Hiett, and thank you
    for your testimony, especially on the health effects. I think
    there's been a lot of evidence that when you control for
    poverty, asthma in rural areas and asthma in urban areas where
    there's higher, you know, outdoor ozone, when you control for
    poverty, there's a significant difference between asthma is
    really--it's not there when you control for those things. So
    the health effects work on two different sides. Poverty is--it
    does create, you know, bad health effects as well.
        I wanted to ask--first of all, thank the witnesses for
    their testimony. Members are reminded that committee rules
    limit questioning to five minutes, and the Chair recognizes
    himself for five minutes of questions.
        Starting with Secretary Reese, you are the Secretary of
    Agriculture for the great State of Oklahoma, and I wanted to--
    and you're a lifelong farmer. I wanted to ask you how this
    regulation would affect farmers not only in Oklahoma but all
    across the country?
        Mr. Reese. As you know, Oklahoma is a full attainment
    State, and so currently we don't--aren't facing these
    regulations, but you would just have to look at other states as
    they've implemented these regulations and retrofitting tractors
    and machinery and going from the Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4
    engines would be extremely, extremely expensive for the farm
    industry. Less than three percent of Oklahoma's tractors--this
    is just my estimate and I would assume it would be nationwide--
    would comply with the Tier 4 engines, combines, tractors, hay
    machines, all those things put together.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Real quick, is it your assessment
    that most farmers can afford those costs?
        Mr. Reese. It would be my assessment that they cannot, and
    my assessment would be that the average farmer is 429 acres in
    Oklahoma and it's smaller across the country. And 429 acres
    does not necessarily support a $130,000 tractor or a $150,000
    tractor. I mean it just takes times to make those investments
    for those--that machinery.
        Energy costs--we're a high-energy consumer, dairy barns,
    poultry, swine, food costs. If we are required to upgrade all
    of our engines, all of our machinery, it will affect food
    costs, and thereby affecting poorer people who can't afford it.
    We have the safest and most affordable food supply the world,
    and as we increase that, it would be more difficult for people
    to get nutritious food.
        And then finally just growing crops, as I said, is a timely
    issue. It has to be--if EPA is trying to govern when we apply,
    when we plant, when we harvest, it would be--it would increase
    food costs.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Can you share with this panel because
    a lot of us are not farmers, when you say it's a timely issue,
    can you share with us what that means?
        Mr. Reese. Well, exactly right now it's spring. It's
    pretty--it's time to plant. We just had rains across the State,
    and in the next two weeks, farmers will be going out planting
    more acres as fast as they can get them planted. And if it was
    a nonattainment time, the EPA said, you know, you have to
    moderate your planting time, that's what your crop is based on
    is when you plant it, when you're able to apply things to it.
    And so it's just time-sensitive. Every--plants are just time-
    sensitive.
        Chairman Bridenstine. So it could in fact delay planting
    and ultimately reduce your yield, which would of course also
    affect the bottom line for the farmer, in addition to all the
    costs that you've already talked about?
        Mr. Reese. Exactly.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Really quickly, could you share with
    us, you mentioned redcedar in your testimony. Share with us
    what you go through with red cedar.
        Mr. Reese. Well, red cedar is a nuisance. It's a public--
    it's a plant that we are trying to reduce. It's an invasive
    species. And the best way to maintain it and the most cost-
    effective and efficient way by virtually any environmental
    group will agree is to burn. And so we cut them and we burn
    them. And we need to prescribe burn to maintain that. And it is
    a heavy pollen sensitive plant--tree and it causes health
    concerns. And so you have to measure that, are you going to
    allow prescribed burns to take care of the health concern or
    are you not?
        Chairman Bridenstine. So from a--I guess from an allergy
    perspective or and asthma perspective, and of course as
    Commissioner Hiett talked about, that prescribed burns are
    necessary for safety, and it also reduces wildfires, that
    ultimately would create even more ozone concerns. So thank you
    for that testimony.
        Commissioner Hiett, I've got about a minute left. Could you
    share with impacts these proposed rules would have on economic
    development, including transportation and other infrastructure
    projects in Oklahoma?
        Mr. Hiett. One of the greatest challenges we have in
    economic development in the State of Oklahoma is the rural
    area. Our urban areas tend to have more jobs. Our rural areas
    struggle to have jobs. If you look at the areas that are the
    best opportunities for jobs in rural areas, it's going to be
