1
           1       U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
           2       
           3       
           4       RE:     PROPOSED TIER 2 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS
           5               STANDARDS AND GASOLINE SULFUR CONTROL
           6               REQUIREMENTS, NOTICE OF PROPOSED 
           7               RULEMAKING AND PUBLIC HEARING          
           8        
           9                        - - - -
          10       
          11               TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS HAD IN
          12               THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED MATTER, AT THE
          13               HOLIDAY INN, 111 LAKESIDE AVENUE,
          14               CLEVELAND, OHIO, ON THURSDAY, JUNE 17,           
 
          15               1999, COMMENCING AT 10:00 A.M.
          16       
          17                        - - - -
          18       
                               MEHLER & HAGESTROM
          19                     Court Reporters
                            1750 Midland Building
          20                Cleveland, Ohio  44115
                                  216.621.4984
          21                      FAX 621.0050
                                  800.822.0650
          22       
          23       
          24       
          25       


                                                                 2
           1       PANEL MEMBERS:
                   
           2          Margo Oge
                      Karl Simon
           3          Dawn Martin
                      Chet France
           4          Michael Horowitz
                      Mary Manners
           5               
                      
           6       
                   
           7               
           8       
           9       
          10       
          11       
          12       
          13       
          14       
          15       
          16       
          17       
          18       
          19       
          20       
          21       
          22       
          23       
          24       
          25       


                                                                 3
           1                    MS. OGE:  Good morning.  On 
           2            behalf of the Environmental Protection 
           3            Agency I want to thank you for coming 
           4            here and welcome all of you to today's 
           5            hearing.  Today we're holding the 
           6            fourth and last public hearing on the 
           7            Tier 2 proposal. 
           8                    Today we're looking forward to 
           9            hearing your views on a program that we 
          10            believe will be very critical to the 
          11            future of air quality in this country. 
          12                    My name is Margo Oge.  I'm the 
          13            director of the office of mobile 
          14            sources with the Environmental 
          15            Protection Agency and I will be your 
          16            presiding officer for this hearing 
          17            today. 
          18                    The proposed regulation that we 
          19            are going to be discussing at this 
          20            public hearing was announced by 
          21            President Clinton on May 1st, 1999 and 
          22            it was published in the Federal 
          23            Register on May 13th, 1999.  This is a 
          24            historic proposal.  This program will 
          25            achieve dramatic reductions in air 


                                                                 4
           1            pollution for the 21st century and we 
           2            will do it in the most cost-effective, 
           3            flexible way.  We estimate emissions 
           4            reductions of almost 2.2 million 
           5            nitrogen oxide per year by 2020.  These 
           6            reductions are equivalent in removing 
           7            something close to 107 million cars 
           8            from the road. 
           9                    When we designed this proposal, 
          10            we followed a set of principles that I 
          11            would like to share with you.  We 
          12            wanted to design a program that meet 
          13            the air quality needs of states and the 
          14            nation as a whole.  We wanted to treat 
          15            autos and fuel as one system.  We 
          16            wanted to bring sport utility vehicles, 
          17            minivans, pickup trucks to the same 
          18            emissions standard as passenger 
          19            vehicles.  We wanted to have a program 
          20            that is fuel neutral, that is 
          21            regardless the fuel used in the car, 
          22            the same standards will be applied.  We 
          23            wanted to make sure that we are not 
          24            going to constrain consumer choices for 
          25            driving styles either due to costs or 


                                                                 5
           1            due to technological factors.  And, 
           2            finally, we wanted to provide 
           3            flexibility to the affected industries 
           4            in how they achieve the standards. 
           5                    The same time we published the 
           6            Tier 2 proposal we also released an 
           7            advanced notice of proposal making 
           8            concerning diesel fuel quality.  Today 
           9            we are not seeking comments on the 
          10            specific proposal.  We have established 
          11            a separate docket, A-99-06, for 
          12            comments on this proposal. 
          13                    Now, many of you are probably 
          14            aware of the two recent Court of 
          15            Appeals decisions regarding EPA's air 
          16            programs.  The first decision founded 
          17            the Clean Air Act as applied in setting 
          18            new public health air quality standards 
          19            for ozone and particulate matter is 
          20            unconstitutional and it's 
          21            unconstitutional as an improper 
          22            delegation of legislative authority to 
          23            EPA.  Despite the constitutional 
          24            ruling, however, the court did not 
          25            question the science on which EPA 


                                                                 6
           1            relied to develop the health standards 
           2            and the court did not criticize the 
           3            process that EPA used to make those 
           4            decisions.  EPA disagrees with the 
           5            court decision.  We have recommended to 
           6            the Department of Justice that they 
           7            take all necessary judicial steps to 
           8            overturn the decision. 
           9                    The second decision state the 
          10            submittal of state plans under the NOx 
          11            SIP call.  These were plans that were 
          12            scheduled to come to the agency this 
          13            fall.  We closely reviewed both of the 
          14            sections and concluded that they do not 
          15            impact the Tier 2 rulemaking.  The Tier 
          16            2 proposal remains on solid scientific 
          17            grounds in terms of need, technological 
          18            feasibility, cost and 
          19            cost-effectiveness.  The agency will 
          20            move forward to finalize this proposal 
          21            by the end of this year.  We believe 
          22            the Tier 2 standards as proposed are 
          23            needed to attain and maintain the 
          24            one-hour air quality standards. 
          25                    Also we believe that today over 


                                                                 7
           1            70 million Americans are breathing 
           2            unhealthy air in this country and we 
           3            believe that this trend will continue 
           4            unless we take action today.  We 
           5            believe this proposal is 
           6            technologically feasible and it is 
           7            cost-effective.  The projected costs of 
           8            meeting this proposal are about a 
           9            hundred dollars per car, $200 for SUVs 
          10            and light-duty trucks and between 1 and 
          11            2 cents per gallon of gasoline. 
          12                    Even though our cars and trucks 
          13            run cleaner than ever before, they 
          14            still contribute a large part of our 
          15            air pollution.  We Americans love to 
          16            drive and we are driving more every 
          17            year.  If we don't act today, the 
          18            emissions from our cars and light-duty 
          19            trucks combined with the current levels 
          20            of sulfur in gasoline threaten to erode 
          21            many of the air quality gains that we 
          22            have made in recent years.  Motor 
          23            vehicles, for example, are almost, are 
          24            responsible for almost one quarter of 
          25            the smoke forming air pollution here in 


                                                                 8
           1            Cleveland. 
           2                    The proposal contains two 
           3            primary elements.  First, EPA proposes 
           4            more protective emissions standards for 
           5            all light-duty vehicles and light-duty 
           6            trucks.  The proposed Tier 2 standards 
           7            would require all vehicles and trucks 
           8            weighing up to 8,500 pounds to meet a 
           9            corporate average nitrogen oxide 
          10            standard of 0.07 grams per mile.  This 
          11            new standard will result in cars that 
          12            are 77 percent cleaner and SUVs, 
          13            minivans and pickup trucks that are as 
          14            smart as 95 percent cleaner than 
          15            today's vehicles. 
          16                    The standards will be phased in 
          17            from 2004 to 2007 for light-duty 
          18            vehicles and light-duty trucks weighing 
          19            up to 6,000 pounds.  Beginning in 2004 
          20            heavy light-duty trucks or those 
          21            between 6,000 pounds and 8,500 pounds 
          22            will have to meet a more stringent 
          23            interim standard that will reduce 
          24            emissions from those vehicles up to 80 
          25            percent.  Beginning 2008 through 2009 


                                                                 9
           1            these heavier trucks will have to meet 
           2            the same standard as vehicles, the 0.07 
           3            grams per mile.
           4                    The second element of the Tier 
           5            2 proposal is a nationwide control of 
           6            sulfur in gasoline.  For the first time 
           7            with this proposal we will treat 
           8            gasoline and engines as a system.  We 
           9            are proposing to reduce sulfur across 
          10            the board because sulfur poisons 
          11            antipollution control systems.  Our 
          12            proposal will reduce sulfur by 90 
          13            percent.  With cleaner fuels not only 
          14            the Tier 2 vehicles benefit, but also 
          15            the cars that we are driving today will 
          16            benefit. 
          17                    Refiners and importers of 
          18            gasoline would be required to meet a 
          19            new sulfur limit of 30 parts per 
          20            million on an average beginning 2004.  
          21            With the banking and trading program 
          22            that we have proposed, cleaner fuels 
          23            could be introduced in the marketplace 
          24            as early as 2000 time frame and the 
          25            compliance could be extended to 2006 


                                                                10
           1            time frame.  Also the Tier 2 proposal 
           2            has included provisions that are 
           3            designed to provide more flexibility to 
           4            small refiners. 
           5                    Before getting started with 
           6            today's testimony, I'll take a few 
           7            minutes to introduce the panel and 
           8            describe how we are going to conduct 
           9            this meeting.  With me today on my 
          10            right is Dawn Martin who is the chief 
          11            of staff in the office of air and 
          12            radiation with EPA.  Next to Dawn is 
          13            Mr. Karl Simon and he's in my office, 
          14            an important person.  Next to me on my 
          15            left is Chet France.  He's the director 
          16            of the engine programs and compliance.  
          17            And at my left is also Mr. Michael 
          18            Horowitz and he's with our office of 
          19            general counsel. 
          20                    We have received an 
          21            overwhelming number of requests to 
          22            testify today and we will do our best 
          23            to accommodate everyone who wishes to 
          24            speak.  Therefore, we will ask 
          25            witnesses to limit their testimony to 


                                                                11
           1            no more than ten minutes.  The lady 
           2            that is sitting in the front, Miss Mary 
           3            Manners, is going to keep us all honest 
           4            with the time.  So she's going to let 
           5            you know when you are running out of 
           6            time.  Please listen to her. 
           7                    We are conducting this hearing 
           8            in accordance with Section 307(d)5 of 
           9            the Clean Air Act which requires EPA to 
          10            provide interested persons with an 
          11            opportunity for oral and written 
          12            presentations of data.  Also we are 
          13            going to allow this, the comment 
          14            period, the public comment period for 
          15            this proposal to be open until August 
          16            2nd of 1999 for any additional written 
          17            submissions. 
          18                    The hearing will be conducted 
          19            informally and formal rules of evidence 
          20            will not apply.  The presiding officer 
          21            is authorized, however, to strike from 
          22            the record statements which are deemed 
          23            irrelevant to this hearing.  Also I 
          24            will try to enforce reasonable limits 
          25            for the duration of the statement of 


                                                                12
           1            any witness. 
           2                    We request that the witness 
           3            state their names and affiliations 
           4            prior to making their statement.  When 
           5            a witness has finished his or her 
           6            presentation, this EPA panel may have 
           7            questions concerning issues raised in 
           8            the testimony.  We are reminding the 
           9            witnesses that any false statement in 
          10            response to our questions may be a 
          11            violation of law. 
          12                    If there are any members in the 
          13            audience that would like to testify and 
          14            have not signed in, please sign your 
          15            name with the receptionist outside and 
          16            we will do our best to accommodate you.  
          17            We must request that you refrain from 
          18            bringing food in this meeting room due 
          19            to the terms of our contract with this 
          20            facility. 
          21                    And, finally, if you would like 
          22            a transcript of this proceeding, you 
          23            should make arrangements directly with 
          24            the court reporter during one of the 
          25            breaks.  The transcript from this 


                                                                13
           1            hearing will be available, however, in 
           2            the docket, EPA docket within two 
           3            weeks. 
           4                    If there are not any questions, 
           5            we will start with our first group of 
           6            speakers. 
           7                    Okay.  I would like for Mr. 
           8            Charles Lagges to come forward, Miss 
           9            Jayne Mardock, Mr. Robert Babik and 
          10            Miss Amy Simpson.  Please print your 
          11            names on the cards in front of you.
          12                    Mr. Lagges, good morning.  
          13            We'll start with you this morning.
          14                    MR. LAGGES:  Good morning and 
          15            thank you.  My name is Charles Lagges 
          16            and I'm the director of Cook County 
          17            Environmental Control.  It's in 
          18            Illinois outside Chicago.  And I am 
          19            here this morning representing ALAPCO, 
          20            the Association of Local Air Pollution 
          21            Control Officials.  I appear here on 
          22            behalf of ALAPCO, which represents my 
          23            agency as we well as more than 165 
          24            other local air pollution agencies, 
          25            control agencies across the country and 


                                                                14
           1            on behalf of STAPPA, our sister agency, 
           2            the State and Territorial Air Pollution 
           3            Program Administrators which represents 
           4            the air pollution control agencies in 
           5            55 states and territories.  
           6                    I'm very pleased this morning 
           7            to have the opportunity to provide the 
           8            Associations' testimony on the U.S. 
           9            EPA's recently proposed Tier 2 motor 
          10            vehicle emissions standards and program 
          11            to reduce sulfur in gasoline, as well 
          12            as on the agency's advance notice of 
          13            proposed rulemaking on diesel fuel. 
          14                    On behalf of STAPPA and ALAPCO, 
          15            I would like to commend EPA for its 
          16            leadership, not only in issuing the 
          17            Tier 2 and gasoline sulfur proposal, 
          18            but also for developing such a strong 
          19            and comprehensive package.  We further 
          20            commend EPA for responsibly taking full 
          21            advantage of the opportunity to 
          22            efficiently and cost-effectively reduce 
          23            a wide variety of emissions, for 
          24            pursuing a systems approach that 
          25            addresses both fuels and tailpipe 


                                                                15
           1            emissions and for engaging in such a 
           2            thorough and inclusive process to craft 
           3            this proposal. 
           4                    We are especially pleased that 
           5            the proposed Tier 2 and gasoline sulfur 
           6            programs directly reflect almost every 
           7            key recommendation made by STAPPA and 
           8            ALAPCO over the past two years.  These 
           9            programs, which will define our ability 
          10            to control emissions from cars and 
          11            light-duty trucks for the next 15 years 
          12            or so, are of vital importance to our 
          13            memberships, as we work toward ensuring 
          14            clean air for our cities, counties and 
          15            states.  For this reason, in October 
          16            '97 and again in April '98, our 
          17            associations adopted, with 
          18            overwhelmingly support, resolutions 
          19            calling for stringent low-sulfur 
          20            gasoline and Tier 2 programs; copies of 
          21            these resolutions are with my written 
          22            statement.  We have placed the highest 
          23            priority on participating in the rule 
          24            development process and we are very 
          25            pleased that EPA has concluded that the 


