9    A LARGE PART OF THE WORK THAT WE DO IS EDUCATING

           10    PHYSICIANS, HEALTH EDUCATORS, AND OTHERS ON REPRODUCTIVE

           11    HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT.  AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT

           12    WE'VE BEEN FINDING IS THAT TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF LOW

           13    BIRTH WEIGHT, WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF AIR

           14    POLLUTION.

           15             THERE'S A GROWING BODY OF EVIDENCE THAT THERE'S

           16    A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GROUND LEVEL OZONE AND LOW BIRTH

           17    WEIGHT.  AT OUR ORGANIZATION OUR MOTTO IS PREVENT WHAT

           18    CAN'T BE CURED, AND IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT WE HAVE

           19    TO DO A BETTER JOB AT TREATING THOSE THINGS THAT WE

           20    CAN'T PREVENT.  ASTHMA IS A MANAGEABLE DISEASE BUT NOT

           21    PREVENTABLE.  LOW BIRTH WEIGHT CAN OFTEN BE PREVENTED

           22    WITH PROPER PRENATAL CARE, BUT REDUCING THE BURDEN OF

           23    DISEASE IN OUR COMMUNITIES IS A TEAM EFFORT.

           24             WE CAN INCREASE THE QUALITY OF THE CARE

           25    RECEIVED IN OUR COMMUNITIES.  WE CAN FIGHT TO INCREASE

                                                                                67

            1    THE ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE.  WE CAN EDUCATE PATIENTS, AND

            2    WE CAN EDUCATE COMMUNITIES.  WE CAN EDUCATE PHYSICIANS

            3    TO PROVIDE BETTER CARE.  YOU ARE PART -- YOU, THE EPA,

            4    ARE PART OF THAT PREVENTION TEAM.  YOU CAN DO WHAT WE

            5    CAN'T.  YOU CAN SET STANDARDS THAT WILL PROTECT HEALTH

            6    AND THE ENVIRONMENT.

            7             WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION

            8    OF YOUR OWN SCIENTISTS BY SETTING A STRONG OZONE

            9    STANDARD.

           10             I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT -- THERE'S A FEW

           11    OTHER THINGS THAT WE SHOULD UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS OZONE

           12    STANDARD.  WE'VE PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON ASTHMA, BUT WHAT

           13    WE DON'T UNDERSTAND IS THAT THE BURDEN OF DISEASE IS

           14    DISPROPORTIONATE OF COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.  WHILE WE HAVE

           15    GREATLY REDUCED INFANT MORTALITY RATE, THERE'S A

           16    SIGNIFICANT ISSUE WITHIN THE AFRICAN AMERICAN, NATIVE

           17    AMERICAN, AND LATINO COMMUNITIES.  THE RATE OF INFANT

           18    MORTALITY RATE FOR AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN IS MORE THAN

           19    DOUBLE THAT OF WHITE WOMEN, AND LOW BIRTH WEIGHT

           20    CONTINUES TO BE THE MAIN INDICATOR FOR THAT INFANT

           21    MORTALITY RATE.

           22             THE MEDICAL AND SOCIAL COST OF LOW BIRTH WEIGHT

           23    AND LOW BIRTH WEIGHT BABIES IS SIGNIFICANT.  IN 1998

           24    ALONE IT COST US THREE TO FIVE -- FOR THE 3.5- TO 4

           25    MILLION CHILDREN THAT WERE BORN WITH A LOW BIRTH WEIGHT,

                                                                                68

            1    IT COST US FIVE TO 6 BILLION DOLLARS MORE THAN IT WOULD

            2    TO CARE FOR A CHILD WHO WAS NOT BORN WITH LOW BIRTH

            3    WEIGHT.  THE QUESTION TODAY IS, WILL THE NEEDS OF

            4    POLLUTERS CONTINUE TO TRUMP THE NEEDS OF MILLIONS OF

            5    PREGNANT WOMEN AND SOON TO BE MOMS?  WILL THE EPA ACT TO

            6    PREVENT HARM OR WAIT TO ARGUE ABOUT DECIMAL POINTS?

            7    WILL WE WAIT FOR MORE SCIENCE OR WILL WE ACT NOW?  WILL

            8    WE LEARN THE LESSON OF TOBACCO AND ACT WHEN WE KNEW

            9    THERE WAS HARM OR WAIT FOR SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY WHILE

           10    PEOPLE ARE DYING?

           11             THE EPA SHOULD ADOPT A STANDARD OF PRIMARY

           12    OZONE OF .060.  IT SHOULD ELIMINATE THE ROUNDING

           13    LOOPHOLE, AND IT SHOULD INCLUDE A STRONGER MARGIN OF

           14    SAFETY THAT IS REQUIRED IN THE CLEAN AIR ACT.  WE HAVE

           15    NO MORE TIME TO WAIT.  THANK YOU.

           16        MS. WEGMAN:  JUST ONE SECOND.  WE HAVE A COUPLE

           17    QUESTIONS.

           18        MR. HANNON:  ONE QUESTION ON THE REFERENCE TO THE

           19    SCIENCE ON LOW BIRTH WEIGHT IN RELATIONSHIP TO OZONE.

           20    IF YOU HAVE INFORMATION ON THAT, YOU SHOULD SUBMIT IT

           21    FOR THE RECORD.

           22        MARTHA DINA AGUELLO:  YES, WE WILL.

           23        MR. HANNON:  GOOD.

           24        MS. WEGMAN:  IF YOU HAVE ANY STUDIES AT ALL ON THAT,

           25    PLEASE SUBMIT THEM.

                                                                                69

            1        MARTHA DINA AGUELLO:  YES, I WILL.  THANK YOU.

            2        MS. WEGMAN:  OUR NEXT TWO SPEAKERS ARE MITZI SHPAK

            3    AND DR. JENNIFER SNOW.  YOU HAVE TO -- YOU HAVE TO PRESS

            4    DOWN ON THE MICROPHONE AND HOLD IT.  KEEP IT DOWN WHILE

            5    YOU SPEAK.

            6        MITZI SHPAK:  SORRY.  GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS MITZI

            7    SHPAK.  I'M EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ACTION NOW AND A

            8    MEMBER OF THE E.B. LOUIS LAB AT CAL TECH.

            9             ACTION NOW'S PRIMARY CONCERN IS AND ALWAYS WILL

           10    BE PUBLIC HEALTH.  SEVERAL HERE HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN

           11    ELOQUENTLY ABOUT THE DELETERIOUS HEALTH EFFECTS OF

           12    ADOPTING A LOWER OZONE STANDARD.  THEY HAVE ALSO

           13    REMINDED YOU THAT YOUR MANDATE IS TO PROTECT, NOT DO THE

           14    MINIMUM POSSIBLE, BUT TO PROTECT.  IT'S IN YOUR NAME.

           15    IT MEANS THAT YOU PREVENT HARM BEFORE IT HAPPENS.

           16             THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE OF THE DAMAGE TO HUMAN

           17    HEALTH THAT WILL HAPPEN IF YOU DO NOT ADOPT THE

           18    STRICTEST STANDARDS ACHIEVABLE.  THE BENEFICIAL EFFECTS

           19    OF ADOPTING STRICT STANDARDS GO BEYOND THE IMPROVEMENTS

           20    AND HEALTH EFFECTS.  IT IS GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY.  EVERY

           21    IMPROVEMENT IN AIR QUALITY IN THIS BASIN HAS RESULTED IN

           22    AN ECONOMIC BOOST AS FORMERLY UNLIVABLE COMMUNITIES

           23    BECAME LIVABLE AGAIN.

           24             AS A NATIVE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, I HAVE

           25    WATCHED MANY LOCAL TOWNS GO INTO DECLINE IN THE 1950'S

                                                                                70

            1    AND '60S.  FAMILIES MOVING AWAY, BUSINESSES CLOSING

            2    BECAUSE THE AIR WAS UNBREATHABLE.  IT IS NO COINCIDENCE

            3    THAT THESE SAME COMMUNITIES HAVE EXPERIENCED AN ECONOMIC

            4    RENAISSANCE BEGINNING IN THE MID 1970'S WHEN NEW CLEAN

            5    AIR STANDARDS CAME INTO FORCE.  NO ONE WANTED TO LIVE IN

            6    PASADENA, MONROVIA, SOUTH PASADENA IN THE 1960'S.

            7    HOUSES SOLD FOR UNDER $10,000 AND THAT WAS LESS THAN

            8    HALF OF THE AVERAGE OF OTHER AREAS WITH CLEANER AIR.

            9             AS THE AIR CLEARED, THESE COMMUNITIES

           10    EXPERIENCED AN ECONOMIC RENAISSANCE.  THESE ARE NOW SOME

           11    OF THE MOST DESIRABLE PLACES TO LIVE, ATTRACTING

           12    FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES AND COMMANDING ONE HALF TO A

           13    MILLION DOLLARS FOR THOSE SAME UNWANTED HOUSES.

           14             ANOTHER BENEFIT TO BUSINESS IN ADOPTING

           15    STRICTER STANDARDS IS TO PROTECT BUSINESSES THAT DO THE

           16    RIGHT THING.  THOSE BUSINESSES THEN INVEST THE EXTRA

           17    MONEY TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE COMMUNITY AND

           18    ENVIRONMENT.

           19             WHEN THE EPA ALLOWS HIGHER LEVELS OF POLLUTION,

           20    IT CONFERS AN ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE TO THOSE BUSINESSES

           21    THAT DO NOT CARE ABOUT OUR HEALTH OR EVEN THE LONG-TERM

           22    ECONOMIC HEALTH OF OUR COMMUNITIES.  THANK YOU.

           23        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.

           24        MR. HABER:  I HAVE ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION, PLEASE.

           25             YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL

                                                                                71

            1    ECONOMIC BENEFIT --

            2        MITZI SHPAK:  MY HEARING IS POOR.  IT'S JUST AN

            3    AMPLIFIER.

            4        MR. HABER:  YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL

            5    ECONOMIC BENEFIT FOR BUSINESSES THAT DO THE RIGHT THING

            6    COMPARED WITH BUSINESSES THAT DO NOT, WHICH WE DO SPEAK

            7    OF IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXISTING

            8    REGULATIONS.

            9             DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING PARTICULAR ABOUT HOW THAT

           10    WOULD PLAY OUT IN THE CONTEXT OF A MORE PROTECTIVE OZONE

           11    STANDARD VERSUS A LESS PROTECTIVE OZONE STANDARD?

           12        MITZI SHPAK:  NOT AT THIS MOMENT.

           13        MR. HABER:  THANKS.

           14        MITZI SHPAK:  THANK YOU.

           15        JENNIFER SNOW, PH.D.:  HELLO.  IT'S WORKING?

           16        MS. WEGMAN:  YOU HAVE TO CONTINUE TO PRESS IT DURING

           17    YOUR TESTIMONY.

           18        JENNIFER SNOW, PH.D.:  OKAY.  THERE WE ARE.

           19        MS. WEGMAN:  YEAH, SORRY.

           20        JENNIFER SNOW, PH.D.:  THAT'S OKAY.  MY NAME IS

           21    JENNIFER SNOW, AND I AM THE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF A

           22    GROUP CALLED PROGRESSIVE CHRISTIANS UNITING.  ONE OF THE

           23    MANY THINGS WE DO IS WE TRY TO WORK WITH CHURCHES ON

           24    ISSUES OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE.

           25             I ACTUALLY WANTED TO OPEN BY ASKING THE MEMBERS

                                                                                72

            1    OF THE PANEL IF YOU ARE FROM LOS ANGELES OR WHERE YOU

            2    ARE FROM?  ARE YOU FROM THE EAST COAST?

            3        MR. HABER:  I GREW UP IN ANAHEIM.

            4        JENNIFER SNOW, PH.D.:  WONDERFUL.  WONDERFUL.  SO

            5    YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE HERE.  I ACTUALLY AM FROM THE

            6    EAST COAST.  I ONLY MOVED HERE ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO.  I

            7    AM A DOCTOR, BUT I AM NOT A SCIENTIST, BUT THAT'S OKAY.

            8    YOU HAVE SCIENTISTS, AND THEY HAVE TOLD YOU THE RESULTS

            9    OF THEIR RESEARCH, AND YOU KNOW WHAT THE ADEQUATE

           10    STANDARD WOULD BE, WHICH IS .060.

           11             YOU'VE ALSO HEARD A LOT OF THINGS TODAY FROM

           12    PEOPLE WHO HAVE A LOT OF DETAILS AND A LOT OF SPECIFICS

           13    AND A LOT OF STATISTICS ON HOW THE OZONE LAYER AFFECTS

           14    US AND HOW THE -- THIS SMOG THAT WE LIVE WITH AFFECTS

           15    US.  I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT THAT.  I'M NOT AN

           16    EXPERT IN ANYTHING EXCEPT PEOPLE'S EXPERIENCE IN LIVING

           17    IN LOS ANGELES AND LIVING WITH THE HIGH OZONE LEVELS

           18    THAT WE HAVE.

           19             SINCE MOVING HERE THREE YEARS AGO, I MYSELF AM

           20    A VERY HEALTHY PERSON.  I'M AN OUTDOOR'S PERSON.  I'VE

           21    DEVELOPED SINUS INFECTIONS.  I'VE DEVELOPED RESPIRATORY

           22    INFECTIONS.  I'VE DEVELOPED ASTHMA.  IT'S A REGULAR

           23    FEATURE OF LIVING IN LOS ANGELES, IN THIS BASIN, THAT

           24    YOU DO DEVELOP ASTHMA.  I LIVE IN PASADENA WHICH HAS

           25    BEEN -- BECOME MUCH CLEANER THAN A LOT OF AREAS OF LOS

                                                                                73

            1    ANGELES.

            2             THERE'S A WOMAN IN MY CHURCH WHO JUST HAPPENED

            3    TO TELL ME THE OTHER DAY THAT HER GRANDSON DEVELOPED

            4    ASTHMA, VERY SEVERE ASTHMA.  HE HAD A SEIZURE, AN ASTHMA

            5    SEIZURE, BRONCHIAL SEIZURE IN SCHOOL A FEW YEARS AGO.

            6    HE'S NOW IN A COMA.  HE HAS SPENT MOST OF HIS CHILDHOOD

            7    IN A COMA, AND HE IS UNLIKELY TO WAKE UP.  AND, YOU

            8    KNOW, SHE DIDN'T THROW IT OUT THERE AS A TERRIBLE

            9    TRAGEDY.  IT IS A TRAGEDY FOR HER, BUT IT IS WHAT WE

           10    LIVE WITH.  THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO CHILDREN IN LOS

           11    ANGELES.  THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO CHILDREN IN THE BASIN.

           12    THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO CHILDREN THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA.

           13             SO WE'RE ASKING YOU, PLEASE, TO FULFILL THE

           14    STANDARD THAT THE EPA IS HELD TO FULFILL.  YOU HAVE BEEN

           15    CALLED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH.  YOU KNOW THAT.  I

           16    DON'T NEED TO TELL YOU THAT, BUT I'M ASKING YOU TO,

           17    PLEASE, HOLD US TO THE HIGHEST STANDARD THAT YOU CAN.

           18    WE HAVE NO WAY OF PROTECTING OURSELVES OTHER THAN

           19    THROUGH GOVERNMENTAL STANDARDS.  WE NEED THE .060

           20    STANDARD.  WE NEED THAT STANDARD TO BE STRINGENT.  WE

           21    NEED IT TO BE TIGHT.  WE ARE ASKING YOU TO PLEASE,

           22    PLEASE, HOLD INDUSTRY AND HOLD US TO THAT STANDARD.

           23             THERE'S NO ONE IN LOS ANGELES WHO WOULD NOT

           24    RATHER PAY A FEW MORE PENNIES FOR THEIR POWER, A FEW

           25    MORE PENNIES FOR THEIR GAS, A FEW MORE PENNIES FOR THEIR

                                                                                74

            1    SMOG CHECK THAN WATCH CHILDREN DIE.  WE ALL WOULD RATHER

            2    HAVE A BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE.  WE ALL WOULD RATHER HAVE

            3    AN ENVIRONMENT THAT IS HEALTHY WITH PLANTS THAT CAN

            4    SURVIVE.

            5             I ALSO COMMEND YOU ON THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT

            6    STANDARD, AND I HOPE THAT YOU DO ALSO INCLUDE THAT IN

            7    YOUR NEW STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS.  THAT IS ALL I HAVE

            8    TO SAY.  THANK YOU SO MUCH.

            9        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH.