    manufacturing, oil and gas, transportation, three industries
    that will be targeted, will be damaged by the proposed rules.
    So you can see the issue that's there.
        Also, on the transportation side, and it was mentioned
    earlier, a nonattainment stops the Federal projects. Well,
    those of us in agriculture know if we can't get our product to
    market, it has a diminished value, if any value at all.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you for that testimony.
        I will now recognize the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr.
    Westerman, for five minutes of questions.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        In his testimony during last month's hearing, Dr. Allen
    Lefohn presented modeling results that indicated that if
    emissions were reduced across the United States to achieve
    alternative lower ozone standards, that there would be a
    tendency for the fourth-highest 8-hour concentration to occur
    not just during the summer but also in some locations during
    the spring when the main contributors to ozone are background
    or natural-occurring sources.
        The locations affected by the springtime shift can appear
    anywhere across the United States. He also noted that with more
    stringent proposed standards, background would become an even
    more important contributor to exceedances of the standard. We
    all know that models have limitations but we also know that
    some models are better than others. The modeling results that
    Dr. Lefohn described appear to be supported by EPA's own recent
    analysis.
        I would like to enter into the record a memo dated November
    19, 2014, from Ms. Joann Rice of the EPA. In her memo, Ms. Rice
    indicates that EPA is proposing that the ozone season be
    extended from its current period to longer periods of time. The
    result of EPA's analysis was a total--was that a total of 39
    States across the United States experienced exceedances of the
    60 parts per million level during the spring. Background ground
    ozone is highest during the spring.
        As indicated earlier, ozone formation during the spring
    from manmade sources is much less than during the summer. It
    appears that naturally occurring ozone is a national issue, not
    just limited to Yellowstone and to the Intermountain West. The
    difficulties dealing with background ozone as experienced in
    these States is only a precursor for the entire Nation.
        As a forester and an engineer and after hearing much
    testimony in this and other committees, it appears to me that
    we've become so regulatory aggressive that we not only are
    regulating humans but we're now attempting to regulate nature
    itself.
        Mr. Abernathy and Ms. Keslar and Mr. Reese, my question for
    you is it time that Congress should revisit and modernize the
    Clean Air Act?
        Mr. Reese. I will say yes. We talk about--at least my
    perception is the--the Secretary is a--the Administrator is
    supposed to use criteria requisite to protect public health.
    And so what does that mean? You have public health issues on
    all sides of the issue, the redcedar issue versus asthma versus
    other lung disease, and so I think that--and food and the need
    to eat nutritious, economically produced food. So I think there
    are a number of factors that need to be considered in addition
    to define public health.
        Mr. Abernathy. Mr. Westerman, the resounding answer is
    absolutely. When you come from a State like--especially in
    California and the Central Valley, we've implemented virtually
    as many rules as we possibly can even though we still have a
    no-stone-left-unturned mentality. When you're approaching those
    background levels, the ability to get significant reductions
    through the--through a rule process becomes extraordinarily
    difficult if not impossible, and I think the best way to answer
    your question--and this has actually been proposed in
    California--that we have no farm days.
        Ms. Keslar. I would also agree with the other two members
    of the panel that it's absolutely time to revisit the Clean Air
    Act. From my perspective and the implementation perspective is
    that the Clean Air Act is very vague and it's left up to EPA to
    interpret the Clean Air Act, and then States are left to deal
    with the consequences of EPA interpretations of the Clean Air
    Act. So--especially with respect to background, international
    transport, rural transport areas, and the exceptional event
    rule are very vague in the Clean Air Act and there's not a good
    precedent for implementing those with the current EPA rules.
        Mr. Westerman. And if you will hold those thoughts, I'll
    yield back to the Chairman because I believe we need to go
    vote.
        Chairman Bridenstine. We have a vote on the Floor that
    we've got to get to, but what we'll do is we'll just recess and
    immediately following--we've got one vote. Immediately
    following the vote, we'll come back here and convene, and if
    you'd like to have two and a half minutes of the rest of your
    time, we'll do that. Is that all right?
        Okay. Well, we are now in recess until after the vote.
        [Recess.]
        Chairman Bridenstine. All right. We are back from recess
    and we will reconvene.
