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

                            EPA'S PROPOSED OZONE RULE

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 12, 2015

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-53

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   ______________

                          U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    97-556                     WASHINGTON : 2015

    ________________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                              FRED UPTON, Michigan
                                     Chairman
    JOE BARTON, Texas                    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
      Chairman Emeritus                    Ranking Member
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky               BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  GENE GREEN, Texas
    TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania             DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            LOIS CAPPS, California
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
      Vice Chairman                      JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            JERRY McNERNEY, California
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              PETER WELCH, Vermont
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     PAUL TONKO, New York
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas                  JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                     Massachusetts
    RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina     TONY CARDENAS, California
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    BILL FLORES, Texas
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
                        Subcommittee on Energy and Power

                             ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
                                     Chairman
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               JERRY McNERNEY, California
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        PAUL TONKO, New York
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman          GENE GREEN, Texas
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     LOIS CAPPS, California
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas                  MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   PETER WELCH, Vermont
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
    RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina     DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    BILL FLORES, Texas                   FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma               officio)
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
    JOE BARTON, Texas
    FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement....................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     4
    Hon. Pete Olson, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Texas, opening statement.......................................     5
    Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Illinois, opening statement.................................     5
    Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Michigan, opening statement....................................    46

                                   Witnesses

    Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, Air and Radiation,
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency...........................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................     9
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    73

                               Submitted Material

    Resolution of Cabarrus Regional Chamber of Commerce..............    48
    Resolution of Rowan County Board of Commissioners................    49
    Resolution of Cabarrus-Rowan Urban Area Metropolitan Planning
      Organization...................................................    51
    Statement of public health and medical organizations.............    53
    Statement of National Association of Clean Air Agencies..........    55
    Results of a survey by the Association of Air Pollution Control
      Agencies.......................................................    59
    Article entitled, ``Challenges of a lowered U.S. ozone standard,"
      in Science, June 5, 2015.......................................    71
    Comments by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality on
      EPA's Proposed Ozone Rule \1\..................................    46

    ----------
    \1\ Available at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/if/if03/
      20150612/103590/hhrg-114-if03-20150612-sd005.pdf

                           EPA'S PROPOSED OZONE RULE

                                  ----------

                             FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 2015

                      House of Representatives,
                      Subcommittee on Energy and Power,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:45 a.m., in
    room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Whitfield, Olson, Shimkus, Harper,
    McKinley, Griffith, Johnson, Long, Ellmers, Flores, Mullin,
    Hudson, Upton (ex officio), Rush, McNerney, Green, Capps,
    Castor, Welch, Loebsack, and Pallone (ex officio).
        Staff Present: Will Batson, Legislative Clerk; Sean Bonyun,
    Communications Director; Leighton Brown, Press Assistant;
    Allison Busbee, Policy Coordinator, Energy & Power; Melissa
    Froelich, Counsel, CMT; Tom Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel,
    Energy & Power, A.T. Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor; Mary
    Neumayr, Senior Energy Counsel; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary;
    Christine Brennan, Minority Press Secretary; Michael Goo,
    Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment; Caitlin
    Haberman, Minority Professional Staff Member; Rick Kessler,
    Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and
    Environment; John Marshall, Minority Policy Coordinator;
    Alexander Ratner, Minority Policy Analyst; and Tim Robinson,
    Minority Chief Counsel.

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

        Mr. Whitfield. I would like to bring the hearing to order.
        This morning's hearing is going to be focused on EPA's
    proposed ozone rule.
        I would like to recognize myself for 5 minutes for an
    opening statement.
        The proposed rule would lower the standard from the current
    75 parts per billion down to 65 ppb or 70 ppb, but the Agency
    is also taking comments on 60 parts per billion.
        These proposed levels are so low that, in some parts of the
    country, they are at or near background levels. The proposed
    levels are so low that even EPA admits that it is not fully
    known in some areas how to achieve full compliance. In other
    words, they have to use unknown controls to do it, to meet
    those standards.
        The marginal costs of ratcheting down the existing standard
    go through the roof, and the EPA estimates that a 65-to-70-
    parts-per-billion standard would cost $3.9 to $15 billion
    annually and that at 60 ppb would cost $39 billion annually.
        Independent estimates are much higher, including a National
    Association of Manufacturers study that puts the cost of a 65-
    parts-per-billion standard at $140 billion a year, which would
    make this the Agency's most expensive regulation ever.
        This study also estimates 1.4 million fewer jobs and the
    household cost averaging $830 per year. These costs come on top
    of all of the other rules we have seen from this
    administration, many of which also impact the energy and
    manufacturing sectors.
        Moreover, this rule is yet another chapter in the
    administration's effort to force more extreme climate policies
    on the American people. I would like to just name a few of
    them. We have done the Utility MACT, the Boiler MACT, the
    Cement MACT, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, the PM, the
    111(d), the 111(b), the Tier 3, all on top of this proposed
    ozone rule.
        I would also like to point out that today in America there
    are 230 counties not in compliance with the 2008 standard. And
    I might also add that EPA is just now getting around to
    providing implementing guidance for the States for the 2008
    rule.
        Now, these counties not meeting the new standard would be
    designated as nonattainment. As I said, there are 230 counties
    today in nonattainment around the country.
        EPA estimates that fully 358 counties that currently have
    monitors would be in nonattainment if they go to 70 parts per
    billion and 558 counties would be in noncompliance at 65 parts
    per billion based on recent data. Now, this does not include
    counties nearby or without ozone monitors that may also be
    designated by EPA to be in nonattainment.
        Now, a nonattainment designation is like a self-imposed
    recession for some areas. In such counties, it becomes
    extremely difficult to obtain a new permit to build a factory,
    to expand a factory or a power plant, and even permits for
    existing facilities would be impacted.
        Just last week, in a survey of manufacturers, over half of
    them, in fact, 53 percent, said they were not likely to
    continue with a new plant or expansion if it is located in a
    nonattainment area.
        The same permitting challenges apply for roads and other
    large infrastructure projects. In effect, almost all new major
    job-creating economic activity is jeopardized until the
    nonattainment area meets the standard, which could take years,
    if not decades.
        Even the mere possibility that a location could later be
    designated to be in nonattainment is enough to scare off
    prospective employers. So the proposed rule may already be
    doing damage.
        Now, there is something wrong with our system when you have
    Los Angeles, San Joaquin Valley, major parts of California,
    that have the most stringent environment standards in the
    country and, on top of that, EPA and those areas--San Joaquin
    Valley, Los Angeles--may never be in compliance. And they are
    certainly not in compliance today and have been out of
    compliance since the beginning of the Clean Air Act. So we have
    a system that is not working very well.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:]

                    Prepared statement of Hon. Ed Whitfield

        This morning we will begin our examination of EPA's
    proposed new National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
    ozone. We will start with a focus on the agency's perspective,
    and I welcome Acting Assistant Administrator McCabe. Next
    Tuesday we will explore other perspectives on this proposed
    rule, including those of the job-creating businesses on which
    the compliance burdens would fall.
        Before we get into the proposed new rule, I want to touch
    on a few historical points I think are relevant to the
    conversation. The regulation of criteria pollutants, including
    ozone, is a core component of the Clean Air Act. The agency
    adopted ozone standards in 1971, 1979, and 1997. These
    regulations have resulted in major reductions, and ozone levels
    have declined by more than 30 percent since 1980.
        In 2008, the Bush EPA finalized an even stricter ozone
    standard, the agency's fourth. However, the Obama EPA itself
    has significantly delayed implementation of this rule. In fact,
    the agency delayed issuing the implementing regulations until
    last March. As a result of this late start, state and local
    governments are only in the very preliminary stages of
    compliance, which will take many more years.
        In my view, the ozone problem in America is well on its way
    towards resolution, and to the extent that EPA identifies
    public health concerns they are largely in areas out of
    compliance with the existing standard. However, rather than
    focus on implementing the requirements already on the books,
    the agency seems intent on setting a new rule that would bind
    future administrations.
        The proposed rule would lower the standard from the current
    75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 65 or 70 ppb, but the agency
    also took comment on 60 ppb. These proposed levels are so low
    that in some parts of the country they are at or near
    background levels. The proposed levels are so low that even EPA
    admits that it is not fully known how to achieve compliance.
        The marginal costs of ratcheting down the existing standard
    go through the roof. EPA estimates that a 65 to 70 ppb standard
    would cost $3.9 to $15 billion annually, and that a 60 ppb
    standard would cost $39 billion annually. Independent estimates
    are much higher, including a National Association of
    Manufacturers' (NAM) study that puts the cost of a 65 ppb
    standard at $140 billion per year, which would make it the
    agency's most expensive regulation ever. This study also
    estimates 1.4 million fewer jobs and household costs averaging
    $830 per year.
        These costs come on top of all the other rules we have seen
    from the Obama EPA, many of which also impact the energy and
    manufacturing sectors. Moreover, this rule is yet another
    chapter in the Administration's effort to force more extreme
    climate policies on the American people. Those counties not
    meeting the new standard would be designated as nonattainment.
    EPA estimates that fully 358 counties that currently have
    monitors would be in non-attainment at 70 ppb, and 558 counties
    at 65 ppb based on recent data. This does not include counties
    nearby or without ozone monitors that may also be designated by
    EPA to be in nonattainment.
        A nonattainment designation is like a self-imposed
    recession. In such counties it becomes extremely difficult to
    obtain a new permit, build a factory or power plant, and even
    permits for expansions at existing facilities are impacted.
    Just this week, in a survey of manufacturers, over half said
    they were not likely to continue with a new plant or expansion
    if it was located in a nonattainment area.
        The same permitting challenges apply for roads and other
    large infrastructure projects. In effect, almost all new major
    job-creating economic activity is jeopardized until the
    nonattainment area meets the standard, which could take years
    if not decades. Even the mere possibility that a location could
    later be designated to be in nonattainment is enough to scare
    off prospective employers, so the proposed rule may already be
    doing damage.
        To me, this proposed ozone rule is Exhibit A of
    skyrocketing marginal costs and diminishing marginal returns.
    Implementation of the current standard has essentially not yet
    begun. At a minimum, EPA should focus on implementing the ozone
    rule already on the books before imposing a new one.