           10             OUR NEXT TWO SPEAKERS ARE ALLEN LARSON AND

           11    CHRISTINE BRYANT.

           12        ALLEN LARSON:  HI, MY NAME IS ALLEN LARSON.  I AM A

           13    FILM AND TELEVISION PRODUCER HERE IN LOS ANGELES, SO

           14    I'VE GOT TO LIVE HERE IN LOS ANGELES.  I AM HERE AS YOUR

           15    NEIGHBOR ACTUALLY.  WE'RE GOING TO HEAR A LOT OF GREAT

           16    TESTIMONY HERE TODAY.  YOU ALREADY HAVE.  I'M LISTENING,

           17    AND I'M LEARNING A LOT AND HAVING A GREAT TIME BACK

           18    THERE.  I'M GOING TO LEAVE THEM TO GIVE YOU SOME OF

           19    THOSE NUMBERS.  I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT BEING A

           20    NEIGHBOR.

           21             AS YOUR NEIGHBOR -- I'M A GOOD NEIGHBOR.  I'M

           22    THE KIND OF GUY THAT WOULD COME OVER AND HELP YOU

           23    ORGANIZE YOUR GARAGE ON THE WEEKENDS AS LONG AS YOU WERE

           24    BARBECUING.  I'M ALSO THE GUY THAT IS RESPONSIBLE.  I

           25    WAS AN EAGLE SCOUT, AND I HAD A GOOD DAD THAT TAUGHT ME

                                                                                75

            1    A LOT OF STUFF.  SO I DRIVE A PRIUS, AND I'M FORTUNATE

            2    TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD REALLY EFFICIENT APPLIANCES.  I'M

            3    SMART.  I DON'T EVEN COMMUTE THAT OFTEN.  I'M ABLE TO

            4    WORK FROM HOME A LOT OF THE TIME, WHICH I THINK IS COOL.

            5    AND NORMALLY THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH.  IT REALLY WOULD BE.

            6    EXCEPT THREE WEEKS AGO TODAY, MY BEAUTIFUL WIFE, WHO'S

            7    SITTING IN THE BACK OF THIS ROOM, GAVE BIRTH TO MY

            8    BEAUTIFUL DAUGHTER WHO'S ALSO SITTING IN THE BACK OF THE

            9    ROOM, AND OBVIOUSLY ASLEEP OR SHE'D BE TESTIFYING

           10    INSTEAD OF ME.

           11        MS. WEGMAN:  CONGRATULATIONS.  THAT'S GREAT.

           12        ALLEN LARSON:  THANK YOU.  AND IT CHANGED KIND OF

           13    EVERYTHING, MY PERSPECTIVE.  WHERE IT WAS OKAY THAT I

           14    COULD CONTRIBUTE LESS TO THE BAD STUFF IN THE AIR AND

           15    TRY TO LIVE A GOOD LIFE IF THE WHOLE KIND OF HURT ME A

           16    LITTLE BIT, THAT'S OKAY.  BUT IT'S NOT OKAY THAT IT

           17    HURTS MY DAUGHTER.  AND IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN, YOU

           18    UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

           19             YOU UNDERSTAND -- THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO.

           20    YOU PROTECT THEM FROM THE POWER OUTLETS.  YOU PROTECT

           21    THEM FROM THE SHARP EDGES.  YOU PROTECT THEM FROM THE

           22    FAST TRAFFIC.  YOU DRIVE LIKE A GRANDFATHER.  I DRIVE

           23    LIKE A GRANDFATHER NOW.  ALL OF THESE THINGS I DO

           24    BECAUSE I LOVE HER AND WANT TO BE THE BEST FATHER THAT I

           25    CAN BE.  PART OF THAT IS LEADING BY EXAMPLE.  PART OF

                                                                                76

            1    THAT IS NEVER TURNING MY BACK ON A NEIGHBOR IN NEED.

            2    PART OF THAT IS JUST BEING A GOOD HUMAN BEING.  AND I AM

            3    YOUR NEIGHBOR, AND I'M ASKING FOR YOUR HELP.

            4             .060, THIS IS WHAT THEY SAY.  IT'S ACHIEVABLE.

            5    WE CAN DO IT.  IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE CAN'T RISE TO THE

            6    CHALLENGE OF.  ALL THESE FOLKS HAVE GREAT SCIENTIFIC

            7    REASONS WHY IT'S NECESSARY, AND THERE IS NO REASON GREAT

            8    ENOUGH TO RISK MY DAUGHTER'S HEALTH TO NOT DO IT.  SO

            9    THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.  THANK YOU.

           10        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  THANK YOU TO YOUR WIFE AND

           11    DAUGHTER FOR TRUCKING OVER HERE TODAY.

           12        CHRISTINE BRYANT:  I AM FOLLOWING THAT.  I THINK

           13    THAT'S GREAT.

           14             GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS CHRISTINE BRYANT, AND

           15    I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL BOARD OF THE AMERICAN

           16    LUNG ASSOCIATION.  I AM CURRENTLY THEIR BOARD SECRETARY,

           17    AND I'VE BEEN WITH THE ORGANIZATION FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS.

           18    I'M ONE OF THREE SPEAKERS FROM THE LUNG ASSOCIATION

           19    YOU'LL BE HEARING FROM TODAY.  THE OTHER TWO

           20    REPRESENTATIVES  WILL BE REPRESENTING THE STATE OF

           21    CALIFORNIA.

           22             SO THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION IS ONE OF OUR

           23    NATION'S OLDEST LUNG HEALTH DISEASE ORGANIZATIONS, AND

           24    OUR MISSION IS TO PROTECT LUNG HEALTH AND PREVENT LUNG

           25    DISEASE AND FIGHTING FOR CLEAN AIR.  HEALTHY AIR IS VERY

                                                                                77

            1    CENTRAL TO THAT MISSION.  YOU'RE HERE TODAY BECAUSE FIVE

            2    YEARS AGO IN OUR CONTINUED COMMITMENT TO THAT FIGHT, WE

            3    TOOK LEGAL ACTION TO REQUIRE THIS REVIEW.

            4             I'M GOING TO STEP BACK.  IS IT BETTER THAT I

            5    STAY AWAY FROM THIS MICROPHONE?  OH, THANK YOU.  THAT

            6    HELPS.  IT WAS DRIVING ME NUTS.

            7             THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION TODAY IS CALLING

            8    ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TO ADOPT A

            9    PRIMARY NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD FOR OZONE

           10    AT WHAT YOU'VE HEARD ALL DAY, THE 0.060 PARTS PER

           11    MILLION AVERAGED OVER THE EIGHT HOURS.  WHILE THE RANGE

           12    YOU'VE PROPOSED IS A MAJOR IMPROVEMENT ON THE EXISTING

           13    STANDARD, IT FALLS SHORT ON WHAT WE NEED.  THE HEALTH --

           14    INDEED, THE HEALTH OF TOO MANY PEOPLE IS AT STAKE.

           15             NOW, THE CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIRES YOU TO SET A

           16    STANDARD THAT PROTECTS PUBLIC HEALTH WITH AN ADEQUATE

           17    MARGIN OF SAFETY.  WHAT DOES THAT REALLY MEAN?  AN

           18    ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY.  HOW DO YOU PROVIDE THAT

           19    PROTECTION?  FIRST, WE BELIEVE THAT THE EPA SHOULD

           20    FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF THE 23 SCIENTISTS THAT, I'M SURE,

           21    YOU'VE HEARD QUITE A BIT ABOUT TODAY, WHO FORMED THAT

           22    CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE BECAUSE THEY

           23    GAVE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FOR TIGHTER STANDARDS.

           24             LAST OCTOBER THOSE SCIENTISTS SENT THE

           25    COMMITTEE THEIR OFFICIAL RECOMMENDATION IN A LETTER THAT

                                                                                78

            1    WAS BOTH EXPLICIT AND POINTED.  THE COMMITTEE WARNED

            2    THAT OZONE SMOG STANDARD NEEDS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY

            3    REDUCED AND THAT THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION

            4    FOR RETAINING THE CURRENT WEAKER STANDARD.  THE

            5    COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED A RANGE STANDARD OF 0.060 TO 0.070

            6    PARTS PER MILLION, A RANGE THAT WOULD PROVIDE MUCH MORE

            7    PROTECTION THAN THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE BEFORE US

            8    TODAY.

            9             UNFORTUNATELY, THE TIGHTEST NEW STANDARD

           10    PROPOSED BARELY TOUCHED THE LEVELS THAT THE SCIENTISTS

           11    RECOMMENDED.  NO DOUBT ABOUT IT, THE PROPOSED RANGE IS

           12    BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW.  EVEN A STANDARD SET AT

           13    0.75 PARTS PER MILLION WOULD LEAD TO MUCH LESS OZONE

           14    ACROSS THE NATION.  BUT THE CLEAN AIR ACT JUST DOESN'T

           15    DIRECT YOU TO DO BETTER.  IT DEMANDS THAT YOU PROTECT

           16    THE PUBLIC HEALTH.  CLEANER AIR IS NOT CLEAN ENOUGH.

           17             EPA ARGUED THE PROPOSAL THAT THE UNCERTAINTY OF

           18    THE RESEARCH KEEPS YOU FROM TIGHTENING THE STANDARD TO

           19    THE LEVEL THAT THE LUNG ASSOCIATION RECOMMENDS.

           20    UNCERTAINTY IS TO BE EXPECTED IN RESEARCH.  IN FACT, THE

           21    CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THAT REALITY IN 1970 WHEN IT ADOPTED

           22    THE REQUIREMENT TO INCLUDE THAT MARGIN OF SAFETY IN THE

           23    STANDARD.  SO ANY UNCERTAINTY TO COMPEL YOU TO TIGHTEN

           24    THAT STANDARD, CLEARLY THE 23 SCIENTISTS FELT THAT.

           25             THE PROPOSAL ALSO LEAVES OPEN A COMPLETELY

                                                                                79

            1    UNACCEPTABLE OPTION TO US AND THAT'S MAKING NO

            2    IMPROVEMENTS.  IN DOING SO, YOU IGNORE A DECADE OF

            3    COMPELLING RESEARCH THAT POINTS TO EVEN MORE HARM FROM

            4    OZONE POLLUTION.  WE CANNOT WAIT ANOTHER DECADE TO

            5    PROVIDE THIS PROTECTION.

            6             AS YOU HEARD EARLIER TODAY, THE OZONE AIR

            7    POLLUTION POSES RISK FOR INFANTS, SENIORS, AND PEOPLE

            8    WITH ASTHMA AND OTHER LUNG DISEASES.  FOR THESE PEOPLE,

            9    SMOG POLLUTED AIR MEANS MORE BREATHING PROBLEMS,

           10    AGGRAVATED ASTHMA, HOSPITAL VISITS, AND EVEN PREMATURE

           11    DEATH.  EVEN HEALTHY ADULTS WHO WORK OR EXERCISE

           12    OUTDOORS ARE AT RISK.  IN OUR WRITTEN COMMENTS THAT

           13    WE'LL BE PROVIDING YOU, WE'LL DISCUSS THE SCIENTIFIC

           14    EVIDENCE FOR A STRONGER OZONE LEVEL.

           15             I'M HERE TODAY PRIMARILY BECAUSE IT'S PERSONAL

           16    FOR ME.  I'VE BEEN A LIFE-LONG RESIDENT IN SOUTHERN

           17    CALIFORNIA AND CURRENTLY MEMBERS OF MY FAMILY ARE AT

           18    RISK.  MY MOTHER LIVES IN SAN DIEGO, AND SHE SUFFERS

           19    FROM BORDERLINE EMPHYSEMA.  SHE WAS FORCED TO MOVE FROM

           20    LOS ANGELES IN THE EARLY '70S BECAUSE THE AIR POLLUTION

           21    LEVELS IMPACTED HER HEALTH.  TODAY SHE COUGHS, AND SHE

           22    WHEEZES, AND SHE STRUGGLES TO GAIN THE BREATH OF AIR

           23    THAT SHE NEEDS.  IT IS VERY HARD ON HER TOO WHEN THE

           24    OZONE LEVELS INCREASE, AND IT'S TOUGHER FOR HER TO

           25    BREATHE, AND IT'S TOUGHER FOR HER TO WALK.  WHAT I DON'T

                                                                                80

            1    LIKE IS WORRYING THAT THE LEVELS OF OZONE THAT SHE'S

            2    BREATHING MIGHT ACTUALLY SHORTEN HER LIFE.

            3             OZONE ISN'T SOMETHING ABSTRACT FOR US.  IT

            4    MEANS HER LIFE.  SINCE I HAVE THREE SECONDS LEFT, I'M

            5    GOING TO END -- I'M GOING TO LEAVE YOU WITH A STATEMENT

            6    THAT SAYS IT ALL FROM THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION,

            7    WHEN YOU CAN'T BREATHE, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.

            8             THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LISTENING TO ME TODAY.

            9        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  I THINK WE HAVE ONE

           10    QUESTION.

           11        MR. HANNON:  MA'AM, I HAVE A QUESTION ON YOUR

           12    COMMENT ON UNCERTAINTY.

           13        CHRISTINE BRYANT:  YES.

           14        MR. HANNON:  EPA RELIED ON THAT FOR REASONS NOT

           15    PROPOSING, ANYWAY, TO GO BELOW 70 PARTS PER MILLION.  IF

           16    EITHER TODAY OR IN YOUR WRITTEN COMMENTS, IT WOULD BE

           17    USEFUL IF YOU COULD EXPAND ON THAT.

           18             SO, FOR EXAMPLE, CASAC'S ADOPTED 60, BUT

           19    CERTAINLY THERE'S UNCERTAINTY BELOW 60 AS WELL.  SO

           20    UNCERTAINTY DOESN'T DRIVE YOU FOREVER TO GO LOWER, BUT

           21    THERE WOULD BE A BALANCE AT SOME POINT AT WHICH YOU STOP

           22    GOING LOWER AND EVERYONE TODAY HAS STOPPED AT 60,

           23    LARGELY, I THINK, BECAUSE OF ISSUES OF UNCERTAINTY AS

           24    WELL AS ACCEPTING THE JUDGMENT OF CASAC THAT BELOW THAT

           25    IS NOT APPROPRIATE.  BUT IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO HAVE YOUR

                                                                                81

            1    ORGANIZATION'S VIEW ON HOW TO BALANCE UNCERTAINTY WITH

            2    RISK AND OTHER FACTORS IN DECIDING WHERE TO STOP.  THAT

            3    SEEMS TO BE THE CRITICAL ISSUE TO THIS PROPOSAL FROM

            4    ALMOST ALL OF THE SPEAKERS TODAY.  THANK YOU.

            5        CHRISTINE BYRANT:  I WILL MAKE SURE.  THANK YOU.

            6        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  ENJOY YOUR NEW FATHERHOOD.

            7        ALLEN LARSON:  I WILL, THANK YOU.

            8        MS. WEGMAN:  OUR NEXT TWO SPEAKERS ARE MATT KEENER

            9    AND JILL LEVIN.

           10             IS MR. KEENER HERE?

           11        MATT KEENER:  YES, THANK YOU.  HI, I'M MATT KEENER.

           12    I'M WITH THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA.  I

           13    LIVE HERE IN LOS ANGELES WITH MY FAMILY, MY FRIENDS, THE

           14    PEOPLE I CARE ABOUT MOST IN THE WORLD.

           15             LOS ANGELES, OF COURSE, ACCORDING TO THE

           16    AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION'S STATE OF THE AIR REPORT

           17    RELEASED ANNUALLY, HAS THE MOST UNPLEASANT DISTINCTION

           18    OF HAVING THE WORST AIR IN THE NATION.  OZONE, IN

           19    PARTICULAR, IS A REAL PROBLEM FOR US.  IN FACT, I DON'T

           20    KNOW IF ANY OF YOU SPENT TIME HERE IN LOS ANGELES.  I

           21    KNOW YOU GREW UP IN ANAHEIM.  YOU KNOW, THE OZONE IS

           22    NOTICEABLE TO PEOPLE HERE IN LOS ANGELES.  I DON'T JUST

           23    MEAN, YOU KNOW, THAT YOU CAN SEE THE SMOG.  I MEAN,

           24    PARTICULARLY HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS.

           25             LOS ANGELES IS ONE OF THE LARGEST AND ARGUABLY

                                                                                82

            1    MOST BEAUTIFUL CITIES IN THE WORLD.  PEOPLE ARE

            2    ATTRACTED HERE AS VISITORS.  THEY COME HERE FOR THEIR

            3    CAREERS AND IN VARIOUS FIELDS, PARTICULARLY

            4    ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT

            5    HAPPENS WHEN -- I HEAR THIS STORY COUNTLESS TIMES, AND I

            6    EXPERIENCED IT MYSELF WHEN I CAME HERE:  IF YOU'RE

            7    ATHLETICALLY INCLINED, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT YOU

            8    DO WHEN YOU ARRIVE IN LOS ANGELES AND EXPERIENCE ALL

            9    THIS BEAUTY AROUND US IS YOU WANT TO GET OUT IN IT AND

           10    DO THAT PHYSICAL ACTIVITY THAT YOU LOVE THE MOST.

           11    RUNNING, PLAYING TENNIS, SURFING.  WHATEVER IT IS THAT

           12    YOU DO.

           13             AS YOU EXERT YOURSELF, YOU START TO GET THIS

           14    BURNING SENSATION.  I KNOW YOU GUYS KNOW WHAT I'M

           15    TALKING ABOUT IT.  LOCALLY, WE REFER TO IT AS THE OZONE

           16    BURN.  NOW, OF COURSE, TECHNICALLY, IT'S NOT A BURN, BUT

           17    THAT'S WHAT THE LOCALS CALL IT.  WHEN SOMETHING GETS TO

           18    THE POINT WHERE THE LOCALS HAVE GIVEN IT A NAME, IT'S

           19    LIKE, HELLO, HEADS UP, WE'VE GOT AN ISSUE HERE.

           20             NOW, YOU'VE BEEN HEARING -- I'M SURE YOU'RE

           21    FULLY WELL-AWARE, BUT THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION IS

           22    VERY CONCERNED ABOUT OZONE LEVELS.  WHAT WE WANT TO

           23    ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO, AS YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD, IS REALLY