                                                                16
           1            most appropriate programs so closely 
           2            mirror those for which we have 
           3            advocated. 
           4                    As the officials with primary 
           5            responsibility for achieving and 
           6            maintaining clean, healthful air across 
           7            the country, state and local air 
           8            agencies are keenly aware of the need 
           9            to aggressively pursue emissions 
          10            reductions from all sectors that 
          11            contribute to our nation's air quality 
          12            problems.  We believe the potential air 
          13            quality benefits to result from cutting 
          14            emissions from light-duty vehicles and 
          15            light-duty trucks and reducing sulfur 
          16            in gasoline, as the agency has 
          17            proposed, are tremendous.  These 
          18            proposed programs will give us 
          19            substantial and much-needed emissions 
          20            reductions and allow us to make 
          21            significant strides in our efforts to 
          22            deliver and sustain clean air across 
          23            the country.  These emissions 
          24            reductions will play a pivotal role in 
          25            addressing an array of air quality 


                                                                17
           1            problems that continue to pose health 
           2            and welfare risks nationwide. 
           3                    While much of the debate 
           4            surrounding the air quality need for 
           5            Tier 2 and low-sulfur gasoline seems to 
           6            have gravitated toward ozone, it is 
           7            imperative that we not overlook the 
           8            many other important air quality 
           9            benefits of this proposal, to be 
          10            realized by both nonattainment and 
          11            attainment areas both east and west.  
          12            While this proposal will, indeed, 
          13            decrease the emissions of hydrocarbons 
          14            and NOx, which, in turn, will lead to 
          15            reduced levels of ambient ozone, it 
          16            will also decrease particulate matter, 
          17            carbon monoxide emissions, improve 
          18            visibility, address acid rain problems 
          19            and reduce greenhouse gases and toxic 
          20            air pollution.  In addition, the 
          21            substantial reductions to occur from 
          22            this proposal will further the 
          23            objectives of pollution prevention.  
          24            Additionally, the proposed programs 
          25            will achieve these air quality 


                                                                18
           1            improvements in an extremely 
           2            cost-effective manner.  At 
           3            approximately $2,000 per ton of NOx and 
           4            VOC removed, as estimated by the EPA, 
           5            these programs are at least as 
           6            cost-effective as, if not more 
           7            cost-effective than, most other control 
           8            measures available to us, and the 
           9            dividends are huge. 
          10                    There are some components of 
          11            the proposal with which we have 
          12            concerns.  We will offer 
          13            recommendations to address these.  
          14            Nonetheless, STAPPA and ALAPCO 
          15            congratulate EPA for issuing a proposal 
          16            that we believe provides sound 
          17            framework for environmentally and 
          18            economically responsible Tier 2 and 
          19            gasoline sulfur programs. 
          20                    With regards to the proposed 
          21            Tier 2 vehicle emissions standards, we 
          22            strongly support what we believe are 
          23            the cornerstones of the proposed Tier 2 
          24            program.  Specifically we, are pleased 
          25            that the program cost-effectively 


                                                                19
           1            achieves real-word emissions reductions 
           2            from the new light-duty vehicles and 
           3            light-duty trucks, that it reflects new 
           4            and emerging vehicle emissions control 
           5            technologies currently available and 
           6            expected to be available in the year 
           7            2004 and beyond, that it applies to 
           8            light-duty vehicles and light-duty 
           9            trucks up to 8,500 pounds, including 
          10            SUVs, pickup trucks and vans beginning 
          11            in 2004.  We are pleased that it 
          12            subjects light-duty trucks up to 8,500 
          13            pounds to the same emissions standards 
          14            as cars and lighter trucks and includes 
          15            a corporate average NOx standard for 
          16            all affected vehicles.  It establishes 
          17            fuel neutral standards.  It includes a 
          18            more stringent evaporative emissions 
          19            standard.  And, finally, extends the 
          20            useful life to 120,000 miles.  These 
          21            programs are right on target for a 
          22            truly effective national motor vehicle 
          23            control program. 
          24                    We are, however, concerned that 
          25            several provisions including in the 


                                                                20
           1            proposal or raised for public comment 
           2            could significantly undercut the 
           3            program.  Among these concerns are the 
           4            later compliance deadline 2009, versus 
           5            2007, for the larger SUVs, vans and 
           6            trucks and the notion of a formal 
           7            technology review of the Tier 2 
           8            standards prior to the time the 
           9            standards for heavier light-duty trucks 
          10            take effect.  In addition, while we 
          11            certainly agree with EPA that there 
          12            should be some measure of flexibility 
          13            included in the Tier 2 program and find 
          14            some of the approaches provided to be 
          15            entirely appropriate, we are quite 
          16            concerned with various aspects of some 
          17            of the proposed provisions, such as the 
          18            amount of time allowed for 
          19            manufacturers to make up for credit 
          20            shortfall under the Averaging Banking 
          21            and Trading program and the leniency of 
          22            some of the emissions standard BINS.  
          23            Finally, given the continuing trend 
          24            toward heavier light-duty trucks, we 
          25            encourage EPA to consider applying the 


                                                                21
           1            Tier 2 standards to those SUVs, pickup 
           2            trucks and full-size vans weighing up 
           3            to 10,000 pounds which are used 
           4            predominantly for personal 
           5            transportation.  We will fully 
           6            articulate all of these concerns in our 
           7            forthcoming written comments. 
           8                    With regards to the gasoline 
           9            sulfur control requirements, same as 
          10            with the Tier 2 program, STAPPA and 
          11            ALAPCO also believe that EPA has done a 
          12            fine job in establishing the key 
          13            parameters of the proposed low-sulfur 
          14            gasoline program.  EPA's proposal very 
          15            appropriately and necessarily 
          16            establishes uniform, national, 
          17            year-round standards to sharply reduce 
          18            sulfur in gasoline, sets a gasoline 
          19            sulfur standard of 30 parts per million 
          20            on average, to take effect 2004, and 
          21            includes a sulfur cap of 80 parts per 
          22            million, includes flexibilities to 
          23            minimize the cost to and compliance 
          24            burden on affected parties, and 
          25            provides incentives for refiners to 


                                                                22
           1            reduce sulfur levels in gasoline prior 
           2            to the 2004 effective date. 
           3                    Last spring, STAPPA and ALAPCO 
           4            conducted an analysis concluding that a 
           5            national low-sulfur gasoline program of 
           6            this scope will achieve overnight 
           7            emissions reductions that are 
           8            equivalent to taking 54 million 
           9            vehicles off the road.  Further, 
          10            throughout the debate surrounding 
          11            gasoline sulfur, the issue of a 
          12            national versus regional program has 
          13            been paramount.  We are gratified the 
          14            EPA has proposed that the low-sulfur 
          15            gasoline standards apply uniformly 
          16            nationwide.  This approach will 
          17            forestall the very real and detrimental 
          18            impacts of irreversible catalyst 
          19            poisoning and will do so in a way that 
          20            is both inexpensive and cost-effective.  
          21            It is absolutely essential that EPA 
          22            preserve these provisions, as well as 
          23            the proposed effective day of 2004. 
          24                    As we indicated regarding the 
          25            Tier 2 standards, while we are 


                                                                23
           1            extremely pleased with the framework 
           2            and key elements of the gasoline and 
           3            sulfur proposal, there are some 
           4            provisions that are of considerable 
           5            concern to us.  For example, we 
           6            strongly support the 80 parts per 
           7            million cap on sulfur, but we believe 
           8            the agency's proposal to phase in this 
           9            cap is excessive.  Further, state and 
          10            local air agencies recognize that the 
          11            current NSR program is in need of 
          12            streamlining and are working with EPA 
          13            and other stakeholders to reform NSR.  
          14            However, we find some of the potential 
          15            NSR streamlining options identified in 
          16            this proposal to be problematic.  
          17            Again, we will discuss these concerns 
          18            in detail in our forthcoming written 
          19            comments. 
          20                    And before I conclude, I would 
          21            like to congratulate EPA for 
          22            recognizing the need to reduce sulfur 
          23            in diesel fuel and for issuing the 
          24            advance -- and its  consideration of 
          25            improvements in diesel fuel quality and 


                                                                24
           1            seeking comments on the merits of that. 
           2                    We wholeheartedly agree that 
           3            this is an imperative issue.  Our 
           4            commitment is summarized in a 
           5            resolution that was passed this year 
           6            and is in the written comments that I 
           7            have. 
           8                    So in conclusion, STAPPA and 
           9            ALAPCO applaud you for seizing the 
          10            opportunity to take this huge step 
          11            forward in achieving much cleaner air.  
          12            We commend your thorough process and we 
          13            most of all consider your leadership in 
          14            providing fundamentally strong programs 
          15            that are technologically feasable, 
          16            cost-effective and environmentally 
          17            responsible.  On behalf of our 
          18            associations, I offer you our continued 
          19            cooperation and our partnership as you 
          20            move ahead.
          21                    MS. OGE:  Thank you. 
          22                    Ms. Mardock, good morning.
          23                    MS. MARDOCK:  Hi.  My name is 
          24            Jayne Mardock, and I am the director of 
          25            the Clean Air Network, and before I 


                                                                25
           1            start my formal comments about the Tier 
           2            2 regulations, I would just like to 
           3            report what I heard yesterday at a 
           4            press conference in Washington, that 
           5            Ohio is now leading the country for 
           6            ozone violations.  They had 181 
           7            violations of the standard since the 
           8            beginning of the ozone season and have 
           9            had 12 days of unhealthy air and it's 
          10            very -- just to put into context why we 
          11            need, why we need cleaner cars is 
          12            because we still have a serious dirty 
          13            air problem. 
          14                    And, in fact, there have been a 
          15            number of counties that have even 
          16            violated the one-hour standard.  
          17            Delaware County had a 154 reading of 
          18            the one-hour standard on June the 10th.  
          19            In addition, Butler, Lucas, Miami, 
          20            Lake, Montgomery and Stark Counties 
          21            have also had violations of the 
          22            one-hour standard.  In fact, they have 
          23            had more violations of the one-hour 
          24            standard than many of the areas that 
          25            currently are out of attainment of the 


                                                                26
           1            one-hour standard.  So certainly there 
           2            is a reason to continue to go forward. 
           3                    I am here today to deliver 
           4            testimony on behalf of 20 organizations 
           5            that could not be present today but 
           6            would like to elicit their support and 
           7            also raise concerns about the Tier 2 
           8            proposal.  The Network will be 
           9            submitting more detailed comments at 
          10            the end of the docket comment period, 
          11            but would like to take this opportunity 
          12            to highlight several key issues. 
          13                    First, we would like to applaud 
          14            EPA for issuing such a strong proposal.  
          15            We are pleased that several elements 
          16            were included in the proposal and call 
          17            on EPA to retain these elements in 
          18            their final rule. 
          19                    Number one, we applaud EPA for 
          20            taking an integrated approach to 
          21            tailpipe and fuel impacts on emissions.  
          22            By looking at the whole system involved 
          23            in passenger vehicle emissions 
          24            including fuels, the proposal was able 
          25            to take advantage of additional 


                                                                27
           1            technology to make tailpipe emissions 
           2            even cleaner.  The U.S. leads the world 
           3            in stringent tailpipe standards, yet is 
           4            lagging behind most of the 
           5            industrialized world in cleaning up the 
           6            fuels that are burned in passenger 
           7            vehicles.  Dirty fuel prevents the use 
           8            of the most advanced catalysts and 
           9            could block the use of other advanced 
          10            systems, such as fuel cells and 
          11            hybrids.  Low-sulfur fuel will also 
          12            have an immediate positive effect on 
          13            air quality with the existing cars on 
          14            the road, achieving clean air quality 
          15            improvements in the near term. 
          16                    We are pleased that all 
          17            passenger cars and trucks will 
          18            eventually be integrated into one 
          19            system.  In 1998, light-duty truck 
          20            sales, including sport utility 
          21            vehicles, minivans and pickup trucks, 
          22            exceeded new passenger car sales for 
          23            the first time.  While exemptions for 
          24            large trucks may have been more 
          25            justified in the past because they were 


                                                                28
           1            used for heavy hauling and they were 
           2            also fairly limited in use, these 
           3            vehicles have become the mainstay of 
           4            most families as passenger vehicles, 
           5            and they should be treated as such in 
           6            the future.  The American public wants 
           7            consistent standards.  A recent poll by 
           8            the American Lung Association found 
           9            that 91 percent of the public agreed 
          10            that SUVs and minivans should be 
          11            required to meet the same standards as 
          12            passenger cars.  Even minivan and SUV 
          13            owners agreed with this.  We are 
          14            pleased that EPA is moving forward to 
          15            make all passenger vehicles, regardless 
          16            of size and weight, meet the same 
          17            standards. 
          18                    We are pleased that the fuel 
          19            neutral standards allow the cleanest 
          20            fuels to get the extra credit.  EPA has 
          21            proposed a system that will allow fuels 
          22            that are significantly cleaner than 
          23            gasoline to get the credit for being 
          24            cleaner by setting certification BINS 
          25            that are well below the fleet average.  