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

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

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, for holding
    this hearing on EPA's proposed ozone standard.
        I also want to welcome EPA Acting Assistant Administrator
    Janet McCabe and thank her for testifying before the
    subcommittee again.
        Since 1970, the cornerstone of the Clean Air Act has been a
    set of health-based air quality standards which help to ensure
    that all Americans can breathe healthy air. EPA must set each
    air quality standard based on science and medical evidence
    alone.
        Essentially, the standard sets the level of pollution that
    is safe to breathe. This structure has been extraordinarily
    effective in cleaning the air and protecting public health,
    including the health of children and seniors.
        But the current 75-parts-per-billion ozone standard has
    fallen short. Since 2008, the ozone standard has been weaker
    than the facts would allow.
        As such, the Independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory
    Committee made crystal-clear that, in order to adequately
    protect public health, EPA must strengthen the ozone standard
    to ensure an adequate margin of safety for all individuals. But
    these recommendations, unfortunately, were ignored by the Bush
    administration.
        To correct this flagrant disregard for the facts, EPA has
    now proposed, based on yet another exhaustive review of the
    scientific evidence, to revise the standard to fall within the
    range of 65 to 70 parts per billion, as recommended by the
    Scientific Advisory Committee.
        EPA's decision is fully consistent with the law and the
    scientific evidence, and there are a litany of adverse health
    impacts that will be avoided with the stronger standard, nearly
    a million asthma attacks in children, millions of missed school
    days, and thousands of premature deaths.
        These are meaningful real-world benefits, but I have little
    doubt that today we will hear much about cost. Yet, a unanimous
    United States Supreme Court opinion written by Justice Scalia,
    no less, made it clear that EPA's approach for determining a
    safe level of air pollution is correct and costs may not be
    considered.
        And that is why Congress designed the Clean Air Act. The
    standard is set based on the health science, and economic costs
    are only considered later when determining the best way to
    implement the standard. In other words, EPA sets the goal for
    clean air and the States develop the lowest cost way to meet
    it.
        Although EPA may not consider costs in setting the
    standard, EPA has, nevertheless, worked with the Office of
    Management and Budget to prepare a careful analysis of the
    projected costs and benefits associated with reducing ozone.
    EPA estimates that the benefits associated with the new ozone
    standards would range from $13 to $38 billion annually,
    outweighing the cost by approximately three to one.
        Industry has prepared dubious and grossly inflated
    estimates of the projected costs, but they fail to consider any
    of the benefits. That paints a completely one-sided picture of
    the costs of cleaning our air, one that ignores the real costs
    that are borne by those who breathe, especially children whose
    lungs are developing and who breathe greater volumes of air for
    their size.
        We will also hear that EPA's proposed ozone standard will
    have dire consequences for economic growth. And these doomsday
    claims about the costs of clean air are nothing new.
        The history of the Clean Air Act has a history of
    exaggerated claims by industry that have never come true. The
    reality is that, over the past 40 years, the Clean Air Act has
    produced tremendous public health benefits while supporting
    America's economic growth.
        EPA's ozone standard is long overdue. We need to let EPA do
    its job to reach the goal of the Clean Air Act, clean air for
    all Americans. And I look forward to Ms. McCabe's testimony.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
    Olson, for 5 minutes.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE OLSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Mr. Olson. I thank the chair. And I will be very brief.
        I spent long hours going over comments that EPA received
    about this new ozone rule. And there was a common theme: ``Will
    I lose my job?'' Questions came from big cities, members of the
    Atlanta Chamber or the Greater Houston Partnership. They came
    from family farms and ranches, members of the Iowa Farm Bureau
    or the Nebraska home builders.
        A mom-and-pop store in Pennsylvania wrote EPA: ``Parents
    tell our children, `Eat your peas, then you can have dessert.'
    EPA says, `Eat your peas, then you can have more peas.'''
        The worst came from EPA's workhorses, the state agencies
    who make this rule work. They have questions about the science
    used for the health impacts. They worry if they can build new
    roads. These voices come from all of America, and I hope EPA
    starts listening.
        And if one of my colleagues on my side wants some time, I
    will yield. If not, I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
    Rush, for 5 minutes.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this
    hearing today on the EPA's proposed ozone rule.
        And I also want to welcome back Ms. McCabe, the Acting
    Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation at EPA. She has
    always given us her best, and I always am pleasured to hear her
    insightful and forthright testimony before this subcommittee.
        Mr. Chairman, today, as has been duly noted, we are here to
    discuss the proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
    ozone, which the EPA is legally mandated to put forth by the
    Clean Air Act.
        The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set primary National
    Ambient Air Quality Standards at concentration levels
    sufficient to protect the public health with an adequate margin
    of safety for certain pollutants that endanger public health
    and the environment.
        We know that the EPA establishes these standards based on
    medical and scientific evidence as well as the recommendations
    provided by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which,
    Mr. Chairman, you know is an independent scientific review
    committee.
        The EPA is required to base these standards, which must be
    reviewed every 5 years, solely on consideration of public
    health, and they must accurately reflect the latest scientific
    knowledge, Mr. Chairman.
        We know that, in 2008, the Bush administration failed to
    heed the unanimous recommendations of the Clean Air Scientific
    Advisory Committee, ignoring the ozone air quality standards to
    between 60 and 70 points per million.
        Instead, the EPA under President Bush set the standard at
    75 ppb, despite the advice of the Scientific Advisory Committee
    that a 60-to-70-ppb standard would be more protective of public
    health.
        The Obama administration also initially failed to
    reconsider the ozone standard in 2009 until being ordered to do
    so by the courts in April of last year due to a lawsuit brought
    forth by environmental and public health groups.
        So that leads us to ask the questions, Mr. Chairman: Why is
    this rule so very important? And why did the court force the
    EPA to act?
        Well, we know that there are serious health effects caused
    by the ozone, and the EPA's proposal will improve air quality
    and result in significant public health benefits. Children, the
    elderly, and people with respiratory diseases such as asthma
    will be impacted directly by this rule.
        The EPA estimates that there are currently 25.9 million
    people in the U.S. with asthma, including 7.1 million children.
    And, Mr. Chairman, my city of Chicago has been and is
    disproportionately impacted by asthma and the effect that ozone
    has on asthma. The most recent study shows that Cook County,
    Illinois, is home to over 113,000 children and over 340,000
    adults with asthma.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I don't know what value can be placed on
    preventing all of these dire circumstances, all these
    illnesses, all these premature deaths and emergency room
    visits, but I know that the people who sent me here to
    represent them are some of the ones who would be impacted by
    this procedure and by this action most of all.
        So I look forward to engaging Ms. McCabe on the rationale
    behind this proposal. And, Mr. Chairman, I think I am out of
    time. So I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
    time.
        At this time, Ms. McCabe, I want to thank you for coming
    here early this morning, at 9:30 a.m. And, once again, we
    apologize for the delay. But we are delighted that Janet McCabe
    is with us, the Acting Assistant Administrator at EPA.
        And you are recognized for 5 minutes for your statement on
    the ozone rule.