           24    PUSH TOWARD THAT MARGIN OF SAFETY AND NOT BE SWAYED BY

           25    SHORT-TERM -- AND I STRESS, SHORT-TERM ECONOMIC INTEREST

                                                                                83

            1    OF POLLUTERS BECAUSE OUR RESEARCH INDICATES THAT THE

            2    LONG-TERM ECONOMIC INTEREST OF EVERYBODY -- FRANKLY

            3    INCLUDING THOSE INDUSTRIES THAT ARE MAJOR POLLUTERS, THE

            4    LONG-TERM ECONOMIC BENEFITS GO TOWARD STRONGER

            5    STANDARDS.  STRONGER STANDARDS MEAN HEALTHIER PEOPLE.

            6    HEALTHIER PEOPLE MEANS A HEALTHIER ECONOMY.

            7             WHEN PEOPLE ARE OUT ENJOYING THEMSELVES, THE

            8    TOURIST ECONOMY PICKS UP.  PEOPLE ARE HARD AT WORK.

            9    THEIR EFFECTIVENESS PICKS UP.  IT'S, FRANKLY, SILLY THAT

           10    WE ARGUE THESE THINGS ON THIS SHORT-TERM IMMEDIATE

           11    PROFIT BASIS.

           12             AND, MR. HANNON, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND YOUR

           13    CONCERN.  WELL, IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THIS MARGIN OF

           14    SAFETY THING, WELL, WHERE DO YOU STOP?  YOU KNOW, I

           15    WOULD -- I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO -- TO PUSH

           16    TOWARD STOPPING WHEN WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN WE HAVE

           17    PROTECTED OURSELVES.  OURSELVES, OUR LOVED ONES, OUR

           18    FELLOW CITIZENS ACROSS THIS COUNTRY.  THAT'S WHEN WE

           19    STOP.  WE STOP WHEN WE ARE NOT UNCERTAIN.  LET'S NOT

           20    RISK OUR LIVES, OUR CHILDREN'S LIVES, FRANKLY, OUR

           21    GRANDCHILDREN'S LIVES.

           22             IF WE'RE GOING TO ERR -- AND WE'RE HUMAN, WE

           23    MAKE ERRORS, ALL OF THE SCIENTISTS WHO ARE TELLING US

           24    THAT THIS IS WHAT WE MUST DO, AND MAYBE ONE OR TWO WITH,

           25    MAYBE, SOME QUESTIONABLE FUNDING SOURCES ARE SAYING,

                                                                                84

            1    "OH, THERE'S SOME UNCERTAINTY."  BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, EVEN

            2    IF THERE IS SOME UNCERTAINTY, FRANKLY, SO WHAT?  LET'S

            3    MOVE TOWARD CERTAINTY.  LET'S PUSH TOWARD CERTAINTY.

            4    LET'S GET TO A PLACE WHERE THE STANDARDS ARE CLEARLY

            5    PROTECTING US.

            6             NOW, PEOPLE HAVE TOLD YOU, SCIENTISTS,

            7    CITIZENS, LAWYERS ARE TELLING YOU THAT THE LAW REQUIRES

            8    YOU TO DO THAT, AND WE WILL BE HERE NOW, THEN, TO PUSH

            9    FOR YOU TO DO THAT.  TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE THING

           10    THE LAW HAS CHARGED YOU TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, OUR

           11    HEALTH.  THAT'S -- THAT'S YOUR JOB.  I'M SORRY TO HAVE

           12    TO TELL YOU WHAT MY OPINION OF YOUR JOB IS.  I'M

           13    COUNTING ON YOU AND MY LITTLE BABY BOY, WHO'S LESS THAN

           14    TWO YEARS OLD WHO SPENT A WEEK IN THE HOSPITAL DUE TO

           15    ASTHMA COMPLICATED STANDARD RESPIRATORY VIRUS LAST YEAR.

           16    THE SCARIEST WEEK OF MY AND HIS MOTHER'S LIFE.  REAL

           17    PEOPLE ARE BEING IMPACTED.

           18             WE'VE GOT TO PUSH TOWARD REAL SAFETY, REAL

           19    HEALTH AND THAT MEANS AT LEAST .6, NOT .7.  THANK YOU.

           20        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.

           21        JILL LEVIN:  HI, I'M JILL LEVIN.  I'M HERE AS A

           22    CITIZEN AND A SINGLE MOTHER OF A THREE-YEAR-OLD.

           23             SO I'D LIKE TO BELIEVE I'M THE FEMALE MATT

           24    LARSON.  HE'S A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND SOMEBODY THAT'S

           25    PARTICIPATED IN OUR COMMUNITY WORKING WITH NON-PROFITS.

                                                                                85

            1    I'M SELF-EMPLOYED, AND I'VE CHOSEN TO LIVE FAIRLY NEAR

            2    MY WORK; BUT AS A PARENT OF A THREE YEAR OLD, I THINK

            3    ABOUT IT.  I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN

            4    FROM PESTICIDES, FROM TOO MUCH SUGAR, FROM OBESITY, AND

            5    AIR QUALITY.  BUT I DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT AND

            6    THAT'S WHY YOU ARE CHARGED TO PROTECT THE ADULTS AND OUR

            7    CHILDREN.  AND SO THAT'S REALLY WHY I'M HERE.

            8             FORTUNATELY, MY DAUGHTER DOESN'T HAVE PROBLEMS,

            9    BUT EARLIER THIS YEAR ON KPCC RADIO, I THINK IF YOU'RE

           10    FROM ANAHEIM YOU'RE PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH IT, THERE WAS

           11    A STUDY THAT INDICATED THAT IF YOU LIVE WITHIN A THIRD

           12    OF A MILE OF A FREEWAY OR HEAVILY TRAFFIC STREETS,

           13    YOU'RE AT HIGHER RISK.  WELL, LIVING IN L.A., WHO

           14    DOESN'T?  IT HAPPENS THAT I LIVE WITHIN A THIRD OF A

           15    MILE FROM NOT THE FREEWAY, BUT TWO HEAVILY TRAFFIC

           16    STREETS.  I'M PUTTING MY DAUGHTER IN PRESCHOOL ON PICO

           17    BOULEVARD NEAR CENTURY CITY.  WELL, THEY PLAY OUTSIDE.

           18    WHERE DO I GO TO MAKE IT SAFE?  DO I PUT MY DAUGHTER

           19    OUTSIDE?  THIS IS SOMETHING I FEEL WE, AS A CITIZENRY,

           20    SHOULD NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT.

           21             JUST LETTING OUR CHILDREN PLAY OUTSIDE WE HAVE

           22    TO PUT ON SUNTAN LOTION.  OKAY.  WE MAKE THAT

           23    CONCESSION.  WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO IT AS KIDS, BUT WE

           24    HAVE TO PUT IT ON OUR KIDS.  SO THIS IS REALLY TROUBLING

           25    TO ME THAT JUST LETTING MY DAUGHTER OUTSIDE IS NOT SAFE

                                                                                86

            1    ANY MORE.  WHO DO WE HAVE TO TURN TO?  WE HAVE TO TURN

            2    TO THE EPA AND TRUST THAT YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF

            3    US OVER THE CONCERNS OF THE BIG OIL COMPANIES, THE

            4    REFINERIES, AND THE CAR COMPANIES BECAUSE AS FAR AS I'M

            5    CONCERNED, THEY SHOULD NOT RULE THE ROOST, EVEN IF

            6    THEY'RE PAYING MONEY TO BUSH AND HIS CRONIES.

            7             I'D LIKE TO ADD THAT IT ALSO SEEMS THAT --

            8    WELL, SORRY, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH CLOUT YOU HAVE OVER

            9    THE CAR COMPANIES TO GET THEM TO MOVE FASTER BECAUSE IN

           10    L.A. WE LIVE IN OUR CARS.  SO HERE IS ONE OF THE

           11    BIGGEST -- AS YOU KNOW, IN THIS STATE, HOW DO WE GET

           12    AROUND IT?  SO IF WE NEED TO IMPROVE THINGS, IT'S NOT

           13    JUST THE OZONE, BUT IT'S THE PEOPLE THAT ARE CREATING

           14    THE OZONE PROBLEMS.

           15             SO I'D LIKE TO FINISH WITH JUST SAYING THAT I'M

           16    HERE AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN.  I'D LIKE TO BELIEVE THAT

           17    I'M A RESPONSIBLE PARENT, BUT I CAN'T DO IT ON MY OWN.

           18    THANK YOU.

           19        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU BOTH.

           20             OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE LINDA WEINER AND PAUL

           21    CORT.  YOU HAVE TO HOLD THE MICROPHONE DOWN WHILE YOU

           22    SPEAK.

           23        LINDA WEINER:  GOOD MORNING.  I NAME IS LINDA

           24    WEINER, AND I REPRESENT THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA CLEAN

           25    AIR TASK FORCE LOCATED IN SAN FRANCISCO.  I AM ALSO THE

                                                                                87

            1    DIRECTOR OF AIR QUALITY ADVOCACY TO THE AMERICAN LUNG

            2    ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA.

