of ozone pointing to america from china and asia. in your proposal you admit that natural ozone and ozone from china should be a huge problem. your rule says there are times where ozone levels approach or see the concentration levels that the proposed in large part due to the background sources'. more than one half of the ozone america's you naturally are comes from overseas.

>> i i don't know that i would agree with that formulation. we address the background issue. they vary across the country as you know as you know 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. >> am sorry. i have only five minutes and thousands of questions. questions. i have to cut you off. your -- i apologize. your answer goes against your own data. you admit the more ozone is all over this country. we know the natural ozone's calls are not going away and are likely to get bigger. that means we must squeeze more and squeeze more from

smaller and smaller sources of ozone. epa says that much of the technology needed to meet these rules are known today. >> i would not characterize it as much of the technologies. 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 it will reduce the air pollution. >> they have not controls in the northeast now unknown. stark contrast our answer. one other question.

it's true that epa won't even consider whether an ozone rule is achievable. is that true? is this achievable? can we do this? >> our job under the clean air act is to identify the standards necessary to protect the public health. that's with this rule is about, letting the american people know what is safe and healthy. >> you can't take into account achievability. you just can't do that. >> the supreme court has spoken service. this service. this is about the science and what is healthy for the american people. >> it sounds like we need to change up. one final question. a lot is not required, as you know epa to change the ozone rule every five years. you just have to view it. you say you have to change the rules the 2,000 april does not protect human health.

yet back home the test commission on environmental quality points out that your own modeling appendix seven page 73 _-dash two would result in more deaths in houston, texas with a lower standard. standard. p ceq concludes that epa cannot read their own data or you are accepting a lower ozone standard that makes health worse. >> i would very much disagree with the way that characterized. if you look at the entire body of data you will see the health benefits of the proposed ozone standard are substantial. we welcome everyone's common on the rule command. ♪ you has provided a lot of analysis which we're looking closely at.

>> thank you very much. >> the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in your testimony and also in response to mr. russia's question you said that you looked at thousands of reports think included the protecting the health and safety of the communities 75 is a little too high. always splitting always splitting hairs are talking about large-scale effects? 's. >> were talking about millions of people that are suffering the effects of ozone pollution that a lower level would not suffer these effects. >> the epa, one of the epa's primary missions is to protect the health of this country and our communities.

was there a rule recently that ensure that the epa must look at health and safety of the committee 1st before looking at economic impact? >> that is exactly what courts of said. >> thank you. the chairman mentioned san joaquin valley which is my home. i appreciate your attention. i have seen over the last several years improvement year-by-year in the air quality. a lot of this is due to the kind of standards that the epa has initiated. one of the things that we do is incentivize some of the old diesel equipment to be replaced but that takes time and is not something we can require farmers or diesel truck owners to do. i appreciate that we will continue to look at those and keep those standards in place. i just want to say the bay area contributes a lot of

those on to the san joaquin valley sort of like what mr. wilson was saying. we get a lot of it from outside our region. we ask you to take special considerations of that and helping us make those containments and penalties are assessed. i appreciate the comments. what is the epa going to do for how is the epa going to assess drought impacts on air pollution and ozone? >> 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 injuries dust, dust, but we also have tools in the clean air act that can allow states to evaluate their quality has

its being influenced by natural conditions such as that command we are working closely with the states to make sure that our guidance and expectations our current with situations like drought and wildfires which are also a challenge, to make sure that states are not responsible for natural conditions and that sort of thing that can create ozone situations. >> would you confirm my observation that the air quality is improving in the san joaquin valley? >> i certainly would. >> do you have something you can say? >> well, i don't have figures with me, congressman. i'm happy to get those to you. over recent years and equality has been improving command it is due to the kind of programs you mentioned replacing older dirtier engines with cleaner new ones and working closely with the agricultural community and everyone in the san joaquin valley to find sensible things to do. >> nonattainment does not penalize us in the sense of

backtracking the actual air quality? >> no, not at all. it's moving in the right direction. >> thank you. could you explain the difference between secondary and primary standards? >> yes. focused on public protecting human health. secondary standards are focused in protecting public welfare. those are things that we care about has people who live in this country, economic impacts assessed on ecosystems, crops buildings. the other things that make our economy and quality of life what it is. >> okay. okay. you're going to set the primary and secondary standards and same? >> it turns out we do an independent analysis of the information that exists on human health. on secondary impacts in the

preamble and the proposal in the clean air act spoke to that directly. our review of the science shows that a standard standards set in the range of 65 to 70 we will provide the protection that the welfare impacts that the science tells us the welfare impacts require. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> recognize the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's good to have you back. personally just you as an individual don't you believe having a good paying job with health benefits is also protective of human health? >> i think it's important for everyone to have a job. >> health care benefits. >> yes, i do. >> and when you hear the question and the responses back and forth, they are part of our challenge.

especially as a follow up on this. you all don't really have the authority to evaluate that with respect to your primary mission which is protecting human health the air regulations. you just can't weigh in. your not making those cost-benefit analyses. you say you are, but they are so far down the decision tree that many of us believe they just don't have it. let me go to another question based upon a comment you made. a lot of this is 75 parts per billion in 2,008. many states have not met that yet. now we're ratcheting down even more command there is a lot of uncertainty. i'll move on to my 3rd question, but in your response you talk about background is different in different areas.

