Background levels. Even epaso low that admits they have not determined how to reach full compliance. The marginal cost of ratcheting down the existing spread standard goes through the roof that thestimates standard would cost 3. 9 billion dollars to 15 billion annually and the 16 part would be 39 billion annually. Cost of study puts the 65 parts per billion at 140 billion a year, which would make this the agencys most expensive. Egulation ever the study also estimates 1. 4 million fewer jobs and household cost averaging 830 per year. These costs come on top of all of the other rules we have seen manythis administration, of which also impact the energy and manufacturing sectors. Moreover, this rule is yet another chapter in the Administration Efforts to force more extreme client policies on the American People. I would like to just name a few of them. We have done the utility mac, the same and, the cross state the tiertion rule, three, the 111 b, all on top of. His 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 would like to point out that epa is just now getting around to implementing guidance for the 2008 rule. Thee counties not meeting new standard would be designated as nonattainment. As i said, there are 230 counties in nonattainment around the country. Epa estimates that 358 counties that currently have monitors would be in nonattainment if they go to 70 parts per billion, and 558 counties would be in parts pernce at 65 billion based on recent data. This does not include counties nearby or without ozone monitors that may also be designated by to be in nonattainment. Nonattainment designation is like a selfimposed recession for some areas. It becomesnties, increasingly difficult to obtain a new permit to build a factory, to expand a factory or powerplant. Even permits for existing facilities would be impacted. Just last week and a survey of manufacturers, over half of them, 53 , 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 occur for roads and large infrastructure projects. In effect, almost all new job creating Economic Activity is jeopardized until the nonattainment area meets the which could take years, if not decades. Ibility amere poss near location could be designated nonattainment is enough to scare off prospective employees, so the proposed rule may already be doing damage. There is something wrong with our system when you have los angeles, San Joaquin Valley, major parts of california that have the most stringent Environmental Standards in the country, and on top of that, epa, and those areas, San Joaquin Valley, los angeles, may never be in compliance. In 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. At this time, i would like to recognize the gentleman from new , for hisr. Pallone opening statement. Thank you,e chairman whitfield, for holding this hearing on epas proposed standards. I also would like to thank janet mccabe for coming to testify before the committee. Air Quality Standards help to ensure that all americans can breathe healthier air. Level thatd sets a is safe to breathe. It has been instructional in cleaning the air in protecting Public Health, including the health of children and seniors. But the currently 75 parts per billion ozone standard has fallen short. Since 2008, the ozone standards have been weaker than the facts would allow. As such, the clean air sainted Advisory Committee may Crystal Clear that in order to protect Public Health, epa must strengthen the standard to ensure marginal safety for all individuals. These recommendations were ignored by the Bush Administration. To correct this flagrant disregard for the facts, epa has anotherosed based on exhaustive review of Scientific Evidence to revise the standard to the range of 65 to 75 parts per billion, as advised by the scientific committee. Epas decision is fully consistent with the law in their world me litany of Adverse Health impacts that will be avoided. Millions of asthma attacks, missed school days, thousands of premature hats. These are meaningful, realworld benefits that i have little doubt today we will hear much about. Supreme courts opinion written by justice thata no less determined if epa establishes a standard, cost may not be considered. That is why congress designed to Clean Air Act. Costs are only considered later. For cleanhe standard air and the states find the lowest way to meet it. Develop a careful budget and cost analysis. Epa estimates the benefits associated with the new ozone standards would range from 13 billion dollars annually to 38 billion annually. Industry has prepared dubious and grossly inflated estimates of the projected cost and they fail to consider any of the benefits. That paints a completely onesided picture of the cost of cleaning our air. Costhat ignores the real to people, especially our children. We also hear that the standard will have dire consequences for Economic Growth. These doomsday claims are nothing new. The reality is over the past 40 years, the Clean Air Act has produced tremendous Public Health benefits while supporting america pro Economic Growth. Epas ozone standards are long overdue. We need to let epa do its job to reach the goal of the Clean Air Act, cleaner for all americans, and i look forward to ms. Mccabes testimony. I yield back my time. Therman whitfield gentleman