        We were in the middle of my good friend from Arkansas, Mr.
    Westerman, asking five minutes of questions, and on the clock
    we had two and a half minutes when we departed, so we will
    resume with Mr. Westerman for two and a half minutes.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe Mr.
    Abernathy was in the middle of a thought when we recessed, so
    if you would like to pick up with that answer.
        Mr. Abernathy. Thank you, sir.
        It would be remiss for me not to include that in my written
    testimony there was a series of potential modifications to the
    implementation of the Clean Air Act that I think would be a
    wonderful starting point for the committee to discuss moving
    forward. And also on your question of how it affects
    agriculture, Rule 4570 that I referenced in my oral in my
    written testimony has had an economic burden to individual
    producers in California to the tune of about $50,000 in cost
    just to implement on an annual basis for Rule 4570. So that
    certainly takes away from spending money on potentially more
    important things from a dairymen's perspective when you're
    looking at those kind of costs ongoing on an annual basis,
    especially for small farmers.
        Mr. Westerman. All right. So are there ambiguities and
    issues with the ozone NAAQS that the judicial and executive
    branch cannot properly deal with because the Clean Air Act
    hasn't been modernized?
        Are there any ambiguities or issues that--with ozone NAAQS
    that the judicial and executive branch can't properly deal with
    because the Clean Air Act hasn't been modernized?
        Mr. Abernathy. I'll take a stab at it. We--I think this
    really lends to a unique opportunity for Congress to dive into
    this from the standpoint that in California, as I mentioned
    with a mature regulatory program, way all too often we're
    having our futures decided in a courtroom with a judge. And
    I'll let you think about that for a little bit because that's
    really--that has nothing to do to benefit public health or air
    quality when you're in a courtroom and a judge is making those
    decisions based on a very stringent look at simply the law.
        Mr. Westerman. And, Mr. Chairman, with that I'll yield
    back.
        Chairman Bridenstine. I'd like to thank my friend from
    Arkansas.
        I'd like to recognize my good friend, Ms. Bonamici from
    Oregon, for five minutes of questions.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you again to your--to the witnesses for their testimony.
        I want to follow up on the line of questioning and also Ms.
    Keslar's testimony. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be very
    useful for us to have the EPA come in and inform us about
    things like the exceptional event rule. I appreciate your
    testimony, Ms. Keslar, about what it takes to comply with that.
    It would be helpful for us to hear from the EPA about their
    efforts and what can be done to make it easier for
    jurisdictions to comply with that rule. That would be very
    useful for us.
        But Dr. Miller, the EPA and others have estimated the
    benefits achieved by lowering the ozone standard, and you
    talked about that in your testimony. Specifically, under the
    proposed standard of 65 to 70 parts per billion, the EPA
    estimates that it would generate an estimated $19-$38 billion
    worth of benefits, and that includes a range of components from
    the number of premature deaths avoided to the number of
    children's asthma attacks that can be prevented. Can you please
    describe some of the other benefits that could come from and
    ozone standard in the range of 70 to 65 parts per billion?
        Dr. Miller. Yes, thank you. What I would like to start with
    is in the context of the need to modernize the Clean Air Act, I
    would flip it and I would say maybe it's time to recognize that
    the Clean Air Act has modernized America. And this is seen
    through its technology-forcing nature and the innovation that
    has resulted from in the past setting what was at that time
    viewed as stringent and unachievable ozone standards, yet we
    achieved them. Right now, in the Northeast we're largely
    achieving the current standard outside of New York City. We
    have achieved that. I'm hoping we can maintain that, but we
    have achieved that already. And that was viewed at one time as
    impossible.
        Ms. Bonamici. And, Dr. Miller, can you talk just a little
    bit about--I know you talked about where your organization--
    your area. Can you talk about how much of that is urban and how
    much of it is rural?
        Dr. Miller. We also suffer from transport. Now, the largest
    portion of our pollution load is urban. It is from
    transportation and urban sources. But on top of that, we get a
    pollution load from the West. There are large sources to the
    West. We've actually successfully addressed to some extent
    power plant pollution that comes across on the westerly winds.
    So we have a mix, and so we're sympathetic to Western issues,
    to transport from Asia. We don't get that kind of transport
    from Asia.
        We have our own kind of transport, and it is controllable
    not by our States but through Federal measures that create
    regional programs that have been done in the past such as a NOX