are you considering a different regulation standards based upon the variance of background. the 70 parts per billion in another one has a 65 parts per billion. >> the standard is supposed to reflect what is safe for people to breathe. >> background is background, their without in essence you can contact. >> that's right command that comes into play when states are putting their plans together in the epa is working with states to figure out how much time and what needs to be done in order to reach those standards. >> but if an area has 70 parts per billion background you can't get them to 65.

through the power of government. >> there are two very important elements. one is for the people who live in that area to know whether the air they are breathing is healthy or not. >> so they should move. is that the answer? get out of that 70 ppb area because it's not healthy. >> no, but they should know that when the air quality is bad. >> what should they do? it's naturally occurring. >> right. but understand that ozone changes from day to day. >> they should. >> they should take a vacation during those days? you see a problem. i think enrolling this i would hope -- background is important. ..

background can get approaching the level -- >> that you understand our concern even if there's a low possibility. anyway i'm moving on to the last question. we attended the congressional baseball game last night and we lost again. but it makes me think about what chairman whitfield was addressing. had we started the game and halfway through the game the strike zone change 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 wouldn't you agree? >> ozone is not about rules. >> this is about utility cross side air pollution 111d, 111d ozone different standards particular matter. we are changing the rules on the fly and the people who are creating jobs in this country cannot manage it and that's the problem with what's going on and i yield back my time. snack at this time i recognize the gentlelady from california mrs. caps for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman for hearing this hearing and thank you ms. elise boddie -- mccabe for your testimony. when it comes to our quality i believe our focus must be primarily on protecting public

health. this is a standard set like standard and the clean air act and a standard upheld by the supreme court in for good reasons. clean air has real and significant impact on the health and well-being of all americans and this is underscored by her ranking member bobby rush from chicago where they know is thing or two about air pollution. healthier children. 10 employees translate into very real economic methods. i would say to my colleague who made a case in the other direction that good jobs with health benefits which he is arguing for or even better in the context of clean air and even polluters benefit from healthier employees. so my question as my question is asking it to elaborate on this fact what is the economic value? >> it's 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. we are illustrative. analysis shows that a standard of 60 parts per billion there would be benefits in the range of 6.4 $213 billion to the economy and 16 parts per billion in 19 to 38 billion that comes from some of the things you have cited which is missed school days less mess to work fewer visits to the emergency room and that sort of thing. >> strengthening those standards would increase the number of nonattainment areas. as the clean air act requires epa to set us on standards based on how many areas currently meet that standard are public health? >> it's based on protecting public health. >> for there is any to make improvement 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. we still struggle every day. are these areas on their own or does the federal government provide assistance? >> absolutely. this is a partnership between the government in the state government. the federal government assisted a number of ways. one is by promulgating national rules to apply to automobiles nationwide to bring tremendous benefits and other rules that make sense to do at a national level. we also help the state is providing financial assistance and support, technical assistance and grants tenure area has certainly benefited from those sorts of programs. they can be very targeted to the specific needs of a particular area. >> thank you an issue no well and i would like to turn to the topic of climate change briefly. this is increasingly impacting all aspects of our economy and their daily life. storms are getting stronger

floods are getting worse and droughts as i know well in california now wildfires are getting more severe and climate change also increases the levels of the ozone in the air we breathe. would you explain just very simply how climate change is expected to impact the ozone levels and how will this affect their human health? >> sure. as the climate gets warmer warm conditions are 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. >> briefly finally i hear so often the industry as well as some here in congress high cost estimates is as a reason to oppose strengthening environmental hoblick health standards. it's the same argument being used against the proposed ozone standard? while i believe new regulations should he considered and there

is a way you are talking about doing that these costs must be weighed against the benefits. some port and remember that help them if it's represent real people and real life. so how do the estimated help in the pits of epa proposed ozone standards compared to the cause? in other words what is that balance? >> as we laid out in our illustrative case the benefits outweigh the costs $3 server when it is spent. >> this is based on studies that do demonstrations. >> based on information available to us. the things that people are likely to do and the costs associated with the cost benefits associated with the health benefits. >> thank you very much and i yield back. >> at this time i represent -- recognized representative mr. harper a.. >> thank you. it seems like you doing out here a lot so good to have you here. >> 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. do you agree? >> there are lots of things that contribute to respiratory illness. >> as we learn how to measure them minute levels of any type of item that is something that we have to look at. i'm really concerned as we look at this that we revise the current ozone standards how that's going to affect transportation requirements of you could just briefly say water transportation what transportation conformity would does that mean? >> it's a provision in the act that wants to make sure as states and municipalities are working to improve air quality that transportation planning is taken into account and

transportation planning takes air quality into account so that areas won't undermine their efforts to improve air quality inadvertently through transportation that could increase air pollution. >> so states and localities will have that responsibility. >> they do have that now and working with the federal government. >> in order to make that demonstration what kind of modeling tools will the cities need to use? >> there are tools that are in existence now and tools that epa and the federal highway provides we work with the states on to analyze those impacts. we have been doing this for a long time. >> how reasonable or what type of situation for smaller cities, what about those? are you expecting the smaller cities to do the same own analysis and is that reasonable