                                                                29
           1            This will provide incentive for more 
           2            hybrid and cleaner fueled cars to come 
           3            to market.  While we are concerned that 
           4            the highest BINS may allow for 
           5            increased diesel vehicles, we are 
           6            pleased that EPA did not set a separate 
           7            standard for diesel fueled cars and 
           8            passenger trucks. 
           9                    Overall, we feel that this rule 
          10            will significantly reduce auto 
          11            pollution while remaining 
          12            cost-effective.  EPA estimates that the 
          13            Tier 2 proposal, combined with the low 
          14            sulfur fuel requirements, will have an 
          15            emissions effect of taking 166 million 
          16            cars off the road when the proposal is 
          17            fully implemented.  This is quite 
          18            significant considering that there are 
          19            only about 207 million cars on the road 
          20            today, only being quite an 
          21            understatement.  But EPA's cost 
          22            estimates are also reasonable.  
          23            Increasing the cost of a new vehicle 
          24            from 100 to $200 with an incremental 
          25            fuel cost over the life of the car of 


                                                                30
           1            $100 makes it possible for consumers to 
           2            pay for these improvements.  In 
           3            addition, there are significant 
           4            benefits to our health and environment 
           5            from this proposal that far outweigh 
           6            the costs. 
           7                    We do, however, have concerns 
           8            about the proposal and think that they 
           9            can be followed -- can be strengthened 
          10            in the following ways. 
          11                    Number one, we think that there 
          12            is too much lead time for the biggest 
          13            and dirtiest trucks.  While we 
          14            understand that the fleet of vehicles 
          15            between 6,000 and 8,500 pounds are 
          16            fairly small, it is also one of the 
          17            fastest growing segments of new vehicle 
          18            sales.  In the past ten years SUVs have 
          19            grown, the sale of SUVs has grown 
          20            tenfold and emit three to five times 
          21            what a passenger car emits today 
          22            according to a report by the U.S. 
          23            Public Interest Research Group.  While 
          24            we acknowledge it will be a challenge 
          25            to reduce emissions from these 


                                                                31
           1            vehicles, waiting ten years from today 
           2            for them to, for them to become 
           3            integrated into the system is just too 
           4            long.  These vehicles are the biggest 
           5            and the dirtiest and they should be 
           6            fully integrated into the Tier 2 
           7            program by at least 2007. 
           8                    We feel that there is too much 
           9            flexibility in the fleet average, 
          10            especially the ability to carry over a 
          11            deficit fleet average.  While we 
          12            support the concept of a fleet average 
          13            and understand that banking and trading 
          14            may be necessary to meet the average, 
          15            we believe that there is sufficient 
          16            flexibility in the program to prohibit 
          17            auto makers to carry a deficit into the 
          18            next model year.  EPA has provided 
          19            ample flexibility by providing seven 
          20            certification BINS to average the 
          21            fleet, banking of early credits and 
          22            trading among auto manufacturers.  The 
          23            auto makers can either evaluate their 
          24            fleets to reduce emissions or can buy 
          25            credits from another manufacturer that 


                                                                32
           1            have cleaned up beyond their 
           2            obligations.  EPA should prohibit an 
           3            auto maker from carrying a deficit of 
           4            its fleet average into the following 
           5            model year so that we are assured clean 
           6            air benefits from year to year. 
           7                    We believe that the phase-in 
           8            program, phase-in period for low-sulfur 
           9            fuel is too long.  EPA, auto 
          10            manufacturers, state agencies and 
          11            environmental groups have been united 
          12            in the fact that low-sulfur fuel is 
          13            needed and that it will allow, it will 
          14            promote advanced technology in addition 
          15            to achieving immediate air quality 
          16            benefits with the existing fleet of 
          17            cars on the road.  For this reason, we 
          18            are very concerned that EPA is taking 
          19            too long to phase in the low-sulfur 
          20            gasoline program, and we remain very 
          21            concerned with the banking and trading 
          22            program that allows a per gallon level 
          23            of sulfur to be as high as 300 parts 
          24            per million in the early years of the 
          25            program.  Sulfur can permanently damage 


                                                                33
           1            the catalyst, especially the most 
           2            sensitive new technology.  If auto 
           3            makers begin using these technologies 
           4            in 2004, consumers must be able to 
           5            protect their investment by knowing 
           6            that the fuel that they use in their 
           7            car will not damage it.  While small 
           8            refiners may need additional help to 
           9            reach low-sulfur targets, we are 
          10            concerned about the very long lead-time 
          11            that would allow for the continued sale 
          12            of dirty fuel.
          13                    Finally, we believe that the 
          14            top BIN allowed by EPA allows too much 
          15            pollution.  We are concerned that the 
          16            top BIN has been developed to allow 
          17            auto makers to manufacturer more 
          18            diesel-powered vehicles and the biggest 
          19            and dirtiest sport utility vehicles and 
          20            trucks.  While we understand that there 
          21            may be positive consequences through 
          22            the fleet average requirement in the 
          23            form of more cleaner vehicles, we 
          24            remain very concerned about the health 
          25            and environmental impacts associated 


                                                                34
           1            with diesel.  EPA is concluding a study 
           2            finding that diesel exhaust is 200 
           3            times more toxic than previously 
           4            believed and it's also a major concern 
           5            outlined in EPA's urban air toxic 
           6            strategy.  The top BIN is almost three 
           7            times dirtier than the NOx average and 
           8            it should be either eliminated or it 
           9            should be tightened. 
          10                    In conclusion, these 20 
          11            organizations want to thank EPA for the 
          12            opportunity to express our support for 
          13            the Tier 2 proposal and suggest ways it 
          14            can be strengthened to make it more 
          15            equitable and increase the health and 
          16            environmental benefits of the program.  
          17            On the whole, this proposal is a 
          18            significant step forward in cleaning up 
          19            auto pollution, and we give great 
          20            credit for proposing, to EPA for 
          21            proposing a program that will leave a 
          22            cleaner legacy for our children. 
          23                    Once again thank you for 
          24            letting me share this testimony on 
          25            behalf of the following 


                                                                35
           1            representatives:  In California, the 
           2            Environmental Defense Center, the 
           3            Desert Citizens Against Pollution, 
           4            California Communities Against Toxics; 
           5            in Illinois, the American Lung 
           6            Association of Metropolitan Chicago; in 
           7            Indiana, Valley Watch, Hoosier 
           8            Environmental Council; and in Kentucky, 
           9            the Kentucky Resources Council; in 
          10            Minnesota, the Clean Water Action 
          11            Alliance; in New Hampshire, the 
          12            Appalachian Mountain Club; in New 
          13            Jersey, the New Jersey Environmental 
          14            Lobby; in New York, the Clean Air Task 
          15            Force; in North Carolina, Appalachian 
          16            Voices; in Maine, the Natural Resources 
          17            Council of Maine; in Ohio and Oregon, 
          18            the Sierra Club; in Pennsylvania, the 
          19            Clean Air Council and the Sierra Club 
          20            Allegheny Group; in Utah, the Wasatch 
          21            County Clean Air Coalition; in 
          22            Washington, the Coalition for Clean Air 
          23            in Washington; in Washington, D.C., the 
          24            Campaign on Auto Pollution and 20/20 
          25            Vision. 


                                                                36
           1                    MS. OGE:  Thank you.
           2                    Mr. Babik, good morning.
           3                    MR. BABIK:  Good morning.  
           4            Thank you.  I am Robert Babik, director 
           5            of environmental programs at the 
           6            Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, 
           7            Coalition of Light Car/Truck Makers, 
           8            which include BMW, Daimler Chrysler, 
           9            Fiat, Ford, General Motors, Mazda, 
          10            Nissan, Toyota, Volkswagon and Volvo, 
          11            more than 642,000 employees in the 
          12            United States, 255 manufacturing 
          13            facilities in 33 states, Alliance 
          14            members represent more than 90 percent 
          15            of U.S. vehicle sales. 
          16                    The automobile manufacturing 
          17            industry has done more than any other 
          18            industry in reducing emissions and we 
          19            are proud of our record.  Our 
          20            commitment is evident in our voluntary 
          21            initiative in national low-emissions 
          22            vehicle programs where we are already 
          23            producing vehicles sooner than EPA can 
          24            require by law. 
          25                    The auto makers are stepping up 


                                                                37
           1            to the plate to accomplish the Tier 2 
           2            rules; however, auto makers cannot do 
           3            it by ourselves.  Much cleaner fuels 
           4            are needed to make this program work.  
           5            EPA has an opportunity to clear the 
           6            path for future advanced technology 
           7            vehicles and the ultra clean fuels 
           8            needed to power them. 
           9                    The Alliance fully supports the 
          10            air quality goals of the rulemakers.  
          11            In fact, the Alliance has put forth a 
          12            proposal that can achieve even greater 
          13            emissions reductions than the EPA's 
          14            proposal.  We are very close on most 
          15            issues.  Our proposal will propel us 
          16            into the next century with the cleanest 
          17            fleet of vehicles in the world further 
          18            reducing emissions of both passenger 
          19            cars and light-duty trucks to near 
          20            negligible levels. 
          21                    Like the EPA, the Alliance 
          22            proposal goes beyond proven technology 
          23            and breaks new ground by requiring that 
          24            cars and light trucks meet the same 
          25            average NOx level and assures a 


                                                                38
           1            significant reduction of NOx emissions 
           2            more than would be achieved from the 
           3            EPA proposal.  This is not a proposal 
           4            that says it can't be done or looks for 
           5            a free ride.  It is a robust proposal 
           6            that recognizes our industry's 
           7            important role in helping the United 
           8            States reach the clean air goals.  We 
           9            don't know yet how we will reach the 
          10            goals that we have set for ourselves in 
          11            our own proposal, but we are prepared 
          12            to take on the challenge.  Can do is 
          13            our attitude. 
          14                    I want to stress key elements 
          15            of our proposal today, elements that 
          16            must not get lost in the shuffle of 
          17            this remaining process, elements 
          18            necessary for Tier 2 to be a successful 
          19            role. 
          20                    Element number one, first, we 
          21            need improved fuels including near zero 
          22            sulfur which will be needed to reach 
          23            the clean air goals.  Fuels and autos 
          24            operate as one system.  Near zero 
          25            sulfur fuels are needed to enable the 


                                                                39
           1            introduction of technology required to 
           2            meet the tough new standards.  It makes 
           3            little sense to mandate the production 
           4            of world-class vehicles and then run 
           5            them on second-class fuels. 
           6                    We applaud EPA's proposed 
           7            reduction in fuel sulfur levels to an 
           8            average of 30 parts per million as a 
           9            good first step toward the fuel quality 
          10            we need to reach our clean air goals.  
          11            This is the sulfur level that 
          12            California EPA has required since 1996.  
          13            Clearly the expansion of low-sulfur 
          14            fuel from a California-only program to 
          15            a nationwide program is long overdue, 
          16            along with California style volatility 
          17            control. 
          18                    However, it is not enough to 
          19            stop there at 30 parts per million.  On 
          20            the vehicle side the Tier 2 rule is a 
          21            very aggressive new program with 
          22            technology forcing standards comparable 
          23            to those that California had just 
          24            adopted late in 1998.  Before this year 
          25            is out, it appears California will take 


                                                                40
           1            another major step toward near zero 
           2            sulfur fuel to accompany its aggressive 
           3            vehicle standards.  We need to take 
           4            this critical second step at the 
           5            federal level as well recognizing that 
           6            30 part per million is not an end 
           7            point, but rather a stepping stone on 
           8            the way to near zero sulfur fuel. 
           9                    Removing sulfur is both 
          10            feasible and affordable.  The 
          11            technology for sulfur removal is 
          12            readily available and is in widespread 
          13            use in California, Japan, Europe and 
          14            other areas of the world.  Recent 
          15            announcements show that members of the 
          16            refining industries are moving toward 
          17            low-sulfur fuels voluntarily.  We need 
          18            to get the sulfur out nationwide. 
          19                    Simply put, sulfur is the lead 
          20            of the '90s because of the way it 
          21            poisons the catalyst.  Auto oil studies 
          22            have shown that catalysts subjected to 
          23            high sulfur experience a loss of 
          24            effectiveness that cannot be recovered 
          25            even after extended operation on 


                                                                41
           1            low-sulfur fuel.  In other words, the 
           2            emissions benefits get cancelled out.  
           3            This is why a so-called regional fuel 
           4            program is unworkable because vehicles 
           5            traveling from a low-sulfur region to a 
           6            high-sulfur region will experience an 
           7            unavoidable degradation in the 
           8            performance of their emissions control 
           9            systems. 
          10                    Sulfur removal is an essential 
          11            enabler for new emissions control 
          12            hardware in new power train systems.  
          13            Emissions technology such as NOx traps 
          14            may enable advanced technology vehicles 
          15            to achieve significant improvements in 
          16            fuel economy. 
          17                    Fuel cell vehicles may attain 
          18            the as yet elusive goals of zero 
          19            emissions vehicles that may appeal to a 
          20            wide market.  These and other promising 
          21            technologies are known to require near 
          22            zero sulfur fuels.  We can either put 
          23            our heads in the sand and ignore this 
          24            fact or we can adopt regulations now to 
          25            ensure that the necessary fuel is in 


                                                                42
           1            place to allow technologies to begin to 
           2            appear in the marketplace. 
           3                    Another important point is that 
           4            the auto makers need enough flexibility 
           5            in the time line to allow for the 
           6            invention of technologies necessary to 
           7            make EPA standards a reality.  The 
           8            Alliance proposal agrees with EPA on 
           9            the end point of .07 grams per mile NOx 
          10            fleet emissions averages for both 
          11            passenger cars and light-duty trucks.  
          12            Getting there will take time and 
          13            require us to clear a number of 
          14            technological hurdles. 
          15                    The introduction of the two 
          16            Tier 2 standards should be accomplished 
          17            in a two-phase approach set forth in 
          18            the Alliance proposal, one round of the 
          19            emissions reductions starting 2004, and 
          20            an even more aggressive reduction 
          21            starting in 2008 when hopefully near 
          22            zero sulfur fuels will be in place. 
          23                    A third key point, independent 
          24            third party capability studies in 2004 
          25            is needed to make sure that we are 


                                                                43
           1            headed in the right direction and we 
           2            can achieve the goals set by EPA.  The 
           3            study should be conducted by mutually 
           4            agreed upon experts to establish the 
           5            feasibility of a second wave of 
           6            emissions standards based on the 
           7            following four items:  Five ppm max 
           8            sulfur fuels for both gas and diesel, 
           9            standards feasible for leading market 
          10            technologies for both gas and diesel, 
          11            standards that pose no anticompetitive 
          12            impact, and standards that are 
          13            cost-effective and affordable. 
          14                    There is no downside for 
          15            planning for this sort of independent 
          16            review.  None of us, not the EPA, and 
          17            certainly not the auto industry, can 
          18            foretell the future and know what 
          19            problems may develop, but such a 
          20            far-reaching technology course and 
          21            regulation if development is on track 
          22            to meet the Tier 2 standards, the 
          23            review process will just confirm this 
          24            fact and things will proceed as 
          25            planned.  On the other hand, if major 