            3             THE BAY AREA CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE IS A GROUP OF

            4    PUBLIC HEALTH ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTATION, AND

            5    COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS WORKING COLLABORATIVELY TO

            6    SHAPE AIR QUALITY POLICY IN THE SAN FRANCISCO AREA.  OUR

            7    MEMBERS INCLUDE THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION, THE

            8    SIERRA CLUB, THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS, THE

            9    NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNSEL, FRIENDS OF THE

           10    ENVIRONMENT, MAJOR TRANSPORTATION ORGANIZATION, MAJOR

           11    STATEWIDE ASTHMA COALITION, BREATHE CALIFORNIA, MANY

           12    LOCAL COMMUNITY-BASED GROUPS.

           13             WE'RE HERE TODAY TO URGE EPA TO ADOPT A STRONG

           14    HEALTH PROTECTIVE STANDARD FOR OZONE.  EXCUSE ME IF I'M

           15    BEING SOMEWHAT REPETITIVE IN THE BEGINNING, BUT WHILE WE

           16    UNDERSTAND THAT EPA HAS PROPOSED STRENGTHENING THE

           17    STANDARD, WE FEEL IT'S A MODEST PROPOSAL AND FALLS SHORT

           18    OF THE GOAL RECOMMENDED BY THE -- BY YOUR OWN SCIENTIFIC

           19    EXPERTS.

           20             AS YOU KNOW, THERE ARE QUOTES FROM INDEPENDENT

           21    ADVISORS THAT THEY NEED TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED,

           22    OZONE SMOG STANDARDS, AND THAT THERE'S NO SCIENTIFIC

           23    JUSTIFICATION FOR RETAINING THE WEAKER STANDARD.  THE

           24    PROPOSED STANDARD BARELY TOUCHES THE MOST PROTECTIVE

           25    LEVELS RECOMMENDED BY THOSE SAME INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS,

                                                                                88

            1    BUT ALARMINGLY, THE NEW EPA PLAN LEAVES THE DOOR WIDE

            2    OPEN TO AN OPTION THAT WE CONSIDER UNACCEPTABLE IN TERMS

            3    OF MAKING NO IMPROVEMENTS.  MAKING NO IMPROVEMENTS WOULD

            4    IGNORE A DECADE OF RESEARCH.

            5             THE BAY AREA CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE IS VERY

            6    CONCERNED BECAUSE WE SEE THE IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH.

            7    WE SEE ITS SENSITIVE POPULATIONS, WHICH IS YOUR MARGIN

            8    OF SAFETY, AND PARTICULARLY LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES MOST

            9    IMPACTED BY MULTIPLE SOURCES OF POLLUTION, REAL PEOPLE

           10    SUFFER REAL IMPACTS.  ON THOSE DAYS WHEN THE AIR IS TOO

           11    DIRTY TO BREATHE, TOO DIRTY TO GO OUTSIDE, PEOPLE ARE

           12    PRISONERS IN THEIR OWN HOMES.  THEY WIPE OFF POLLUTION

           13    EVERY DAY FROM THEIR VENETIAN BLINDS, AND IT

           14    SHOULDN'T -- IT REALLY IS TRUE THAT WHEN YOU CAN'T

           15    BREATHE, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.

           16             IT BEARS REPEATING THAT OZONE IS A POWERFUL

           17    OXIDANT THAT CAN BURN OUR LUNGS AND AIRWAYS CAUSING THEM

           18    TO BECOME INFLAMED, REDDENED, AND SWOLLEN.  OZONE

           19    EXPOSURE, AS YOU KNOW, CAN LEAD TO SHORTNESS OF BREATH,

           20    CHEST PAIN, WHEEZING AND COUGHING, INCREASED RISK OF

           21    ASTHMA ATTACKS AND NOW WE KNOW EVEN PREMATURE DEATH.

           22    THE MORE WE'VE LEARNED ABOUT OZONE POLLUTION, THE MORE

           23    WE UNDERSTAND HOW DANGEROUS IT IS.

           24             AS YOU KNOW, CASAC REVIEWED A 2,000-PAGE

           25    SUMMARY OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND UNANIMOUSLY CONCLUDED

                                                                                89

            1    THAT THE CURRENT STANDARD IS NOT ADEQUATE TO PROTECT

            2    PUBLIC HEALTH.  OTHER SERIOUS PUBLIC HEALTH

            3    ORGANIZATIONS HAVE AGREED, INCLUDING W.H.O., THE ACADEMY

            4    OF PEDIATRICS, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EPA'S CHILDREN'S

            5    HEALTH PROTECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, THE AMERICAN

            6    MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, AND OTHERS.

            7             BUT THE CRITICAL POINT WE WANT TO CONVEY TODAY

            8    IS THAT THERE IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF THE

            9    DEVASTATING HEALTH EFFECTS OF OZONE AT LEVELS BELOW THE

           10    CURRENT STANDARDS.  INDEED, STUDY IN EPA REPORT HAVE

           11    DEMONSTRATED THAT SMOG CAN DAMAGE LUNGS AT

           12    CONCENTRATIONS AS LOW AS .60 PARTS PER MILLION AND THAT

           13    IS CERTAINTY.  WE KNOW THAT FOR SURE.  A LARGE 14-YEAR

           14    STUDY IN 95 CITIES FOUND THAT SHORT-TERM PEAKS IN OZONE

           15    LEVELS INCREASED DEATHS FROM RESPIRATORY AND

           16    CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE.  THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

           17    MORTALITY AND OZONE WAS EVIDENT EVEN ON DAYS WITH

           18    POLLUTION LEVELS BELOW THE CURRENT STANDARD.

           19             WE KNOW, WE HAVE SEEN STUDIES, THE TIGHTER THE

           20    STANDARD, THE FEWER ASTHMA ATTACKS, THE FEWER HOSPITAL

           21    TRIPS, AND THE FEWER DEATHS FROM AIR POLLUTION.  THERE

           22    IS A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP THAT CANNOT BE IGNORED.

           23             BUT, FINALLY, IN MY LAST FEW MINUTES, I WANT TO

           24    SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE FACT THAT THE CALIFORNIA -- THE

           25    AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION STATE OF THE AIR REPORT

                                                                                90

            1    INDICATES THAT 99 MILLION AMERICANS STILL LIVE IN

            2    LEVELS -- IN AREAS OF UNSAFE LEVELS OF OZONE.

            3    CALIFORNIA HAS THE DUBIOUS DISTINCTION OF DOMINATING THE

            4    LIST OF CITIES AND COUNTIES WITH THE WORST AIR POLLUTION

            5    USING QUALITY CONTROL AND EPA DATA TO ASSESS THOSE

            6    LEVELS.  CALIFORNIA HAS 16 OF THE 25 MOST OZONE-POLLUTED

            7    COUNTIES IN THE COUNTRY AND 9 OF THE MOST OZONE-POLLUTED

            8    CITIES.  REDUCING THIS POLLUTION IS CRITICAL BECAUSE AIR

            9    POLLUTION TRAVELS AND SECOND-HAND SMOG DRIFTS INTO OTHER

           10    COMMUNITIES.

           11             WHILE IT MAY BE TRUE THAT A STRICTER STANDARD

           12    MAY BE MORE DIFFICULT TO ATTAIN, THE HEALTH STAKES ARE

           13    VERY HIGH.  THE HEALTH COSTS IN TERMS OF ILLNESS,

           14    EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS, ASTHMA ATTACKS, AND EVEN

           15    PREMATURE DEATHS, THE BENEFITS OF CLEANING UP AIR

           16    POLLUTION HAVE PROVEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO BE

           17    OVERWHELMINGLY GREATER THAN THE COST.  ACCORDING TO AN

           18    OFFICE -- WHITE HOUSE OFFICE MANAGEMENT SURVEY, TOTAL

           19    BENEFITS OF EPA'S AIR POLLUTION REGULATIONS OUTWEIGH THE

           20    COSTS BY AS MUCH AS 40 TO 1.  WE HAVE 37 YEARS OF

           21    EXPERIENCE OF AIR QUALITY REGULATIONS, AND FINDING OUT

           22    THIS HAS NOT HURT ECONOMIC GROWTH IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT

           23    NOW THAT CLEANER TECHNOLOGY EXISTS THAT CAN HELP

           24    IMPLEMENT THESE STANDARDS.

           25             THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS BASING A

                                                                                91

            1    STANDARD ON DIFFICULTY OF ATTAINMENT.  CALIFORNIA

            2    RESIDENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW IF THEIR AIR IS HEALTHY

            3    OR NOT.  AS YOU HAVE HEARD MANY TIMES, THE CLEAN AIR ACT

            4    REQUIRES POLLUTING -- POLLUTION STANDARDS PROTECT PUBLIC

            5    HEALTH WITH AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY.  THE SUPREME

            6    COURT CONFIRMED THAT UNANIMOUS DECISION IN 19 -- I MEAN,

            7    IN 2002.  THE SOLE FACTOR WOULD BE SIMPLY PUBLIC HEALTH.

            8    THE BAY AREA CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE STATES THE SCIENCE IS

            9    CLEAR AND THE LAW IS CLEAR.  WE RECOMMEND .060 PARTS PER

           10    MILLION.  THANK YOU.

           11        MR. HABER:  I HAVE ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION.

           12        LINDA WEINER:  SURE.

           13        MR. HABER:  YOU MENTIONED W.H.O., MY COLLEAGUES MAY

           14    KNOW THIS, BUT DO YOU KNOW OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD WHAT

           15    THEIR RECOMMENDED EIGHT-HOUR OZONE NUMBER IS?

           16        LINDA WEINER:  I DON'T, BUT I CAN FIND OUT.  I'LL

           17    LET YOU KNOW PROBABLY BEFORE THE END OF THE DAY.  .051

           18    MY COLLEAGUE TELLS ME.

           19        MS. WEGMAN:  YEAH, WE DO HAVE THAT INFORMATION.

           20        PAUL CORT:  GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS PAUL CORT.  I'M

           21    A STAFF ATTORNEY WITH EARTH JUSTICE.  I'M HERE TO URGE

           22    YOU TO ADOPT AN EIGHT-HOUR OZONE STANDARD OF 60 PARTS

           23    PER BILLION.  THE RECORD FOR A 60 PPB STANDARD HERE IS

           24    MORE COMPELLING THAN THE RECORD EPA HAS USED TO SUPPORT

           25    ANY PREVIOUS NAAQS DECISION.

                                                                                92

            1             IT WAS CASAC'S UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION THE NEW

            2    STANDARD BE SET IN THE RANGE BETWEEN 60 AND 70 PPB.

            3    EPA'S SO-CALLED SCIENTIFIC JUDGMENTS FOR REJECTING

            4    CASAC'S UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE NO BASIS IN SOUND

            5    SCIENCE AND REPRESENT RADICAL DEPARTURES FROM THE WAY

            6    EPA'S HAS USED SCIENTIFIC DATA IN THE PAST.  THE CLEAN

            7    AIR ACT DOES NOT MANDATE THAT EPA FOLLOW CASAC'S

            8    RECOMMENDATIONS BLINDLY.

            9             SECTION 307(D)3 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT, HOWEVER,

           10    REQUIRES EPA TO INCLUDE IN THE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE

           11    MAKING AN EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS FOR ANY DIFFERENCES

           12    BETWEEN THE PROPOSAL AND THE CASAC RECOMMENDATIONS.  EPA

           13    DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY SUCH EXPLANATION.  EPA PROVIDES ITS

           14    ARGUMENTS FOR NOT CONSIDERING THE STANDARD BELOW 70 PPB,

           15    BUT IT DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY IT CAME TO CONCLUSIONS THAT

           16    DIFFERED FROM CASAC.  THERE'S NO EXPLANATION OF WHY EPA

           17    BELIEVES CASAC WAS WRONG.  NOTHING ON HOW CASAC

           18    INCORRECTLY JUDGED THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OR WHY EPA

           19    BELIEVES THAT EVERY SINGLE EXPERT ON THE COMMITTEE

           20    OVERESTIMATED THE CERTAINTY OF THE STUDIES JUSTIFYING

           21    THE STANDARD BETWEEN 60 AND 70 PPB.  EPA GIVES NO

           22    EXPLANATION OF WHY ITS SCIENTIFIC REVIEW IS SUPERIOR OR

           23    MORE REASONABLE THAN THAT OF CASAC.

           24             IN THE END THERE'S NOTHING IN THE RECORD THAT

           25    EXPLAINS WHY EPA'S SCIENTIFIC JUDGMENT SHOULD BE

                                                                                93

            1    AFFORDED DEFERENCE OVER THE UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATIONS OF

            2    THE INDEPENDENT SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE CONGRESS

            3    CREATED.  THE CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIRES MORE.

            4             WHAT IS EVEN MORE ASTONISHING IS TO LOOK AT THE

            5    TRANSPARENTLY ARTIFICIAL ARGUMENTS EPA USES TO REJECT A

            6    LOWER STANDARD.  FIRST, EPA OBSERVES THAT THE EVIDENCE

            7    FROM CLINICAL STUDIES AT EXPOSURE LEVELS BELOW 80 PPB IS

            8    QUOTE "QUITE LIMITED."  THE EPA IS REFERRING TO THE

            9    ADAMS STUDY, WHICH UPON EPA'S REANALYSIS DEMONSTRATED

           10    STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON THE LUNG FUNCTION

           11    IN HEALTHY ADULTS EXPOSED TO CONCENTRATIONS OF 60 PPB.

           12    EPA DOES NOT POINT TO ANY FAULT IN THE STUDY.  IT DOES

           13    NOT POINT TO OTHER STUDIES THAT CAME TO CONTRARY

           14    RESULTS.

           15             INSTEAD, EPA REJECTS THESE FINDINGS ONLY

           16    BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES AVAILABLE.  THIS IS NOT A

           17    REASONABLE BASIS FOR IGNORING DATA.  EPA CANNOT CLAIM TO

           18    BE SETTING STANDARD THAT PROTECTS PUBLIC HEALTH WITH AN

           19    ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY, INCLUDING PROTECTING THE

           20    SUSCEPTIBLE POPULATIONS, AND PROTECTION AGAINST

           21    UNCERTAIN AND UNKNOWN IMPACTS WHEN EPA HAS

           22    UNCONTROVERTED DATA THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH

           23    EPIDEMIOLOGICAL AND OTHER STUDIES DEMONSTRATING IMPACTS

           24    AT 60 PPB.

           25             WITH RESPECT TO THESE EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES,

                                                                                94

            1    EPA CLAIMS THAT MANY STUDIES REPORT POSITIVE AND

            2    STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT ASSOCIATIONS, WHILE OTHERS ARE

            3    NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT AND OTHERS ARE NOT

            4    POSITIVE.  THIS STATEMENT OF THE OBVIOUS IS NOT AN

            5    ARGUMENT FOR IGNORING AVAILABLE DATA.  THIS IS SIMPLY

            6    THE NATURE OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES.  THE STUDIES USED

            7    TO SUPPORT PRIOR NAAQS DECISIONS, SUCH AS 1997 FINE PM

            8    NAAQS, WERE NOT UNIFORMLY STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT AND

            9    POSITIVE; AND YET, EPA WAS WILLING TO RELY ON THOSE

           10    STUDIES THAT WERE.

           11             EPA'S THIRD ARGUMENT IS, AGAIN, MERELY A

           12    STATEMENT OF THE OBVIOUS.  EVIDENCE OF CAUSALITY BECOMES

           13    INCREASINGLY UNCERTAIN AT LOWER LEVELS OF THE EXPOSURE.

           14    THIS WAS TRUE IN 1997 WHEN EPA SET THE OZONE STANDARD

           15    THE LOWEST EXPOSURE LEVEL DEMONSTRATED IN CLINICAL STUDY

           16    AND THIS WAS TRUE WHEN EPA SET THE FINE PM STANDARD AT

           17    THE LOWEST EXPOSURE LEVEL FOUND IN STATISTICALLY

           18    SIGNIFICANT EPI STUDIES.

           19             WHAT'S MORE TROUBLING ABOUT USING THIS FACT AS

           20    AN ARGUMENT FOR REJECTING MORE HEALTH-PROTECTIVE

           21    STANDARDS IS THAT THE EPA HAS MORE DATA DEMONSTRATING

           22    THE CAUSATIVE LINK BETWEEN OZONE EXPOSURE AND HEALTH

           23    EFFECTS THAN IT HAS EVER HAD FOR ANY PRIOR NAAQS RULE

           24    MAKING.  EPA'S FINAL ARGUMENT IS BASED ON ITS RISK

           25    ASSESSMENT; AND IT IS AN IMPLICIT SUGGESTION THAT WITH

                                                                                95

            1    THE 70 PPB STANDARD, THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN AND

            2    ASTHMATICS LEFT TO SUFFER IS ACCEPTABLE AND THE

            3    MORTALITY IMPACTS ON THE ELDERLY ARE LOW ENOUGH TO

            4    IGNORE.  THIS IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE USE OF RISK

            5    ASSESSMENT AND IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE RATIONALE FOR

            6    DETERMINING THE LEVEL OF THE STANDARD.

            7             FIRST, EPA'S USE OF THE RISK ASSESSMENT TO

            8    DETERMINE WHEN THE STANDARD MEETS THE STATUTORY CRITERIA

            9    IS AN ILLEGAL ATTEMPT TO BALANCE COST AND BENEFITS.

           10    NEVER BEFORE HAS THE EPA ACTUALLY USED THE RISK

           11    ASSESSMENT TO DRAW A LINE BETWEEN LEVELS OF POLLUTION

           12    KNOWN TO RESULT IN ADVERSE PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS.  EPA

           13    DOES NOT CLAIM THAT THE REMAINING HEALTH IMPACTS ARE NOT

           14    ADVERSE OR THAT THE LIKELIHOOD OF THESE IMPACTS IS

           15    NEGLIGIBLE.  THE RISK ASSESSMENT IS USED TO SAY THAT

           16    THERE IS SOME LEVEL OF ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT EPA WILL

           17    TOLERATE.  THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

           18             WELL, JUSTICE BRIOR OPINED THAT THE NAAQS NEED

           19    NOT BE RISK FREE, THE EPA TWISTS THE MEANING OF THE TERM

           20    TO JUSTIFY ALLOWING IMPACTS THAT ARE CERTAIN BUT AFFECT

           21    ONLY A SMALL POPULATION.

           22             AGAIN, THE LAW IS CLEAR THAT EPA MUST PROTECT

           23    EVEN SENSITIVE SUBPOPULATIONS FROM ADVERSE IMPACTS.  THE

           24    RISK THE SENSITIVE SUBPOPULATION FACES IS BORN OUT IN

           25    THE ANALYSIS OF THE HEALTH EFFECT STUDIES.  NOT IN THE

                                                                                96

            1    RISK ASSESSMENT.  EPA'S RELIANCE ON THE RISK ASSESSMENT

            2    TO REJECT A 60-PPB STANDARD IS BOTH IRRATIONAL AND

            3    ILLEGAL.  I URGE YOU TO ADOPT A 60-PPB STANDARD THAT

            4    WILL TRULY ADDRESS THE SUFFERING CAUSED BY OZONE

            5    POLLUTION.

            6        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  WE HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR

            7    MR. CORT.

            8             I THINK YOU SAID THAT THERE ARE UNCONTROVERTED

            9    DATA SHOWING IMPACTS OCCURRING AT 60 PARTS PER BILLION,

           10    AND I JUST WONDERED WHICH DATA YOU WERE REFERRING TO?

           11        PAUL CORT:  TO THE ADAMS -- I DON'T REMEMBER WHICH

           12    YEAR, BUT THE CLINICAL STUDY SHOWING --

           13        MS. WEGMAN:  OKAY.

           14        PAUL CORT:  YEAH.

           15        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.

           16        MR. HANNON:  I ALSO HAVE ONE QUESTION ON THE ADAMS

           17    STUDY BELOW .80, EPA SAYING THE EVIDENCE IS QUITE

           18    LIMITED.

           19             IT'D BE USEFUL TO COMMENT, PERHAPS, IN YOUR

           20    WRITTEN TESTIMONY AS TO EPA'S VIEWS LARGELY THAT IT WAS

           21    A SINGLE STUDY AS COMPARED TO AS .080.  THERE'S NUMEROUS

           22    STUDIES AT THAT POINT AND THAT'S QUITE LIMITED IN THE

           23    SENSE OF THE VOLUME OF THE EVIDENCE, THE MAGNITUDE OF

           24    THE EVIDENCE.  YOU DID REFERENCE THAT IT WAS CONSISTENT

           25    WITH THE EPI STUDIES, ET CETERA; BUT DRAWING THAT LINK

                                                                                97

            1    WOULD BE USEFUL TO KNOW MORE DETAIL AS COMPARED TO JUST

            2    SAYING THERE'S ONE STUDY THERE.

            3        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH.

            4             OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE COUNCILWOMAN RAJI BRAR

            5    AND CRAIG JORDAN.

            6        COUNCILWOMAN RAJI BRAR:  GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS

            7    RAJI BRAR.  I'M A COUNSEL MEMBER IN THE CITY OF ARVIN

            8    AND A GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY

            9    AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT.

           10             AT THIS TIME, THE CITY OF ARVIN HAS THE

           11    UNWANTED DISTINCTION OF BEING THE MOST POLLUTED CITY IN

           12    THE NATION.  LAST YEAR, ARVIN HAD THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF

           13    GROUND LEVEL OZONE VIOLATIONS IN THE NATION.  WE ARE,

           14    AGAIN, LEADING THE PACK WITH VIOLATIONS THIS YEAR.  OUR

           15    COMMUNITY IS EXTREMELY DEVASTATED TO LEARN THAT WE ARE

           16    BREATHING SUCH BAD AIR.

           17             ARVIN IS KNOWN AS A FARMING COMMUNITY.  WE ARE

           18    LOCATED IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY, WHICH IS CONSIDERED TO BE

           19    THE BREAD BASKET TO THE WORLD.  I FIND IT RATHER IRONIC

           20    THAT THE COMMUNITY WHICH HELPS TO NOURISH OTHER

           21    COMMUNITIES IS CURRENTLY STRUGGLING TO BREATHE.  WE DO

           22    NOT HAVE SMOKE STACKS OR FACTORIES WHICH CAUSE OUR BAD

           23    AIR.  WE INHERIT FROM THE COMMUNITIES TO THE NORTH OF

           24    US.  IT GETS CARRIED DOWNWIND AND GETS TRAPPED BY THE

           25    MOUNTAINS THAT SURROUND OUR TOWN.

                                                                                98

            1             AS YOU DRIVE INTO OUR CITY, YOU CANNOT EVEN SEE

            2    THE MOUNTAINS THAT ARE LESS THAN SEVEN MILES AWAY.  WHEN

            3    YOU WALK OUT YOUR FRONT DOOR, YOU KNOW INSTINCTIVELY BY

            4    THE SMELL IN THE AIR AND BY LOOKING AT THE SKYLINE THAT

            5    IT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA TO GO OUTSIDE.

            6             WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS.

            7    OZONE POLLUTION IS BOTH DANGEROUS AND PERVASIVE.  IT

            8    POSES A SERIOUS AND COSTLY THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH.

            9    EXPOSURE TO OZONE CAN CAUSE A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT

           10    AFFLICTIONS:  CHEST PAIN, COUGH, AGGRAVATES ASTHMA,

           11    REDUCING LUNG FUNCTION, AND EVENTUALLY SHORTENING LIFE

           12    EXPECTANCY, ALL OF WHICH INCREASE EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS

           13    AND HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS.

           14             STRONG NATIONAL OZONE STANDARDS ARE NOT JUST A

           15    GOOD IDEA, BUT A MUST.  IN OUR COUNTY 22 PERCENT OF OUR

           16    CHILDREN HAVE ASTHMA.  ONE IN FIVE OF OUR CHILDREN CARRY

           17    INHALERS TO SCHOOL WITH THEM DAILY.  OUR CHILDREN ARE

           18    KEPT INDOORS ON BAD AIR DAYS.  HAVING YOUR CHILDREN STAY

           19    INDOORS WHEN THEY SHOULD BE OUT PLAYING IS, SIMPLY PUT,

           20    UNJUST.  WE ARE LIMITING THEIR POTENTIAL AND INCREASING

           21    THEIR LIKELIHOOD OF OTHER DISEASES, SUCH AS CHILDHOOD

           22    OBESITY DUE TO INACTIVITY.  OUR HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS TEAMS

           23    ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PRACTICE ON BAD AIR DAYS.  THIS IS

           24    SERIOUSLY LIMITING THE POSSIBILITIES TO EXCEL IN A

           25    VARIETY OF DIFFERENT ARENAS.

                                                                                99

            1             THE EPA'S SOLE PURPOSE IS TO PROTECT OUR PUBLIC

            2    HEALTH.  AS A MEMBER OF THE AIR DISTRICT, I AM

            3    CONSTANTLY TOLD THAT WE CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH IN OUR

            4    JURISDICTIONS AND THAT OUR HANDS ARE TIED AND TO GO TO

            5    THE STATE A.R.B.  AT THE STATE A.R.B. LEVEL, I AM TOLD

            6    THAT THEIR HANDS ARE TIED BECAUSE EPA IS A REGULATORY

            7    AUTHORITY.  THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE IN

            8    WHICH LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES MUST WORK

            9    TOGETHER TO HELP PROTECT OUR PUBLIC HEALTH.

           10             THERE SHOULD BE NO COST PUT ON THE QUALITY OF

           11    LIFE FOR THE CHILDREN OF OUR COMMUNITIES.  THE EPA

           12    SHOULD STRENGTHEN ITS PROPOSAL TO THE OZONE STANDARD

           13    RECOMMENDED BY ITS SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHICH

           14    IS .060 PARTS PER MILLION.  WE, AS HUMAN BEINGS, NEED

           15    THREE THINGS TO SURVIVE:  FOOD TO EAT, WATER TO DRINK,

           16    AND CLEAN AIR TO BREATHE.  RIGHT NOW, OUR SURVIVABILITY

           17    IS BEING COMPROMISED.  WE DESERVE BETTER.  WE LIVE IN

           18    THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, AND IT IS TIME OUR

           19    COUNTRY BEGINS ACTING LIKE IT.

           20             AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, AS THE MOTHER OF A

           21    THREE-YEAR-OLD LITTLE BOY, I IMPLORE THE EPA TO

           22    STRENGTHEN ITS OZONE STANDARDS.  OUR CHILDREN'S HEALTH

           23    AND FUTURE DEPENDS ON IT.  THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME

           24    TODAY.

           25        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  MR. JORDAN.