yields back. I recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. Olson, for five minutes. Olson thank you. I will be brief. I spent hours studying this. There was a common claim. Will i lose my job . Members of the Atlanta Chamber or the partnership, they came ,rom family farms and ranches members of the iowa farm bureau, a momaska homebuilders and pop store wrote epa and said said to our children, eas, and then you can have dessert. , andays, eat your peas then you can have more peas. The word came from epas workhorses, the state agencies, to make this rule work. They have no clue about the science used or the Health Impacts. They worry if they can build new roads. These voices come from all of america. I hope epa starts listening. If one of my colleagues on my side wants some time, i will yield . If not, i will yield back. Chairman whitfield the gentleman yields back. At this time, i recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. Rush, for five minutes. Rush i want to thank you, mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on the epas proposed rules. I also want to thank the acting. Ssistant administrator she has always given us her best always pleasant to hear her insightful and forthright testimony before the subcommittee. Beenhairman, today, it has duly noted, we are here to discuss the proposed National Air Quality standards for ozone. Has newly mandated to put forth by the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act requires the nationalt primary Quality Standards and concentration level sufficient to protect the Public Health with an adequate margin of safety. Concerning pollutants that endanger Public Health and the environment. Thenow the epa establishes standards based on medical and Scientific Evidence as well as the recommendations provided by the clean air Advisory Committee, which, mr. Chairman, you know is an independent scientific review committee. Epa is required to review the standards every five years solely in consideration of Public Health and they must accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge, mr. Chairman. In 2008, the Bush Administration failed to heed the unanimous recommendations of aircommittee, of the clean ,cientific Advisory Committee lowering the ozone Quality Standards. Under president bush set the standard at 75 pbb. Xt 270 60 270 would be more protective of Public Health 6 70 would be more protective of Public Health. The Obama Administration also refused to consider the standard until order to do so by the by a lawsuitear brought by environmental and Public Health groups. , lets ask the question, mr. Chairman. Why is this rule so very why is it so important for epa to act . We know there are Serious Health effects caused by the ozone and the epa proposal will improve in quality and result significant Public Health benefits. Children, the elderly, and diseasesth respiratory such as asthma will be impacted directly by this room. By this rule. The epa estimates there are currently 25. 9 Million People in the u. S. With asthma, including 7. 1 million children, and, mr. My city of chicago is and has been disproportionately ozoneed by asthma and the. The most recent study shows that when county and illinois is home to 13,000 children and over 340,000 adults with asthma. , i dont know what value can be placed on preventing all of these dire circumstances, all of these illnesses, all of these premature deaths and emergency , but i know the people who sent me here to represent them are some of the ones who would be impacted by this procedure and this action look forward to engaging ms. Mccabe on the rationale behind this proposal. I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman whitfield the gentleman yields back bounce of his time. I want to thank you, ms. Mccabe, for coming here early. We apologize for the delay. We are delighted ms. Mccabe is here. You are recognized for five minutes for your statement on the ozone role. Thank you, chairman whitfield, Ranking Member rush, members of the subcommittee thank you for calling me to testify. 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 five years to make sure they continue a protect Public Health with measure of safety. With an adequate margin of safety. Estimated that this is critical work for those with asthma, including children. If you examine thousands of scientific studies including new studies since epa last revised standards in 2008, and based on the law, a thorough review of that science, the recommendation of the agencys scientific advisors and the assessment of epa scientists and technical experts, the administrative judgment was the current standard of 75 parts per billion was not enough adequate to protect Public Health. She proposed to strengthen those standards to a range between 65 tp 70 parts per billion 65 tp 70 parts per billion. It included an alternative of 60 parts per billion in also recognize stakeholders and offering comment on retaining the existing standard. We also propose to update the air quality index for ozone to reflect the air Quality Standard if one is finalized. Americans realtime information so they can make choices to protect themselves and their families. Ozone seasons are lasting longer so they used to, the epa has also propose to revise the secondary