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

        Ms. McCabe. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member
    Rush, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today on EPA's proposed updates to the
    ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. I will try to be
    brief so we can get to your questions.
        The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review the National
    Ambient Air Quality Standards every 5 years to make sure that
    they continue to protect public health with an adequate margin
    of safety. For at-risk groups, including, as Ranking Member
    Rush has noted, the estimated 25.9 million people who have
    asthma in the United States, of whom 7.1 million are children,
    this is critical work.
        For this review, EPA examined the thousands of scientific
    studies, including more than 1,000 new studies published since
    EPA last revised the standards in 2008. Based on the law, a
    thorough review of all of that science, the recommendation of
    the Agency's independent scientific advisors and the assessment
    of EPA scientists and technical experts, the Administrator's
    judgment was that the current standard of 75 parts per billion
    is not adequate to protect the public health. So she proposed
    to strengthen those standards to within a range of 65 to 70
    parts per billion to better protect Americans' health and
    welfare.
        The Agency invited comments on all aspects of the proposal,
    including alternative levels as low as 60 parts per billion,
    and also acknowledged interest among some stakeholders in
    offering comment on retaining the existing standard.
        We also propose to update the Air Quality Index for ozone
    to reflect a revised standard if one is finalized. The AQI is
    the tool that gives Americans realtime information about air
    quality each day so they can make informed choices to protect
    themselves and their families.
        Ozone seasons are lasting longer than they used to. So EPA
    proposed to lengthen the ozone monitoring season for 33 states
    to match the season when ozone levels can be elevated.
        To protect the environment from damaging levels of ground-
    level ozone, as required by the Clean Air Act, the EPA has also
    proposed to revise the secondary standard.
        Based upon new studies that add to the evidence that
    repeated exposure to ozone reduces growth and has other harmful
    effects on plants and trees, the Administrator judged that a
    secondary standard within the range of 65 to 75 parts per
    billion, the same as the primary standard proposal, would
    protect the public welfare, particularly against harm to trees,
    plants, and ecosystems.
        In addition, we have proposed to make updates to monitoring
    and permitting requirements, smooth the transition to any
    revised standards, maximize effectiveness in the State, local,
    tribal and Federal monitoring programs, and give areas new
    flexibilities to meet local needs for monitoring ozone
    precursors. All of these updates are designed to ensure that
    Americans are alerted when ozone approaches levels that may be
    unhealthy, especially for sensitive people.
        The Administrator's proposal to strengthen the standards is
    designed to better protect children and families from the
    health effects of ozone pollution. For example, we estimate
    that meeting a level in the range of 65 to 70 parts per billion
    would prevent an estimated 330,000 to 1 million missed school
    days, 320,000 to 960,000 asthma attacks in children, and 710 to
    4,300 or more premature deaths per year.
        Implementing a NAAQS has always been and will continue to
    be a Federal, state, and tribal partnership. EPA stands ready
    to do our part to assist states and tribes with pollution
    control programs and to streamline implementation.
        Local communities, states, tribes, and EPA have already
    shown that we can reduce ground-level ozone while our economy
    continues to thrive. We have reduced air pollution in this
    country by nearly 70 percent, and our economy has tripled since
    1970. We fully expect this progress to continue.
        Existing and proposed Federal measures like vehicle
    standards, power plant rules, are leading to substantial
    reductions in ozone nationwide, which will help improve air
    quality and help many areas meet any revised standards.
        We received over 430,000 comments during the 90-day public
    comment period, and we are reviewing those comments as we work
    towards completing the final standards by October 1 of this
    year.
        Thank you very much. And I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. McCabe follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Ms. McCabe, very much.
        And I recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions.
        Many of us believe that the Clean Air Act needs to be
    changed. I say that because, just as Mr. Rush mentioned, you
    mentioned, EPA looks at impact on health care by making it more
    stringent, these ozone rules, for example, and you eliminate so
    many cases of asthma, so many premature deaths, whatever,
    whatever, which is important.
        But under the act you do not have any responsibility to
    look at those pockets of the country that are in noncompliance
    and the impact that these stringent controls have on jobs. And
    we have had economist after economist come in here and talk
    about loss of jobs and the impact that that has on health care
    for children, for infants.
        And, yet, EPA, every time they come up here, it is all
    about the benefits, the benefits, the benefits. And there are
    detriments to these actions because, as you know, when an area
    is in noncompliance, they can't build a new plant unless they
    can get a permit. They can't built infrastructure projects. And
    it does have an effect on jobs.
        Now, fortunately, areas like Los Angeles that have never
    been in compliance, you know, they rely on the entertainment
    industry and high tech and so forth. So they don't have to
    worry about manufacturing jobs or basic industry jobs.
        But how do you account for the fact, for example, that Los
    Angeles is still in noncompliance and your own rule states
    that, some of these areas, the only way they will ever be in
    compliance under even the 2008 rule is they have to use unknown
    controls, controls that we don't know what it is.
        And you do understand--I mean, your own testimony, your own
    documentation, shows that many parts of the country are going
    to be in noncompliance, whether it is 70 ppb or 65 ppb. And
    even President Obama tried to prevent the implementation. He
    delayed implementation of the most recent review.
        And now, of course, environmentalist groups who do a good
    job, they have a role to play, but they are driving EPA because
    they are always going in to court. And under the strict
    construction of the language, sometimes which is quite
    nebulous, the courts say, ``You cannot delay.''
        So many of us are really frustrated that these
    environmental groups are driving the decisions because of the
    strict language in the original Clean Air Act. So I hope you
    get a sense of the frustration of many parts of the country.
        In Kentucky, we are going to have 11 more counties in
    noncompliance at 70 ppb. We are going to have 23 more at 65
    ppb. And every major city in Kentucky will be in noncompliance
    at some of these levels.
        So are you concerned that, after all this time, areas like
    Los Angeles and San Joaquin still can't even meet the old
    standards?
        Ms. McCabe. Chairman Whitfield, there is a lot in your
    question there, and I will try to address as much of it as I
    can.
        There are certainly parts of the country where meeting the
    health standard has been extremely challenging due to a variety
    of factors, including particular challenges in southern
    California. What that means is that millions of people who live
    in those areas are exposed to unhealthy air.
        The good news is that air quality has improved in southern
    California as well as all across the country----
        Mr. Whitfield. But they are still in noncompliance.
        Ms. McCabe. They do not meet the standard, but there are
    way fewer days and the levels are lower and the area is making
    progress in a way that still supports a vital local economic
    and----
        Mr. Whitfield. How much time does Los Angeles have to
    comply? I don't know if they are severe or extreme. But how
    many years do they have to comply?
        Ms. McCabe. Los Angeles is in the extreme category. And if
    the standard is revised this fall, they would have until 2037
    to meet that standard.
        What that means is the area has a lot of time to bring
    reductions into place and----
        Mr. Whitfield. But they have been working on it for 15 or
    18 years. They are not even in compliance today.
        Ms. McCabe. That is right. The air is still not healthy
    there for the citizens to breathe.
        Mr. Whitfield. Well, I see my time has expired. But many of
    us feel very strongly you should just continue to implement
    this existing rule for a while and give the country time to
    catch up, since even your implementing guidance has not been
    issued until just recently.
        I recognize the gentleman from Illinois for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Assistant Administrator McCabe, in your written testimony,
    you note that nationally, since 1980, average ozone levels have
    fallen by a third. Additionally, 90 percent of the areas
    originally identified as not meeting the ozone standards set in
    1997 now meet those standards, 97 percent.
        What would you say to the argument that we have already
    reduced our average ozone levels enough and further lowering
    the standards from 75 to 70 or even 65 would not give us the
    additional health benefits as opposed to the cost of trying to
    reach those higher standards?
        Ms. McCabe. Yes. Well, Congress in the Clean Air Act
    directed EPA every 5 years to look at the science and make a
    determination about whether the current level is adequate to
    protect the public health.
        And based on all of that review in a very open process with
    external peer review all along the way, the Administrator made
    the determination that 75 parts per billion is not sufficiently
    protective.
        That is based on all of this science that we have seen that
    shows that people suffer the effects of ozone air pollution at
    levels below 75 parts per billion. That is her job to do under
    the Clean Air Act, and that is what our proposal is all about.
        Mr. Rush. Well, you also point out that, since 1980, we
    have reduced our air pollution by nearly 70 percent and our
    economy has tripled. And we know that, by law, EPA cannot
    consider the cost of implementing either the primary or
    secondary air quality standards, but only can consider the
    health benefits.
        Has there been any cost-benefit analysis by the EPA or any
    other agency either before, during, or after the proposal?
        Ms. McCabe. Ranking Member Rush, you are correct to point
    out that there is a separation that Congress laid out in the
    Clean Air Act between deciding what the science says is
    important for safe and healthy air and deciding how to meet
    that standard, which the states are in charge of because it is
    their air quality, their sources, with considerable help from
    the Federal Government.
        So we don't know exactly how the states will go about
    meeting the standard because we know that they will--as they
    have over the years, they will find cost-effective ways to do
    that with the help of rules provided by the Federal Government.
        But we do provide, as part of the rulemaking process, a
    regulatory impact analysis, an RIA, to show illustrative costs.
    And that goes through the review of the Office of Management
    and Budget and is done consistently with the obligations and
    the requirements that they put on us to do those sorts of
    economic reviews.
        Mr. Rush. Ms. McCabe, the chairman talked about Los Angeles
    and other places. What is your viewpoint? Why do they stand
    out? And what direction is the EPA going to try to bring them
    more into compliance?
        Ms. McCabe. There are a lot of pretty unique features that
    make southern California very challenging for air quality.
        It is obviously a very populated area. So there is a lot of
    activity there that creates emissions. But there is also the
    unique geography and topography, of being the mountains and the
    ocean and the meteorology there, that just makes it very
    challenging.
        As a result, EPA, as well as really progressive and smart
    and innovative agencies and businesses in California, have
    really led the way in figuring out how to reduce emissions in
    cost-effective ways to protect the citizens and improve air
    quality there.
        And EPA, in fact, has provided significant support and
    assistance through grant programs, through technology
    assistance over the years, and certainly will continue to do
    that in order to bring the kinds of programs that need to be in
    place there.
        One of the advantages of that is that the innovations in
    California have helped the rest of the country in terms of
    bringing new ideas and new approaches into use in ways that can
    benefit the rest of the country and benefit the economy.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. At this time I recognize the gentleman from
    Texas, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Olson. I thank the chair.
        Welcome back, Ms. McCabe.
        We all know that much of the ozone in America is beyond our
    control. EPA calls this background ozone. Some of this ozone is
    natural, blows from other countries.
        I have a slide here. This was Houston. Some of that is not
    our ozone. Some belongs to Mexico. We get it because of annual
    crop burnings.
        I have another poster. Last time Ms. McCarthy was here I
    showed her this map of ozone pouring into America from China
    and Asia.
        In your proposal, you admit that natural ozone and ozone
    from Mexico and China can be a huge problem. Your rule says,
    ``There are times where ozone levels approach or exceed the
    concentration levels being proposed in large part due to
    background sources.''
        In small Needville, Texas, you are saying that ozone we
    can't control makes us violate your new rules. That seems very
    unfair, ma'am.
        My first question is: Is it true that nearly one-half of
    the ozone in America is here naturally or comes from overseas?
        Ms. McCabe. I don't know that I would agree with that
    formulation exactly. We do address the background issue, and
    background levels vary across the country and they vary across
    different times of year. And, as you note, they come from a
    variety of sources.
        I will note that the Clean Air Act does not hold States
    responsible for pollution that they do not control, and there
    are provisions and mechanisms in the Clean Air Act to help
    States that----
        Mr. Olson. Ma'am, I am sorry. I have only have 5 minutes
    and thousands of questions back home people have asked. So I
    have got to cut you off. I apologize.
        And, also, your answer goes against your own data. I will
    give you copies of the EPA's data that says foreign ozone is
    all over this country.
        We know that natural and foreign ozone are not going away
    and are likely to get much, much bigger. That means we must
    squeeze more and squeeze more from smaller and smaller sources
    of ozone. EPA can't say how this can be achieved. You don't
    know.
        Is it true the EPA says that much of the technology needed
    to meet these new rules are unknown today? Is that true? Yes or
    no.
        Ms. McCabe. I wouldn't characterize it as much of the
    technology. We do recognize that, in some parts of the country,
    there may need to be controls identified that are not in
    existence today.
        But there are many controls that are in existence today
    that can be implemented that will reduce the air pollution that
    causes ozone.
        Mr. Olson. Ma'am, one example: EPA admits that 43 percent
    of NOx controls needed in the northeast are now unknown. Stark
    contrast to your answer.
        One other question: Is it true that EPA won't even consider
    whether an ozone rule is achievable? Is that true? In your
    formulation, will you consider is this achievable? Can we do
    this with technology?
        Ms. McCabe. Our job under the Clean Air Act is to identify
    the standard that is necessary to protect the public health.
    That is what this rule is about, is letting the American people
    know what is safe and healthy air for them to breathe.
        Mr. Olson. So you can't take into account achieve-ability.
    You just can't do that.
        By law, is that what you are saying, ma'am?
        Ms. McCabe. The Supreme Court has spoken to this, and this
    is about the science and about what is healthy for the American
    people.
        Mr. Olson. Well, it sounds like we need to change that law.
        One final question, ma'am. The law does not require, as you
    know, EPA to change the ozone rule every 5 years. You just have
    to review it, as you said in your opening comments.
        You say you have to change the current rule because the
    2008 rule doesn't protect human health, and, yet, back home the
    Texas Commission on Environmental Quality points out that your
    own modeling in your ``Health and Risk Exposure Assessment,
    appendix 7, page 73-2'' would result in more deaths in Houston,
    Texas, with a lower standard.
        TCEQ concludes that our EPA can't read their own data or
    you are accepting a lower ozone standard that makes health
    worse.
        Any comments about that fact, ma'am?
        Ms. McCabe. I would very much disagree with the way TCEQ
    characterized the data. And if you look at the entire body of
    data, you will see that the health benefits of the proposed
    ozone standard are substantial.
        We welcome everybody's comments on the rule, and TCEQ has
    provided a lot of analysis which we are looking very closely
    at.
        Mr. Olson. I will make you a deal. Get a copy of our
    assessment. Have it to you today, ma'am. Thank you very much.
        Yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. Time has expired.
        At this time I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
    McNerney, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Ms. McCabe.
        Early in your testimony and, also, in response to Mr.
    Rush's question, you said that you looked at thousands of
    reports, a thousand more recent reports, and it concluded that,
    to protect the health and safety of the communities, 75 was a
    little too high.
        Now, are we splitting hairs here or are we talking about
    large-scale effects?
        Ms. McCabe. We are talking about millions of people that
    are suffering the effects of ozone pollution that at a lower
    level would not suffer those effects.
        Mr. McNerney. So one of the EPA's primary missions is to
    protect the health of this country and our communities.
        Wasn't there a rule recently that ensured that the EPA must
    look at health and safety of the community first before looking
    at economic impacts?
        Ms. McCabe. That is exactly what courts have said with
    regard to setting these air quality standards. Yes.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
        The chairman mentioned San Joaquin Valley, which is my
    home.
        So I appreciate your attention, Mr. Chairman.
        But I have seen over the last several years improvement
    year by year in the air quality in our community, and I think a
    lot of this is due to the kind of standards that the EPA has
    initiated.
        And one of the things that we do is incentivize some of the
    old diesel equipment to be replaced by new diesel equipment,
    but that takes time.
        That is not something we can require all the farmers or
    diesel truck owners to do over a period of a year or two. It
    takes time. So I appreciate that we are going to continue to
    look at those and keep those standards in place.