    SIP Call that have been very effective and resulted in deep
    reductions of ozone not just in the urban areas but across
    these broad regional and rural areas that are under discussion
    today.
        Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. And I know that some of the
    benefits associated with improving the ecosystem are hard to
    quantify, and it's likely that there's some benefits that don't
    reflect in the full range of outcomes. Can you describe some of
    the ecosystem services and their value to the economy, for
    example, water regulation?
        Dr. Miller. Right. So the same kind of emissions,
    specifically nitrogen oxides that contribute to ozone formation
    also contribute to acid rain, nitric acid. Nitric acid has
    ecological impacts in terms of forest health. It frees up
    aluminum ions in forest soils. Aluminum ions are toxic to
    aquatic life so it ends up in streams and rivers, kills fish.
    That has a detrimental impact on, say, sportsmen who like to
    catch fish.
        It has--nitrogen deposition in water has a fertilizing
    effect. It creates algal blooms. Those blooms suffocate aquatic
    life. Fisheries have large economic benefits, large economic
    value, and that kind of impact diminishes those as well.
        Ms. Bonamici. And thank you. We've heard a lot about some
    of the costs and technical challenges, and you talked about
    this a bit. The EPA does not allow consideration of those
    factors when setting a standard, but can you comment on the
    importance of separating the costs associated with attaining or
    implementing the ozone standard from the assessment of what
    level is appropriate to protect public health? And I know you
    mentioned the incentives to develop new technology that come
    from such regulation.
        Dr. Miller. First, I'd like to just clarify. It's not EPA
    that doesn't allow consideration of cost in the setting the
    standard. Those are science-based standards based on health and
    protecting public welfare. It's--the Clean Air Act is created
    by Congress and is interpreted unanimously by the Supreme
    Court--
        Ms. Bonamici. Right.
        Dr. Miller. --that requires standards to reflect science.
        Ms. Bonamici. Understood. Thank you.
        Dr. Miller. The implementation part is where costs come in.
    We've been very successful in that and that's where the
    innovation comes.
        Ms. Bonamici. Terrific, thank you. And I just wanted to
    mention that this committee did pass in the last Congress a
    bill to do more research about the harmful algal blooms that
    you mentioned, and I was proud to work on that with my
    colleague from Florida, Mr. Posey.
        And I'm out of time and I yield back. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Bridenstine. I'd like to thank the gentlelady from
    Oregon, Ms. Bonamici.
        Without objection, I'd like to enter into a second round of
    questions. I'll recognize myself for five minutes. And if it's
    all right, you're willing to stick around for another five
    minutes?
        So there's a couple of things I'd like to bring out. I
    think all of us recognize that in urban areas there's a higher
    incidence of surface ozone than in rural areas, not always the
    case but in many cases that's the case.
        I would like to submit for the record a study from Johns
    Hopkins University, and what they attempted to do is they
    sought--according to them, the objective, ``we sought to
    estimate the prevalence of current asthma in U.S. children
    living in inner-city and non-inner-city areas and to examine
    whether urban resident, poverty, or race/ethnicity are the main
    drivers of asthma disparities.''
        What they found is that there was no statistically
    significant difference once you control for poverty, once you
    control for race and ethnicity, the incidence of asthma in
    areas that have higher surface ozone are not greater than the
    incidents that don't have as high ground level ozone.
        So I'd like to introduce for the record the scientific
    study from Johns Hopkins University.
        [The appears in Appendix II]
        Chairman Bridenstine. I'd also like to--actually, we now
    have back one of our Members here. I will retain my remaining
    three minutes and fifty seconds. And is it possible to yield at
    this time to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber?
        Mr. Weber. Yes, sir, it is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Bridenstine. You're recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Weber. I'm not sure five minutes is enough. Can I have
    your other three minutes?
        Chairman Bridenstine. Negative.
        Mr. Weber. Mr. Hiett--is it Hiett? Is that how you that?
    Commissioner Hiett?
        Mr. Hiett. Yes, sir, Hiett.
        Mr. Weber. Okay. You said on March 6, 2015, the SIP, state
    implementation plan, was approved for Oklahoma or finalized I
    think you said. How long did that process take?
        Mr. Hiett. I'm sorry, that was the requirement.
        Mr. Weber. Was that the requirements?
        Mr. Hiett. That was the requirements that were issued on
    March 6----
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Mr. Hiett. --of 2015.
        Mr. Weber. Can you describe the length of that process?
        Mr. Hiett. It began in 2008 is my understanding.