and what you anticipating? >> we would certainly provide any assistance that we needed to bring a community. this is a focus in larger communities more populous committees but we would provide whatever systems as needed. >> all right so that focuses on larger communities. are you planning on sending it to every community? >> the clean air act provides the areas that need to look at transportation conformity so we would follow the requirements and regulations. >> so is epa allowing existing federal measures to work existing now wouldn't the cities avoid having to do these time-consuming transportation conformity analyses? >> we actually looked at what we expect to happen to air quality in the future looking at the rules that are in place now and once they are under development now we show the vast majority of

the areas that right now would have levels exceeding the standards by 2025 will come into attainment of the standards through these measures. >> we have lots of important issues and one of those issues is what to do about there i weigh bridges infrastructure issues that we have in this country and many of those need to be repaired. we need new ones that need to be built. stringent ozone standards make it harder for states to show proposed highway projects conform with ozone standards. has epa consider the economic and tape the impacts that could result in the stringent ozone projects for crucial construction projects? you haven't seen not but we have

more stringent requirements and that causes additional cost. can you explain that? >> i don't expect the system would work differently in any areas. we don't expect a lot of new areas coming into nonattainment under the standards of the areas are generally familiar with and are they working with the transportation conformity system but all of the provisions that are in there about making sure important safety projects go forward in important projects go forward those will continue to apply. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas mr. green for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. welcome ms. mccabe. the knock standard? >> the knock standard? 's epa in the past has not

always met its deadline. >> that's the other thing. if epa hadn't delay the standards to review the ozone standards what would be the regular timeline? 2015? >> the last time the ozone standard was revised in 2008 the clean air act has every five years so 2013 would have been five years. >> in your testimony you examined thousands of studies including more than 1000 new studies published by epa. the ozone proposal, epa acknowledge there's a brand-new scientific data epa could consider. also epa states there are uncertainties regarding some of the studies that epa did include regarding the lowering of standards. most importantly by 2017 the standards would be in place have

a significantly affect ozone precursors. 75 parts per billion tier 3 vehicle emission standards mercury and air toxic standards. performance standards for compounds and particulate matter that would also be important because epa acknowledges a reduction of particulate matter with three fourths of those ozone benefits. why is lowering the standard not more appropriate at the 75 parts per billion takes effect in epa and reviews the new and related information and data. >> because the clean air act is a timetable of every five years and we are late on that and because this is about letting the american people know what is healthy air quality for them.

>> the epa stated him earlier decisions based on applicable data the volume requiring careful evaluation to epa estimates it will take two to three years to incorporate over 1000 new health studies and criteria. given the legal constraints and the fact that they epa is missed deadlines the administrator concluded the best action to complete the current review based on existing standards can proceed as rapidly as possible my next review. why would epa not make a similar decision now since we earn 2015 now? >> 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. >> well, my earlier question there were times where epa has delayed in the past.

is that true? >> on are regularly required five-year review there have been times when we have not met that deadline. i think you are referring to the ozone reconsideration which is not a mandatory requirement under the clean air act but for a mandatory five-year review cycle we have not deliberately delayed. we miss that deadline and we are in a situation now. >> the concern i have and you have heard from other members is that we haven't met the current standard and yet we are getting ready to see something happen so to put a new standard on with all this is maybe starting to early before we see what the benefits are the other things at the industry and everything else has complied with indig and epa has delayed it in the past. but for a two-year delay while all these other things come into play we will have better data

than to be able to look at it. >> i was a congressman green the effect of those measures will affect air quality so if the standard is revised and daca to look at what areas do and don't meet the standards all of those programs like tier 3 will be bringing air quality down so fewer areas will be a nonattainment in those programs will provide assistance to improve air quality in those areas. >> mr. chairman one of my concerns is 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 and i see i'm out of time but appreciate you being here. thank you mr. chairman. >> at this time iraq by saddam and from west virginia mr. mckinley for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman.

i don't think we'll be able to get fewer questions. is there a timeframe to submit written questions? >> within 10 days. >> okay thank you. welcome back. my question is should a rule like this that helps public health be withheld? because a very regulatory burden that we are referring to hear? >> i'm not sure i understand your question congressman. >> if there's a regulatory burden imposed with this to the epa withhold the bill? >> the clean air act direct epa step -- sets the standards and the supreme court has said that is our job and the issues related to implementation our a matter of separate consideration not to be considered in determining --

>> i'm curious because it goes back and you have heard it mentioned several times at that the president did step them and say this was going to cause regulatory burden therefore he asked that the rule be held back for period of time. >> that was a recitation of that. >> thousand 2011. so i guess part of the question is what has changed if you felt this rule should not proceed because it had regulatory burdens with it. what has improved since 2011? is it going to be less burdensome? >> the decision -- >> those were his words. he just said if it has a regulatory burden i think we should hold it back. >> respectfully i disagree that is what he said congressman.