        And I just want to say the Bay Area contributes a lot of
    the ozone to the San Joaquin Valley. Sort of like what Mr.
    Olson was saying, we get a lot of it from outside of our
    region.
        So we ask you to take special consideration to that in
    helping us make those attainments and then the sort of
    penalties that are assessed when you don't make those
    attainments. And I appreciate Mr. Olson's comments on that.
        What is the EPA going to do or how is the EPA going to
    assess drought impacts on air pollution and ozone?
        Ms. McCabe. Yes. So we know that the drought situation is
    incredibly severe and challenging and troubling in California
    and elsewhere. That can contribute to poor air quality because
    of increased dust. But we also have tools in the Clean Air Act
    that can allow States to evaluate their air quality as it is
    being influenced by natural conditions such as that.
        And we are working closely with the States to make sure
    that our guidance and expectations are current with situations
    like drought and wildfires, which are also a challenge, to make
    sure that States aren't responsible for natural conditions and
    that sort of thing that can create ozone situations.
        Mr. McNerney. Would you confirm my observation that the air
    quality is improving in the San Joaquin Valley?
        Ms. McCabe. Yes, sir. Yes. I certainly would.
        Mr. McNerney. Do you have something you could say here
    about that?
        Ms. McCabe. Well, I don't have figures with me,
    Congressman, although I would be happy to get those to you. But
    certainly over recent years air quality has been improving, and
    it is due to the kinds of programs that you mentioned:
    replacing older, dirtier engines with cleaner, newer ones and
    working very closely with the agricultural community and
    everybody in the San Joaquin Valley to find sensible things to
    do.
        Mr. McNerney. So nonattainment doesn't penalize us in the
    sense of backtracking the actual air quality in the region?
        Ms. McCabe. No. No. Not at all. It is all moving in the
    right direction.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
        Could you explain the difference between secondary
    standards and primary standards.
        Ms. McCabe. Yes. Primary standards are focused on
    protecting human health. Secondary standards are focused, as
    the Clean Air Act says, in protecting public welfare.
        So those are other things that we care about, as people who
    live in this country: economic impacts, effects on ecosystems,
    effects on crops, effects on buildings, the other things that
    make our economy and our quality of life what it is.
        Mr. McNerney. OK. So then you said you are going to set the
    primary and secondary standards the same with regard to ozone.
        Ms. McCabe. Well, it turns out we do an independent
    analysis of the information that exists on human health and
    then on these secondary impacts and there is an extensive
    discussion of that in the preamble in the proposal.
        And our Clean Air Act Science Advisory Committee spoke to
    that directly. Our review of the science shows that a standard
    set in the range of 65 to 70 will provide the protection that
    the science tells us the welfare impacts require.
        Mr. McNerney. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Whitfield. At this time I recognize the gentleman from
    Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Assistant Administrator, welcome. It is good to have
    you back.
        Just personally, just you as an individual, don't you
    believe that having a good-paying job with health benefits is
    also protective of human health?
        Ms. McCabe. I think it is important for everybody to have a
    job and----
        Mr. Shimkus. And healthcare benefits of some sort.
        Ms. McCabe. Yes, I do. Of course I do.
        Mr. Shimkus. And that is part of our--I mean, when you hear
    the questions and the responses back and forth, that is kind of
    our--part of our challenge is--especially as I follow up on
    this question, is that you all, as an EPA, don't really have
    the authority to evaluate that with respect to your primary
    mission, which is protective of human health via the air
    regulations. Right?
        I mean, you just can't weigh in. You are not making those
    cost-benefit analyses. We say we are to some extent, but they
    are so far down the decision tree that many of us believe that
    they just don't happen.
        So let me go to another question based upon a comment you
    made. Because a lot of this is--75 parts per billion in 2008,
    many states have not met those yet, but now we are ratcheting
    down even more and there is a lot of uncertainty. Now that will
    move on to my third question once I get there.
        But in your response you talked about background is
    different in different areas. So are you considering a
    different regulation standard based upon the variance of
    background? So could one area of the country have a 70 parts
    per billion and another one have a 65 parts per billion? And
    if----
        Ms. McCabe. Well----
        Mr. Shimkus. Yes. Answer the question. I can follow up.
        Ms. McCabe. Yes. Sure.
        Well, the standard is supposed to reflect what is safe for
    people to breathe. And so a child living in Florida and a child
    living in Oregon should be entitled to the----
        Mr. Shimkus. But background is background. Background is
    there without, in essence, human contact.
        Ms. McCabe. That is right. And that comes into play when
    states are putting their plans together and EPA is working with
    states to figure out how much time and what needs to be done in
    order to reach those standards so that areas that have more----
        Mr. Shimkus. But if an area has 70-parts-per-billion
    background, you can't get them to 65----
        Ms. McCabe. But----
        Mr. Shimkus [continuing]. Through the power of government.
        Ms. McCabe. But there are two very important elements to
    the standard. One is for the people who live in that area to
    know whether the air that they are breathing is healthy or not.
        Mr. Shimkus. So they should move. Is that the answer? Get
    out of that 70-parts-per-billion area because it is not
    healthy.
        Ms. McCabe. No. But they should know that, when the air
    quality is bad, that they might want to----
        Mr. Shimkus. What should they do? It is naturally
    occurring. That is the background.
        Ms. McCabe. Right. But understand, too, that ozone changes
    from day to day and there are----
        Mr. Shimkus. So they should take a vacation during those
    days. You see our problem. I think--in rolling this out, I
    would hope that--background is important. Background should be
    a standard. We should not try to have government force
    something that is not naturally occurring based upon nature
    without man's intervention.
        Ms. McCabe. If I could clarify a point on the background
    because I think people may be thinking that this is pervasive,
    in fact, across the country, most of the ozone that is
    contributing to high values is locally or regionally created.
        There are very few areas, very few parts of this country,
    where background can get as high as approaching the level----
        Mr. Shimkus. OK. But you understand our concern, even if it
    is very low possibility. If--anyway, I want to move on to the
    last question.
        We just finished our congressional baseball game last
    night. We lost again. But it makes me think about what Chairman
    Whitfield was addressing. Had we started the game and then
    halfway through the game the strike zone changed or in the
    second inning the number of outs changed or the fourth inning
    the foul lines changed or the outfield walls got moved in, that
    would make for a very frustrating, impossible game. Don't you
    agree?
        Ms. McCabe. But this is about--ozone is not about rules. It
    is about science.
        Mr. Shimkus. This is about Utility MACT, Boiler MACT,
    Cement Rule, Cross-State Air Pollution, 111(d), 111(b), ozone,
    different standards, particulate matter, Tier 3.
        We are changing the rules on the fly, and the people who
    are creating jobs in this country cannot manage it. That is our
    problem with what is going on with the EPA.
        And I yield back my time.
        Mr. Whitfield. At this time I recognize the gentlelady from
    California, Mrs. Capps, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing.
        Thank you, Ms. McCabe, for your testimony.
        And maybe it is a bias because I have been a public health
    nurse a long time, but when it comes to air quality, I believe
    our focus must be primarily on protecting public health.
        This is the standard set by Congress in the Clean Air Act.
    It is a standard that has been upheld by the Supreme Court and
    for good reason. Clean air has very real and significant
    impacts on the health and well-being of all Americans.
        And this was underscored by our Ranking Member Bobby Rush
    from Chicago, where they know a thing or two about air
    pollution, too. Healthier children, parents, and employees
    translate into very real economic benefits.
        I would say to my colleague Mr. Shimkus, who made a case in
    the other direction, that good jobs with health benefits, which
    he was arguing for, are even better in the context of clean
    air. And even polluters benefit from healthier employees taking
    fewer sick days.
        So my question is just asking you to elaborate on this
    fact. What is the economic value?
        Ms. McCabe. Yes. It is absolutely true. And I think many
    agree that a clean and healthy environment is very positive for
    the economy as well as for public health.
        Our illustrative analysis shows that, at a standard of 60
    parts per billion, there would be benefits in the range of $6.4
    to $13 billion to the economy and, for 65 parts per billion,
    $19 to $38 billion.
        And that comes from some of the things that you have cited,
    which is fewer missed school days, less missed work, fewer
    visits to the emergency room and that sort of thing.
        Mrs. Capps. Right. Some oppose strengthening ozone
    standards--and we have heard it today--because it would
    increase the number of nonattainment areas.
        Ms. McCabe, does the Clean Air Act require EPA to set ozone
    standards based on how many areas currently meet that standard
    or based on protecting public health?
        Ms. McCabe. It is based on protecting public health.
        Mrs. Capps. And for those areas that need to make
    improvements--and many of these are in my home State of
    California--what resources are available to help lower the
    ozone layers?
        I think the word ``smog'' was invented in the Los Angeles
    area. I live just a tiny bit to the north of it, but we still
    struggle every day.
        Are these areas on their own or does the Federal Government
    provide assistance?
        Ms. McCabe. Absolutely. This is a partnership between the
    Federal Government and the State governments. The Federal
    Government assists in a number of ways.
        One is by promulgating national rules like Tier 3 to apply
    to automobiles nationwide, bring tremendous benefits, and other
    rules that make sense to do at a national level.
        We also help the States by providing financial assistance
    and support, technical assistance and grants. And your area has
    certainly benefited from those sorts of programs that can be
    very targeted to the specific needs of a particular area.
        Mrs. Capps. Thank you.
        And, as you know well--and I would like to turn to the
    topic of climate change just briefly--this is increasingly
    impacting all aspects of our economy and our daily lives.
    Storms are getting stronger. Floods are getting worse.
    Droughts, as I know very well in California now, and wildfires
    are getting more severe. And climate change also increases the
    levels of ozone in the air we breathe.
        Would you explain just very simply how climate change is
    expected to impact ozone levels. And how will this affect our
    human health?
        Ms. McCabe. Sure. As the climate gets warmer--warm
    conditions are what is conducive to ozone formation. So it can
    lead to increased ozone formation. And, circularly, ozone is
    also a climate pollutant. So it helps contribute to the kinds
    of effects that we are seeing.
        Mrs. Capps. And then, just briefly, finally, I hear so
    often the industry as well as some here in Congress cite high
    cost estimates as the reason to oppose strengthening
    environmental public health standards. It is the same argument
    being used against the proposed ozone standards.
        While I believe cost of new regulations should certainly be
    considered and there is a way that you are talking about doing
    that, these costs must also be weighed against the benefits. It
    is important to remember that health benefits represent real
    people and real lives saved.
        So how do the estimated health benefits of EPA's proposed
    ozone standards compare to the costs? In other words, what is
    that balance----
        Ms. McCabe. Yes. As we laid out in our illustrative case,
    the benefits outweigh the costs by $3 to every $1 that is
    spent.
        Mrs. Capps. And this is based on studies that actually do
    demonstrate this?
        Ms. McCabe. It is based on all the information that is
    available to us about the things that people are likely to do
    and the cost benefits associated with the health benefits.
        Mrs. Capps. Thank you very much.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. At this time I recognize the gentleman from
    Mississippi, Mr. Harper, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for being here today. Seems like you do hang out
    here quite a bit. So it is good to have you back.
        Ms. McCabe. I do. I am happy to.
        Mr. Harper. Well, look, just a quick question.
        If we were able to somehow eliminate all ground-level
    ozone, there would still be people that would have respiratory
    illnesses. You would agree with that, wouldn't you?
        Ms. McCabe. Sure. Thereare lots of things that contribute
    to respiratory illness.
        Mr. Harper. Sure. And as we learn how to measure more
    minute levels of any type of item, that is something that I
    know we have to look at.
        But I am really concerned, as we look at this, if we revise
    the current ozone standards, how that is going to affect
    transportation conformity requirements.
        And so if you could just briefly say what is transportation
    conformity, what does that mean?
        Ms. McCabe. Transportation conformity is a provision in the
    act that wants to make sure that as States and municipalities
    are working to improve their air quality, that transportation
    planning is taken into account and that transportation planning
    takes air quality into account so that areas won't undermine
    their efforts to improve air quality inadvertently through
    transportation projects that could increase air pollution.
        Mr. Harper. So states and localities will have that
    responsibility.
        Ms. McCabe. They do have that now.
        Mr. Harper. Obviously.
        Ms. McCabe. And working with the Federal Government.
        Mr. Harper. And in order to make that demonstration----
        Ms. McCabe. Yes.
        Mr. Harper [continuing]. What kind of modeling tools will
    these cities need to use?
        Ms. McCabe. Well, there are tools that are in existence now
    and tools that EPA and Federal highway provide so that we work
    with the States on to analyze those impacts.
        Mr. Harper. Well, how----
        Ms. McCabe. We have been doing this for a long time.
        Mr. Harper. How reasonable or what type of situation is it
    for smaller cities? What about those that have that? Are you
    expecting the smaller cities to do the same analysis, and is
    that reasonable, and what are you anticipating?
        Ms. McCabe. We would certainly provide any assistance that
    we needed to for any community. This is a focus in larger
    communities, more populous communities, but we would provide
    whatever assistance was needed to help.
        Mr. Harper. So if the focus is for larger communities, are
    you planning on extending it to every community?
        Ms. McCabe. The Clean Air Act provides the areas that need
    to look at transportation conformity. So we would follow the
    guidance and the requirements in the act and the regulations.
        Mr. Harper. So if EPA allowed existing Federal measures to
    work, existing now, wouldn't many cities avoid having to do
    these time-consuming transportation conformity analyses?
        Ms. McCabe. Well, we actually are--RIA looks at the--what
    we expect to happen to air quality in the future, looking at
    the rules that are in place now and the ones that are under
    development now, and we show that the vast majority of the
    areas that right now would have levels exceeding these
    standards by 2025 will come into attainment of those standards
    through these measures.
        Mr. Harper. We have lots of important issues.
        And one of those issues is what to do about our highway,
    bridges, infrastructure, issues that we have in this country,
    and then many of those need to be repaired. We need new ones
    that need to be built. Stringent ozone standards, obviously,
    are going to make it harder for States to show that proposed
    highway projects conform with ozone standards.
        Has EPA considered the economic and safety impacts that
    could result if these more stringent ozone standards block
    crucial transportation projects?
        Ms. McCabe. I don't think that we anticipate or have
    historically seen that conformity blocks important
    transportation projects, especially ones that are needed for
    safety reasons.
        Mr. Harper. Well, you haven't seen that under the current,
    but if we have more stringent requirements and that causes
    additional cost, can you explain that?
        Ms. McCabe. I don't expect that the system would work
    differently in any areas. We don't expect a lot of new areas to
    be coming into nonattainment under these standards, so the
    areas are generally familiar with and already working with the
    transportation conformity system. But all of the provisions
    that are in there about making sure that important safety
    projects go forward and other important projects go forward,
    those will all continue to apply.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you. And I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome, Ms. McCabe. Has previously EPA ever delayed the
    NAAQS standard?
        Ms. McCabe. The NAAQS standard?
        Mr. Green. Yes.
        Ms. McCabe. There is the NO2 standard, maybe
    that is what you are referring to. EPA, in the past, has not
    always met its deadlines, I would say, on----
        Mr. Green. OK. Well, that is the other thing. If EPA hadn't
    delayed the standards when the law required EPA to review the
    ozone standard again, what would be the regular timeline? Would
    it be 2015?
        Ms. McCabe. The last time the ozone standard was revised
    was in 2008. Clean Air Act says every 5 years. So 2013 would
    have been 5 years.
        Mr. Green. OK. In your testimony, you stated EPA examined
    thousands of scientific studies, including more than 1,000 new
    studies published since EPA last revised the standard. The
    ozone NAAQS proposal, EPA acknowledged there is a brandnew
    scientific data the EPA couldn't consider. Also, EPA states
    there are significant uncertainties regarding some of the
    studies that EPA did include regarding lowering the standard.
        Most importantly, by 2017, the following standards will be
    in place that would significantly affect ozone and precursors.
    Ozone NAAQS at 75 parts per billion, Tier 3 vehicle emission
    standards, mercury and air toxic standards, from the Utility
    MACT, new source performance standards for volatile organic
    compounds, and particulate matter that NAAQS is important
    because EPA acknowledges reduction of particulate matter would
    account for two-thirds or three-fourths of those ozone NAAQS
    benefits.
        Why is lowering the standard not more appropriate after the