                                                                                100

            1        CRAIG JORDAN:  THANK YOU.  IS THIS ON?

            2        MS. WEGMAN:  IT IS.

            3        CRAIG JORDAN:  MY NAME IS CRAIG JORDAN, AND I SPEAK

            4    FOR MYSELF.

            5             I WAS BORN IN SAN BERNARDINO AND LIVED THERE

            6    MOST OF MY LIFE.  WHEN I WAS SMALL, THE AIR WAS CLEAN.

            7    BY THE MID 1970'S, THE SMOG BECAME VERY THICK.  I WAS A

            8    YOUNG MAN WITH TWO CHILDREN, A WIFE, GOOD JOB, GOOD

            9    FRIENDS.  I LIKED SAN BERNARDINO EXCEPT FOR THE SMOG.  I

           10    CONTEMPLATED LEAVING AND WOULD HAVE BUT FOR THE PROMISE

           11    OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT.  FOR ME THAT PROMISE WAS THAT IF I

           12    CAN LIVE UNTIL THE YEAR 2000, WHEN I WOULD BE 61, I

           13    COULD BREATHE CLEAN AIR AGAIN IN SAN BERNARDINO.

           14             WELL, THE AIR DID BECOME CLEANER, BUT THE

           15    PROMISE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED.  THERE IS STILL WAY TOO

           16    MUCH SMOG IN SAN BERNARDINO.  WE ARE ALL IN A GIANT GAS

           17    CHAMBER WHERE WE MUST BREATHE THE AIR.  I SHOULD NOT BE

           18    ALLOWED TO PUT POLLUTION INTO THAT CHAMBER THAT HARMS

           19    THE HEALTH OR PREMATURELY KILLS MY NEIGHBOR, AND MY

           20    NEIGHBOR SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT TO ME.

           21             HERE WE ARE IN 2007 CONSIDERING WHETHER TO

           22    REVISE THE CURRENT OZONE STANDARD.  THE EPA FUNDED

           23    SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH BY BELL, PANG, AND DOMENICI WHICH

           24    REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT QUOTE "ANY ANTHROPOGENIC,"

           25    MEANING HUMAN CAUSED, "CONTRIBUTION TO AMBIENT OZONE,

                                                                                101

            1    HOWEVER SLIGHT, STILL PRESENTS AN INCREASED RISK FOR

            2    PREMATURE MORTALITY."

            3             AS I READ THE BELL REPORT, THERE IS NO SAFE

            4    LEVEL OF OZONE.  THE REPORT SAYS THE AMBIENT LEVEL OF

            5    OZONE RANGES FROM 10 TO 25 PARTS PER BILLION, AND I SAY

            6    THAT SHOULD BE THE STANDARD, AND I BELIEVE OUR LEVEL OF

            7    LAW REQUIRES SUCH A STANDARD UNLESS THERE'S OTHER VALID

            8    SCIENCE TO THE CONTRARY.

            9             LONG AGO, I WAS A CRIMINAL PROSECUTOR FOR

           10    BERNARDINO COUNTY.  THE LAW I UNDERSTOOD HELD THAT IF A

           11    PERSON COMMITS AN ACT THAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD OR

           12    SHOULD KNOW WOULD CAUSE INJURY OR DEATH TO ANOTHER

           13    HUMAN, THE PERSON CAN BE PROSECUTED FOR AN ATTEMPTED

           14    CRIMINAL ACT.  WHEN INJURY OR DEATH DOES OCCUR, THE

           15    ACTUAL CRIME.

           16             FOR EXAMPLE, SUPPOSE I PLACE A PERSON IN AN

           17    AIRPLANE, FLY TO A REMOTE AREA OF THE NORTH POLE, LAND

           18    THE PLANE, AND GENTLY PLACE THE PERSON ON THE ICE

           19    WITHOUT SUPPLIES OR A JACKET AND FLY BACK HOME.  WHEN I

           20    COMMIT THIS ACT, I'VE COMMITTED A CRIMINAL ACT OF

           21    ATTEMPTED MURDER BECAUSE A REASONABLE PERSON SHOULD KNOW

           22    THAT SUCH A SITUATION IS NOT SURVIVABLE.  IF THE PERSON

           23    DIES, I'VE COMMITTED AN INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE.

           24             RELATING THIS TO THE JOB OF EPA, UNLESS THERE

           25    IS VALID SCIENCE CONTRARY TO THAT OF BELL, PANG, AND

                                                                                102

            1    DOMENICI, IF PEOPLE IN THE EPA SET AN OZONE STANDARD AT

            2    ANY LEVEL ABOVE THE AMBIENT LEVEL, THOSE PERSONS WOULD

            3    OR SHOULD KNOW THAT THEY ARE DOOMING SOME HUMANS TO A

            4    PREMATURE DEATH.  THIS ACT, IF PERFORMED, WOULD, IN MY

            5    MIND, CONSTITUTE A CRIME.  I DOUBT ANYBODY AT EPA WANTS

            6    TO KNOWINGLY COMMIT A CRIME, AND I DOUBT ANY CRIME WAS

            7    COMMITTED WHEN THE CURRENT STANDARD OF 84 PARTS PER

            8    MILLION WAS ADOPTED BECAUSE THE SCIENCE AT THAT TIME WAS

            9    NOT AS CLEAR AS IT IS TODAY.

           10             MY POINT HERE IS THAT WHEN THE SCIENTIFIC

           11    EXPERTS TELL US THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL OF OZONE AND THAT

           12    SETTING AN OZONE STANDARD ABOVE THE AMBIENT LEVEL WILL

           13    CAUSE INJURY OR PREMATURE DEATH TO SOME HUMANS, THEIR

           14    ADVICE SHOULD BE ACTED ON.  ISN'T THAT WHAT THE CLEAN

           15    AIR ACT REQUIRES?  USE THE BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE TO

           16    PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH FROM ANY ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL

           17    ADVERSE EFFECT FROM AIR POLLUTION.  THANK YOU.

           18        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH.

           19             OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE JENNY SAKLAR AND SOCORRO

           20    GAETA.

           21        JENNY SAKLAR:  HELLO, I'M JENNY SAKLAR --

           22        MS. WEGMAN:  COULD YOU -- YOU HAVE TO HOLD THE

           23    MICROPHONE DOWN AND KEEP IT DOWN WHILE YOU SPEAK.

           24        JENNY SAKLAR:  OH, I SEE.  HELLO, I'M JENNY SAKLAR

           25    WITH A COMMUNITY-BASED GROUP CALLED FRESNO METRO

                                                                                103

            1    MINISTRY.  I'M HERE TODAY AS A BREATHER AND AS A

            2    BREATHER OF SOME OF THE WORST AIR IN THE COUNTRY, THAT

            3    OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AND OF FRESNO COUNTY.

            4             I ASK WHY MUST IT TAKE REVOLUTIONARY ACTS IN

            5    ORDER FOR OUR -- IN ORDER FOR US TO HAVE CLEAN AIR TO

            6    BREATHE AND WHY DOES BREATHING HEALTHY AIR REQUIRE

            7    COMMUNITY ACTION AND ORGANIZING WHEN THE AIR AND THE

            8    ENVIRONMENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTED BY THE

            9    GOVERNMENT AND THE UNITED STATES PROTECTION EPA?

           10             TODAY I WANT TO TELL YOU ABOUT TWO

           11    REVOLUTIONARY ACTS THAT OCCURRED THIS WEEK THAT REFLECT

           12    OUR REALITY IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, OUR HEALTH

           13    CRISIS, AND IT ALSO REFLECTS OUR PLEA TO YOU THAT YOU

           14    NEED TO PROTECT OUR AIR AND OUR HEALTH FROM OZONE

           15    POLLUTION.

           16             THIS WEEK I WAS A LEAD ORGANIZER AT A CLEAN AIR

           17    ACTION DAY IN SACRAMENTO, AND AS THE MAIN PERSON --

           18    POINT OF CONTACT, MY PHONE WAS COMPLETELY OFF THE HOOK

           19    WITH RESIDENTS OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY THAT WANTED TO

           20    ACT FOR CLEAN AIR.  OVER 150 PARTICIPANTS WE TOOK UP TO

           21    THE CAPITAL TO TALK WITH OUR STATE LEGISLATURE ABOUT OUR

           22    NEEDS FOR CLEAN AIR AND RELATED TO, ALSO, OZONE

           23    POLLUTION, OF COURSE.

           24             WE HEARD STORIES OF FAMILY MEMBERS SEEING THEIR

           25    CHILDREN DROP ON THE SOCCER FIELDS.  WE SAW -- THERE WAS

                                                                                104

            1    A WOMAN THAT CONTACTED ME AND HER DAUGHTER -- HER

            2    22-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER DIED.  THE CORONER TOLD HER IT WAS