that decision was made in the context of knowing that there would be the required five day review and the decision there was to stop with the reconsideration process in deference to the preview. >> p7 underscore the reducing regulatory burden. i think that's interesting because i'm curious what has changed. the regulatory burden is last at the up answered and i have limited time on this. i'm curious about how a county is supposed to work and functioning. my 20 counties that i represent, 75% of those counties are going to be in noncompliance of the codas 65 75% so how are they

supposed to in the real world not from academia but how are they supposed to function when they are going to be in a nonattainment county? 75% of my counties, 15 of those counties what are they supposed to do? >> there are counties all across the country that have experienced poor air quality and states work with those counties to get programs in place to improve air quality. >> you are talking 30000 feet. how are they going to change the air air-quality and jefferson county west virginia that right now said 81? >> i can talk more talk better about my home home state. >> these are three counties in a row so there are already going to be so far over. are we telling them and their kids and families when they sit at the kitchen table and they can't get a job it's because

they're air-quality was fine at 75 but now they get to 65 there are no jobs coming to west virginia? >> what they do in nonattainment situations as they look at the sources of air pollution and put in place sensible measures to reduce those. it might be local industry. >> local industry you change how you do it? >> industry has control their pollution markedly over the years. i came from indiana and i was air director there. we have an area in our western indiana. >> we have some counties like tyler counties, we have some counties that have one industry. >> there are many counties from which the air pollution is not generated within that county but it's generated regionally. that's why states work with metropolitan areas and that's

why the clean air act has provisions to make sure states are contributing to downwind states in the up wednesdays take responsibility. that is why the epa move forward with federal programs such as tier 3 which makes our motor vehicle -- cleaner. >> i would like a written answer from you on that because i want to follow a metric here. i want to close very quickly. why are they -- this regulation? >> the tribes have the opportunity to regulate themselves. >> but the proposal says the tribes are not obligated to implement any of the ambient air-quality standards for ozone and edition types are not obligated to conduct ambient monitoring for the ambient monitoring requirements. that sounds like an exemption to me.

>> the federal government -- unless a tribe seeks to do itself so the standards apply. regulations get put in place in indian country. it's just that the federal government has the initial responsibility. >> i know i'm way over time. >> the gentleman's time has expired. at this time i recognize the gentlelady from florida mess castor for five minutes. >> thank you for calling this hearing. listening to my colleagues comments today takes me back to a time when i was younger. the clean air act was originally adopted by the congress in the 1960s. is that right? been significant amendments in the 1970s and especially in

1990 and you know i think back do 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. 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 that 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 60s and 1970s walking outside in my home in tampa florida and the air was awful. we are a warm climate so we have

swampy days. now it's much better. it's noticeably better and anyone that lived in the 60s and 70s whether you were 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 and what a privilege it is to live in a country that has been able to show such empire mental stewardship and balance it against economic progress. that's the history of this country and i'm confident that we can can to need to make that kind of progress. ms. mccabe what is the ozone standard right now? >> 75 parts per billion. >> would does that mean like. >> that means in the billion units of air no more than 75 of them should be ozone in order to provide healthy air quality. >> how long has it been at 75?

>> that was adopted in 2008 great. >> what was it before that time? >> it was 85. >> now the proposal, epa's proposal directed by the court directed by the congress in statute is to go where no? >> what the administrator proposed was a level somewhere between 65 and 75 parts per billion. >> those actors are in discussion by the clean air scientific advisory committee. what is the clean air scientific advisory committee. >> that's an external expert advisory panel that epa convened and has assisted us with all reviews of national ambient air quality standards so it's a special panel convened to review all of the signs that epa develops our office of research and development and the office of air and radiation and they go through lengthy process of reviewing multiple documents

both science documents and policy documents and give us feedback on the science we are looking at. >> so they considered all sorts of levels? >> oh yes right and they looked at all the studies that we looked at. they considered all of that information in our evaluation. >> in fact that committee concluded that there is adequate scientific evidence to recommend a range of levels for 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 its sensitive subpopulations children, the 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 need -- meet the statutory requirement to take public health with an adequate margin of safety. what are they saying there are? >> beared melekian first of all this is the administrator's job to make this judgment about what her text of public health with an adequate margin of safety. they looked at all of this information and they see evidence in the science record on the level of 70 down to a level of 60 that shows adverse impact on public health from ozone levels of exposure and what they are saying is that the top and of the range there is less cushion angle was margin of safety than lower levels within that range. >> this was taken into account is the administrator developed the proposal. >> it was. >> when you consider the public health benefits for children and

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. this is the united states of america and it can be done so thank you for staying true to the law. >> recognize the gentleman from virginia mr. griffith for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. as you know i represent a fairly rural district that includes the appalachian mountains and the blue ridge mountains and a stones throw from the smokies. my understanding is that under epa requirements in order to construct a new source of emissions or expand existing source there's a need to find offsets. is that accurate? >> it depends on how in areas

designated so areas that are the least polluted areas in terms of ozone it changes as the air gets more and more severely polluted. >> okay. kentucky's air regulator has raised concerns about the impacts of rural counties and the statutory requirements world severely restrict economic development development in his rural county since by definition the areas have no existing offset emissions available for new sources. rural counties would be negatively impacted with little opportunity for economic -- would rural -- >> there's a provision that specifically focuses on rural counties that may be in nonattainment because the transport of air pollution we would work with any state that wanted to come forward and talk about rural counties.