    75-parts-per-billion standard has time to take effect and EPA
    reviews all the new and related information and data, say,
    2017?
        Ms. McCabe. Well, because the Clean Air Act gives us a
    timetable of every 5 years, and we are late on that, and
    because this is about letting the American people know what is
    healthy air quality for them.
        Mr. Green. Well, in earlier NAAQS, the EPA stated in
    earlier decisions, based on the applicable statutory
    requirements and the volume of material requiring careful
    evaluation, the EPA estimates it will be take 2 to 3 years to
    incorporate over 1,000 new health studies and criteria
    documents. Given various legal constraints and the fact that
    EPA has already missed deadlines for completion of ozone review
    cycles, the Administrator concluded that the best course of
    action would be to complete the current review based on the
    existing air standard and proceed as rapidly as possible with
    the next review. Why would EPA not make a similar decision now
    since we are in 2015 now?
        Ms. McCabe. Because we are now in that regular review, we
    are past our statutory deadline, and in fact, we are subject to
    a court schedule to finalize this rule.
        Mr. Green. Well, my earlier question, there have been times
    that EPA has delayed it in the past. Is that true?
        Ms. McCabe. On our regularly required 5-year review----
        Mr. Green. Yes.
        Ms. McCabe [continuing]. There have been times when we have
    not met that deadline. I think you are referring to the ozone
    reconsideration, which was not a mandatory requirement under
    the Clean Air Act. But for our mandatory 5-year review cycle,
    we have not deliberately delayed. We have missed deadlines, and
    we are in that situation now.
        Mr. Green. I guess the concern I have, and you have heard
    it from other members, is that we haven't met the current
    standard, and yet we are getting ready to see some really
    things happen. And so to put a new standard on with all this is
    maybe starting too early before we see what the benefits are of
    the other things that the industries and everyone else is
    complying with.
        And, again, EPA has delayed it in the past. But, for a 2-
    year delay, while all these other things come into play, and we
    will have better data then to be able to look at it.
        Ms. McCabe. I will say, Congressman Green, that the effect
    of those various measures will affect air quality. And so if a
    standard is revised, and folks need to look at which areas do
    and don't meet the standard, all of those programs, like
    mercury and air toxic standard, Tier 3, will be bringing air
    quality down so that fewer areas will be in nonattainment, and
    those programs will provide assistance in order to improve air
    quality in those areas.
        Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, one of my concerns is that part of
    our particulate matter in my area is because of the lack of
    infrastructure improvements. And so we can actually be
    hindering those infrastructure improvements if we make it more
    difficult. But, anyway, I am out of time, but I appreciate you
    being here.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Whitfield. At this time, I will recognize the gentleman
    from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What is the
    timeframe on getting some written--because I don't think we are
    going to be under 5 minutes to be able to get through our
    questions. Is there a timeframe to be able to submit written
    questions?
        Mr. Whitfield. Yes, 10 days.
        Mr. McKinley. OK. Within 10 days, thank you.
        Welcome back. My question is that should a rule like this,
    that helps public health, be withheld? Be withheld because of a
    regulatory burden that we have been referring to here?
        Ms. McCabe. I am not sure I understand your question,
    Congressman.
        Mr. McKinley. Well, if there is regulatory burden that is
    going to be imposed with this, should the EPA withhold the bill
    or the rule?
        Ms. McCabe. Well, the Clean Air Act directs EPA to set the
    standards, and the Supreme Court has said that that is our job
    to do and that the issues related to implementation are a
    separate matter of separate consideration not to be considered
    in determining what the proper public health level is.
        Mr. McKinley. So the Court has ruled on that, but I am just
    curious because it goes back that--and you have heard it
    several times mentioned here that the President did step in and
    say there were some--this was going to cause regulatory burden.
    And, therefore, he asked that the rule be held back for a
    period of time. That is an accurate statement, isn't it, that
    the President did intercede?
        Ms. McCabe. That was in a reconsideration event, which is--
    --
        Mr. McKinley. OK. That was in 2011. I am just curious. So I
    guess part of me is--part of the question is, what has changed?
    If he felt that this rule should not have proceeded because it
    had regulatory burdens with it, what has improved since 2011
    that is it going to be less burdensome to industry?
        Ms. McCabe. No. The decision to----
        Mr. McKinley. Just those were his words.
        Ms. McCabe. The decision----
        Mr. McKinley. He just said if it has a regulatory burden, I
    think we should hold it back.
        Ms. McCabe. I respectfully I disagree that that is what he
    said, Congressman. That decision was made in the context of
    knowing that there would be the required 5-year review, and the
    decision there was to defer and stop with the reconsideration
    process in deference to the review that we are doing right now.
        Mr. McKinley. He just said that: I underscore the
    importance of reducing regulatory burden and regulatory
    uncertainty. I have requested the Administrator Jackson to
    withdraw the draft ozone standards.
        I think that is interesting because I am curious to see
    what has changed, how the economy is improved or the regulatory
    burden is less. But you have answered about as much--I have
    just limited questions here, time on this. I am just curious a
    little bit about how a county is supposed to work in actual
    functioning through it.
        I have got up to my 20 counties that I represent, 75
    percent of those counties are going to be in noncompliance if
    you go to 65--75 percent. So how are they supposed to--in a
    real world, not from academia, but how are they supposed to
    function when they are going to be in a nonattainment county?
    Seventy-five percent of my counties, 15 of those counties are
    going to be in nonattainment--what are they supposed to do?
        Ms. McCabe. Well, there are counties all across the country
    that have experienced poor air quality, have been designated
    nonattainment in the past, and states work with those counties
    to get programs in place to improve air quality in those areas.
        Mr. McKinley. Can you give me an example? Give me--you are
    talking----
        Ms. McCabe. Yes.
        Mr. McKinley. 30,000 feet.
        Ms. McCabe. OK.
        Mr. McKinley. Just go down to how are they going to change
    the air quality in Jefferson County, West Virginia that has a--
    right now is at 81?
        Ms. McCabe. OK. Well, I can talk better about my own home
    State of Indiana.
        Mr. McKinley. No, please just talk--these are just three
    counties in a row that they average 73, so there are already
    going to be so far over. Are we telling them and their kids and
    their families, when they sit at that kitchen table and they
    can't get a job, it is because their air quality is--it was
    fine at 75, but now that they get the 65, there are no jobs
    coming to West Virginia?
        Ms. McCabe. So what states do in nonattainment situations
    is they look at the local sources of air pollution and put in
    place sensible measures to reduce those, and it might be local
    industry. It might be transportation.
        Mr. McKinley. OK. Local industry. You're telling me that
    local industry change how it produces.
        Ms. McCabe. Industry has controlled air pollution
    remarkably over the years. I come from Indiana. I was the air
    director there. We have an area in northwest Indiana that----
        Mr. McKinley. We have some counties like Tyler County, and
    they may have just--well, I won't give--we have some counties
    that just have one industry.
        Ms. McCabe. Right.
        Mr. McKinley. And yet they are in nonattainment.
        Ms. McCabe. And there are many counties for which--from
    which the air pollution is not generated right within that
    county, but it is generated regionally.
        Mr. McKinley. Right.
        Ms. McCabe. That is why States work with metropolitan
    areas. That is why the Clean Air Act has provisions to make
    sure that if upwind States are contributing to downwind States,
    that those upwind States take responsibility, that is why EPA
    moves forward with Federal programs, such as the Tier 3, which
    makes motor vehicle traffic much cleaner everywhere, including
    in your State.
        Mr. McKinley. OK. I will get back to you. I would like to
    have more of a written answer from you because I have got a
    series.
        I want to follow a metric here. How are we going to go down
    through to make these--so there are job opportunities.
        I want to close very quickly. Why are the tribes excluded
    from this regulation?
        Ms. McCabe. The tribes aren't excluded. The tribes have the
    opportunity to regulate themselves, and if not, then EPA----
        Mr. McKinley. But the proposal says that the tribes are not
    obligated to adopt or implement any of the ambient air quality
    standards for ozone. In addition, tribes are not obligated to
    conduct ambient monitoring for ozone or adopt the ambient
    monitoring requirements. That sounds like an exemption to me.
        Ms. McCabe. No. The Federal Government implements the
    standards in Indian country, unless the tribe chooses to seek
    to do it itself. So the standards apply in Indian country.
    Regulations get put in place in Indian country. It is just that
    the Federal Government has the initial responsibility to do
    that.
        Mr. McKinley. I know I am way over time. I would just be
    curious how they are going to change their operation. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time has expired, and he can
    submit those questions.
        At this time, I recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms.
    Castor, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    for calling this hearing.
        And welcome.
        Listening to my colleagues' comments today takes me back to
    a time when I was younger. Now, the Clean Air Act was
    originally adopted by the Congress in the 1960s. Is that right?
        Ms. McCabe. Yes.
        Ms. Castor. And there have been significant amendments in
    the 1970s and especially in 1990. And, I think back to we have
    all kind of lived through this era. And I don't think anyone
    can argue that America is better off because we breathe cleaner
    air. And we have been able to balance environmental progress
    with economic progress. We have the strongest economy in the
    world today.
        Yes, we have our challenges. We have had our setbacks, but
    we have been able to combine environmental progress, cleaner
    air, cleaner water, oversight of chemicals with economic
    progress and good jobs. I remember very well in the late 1960s
    and 1970s walking outside in my home in Tampa, Florida, and the
    air was awful. And we are a warm climate, so we have very
    smoggy days.
        Now, it is much better. It is noticeably better. And anyone
    that lived in the 1960s and 1970s, whether you were in an
    industrial area or not, you understand the progress that we
    have made. So I want to thank you for your attention to cleaner
    air that we breathe. What a privilege it is to live in a
    country that has been able to show such environmental
    stewardship and balance it against economic progress.
        And that is the history of this country, and I am confident
    that we can continue to make that kind of progress.
        Now, Ms. McCabe, what is the ozone standard right now?
        Ms. McCabe. Seventy-five parts per billion.
        Ms. Castor. And what does that mean exactly?
        Ms. McCabe. That means that in a billion units of air, no
    more than 75 of those should be ozone in order to provide
    healthy air quality.
        Ms. Castor. And how long has it been at 75?
        Ms. McCabe. That was adopted in 2008.
        Ms. Castor. And what was it before that time?
        Ms. McCabe. It was 85.
        Ms. Castor. And now the proposal, EPA's proposal directed
    by the Court, directed by the Congress in statute is to go
    where now?
        Ms. McCabe. What the Administrator proposed was a level
    somewhere between 65 and 75 parts per billion.
        Ms. Castor. And that was after significant discussion by
    the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. What is the Clean
    Air Scientific Advisory Committee?
        Ms. McCabe. That is an external expert advisory panel that
    EPA convenes and has assisted us with all reviews of National
    Ambient Air Quality Standards. So it is a special panel
    convened to review all of the science that EPA develops, our
    Office of Research and Development, and the Office of Air and
    Radiation. And they go through a very lengthy process of
    reviewing multiple documents, both science documents and then
    policy documents, and give us feedback on the science that we
    are looking at.
        Ms. Castor. So they considered all sorts of levels?
        Ms. McCabe. So, yes, right, right. And they looked at all
    the studies that we looked at. They considered all of that
    information and our evaluation of it.
        Ms. Castor. And, in fact, that committee indicated that--
    and it concluded that--there is adequate scientific evidence to
    recommend a range of levels for a revised primary ozone
    standard from 70 parts per billion to 60 parts per billion. And
    with regard to the upper bound of 70 parts per billion, the
    committee said, based on the scientific evidence, a level of 70
    parts per billion provides little margin of safety for
    protection of public health, particularly for sensitive
    subpopulations like children, elderly folks with respiratory
    problems.
        Although a level of 70 parts per billion is more protective
    of public health than the current standard, it may not meet the
    statutory requirement to protect public health with an adequate
    margin of safety. What are they saying there?
        Ms. McCabe. Well, they are acknowledging, first of all,
    that it is the Administrator's job to make this judgment about
    what protects the public health with an adequate margin of
    safety. What they are saying is that they looked at all of this
    information and that they see evidence in the science record
    from the level of 70 down to a level of 60 that shows adverse
    impacts on public health from ozone at these levels of
    exposure. And what they are saying is that at the top end of
    the range, there is less cushion, there is less margin of
    safety than at lower levels within that range.
        Ms. Castor. So this was taken into account as you develop--
    as the Administrator developed the proposal.
        Ms. McCabe. It was.
        Ms. Castor. And when you consider that the public health
    benefits for children, the elderly, respiratory diseases, we
    all know someone in our family or we know someone with asthma--
    26 million people in the U.S. are estimated to have asthma, 7
    million children--certainly we can continue the environmental
    progress to improve the public health and balance it against
    the economic needs of the country. I think this is the United
    States of America, and it can be done, so thank you for staying
    true to the law.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. McCabe. Thank you.
        Mr. Whitfield. I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
    Griffith, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        As you know, I represent a fairly rural district, includes
    the Appalachian Mountains, Appalachian Trail, Blue Ridge
    Mountains, a stone's throw from the Smokies. My understanding
    is, is that under EPA requirements, in order to construct a new
    source of emissions or expand an existing source, there is a
    need to find offsets. Is that accurate?
        Ms. McCabe. It depends on how an area is designated. So
    areas that are the least polluted areas in terms of ozone, it
    changes as the area gets more and more severely polluted.
        Mr. Griffith. OK. Kentucky's air regulator has raised
    concerns about the impacts on rural counties. In particular, he
    stated the statutory and regulatory offset requirements would
    severely restrict economic development in these rural counties
    since, by definition, the areas have no existing offset
    emissions available for any new sources. Rural counties would
    be disproportionately negatively impacted with little
    opportunity for economic development.
        For rural counties, would states be able to seek relief
    from some of these offset requirements?
        Ms. McCabe. There is actually a provision in the Clean Air
    Act that specifically focused on rural counties that may be in
    nonattainment because of transported air pollution. So we would
    work with any state that wanted to come forward and talk about
    rural counties.
        Mr. Griffith. You represented or you said transported
    ozone. The problem that I fear that some of my areas may have
    with the newer requirements as well is that it is not
    transported, but it is natural. As you know, trees produce
    volatile organic compounds, which combined with sunlight,
    produce ozone. Thus the name Smoky Mountains. Thus the name
    Blue Ridge Mountains because the mountains themselves with
    their trees produce ozones. So it is not necessarily
    transported ozone. It is ozone because we are in fact rural and
    have trees that produce some of this. It is not 80 percent, as
    Ronald Reagan once said, but it is a significant contributor,
    particularly in the rural areas like mine in the eastern
    Appalachians.
        In fact, Scientific American in a June 1, 2014, story
    singled out or said, according to their research, black gum,
    poplar oak, and willow are significant producers of volatile
    organic compounds. So is there anything that would give us that
    offset, or do we have to go out into the forest, national or
    private, and say you got to cut the black gum, the poplar, the
    oak, and the willow, but it is OK to leave the birch, the
    linden, and the tulip, which apparently are low producers of
    VOCs, or volatile organic compounds?
        Ms. McCabe. Well, as I mentioned in response to a previous
    question, what our science shows is that the areas that have
    significant challenges with background ozone are in the Rocky
    Mountains, the higher elevation areas. We are not seeing that
    kind of a situation with background in other areas of the
    country.
        Mr. Griffith. So you think the central Appalachians will be
    OK?
        Ms. McCabe. I do.
        Mr. Griffith. But what about this offset? If it is not
    transported, would that rule also cover naturally occurring
    ozone?
        Ms. McCabe. So as we look forward, I would be happy to get
    you this information----
        Mr. Griffith. Please do.
        Ms. McCabe [continuing]. Mr. Griffith, on Virginia,
    particularly, but as we look at areas that are likely to be in
    nonattainment, we will look at air quality in future years to
    make those determinations, and I don't think we are seeing
    widespread nonattainment in rural areas. But in those areas
    where we do, there are opportunities there to work with those
    areas.
        Mr. Griffith. All right. I appreciate the opportunity to
    work on it. I am concerned about it.
        I am going to have to ask you some of these questions
    offline because time is precious and we don't get but so much,
    but if you could get us just some basic process on what the
    states have to do. What is the process for reviewing the state
    implementation plans? What is the range of time this process
    can take to complete, months or years? And if the EPA doesn't