                                                                44
           1            unexpected problems are encountered 
           2            along the way, the review process will 
           3            give EPA an opportunity to make 
           4            mid-course directions. 
           5                    Lastly, we want to make sure 
           6            that the final 2 Tier rule continues to 
           7            foster and not freeze out the 
           8            development and utilization of advanced 
           9            technology vehicles.  The government 
          10            industry Partnership for New Generation 
          11            Vehicles, otherwise known as PNGV, has 
          12            determined that four stroke direct 
          13            injection is the most promising 
          14            near-term technology for meeting 
          15            dramatically increased fuel economy 
          16            goals within the next ten years.  EPA 
          17            has concurred with this selection.  
          18            These lean-burn technologies, however, 
          19            do not achieve the level of NOx 
          20            controls needed to meet the very tight 
          21            standards, and the fleet average 
          22            requirement could actually restrict the 
          23            number of units that can be sold.  The 
          24            catalyst for these technologies are 
          25            extremely sensitive to sulfur and their 


                                                                45
           1            efficiency degrades quickly without 
           2            near zero sulfur fuels. 
           3                    EPA's proposal could 
           4            effectively prevent the fruits of the 
           5            PNGV program from being realized in the 
           6            U.S.  The EPA rules should foster, not 
           7            freeze, advance fuel efficient 
           8            technologies out of the U.S. market.  
           9            And EPA can enhance the Tier 2 
          10            flexibility without incurring any loss 
          11            whatsoever of clean air benefits by 
          12            expanding the number of certification 
          13            BINS and encourage the advanced 
          14            technology vehicles with no down side 
          15            for the environment. 
          16                    In conclusion, the Alliance 
          17            fully supports EPA's clean air rules.  
          18            We are in agreement on many fronts.  
          19            Yes, we feel some changes are needed to 
          20            make the rule workable, but we are 
          21            confident by working together with the 
          22            EPA and other interested parties that 
          23            these issues can be worked out.  
          24            However, we cannot do this alone.  As 
          25            our industry steps up to the plate with 


                                                                46
           1            cleaner and cleaner vehicles, we need 
           2            our colleagues in the oil industries to 
           3            do their part by providing cleaner and 
           4            cleaner fuels.  Only by combining 
           5            world-class vehicles with world-class 
           6            fuels can we realize our full potential 
           7            and ensure that future generations will 
           8            not only have the cleanest possible 
           9            air, but also a robust transportation 
          10            and energy industry trying compete in 
          11            the 21st century.
          12                    I would like to take this 
          13            opportunity also to thank EPA for their 
          14            efforts regarding the hearings.  They 
          15            have taken the daunting task of 
          16            coordinating a tremendous amount of 
          17            speakers over the past four hearings 
          18            and they've done it well and we just 
          19            want to let them know their efforts are 
          20            appreciated.  And that concludes my 
          21            prepared statement. 
          22                    Thank you.
          23                    MS. OGE:  Thank you.  We are 
          24            not going to have a fifth hearing.  
          25            Thank you. 


                                                                47
           1                    Ms. Simpson, good morning.
           2                    MS. SIMPSON:  Good morning.  My 
           3            name is Amy Simpson.  I'm the state 
           4            director of the Ohio Public Interest 
           5            Research Group or Ohio PIRG.  Ohio PIRG 
           6            is a statewide consumer and 
           7            environmental advocacy group, about 
           8            10,000 members across the state, and I 
           9            greatly appreciate the opportunity to 
          10            speak to you today on this important 
          11            and timely issue. 
          12                    Over the past two weeks 
          13            Cleveland has had a record number of 
          14            what we call ozone action days.  Day 
          15            after day we were warned to stay 
          16            indoors if possible, asked to avoid 
          17            driving, mowing our lawns and using our 
          18            barbecues.  Over and over these 
          19            activities were blamed for the smog 
          20            which hung around the city like a noose 
          21            causing healthy people to choke and 
          22            cough as we tried to cope in the 
          23            suffocating heat.  It was much worse 
          24            for the thousands of people who suffer 
          25            from asthma.  These people became 


                                                                48
           1            virtual prisoners in their 
           2            air-conditioned homes.  This is no way 
           3            to live. 
           4                    But this is just the beginning.  
           5            If this summer is like the summer of 
           6            1998, we can expect frequent and 
           7            widespread violations of the federal 
           8            health standard for smog, not just in 
           9            Cleveland, but throughout the country.  
          10            Last year the standards were violated 
          11            5200 times in 40 states, and Ohio is 
          12            423 times.  What this means for people 
          13            living in these areas is that they 
          14            could experience declining lung 
          15            function as a result of breathing air 
          16            in their, breathing the air in their 
          17            communities.  For normal, healthy 
          18            adults it can mean not working or not 
          19            exercising outdoors and over time lung 
          20            tissue damage that can be irreversible.  
          21            For children, the elderly and those 
          22            with asthma, high smog days means 
          23            missing work or school, not playing 
          24            outdoors with friends, hospital 
          25            emergency room visits for asthma 


                                                                49
           1            attacks, increased susceptibility to 
           2            infections and also serious 
           3            exacerbation of preexisting heart and 
           4            respiratory disease. 
           5                    Therefore, new standards 
           6            requiring clean cars and clean gasoline 
           7            are not just a good idea, but they are 
           8            absolutely essential for protection of 
           9            public health.  Automobiles are the 
          10            single largest source of smog-forming 
          11            pollution creating nearly a third of 
          12            the nitrogen oxide that causes smog 
          13            formation.  While today's cars are 
          14            cleaner than those of two decades ago, 
          15            Americans drive more miles per year 
          16            than ever before.  In 1998, we drove in 
          17            excess of 2.2 trillion, that's trillion 
          18            miles, more than double the miles we 
          19            drove in 1970.  In addition, Americans 
          20            are driving bigger and more polluting 
          21            vehicles than ever before with nearly 
          22            half of the new cars sold being what we 
          23            call light trucks, these of which can 
          24            pollute up to three times more than a 
          25            car. 


                                                                50
           1                    Together the proposed Tier 2 
           2            standards and gasoline sulfur standards 
           3            comprise a strong integrated approach 
           4            to reducing pollution from automobiles.  
           5            There are many aspects of this program 
           6            which we applaud, and I'll describe 
           7            some of those below.  I'll also 
           8            describe several important ways in 
           9            which we believe the Tier 2 program 
          10            should be strengthened to prevent 
          11            unnecessary delays or complication in 
          12            implementation and to avoid 
          13            exacerbating existing loopholes for 
          14            bigger and dirtier automobiles. 
          15                    First, we applaud the overall 
          16            significant reductions in pollution 
          17            from the average automobile that will 
          18            be realized through the Tier 2 program.  
          19            The .07 grams per mile average standard 
          20            for nitrogen oxide based on 122000 mile 
          21            useful life is approximately 89 percent 
          22            cleaner than the Tier 1 standard of .06 
          23            per mile based on 100,000 mile useful 
          24            life.  It's clear that while the 
          25            standard is aggressive, the technology 


                                                                51
           1            to meet this standard is available.  
           2            Additionally, this program will also 
           3            harmonize federal clean air standards 
           4            with those adopted in California. 
           5                    Second, we agree with the U.S. 
           6            EPA that the popular sport utility 
           7            vehicles must be treated no differently 
           8            for pollution purposes than cars.  
           9            There is no longer an expectation that 
          10            SUVs will be work trucks.  We all know 
          11            this.  On the contrary, they are widely 
          12            acknowledged to be the station wagon of 
          13            the '90s rarely used for any purpose 
          14            more taxing than taking the family to 
          15            the grocery store or to soccer 
          16            practice.  The justification for 
          17            allowing SUVs to pollute more is an 
          18            artifact and new standards should 
          19            simply reflect the new role SUVs play 
          20            in our society. 
          21                    Third, we agree that a 
          22            nationwide sulfur standard should be 
          23            adopted to prevent poisoning of 
          24            sophisticated new pollution control 
          25            equipment.  The automobile and the fuel 


                                                                52
           1            should be treated as a single system 
           2            and EPA has appropriately proposed that 
           3            new car standards should be accompanied 
           4            by clean gasoline.  Moreover, we 
           5            strongly believe that nationwide, 
           6            rather than regional, gasoline 
           7            standards are critical to success of 
           8            the Tier 2 program.  As Americans we 
           9            enjoy the ability to drive from state 
          10            to state, and as consumers we would 
          11            absolutely be outraged to have dirty 
          12            gasoline damage our cars. 
          13                    More importantly, we had air 
          14            quality problems across the nation with 
          15            violation of the health standard for 
          16            smog in 40 states last year.  Contrary 
          17            to recent testimony from the American 
          18            Petroleum Institute which suggested 
          19            that many regions do not have air 
          20            quality problems so that this standard 
          21            would provide no benefit to those 
          22            regions, we strongly believe that there 
          23            is no region that would not benefit 
          24            from clean fuels. 
          25                    Oil industry representatives 


                                                                53
           1            have argued stridently for a slower 
           2            pace and schedule for clean gasoline 
           3            and increased flexibility for small 
           4            refiners.  We believe U.S. EPA's 
           5            proposal strikes an appropriate balance 
           6            between achieving necessary pollution 
           7            reductions and allowing the industry 
           8            ample time and flexibility to meet 
           9            those standards.  U.S. EPA allows the 
          10            industry to use an averaging system to 
          11            meet the standards and allows the 
          12            refiners to use credit from early 
          13            reductions to meet those standards.  
          14            U.S. EPA also allows less strident caps 
          15            in the first two years and allows small 
          16            refiners to meet less stringent 
          17            standards through the year 2007.  More 
          18            flexibility than this is unwarranted 
          19            and it would result in an 
          20            unenforceable, ineffective program.  In 
          21            fact, we believe that U.S. EPA's 
          22            proposed gasoline sulfur standards 
          23            allows too much time to pass between 
          24            significant air pollution benefits that 
          25            can be expected. 


                                                                54
           1                    In 2001 auto makers will begin 
           2            nationwide marketing of low-emissions 
           3            vehicles under the national 
           4            low-emissions vehicle program.  The 
           5            effectiveness of emissions control 
           6            technology used in these vehicles will 
           7            be compromised by the sulfur that will 
           8            remain at high levels until 2004 
           9            through 2006 under EPA's proposal.  
          10            Moreover, EPA's proposal will allow 
          11            gasoline containing sulfur at levels up 
          12            to 300 parts per million to be sold in 
          13            2004, the year that the Tier 2 
          14            standards take effect.  Again, the 
          15            technological advances made in these 
          16            vehicles will be undermined by the use 
          17            of high-sulfur fuel in 2004 and 2005.  
          18            A better approach we believe will be 
          19            begin phasing in clean gasoline earlier 
          20            so that most, if not all, gasolines 
          21            sold in 2004 are clean. 
          22                    Now, while a strong first step, 
          23            EPA's Tier 2 proposal should be 
          24            strengthened before it becomes final 
          25            later this year.  And I'll highlight 


                                                                55
           1            three important changes that we believe 
           2            should be made to avoid complication, 
           3            delay and the continuation of 
           4            undesirable loopholes in automobile 
           5            pollution regulations. 
           6                    First, EPA proposed allowing 
           7            SUVs weighing between 6,000 and 8,500 
           8            pounds an extra two years before the 
           9            Tier 2 car standards apply.  There is 
          10            significant and growing numbers of 
          11            these larger SUVs on the market, 
          12            including the ambiguous Ford 
          13            Expedition, the Dodge Ram and the 
          14            Lincoln Navigator.  EPA's proposal 
          15            gives these models until 2009, a full 
          16            decade from now before their exemption 
          17            to clean air standards expires.  The 
          18            manufacturers of emissions control 
          19            equipment have already shown that a 
          20            heavy SUV weighing 6,400 pounds can be 
          21            designed to meet the Tier 2 standards 
          22            today.  We believe that special 
          23            standards for larger SUVs should expire 
          24            immediately. 
          25                    Secondly, U.S. EPA's proposal 


                                                                56
           1            does not address pollution from the 
           2            largest and dirtiest SUVs of all, those 
           3            over 8,500 pounds.  The number of these 
           4            super SUVs is rapidly increasing like 
           5            the Ford Excursion entering the market 
           6            to compete with the Chevy Suburban.  By 
           7            not including these models in the Tier 
           8            2 program, EPA is giving auto 
           9            manufacturers effectively an incentive 
          10            to aggressively develope even larger 
          11            SUVs.  We believe that the Tier 2 
          12            standards should apply the same .O7 NOx 
          13            standards to all classes of passenger 
          14            vehicles including those over 8,500 
          15            pounds. 
          16                    Third, U.S. EPA's proposal will 
          17            allow the proliferation of diesel 
          18            vehicles, the pollution from which 
          19            poses very real health threats.  A 
          20            growing body of research shows that 
          21            diesel exhaust has particularly severe 
          22            health impacts.  Smaller particles in 
          23            diesel pollution are associated with 
          24            greater risk of premature death.  
          25            Moreover, studies repeatedly show a 


                                                                57
           1            link between diesel pollution and 
           2            cancer causing the State of California 
           3            to list diesel pollution as a human 
           4            carcinogen.  The highest bend in a 
           5            proposed averaging scheme is designed 
           6            specifically to allow for more 
           7            diesel-powered vehicles which will 
           8            continue to emit more toxic pollution 
           9            than gasoline car vehicles.  The State 
          10            of California considered and 
          11            specifically rejected a similar 
          12            provision to protect its citizens from 
          13            the carcinogenic nature of the exhaust.  
          14            EPA should similarly remove the highest 
          15            bend in the averaging scheme. 
          16                    In closing, I would like to say 
          17            that here in Cleveland we are really 
          18            tired of poor air quality.  We are 
          19            tired of week-long ozone alerts.  We 
          20            are tired of being told to not exercise 
          21            outdoors.  We are tired of being asked 
          22            to stop mowing our lawns and stop using 
          23            our barbecues and it's time we stop 
          24            trifling, we stop gap measures and 
          25            Band-Aid solutions and started dealing 