>> 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's not transported but it's natural. as you know trees produce volatile organic compounds which combined the sunlight and produce ozone thus the name smokey mountains thus the name blue ridge mountains because the mountains themselves with their trees produce ozone so it's not necessarily transported ozone. it's ozone because we are in fact rural and have trees that produce some of this. it's not 80% as ronald reagan once said that it's a significant contributor particularly in the rural areas like mine in eastern appalachians. in fact scientific america in

2014 set according to the research oak and willow are significant producers of volatile organic compounds. is there anything that would give us that offset or do we have to go into the forest national or private and say you have to cut the oak and the willow but it's okay to leave the birch which are apparently low producers of eocs or organic compounds. >> water science shows, the areas that have significant challenges with ozone are in the rocky mountains the higher elevation areas. we are not seeing that kind of a situation in other areas of the country. >> you think the central appalachians will be okay? >> i do. >> what about this offset? if it's not transported with their rule cover naturally

occurring ozone? >> as we look forward i would be happy to get you this information 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. i don't think we are seeing widespread nonattainment in rural areas but those areas where we do there are opportunities there to work with those areas. >> i appreciate the opportunity to work on it. i am concerned about it. i'm going to have to ask you some of these russians off-line because time is precious but if you could give us your basic process on what the states have to do and what is the states implementations plans what is the range of time this process can take to complete months or years and that the epa doesn't approve and one that i should

answer doesn't approve implementation plan what happens to the state? this to become subject to a federal plan and with every litigation between the states and the epa over that? >> 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 the typically if an area is considered most areas the last time around were designated as marginal nonattainment which means 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 have three years to put a plan together. epa works with those states to make sure those plans -- >> what happens if a plan is not approved? >> generally we work back and forthwith the state to get it to a place where it's approvable. >> but what if it's not? what do you do? >> of the state didn't want to

make a plan that was approvable which most states do the clean air act does provide that the epa would step into federal plan but i have to say that's very rare in a situation both because states want to do their plans because they are possible to do them and we work hard with the state. >> i've. >> i've got to go put in the places where they don't want to because you've made the standards so low you may see more litigation. >> at this, recognize the gentleman from new jersey mr. pallone for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. some of my colleagues are quick to argue that epa's proposed ozone standard will hurt the economy but history tells us cleaning up pollution can benefit the economy since its enactment in 1970 the clean air act provides a perfect example of how we can make steady process and cleaning up the air while running the economy some mist mccabe do we have

achieved -- choose between cleaner and economic growth collects what does history tell us about her ability to cut illusion while building the economy? >> it shows is that the two things go hand-in-hand. we have reduced air pollution dramatically. the economy has grown and we have shown that this country and businesses have been updated have come up with pollution control technologies that employ american workers and make as leaders in the world on selling this kind of technology. >> when we talk about air pollution regulation by republicans colleagues often focus on cost but they are talking about the costs of exposure to unsafe air. you talk about the cost of polluters cleaning up their act so again how the costs and benefits stack up? >> we do have both of those held in our analysis that we put out. we have a proposed rule that shows the benefits of this rule would outweigh the cost by three to one. >> along those lines the

national association of manufacturers estimate the closest would be $140 billion annually making the ozone standard the most expensive rule-making industry. my understanding epa's estimate approved by the office of management and budget is much lower. how much disease -- epa expect the standard to cost? >> these are illustrative because the states will make their own choices that our estimates are a level of 65 parts per million it would be in the range of 19 to 38 ilion were standard of 70 parts per billion billion. sorry, said the completely wrong. the cost range from 3.9 billion to 15 billion depending on where the standard is. >> based on your experience the hundred and 40 million dollar price tag doesn't seem reasonable to? >> it does not match our evaluation. >> this concentration i think

it's been misguided. over the history of the clean air act businesses -- how have these doomsday predictions measured up to reality? >> 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 it actually hasn't come true. >> i just wanted to ask you something based on some of my republican colleagues and i'm not trying to be critical of them but can you confirm this? can you confirm that under epa or west virginia and virginia there will be 65 or 75 parts for building. as a sound great? >> that does sound right. >> i have a little over a

minute. let me get to some other questions about science they standards. the clean air act reviews the science behind the national ambient air quality standards every five years to ensure the best information is used. epa examined thousands of scientific studies when reviewing 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 are breathing air containing ozone? >> ozone can never 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 and the elderly and people with compromised respiratory is problems. >> i understand the clean air advisory committee and epa scientist recommended that the agency strengthened the ozone to 75 parts per billion to a range

of 60 to 70 city administrator proposes to strengthen the standard within 65 to 70. as the proposed ozone level and aggressive are overzealous action by the epa? >> we believe the range the administrative proposed is well supported by the scientific information and affirmed by our external peer review panel. >> thank you very. >> thank you very much. thank you mr. chairman. >> at this time i recognize the gentleman from missouri mr. lawton for five minutes. >> bank mr. chairman. ms. mckay at the same time the epa is moving forward with its proposed or excuse me with its proposed ozone rule it's also proposing its clean power plan which would require states plan to submit epa. how can we realistically expect epa to manage several new rounds of state plan revisions that will be needed within the