        Mr. Weber. So that's seven years----
        Mr. Hiett. Yes.
        Mr. Weber. --give or take? When were--and I'll ask this
    question of Dr. Miller. When were the last EPA--ozone regs
    changed or recommended to be changed? Was it six years ago, ten
    years ago?
        Dr. Miller. Regs, you mean standards?
        Mr. Weber. Standards, yeah, National Air Indoor Quality----
        Dr. Miller. The last time the ozone standards were revised
    was 2008.
        Mr. Weber. 2008, so that's seven years ago. Okay. And if I
    understand your testimony, Commissioner, earlier, prescribed
    burning actually would help in your area in Oklahoma?
        Mr. Hiett. Absolutely. There's a public safety factor----
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Mr. Hiett. --there's a health factor, there's--and of
    course the agricultural and economic factors.
        Mr. Weber. Sure, but your testimony here today is that
    proposed--I call them regs--would actually prevent that it
    would actually endanger lives, property, and commerce?
        Mr. Hiett. And in addition to that would--yes, that is
    correct, and in addition to that would require that agriculture
    producers use more chemical to fight--to battle these invasive
    species----
        Mr. Weber. Sure.
        Mr. Hiett. --where now they can do it with fire.
        Mr. Weber. Sure, absolutely.
        Mr. Hiett. With prescribed burning.
        Mr. Weber. So thank you. Dr. Miller, you testified earlier
    right before we went to votes, when Congress set up the Clean
    Air Act, they were very specific that they don't take the cost
    into account. Do I recall correctly you said something to that
    effect?
        Dr. Miller. Yes, it's setting standards. They are health-
    based, based on science. Costs come into implementing the
    standards.
        Mr. Weber. Okay. Do you think that that might have been
    shortsighted on their part? Is there any possibility, on
    Congress' part? Not that we would ever be shortsighted.
        Dr. Miller. Actually, I think was very farsighted. And as
    I've mentioned several times, I think that's forced areas to
    innovate, industry to innovate in areas that they weren't going
    to do, and that's----
        Mr. Weber. So it's not like Congress couldn't have been
    wrong or the Supreme Court could never be wrong? The Supreme
    Court has never reversed itself. Or is that----
        Dr. Miller. It does all the time.
        Mr. Weber. They do all the time. Congress I would submit
    probably does need to as well.
        Mr. Abernathy, the EPA's cost-benefit analysis for the
    ozone proposal caps, the cost of unknown controls, I'm from
    Texas, Gulf Coast, a lot of chemical plants, refineries there
    on the Gulf Coast. Texas produces 60 percent of the Nation's
    jet fuel in my district, and I think maybe again it was Dr.
    Miller said that this was the most expensive regulation--going
    to be--one of you said that and we've heard that over and over
    again. But my question is more specific.
        So industry--I own an air-conditioning company. Industry
    will do what's very pretty to and very competitive to be able
    to get that competitive edge for the most part. Mr. Abernathy,
    I think the controls--they're saying in the proposal that the
    caps have cost of unknown controls that don't even exist are
    assumed to be around $15,000. Have you seen that figure?
        Mr. Abernathy. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Weber. Does that sound reasonable to you?
        Mr. Abernathy. No.
        Mr. Weber. I've been in these chemical plants and
    refineries and I can tell you--and in the Texas Legislature I
    was on the Environmental Reg Committee. I can tell you without
    a shadow of a doubt that's nowhere near close to the cost. So,
    you know, when they say it's assumed to be that kind of a low,
    I think that's pie-in-the-sky or dare I say ozone-in-the-sky.
        Mr. Abernathy, one other question. What happens to
    permitting for the dairy industry throughout the country,
    throughout the country when ozone standards are set basically
    to background levels?
        Mr. Abernathy. Sir, would you like me to answer the first--
    end of your first question?
        Mr. Weber. Absolutely. You've got more input on it, you
    bet.
        Mr. Abernathy. Thank you. I actually have the privilege of
    knowing Chairman Shaw and----
        Mr. Weber. TCEQ.
        Mr. Abernathy. Yes, sir, and working with the Dr. Shaw,
    Chairman Shaw with the USDA Air Quality Task Force, and we've
    had the pleasure of going over quite a few of the struggles
    that Texas has had as an extreme nonattainment area. And
    keeping that into consideration, he's bumping up to the same
    virtually impossible task of trying to continue to regulate
    industries that he has really regulated to the point where
    there's nothing left to pick off the tree. So I have firsthand
    knowledge of the commonality that the Central Valley in
    California, along with South Coast and Texas share when it
    comes to setting standards that are right at background levels
    of ozone.
        And with that, on the cost, this is--in California we call
    it a black box. We've had standards that we've had to meet,
    we've had technologies that didn't exist, and we've had a
    timeline that we have to meet.