            3    FROM CHOKING BECAUSE SHE COULDN'T BREATHE.  SHE WANTED

            4    TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS DAY, IN THIS ACTION, BUT SHE

            5    HERSELF HAD A RESPIRATORY ILLNESS DURING -- ON TUESDAY

            6    AND COULDN'T JOIN US.

            7             OUR SITUATION IS A COMPLETE HEALTH CRISIS.

            8    THIS IS OUR REALITY.  OUR MESSAGE IS THAT ACCORDING TO

            9    C.H.I.S. DATA, THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH INTERVIEW SURVEY,

           10    ONE IN FIVE OF OUR CHILDREN HAS BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH

           11    ASTHMA.  YOU CAN ONLY CONSIDER HOW MANY MORE ARE HAVING

           12    PERMANENT LUNG DAMAGE AND INFLAMMATION AND OTHER

           13    PROBLEMS AND AILMENTS RELATED TO OZONE POLLUTION.  OUR

           14    REALITY IS THAT WE NEED OUR OZONE STANDARDS TO GIVE US

           15    HEALTHY AIR TO BREATHE.

           16             .006, THAT NEEDS TO BE THE STANDARD.  THAT

           17    NEEDS TO BE THE PARTS PER MILLION THAT'S AT THE VERY

           18    MAXIMUM.

           19             THE SECOND REVOLUTIONARY ACT THAT I WANT TO

           20    TELL YOU ABOUT IS A COMMUNITY MEETING IN THE CITY OF

           21    ARVIN.  LAST NIGHT, WE WERE IN A ROOM ABOUT THIS SIZE

           22    AND IT WAS FILLED TO CAPACITY.  WE HAD STANDING ROOM

           23    ONLY WITH COMMUNITY RESIDENTS THAT WERE OUTRAGED AND

           24    ABSOLUTELY ASTONISHED BY AIR POLLUTION AND CONCERNED

           25    RESIDENTS, AND THEY CAME FORTH AND PROVIDED HOURS' LONG

                                                                                105

            1    WORTH OF TESTIMONY TO TWO CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

            2    MEMBERS.  THE MESSAGE WAS CLEAR THAT THE COMMUNITY WAS

            3    BEING DISRESPECTED.

            4             WE WERE IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY.  IT WAS

            5    PROBABLY STILL ABOUT 100 DEGREES OUTSIDE.  THERE WAS NO

            6    AIR-CONDITIONING IN THE BUILDING.  NO FANS.  THERE WAS

            7    NO TRANSCRIPTION.  THERE WAS NO RECORD OF -- OF THE

            8    POWERFUL TESTIMONY.  WE JUST HEARD TODAY FROM RAJI BRAR

            9    THAT THIS IS THE COMMUNITY WITH THE NUMBER ONE AIR

           10    POLLUTION -- NUMBER ONE OZONE POLLUTION PROBLEM IN THE

           11    ENTIRE COUNTRY, AND THIS IS THE KIND OF RESPECT THAT

           12    WE'RE GETTING.  OKAY.  THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE.

           13             WE ARE STRUGGLING TO BREATHE.  THIS IS A

           14    COMMUNITY-HEALTH CRISIS.  AGAIN AND AGAIN, WE HEAR THAT

           15    IT'S THE DOLLAR, THAT WE'RE GOING SHUT DOWN BUSINESS,

           16    THAT WE'RE GOING TO SHUT DOWN FARMS.  THAT'S NOT -- I

           17    JUST CAN'T SEE THE BALANCE.  I JUST CAN'T SEE THE

           18    BALANCE.  THERE'S SO MANY HEALTH ISSUES THAT HAVE SUCH A

           19    HIGH-DOLLAR PROBLEM.  I DON'T KNOW IF I'M MAKING SENSE,

           20    BUT I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING.  IT'S JUST

           21    SUCH A BIG PROBLEM.

           22             SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO THE OZONE STANDARD?

           23    IF WE CAN'T BREATHE, WHAT ELSE IS THERE?  YOU KNOW,

           24    NOTHING ELSE MATTERS WHEN OUR CHILDREN ARE STRUGGLING

           25    AND WHEN THEY'RE CHOKING AND DYING AND WHEN THEY'RE

                                                                                106

            1    DROPPING ON THE SOCCER FIELDS.  THIS IS OUR REALITY IN

            2    THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, AND YOU NEED TO SEND THAT

            3    MESSAGE TO ALL OF THE EPA, TO ALL OF CALIFORNIA AIR

            4    RESOURCES BOARD, AND TO OUR LOCAL AIR DISTRICT BECAUSE

            5    WE ARE HAVING A VERY TOUGH TIME COMMUNICATING TO THEM

            6    THAT PUBLIC HEALTH IS THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE.

            7        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  THERE'S A --

            8    WOULD YOU MIND MOVING?  THIS WAY THEY CAN HAVE A

            9    TRANSLATOR.  THANK YOU, AND THANK YOU FOR COMING TODAY.

           10        SOCORRO GAETA:  (TESTIMONY GIVEN IN SPANISH.)

           11        THE INTERPRETER:  GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS SOCORRO

           12    GAETA, AND I AM HERE REPRESENTING THE MINISTRY JUST LIKE

           13    JENNY.  I AM HERE REPRESENTING A GROUP OF PARENTS,

           14    HISPANIC PARENTS.  IT IS A GROUP CALLED LUCA.  THEY

           15    NAMED THEMSELVES LUCA, WHICH MEANS LATINOS UNITED FOR

           16    ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS --

           17        JENNY SAKLAR:  FOR CLEAN AIR.

           18        THE INTERPRETER:  THIS GROUP INCLUDES 15 MEMBERS, 15

           19    OF WHOM ARE WOMEN AND THEN ONE DAD.  OUT OF THOSE 15

           20    MEMBERS THERE IS ONE MOM WHO HAS FOUR CHILDREN.  OUT OF

           21    HER FOUR CHILDREN, THREE OF THEM SUFFER FROM ASTHMA.  WE

           22    PREPARED OURSELVES A LOT TO GO TO SACRAMENTO TO GO TO

           23    THE AIR QUALITY MEETING.  WE PREPARED FOR A WHOLE MONTH,

           24    AND THEN SHE COULDN'T GO BECAUSE ONE OF HER CHILDREN

           25    WITH ASTHMA HAD TO BE ADMITTED TO THE HOSPITAL BECAUSE

                                                                                107

            1    OF AN ASTHMA ATTACK.

            2             CAN YOU IMAGINE SPENDING THE WHOLE NIGHT IN THE

            3    HOSPITAL WITH ONE OF YOUR CHILDREN ONLY TO GO BACK HOME

            4    THE NEXT MORNING AND FIND THAT ANOTHER ONE IS SICK?  AND

            5    THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO MEDICAL

            6    INSURANCE EVEN.

            7             ALSO, I AM HEAR SPEAKING FOR MYSELF AND OTHER

            8    PEOPLE WHO WORK IN THE FIELD.  AND THEY WORK FROM FOR

            9    P.M. TO 3:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING.  AND WHEN YOU LEAST

           10    EXPECT IT, WE'RE GETTING SPRAYED LIKE WE WERE SPIDERS,

           11    LIKE WE WERE BUGS.  THAT'S NOT RIGHT.  WE'RE GETTING

           12    TREATED LIKE BUGS BEING SPRAYED WITH PESTICIDES.  AND

           13    WHAT YOU DON'T REALIZE IS THAT THESE BUGS ARE THE ONES

           14    THAT ARE PICKING THE VEGETABLES AND THE FRUITS THAT YOU

           15    HAVE ON YOUR TABLES.  IT'S VERY SAD TO KNOW THAT THESE

           16    CHILDREN CAN'T BREATHE.  THEY CAN'T PLAY SPORTS.  MY SON

           17    WANTS TO PLAY SPORTS, AND HE CAN'T DO ANYTHING BECAUSE

           18    WHEN HE TRIED TO, HE ENDS UP PASSING OUT.  THANK YOU

           19    MS. WEGMAN:  GRACIAS.  THANK YOU BOTH FOR COMING TODAY.

           20             OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE ANNE SMITH AND JASON

           21    BARBOSE.

           22        ANNE SMITH:  MY NAME IS ANNE SMITH, AND I'M -- IS

           23    THE MICROPHONE ON -- HI THERE, MY NAME IS ANNE SMITH.  I

           24    AM A PRIVATE CITIZEN.  I OWN A COOKING SCHOOL IN CULVER

           25    CITY.  I LIVE IN LOS ANGELES.  I LIVE ABOUT SIX BLOCKS

                                                                                108

            1    FROM THE 10 FREEWAY, TWO BLOCKS FROM FAIRFAX BOULEVARD,

            2    TWO BLOCKS FROM LA CIENEGA BOULEVARD, AND TWO BLOCKS

            3    FROM VENICE BOULEVARD, AND I'M SURROUNDED BY AN

            4    UNBELIEVABLE AMOUNT OF AIR POLLUTION.  YOU CAN SEE IT

            5    ALL OVER MY HOUSE, ALL OVER MY TREES IN MY BACKYARD, AND

            6    EVERYTHING THAT I COME IN CONTACT WITH.

            7             I JUST RETURNED YESTERDAY FROM VACATION IN SAN

            8    FRANCISCO, AND I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE 5 FREEWAY.  I CAME

            9    TO THIS SIGN THAT SAID "LOS ANGELES 100 MILES," AND THE

           10    SMOG FROM 100 MILES AWAY WAS JUST UNBELIEVABLE.  YOU

           11    COULD SEE IT FROM THE ENTIRE HORIZON.  IN SAN FRANCISCO,

           12    WHERE IT USED TO ALWAYS BE CLEAR, AND VISITING UP THERE

           13    THIS PAST WEEK, IT'S COMPLETELY SMOGGY ALSO.  WE USED TO

           14    THINK OUR SMOG BLOWS OUT INTO THE VALLEY, BUT YOU CAN

           15    SEE IT AT THE COAST LEVEL TOO.

           16             AFTER WORK AND ON THE WEEKENDS, I HIKE A LOT IN

           17    LOS ANGELES.  AND ON THE DAYS WHERE, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN

           18    SEE IT ALL AROUND YOU, YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE STINGING,

           19    BURNING EYES AND, YOU KNOW, FEEL SORT OF LIGHT-HEADED,

           20    LIKE YOU'RE GOING TO PASS OUT ALL THE TIME.  JUST

           21    YESTERDAY, IT'S THE SAME THING.  NOW I'VE GOT TO RECOVER

           22    FROM DOING ANY EXERCISE.

           23             THE ONLY OTHER THING I WANTED TO JUST MENTION

           24    IS I WENT WITH A FRIEND TO A GRAND FOUNDATION

           25    PRESENTATION ABOUT SIX WEEKS AGO.  IT WAS BECAUSE MY

                                                                                109

            1    FRIEND ASKED ME TO GO WITH HIM.  I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS

            2    GOING TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY HERE, BUT

            3    THEY -- AT THE SEMINAR THEY SAID THAT RIGHT NOW 75

            4    PERCENT OF ALL OF THE GOODS COMING INTO THIS COUNTRY ARE

            5    COMING INTO THE L.A. PORTS, AND WITHIN THE NEXT TEN

            6    YEARS, I THINK IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT 90 PERCENT OF

            7    ALL OF THE GOODS IN THE COUNTRY.

            8             YOU KNOW, BACK WHEN I DIDN'T LIVE IN

            9    CALIFORNIA, WE USED TO THINK, OH, IT'S SO SMOGGY THERE;

           10    BUT THE FACT IS THAT WHAT WE SUFFER THROUGH HERE IN LOS

           11    ANGELES IMPACTS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, SO WE SHOULDN'T BE

           12    PENALIZED FOR LIVING HERE BECAUSE REALLY THE WHOLE

           13    COUNTRY BENEFITS FROM WHAT GOES ON IN LOS ANGELES.  SO

           14    IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THE LEVELS ACROSS THE COUNTRY

           15    BE UNIVERSAL AND BE LOW SO THAT PEOPLE DON'T DIE.

           16    THANKS.

           17        MR. HABER:  ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION.  YOU'VE JUST

           18    REFERENCED THE FACT, AND UNQUESTIONABLE AND UNFORTUNATE

           19    FACT, THAT BOTH LOS ANGELES AND SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY HAVE

           20    THE WORST AIR QUALITY IN THE COUNTRY AND ARE

           21    SUBSTANTIALLY ABOVE THE CURRENT HEALTH STANDARD.

           22             CAN YOU RELATE THAT AND, IF YOU WOULD, SUGGEST

           23    WHETHER WE SHOULD CHANGE THE HEALTH STANDARD AS WE HAVE

           24    PROPOSED, AND IF SO, IN WHAT WAY?

           25        ANNE SMITH:  I'M NOT SURE.  I ASSUME THAT -- I

                                                                                110

            1    CERTAINLY AGREE WITH EVERYBODY HERE THAT IF THE

            2    RECOMMENDED STANDARD IS .06, THAT'S WHAT IT SHOULD BE.

            3             IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING?

            4        MR. HABER:  YES.

            5        JASON BARBOSE:  MY NAME IS JASON BARBOSE.  I'M AN

            6    ADVOCATE WITH ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA RESEARCH AND POLICY

            7    CENTER.  WE'RE A STATE-BASED, CITIZEN-BASED

            8    ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION.  THANK YOU, OF

            9    COURSE, FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY IN

           10    SUPPORT OF A STANDARD OF .06 PPM FOR EIGHT-HOUR OZONE

           11    STANDARD.

           12             IN MY BRIEF COMMENTS TODAY, I WANT TO STRESS

           13    JUST THREE SIMPLE POINTS.  THE FIRST, OF COURSE, IS THAT

           14    OZONE HARMS PUBLIC HEALTH.  WE'VE KNOWN FOR DECADES THAT

           15    OZONE IS A POWERFUL POLLUTANT THAT CAN BURN OUR LUNGS

           16    AND AIRWAYS.  WE'VE KNOWN THAT CHILDREN, TEENAGERS,

           17    PEOPLE WITH LUNG DISEASE ARE PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE TO

           18    THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF OZONE.  WE'VE KNOWN THAT ASTHMA IS

           19    THE MOST COMMON CHRONIC DISEASE AMONG CHILDREN.  THEN

           20    WE'RE LEARNING MORE THAT ASTHMA ATTACKS ARE NOT JUST

           21    TRIGGERED BY OZONE BUT THAT RESEARCH SHOWS OZONE MAY

           22    INCREASE CHILDREN'S RISK OF DEVELOPING ASTHMA IN THE

           23    FIRST PLACE.

           24             OF COURSE, WE KNOW THAT ONE-THIRD OF AMERICANS,

           25    99 MILLION AMERICANS, LIVE IN THE AREAS WITH UNSAFE

                                                                                111

            1    LEVELS OF OZONE.  IN CALIFORNIA WE'RE HOME TO EIGHT OF

            2    THE TEN MOST OZONE POLLUTED COUNTIES IN THE COUNTRY.  SO

            3    AGAIN, THE FIRST POINT JUST BEING THE SIMPLE ONE, THAT

            4    OZONE HARMS PUBLIC HEALTH.

            5             THE SECOND POINT IS THAT THE OZONE -- IS THAT

            6    THE CURRENT OZONE STANDARD IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT

            7    PUBLIC HEALTH.  1997, TEN YEARS AGO, AS YOU KNOW, AGENCY

            8    SET NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AT .084 PARTS PER

            9    MILLION AVERAGED OVER AN EIGHT-HOUR PERIOD; AND OF

           10    COURSE, A DECADE OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL AND CLINICAL STUDIES

           11    HAS FOUND NEGATIVE HEALTH IMPACTS OF OZONE AT LEVELS

           12    LOWER THAN THE CURRENT STANDARD.

           13             IN FACT, CLINICAL STUDIES OF OTHERWISE HEALTHY

           14    ADULTS HAVE SHOWN DECREASED LUNG FUNCTION, INCREASED

           15    RESPIRATORY SYMPTOMS, INFLAMMATION, INCREASED

           16    SUSCEPTIBILITY TO RESPIRATORY INFECTION AT OR BELOW THE

           17    CURRENT STANDARD OF .084.  THEN, MORE IMPORTANT, IN 2006

           18    AS, OF COURSE, HAS BEEN SPOKEN ABOUT AT LENGTH TODAY,

           19    YOUR CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AFTER

           20    REVIEWING 2,000 PAGES OF THE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ON

           21    HEALTH EFFECTS OF OZONE, UNANIMOUSLY CONCLUDED A NUMBER

           22    OF THINGS.

           23             ONE IS THAT THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC

           24    JUSTIFICATION FOR RETAINING THE CURRENT OZONE STANDARD.

           25    TWO, THAT THE OZONE STANDARD MUST EXPLICITLY INCLUDE

                                                                                112

            1    THAT MARGIN OF SAFETY AS REQUIRED BY LAW IN THE CLEAN

            2    AIR ACT.  THREE, THEREFORE, THE NEW EIGHT-HOUR STANDARD

            3    SHOULD BE SET IN THE RANGE OF .07 TO -- .06 TO .07 PARTS

            4    PER MILLION.  SO AGAIN, THE SECOND POINT IS THAT THE

            5    CURRENT OZONE STANDARD IS NOT PROTECTING THE PUBLIC

            6    HEALTH.

            7             THE THIRD AND MOST IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT

            8    PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH MUST BE YOUR AGENCY'S SOLE

            9    CRITERIA FOR SETTING THESE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY

           10    STANDARDS.  THAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS WELL.  IN 2002,

           11    THE SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY RULED THAT YOUR AGENCY

           12    MUST SET AIR QUALITY STANDARDS BASED SOLELY ON WHAT IS

           13    NEEDED TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH.  AND SO IT IS

           14    CONCERNING AND UNFORTUNATE THAT ON JUNE 20TH, WHEN YOUR

           15    AGENCY RELEASED YOUR PROPOSAL TO STRENGTHEN AIR QUALITY

           16    STANDARDS, IT WAS WITHIN THE RANGE OF .07 TO .075 PARTS

           17    PER MILLION.  THEN YOUR OWN SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS SAY IT'S

           18    NECESSARY TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH, WHICH FAILS TO

           19    PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH WITH THAT ADEQUATE MARGIN OF

           20    SAFETY AS REQUIRED BY THE CLEAN AIR ACT.

           21             THE MOST ALARMING THING TO US WAS THAT THE

           22    PROPOSAL LEAVES THE DOOR OPEN TO RETAINING THE CURRENT

           23    OZONE STANDARD WHICH, OF COURSE, WOULD DO NOTHING TO

           24    IMPROVE AIR QUALITY.

           25             SO IN CONCLUSION, I WOULD JUST SAY THE SCIENCE

                                                                                113

            1    IS CLEAR AND THE LAW IS CLEAR.  EPA SHOULD REJECT

            2    INDUSTRY PRESSURE TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO.  INSTEAD,

            3    ADOPT THE MOST PROTECTIVE OZONE STANDARD RECOMMENDED BY

            4    YOUR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS.  SO AGAIN, ON BEHALF OF

            5    ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA, OUT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MEMBERS

            6    STATEWIDE, WE URGE EPA TO FINALIZE A STANDARD OF .06 PPM

            7    IN ORDER TO ADEQUATELY PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH.

            8        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.

            9        MR. HANNON:  I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.  DID YOU

           10    HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE SECONDARY STANDARD, THE

           11    STANDARD DESIGNED TO PROTECT PUBLIC WELFARE?

           12        JASON BARBOSE:  NO, I DON'T HAVE COMMENTS ON THOSE

           13    TODAY.

           14        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU BOTH.

           15             ALL RIGHT.  OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE JOSIE GASKEY

           16    AND DR. JEAN OSPITAL.

           17        JOSIE GASKEY:  GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS JOSIE

           18    GASKEY.  I'M THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND C.O.O. OF

           19    THE ANNAPOLIS CENTER FOR SCIENCE-BASED PUBLIC POLICY.  I

           20    AM HERE TODAY REPRESENTING OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS.  I

           21    TOO HAVE FAMILY THAT LIVE IN CALIFORNIA, AND MY BOARD

           22    CHAIR RESIDES IN CALIFORNIA.  WE HAVE A 501(C)3

           23    NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT PROMOTES AND SUPPORTS

           24    PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY DECISION

           25    MAKINGS.  WE WILL BE SUBMITTING WRITTEN COMMENTS TO THE

                                                                                114

            1    EPA ADMINISTRATOR.

            2             IN MY SUBMITTED WRITTEN TESTIMONY TODAY, I HAVE

            3    INCLUDED A COPY OF THE CENTER'S NEWS PUBLICATION, "THE

            4    SCIENCE AND HEALTH EFFECTS OF GROUND LEVEL OZONE."  THIS

            5    REPORT WAS PEER-REVIEWED BY HIGHLY QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS

            6    AND MEDICAL DOCTORS AND REVIEWED BY THE BOARD OF

            7    DIRECTORS OF THE ANNAPOLIS CENTER.  IN KEEPING WITH THE

            8    TIME ALLOTTED, I WILL QUICKLY REVIEW THE FOLLOWING MAJOR

            9    SUMMARY REPORTS OR SUMMARY POINTS FROM THE REPORT.

           10             SINCE EPA LAST REVIEWED THE NAAQS IN 1997,

           11    THERE HAVE BEEN LIMITED, IF ANY, DEVELOPMENTS IN

           12    EPIDEMIOLOGY, TOXICOLOGY, OR THE BACKGROUND SCIENCE THAT

           13    WOULD SUPPORT REVISION OF THE OZONE STANDARDS.  THE

           14    RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PRIMARY AND SECONDARY

           15    STANDARDS IN THE EPA'S FINAL STAFF PAPER AND CASAC'S

           16    OCTOBER 24TH, 2006 LETTER TO THE ADMINISTRATOR ARE

           17    PREMISED ON ESTIMATES OF HEALTH RISK FROM EXPOSURES TO

           18    CONCENTRATIONS OF THE AMBIENT OZONE; HOWEVER, THE

           19    ESTIMATES CONSIDERED ARE BASED ON AN INCOMPLETE

           20    ASSESSMENT OF THE UNCONTROLLABLE BACKGROUND LEVELS OF

           21    OZONE.  EPA ASSUMES THAT THERE WILL BE ZERO EMISSIONS

           22    FROM HUMAN ACTIVITIES IN NORTH AMERICA.  THIS RESULTS IN

           23    AN OVERSTATEMENT OF HEALTH RISKS.

           24             EPA AND CASAC CONTINUE TO OVERESTIMATE THE

           25    MAGNITUDE AND CONSISTENCY OF AND UNDERESTIMATE THE

                                                                                115

            1    UNCERTAINTY IN THE RESULTS OF ACUTE EPIDEMIOLOGIC

            2    STUDIES, ESPECIALLY FOR EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS AND

            3    HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS FOR ASTHMA AND OTHER RESPIRATORY

            4    DISORDERS, SCHOOL ABSENCES, AND MORTALITY.  IN ADDITION,

            5    EPA OVERSTATES THE LIKELIHOOD OF CAUSALITY,

            6    PARTICULARLY FOR THE MORE SERIOUS END POINTS AND AT

            7    LOWER OZONE CONCENTRATIONS.

            8             WITH RESPECT TO THE PRIMARY OR HEALTH STANDARD,

            9    OUR REPORT FOUND THAT OZONE IS A RESPIRATORY IRRITANT,

           10    THAT THE RISK OF RESPIRATORY EFFECTS IS LOWER THAN

           11    THOUGHT IN 1997.  THE EPA AND ITS SCIENCE ADVISORS HAVE

           12    RECOMMENDED A TIGHTENING OF THE STANDARD, RELYING ON AN

           13    INAPPROPRIATE COMPUTER MODEL TO ESTIMATE THE

           14    UNCONTROLLABLE BACKGROUND OF OZONE.  WE BELIEVE THE EPA

           15    HAS MISINTERPRETED THE ADAMS 2006 CLINICAL STUDY, THE

           16    ONLY CONTROLLED STUDY THAT ALLEGEDLY SUPPORTS MAKING THE

           17    EXISTING PRIMARY STANDARD MORE STRINGENT.  THESE STUDIES

           18    ARE INCONSISTENT, PROVIDING A BIOLOGICALLY IMPLAUSIBLE

           19    RANGE OF RESULTS, AND DO NOT ESTABLISH CAUSE AND EFFECT.

           20             WITH RESPECT TO THE SECONDARY OR WELFARE

           21    STANDARD, THE REPORT FOUND THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION

           22    TO CONSIDER THE ADDITION OF A UNIQUE SEASONAL STANDARD

           23    TO PROTECT VEGETATION DOES NOT SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESS THE

           24    UNCERTAINTIES AND LIMITATIONS.  SINCE NO NEW DATA HAS

           25    BEEN PRESENTED SINCE THE '97 REVIEW TO REDUCE THE

                                                                                116

            1    UNCERTAINTIES AND LIMITATIONS OF A CUMULATIVE SEASONAL

            2    STANDARD, THERE IS NO COMPELLING REASON TO CHANGE THE

            3    CURRENT SECONDARY STANDARD.

            4             I ASK YOU TO NOT ONLY REVIEW THE SCIENCE IN

            5    THIS REPORT BUT TRULY CONSIDER ITS FINDINGS WHEN MAKING

            6    YOUR DECISION.  A HASTY DECISION TO IMPOSE MORE

            7    STRINGENT OZONE STANDARDS WILL SERVE NO ONE, WILL HAVE

            8    UNFORESEEN IMPLICATIONS, AND STAGGERING COSTS.

            9             THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME.

           10        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  AND YOU SAID YOU ARE GOING