standard at the same time there are plans for a clean power plan to? that's going to take a lot of money and a lot of people isn't it and you have the people in the money? >> there are important programs that the clean air act at breakfast implements to expect user resources to their resources to work with the state to get this work done. >> you expect to but as a practical? is it feasible. [inaudible question] people want to do a lot of things and 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? >> i do congressman. this is our job to do and we will make sure that we get it done. >> i know it's your job but i question how can possibly, how you can have the resources, the time. you are behind on several things

are ready, the time and the money and the employees to accomplish the goal. >> some of this work is overlapping. some of the technical work we do in terms of air quality modeling and its efficient to do some of these things together. >> some of the state plan revisions overlap? >> the technical work that underlies the work that epa in the states need to do to implement these programs. >> okay. a few months ago i met with city officials from springfield missouri which is my hometown. i represent the southwest part of missouri and they are one of the most forward-thinking cities and have done more work on an integrated plan then anyone and about they were invited out to i believe it was alexandria and them and one of their city, i can't remember now the other

city. there were two cities in nine states that were invited out to present how they did their plan of what they do. but anyway they discussed this integrated plan for implementing mandates from the. amber: to protection agency and after analyzing the cost of the mandates over the next 20 years i have heard some people speculate here today that things are never as bad as they seem but this was 50% accurate it's not doable. it's devastating and they found complying with the epa mandates would cost to each individual in my district each of my 751,000 constituents $46,000. you can cut that inhabit the would like in say 23 but anyway cut it in half again if you would like but it's not feasible. missouri alone is looking at

billions of dollars in compliance costs with proposes on regulation and financial impact that it will have on everything from manufacturing, transportation. is going to like they say affects 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 constituents? >> i'm not familiar with the subject you are talking about. >> i will get it to you. an integrated plan in 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 you were familiar with it. at what point, my question is do you look at the economic impact? >> each rule looks at its impacts in light of liberals that have come before it and so there is an understanding of the

rules and impacts. both benefits and cost that are associated. we have but there is a weight, consideration given to the cost? >> whenever we do regulation there's another i wish that cost and benefits. >> okay. i guess i'm about out of time anyway and morgan stole some of my notes for some of my questions so without mr. chairman i yield back. >> at this time the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas mr. flores for five minutes. >> bank you ms. mccabe for joining us. if you know something and you know the cost is of something that has a price and you know that price but if you don't know something than the price is higher because you have brisk, right? yes, okay.

in 2010 the epa when they proposed going to 60 parts per billion said that would cost 90 billion dollars cost the economy $90 billion. in 2014 you reduced it to $40 billion. what happened over that four-year. mac the costs go down? >> i think what you're preparing is the proposal put out under the ozone reconsideration. >> just tell me what many made you go down. >> 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. >> this is not a 75260? >> that's right that was a reconsideration of the prior standard. >> okay thank you and in your proposal to go either 70 or 65 a significant amount of the control technology does not exist today and that's where there was question comes than so

do you know what it cost to offset those? it's about $170,000 at times so where did epa price it's a numbers technology on they per ton ozone? >> we looked across -- >> just give me a number. >> the number? >> about $15,000. >> that is what i was going to say. >> soap we know in texas what they cost to offset a ton of ozone is in its $170,000 were to become up with $15,000 for imaginary to allergy that doesn't exist where in the world did that come from? >> by looking at the history of the cost of pollution control technology over the years and this is a conservative estimate a stunning actual cost to control pollution. >> of it is that a publicly available document? >> hour our verse tensions are

publicly available. >> let me say it doesn't pass the smell test. when we know today with the cost is spread offset hanging out imaginary technology that does not exist and we price it and give it a walmart price, that's crazy. let's talk about background ozone for a minute. here is a background ozone map. texas has about 70 parts per billion, 72 parts per billion of background ozone so few take the level of the 65 what is texas supposed to do, get a big vacuum and set it in the ozone hole in the antarctica? >> that number doesn't sound right. >> lets you something a little bit more discreet. rocky mountain national park has a background of 77. there is no industry and.

>> in that part of the country there are areas where we are seeing a high background. c you said you you had at the national standards standard so how are you going to clean up rocky mt. national park? >> it's not responsible for cleaning up pollution that doesn't create. >> what is the mechanism? >> to the extent that pollution is coming from places that we can control. >> in this case it's not. 77 parts per billion background means by definition it's not produce there is coming from somewhere else. naturally occurring causes or china. >> of its coming from a motor vehicle around the country where that air pollution is coming into that area our rules will help reduce debt. >> let's talk about rfs for a minute. under your 2010 regulatory impact analysis of new renewable fuel standard it would

contribute to increased ethanol use. disregarding that altogether epa recently proposed its latest targets through 2016 lead to higher levels of ethanol and according to the studies of the journal of geophysical research that measured ozone emissions from ethanol refineries is five times higher than the epa's original estimates of the epa on one hand is saying okay you have got to reduce to 65 to 70 parts per billion and on the other hand you are trying to cram more effort on the system i tested tide times worst ozone impact on the economy than does the production of regular gasoline. i would submit the web -- the rest of my questions in writing. c the gentleman yields back. at this time i recognize the gentleman from north carolina mr. hudson for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank administrator for being here today.