                                                                58
           1            with real sources of air pollution in 
           2            our city, in our state and in our 
           3            country.  These standards are an 
           4            absolutely critical step in doing so.  
           5            We deserve better air quality and EPA's 
           6            proposal will help get us what we 
           7            deserve, air we can live with. 
           8                    Again, I would like to thank 
           9            the U.S. EPA for allowing me this 
          10            opportunity to comment on the proposed 
          11            Tier 2 gasoline and sulfur standards 
          12            and especially want to thank the 
          13            organizers again of this event for 
          14            their gracious flexibility in dealing 
          15            with citizen testimony. 
          16                    MS. OGE:  Thank you.
          17                    I would like to thank all of 
          18            you for taking the time this morning to 
          19            come and share your views on this very 
          20            important program.  We will take both 
          21            your written and oral comments into 
          22            consideration as we are moving forward 
          23            to finalize the rule by the end of the 
          24            year.  Thank you very much.
          25                    We are honored this morning to 


                                                                59
           1            have a number of local citizens that 
           2            have asked to testify, and as I call 
           3            your names please come forward.  Anjali 
           4            Mather, Cheryl Ray, Miss Mary Hoffman, 
           5            Dawn Sunday, Chris Trepal, Mr. Adam 
           6            Zeller. 
           7                    MS. OGE:  What we will do is 
           8            break this group into two panels. 
           9                    Could you please print your 
          10            names on the paper in front of you. 
          11                    There is a seat there. 
          12                    If you can fold it like that.  
          13            Great.
          14                    Miss Mather, we'll start with 
          15            you.  Good morning.
          16                    MS. MATHER:  Good morning.  
          17            Thank you for giving me this 
          18            opportunity to be here, and I'm 
          19            thankful to U.S. EPA for doing this 
          20            because I strongly believe that a civic 
          21            engagement is the promise of free life 
          22            and a division of democracy.
          23                    I'm Anjali Mather and I'm a 
          24            resident of Cleveland Heights, and I'm 
          25            really pleased to see these efforts, 


                                                                60
           1            EPA's efforts towards cleaner fuels and 
           2            vehicles in the proposed Tier 2 motor 
           3            vehicle emissions standards and 
           4            gasoline sulfur control requirements.  
           5            These efforts should be viewed not as a 
           6            measure to further an 
           7            environmentalist's compulsive dream, 
           8            but as a more visible need for a 
           9            healthy community.  A significant 
          10            reduction in NOx emissions requiring 
          11            new cars and light truck to emit 80 
          12            percent less smog creating pollution 
          13            and reducing smog to healthy levels in 
          14            20 percent of the areas at risk can 
          15            only mean cleaner air for children when 
          16            25,000 children suffer from asthma in 
          17            Cuyahoga County.  Nationally more than 
          18            5 million children are affected by 
          19            asthma today.  The number of children 
          20            with asthma has doubled in the last 15 
          21            years.  There has been a threefold 
          22            increase in the number of deaths in 
          23            children from asthma between 1977 and 
          24            1995.  Over 10 million missed school 
          25            days from asthma are reported every 


                                                                61
           1            year.  And more than 25 percent of the 
           2            nation's children live in areas that do 
           3            not meet national air quality 
           4            standards. 
           5                    Also, according to a 1998 
           6            report of the American Academy of 
           7            Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, 
           8            children are more vulnerable because 
           9            their airways and narrower and they 
          10            also breathe more rapidly inhaling more 
          11            pollutant per pound of body weight than 
          12            adults. 
          13                    American Academy of Pediatrics 
          14            has also pointed out that damage to the 
          15            respiratory tract occurs in children 
          16            upon exposure to ground level ozone and 
          17            repeated exposures may result in 
          18            persistent bronchial hyper 
          19            responsiveness.  Increased chronic 
          20            cough, chest tightness, bronchitis, 
          21            hospital admissions for various 
          22            respiratory illnesses and decreased 
          23            lung function have been correlated with 
          24            ozone in epidemiological studies.  The 
          25            symptoms were significantly higher in 


                                                                62
           1            children with asthma and wheezing.  
           2            Both experimental and epidemiological 
           3            data provide grounds for concern about 
           4            chronic lung damage from repeated 
           5            exposures to ozone which is the primary 
           6            constituent of smog. 
           7                    Against this backdrop, while 
           8            EPA's efforts are a crucial first step 
           9            in the right direction, I urge EPA to 
          10            make bigger strides towards cleaner air 
          11            by setting shorter time lines and 
          12            allowing less phase-in time for both 
          13            cleaner cars and fuels.  I do not want 
          14            to see my children reduced to saying I 
          15            breathe, therefore I am. 
          16                    Thank you.
          17                    MS. OGE:  Thank you. 
          18                    Miss Hoffman, good morning.
          19                    MS. HOFFMAN:  Good morning.  My 
          20            name is Mary Hoffman.  I'm here to 
          21            represent the Blackford Audubon Society 
          22            which is a chapter of the National 
          23            Audubon Society.  We have 670 members 
          24            and we are located here in northeast 
          25            Ohio.  Audubon is an organization that 


                                                                63
           1            is interested in birds and preserving 
           2            wildlife habitat, but our recognition 
           3            of what that means goes far beyond 
           4            taking and leading bird walks.  What 
           5            affects wildlife and bird habitat will 
           6            also affect people.  This was well 
           7            demonstrated years ago when canaries 
           8            were taken into mines to test the 
           9            purity.  Our measurement techniques and 
          10            control abilities for air quality are 
          11            far more sophisticated now, but the 
          12            concept of relating wildlife and human 
          13            well-being still mains the same. 
          14                    The U.S. EPA is to be commended 
          15            for proposing a level of pollution 
          16            controls on the fuels in cars that are 
          17            the subject of these hearings.  They're 
          18            a good step and they are also long 
          19            overdue. 
          20                    It's interesting one response 
          21            of the automotive industry was reported 
          22            in the Cleveland Plain Dealer yesterday 
          23            and that article quoted a Ford Motor 
          24            Company policy director saying that 
          25            they will meet the goals that EPA sets.  


                                                                64
           1            And it was interesting to hear Mr. 
           2            Babik today in representing the 
           3            Alliance proposing also a very positive 
           4            approach of the automotive industry to 
           5            these EPA goals.  That attitude is 
           6            certainly a welcome change.  So it's up 
           7            to us, the general public, to make sure 
           8            that these final goals remain good, 
           9            that the needed additions are made, and 
          10            you've already heard some suggestions 
          11            on those, that they be timely and that 
          12            they do not get watered down in the 
          13            process. 
          14                    Of direct interest to Audubon 
          15            and our goals of protecting the 
          16            habitat, both of wildlife and people, 
          17            are the need to cut emissions that 
          18            contribute to global warming and to 
          19            reduce the overall demand and usage of 
          20            oil products, primarily automotive 
          21            fuel.  We all recognize that global 
          22            warming is occurring and that it 
          23            affects our climate.  That in turn can 
          24            affect much in our lives from crop 
          25            harvest, flooding, to wildlife and bird 


                                                                65
           1            habitat.  Emissions from our uses of 
           2            automotive fuel is a significant 
           3            component of global warming, and we all 
           4            know we have the ability to reduce that 
           5            trend for more stringent application of 
           6            standards such as those proposed here. 
           7                    We should go further than these 
           8            proposals, as you have also heard 
           9            suggested from Amy Simpson.  They 
          10            include all SUVs, especially those very 
          11            large ones, in these standards.  Global 
          12            warming does not recognize which SUV 
          13            contributed to pollution. 
          14                    Increased fuel efficiency would 
          15            also reduce the overall pollution 
          16            level, plus it would slow down the 
          17            demand for imported and domestic oil.  
          18            The engineering efforts to reduce the 
          19            polluting emissions from cars should 
          20            include making cars more efficient as 
          21            well.  We import over half of our oil 
          22            from foreign sources.  The oil industry 
          23            has made consistent demands that we 
          24            explore and drill for oil in parts of 
          25            our country that are very susceptible 


                                                                66
           1            to damage from this industrialization. 
           2                    We also have a response from 
           3            the American Petroleum Industry also 
           4            reported in that Plain Dealer article 
           5            yesterday that their response to these 
           6            EPA goals, and I quote, quote the 
           7            article, "unnecessarily costly and 
           8            impose costs on Americans who wouldn't 
           9            benefit," suggest that this is the same 
          10            old can't do attitude that has 
          11            prevented progress in the past. 
          12                    And some of you remember 
          13            similar comments made several decades 
          14            ago.  Some of you probably were not 
          15            here at that time, but I certainly 
          16            remember when fuel efficiency and 
          17            pollution controls were first being 
          18            proposed back in the late '60s or late 
          19            '70s.  You can probably put a better 
          20            date on it than I can.  The public 
          21            wanted then and we still want now to 
          22            have vehicles that get us to where we 
          23            need to go and not foul our air while 
          24            doing it.  At that time there were dire 
          25            predictions that we would all be forced 


                                                                67
           1            into driving small, no frills shells of 
           2            cars.  The industry did not seem to 
           3            trust themselves at that time to 
           4            engineer or design cars to meet these 
           5            essential and inevitable changes, but 
           6            the foreign competition did as you 
           7            recall.  The Japanese entered the 
           8            market, supplied the public demand and 
           9            our American industry is playing 
          10            catch-up ever since then.  The comments 
          11            reported by the Ford representative, 
          12            these EPA proposals on pollution are a 
          13            welcome change and we'll be watching to 
          14            see the results. 
          15                    The protection of natural 
          16            resources in this country are a goal of 
          17            the National Audubon Society.  We are 
          18            especially concerned with those places 
          19            threatened by oil exploration and 
          20            production such as the Arctic National 
          21            Wildlife Refuge.  Wholes of the 
          22            American people say that protection of 
          23            these places, the wildlife habitat, the 
          24            wilderness values, the culture of the 
          25            native people who use them are in the 


                                                                68
           1            national interest.  Improving the fuel 
           2            efficiency of all of our vehicles, 
           3            especially those increasingly popular 
           4            SUVs, will help protect these places.  
           5            It's estimated that a modest increase 
           6            of fuel economy standards of only 2 
           7            percent a year would yield oil savings 
           8            in fair greater amounts than that 
           9            projected available from the refuge.  
          10            So I would suggest that the automotive 
          11            industry and oil industry would do well 
          12            to realize that they can design and 
          13            produce the most efficient and cleanest 
          14            cars in the world and that the buying 
          15            public would respond to that. 
          16                    So I would thank the U.S. EPA 
          17            for their ability to put on this 
          18            hearing.  I know it's been a tremendous 
          19            job in doing so and we appreciate the 
          20            opportunity. 
          21                    MS. OGE:  Thank you. 
          22                    Miss Ray, good morning.
          23                    MS. RAY:  Good morning.  My 
          24            name is Cheryl Ray.  As a citizen I 
          25            really appreciate this opportunity to 


                                                                69
           1            have input at this hearing on this very 
           2            important issue. 
           3                    I wish to voice my support for 
           4            cleaner air and for the U.S. EPA 
           5            decision to cut auto pollution.  As a 
           6            parent, I am very concerned about the 
           7            health impacts of air pollution on my 
           8            children.  As a minivan owner I was 
           9            both surprised and disappointed to find 
          10            out that my family minivan can pollute 
          11            two to three more times than my 
          12            passenger car.  I hope that in the 
          13            future there will be cleaner options 
          14            when it's time to shop for our next 
          15            family car so that we can stop this 
          16            excess and extra air pollution. 
          17                    This proposal is a big step in 
          18            the right direction, but there are 
          19            three things that need to be improved 
          20            before the rule becomes final.  First 
          21            of all, all passenger vehicles, 
          22            including minivans and SUVs, need to 
          23            meet the same standards at the same 
          24            time.  Larger SUVs should not be given 
          25            extra time to be clean. 


                                                                70
           1                    Secondly, there should be no 
           2            special breaks for dirty diesel 
           3            vehicles. 
           4                    And, finally, the EPA should do 
           5            more to help get advanced technology 
           6            vehicles on the road.  Wouldn't it be 
           7            great if some day we could buy that 
           8            type of vehicle right here in 
           9            Cleveland.  We need the strongest 
          10            regulations possible for, to control 
          11            auto pollution. 
          12                    Thank you again for your 
          13            leadership on this issue. 
          14                    MS. OGE:  Thank you. 
          15                    Miss Sunday, good morning.
          16                    MS. SUNDAY:  Good morning.  My 
          17            name is Dawn Sunday and I'm a resident 
          18            of Bedford, Ohio and I thank you for 
          19            this opportunity today. 
          20                    As a citizen I am very pleased 
          21            that the EPA is making efforts to bring 
          22            about a cleaner and healthier 
          23            environment through Tier 2.  Although 
          24            Tier 2 is a step towards protecting 
          25            people's health and improving all of 


                                                                71
           1            our quality of life, I have doubts that 
           2            the regulations set in Tier 2 are 
           3            sufficient.
           4                    Since there is a great need to 
           5            improve the quality of the air; 117 
           6            million people do not have access to 
           7            clean air.  We can't buy clean air as 
           8            we can go out and buy water.  So I'm 
           9            here today to ask the EPA to set those 
          10            standards that can help me, my family 
          11            and all of us to have clean air.  We 
          12            don't have an option to the air that we 
          13            breath.  5,500,000 children daily 
          14            struggle with asthma, and there are 
          15            over 150,000 hospitalizations yearly, 
          16            and this is all due to dirty air.  Why 
          17            should we settle for standards that do 
          18            not bring about the best improvements 
          19            possible? 
          20                    I want to thank the EPA for 
          21            their efforts, but I also want to urge 
          22            the EPA to set the standards for all 
          23            passenger vehicles.  SUVs and light 
          24            trucks need to have the same emissions 
          25            standards as cars.  Tier 2 also needs 


                                                                72
           1            to set shorter phase-in allowances for 
           2            all vehicles. 
           3                    Since the means and technology 
           4            to attain much cleaner air exists, I 
           5            ask the EPA to set standards that bring 
           6            about the highest quality attainable. 
           7                    Thanks. 
           8                    MS. OGE:  Thank you. 
           9                    I believe Mr., is it Mr. Chris 
          10            Trepal at the end, or Miss.  Good 
          11            morning.
          12                    MS. TREPAL:  Hi.  My name is 
          13            Chris Trepal, and thank you very much 
          14            for the opportunity to testify.
          15                    I believe air pollution is a 
          16            real problem here in northeast Ohio.  
          17            Dirty air has a huge price tag in 
          18            health care costs and our quality of 
          19            life.  As was mentioned earlier, last 
          20            week we had an unprecedented week long 
          21            of ozone action days.  Several of the 
          22            monitors in our community are already 
          23            recording average one-hour ozone 
          24            concentrations of over 100 parts per 
          25            billion.  Warnings were given to stay 