standard. Based on new studies that add the evidence that repeated exposure has harmful effects on plants and trees and reduces growth, the administrator judged that a second standard within the range of 65 to 75 parts per billion, the same as the primary standard proposal would protect public, particularly damage to trees and echo systems. In addition, we plan to smooth the transition to revise standards, maximize effectiveness in the state, other tribal, and monitoring programs and give the needs for monitoring 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 from proposal is designed to better protect children and families from the harmful effects of ozone pollution. We estimate that it would prevent an estimated 380,000 missed school days, asthma attacks and children, and 710 premature deaths per year. Parttands ready to do our to stand with states and tribes to streamline implementation. Local communities, states, have already shown that we can reduce pollution while the economy continues to thrive. We fully expect this progress to continue. Existing and proposed federal measures are leading to substantial reductions in ozone nationwide, which will help improve air quality in will help many areas meet revised standards. We receive over 105 we received over 140,000 comments during the Public Comment period, and we are reviewing ofse comments for october 1 this year. Thank you very much. Chairman whitfield thank you, ms. Mccabe, very much. I recognize myself for five minutes of questions. Many of us believe the Clean Air Act needs to be changed. I say that, just as mr. Rush mentioned and you mentioned, epa looks at impact on health care by making it more stringent, these ozone rules, for example and you eliminate some many cases of asthma, whatever, tever, 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 the stringent controls have on jobs. We have had economist after economist come in here and talk about loss of jobs and the onact that that has health care, for children, for infants. Yet epa, every time they, p or, it is all about the benefits, the benefits, the benefits here, ite they come up is all that the benefits, the benefits, the benefits. Because as you know, if an area is in noncompliance, they cannot build a plant unless they get a permit. It does have an effect on jobs. For chili, areas like los angeles that have never been in fortunately, areas like los angeles but have never been in compliance, they rely on the Entertainment Industry in hightech, so they do not have worry aboutt basic industry jobs. How do you account for the fact that los angeles is still in noncompliance . In your own rules state that some of these areas, the only way they will ever be in if they useill be unknown controls controls we do not know what it is. Your ownderstand testimony, your own documentation shows that many parts of the country will be in noncompliance, whether it is evan d or six whether it is 7065. Even president obama tried to prevent the implementation. He delayed implementation of the , and now, ofeview course, environmentalist groups, who do a good job, they have a role to play, but they are driving epa, because they are andys going into court under the strict construction of the language, some of which is sometimes quite nebulous, the court say you cannot delay. They 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 in many parts of , wecountry and kentucky will have more counties in noncompliance. We will have 23 more at 65. Every major city in kentucky will be in noncompliance. At some of these levels. That afterconcerned all this time that areas like los angeles and san joaquins ill cant even make the old standards . Chairman, there is a lot in your question there. I will try to address as much of it as i can. Thee are certainly parts of country where meeting the standard has been extremely challenging due to a variety of factors, including challenges in Southern California. What that means is, people who live in those areas are exposed to unhealthy air. The good news is, air quality has improved in seven california, as across the country chairman whitfield but they are still noncompliant. Do not meet the standards, but the levels are lower in the area is making progress in a way that supports a vital local economy chairman whitfield how much time does los angeles have to comply . I dont know if they are severe or extreme, but how many years to they have to comply . Ms. Mccabe los angeles is in the extreme category. 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 but theywhitfield have been working on it for 15 or 18 years. They are not even in compliance today. That is right. The air is still not healthy for citizens to breathe. Chairman whitfield i see my time is expired. 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 youre implementing guidance is not been issued until just recently. I will recognize the german from illinois for five minutes. Rep. Rush ms. Mccabe, you know nationally ozone layers have fallen ozone levels have fallen by a third. 97 . What will you say to the argument that we have already reduced our average ozone levels that further lowering the to 75 or 70 or 65 will not give us the initial health , as opposed to the cost of trying to reach those Higher Standards . Congress, in the