i grew up with a love for the outdoors and understand the importance of protecting the environment but like many my colleagues i have concerns about the proposed rule. i was fascinated my colleague on florida ms. castor said they air and cap of florida's clean pair looked at hillsborough county florida and the ozone levels are 71 so her definition is clean i believe for but if and tampa florida would be out of attainment and what i really want to talk about is one of of my counties montgomery county north carolina. it's a rural county. the majority county is part of the national forest. this county has been decimated 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 would be out of attainment of the standard were 65 and again this is a beautiful county. it has to represent a lake in the air quality is wonderful.

it's a beautiful community. what would the epa do with accounting situation like that? >> we need to be careful about making assumptions about what counties will be and won't be at attainment. we don't know what a final standard will be but also those decisions would be made based on future air quality data. the numbers i believe you are citing are based on air quality data from 2011 through 2013. we will use most recent air quality data would 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 from prior years. >> do you you think the level would stay above 70? >> which leveled the main? >> did epa sets for air quality. >> i'm speaking to the information that people are citing about whether areas based

on air quality now will be an attainment if there is a revision to the standard and we just don't know that. that being said 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 that the clean air act does recognize and there are areas that could don't control their quality and the clean air act doesn't hold a series responsible for reducing pollution if it's not being produced there. >> i appreciate that and obviously it county like montgomery county desperately needs jobs and up we get into a situation we can't hire new people it's devastating. what specifically would montgomery county north carolina to it hypothetically were nonattainment plex dewey file a lawsuit against a local city? >> 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 clean air 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 country living. >> we would have to give up our pickup trucks and suburbans? >> is the fleet turns over and people buy newer cars the fuels are getting cleaner so air quality will improve. >> what percentage do you think motor vehicles contribute to that? >> motor vehicles generally contribute one third of your pollution in the country and it's not just cars driven in montgomery county. cars driven in the region country bidding to regional air pollution. >> i appreciate that and mr. chairman i have three resolutions i would like to insert in the record. one is from the regional chamber of commerce and one is from the board of commissioners and the

metropolitan planning organizations. all of these organizations opposed the standards. i would like to permission to -- i 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 near big cities can't reach the attainment 10 of the 12 rural counties in my district i think we may be using the wrong metric so that's my concern. mr. chairman i yield back. >> at this time i recognize that gentlelady from north carolina ms. ellmers for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for being with us today. want to start off as my colleague was pointing out basically the concerns we have in north carolina. just in our home state alone this rule will kill over 13,000 jobs a year and decreased the

state's gdp drastically at a time we can afford a it the least. this proposal raises serious concerns about poor to this discussion. i definitely have some questions for you starting off with in september of 2011 president obama requested your agency withdraws proposed standard based on his quote concerns about the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty particularly as our economy continues to recover end quote. your agency agreed with java standard and now you are issuing a revised standard. can you tell us what changes you made to decrease the regulatory burden which allows you to move forward? >> first let me explain at that time the agency was engaged in a reconsideration of the 2008 ozone standard which was not a mandatory duty. we are under mandatory duty to look at the standard services

are required review. >> so there are less regulations now? >> this is about science. this particular decision is about science and public health on what the science says about what is healthy in and air to breathe. >> maam not to enter cuba to point out the president said he was asking for you to decrease the amount of regulation. what regulations have you decreased which can move us forward? i understand you are looking at the science. what is it that you have done to make this process move forward so we can all come together to work on it? >> be put out regulations like the tier 3 regulation that i mentioned a minute ago which will bring improved air quality across the country. those are things as states won't have to do. >> is that less cumbersome than what existed in 2008? >> is a provision that will help states and municipalities meet

the ozone standards. >> moving on the first question any economic developer asks when locating new plans are considering expansion of existing plan is the attainment status and i know my colleague from north carolina was having this conversation. areas are immediately excluded from consideration. the clean air act requires advisory committee to advise administrator of any adverse public health welfare social economic or energy of x. 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 player you not requiring to take these into consideration with regard to economic development? >> and setting the health standard we have been specifically directed by the supreme court looking at the implementation implications is

not part of setting the health standard. >> so the supreme court told you that economic development is not significant and should not be considered? >> it's not relevant to the setting of the public health standard. >> okay, moving on. nonattainment indiscriminately reduces development associated with military bases particularly important for north erlanger as we have many strong military presence there. the standard at the natural background as is currently being considered will potentially limit military expansion in place at risk our military readiness. how is your agency planning on ensuring that your reply standard does not jeopardize national security? >> congresswoman i'm not aware of any instance in which the ozone standard has interfered with our military readiness. >> i would love to work with your office because my understanding is there are some

situations especially affecting our north carolina bases now that this will dramatically affect it so i would like to continue that come -- conversation. lastly and i have 31 seconds. part of this continued problem is our manufacturers are going to be able to deal with this technology. they manufacture simply cannot meet the standards what are their options? are they to buy expensive offsets? are they to close the door is? how do we help our manufactures? >> we work with the states in 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 to the whole history of the clean air act. we are manufacturing has moved forward and implemented new technologies has been able to grow. >> to existing controls achieve