        Mr. Weber. All within seven years and it's fixing to be
    changed again.
        Mr. Abernathy. Yes, sir. And the interesting part about
    that is when we--when the board--San Joaquin Valley Board
    passes a rule on a business, we have no idea or hopes that
    there will be technology that will get us there. The district
    has had the farsightedness to actually develop one program that
    I've been associated with that's called the Technology
    Advancement Program that actually looks at new and innovative
    processes, whether it's emission controls or so forth to help
    advance.
        But even those certain things--and I'll give you this as an
    example--we had John Deere at one of my members' dairies in
    Fresno County. It was a million-dollar piece of equipment. It
    was the latest, greatest technology that had ever been put into
    a John Deere tractor. During the silage harvest, it burned to
    the ground. So with that, technology does come along and
    innovations do come along, but as every farmer at this table
    knows, it takes a long time to go from conceptual to reality
    where you can depend on that 24 hours a day, 365 days year.
        But answering your question, $15,000 a ton, just as another
    number, when the $61.5 million that Rule 4570 cost Central
    Valley dairy farmers came out to about $6,700 a ton. At the
    same time, NOx was being traded as environmental reduction
    credits/ERCs from businesses that had closed down in the
    Central Valley at a tune of $32,500.
        Mr. Weber. And they still had a way to make money.
        Mr. Abernathy. That's right.
        Mr. Weber. And you--and forgive me, Mr. Chairman, if you'll
    indulge me for one more half-a-minute--and you know that 70
    percent of NOx comes from nonstationary point sources, i.e.,
    vehicles.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Roger that. And thank you for your
    questions.
        And just as a reminder, the record will remain open for two
    weeks for additional comments and written questions if the
    gentleman from Texas would like to submit more written
    questions. I know you definitely needed more than five minutes.
    Yeah, you bet.
        I'm going to yield. I've got three minutes and fifty
    seconds remaining. I'm going to yield two minutes to my friend
    from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, and then we'll close the hearing at
    that point.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think I'll
    need two minutes.
        I wanted to add to the record, first, a letter from the
    National Farmers Union, the second-largest general farm
    organization in the United States, in support of the EPA's
    proposed revisions. Particularly, they found compelling the
    effect on crop yields a causal relationship between exposure to
    ozone and ambient air and visual--visible foliar injury affects
    on vegetation, reduced vegetation growth, reduced productivity
    and terrestrial ecosystems, reduced yield, and quality of
    agricultural crops.
        So with that, I'd like to enter that into the record.
        And one more thing, just released today is the American
    Lung Association's 2015 State of the Air Report showing that
    more than four in ten people live in areas with an
    unhealthful--unhealthy level of ozone. According to this
    report, there's more than 17.7 million people in the United
    States who live in counties where the outdoor air failed all
    three of the tests.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce this letter and
    this report into the record.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Without objection, they will be
    introduced into the record.
        [The appears in Appendix II]
        Chairman Bridenstine. I would like to--are you yielding
    back?
        Ms. Bonamici. I yield back.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Okay.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
        Chairman Bridenstine. I would like to thank the witnesses
    for their valuable testimony. Thank you for sticking around and
    answering questions. I apologize that we had a vote in the
    middle of it. I'd like to thank the Members for their
    questions.
        As a reminder, the record will remain open for two weeks
    for additional comments and written questions from the Members.
        And with that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                   Appendix I

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Responses by The Hon. Jim Reese

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by Ms. Cara Keslar

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by Mr. Kevin Abernathy

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by The Honorable Todd Hiett

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  Appendix II

                                  ----------

                       Additional Material for the Record

              Statement submitted by full Committee Ranking Member
                             Eddie Bernice Johnson

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               Documents submitted by Representative Frank Lucus

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      Documents submitted by Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Suzanne
                                    Bonamici

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]