                                                                73
           1            indoors to sensitive populations like 
           2            our asthmatics, people with respiratory 
           3            concerns, children and adults who are 
           4            active outdoors, the elderly and people 
           5            who are sensitive to ozone. 
           6                    Do we really want to raise our 
           7            children to seek shelter and protection 
           8            indoors and to reduce physical 
           9            activities on summer days, their 
          10            vacation days?  Should we have to train 
          11            our families to ask the question if the 
          12            air is safe to breathe and to question 
          13            even if they should be going outside at 
          14            all?  Is this a good way to enter the 
          15            new millennium?  Scientists have found 
          16            that about one out of every three 
          17            people in the U.S. is at higher risk of 
          18            experiencing ozone-related health 
          19            effects.  A recent edition of the 
          20            American Journal of Respiratory and 
          21            Critical Care Medicine cited a study 
          22            that says long-term exposure air 
          23            pollution, even at very low levels, is 
          24            associated with higher prevalences of  
          25            respiratory symptoms, even something as 


                                                                74
           1            simple as breathlessness when you are 
           2            outside talking a walk in the summer. 
           3                    Fortunately, there is a 
           4            solution, and I'm really happy to be 
           5            here today to support the proposed plan 
           6            to clean up fuels and vehicles, 
           7            especially vehicles like sport utility 
           8            vehicles.  I also own a minivan like 
           9            one of the other folks here today and 
          10            it distresses me to have to drive it.  
          11            Vehicles like minivans and SUVs are 
          12            being used as passenger vehicles and 
          13            they must do their part along with 
          14            other automobiles to reduce air 
          15            pollution.  The Tier 2 proposal must 
          16            adopt the strongest possible 
          17            regulations for our autos. 
          18                    However, I feel the time line 
          19            should be expedited.  Waiting ten years 
          20            to clean up SUVs and other passenger 
          21            vehicles is way too along.  All 
          22            vehicles should be required to meet the 
          23            standards at the same time.  It really 
          24            makes no sense to allow the heaviest 
          25            vehicles to receive any kind of special 


                                                                75
           1            treatment. 
           2                    Diesel-powered vehicles should 
           3            not be allowed to pollute more than 
           4            their counterparts who use gasoline.  
           5            All vehicles, regardless of fuel 
           6            preference, should be required to 
           7            contribute to clean air.  If diesel 
           8            vehicles are being given special 
           9            treatment, then, of course, we are 
          10            going to see more diesel vehicles on 
          11            the road creating more particulate air 
          12            pollution and smog-forming nitrogen 
          13            oxide. 
          14                    Finally, the proposed sulfur 
          15            reductions in gasoline should be 
          16            implemented by all refiners as soon as 
          17            possible.  Sulfur actually impedes the 
          18            effectiveness of our catalytic 
          19            converters, thereby limiting the very 
          20            devices that are supposed to reduce 
          21            tailpipe pollution.  And the small 
          22            increase that is predicted is well 
          23            worth the clean air benefits. 
          24                    In summary, I applaud the 
          25            proposal to cut pollution and really to 


                                                                76
           1            safe lives and people's quality of 
           2            life.  People who want to do the right 
           3            thing by purchasing cleaner vehicles 
           4            and fuels need to have that choice now.  
           5            Just like the promotion of 
           6            energy-efficient appliances, the public 
           7            needs to know how are vehicles and our 
           8            fuel choices protect and affect our 
           9            environment.  Our new automobiles and 
          10            vehicles can and must do our part to 
          11            keep our kids healthy. 
          12                    Thank you.
          13                    MS. OGE:  I want to thank all 
          14            of you on behalf of all my colleagues 
          15            here at EPA and specifically thanks to 
          16            you for taking time from your schedule 
          17            and your daily activities to come and 
          18            share your views with us. Thank you 
          19            very much. 
          20                    MS. MARTIN:  We have another 
          21            panel.  I'll ask them to come up.  I'll 
          22            read the next names and if the 
          23            following people will come up.  I think 
          24            we can bring another chair behind the 
          25            table as well.  Adam Zeller, Ken Mavek, 


                                                                77
           1            Linda Robinson, Laurel Hopwood, Angie 
           2            Farleigh, Jane Miller and Pam Mason.  
           3            If there is not room enough at the 
           4            table, we'll just try to rotate people 
           5            in.  But if those of you can grab a 
           6            seat and fill out your name on one of 
           7            the cards and place it in front of you, 
           8            that would be terrific. 
           9                    Mr. Zeller, would you please 
          10            begin.
          11                    MR. ZELLER:  My name is Adam 
          12            Zeller.  I'm from Southington, Ohio.  
          13            And before I begin, I would like to 
          14            thank the EPA for the opportunity to 
          15            come down here and speak. 
          16                    The automobile and oil 
          17            industries would like us to believe 
          18            that since they are composed of private 
          19            businesses they don't need government 
          20            regulations.  They would like us to 
          21            think that as private corporations that 
          22            the government should not meddle with 
          23            their production process.  When the 
          24            government announces new standards for 
          25            automobiles such as cleaner emissions 


                                                                78
           1            or gas, industry complains about 
           2            reduced profits, unnecessary expense 
           3            and reduced competitiveness. 
           4                    But what the industry needs to 
           5            realize is that it owes these standards 
           6            to the public.  The government has paid 
           7            over 83 billion dollars to construct 
           8            over 42,500 miles of interstate 
           9            highways.  It will spend millions this 
          10            year paving roads, widening lanes and 
          11            constructing interchanges.  Government 
          12            has subsidized the bulldozing of 
          13            neighborhoods in both Detroit and 
          14            Toledo for the construction of Dymler 
          15            Chrysler and General Motors facilities.  
          16            Such is the government's commitment to 
          17            these industries that it sponsored a 
          18            war to protect them. 
          19                    Without such subsidies, the 
          20            automobile and oil industry as we know 
          21            it would not exist.  We could have 
          22            subsidized rail or bus transportation, 
          23            but instead we chose automobiles.  
          24            Partially because of this General 
          25            Motors has posted a 2.1 billion dollar 


                                                                79
           1            profits for this year's first quarter.  
           2            Ford has posted 1.8 billion dollars.  
           3            Both companies say that they are 
           4            committed to protecting the 
           5            environment.  GM has said, "We are 
           6            fully dedicated to protecting human 
           7            health, natural resources, and the 
           8            global environment; reaching beyond 
           9            compliance with the law to create and 
          10            implement sound environmental 
          11            practices." 
          12                    Obviously the relationship 
          13            between industry, the public and 
          14            government is a symbiotic one.  
          15            Industry provides the products, the 
          16            public purchases it, and the government 
          17            ensures that it's safe.  Any policy 
          18            which harms any of these groups hurts 
          19            the other two.  Therefore, it is 
          20            crucial that any new relations benefit 
          21            not only the industry, but the public 
          22            as well.  The proposed Tier 2 
          23            regulations will benefit the public.  
          24            Emissions from mobile sources account 
          25            for  46 percent of the airborne 


                                                                80
           1            carcinogens in Cuyahoga County.  Child 
           2            asthma rates often associated with 
           3            airborne pollution has increased 75 
           4            percent since the early '80s.  
           5            Ground-level ozone according to the EPA 
           6            can be the cause of up to 25 percent of 
           7            emergency room visits during the 
           8            summer.  Certainly then our current air 
           9            standards are hurting the public and 
          10            need to be changed as the proposed Tier 
          11            2 standards say.  It is not in the 
          12            industry's interest to have their 
          13            customers spending money on hospital 
          14            visits and asthma inhalers.  Of course, 
          15            this is not in the public's or 
          16            government's interest either.  These 
          17            standards will benefit everyone, even 
          18            if the industry doesn't acknowledge 
          19            that.  That needs to be the bottom 
          20            line.  That is what EPA needs to 
          21            consider.  We have supported the 
          22            automobile and oil industries for 
          23            decades and now it is time that they 
          24            support us.  The government and the 
          25            public have allowed industry to make 


                                                                81
           1            billions of dollars over the years.  
           2            Now we deserve something back. 
           3                    Thank you very much. 
           4                    MS. MARTIN:  Thank you. 
           5                    Miss Robinson.
           6                    MS. ROBINSON:  I'm Dr. Linda 
           7            Robinson.  I live in South Euclid, 
           8            which is a near suburb of the City of 
           9            Cleveland.  I'm a professional 
          10            sociologist.  I am here, however, as an 
          11            individual.  And I want to make some 
          12            three really simple points and they 
          13            have to do with people.  I have a 
          14            78-year-old aunt with emphysema who 
          15            couldn't leave her apartment any day 
          16            last week.  This included rescheduling 
          17            a dentist appointment which cost other 
          18            people time and money, and the idea 
          19            that somebody I know and love is 
          20            imprisoned in an apartment frequently 
          21            because of ozone warnings in this 
          22            county is becoming intolerable. 
          23                    And there is another point.  
          24            I'm a perfectly healthy person whose 
          25            only adult problems have been sinus 


                                                                82
           1            infections and arthritis as I age, and 
           2            for the first time in my life last week 
           3            having canvassed for ten years door to 
           4            door for Ohio Citizen Action, Friday 
           5            came around and I couldn't canvass 
           6            because I couldn't lift my legs anymore 
           7            having walked around all week under 
           8            those ozone warnings in Pepper Pike, 
           9            which is a far suburb of Cleveland with 
          10            lots of trees and lots of grass and 
          11            theoretically the air is as filtered 
          12            there as it is going to be.  And it hit 
          13            me that it wasn't my arthritis and it 
          14            wasn't tiredness at the end of the 
          15            week.  It was the fact that the 
          16            warnings about the ozone level were 
          17            true.  They had aggravated my sinus 
          18            condition to the point where I didn't 
          19            have the energy to do my job.  And if 
          20            that has happened to me at age 61 leads 
          21            me to wonder if I'm going to live long 
          22            enough to see the air substantially 
          23            cleaner than it is now. 
          24                    And I've heard everybody 
          25            thanking you for taking the trouble to 


                                                                83
           1            come here and proposing tougher 
           2            standards, but as a citizen of this 
           3            country for nearly 62 years I've got to 
           4            tell you I don't think the standards 
           5            are high enough.  And if we were to run 
           6            a cost-benefit analysis between what 
           7            industry would have to spend to clean 
           8            up their cars and the fuels we run on 
           9            and what it costs my community in 
          10            health care costs for all those 
          11            asthmatic children you heard about, and 
          12            what it costs Medicare to take care of 
          13            my aunt's emphysema and all those other 
          14            things like the things like the day I 
          15            couldn't work, the cost of these 
          16            things, I suspect we would discover, at 
          17            least in Cuyahoga County, that the 
          18            greater costs come from the people who 
          19            can't work, the people who are sick and 
          20            need medical care funded by the public 
          21            and on my property taxes, because if 
          22            you can't afford care for emphysema or 
          23            you can't afford care for asthma or you 
          24            can't afford care for cancer, you are 
          25            going to be at Metropolitan General 


                                                                84
           1            Hospital, and our property taxes pay 
           2            for that public care and the taxes that 
           3            I pay on my salary check go to 
           4            Medicare.  It's costing me a lot of 
           5            money.  I am perfectly willing to buy a 
           6            more expensive car with better 
           7            pollution controls if I can or stop 
           8            driving rather than see this kind of 
           9            situation continue. 
          10                    And my third point is that 
          11            going door to door for ten years for 
          12            Citizen Action, talking to 30 to 50 
          13            people a week or more, I can tell you 
          14            one thing, and they call this an 
          15            informal sample of northeastern Ohio 
          16            because I have canvassed from Vermilion 
          17            to Conneaut, people at the doors like 
          18            the idea of pollution controls.  People 
          19            at the doors are angry because they 
          20            have to drive behind diesel trucks 
          21            spouting filth at them all over the 
          22            state while living in this county they 
          23            pay some of the highest costs in the 
          24            state to maintain their own vehicles, 
          25            and then they discover that the 


                                                                85
           1            families that have the SUVs aren't 
           2            paying the same prices.  So they say to 
           3            me, well, you know, if I lived in 
           4            Columbus I wouldn't have to pay this 
           5            much for pollution control.  Why is 
           6            there this inequity?  Why do I have to 
           7            drive behind filthy diesel trucks?  Why 
           8            doesn't everybody in every county have 
           9            to pay what I pay for pollution 
          10            control?  We all drive from county to 
          11            county.  We all drive all over Ohio. 
          12                    And so if I have one message 
          13            for you, it is I'm not allowing -- 
          14            people want equity.  People want 
          15            controls.  People want cleaner air, 
          16            young parents with children, older 
          17            people that are facing diseases like 
          18            emphysema.
          19                    I do appreciate the chance of 
          20            coming here to talk with you today.  
          21            Thank you.
          22                    MS. MARTIN:  Thank you very 
          23            much.  Miss Hopwood is it?  Hopwood.
          24                    MS. HOPWOOD:  My name is Laurel 
          25            Hopwood.  I serve as the chair of the 


                                                                86
           1            human health and environment committee 
           2            of the northeast Ohio Sierra Club, and 
           3            I'm also a registered nurse and a 
           4            mother.  Thank you for your diligence 
           5            in promoting clean air and for 
           6            listening to our comments. 
           7                    The auto and oil industry will 
           8            tell you the cars are cleaner than they 
           9            were 30 years ago, and I won't dispute 
          10            that fact, but what they probably won't 
          11            tell you is the following:  That more 
          12            people are driving and that people are 
          13            driving more miles.  The total number 
          14            of miles driven doubled over the last 
          15            30 years and the total mileage is 
          16            expected to increase another 25 percent 
          17            over the next ten years. 
          18                    Secondly, one out of every two 
          19            passenger vehicles sold, sports utility 
          20            vehicles are one of them.  SUVs emit on 
          21            an average of four times the amount of 
          22            pollution than the average car.  We say 
          23            air standards need to catch up with the 
          24            market trend. 
          25                    The auto industry wants to 