           11    TO SUBMIT THE REPORT TO THE RECORD TODAY; IS THAT RIGHT?

           12        JOSIE GASKEY:  I ACTUALLY GAVE COPIES OF IT OUT

           13    THERE AND A CD.  IF YOU NEED A HARD COPY, I CAN DO THAT

           14    ALSO.

           15        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.

           16        MR. HANNON:  YOU COMMENTED THAT THERE'S AN

           17    INCOMPLETE ASSESSMENT OF THE BACKGROUND.  I ASSUME

           18    THAT'S IN THE RISK ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS WHERE BACKGROUND

           19    COMES IN?  OF COURSE BACKGROUND'S NOT RELEVANT IN THE

           20    EPI STUDIES OR IN THE CLINICAL STUDIES, BUT IT'D BE

           21    USEFUL, I GUESS, TO HAVE YOUR COMMENTS ON HOW EPA SHOULD

           22    OR SHOULD NOT TAKE BACKGROUND INTO ACCOUNT BOTH LEGALLY

           23    AND FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE.

           24        JOSIE GASKEY:  WE CAN ADDRESS THAT IN THE WRITTEN

           25    COMMENTS.  THANK YOU.

                                                                                117

            1        DR. JEAN OSPITAL:  GOOD MORNING.

            2        MR. HABER:  YOU NEED TO PUSH AND HOLD THE

            3    MICROPHONE.

            4        DR. JEAN OSPITAL:  I'M CHALLENGED BY DOING THAT.

            5    I'M SOMEBODY WHO CAN'T WALK AND CHEW GUM AT THE SAME

            6    TIME.

            7             GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS JEAN OSPITAL.  I SERVE

            8    AS HEALTH EFFECTS OFFICER FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR

            9    QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, AND ON BEHALF OF THE

           10    DISTRICT I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO

           11    ADDRESS THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE.  I ALSO WANT TO THANK

           12    YOU -- WE APPRECIATE YOU HOLDING THESE HEARINGS IN

           13    SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WHERE, AS YOU KNOW AND OFT HEARD

           14    THIS MORNING, WE HAVE A SURFEIT OF OZONE.

           15             THE SOUTH COAST AQMD IS THE AIR POLLUTION

           16    CONTROL DISTRICT FOR LOS ANGELES FOR THE MAJOR PORTIONS

           17    OF LOS ANGELES, SAN BERNARDINO, RIVERSIDE COUNTIES, AND

           18    FOR ORANGE COUNTY AND IS HOME TO SOME 16 MILLION PEOPLE,

           19    WHICH CONSTITUTES ABOUT FIVE PERCENT OF THE U.S.

           20    POPULATION.  ALTHOUGH WE MADE DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENTS IN

           21    AIR QUALITY OVER THE PAST FEW DECADES, RESIDENTS IN THE

           22    SOUTH COAST ARE STILL EXPOSED TO SOME OF THE HIGHEST

           23    LEVELS OF OZONE IN THE COUNTRY.  THEY BEAR A

           24    DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM POOR

           25    AIR QUALITY.  THE FIVE PERCENT OF THE U.S. POPULATION

                                                                                118

            1    RESIDING IN THE SOUTH COAST SUFFERED NEARLY ONE-FOURTH

            2    OF THE POPULATION EXPOSURES TO OZONE ABOVE THE CURRENT

            3    NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARD.

            4             IT IS A LONG-STANDING POLICY OF THE SOUTH COAST

            5    AQMD THAT AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS SHOULD BE SET TO

            6    PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AS CALLED FOR BY CONGRESS AND THE

            7    CLEAN AIR ACT.  THEY CONCUR WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR'S

            8    ANALYSIS AND THE CLEAN AIR SCIENCE ADVISORY'S COMMITTEE

            9    ADVICE THAT THE CURRENT STANDARDS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO

           10    PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH.  WE STRONGLY URGE THE

           11    ADMINISTRATOR TO ADOPT A NEW PROTECTIVE STANDARD THAT IS

           12    CONSISTENT WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF EPA'S CLEAN AIR

           13    SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.  THIS WOULD MEAN A PRIMARY

           14    STANDARD AVERAGE FOR EIGHT HOURS OF NO GREATER THAN

           15    0.070 PARTS PER MILLION.

           16             I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT A NOT TO BE EXCEEDED

           17    STANDARD AT THIS LEVEL HAS ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED BY OUR

           18    STATE, CALIFORNIA'S AIR RESOURCES BOARD, TO PROTECT

           19    PUBLIC HEALTH.  THIS LEVEL IS AT THE LOWER RANGE

           20    PROPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.  GIVEN THE CURRENT AIR

           21    QUALITY IN OUR REGION, IT'S A HIGH CHALLENGE TO ACHIEVE

           22    HEALTHFUL AIR QUALITY; HOWEVER, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT

           23    GREAT IMPROVEMENTS TO AIR QUALITY ARE ACHIEVABLE IF THE

           24    WILL TO DO SO IS THERE.

           25             THE BAR IS ALREADY SET QUITE HIGH WITH THE

                                                                                119

            1    CURRENT STANDARD, AND AS YOU'VE HEARD, A MORE STRINGENT

            2    STANDARD POSES AN EVEN GREATER CHALLENGE.  YOU HEAR THIS

            3    MOSTLY, I THINK, FROM BUSINESS INTERESTS.  HOWEVER, TO

            4    DO OTHER THAN SET THE OZONE STANDARD TO BE CONSISTENT

            5    WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF CASAC, WOULD MAKE THAT

            6    PREVENTABLE ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS WOULD CONTINUE TO

            7    OCCUR IN OUR CHILDREN AND OTHERS FOR YEARS TO COME.

            8    THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS OUR

            9    OPINIONS.

           10        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  I HAVE ONE QUESTION.  AS

           11    YOU KNOW, THE CASAC RECOMMENDATION WAS .060 TO .070, BUT

           12    YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS THE .070 LEVEL; IS THAT CORRECT?

           13        DR. JEAN OSPITAL:  OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE

           14    STANDARD BE CONSISTENT WITH CASAC'S RECOMMENDATION, SO

           15    THAT RANGE, I THINK, IS APPROPRIATE.  YOU KNOW, I HAVE

           16    HIGH RESPECT FOR THE EXPERTISE AND JUDGMENT OF THE

           17    MEMBERS OF CASAC, AND IF THAT RANGE IS GOOD FOR THEM,

           18    IT'S GOOD WITH ME.

           19        MR. HANNON:  I GUESS I HAVE ONE QUESTION.  THAT IS A

           20    RANGE -- AND I ASKED THIS EARLIER THIS MORNING.

           21             HOW WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR

           22    CHOSE?  IF HE WERE TO CHOSE WITHIN THE RANGE, IT WOULD

           23    HAVE TO BE A SINGLE NUMBER.

           24        DR. JEAN OSPITAL:  OF COURSE, IT DOES HAVE TO BE A

           25    SINGLE NUMBER.  AS WE'VE HEARD, AND AS WAS DISCUSSED IN

                                                                                120

            1    THE PROPOSAL, THERE IS NO BRIGHT LINE THAT SAYS, "BELOW

            2    THIS WE HAVE NO EFFECTS."  THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT

            3    THERE IS A THRESHOLD -- WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A

            4    THRESHOLD, SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO SAY WHERE THAT SHOULD

            5    BE.

            6             IF -- I THINK IF THE JUDGMENT IS TO BE

            7    PROTECTIVE AND TO TAKE SERIOUSLY A MARGIN OF SAFETY,

            8    THEN YOU WOULD SET THE STANDARD AT THE LOW END OF THAT

            9    RANGE.  I THINK IF YOU WANTED TO TAKE A MORE STRINGENT

           10    APPROACH AS TO THE -- HOW MUCH EVIDENCE IS THERE, OF

           11    COURSE THE HIGHER YOU GO, THE MORE EVIDENCE THERE IS

           12    THAT THERE ARE ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS.

           13             SO I THINK THE CALL IS WHAT'S APPROPRIATE TO

           14    PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH.  WHAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE

           15    MARGIN OF SAFETY?  IF I WERE THE ADMINISTRATOR, I DON'T

           16    KNOW WHAT I WOULD DO.  I'M SURE THERE ARE MANY ISSUES

           17    PULLING AT HIS DECISION, BUT I PERSONALLY WOULD TEND TO

           18    GO TOWARD THE LOWER END OF THE RANGE.

           19        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  I JUST WANT TO SAY,

           20    MS. GASKEY, IF YOU DO HAVE A HARD COPY OF THE REPORT AND

           21    CAN LEAVE IT WITH US, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.  IF NOT,

           22    THAT'S FINE TOO.  THANK YOU.

           23             OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE JOEL BALBIEN AND MARK

           24    ABRAMOWITZ.

           25        MARK ABRAMOWITZ:  RUMOR IS I HAVE TO PRESS THIS THE

                                                                                121

            1    WHOLE TIME?

            2        MS. WEGMAN:  EXACTLY.  THE WHOLE TIME YOU'RE

            3    SPEAKING.

            4        MARK ABRAMOWITZ:  THANK YOU.  MY NAME IS MARK

            5    ABRAMOWITZ, AND I'M PRESIDENT OF COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL

            6    SERVICES.  WE'RE A CONSULTING FIRM THAT WORKS WITH A LOT

            7    OF COMPANIES THAT HAVE NEW AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES

            8    AND ALSO WORK WITH FOLKS THAT BY THEMSELVES SOMETIMES

            9    HAVE REGULATORY DIFFICULTIES AND HELP THEM GET OUT OF

           10    THE DIFFICULT SITUATIONS.

           11             I WASN'T GOING TO COME HERE AND SAY ANYTHING

           12    TODAY, BUT SITTING BACK THERE AND SEEING SOME OF THE

           13    PROPOSALS FOR THE SECONDARY STANDARD AND HAVING STUDIED

           14    ECO SYSTEMS AND AIR POLLUTION AT UCLA YEARS AGO, I

           15    COULDN'T HELP BUT BE VERY EXCITED AND THE -- SO I

           16    THOUGHT I'D COME UP HERE AND SAY SOMETHING.

           17             BEFORE I GET INTO THAT THOUGH, I DO WANT TO

           18    OFFER THIS GLASS OF WATER HERE TO THE ADMINISTRATOR.

           19    AND BEFORE I GIVE YOU THIS GLASS OF WATER, I WANT TO

           20    TELL YOU THAT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT MOST PEOPLE

           21    THINK THIS GLASS OF WATER IS PRETTY GOOD, BUT THERE WAS

           22    ONE STUDY WHICH KIND OF SHOWED THAT IT WOULD HAVE SOME

           23    ADVERSE HEALTH IMPACTS ON THE ADMINISTRATOR.  AND AS

           24    STAFF, BEFORE GIVING THIS GLASS OF WATER TO THE

           25    ADMINISTRATOR, YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S GOING TO

                                                                                122

            1    PROTECT YOUR BOSS WITH MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF MARGIN OF

            2    SAFETY.

            3             SO MY QUESTION IS TO YOU, ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE

            4    THIS GLASS OF WATER TO THE ADMINISTRATOR?  ARE YOU GOING

            5    TO LET HIM DRINK IT, MAKE SURE HIS HEALTH IS PROTECTED,

            6    OR ARE YOU NOT, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S ONE STUDY WHICH

            7    SAYS, "WELL, MAYBE HE'S GOING TO HAVE SOME HEALTH

            8    EFFECTS FROM IT"?  AND THAT KIND OF SUMS UP IN A

            9    NUTSHELL, HOW YOU FOLKS SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT DEALING

           10    WITH RISK AND WHETHER OR NOT TO SET THE STANDARD AT

           11    .060.  THINK OF THIS GLASS OF WATER AND WHETHER YOU WANT

           12    TO GIVE IT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR.  FRANKLY, I WOULDN'T.

           13    SO I'M FAIRLY CONSERVATIVE ABOUT PUBLIC HEALTH.

           14             JUST A FEW COMMENTS, FIRST, ABOUT THE SECONDARY

           15    STANDARD.  I THINK IT'S OUTSTANDING THAT EPA IS LOOKING

           16    AT SETTING A SEPARATE STANDARD FOR -- A SEPARATE

           17    SECONDARY STANDARD.  FOR SO MANY YEARS SECONDARY

           18    STANDARD HAS REALLY GOTTEN LIP SERVICE AND HAS NOT

           19    LOOKED AT HUMAN WELFARE.  BUT A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT

           20    YOU SHOULD THINK ABOUT, AND I'VE CARRIED THESE THOUGHTS

           21    AROUND FOR -- FOR DECADES, SO I APPRECIATE THIS

           22    OPPORTUNITY.

           23             FIRST OF ALL, HUMAN WELFARE ALSO CAN AFFECT

           24    MATERIALS, VARIOUS THINGS WE HAVE, AND SO YOU FOLKS

           25    SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THOSE KINDS OF THING IN A SERIOUS

                                                                                123

            1    MANNER.  HUMAN WELFARE INCLUDES MORE THAN JUST

            2    AGRICULTURE.  HERE, SURROUNDING LOS ANGELES, WE STILL

            3    HAVE SOME FORESTS, AND THOSE SUFFER GREATLY AND HAVE

            4    SUFFERED GREATLY FROM AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS FOR MANY

            5    YEARS.  AS A RESULT OF STRESSES ON THOSE FORESTS AND AIR

            6    POLLUTION DAMAGE, PERHAPS PARTLY SO, WE'VE SEEN INCREASE

            7    IN DISEASE AND THOSE HAVE CAUSED TREMENDOUS AMOUNTS OF

            8    FIRES.  I'M SURE YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT THOSE FROM BACK

            9    EAST, AND DISEASE HAS CREATED THESE PROBLEMS.

           10             THESE TREES OUT THERE ALSO HAVE SOIL HOLDING

           11    CAPACITY.  AND WHEN DAMAGED FROM AIR POLLUTION, THEY

           12    LOSE THEIR SOIL HOLDING CAPACITY.  AND THERE'S A -- AND

           13    SO THERE ARE SOME IMPACTS FROM THERE.  MUCH OF THE

           14    VEGETATION OUT THERE ALSO IS NOT IMPACTED BY LONG-TERM

           15    CHRONIC EXPOSURES, BUT ALSO BY SHORT-TERM ACUTE

           16    EXPOSURES.  I KNOW THERE ARE SOME STUDIES DECADES OLD

           17    WHICH HAVE SHOWED THAT SOME OF THESE IMPACTS ARE NOT DUE

           18    TO LONG-TERM EXPOSURES, BUT IT'S WHAT THE PEAK IS.  SO

           19    YOU REALLY OUGHT TO BE LOOKING AT THAT CAREFULLY

           20    CONCERNING SETTING THE STANDARD.

           21             LET ME COMMENT THAT IN TERMS OF THE MARGIN OF

           22    SAFETY.  SPEAKING AS A PARENT, I WOULD REALLY LIKE YOU

           23    FOLKS TO BE HATED AMONG SCHOOL CHILDREN BECAUSE MYSELF

           24    AND, PERHAPS, OTHER PARENTS, WHEN THEY SEE AIR QUALITY

           25    IS HIGHER THAN THE STANDARD, THEY DON'T LET THEIR

                                                                                124

            1    CHILDREN GO PLAY WITH THE OTHER KIDS, BUT THEY DO HAVE

            2    HEALTHIER LUNGS.  SO BESIDES A LOT OF IMPLICATIONS WITH

            3    CONTROLS, THE STANDARD YOU ARE GOING TO SET WILL

            4    DETERMINE WHAT THE ACTIVITY LEVEL OF CHILDREN IS GOING

            5    TO BE AND HOW THEY CAN PROTECT THEMSELVES AND WILL BE

            6    PROVIDING SOMETHING ADDITIONAL TOOLS FOR THAT.

            7             I SEE I'M OUT OF TIME, SO I WON'T GET INTO SOME

            8    OF THE OTHER THINGS, BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

            9        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  AND YOU CAN CERTAINLY

