October 12, 2015

　　On Oct. 1, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its final ozone standard, which lowers the standard from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 70 ppb. The agency was under a court-ordered deadline to finalize the ozone standard by Oct. 1.

　　In its proposed rule released Nov. 24, 2014, EPA proffered lowering the standard to within a range of 65-70 ppb, and even took comments on lowering the standard to 60 ppb. While EPA did not choose the lowest possible proposal of 60 ppb, ACA remains concerned lowering the current standard at all given the numerous areas of the country that are still in nonattainment, the potential economic consequences, and more stringent regulations that could come from a 70 ppb standard.

　　Since proposal, ACA has opposed a lowering the national ozone standard, expressing concern to EPA in comments, and support for maintaining the existing ground-level ozone standard in letters to Congressional members and President Obama. In 2011 President Obama directed EPA to withdraw a proposal to lower the NAAQS from the 75 ppb standard adopted during the Bush administration.

　　EPA has said that the NAAQS needs to be lowered in order to protect public health. According to an EPA fact sheet, the cost of implementing an ozone standard of 70 ppb would be $3.9 billion annually, beginning in 2025, and a 65 ppb standard would cost $15 billion annually — though those estimates don’t include California. Because of its distinct air quality challenges, California would need additional time to meet the national standard. According to the agency’s regulatory impact analysis, EPA would make attainment and nonattainment designations for a revised standard by October 2017, probably based on 2014-2016 air quality data. Those designations would determine how long areas would have to comply with the revised standard.

　　Ground-level ozone forms when nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react in the air. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review the NAAQS for ozoneevery five years to determine whether they should be revised in light of the latest science. The law also provides states with time to meet the standards; and, depending on the severity of their ozone problem, areas would have until between 2020 and 2037 to meet the standards.

　　The lowered standard could set out pollution policies, including limits on volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that ACA believes will have negative implications for states, municipalities, and industry, especially for paint and coatings manufacturers that are already striving to meet the existing ozone standard. State and local governments are struggling to meet the current primary ozone standards, and a nonattainment designation could adversely impact these communities, making it more difficult to attract and retain industry and sustain economic growth and vitality.

　　In its advocacy efforts, ACA repeatedly cited the need to reduce regulatory burdens in a recovering economy given that the then-proposed standard would be one of the most expensive regulations in U.S. history.

　　In its July 29 letter to the President and Congressional members, ACA along with more than 260 organizations and chambers of commerce warned of the deleterious effect a lowered standard would have on the economy and jobs. “A stricter ozone standard could close off communities across the nation to new jobs and economic growth, requiring reductions to near-background levels in many places. We are bound by the limits of technological feasibility, and this regulation mandates controls that even the EPA admits are unknown. When regulations push beyond the achievable, we lose the ability to innovate, create jobs, and unlock the next generation of technologies. The need for balanced government policies and reasonable flexibilities has never been greater, and no single regulation threatens to disrupt this balance more than EPA’s ozone rule.”

　　Contact ACA’s Javaneh Nekoomaram or David Darling for more information.