                                                                87
           1            delay implementation of any new 
           2            standards.  The truth is they have the 
           3            technology to meet the new standards.  
           4            I will agree that it will come with a 
           5            cost.  The cost to reduce emissions 
           6            will be about $200 a vehicle, which is 
           7            a small fraction considering that their 
           8            profit margin for SUVs is approximately 
           9            $10,000. 
          10                    Likewise, the oil industry is 
          11            trying to kill cleaner gasoline 
          12            proposals.  Likewise, it will come at a 
          13            cost.  The cost comes to about 2 cents 
          14            a gallon to reduce sulfur and to meet 
          15            the EPA proposal, which comes to about 
          16            $10 a year for the average driver.  
          17            It's not unreasonable for a driver to 
          18            pay $10 to enable all of us to breathe 
          19            healthier air. 
          20                    By the year 2010 more than 93 
          21            million people will live in areas that 
          22            violate health standards for urban smog 
          23            and 55 million people will suffer from 
          24            high levels of soot.  We here in 
          25            Cuyahoga County, which is amongst the 


                                                                88
           1            dirtiest counties in the nation for 
           2            hazardous chemical emissions into the 
           3            air which include sulfur dioxide and 
           4            nitrogen dioxide, were among the 
           5            twelfth top counties in the nation for 
           6            having the highest incidents of cancer 
           7            including lung cancer. 
           8                    As a health care professional 
           9            I've researched asthma studies and I'll 
          10            share with you the following.  The 
          11            incidents of asthma is rising 
          12            significantly, especially in children, 
          13            and mortality has doubled over the last 
          14            two decades.  Although it is not known 
          15            with certainty what causes asthma, we 
          16            do know that many air pollutants and 
          17            particles aggravate asthma symptoms.  
          18            And I think we all want our kids to 
          19            stay in school and not miss days from 
          20            school because we want them to learn 
          21            and be productive citizens when they 
          22            are adults. 
          23                    We trust you, the EPA, will 
          24            require light trucks and diesels to 
          25            meet the same tough standards being 


                                                                89
           1            proposed for gasoline automobiles and 
           2            meet them sooner than the year 2009. 
           3                    Thank you.
           4                    MS. MARTIN:  Thank you very 
           5            much. 
           6                    Now we have Miss Jane Miller 
           7            with a special guest speaker as I 
           8            understand.  You'll have to introduce 
           9            the speaker for us this morning.
          10                    MS. MILLER:  This is McKayla.  
          11            She's my one-year-old daughter. 
          12                    I'm here today to voice my 
          13            support for cleaner air and the EPA's 
          14            decision to cut auto pollution.  As a 
          15            parent, I'm very concerned about the 
          16            health impacts that air pollution has 
          17            on my children.  There is a strong 
          18            family trait towards asthma in my 
          19            family and I fear that instead of 
          20            reducing asthma causing pollution, we 
          21            are making more of it each year.  I see 
          22            urban sprawl spreading throughout the 
          23            region.  I know from the papers that 
          24            the number of miles traveled keeps 
          25            increasing. 


                                                                90
           1                    I've also read that even if we 
           2            adopt Tier 2 and move aggressively 
           3            against polluting coal burning power 
           4            plants, that we are only buying about 
           5            10 years of ozone reduction before 
           6            increasing auto emissions overwhelm 
           7            these changes.  Without these changes 
           8            we are not even going to have the short 
           9            reprieve. 
          10                    The proposal is a big step in 
          11            the right direction, but there are 
          12            three things that should improved 
          13            before the rule becomes final.  First 
          14            of all, all passenger vehicles, 
          15            including minivans and SUVs, should 
          16            meet the same standards at the same 
          17            time.  Larger SUVs should not be given 
          18            extra time to clean up.  
          19                    Second, there also should be no 
          20            special breaks for dirty diesel 
          21            vehicles. 
          22                    Finally, the EPA should do more 
          23            to get advanced-technology vehicles on 
          24            the road.  Right now we need the 
          25            strongest possible regulations to 


                                                                91
           1            control auto pollution. 
           2                    Thank you very much. 
           3                    MS. MARTIN:  Miss Farleigh.
           4                    MS. FARLEIGH:  Good morning.  
           5            My name is Angie Farleigh and I'm the 
           6            clean air advocate for the U.S. PIRG 
           7            and I somehow got scheduled onto the 
           8            local citizens panel.  Although I'm not 
           9            a local citizen, I'd like to take just 
          10            a few moments to share a personal story 
          11            about why I think these standards are 
          12            important. 
          13                    I moved to D.C. a year ago to 
          14            work at our national office, but until 
          15            then I lived and grew up in Michigan.  
          16            Growing up in a rural town in the 
          17            midwest I always thought I was safe 
          18            from the health dangers associated with 
          19            air pollution.  However, as the air 
          20            pollution problem grew, in the country 
          21            and in Michigan, I discovered that air 
          22            pollution is not just a problem that 
          23            hinders our larger cities.
          24                    I started having health 
          25            problems a few years ago and the last 


                                                                92
           1            four years I've come down with 
           2            asthmatic bronchitis four separate 
           3            times.  I was a relatively healthy 
           4            person.  I do not suffer from asthma.  
           5            So I asked the doctor why I had such a 
           6            drastic increase in respiratory 
           7            illness.  He said that he had seen a 
           8            lot more people in recent years with 
           9            problems just like mine and he cited 
          10            decreases in air quality as one of the 
          11            main causes.  It was then that I 
          12            realized that air pollution is causing 
          13            a public health crisis nationwide. 
          14                    Over the past two weeks the 
          15            1999 smog season has descended upon 
          16            most of the country.  Yesterday I 
          17            learned that Michigan is fourth in the 
          18            nation with 67 violations of the health 
          19            standard for smog so far.  Already this 
          20            summer millions of Americans have been 
          21            exposed to levels of air pollution that 
          22            are unsafe to breathe for people with 
          23            asthma or people like me who don't even 
          24            have asthma. 
          25                    Therefore, new standards 


                                                                93
           1            requiring clean cars and clean gasoline 
           2            are not just a good idea, they are 
           3            absolutely essential to the protection 
           4            of public health.  Automobiles are the 
           5            single largest source of smog-forming 
           6            pollution creating nearly a third of 
           7            the nitrogen oxide that forms smog. 
           8                    U.S. PIRG believes that the 
           9            Tier 2 standards and gasoline sulfur 
          10            standards comprise a strong, integrated 
          11            approach to reducing pollution from 
          12            automobiles. 
          13                    We applaud the overall 
          14            significant reductions in pollution 
          15            from the average automobile that will 
          16            be realized through the Tier 2 program.  
          17            We agree that the popular sport utility 
          18            vehicles should be treated no 
          19            differently for pollution purposes than 
          20            cars and we agree that a nationwide, 
          21            not regional, sulfur standard should be 
          22            adopted.  However, we believe that the 
          23            EPA's proposed gasoline sulfur 
          24            standards, first of all, allow too much 
          25            time to pass before significant air 


                                                                94
           1            pollution benefits can be expected.  
           2            Clean gas should be phased in  at the 
           3            same time that the cleaner cars will be 
           4            phased in. 
           5                    And for the Tier 2 proposal, 
           6            there are a few important changes that 
           7            should be made before it becomes final 
           8            later this year.  First of all, largest 
           9            SUVs, those 6,000 to 8,500 pounds, 
          10            should not be given extra time to clean 
          11            up their act. 
          12                    Secondly, the proposal does not 
          13            address pollution from the largest and 
          14            dirtiest SUVs, those over 8,500 pounds, 
          15            like the new Ford Excursion.  The Tier 
          16            2 standard should apply the same .07 
          17            NOx standards to all passenger vehicles 
          18            including those over 8,500 pounds. 
          19                    And, finally, the highest BIN 
          20            in the proposed averaging scheme will 
          21            allow more diesel vehicles on the road.  
          22            The State of California considered and 
          23            specifically rejected a similar 
          24            provision to protect its citizens from 
          25            the carcinogenic nature of this diesel 


                                                                95
           1            exhaust and the EPA should similarly 
           2            remove the highest BIN in the averaging 
           3            scheme. 
           4                    Again thank you for the time to 
           5            speak. 
           6                    MS. OGE:  Thank you. 
           7                    I'd like to thank all of you 
           8            for taking time. 
           9                    And, Miss Farleigh, you are a 
          10            citizen and you are a citizen for 
          11            Michigan and you are more than welcome 
          12            to testify here with us today. 
          13                    Your comments are appreciated 
          14            and we will fully consider them as we 
          15            are moving forward to finalize this 
          16            important program by the end of the 
          17            year. 
          18                    And, Miss Miller, thank you for 
          19            bringing the youngest I believe to 
          20            participate in this public hearing 
          21            today.
          22                    I would like to call the next 
          23            individuals to please come forward.  
          24            Mr. Ken Mavek, Mr. Michael Gutierez and 
          25            Miss Pam Mason.  Please print your 


                                                                96
           1            names on the cards in front of you. 
           2                    Do we have any other individual 
           3            that was scheduled to testify at this 
           4            time frame?  If we do, please come 
           5            forward if I haven't called your name. 
           6                    MS. OGE:  Miss Mason, good 
           7            morning.
           8                    MS. MASON:  Thank you.  My name 
           9            is Pam Mason.  I live in Cleveland 
          10            Heights, Ohio and I would like to thank 
          11            you for providing the people of Ohio 
          12            with the opportunity, I'd like you to 
          13            thank you for providing the people of 
          14            Ohio with the opportunity to 
          15            participate in the regulatory process.
          16                    I admire your efforts to make 
          17            our air safe to breathe by cutting 
          18            pollution.  More people than ever 
          19            before are vulnerable to the severe 
          20            health impacts of air pollution.  We 
          21            need the strongest possible regulations 
          22            controlling air pollution from all 
          23            major sources. 
          24                    Right now we have a serious air 
          25            pollution problem around the country.  


                                                                97
           1            There are currently 117 million people 
           2            who live in areas where the air is 
           3            unsafe to breathe due to smog 
           4            pollution.  Children, the elderly and 
           5            those with respiratory illness are most 
           6            at risk.  Asthma rates in children have 
           7            increased 75 percent since 1980. 
           8                    Automobiles are the largest 
           9            non-industrial source of smog-forming 
          10            nitrogen oxide. 
          11                    The proposal is a big step in 
          12            the right direction, but there are two 
          13            things that should be improved before 
          14            the rule becomes final.  First, there 
          15            should be no special treatment for 
          16            heavier vehicles.  All passenger 
          17            vehicles, including minivans and sport 
          18            utility vehicles, should meet the same 
          19            standards at the same time.  Larger 
          20            SUVs should not be given extra time to 
          21            clean up.  Right now the proposal 
          22            includes a separate schedule for these 
          23            heavier vehicles.  These vehicles will 
          24            have lower protection standards than 
          25            any other vehicle class.  The industry 


                                                                98
           1            has always responded with new 
           2            technologies and products when the 
           3            standards are firm and the deadlines 
           4            are reasonable.  The ten-year phase-in 
           5            schedule for heavier vehicles far 
           6            exceeds any phase-in period for 
           7            passenger vehicles ever proposed.  This 
           8            schedule asks the victims of air 
           9            pollution once again to wait last in 
          10            line for relief.  If anything, the time 
          11            line should be shortened.
          12                    I would also like to point out 
          13            that as someone who drives an exempted 
          14            vehicle, a Honda minivan, I resent that 
          15            I am unable to get a clean car.  I 
          16            drive a large vehicle because I often 
          17            have to transfer ill, elderly parents 
          18            and the size is important in moving 
          19            them in some comfort.  I was unable to 
          20            find a sufficiently large vehicle that 
          21            was also fairly clean.  I find the 
          22            overall cost of an additional $250 to 
          23            the cost of the vehicle to be a trivial 
          24            addition when traded off with the piece 
          25            of mind knowing I'm contributing less 


                                                                99
           1            to our pollution problems. 
           2                    I would also like to point out 
           3            that this proposal does nothing to 
           4            clean up supersized SUVs such as the 
           5            Ford Excursion.  This could lead to 
           6            increased sale and production of these 
           7            overgrown passenger cars.  Heavy-duty 
           8            trucks should be required to clean up 
           9            their emissions as well. 
          10                    Second, the sulfur levels in 
          11            gasoline should be lowered to 30 parts 
          12            per million.  The current proposal will 
          13            reduce the sulfur content in gasoline 
          14            but allow an extended timetable for 
          15            small refiners.  Low-sulfur gasoline 
          16            needs to be adopted nationally at the 
          17            same time as new emissions standards.  
          18            By allowing some refiners to continue 
          19            to produce dirty gasoline, there will 
          20            be negative impacts on the pollution 
          21            control technologies of newer, cleaner 
          22            cars.  I am willing to pay the extra 1 
          23            to 2 cents per gallon that it will take 
          24            to clean up sulfur levels if it means 
          25            breathing cleaner air. 