           10    SUBMIT COMMENTS FOR THE RECORD, IF YOU WANT TO.

           11        JOEL BALBIEN, PH.D.:  HELLO, MY NAME IS DR. JOEL

           12    BALBIEN.  I'M SPEAKING TODAY AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN.

           13    THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY TODAY

           14    ON EPA'S PROPOSAL TO REVISE THE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY

           15    STANDARD FOR OZONE.

           16             I'M PLEASED THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

           17    AGENCY IS TAKING A STEP TOWARD CLEANER AIR BY PROPOSING

           18    TO STRENGTHEN THE OZONE AIR QUALITY STANDARD.  ACCORDING

           19    TO THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION, THE L.A., LONG BEACH,

           20    RIVERSIDE METROPOLITAN AREA IS THE MOST POLLUTED IN THE

           21    COUNTRY FOR BOTH OZONE PARTICULATES WITH AN AT-RISK

           22    POPULATION OF NEARLY 3.8 MILLION PEOPLE IN L.A. COUNTY

           23    ALONE.

           24             WHILE NON-ATTAINED REGIONS LIKE SOUTHERN

           25    CALIFORNIA FACE GREAT TECHNOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC

                                                                                125

            1    CHALLENGES IN MEETING EVEN THE EXISTING AND

            2    SCIENTIFICALLY INADEQUATE STANDARD, THESE LOCAL EFFORTS

            3    WILL HAVE A GREATER LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS IF OUR CARS,

            4    APPLIANCES, TRANSPORTATION, AND CAPITAL EQUIPMENT

            5    IMPORTED INTO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ARE ENGINEERED UNDER

            6    TIGHTER NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS.  UNFORTUNATELY,

            7    EVEN EPA'S PROPOSAL FALLS SHORT OF THE OZONE STANDARD

            8    ITS OWN SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS SAID IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT

            9    PUBLIC HEALTH.  FURTHERMORE ITS PROPOSAL LEAVES OPEN THE

           10    POSSIBILITY OF NOT STRENGTHENING THE OZONE STANDARDS AT

           11    ALL, WHICH MAY IN TURN LEAVE MANY NON-ATTAINMENT REGIONS

           12    OF THE COUNTRY, LIKE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, VULNERABLE TO

           13    A PLATEAU IN AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS.

           14             OZONE IS A POWERFUL POLLUTANT THAT CAN BURN OUR

           15    LUNGS AND AIRWAYS, CAUSING HEALTH EFFECTS RANGING FROM

           16    COUGHING AND WHEEZING TO ASTHMA ATTACKS AND EVEN

           17    PREMATURE DEATH.  CHILDREN, TEENAGERS, SENIOR CITIZENS,

           18    AND PEOPLE WITH LUNG DISEASE ARE PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE

           19    TO THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF OZONE.  NEW CLINICAL STUDIES OF

           20    OTHERWISE HEALTHY ADULTS HAVE FOUND DECREASED LUNG

           21    FUNCTION, INCREASED RESPIRATORY SYMPTOMS, INFLAMMATION,

           22    AND INCREASED SUSCEPTIBILITY TO RESPIRATORY INFECTION AT

           23    OR BELOW THE CURRENT STANDARD OF .08 PARTS PER MILLION.

           24             THE INDEPENDENT CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY

           25    COMMITTEE REVIEWED A 2,000-PAGE SUMMARY OF THE

                                                                                126

            1    SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH OF THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF OZONE AND

            2    UNANIMOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT THE CURRENT OZONE STANDARD IS

            3    NOT ADEQUATE TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH.  AS A RESULT, THE

            4    COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED SETTING A NEW OZONE STANDARD IN

            5    THE RANGE OF .06 TO .07 PARTS PER MILLION.  EPA'S

            6    PROPOSAL TO STRENGTHEN THE STANDARD WITHIN A RANGE OF

            7    .07 TO .075 PARTS PER MILLION OR WORSE, RETAIN THE

            8    CURRENT OZONE STANDARD, IS WEAKER THAN WHAT THE AGENCY'S

            9    SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS SAY IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT PUBLIC

           10    HEALTH.

           11             IN EFFECT, EPA'S PROPOSED STANDARDS WOULD

           12    PROTECT MILLIONS OF AMERICANS BUT WOULD CONTINUE TO

           13    LEAVE MILLIONS MORE, PARTICULARLY THOSE WITH LUNG

           14    DISEASE OR WHO ARE OTHERWISE SENSITIVE TO AIR POLLUTION,

           15    AND IN ALL LIKELIHOOD MILLIONS OF PEOPLE IN SOUTHERN

           16    CALIFORNIA EXPOSED TO THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF DIRTY AIR.

           17             I AGREE WITH THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS AND EPA

           18    ADMINISTRATOR JOHNSON THAT THE CURRENT STANDARD IS NOT

           19    GOOD ENOUGH TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH.  EVERY AMERICAN

           20    DESERVES TO BREATHE CLEAN AIR.  THOSE OF US THAT LIVE

           21    AND BREATHE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RECOGNIZE THAT BOTH

           22    GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY NEED VERY CHALLENGING MACRO AIR

           23    QUALITY TARGETS IN ORDER TO DEVELOP AND DEPLOY THE

           24    REGULATORY STRATEGIES AND TECHNOLOGIES REQUIRED TO

           25    ACHIEVE THE SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT IN AIR QUALITY IN

                                                                                127

            1    OUR REGION AND THEREBY PROTECT THE POPULATION.

            2             EPA SHOULD REJECT INDUSTRY PRESSURE TO RETAIN

            3    THE CURRENT STANDARD, LISTEN TO ITS OWN SCIENTIFIC

            4    ADVISORS, AND INSTEAD ADOPT AN OZONE STANDARD OF .060

            5    PARTS PER MILLION WITH NO ROUND-UP LOOPHOLE.

            6             IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE INCREMENTAL

            7    COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS UTILIZED BY AIR QUALITY

            8    REGULATIONS -- REGULATORS, INCLUDING EPA, THAT ASSUMES

            9    ACTUAL ACHIEVEMENT OF EXISTING OZONE AND PARTICULATE

           10    STANDARDS NATIONWIDE MAY SIGNIFICANTLY UNDERESTIMATE THE

           11    REAL HEALTH AND OTHER BENEFITS OF A LOWER OZONE STANDARD

           12    CONSISTENT WITH THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.  IN ADDITION,

           13    MANY OF THE TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS FOR REDUCING OZONE

           14    PRECURSORS MOTIVATED, IN PART, BY TOUGHER OZONE

           15    STANDARDS WILL ALSO REDUCE DANGEROUS DIESEL

           16    PARTICULATES, AIR TOXINS, UNREGULATED GREENHOUSE GAS

           17    EMISSIONS, AND FUEL CONSUMPTION, THEREBY MULTIPLYING NET

           18    BENEFITS BY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.

           19             OUR PRESIDENT OFTEN TALKS ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE

           20    OF TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN SOLVING

           21    OUR ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY-RELATED PROBLEMS; HOWEVER,

           22    IT IS VERY UNLIKELY THAT THESE NEW TECHNOLOGIES WILL BE

           23    DEVELOPED AND COMMERCIALLY ADOPTED BY INDUSTRY AND

           24    CONSUMERS UNLESS THERE ARE STRONG ECONOMIC AND

           25    REGULATORY INCENTIVES THAT INTERNALIZE THE EXTERNAL

                                                                                128

            1    COSTS OF MORE INEFFICIENT AND POLLUTING SYSTEMS.

            2             IMAGINE WHAT OUR ENVIRONMENTAL ENERGY SECURITY

            3    SITUATION IN OUR COUNTRY WOULD BE TODAY IF BACK IN 1985,

            4    THE CONGRESS, WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

            5    TRANSPORTATION AND THE EPA, HAD THE WISDOM AND FORESIGHT

            6    TO SET A CAFE TARGET OF 40 OR EVEN 50 MILES PER GALLON

            7    AND A SIMULTANEOUS ULEV MANDATE FOR ALL LIGHT-DUTY

            8    VEHICLES PURCHASED IN THE U.S. BY 2005?  IF THIS HAD

            9    OCCURRED, MANY OF US WOULD BE DRIVING VEHICLES TODAY --

           10    WELL, I'LL FINISH BY SAYING THAT WE'D BE DRIVING

           11    VEHICLES TODAY THAT WOULD BE -- HAVE AERODYNAMIC BODIES,

           12    LIGHTWEIGHT COMPOSITE MATERIALS, LOW RESISTANCE TIRES,

           13    POWERED BY SMART ENGINES, CLEAN DIESEL, AIR OR PLUG-IN

           14    HYBRID DRIVE TRAINS.

           15             INSTEAD, WE HAVE A U.S. AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

           16    THAT'S LAYING OFF WORKERS, LOSING MARKET SHARE TO THE

           17    JAPANESE.  WE SHOULD BE LEADING THE WORLD IN CLEAN AND

           18    EFFICIENT VEHICLES, NOT TRAILING.

           19             IN SUMMARY, THE EPA CAN HELP CLEAN UP OUR AIR

           20    HERE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND THROUGHOUT THE NATION

           21    AND DRIVE THE ENGINE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATION

           22    NATIONWIDE BY FOCUSING ON THE SCIENCE, SETTING AN

           23    AGGRESSIVE MACRO TARGET FOR INDUSTRY AND PROMOTING

           24    MARKET-BASED SOLUTIONS MORE FEASIBLE TO HELP INDUSTRY

           25    AND GOVERNMENT MEET THE MACRO STANDARDS OF THE LOWEST

                                                                                129

            1    POSSIBLE COST.

            2             THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK

            3    TO YOU TODAY.

            4        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH.  OUR NEXT TWO

            5    SPEAKERS ARE SILLA SIEBERT AND LILLIAN LIGHT.

            6        LILLIAN LIGHT:  I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU ALL A COPY

            7    OF THE -- TODAY'S EDITORIAL.

            8        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  EXCELLENT.  YES, WE HAVEN'T

            9    HAD A CHANCE TO SEE IT YET, SO THANK YOU.

           10        LILLIAN LIGHT:  GOOD AFTERNOON.  MY NAME IS LILLIAN

           11    LIGHT, AND I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL

           12    PRIORITIES NETWORK.

           13        MS. WEGMAN:  CAN YOU HOLD IT WHILE YOU SPEAK?

           14        LILLIAN LIGHT:  SHE SAID SHE WOULD KINDLY.

           15        MS. WEGMAN:  OKAY.

           16        LILLIAN LIGHT:  I'M PRESIDENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL

           17    PRIORITIES NETWORK.  I APPRECIATE YOUR ALLOWING ME TO

           18    TESTIFY TODAY AND TO ASK YOU TO REVISE THE NATIONAL AIR

           19    QUALITY STANDARD FOR OZONE.

           20             THE CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIRES THAT THE EPA SET A

           21    STANDARD FOR OZONE BASED ON THE BEST AVAILABLE

           22    SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION.  UNFORTUNATELY, EPA'S DRAFT

           23    STANDARD FALLS SHORT OF THE LEVEL CONSIDERED SAFE BY ITS

           24    OWN SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS.

           25             MORE THAN 1700 PEER-REVIEWED STUDIES HAVE BEEN

                                                                                130

            1    PUBLISHED SINCE EPA LAST REVIEWED THE OZONE NATIONAL AIR

            2    QUALITY STANDARD IN 1997.  THIS NEW BODY OF RESEARCH

            3    PROVIDES OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF

            4    OZONE AND EXPOSURE LEVELS BELOW THE CURRENT STANDARD.

            5    THESE INCLUDE DECREASED LUNG FUNCTION, ASTHMA,

            6    EXACERBATION, HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS, AND PREMATURE DEATHS.

            7    WE'VE HEARD ALL ABOUT THOSE, BUT IT DOESN'T HURT TO SAY

            8    IT AGAIN.

            9             AFTER REVIEWING THESE DOCUMENTS, THE EPA'S

           10    CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE, CASAC,

           11    RECOMMENDED THE EPA TIGHTEN THE OZONE STANDARD TO A

           12    LEVEL BETWEEN .06 AND .07; HOWEVER, IN JUNE, THE EPA

           13    ANNOUNCED IT IS SEEKING PUBLIC COMMENT BETWEEN .06 AND

           14    .08.  WITH THIS PROPOSAL, THE EPA RESERVES THE RIGHT TO

           15    LEAVE THE STANDARD WHERE IT IS TODAY PUTTING THE HEALTH

           16    OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS AT RISK AND ESPECIALLY US LOS

           17    ANGELES FOLKS.

           18             IN ADDITION, THERE IS AN OLD LOOPHOLE THAT LETS

           19    MANY COMMUNITIES CLAIM THAT THEY'RE MEETING THE STANDARD

           20    FOR OZONE WHEN THEY ARE NOT.  SINCE THE EPA HAS AGREED

           21    TO ALLOW REGULATORS TO ROUND DOWN TO THE NEAREST TWO

           22    DECIMAL PLACES, AREAS DO NOT HAVE TO CLEAN UP POLLUTION

           23    UNTIL CONCENTRATIONS REACH .085 PARTS PER MILLION,

           24    MAKING THE REAL STANDARD WEAKER THAN THE OFFICIAL ONE.

           25             NOW MILLIONS OF AMERICANS LIVE IN COMMUNITIES

                                                                                131

            1    WHERE OZONE CONCENTRATIONS HOVER BETWEEN .081 AND .084

            2    PARTS PER MILLION.  THAT'S MORE POLLUTION THAN THE

            3    STANDARD WOULD SEEM TO ALLOW, BUT JUST LOW ENOUGH NOT TO

            4    BE FORCED BY EPA TO CLEAN UP.  WE KNOW THAT EPA CAN HELP

            5    THESE COMMUNITIES CLEAN UP THESE EMISSIONS.  CASAC

            6    RECOMMENDED THAT EPA ELIMINATE THIS ROUNDING LOOPHOLE,

            7    AND I BELIEVE YOU WILL BE DOING THAT.  I'M NOT SURE OF

            8    THAT.  BUT I THINK YOU'VE BEEN --

            9        MS. WEGMAN:  WE DID PROPOSE TO GO TO THREE DECIMAL

           10    POINTS.  THAT'S IN THE PROPOSAL, YES.

           11        LILLIAN LIGHT:  EXCELLENT.  THAT'S GREAT.  SINCE

           12    ONE-THIRD OF THE U.S. POPULATION LIVES IN AREAS WITH

           13    UNHEALTHFUL LEVELS OF OZONE, IT'S IMPORTANT TO SET AIR

           14    QUALITY STANDARDS THAT ARE STRONG ENOUGH TO PROTECT THE

           15    HEALTH OF OUR MOST SENSITIVE AMERICANS, CHILDREN, THE

           16    ELDERLY, PEOPLE WITH LUNG DISEASE, AND OUTDOOR WORKERS.

           17             THERE'S A STRONG CONSENSUS AMONG THE MEDICAL,

           18    NURSING, SCIENTIFIC, AND PUBLIC HEALTH COMMUNITIES THAT

           19    .060 PARTS PER MILLION SHOULD BE THE STANDARD THAT WOULD

           20    BEST PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH; AND ALL THESE PEOPLE TODAY

           21    HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU THAT, AND I AGREE WITH THEM.  NOW,

           22    ALSO, GROUPS THAT ADVOCATE FOR THIS STANDARD INCLUDE

           23    EPA'S OWN CHILDREN'S HEALTH PROTECTION ADVISORY

           24    COMMITTEE, WHICH YOU WANT TO LISTEN TO, THE AMERICAN

           25    ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION,

                                                                                132

            1    THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION, AND MANY, MANY

            2    OTHERS.

            3             EPA, THIS PROPOSED STANDARD WILL ALLOW SOME

            4    OZONE MORTALITY SINCE THE RESEARCH ON OZONE EXPOSURE