    approve--and I guess this is one I would ask you to answer at
    this time--if the EPA doesn't approve a state's implementation
    plan, what happens to the state? Does it become subject to a
    Federal plan? And would there then be litigation between the
    States and the EPA over that?
        Ms. McCabe. Yes. So the Clean Air Act lays out a lot of
    steps, depending on the severity of the area that dictates how
    much time the states have. But, typically, if an area is
    considered--most areas the last time around were designated as
    marginal nonattainment, which means that they were not obliged
    to do a plan because they were expected to come into attainment
    and many do.
        For ones that are moderate or above, they typically have 3
    years to put a plan together. EPA works with those states to
    try to make sure that those plans are going to be approvable
    when they----
        Mr. Griffith. What happens if their state plan is not
    approved?
        Ms. McCabe. Generally, we work back and forth with the
    state to get it to a place where it is approvable.
        Mr. Griffith. But what if it is not, what do you do?
        Ms. McCabe. Well----
        Mr. Griffith. Do you come up with a Federal plan?
        Ms. McCabe. If a state really didn't want to make a plan
    that was approvable, which most states do, the Clean Air Act
    does provide that EPA would step into a Federal plan. But I
    have to say that that is very, very rare in this situation
    because--both because states want to do their plans because
    they are possible to do them and because we work hard with the
    states to make sure they can be successful.
        Mr. Griffith. And I have got to go. But in those places
    where they don't want to because you have made the standard so
    low, you may see more litigation. Thank you.
        Mr. Whitfield. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from
    New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Some of my colleagues are quick to argue that EPA's
    proposed ozone standard will hurt the economy, but history tell
    us that cleaning up pollution can benefit the economy as well
    as human health and the environment. Since its enactment in
    1970, the Clean Air Act provides a perfect example of how we
    can make steady progress in cleaning up the air while growing
    the economy.
        So, Ms. McCabe, do we have to choose between clean air and
    economic growth? What does the history of the Clean Air Act
    tell us about our ability to cut pollution while building the
    economy?
        Ms. McCabe. It actually shows us that the two things go
    hand in hand. We have reduced pollution dramatically, air
    pollution dramatically in this country. The economy has grown.
    We have also shown that this country has--and businesses in
    this country have innovated, have come up with pollution-
    control technologies that employ American workers and make us
    leaders in the world on selling this kind of technology.
        Mr. Pallone. When we talk about air pollution regulation,
    my Republican colleagues often focus on cost, but they aren't
    talking about the cost from exposure to unsafe air. They are
    talking about the cost of polluters of actually cleaning up
    their act.
        So, again, Ms. McCabe, how do the costs and benefits of
    implementing the proposed ozone standards stack up?
        Ms. McCabe. Well, we look at both. We lay both of those
    out, and in our analysis that we put out with our proposed
    rule, it showed that the benefits of this rule would outweigh
    the costs by three to one.
        Mr. Pallone. And along those lines, the National
    Association of Manufacturers estimates the cost of this rule
    would be $140 billion annually, making the new ozone standard
    the most expensive rulemaking in history. My understanding is
    that EPA's cost estimate--approved by the Office of Management
    and Budget--was much lower. So would you tell us how much does
    EPA expect this standard to cost?
        Ms. McCabe. Yes, our estimates--and, again, these are
    illustrative because the States will make their own choices--
    but our estimates are that at a level of 65 parts per billion,
    it would be in the range of 19 to 38 billion in the first
    standard of 70 parts per billion--oh, sorry. I said that
    completely wrong.
        The costs range from 3.9 billion to 15 billion, depending
    on where the standard is.
        Mr. Pallone. So this, based on your experience, that $140
    billion price tag doesn't seem reasonable to you?
        Ms. McCabe. It does not match our evaluation.
        Mr. Pallone. Yes. I mean, this concentration of cost, I
    think, has been misguided. Over the history of the Clean Air
    Act, industry has consistently exaggerated the potential cost
    of controlling pollution.
        How have these doomsday predictions measured up to reality?
        Ms. McCabe. Well, they haven't, given the information that
    folks have in front of them. In 1997, there were similar claims
    made that 1997 standards were going to kill the economy, and
    that absolutely hasn't come true.
        Mr. Pallone. You know, I just wanted to ask you something
    based on some of my Republican colleagues. And I am not trying
    to be critical of them, but can you confirm this? Can you
    confirm that under EPA's projections for West Virginia and
    Virginia, there will be zero counties in 2025 that will exceed
    65 or 70 parts per billion? Does that sound right to you?
        Ms. McCabe. That does sound right to me.
        Mr. Pallone. OK. I have a little over a minute. Let me just
    get to some other questions about health- and science-based
    standards.
        The Clean Air Act requires that EPA review the science
    behind the National Ambient Air Quality Standards every 5 years
    to ensure the best information is used. EPA examined thousands
    of scientific studies when reviewing the ozone standard, and
    given this body of evidence, what are some of the health
    impacts associated with breathing air that contains ozone? And
    what groups of people are most at risk from breathing air
    containing ozone?
        Ms. McCabe. So ozone can have a range of impacts on the
    respiratory system, inflammation of the lungs exacerbated,
    asthma, and this is especially significant for people who have
    asthma, for children, for the elderly, for people with
    compromised respiratory systems. The studies also show an
    association between premature mortality and exposure to ozone.
        Mr. Pallone. So I understand that the Clean Air Scientific
    Advisory Committee and EPA scientists recommended that the
    Agency strengthen the ozone standard from 75 parts per billion
    to a level within the range of 60 to 70. So the Administrator
    has proposed to strengthen the standard to a level within the
    range of 65 to 70.
        Is the proposed ozone level an aggressive or overzealous
    action by EPA as some may claim?
        Ms. McCabe. We believe that the range that the
    Administrator proposed is very well supported by the scientific
    information and affirmed, as you just noted, by our external
    peer-review panel.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Whitfield. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from
    Missouri, Mr. Long, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. McCabe, at the same time the EPA is moving forward with
    its proposed, or excuse me, with its proposed ozone rule, it is
    also proposing its clean power plan, which would require states
    to prepare plans to submit to the EPA.
        How can we realistically expect the EPA to manage several
    new rounds of state plan revisions that will be needed with the
    new ozone standard at the same time that they are reviewing
    plans for the clean power plan?
        Ms. McCabe. Well, these are----
        Mr. Long. That is going to take a lot of money and a lot of
    people, isn't it? And do you have those people and that money?
        Ms. McCabe. These are important programs that the Clean Air
    Act directs us to implement, so we expect to use our resources
    to work with the states to get this work done.
        Mr. Long. You expect to, but is it practical? Is it
    feasible? I mean, a lot of people want to do a lot of things,
    have lofty goals, but when push comes to shove, they can't get
    it done. Do you realistically think that this is something that
    the Agency can handle?
        Ms. McCabe. I do, Congressman. This is our job to do, and
    we will make sure that we get it done.
        Mr. Long. OK. I know it is your job, but I just question
    how it can possibly, how you can have the resources, the time--
    you are behind on several things already--the time, the money,
    and the employees to accomplish the goal.
        Ms. McCabe. Some of this work is overlapping as well, some
    of the technical work that we do in terms of air quality
    modeling, and it is efficient to do some of these things
    together. So----
        Mr. Long. Some of the state plan revisions overlap?
        Ms. McCabe. So the technical work that underlies the work
    that EPA and the States need to do in order to implement these
    programs.
        Mr. Long. OK. A few months ago, I met with some city
    officials from Springfield, Missouri, which is my hometown. I
    represent Springfield; Branson, Missouri; Joplin, Missouri;
    southwest part of Missouri. And they are one of the most
    forward-thinking cities and done more work on an integrated
    plan than about anyone. In fact, they were invited out to I
    believe it was Alexandria, and just them and one other city, I
    can't remember now the other city, but there was only two
    cities in the United States that were invited out to present
    how they did their plan and what they do.
        But, anyway, they discussed this integrated plan for
    implementing mandates from the Environmental Protection Agency,
    and after analyzing the cost of the mandates over the next 20
    years, and I have heard some people speculate that, here today,
    that things are never as bad as they seem, but if this was even
    50 percent accurate, it is not doable. It is devastating. And
    they found that complying with the EPA mandates would cost each
    individual in my district, each of my 751,000 constituents,
    $46,000. Now, you can cut that in half if you would like and
    say 23, but anyway, and cut it in half again if you would like,
    but it is not feasible. It is not doable.
        Missouri alone is looking at billions of dollars in
    compliance cost with the proposed ozone regulation and
    financial impact that it will have on everything from
    manufacturing to transportation. And it is going to, like I
    say, have an impact on each one of my constituents.
        Do you all look at the comprehensive financial and economic
    impact to these regulations at all that they are going to have
    on the states and our constituents?
        Ms. McCabe. Well, I am not familiar with exactly the study
    that you are talking about, Congressman, so I can't speak to
    that.
        Mr. Long. I will get it to you. Integrated plan for the
    city of Springfield for the next 20 years, I will be glad to
    provide that to you and your staff.
        But let's say that you were familiar with it. At what
    point--my question is, do you all look at the economic impact?
        Ms. McCabe. So each rule looks at its impacts in light of
    the rules that have come before it, and so there is an
    understanding of the rules and the impacts, both benefits and
    costs, that are associated with trying to use programs.
        Mr. Long. But there is a weight given to cost?
        Ms. McCabe. I am sorry?
        Mr. Long. There is a weight, there is a consideration given
    to the cost?
        Ms. McCabe. Whenever we do regulations, there is an
    evaluation of cost and of benefits.
        Mr. Long. OK. I guess that that is--I am about out of time
    anyway, and Morgan stole some of my notes, I think, and asked
    some of my questions.
        So, anyway, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. At this time, the chair recognizes the
    gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator McCabe, thank you for joining us today. How
    does the market price risk? I mean, if you know something and
    you know what the cost is of something, it has a price, and you
    know that price. But if you don't know something, then the
    price is higher because you have risk, right?
        Ms. McCabe. I----
        Mr. Flores. Yes. OK. In 2010, the EPA, when they proposed
    going to 60 parts per billion, said that that would cost $90
    billion, cost the economy $90 billion. In 2014, you reduced it
    to $40 billion. What happened over that 4-year period to make
    the cost go down?
        Ms. McCabe. So I think what you are comparing is the
    proposal that was put out under the ozone reconsideration
    compared with the most recent one.
        Mr. Flores. Now, just tell me what made it go down.
        Ms. McCabe. Yes. So, in that first one, we were looking at
    a change of the standard from the previous standard of 85 parts
    per billion to that level of in the range of 60 to 70.
        Mr. Flores. So this is not a 75 to 60.
        Ms. McCabe. That is right.
        Mr. Flores. OK. All right.
        Ms. McCabe. Because that was a reconsideration of the prior
    standard.
        Mr. Flores. OK. Thank you. And in your proposal to go to
    either 70 or 65, a significant amount of the control technology
    doesn't exist today, and that is where the risk question comes
    in. So do you know what it costs to offset a ton of ozone in
    the Galveston-Houston area today?
        Ms. McCabe. I don't.
        Mr. Flores. It is about $170,000 a ton. So where did EPA
    price its unknown risk technology on a per ton of what is
    ozone?
        Ms. McCabe. So we looked across the types----
        Mr. Flores. Just give me a number.
        Ms. McCabe. Oh, the number?
        Mr. Flores. Yes, just give me a number.
        Ms. McCabe. I believe it was----
        Mr. Flores. About $15,000.
        Ms. McCabe. That is what I was going to say.
        Mr. Flores. Yes, $15,000. So if we know in Texas what the
    cost to offset a ton of ozone is and it is $170,000, where did
    we come up with $15,000 for imaginary technology that doesn't
    exist? Where in the world did that come from?
        Ms. McCabe. By looking at the history of the costs of
    pollution control technology over the years, and this is
    actually a conservative estimate based on the actual cost to
    control pollution that we have seen over time.
        Mr. Flores. Is that a publicly available document?
        Ms. McCabe. All of our assumptions are publicly available.
        Mr. Flores. Well, let me say that it doesn't pass the smell
    test when we know today what the cost is for an offset, and
    then you have imaginary technology that does not exist, and we
    just price it at a fire sale, give it a Wal-Mart price. That is
    crazy.
        Let's talk about background ozone for a minute. Here is a
    map, background ozone map. Texas has about 70 parts per billion
    on average, 72 parts per billion, of background ozone. So if
    you take the level to 65, what is Texas supposed to do, get a
    big vacuum and send it down to the ozone hole in Antarctica or
    what?
        Ms. McCabe. Well, I am not familiar with that map, but that
    number doesn't sound right to me, Congressman.
        Mr. Flores. Well, that is all right. OK. Let's use
    something a little bit more discreet. How about Rocky Mountain
    National Park has a background of 77.
        Ms. McCabe. Yes.
        Mr. Flores. There is no industry in Rocky Mountain National
    Park.
        Ms. McCabe. As I mentioned, there are--particularly in that
    part of the country, there are a few areas where we are seeing
    high background.
        Mr. Flores. So what do you do? You said you had to have a
    national standard a minute ago, so how are you going to clean
    up Rocky National Park to take it to 65?
        Ms. McCabe. Well, it is not responsible for cleaning up air
    pollution that it doesn't create, and the Clean Air Act
    provides mechanisms to make sure that----
        Mr. Flores. So what is the mechanism? How do you clean up
    Rocky Mountain National Park?
        Ms. McCabe. To the extent that pollution is coming from
    places that we can control.
        Mr. Flores. Well, in this case, it is not.
        Ms. McCabe. Well----
        Mr. Flores. And 77-parts-per-billion background means, by
    definition, is not being produced there, it is coming from
    somewhere else.
        Ms. McCabe. Right, so----
        Mr. Flores. Natural occurring causes, or China.
        Ms. McCabe. It it is coming from motor vehicles around the
    country that--where that air pollution is coming into that
    area, our rules will help reduce that if it is coming----
        Mr. Flores. Let's talk about RFS for a minute. Under your
    2010 regulatory impact analysis of the renewal fuel standard,
    the EPA concluded that the program would contribute to ozone as
    a consequence of increased ethanol use.
        Disregarding that all together, EPA recently proposed that
    its latest targets for RFS through 2016 would lead to higher
    levels of ethanol. And according to the studies of the Journal
    of Geophysical Research that measured emissions of ozone
    forming VOCs from methanol refineries, it is five times higher
    than the EPA's original estimate.
        So the EPA, on one hand, is saying: OK, you have got to
    reduce to 65 to 70 parts per billion. On the other hand, you
    are trying to cram more ethanol in the system, which has a five
    times worse ozone impact on the economy than does the
    production of regular gasoline. I will submit the rest of my
    questions in writing.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time, I recognize the gentleman from North
    Carolina, Mr. Hudson, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Administrator, for being here today. I
    represent rural North Carolina. I grew up with a love for the
    outdoors, and I certainly understand our--the importance of
    protecting the environment. But like many of my colleagues, I
    do have concerns about this proposed rule, and I thought it was
    fascinating my colleague from Florida, Ms. Castor said that the
    air in Tampa, Florida, is clean, that it used to be polluted
    but now it is clean. But I looked up Hillsborough County,
    Florida, and the ozone levels are 71. So even by her definition
    it is clean, I believe her, but even Tampa, Florida, would be
    out of attainment.
        And what I really want to talk about is one of my counties,
    Montgomery County, North Carolina. It is a very rural county. A
    majority of the county is part of Uwharrie National Forest.
    This county has been disseminated with job loss. We have lost
    manufacturing jobs. There is no major significant industry in
    the county. Yet this county has 66 parts per billion in ozone,
    so it would be out of attainment if the standard were 65.
        And, again, this is a beautiful county. It has got two
    rivers. It has got a lake. The air quality is wonderful. It is
    a rural beautiful community. What would the EPA do with a
    county in a situation like that?
        Ms. McCabe. Well, I think we need to be careful about
    making assumptions about which counties will be and won't be
    nonattainment, because we don't know that. We don't know what a
    final standard will be if a decision is made to revise it, but
    also those decisions will be made based on future air-quality
    data. The numbers that I believe you are citing are based on
    air-quality data from 2011 to 2013.
        We will use current, most recent air-quality data when we
    make those decisions. And air quality is trending in a good
    direction. So I think we need to not assume an area will or
    won't be nonattainment based on information that is from prior
    years.
        Mr. Hudson. So do you think the level will stay above 70?
        Ms. McCabe. Which level?
        Mr. Hudson. That EPA sets for air quality?
        Ms. McCabe. No, I am not speaking to what decision might be
    finally made. I am speaking to the information that people are
    citing about whether areas based on air quality now will be in
    attainment if there is a revision to the standard, and we just
    don't know that.
        That being said, we have talked, and I understand the
    comments that many of the members have made about being