the 60 parts per billion standard? speak -- keep in mind administrator did not propose to 60 parts per billion standard. when we look at the range you propose we identified a number of already existing controls. >> what are those existing controls? >> things like cleaner engines scrubbers knox controls lower the eeoc paints and coatings a variety of technologies that have been developed over the years that many areas are not implying that could be employed. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the gentlelady's time has expired and at this time i recognize the gentleman from ohio for five minutes. >> yankee mr. chairman and thank you ms. mccabe for joining us again today. increased access to low-cost sustainable domestic gas

production has helped tremendously in fueling the manufacturing renaissance in this country. this expansion has resulted not only an cleaner gas and electricity for manufactures but also provides a new source of natural gas liquids which are essential feedstocks and manufacturing applications such as chemicals and plastics. a study conducted by the consulting firm near a 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% increase in the cost of natural gas for industrial use under a 60 parts per billion standard so a quick question here would expect our manufacturing renaissance to continue under this type of scenario? >> i can't speak about study specific way but there certainly

has been a significant increase in the development of natural gas. >> we know about but what i'm asking you is when we are essentially taxing it with the standards and i might point out to you that in his recent trip we made to europe rate payers, businesses and residential rate payers 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's 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? >> i don't think we are taxing it. >> sure you are. if you get a 52% increase in the cost of natural gas under the standard that's essentially a

tax. you can call it whatever you want to but it's a tax on the industry. >> i'm not sure i agree. >> will agree to disagree. let me focus on how the epa has calculated benefits of its proposed ozone standard and here's 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 incorporated the co-benefits from reducing particulate matter 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. without the benefits from pm reductions the ozone rule would have very little to show for it.

in fact dr. anne smith has pointed out that these co-benefits are actually larger than the direct ozone related benefits from the rule. if you don't accept any rough's assessment then how about cass sunstein of regulatory affairs. he reviewed the ozone reconsideration in 2011 and help prevent a proposal from being finalized because it was too costly. here's what he said about this and i quote. on some of the estimates of the 2011 proposal than that advocates would have been zero. moreover a strong majority of benefits would have resulted not from ozone reductions but from co-benefit reductions and particulate matter which, as an incidental benefit of the technologies that reduce ozone emissions. so ms. mckay of this prompts a number of questions. first can you explain to me in

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? >> that's not science. that is a shell game. that's not science. >> it's not double counting. those benefits are real. >> this rule is supposed to be going after ozone not particular it at her. >> it's having additional benefits. >> very little in terms of the ozone with comparison to the benefits coming from particulate matter. talk to me about how transparent you have been with this to the american public. there are charts. in the proposed rule where somebody with a ph.d. can go and get this information 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? >> we are very clear and i myself personally have talked about co-benefits achieved by programs we implement. >> i think it's a shell game and i think it's economically destructive to the region my region of the country and other interest -- industries providing the jobs and vitality of america today and mr. chairman i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. i have a question i want to ask. i wanted to ask you a couple of other questions ms. mccabe. the science advisory committee is appointed by who? >> the science advisory committee there are some office when the epa that administers the science advisory board and

has a very open process. >> but the people who serve on the science advisory committee how are they selected? >> there are nominated. >> by who? >> either by themselves or by others and that's through a public process. >> who makes the decision about who serves? >> that's a decision made by her office of science. >> so epa decides who serves on the science committee lacks. >> through robust process. >> how long do they serve? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> how many people serve on that committee? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> and you get is a list list of the names of the people on the committee on how longer term of office is? >> is on the order of four to six years. >> thank you. >> ms. mccabe how long has that been in existence? >> how long has it been in existence?

>> the agency? >> know the committee the science committee? >> .com i don't know congressman rush that we can certainly find out, many years. >> both republican and democratic administrations? >> absolutely in the committees on the panels are very well balanced to make sure there is a range of views represented. >> would you say that is bipartisan? >> yes, i would. >> i have one more question. ms. mckay became here but the presence decision and 2010 on the ozone and let me read from that. with that in mind sent by the

president, it was underway to obtain a 2006 review of the science that would result in the reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013. ultimately and this is directly from the president on the ozone ambient air quality standards issued on september 2 2011. ultimately i did not support asking state and local governments to implement the new standard and that will soon be reconsidered. do you have any comments? do you remember that statement by the president? >> the president was was recognizing their regular five-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 clarify something i said before congressman rush i agreed with your characterization of the science advisory board is bipartisan. i think it's more accurate to call it nonpartisan. >> nonpartisan, okay 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 a public health organization legislation are members to formulate epa's work to regulate 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. i ask unanimous consent that they be entered into the record. >> without objection, so ordered

ordered. >> i yield back the balance of my time. >> i would also like to ask unanimous consent that following document standard into the record and one 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 lower u.s. ozone standard and number three comments of one of the texas commission on environmental quality on epa's proposed ozone rule texas commissioner's comments. without objection that will be entered into the record as well. 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 material sent with that the hearing is now adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]