    concerned about rural areas. And we do have the ability to work
    with those areas. The Clean Air Act does recognize that there
    are areas that don't control their air quality, and the Clean
    Air Act doesn't hold those areas responsible for reducing
    pollution if it is not being produced there.
        Mr. Hudson. Well, I appreciate that. And, obviously, a
    county like Montgomery County desperately needs jobs, and if we
    get to a nonattainment situation where we can't hire new
    people, we can't attract new industry, it is devastating.
        So what specifically would Montgomery County, North
    Carolina, do if hypothetically it were in nonattainment? Do we
    file a lawsuit against a local city? Or, I mean, how do you----
        Ms. McCabe. Well, programs like the motor vehicle standards
    will improve air quality everywhere in the country where motor
    vehicles are used. This is an example of how the Federal-State
    partnership works where Federal programs bring cleaner air all
    across the country and will take care of the air pollution in
    many areas where there is not a lot of local industry that is
    contributing.
        Mr. Hudson. So we would have to give up our pickup trucks
    and Suburbans? Is that----
        Ms. McCabe. No, no, no. As the fleet turns over, as people
    buy newer cars, the fuels are getting cleaner, and so air
    quality will improve.
        Mr. Hudson. What percentage do you think motor vehicles
    contribute to that?
        Ms. McCabe. Well, motor vehicles generally contribute about
    a third of the air pollution in the country, and see it is not
    just cars driven in Montgomery County. It is cars driven in the
    region that are contributing to regional air pollution.
        Mr. Hudson. Well, I appreciate that.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I have three resolutions I would like to
    insert in the record: One is from Cabarrus Regional Chamber of
    Commerce; another is from Rowan County Board of Commissioners;
    and a third is from the Cabarrus-Rowan Urban Area Metropolitan
    Planning Organization. All these organizations oppose this new
    standard, and I seek unanimous consent to have them inserted in
    the record at this time.
        Mr. Whitfield. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Hudson. Well, thank you. I would again thank you for
    your testimony, but I just have concerns that we are setting
    standards so low that they are not attainable, and when rural
    areas that aren't near industrial areas or not near big cities
    can't reach the attainment, a significant portion, 10 of the 12
    rural counties in my district, I think we may be using the
    wrong metric. So that is my concern. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time, I recognize the gentlelady from North
    Carolina, Mrs. Ellmers, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Ms. McCabe, for being with us today.
        I just want to start off, as my colleague from North
    Carolina was pointing out, basically the concerns that we have
    in North Carolina, just in our home state alone, this rule will
    kill over 13,000 jobs a year and decrease the state's GDP
    drastically at a time when we can afford it the least. This
    proposal raises serious concerns, and I look forward to this
    discussion. I definitely have some questions for you.
        Starting off with, in September of 2011, President Obama
    requested that your agency withdraw its proposed ozone standard
    based on his ``concerns about the importance of reducing
    regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as
    our economy continues to recover.''
        Your agency agreed to withdraw the proposed standard, and
    now you are issuing the revised standard. Can you tell us what
    changes you made to decrease the regulatory burden which now
    allows you to move forward?
        Ms. McCabe. Well, first, let me explain that at that time,
    the Agency was engaged in a reconsideration of the 2008 ozone
    standard, which was not a mandatory duty. We are under a
    mandatory duty to relook at the standard every 5 years. It was
    last reviewed in 2008, so this is our required review.
        Mrs. Ellmers. So there are less regulations now?
        Ms. McCabe. This is about science. This particular decision
    is about science and public health and what the science says
    about what is healthy in the air to breathe. Implementation----
        Mrs. Ellmers. Not to interrupt you, but to point out that
    the President said that he was asking for you to decrease the
    amount of regulations. What regulations have you decreased
    which can move us forward? I understand you are looking at the
    science. I am a nurse. I understand science. But what is it
    that you have done to make this process move forward so that we
    can all come together and work on it?
        Ms. McCabe. Well, we put out regulations like the Tier 3
    regulation that I mentioned a minute ago, which will bring
    improved air quality all across the country. That is--things
    that States won't have to do themselves.
        Mrs. Ellmers. Is that less cumbersome than what existed in
    2008?
        Ms. McCabe. It is a provision that will help states and
    municipalities meet the ozone standard.
        Mrs. Ellmers. OK. Moving on.
        The first question that any economic developer asks when
    locating new plants or considering expansion of an existing
    plant is the attainment status, and I know my colleague from
    North Carolina, we were having this conversation just a moment
    ago.
        Areas designated as nonattainment are immediately excluded
    from consideration. The Clean Air Act requires that the Clean
    Air Scientific Advisory Committee to advise the Administrator
    of any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or
    energy effects which may result from various strategies for
    attainment and maintenance of such National Ambient Air Quality
    Standards.
        Given the adverse economic impact of a revised standard,
    why are you not requiring CASAC to take all of these things
    into consideration in regard to economic development?
        Ms. McCabe. In setting the health standard, we have been
    specifically directed by the Supreme Court that looking at the
    implementation implications is not part of setting the health
    standard. And so in this----
        Mrs. Ellmers. So the Supreme Court told you that economic
    development is not significant and should not be considered.
        Ms. McCabe. Is not relevant to the setting of the public
    health standard.
        Mrs. Ellmers. OK. Moving on.
        Nonattainment designation indiscriminately reduces
    development, including development associated with military
    bases. This is particularly important for North Carolina as we
    have many strong military presence there.
        This standard of the level at the near national background
    as is currently being considered will potentially limit
    military expansion and place at risk our military readiness.
    How is your Agency planning on ensuring that your revised ozone
    standard will not jeopardize national security?
        Ms. McCabe. Congresswoman, I am not aware of any instance
    in which the ozone standard has interfered with our military
    readiness.
        Mrs. Ellmers. Well, then I would love to work with your
    office because my understanding is there are some situations
    especially affecting some of our North Carolina bases now that
    this will dramatically affect, so I would like to continue that
    conversation.
        Ms. McCabe. We will be glad to follow up.
        Mrs. Ellmers. Great. Now, lastly, and I have got 31
    seconds. Part of this continued problem is how are
    manufacturers going to be able to deal with this technology. If
    a manufacturer simply cannot meet these standards, what are
    their options? Are they to buy expensive offsets? Are they to
    close their doors? What do we do? How do we help our
    manufacturers?
        Ms. McCabe. We work with the states and with the business
    industry, we look at where the pollution is coming from, and we
    develop programs that are targeted towards addressing the most
    cost-effective reductions, and that is what we have done
    through the whole history of the Clean Air Act, where
    manufacturing has moved forward, has implemented new
    technologies, has been able to grow.
        Mrs. Ellmers. Do existing controls exist right now to
    achieve the 60-parts-per-billion standard or the 65-parts-per-
    billion standard?
        Ms. McCabe. Well, keep in mind the Administrator has not
    proposed the 60 parts per billion standard. When we looked at
    the range of 65 to 70, which is what she proposed----
        Mrs. Ellmers. Yes.
        Ms. McCabe. We identified a number of already existing
    controls that will get----
        Mrs. Ellmers. What are those existing controls?
        Ms. McCabe. Things like cleaner engines, scrubbers, NAAQS
    controls, lower VOC paints and coatings, a variety of
    technologies that have been developed over the years that many
    areas are not yet employing that could be employed.
        Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
    Johnson, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And Ms. McCabe, thanks for joining us again today. You
    know, increased access to low-cost sustainable domestic natural
    gas production has helped tremendously in fueling the
    manufacturing renaissance in this country. This expansion has
    resulted not only in cleaner gas and electricity for
    manufacturers but also provides a new source of natural gas
    liquids, which are essential feed stocks in many major
    manufacturing applications, such as chemicals and plastics.
        A study conducted by the consulting firm NERA, frequently
    contracted by the Department of Energy, among others, shows
    dramatic cost increases in the price of natural gas under a 60-
    parts-per-billion standard. The study projects a 52-percent
    increase in the cost of natural gas for industrial use under a
    60-parts-per-billion standard.
        So quick question. Can we expect our manufacturing
    renaissance to continue under this type of scenario?
        Ms. McCabe. I can't speak to that study specifically, but I
    know that there certainly has been a significant increase in
    the development of natural gas. It is a very important----
        Mr. Johnson. We know that, but what I am asking you is when
    we are essentially taxing it with these standards. And I might
    point out to you that in a recent trip that we made to Europe,
    ratepayers, businesses and residential ratepayers in Europe are
    taking a strong second look at their energy profiles because of
    this exact problem, making their businesses noncompetitive and
    their unwillingness to pay the exorbitant high prices for
    energy that is going to result from a rule like this.
        So how can we expect the manufacturing renaissance to
    continue when we are taxing essentially the very energy that is
    providing that renaissance?
        Ms. McCabe. Well, I don't think we are taxing the energy--
    --
        Mr. Johnson. Well, sure you are. If you get a 52-percent
    increase in the cost of natural gas under a 62-parts-per-
    billion standard, that is essentially a tax.
        Ms. McCabe. Well, I----
        Mr. Johnson. You can call it whatever you want to, but it
    is a tax on the industry.
        Ms. McCabe. Well, I am not sure that I agree with the----
        Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, we will agree to disagree. Let me
    move on. Let me focus on how the EPA has calculated the
    benefits of its proposed ozone standard. And here is the issue
    in a nutshell: Instead of calculating only the benefits from
    reducing nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, the
    constituents of ozone, which are emitted from cars, trucks, and
    stationary sources, EPA also incorporated the cobenefits from
    reducing particulate matter, or PM, from those same sources. Of
    course, this rulemaking has nothing to do with particulate
    matter. EPA has a separate National Ambient Air Quality
    Standard for particulate matter, not to mention multiple other
    rules to regulate it under the Clean Air Act.
        But without the benefits from PM reductions, the ozone rule
    would have very little to show for it. In fact, Dr. Anne Smith
    of NERA has pointed out that these PM cobenefits are actually
    larger than the direct ozone related benefits from the rule. If
    you don't accept NERA's assessment, then how about Cass
    Sunstein, the former head of OMB's Office of Information and
    Regulatory Affairs. He reviewed the ozone reconsideration in
    2011 and helped prevent that proposal from being finalized
    because it was too costly.
        Here is what he said about this, and I quote: But on some
    of the Agency's estimates of the 2011 ozone proposal, the net
    benefits would have been zero. Moreover, a strong majority of
    the benefits would have resulted not from ozone reductions but
    from cobenefit reductions in particulate matter, which come as
    an incidental benefit of the technologies that reduce ozone
    emissions.
        So, Ms. McCabe, this prompts a number of questions. First,
    can you explain to me and our committee the EPA's legal
    justification for engaging in this kind of double counting? How
    is it that you can justify a lower ozone standard using
    benefits from an entirely different pollutant?
        Ms. McCabe. Well, it is not double counting.
        Mr. Johnson. That is not science. That is a shell game.
    That is what that is. That is not science.
        Ms. McCabe. It is not double counting. Those benefits are
    real.
        Mr. Johnson. Those benefits--this rule is supposed to be
    going after ozone, not particulate matter.
        Ms. McCabe. But it is having additional benefits to the----
        Mr. Johnson. But very little in terms of the ozone. Very
    little in terms of the ozone in comparison with the benefits
    that are coming from particulate matter.
        Further, talk to me about how transparent you have been
    with this to the American public. I mean, there are charts
    buried in the proposed rule where somebody maybe with a Ph.D.
    can go infer this information about double counting, but have
    you or the Administrator explained this issue in your speeches
    and public statements about the ozone? Have you told the
    American people that the benefits are coming from somewhere
    else, from a pollutant that is already well regulated by the
    EPA?
        Ms. McCabe. We're very clear. And I myself personally have
    talked about co-benefits that are achieved by programs that we
    implement.
        Mr. Johnson. Yes. Well, I think it is a shell game, Ms.
    McCabe, and I think it is economically destructive to my region
    of the country and to other industries that are providing the
    jobs and the economic vitality of America today.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        I have a couple of other questions I want to ask her, Mr.
    Rush, and then----
        I wanted to ask you a couple of other questions, Ms.
    McCabe.
        The Science Advisory Committee is appointed by who?
        Ms. McCabe. The Science Advisory Committee is--there is an
    office within EPA that administers the Science Advisory Board
    and has a very open process for----
        Mr. Whitfield. But the people who serve on the Science
    Advisory Committee, how are they selected?
        Ms. McCabe. They are nominated.
        Mr. Whitfield. By who?
        Ms. McCabe. Either by themselves or by others, and that is
    through a public process.
        Mr. Whitfield. And then who makes the decision of who
    serves?
        Ms. McCabe. That is a decision made within the Agency by
    our Office of the Science----
        Mr. Whitfield. So EPA decides who serves on the science
    committee?
        Ms. McCabe. Through a robust public process.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK. And how long do they serve?
        Ms. McCabe. I don't know the answer to that.
        Mr. Whitfield. And how many people serve on that committee?
        Ms. McCabe. I don't know the answer to that.
        Mr. Whitfield. Could you get us a list of the names of
    people on the committee and how long their term of office is?
        Ms. McCabe. Yes. Yes. I believe it is, you know, on the
    order of 4 to 6 years, something like that.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Rush. Ms. McCabe, how long has that committee been in
    existence?
        Ms. McCabe. How long has----
        Mr. Rush. How long has it been in existence?
        Ms. McCabe. The Agency?
        Mr. Rush. No. The science committee.
        Ms. McCabe. Gosh, I don't know, Congressman Rush. But we
    can certainly find out. Many, many years. Many years.
        Mr. Rush. Through both Republican and Democratic
    administrations?
        Ms. McCabe. Yes. Absolutely. And the committees and the
    panels are very well balanced to make sure that there is a
    range of views represented.
        Mr. Rush. Would you say that it is bipartisan?
        Ms. McCabe. Yes, I would.
        Mr. Rush. OK. Oh, yes. Mr. Chairman, I have one more
    question.
        Ms. McCabe, we keep hearing about the President's decision
    in 2010 on the ozone standard, and let me read from that. With
    that in mind, this is what I want to read.
        Statement by the President: ``Work is already underway to
    update a 2006 review of the science that would result in the
    reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013. Ultimately''--
    and this comes directly from the President on the ozone
    National Ambient Air Quality Standards issued on September 2,
    2011--``Ultimately, I did not support asking State and local
    governments to begin implementing a new standard that will soon
    be reconsidered.''
        Do you have any comments? Do you remember that statement by
    the President?
        Ms. McCabe. Yes. So the President was recognizing that the
    regular 5-year review of the ozone standard was already
    underway, and that is what he was directing the Agency to focus
    its attention on.
        If I could just clarify something I said before,
    Congressman Rush, I agreed with your characterization of the
    Science Advisory Board as bipartisan. I think it is probably
    more accurate to call it nonpartisan.
        Mr. Rush. Nonpartisan. OK. All right. Well, thank you so
    much.
        Mr. Chairman, I don't have any additional questions, but I
    do have a unanimous consent request to enter into the record a
    letter from public health organizations opposing legislation or
    amendments that would block or delay EPA's work to update ozone
    standards and, also, a letter from the National Association of
    Clean Air Agencies supporting the EPA's proposal to revise the
    current ozone air standards. And I ask for unanimous consent
    that they be entered into the record.
        Mr. Whitfield. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Rush. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Whitfield. And then I would also like to ask unanimous
    consent that the following documents be entered into the
    record: Number one, a survey released by the Association of Air
    Pollution Control Agencies entitled ``State Environmental
    Agency Perspectives on Background Ozone and Regulatory
    Relief''; number two, a June 2015 article from the Journal of
    Science entitled ``Challenges of a Lowered U.S. Ozone
    Standard''; and, number three, comments of one of the Texas
    Commission on Environmental Quality on EPA's Proposed Ozone
    Rule--a Texas commissioner's comments. \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The comments have been retained in committee files and are also
    available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/if/if03/20150612/103590/
    hhrg-114-if03-20150612-sd005.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Without objection, that will be entered into the record as
    well.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Whitfield. And that concludes today's hearing.
        Once again, Ms. McCabe, thank you for being with us. We
    look forward to continuing engagement with you as we move
    forward.
        And we will keep the record open for 10 days for any
    additional questions or comments or materials.
        And, with that, the hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton

        This morning, we're here to examine the EPA's latest
    proposed new National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ground-
    level ozone. I welcome Acting Assistant Administrator McCabe.
        In 2012, President Obama set a goal of creating one million
    new manufacturing jobs during his second term--which certainly
    was a goal we all could get behind. The following January, the
    president's New Year's resolution was to do ``whatever it
    takes'' to create jobs. Yet the administration's policies do
    not match the president's words. When you couple this ozone
    rule with other EPA rules like the Clean Power Plan and
    ``Waters of the United States'' rules, the likely outcome will
    be stifled growth, missed opportunities, and lost jobs.
        Make no mistake, the new ozone rule would be a jobs
    killer--especially in the manufacturing industry. An ozone
    nonattainment designation would make it significantly more
    difficult for industries to invest and create businesses in
    communities across the United States. Even existing factories
    would face higher operating costs and red tape. EPA estimates
    that hundreds of counties across the country would not meet the
    proposed standards, including many in my home state of
    Michigan. We also need standard that make sense. In southwest
    Michigan, in Allegan County, you could remove all of the human
    activity and the region would still be in nonattainment because
    of ozone generated in Chicago, Milwaukee, and Gary, Indiana.
        A study conducted by NERA for the National Association of
    Manufacturers tells the story with predictions that are truly
    frightening. The total cost of the new rule could reach $140
    billion annually, making it EPA's most expensive regulation
    ever. In fact, the study states that Michigan could face $1
    billion in compliance costs and stands to lose 20,000 jobs per
    year over the next couple decades. Not exactly the right
    medicine in times of recovery.
        At a time when America's natural gas abundance has given
    domestic manufacturers an edge over the global competition,
    regulation after regulation is chipping away at that
    advantage--and a new ozone rule may well prove to be the last
    straw that shifts the advantage back to foreign-based
    facilities.
        Job creators are paying attention. In a recent survey of
    manufacturers conducted by NAM, more than half the respondents
    said they would not undertake a new project or a major
    expansion in an ozone nonattainment area.
        Not surprisingly, NAM, the Chamber of Commerce, the Auto
    Alliance and just about every other organization that
    represents manufacturers has come out strongly against this
    proposed rule. And it should be noted that the NAM study
    focused solely on manufacturing and did not consider the very
    real threat these new regulations pose to America's energy
    renaissance. Energy producing regions may have to cut back on
    oil and natural gas output to comply with the new ozone
    standard.
        To make its case, EPA declares ozone still poses a serious
    public health threat, but that raises the question why the
    agency has delayed implementation of the current ozone rule.
    The 2008 ozone standard has languished at the agency for years.
    It was only last March--more than 6 years into the
    administration--that the agency finally issued the implementing
    regulations necessary for state and local governments to begin
    putting the new standard in place.
        I strongly support efforts to reduce smog and I supported
    the ozone standard finalized in 2008. We have seen significant
    progress and I endorse reasonable measures to ensure that air
    quality continues to improve but we must strike a balance that
    doesn't hinder economic growth and job creation. For these
    reasons, I believe that we don't need a new ozone standard--we
    need EPA to implement the existing one.
                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]