                                                               100
           1                    The Tier 2 proposal is a strong 
           2            start, however, since this decision 
           3            will affect our air quality for decades 
           4            to come, we cannot afford to risk the 
           5            public health by adopting a proposal 
           6            that does not address the 
           7            above-mentioned areas of concern.  We 
           8            need the strongest as possible 
           9            regulations to control auto pollution. 
          10                    Thank you again for your 
          11            leadership on this issue.
          12                    MS. OGE:  Thank you. 
          13                    Mr., is it Gutierez?
          14                    MR. GUTIEREZ:  Very good try.  
          15            Very nice. 
          16                    MS. OGE:  Good morning.
          17                    MR. GUTIEREZ:  Good morning.  
          18            How are you?  I'm very exited to be 
          19            sitting in front of you guys.  It's 
          20            always nice to know who is running the 
          21            show.
          22                    I'm here this morning to 
          23            applaud you for your proposed standards 
          24            and to urge you to put forth your idea 
          25            into action.  Every day I work outside, 


                                                               101
           1            so your standards play an important 
           2            part in my life, as they do with 
           3            everyone else in this room and 
           4            yourselves as well. 
           5                    Being a native southern 
           6            Californian, I know firsthand about 
           7            smog pollution and air pollution.  I'm 
           8            sure you guys would understand if 
           9            you've traveled a southern state.  I 
          10            developed acute bronchitis as a child 
          11            along with many other lung disorders.  
          12            I moved to Ohio just a couple years ago 
          13            and actually everything increased.  My 
          14            sinuses got worse.  My lungs got worse.  
          15            And I think that's a mix of not only 
          16            mixing smog from southern California 
          17            and smog from Ohio, but now adding some 
          18            of the country's most toxic industrial 
          19            pollution here as well. 
          20                    I enjoy life.  I enjoy 
          21            breathing.  I'm sure you guys do as 
          22            well.  And lately every day I see one 
          23            more SUV on the road and I feel a 
          24            shortness of breath as they drive by. 
          25                    The other day I was told that 


                                                               102
           1            in Ohio we were under an ozone action 
           2            day.  I thought that sounds like some 
           3            kind of holiday.  Maybe Hallmark should 
           4            make a card.  I don't know.  In 
           5            California we like to call them smog 
           6            alerts.  Kind of to the point exactly 
           7            what they are.  A smog alert meant that 
           8            kids couldn't play outside.  We 
           9            couldn't go anywhere.  Elderly couldn't 
          10            leave their homes.  You know, that's 
          11            pretty bogus.  Our ozone action days 
          12            sounds to me like one more Ohio 
          13            bureaucratic blanket.  Kind of pussy 
          14            footing is how my grandfather used to 
          15            call it, touching around the situation 
          16            but not really telling what's going 
          17            down. 
          18                    Realizing that you are going to 
          19            have a tough opposition from oil 
          20            industry on this one, I just ask you 
          21            guys over there to please look at your 
          22            children when you are doing this.  Look 
          23            in your children's eyes and think of 
          24            their children.  I'm sure you've heard 
          25            that before.  I know that the reason 


                                                               103
           1            you guys have taken your positions with 
           2            the EPA is because you care about the 
           3            environment, at least that's what I 
           4            hope.  I ask you to not think about 
           5            your pockets.  I ask you to not think 
           6            about dollar bills.  And I'm 
           7            encouraging you to not represent just 
           8            the people in this room, but to please 
           9            represent yourselves on this one. 
          10                    Thank you. 
          11                    MS. OGE:  Thank you. 
          12                    Thanks both of you for coming 
          13            and sharing your views with us.  We 
          14            will consider them fully as we are 
          15            moving forward to finalize this 
          16            program.  Thank you very much. 
          17                    I would like to ask the next 
          18            group of panelists to please come 
          19            forward.  Cory Chadwick, Miss Laura 
          20            Keptner, Mr. Bob Morris, Mr. Jed 
          21            Mandel, Mr. Paul Brochu.  Please print 
          22            your names on the cards in front of 
          23            you. 
          24                    Mr. Chadwick, good morning.  
          25            We'll start with you.


                                                               104
           1                    MR. CHADWICK:  Good morning.  
           2            My name is Cory Chadwick and I'm 
           3            speaking on behalf of the Ohio Local 
           4            Air Pollution Control Officials 
           5            Association, more commonly known as 
           6            OLAPCOA.  Our organization is comprised 
           7            of the nine local air agencies serving 
           8            the State of Ohio. 
           9                    First I would like to recognize 
          10            EPA for leading the way toward 
          11            improving the nation's air quality, 
          12            specifically your issuance of the Tier 
          13            2 and sulfur in gasoline proposals is 
          14            to be commended.  We are especially 
          15            pleased that your proposals have 
          16            included key recommendations made by 
          17            our national air organizations 
          18            STAPPA/ALAPCO. 
          19                    As the officials whose 
          20            primarily responsibility is achieving 
          21            and maintaining clean, healthful air in 
          22            the State of Ohio, we believe that the 
          23            potential air quality benefits that 
          24            will result from cutting emissions from 
          25            light-duty vehicles and light-duty 


                                                               105
           1            trucks and reducing sulfur in gasoline 
           2            and diesel are paramount to achieving 
           3            the air quality our citizens deserve.  
           4            These proposed programs will allow us 
           5            as air quality professionals to attain 
           6            cleaner air for the citizens of Ohio. 
           7                    While much of the debate 
           8            surrounding air quality in the State of 
           9            Ohio is centered around ozone, NOx and 
          10            the new particular matter 2.5 microns 
          11            or smaller, it is imperative that we do 
          12            not overlook the other important air 
          13            quality benefits from cleaner vehicles 
          14            and fuels.  Through the implementation 
          15            of cleaner vehicles and fuels, we will 
          16            see a decrease in particulate and 
          17            carbon monoxide emissions, improved 
          18            visibility, a reduction of greenhouses 
          19            gases, acid rain problems and toxic air 
          20            pollution. 
          21                    Regarding the applicability of 
          22            the Tier 2 standards to light-duty 
          23            trucks over 8,500 pounds, the new 
          24            supersized SUVs, pickup trucks and 
          25            full-size vans, we strongly urge EPA to 


                                                               106
           1            include these as well as all vehicles 
           2            up to 10,000 gross vehicle weight which 
           3            are predominantly used for personal 
           4            transportation. 
           5                    Finally, OLAPCOA also supports 
           6            the recommendations made by 
           7            STAPPA/ALAPCO on reducing sulfur in 
           8            diesel fuel.  Implementation of these 
           9            recommendations will enable the use of 
          10            advanced catalyst technologies that 
          11            will yield enormous reductions in 
          12            emissions.  In fact, once EPA's 
          13            forthcoming on road heavy-duty diesel 
          14            standards are fully effective, NOx and 
          15            particulate matter emissions could be 
          16            reduced by approximately 80 percent.  
          17            This is equivalent to taking four out 
          18            of five heavy-duty diesels off the 
          19            road. 
          20                    In conclusion, OLAPCOA commends 
          21            US EPA for leading the charge to clean 
          22            up the air for the citizens of our 
          23            great nation. 
          24                    Thank you.
          25                    MS. OGE:  Thank you. 


                                                               107
           1                    Miss Keptner, good morning.
           2                    MS. KEPTNER:  Good morning.
           3                    MS. OGE:  Mr. Chadwick, could 
           4            you please stay with us until the 
           5            panel --
           6                    MR. CHADWICK:  I'm sorry, but I 
           7            need to leave as soon as possible to 
           8            return to Cincinnati.
           9                    MS. OGE:  Okay.  Thank you.
          10                    MS. KEPTNER:  I'd like to thank 
          11            you for this opportunity to speak today 
          12            on behalf of my organization, the 
          13            American Lung Association of northern 
          14            Ohio and all of its constituents.  My 
          15            name is Laura Keptner. 
          16                    We applaud the United States 
          17            Environmental Protection Agency for 
          18            their proposed Tier 2 and low-sulfur 
          19            gasoline standards.  In addition to 
          20            reenforcing the new national ambient 
          21            air quality standards, these 
          22            regulations seek to control the source 
          23            of the problem, the most sensible and 
          24            effective means for eliminating harmful 
          25            pollutants from the air. 


                                                               108
           1                    According to the Northeast Ohio 
           2            Areawide Coordinating Agency, as of May 
           3            30th, 1999 northeastern Ohio has 
           4            already experienced in whole or in part 
           5            six days of unhealthy air pollution 
           6            levels for sensitive individuals by the 
           7            U.S. EPA's new standards.  What does 
           8            this mean to the American Lung 
           9            Association?  We know that everyone is 
          10            affected to some degree by the harmful 
          11            effects of air pollution.  Polluted air 
          12            can even make healthy people cough and 
          13            wheeze.  It is on these days when air 
          14            pollution levels are high that we are 
          15            most concerned about the more than 
          16            223,000 people in Cuyahoga, Lake, 
          17            Medina and Geauga Counties who 
          18            currently suffer from lung disease.  
          19            These diseases can include anything 
          20            from asthma, emphysema, chronic 
          21            bronchitis, lung cancer and those just 
          22            more sensitive to air pollutants.  It 
          23            is also on these days that we are more 
          24            concerned about the thousands of 
          25            children and the elderly living in our 


                                                               109
           1            communities who are most susceptible to 
           2            the harmful effects of air pollution.  
           3            In these populations who are already 
           4            sick or especially sensitive, air 
           5            pollution may cause discomfort, limit 
           6            activities, increase the use of 
           7            medications, cause more frequent visits 
           8            to doctors and hospitals and even 
           9            shorten life. 
          10                    We know that a growing body of 
          11            scientific studies suggest that air 
          12            pollution has long-term effects on the 
          13            lungs' ability to function and on the 
          14            development of lung disease.  We also 
          15            know that controlling the source of air 
          16            pollution is the best way to eliminate 
          17            the onset of lung disease and to 
          18            promote lung health.  And we also know 
          19            that automobiles, including cars, 
          20            trucks and sport utility vehicles, 
          21            account for as much as 40 percent of 
          22            our country's air pollution problem, 
          23            significantly contributing to harmful 
          24            air pollution levels. 
          25                    Although cleaner than 20 years 


                                                               110
           1            ago, the gains we have made in reducing 
           2            passenger vehicle pollution in the past 
           3            have become overwhelmed by a growing 
           4            population, growing vehicle use and 
           5            growing sales of high polluting SUVs, 
           6            minivans and pickup trucks.  Americans 
           7            are now driving approximately two and a 
           8            half trillion miles per year, more than 
           9            doubling from the 1970s.  At the same 
          10            time the growing number of cars on the 
          11            road include a growing number of the 
          12            higher polluting SUVs and pickup 
          13            trucks, the most harmful. 
          14                    Cleaner cars and cleaner gas 
          15            are essential to adequately protect the 
          16            public's health.  These standards are 
          17            needed and achievable.  However, we 
          18            must ensure the strongest regulations 
          19            possible, and as the proposal stands 
          20            now the suggested regulations are not 
          21            as strong as we'd like them to be.  
          22            Before final decisions are made, we 
          23            would like to offer EPA the following 
          24            recommendations. 
          25                    First of all, we would like to 


                                                               111
           1            recommend that all vehicles regulated 
           2            under the proposal, whether light 
           3            trucks or the heavier SUVs, should meet 
           4            the same standards at the same time.  
           5            The proposed ten-year phase-in schedule 
           6            for the heavier vehicles is really 
           7            unacceptable.  This category of 
           8            vehicles are being manufactured and 
           9            purchased at an alarming rate and are 
          10            some of the biggest contributors to our 
          11            air pollution problem.  We will not see 
          12            an overall reduction in the levels of 
          13            harmful pollutants until these vehicles 
          14            are required to control their 
          15            emissions, and many people's lungs do 
          16            not have ten years to wait.  The 
          17            emissions control technologies are 
          18            available and citizens are willing to 
          19            to pay for them, so let's utilize them 
          20            while we have them. 
          21                    Second, the heaviest and 
          22            dirtiest passenger SUVs currently on 
          23            the road, the most harmful to our 
          24            health, such as the Suburbans and the 
          25            Silverados, they should not be excluded 


                                                               112
           1            from the emissions control standards as 
           2            the current proposal reads.  The 
           3            emissions control technologies are 
           4            available for these vehicles as well.  
           5            Without controls on these vehicles, 
           6            they will continue to emit large levels 
           7            of harmful pollutants into the air at 
           8            an increasingly greater rate as the 
           9            public continues to demand these 
          10            vehicles for recreational use. 
          11                    Thirdly, we recommend that 
          12            standards for low-sulfur gasoline be 
          13            adopted at 30 parts per million by 
          14            every state in the nation at the same 
          15            time.  No exception should be made for 
          16            this.  Allowing certain refiners an 
          17            extended time frame for compliance, 
          18            specifically the year 2006, would 
          19            impair the pollution control 
          20            technologies of the newer, cleaner cars 
          21            that would be produced in the model 
          22            year 2004.  Limiting levels of sulfur 
          23            to 30 parts per million would allow 
          24            these new technologies to work at the 
          25            highest level of efficiency in order to 


                                                               113
           1            effectively reduce harmful emissions. 
           2                    Finally, we recommend the EPA 
           3            require low-sulfur diesel fuel at 30 
           4            parts per million as well in addition 
           5            to gasoline.  Even what we know about 
           6            diesel fuel emissions and their cancer 
           7            causing potential and harm to health, 
           8            we believe the NOx reduction and 
           9            subsequent health benefits of 
          10            low-sulfur diesel fuel may actually be 
          11            greater than low-sulfur gasoline. 
          12                    I'd like to thank you once 
          13            again for having me here to allow me to 
          14            speak.  In taking these recommendations 
          15            into consideration, I urge you to keep 
          16            one thing in mind, when you can't 
          17            breathe, nothing else matters. 
          18                    MS. OGE:  Thank you.
          19                    Mr. Morris, good morning.
          20                    MR. MORRIS:  Good morning.  My 
          21            name is Robert Morris.  I'm director of 
          22            Environmental and Safety Affairs for 
          23            the Refining and Chemical Division of 
          24            The Coastal Corporation.
          25                    I would like to focus my 


                                                               114
           1            remarks today on a major problem that 
           2            will prevent EPA and the states from 
           3            realizing the estimated air quality 
           4            benefits from this proposed rulemaking.  
           5            Our industry has addressed other 
           6            shortcomings in the rule which I will 
           7            not touch on today.  My subject is the 
           8            many constraints involved in obtaining 
           9            the necessary federal and state permits 
          10            within the time frame proposed by EPA.  
          11            The refining industry must obtain these 
          12            permits under EPA and state regulations 
          13            in order to make the adjustments in 
          14            their refinery facilities needed to 
          15            make lower sulfur gasoline.  My 
          16            comments will address three questions:  
          17            What permits will be required, what the 
          18            obstacles to obtaining these permits 
          19            are, and whether there is a solution to 
          20            the problem. 
          21                    First, let's get an idea of the 
          22            range of hardware affected.  The 
          23            petroleum refining industry can pursue 
          24            one of three options in order to make 
          25            low-sulfur gasoline that is compliant 


                                                               115
           1            with the proposed rule.  They are:  1, 
           2            hydrotreating FCCU feed (or input); 
           3            hydrotreating FCCU gasoline output 
           4            using new state of the art technology; 
           5            and, finally, 3, hydrotreating FCCU 
           6            output using conventional technology.  
           7            Because each refining facility is both 
           8            complex and unique, no single option 
           9            will be used by all facilities.  
          10            Industry may use a mix of all three 
          11            options. 
          12                    To better understand the real 
          13            impact on a facility and the permits 
          14            required, Coastal itself, in 
          15            conjunction with members of NPRA's 
          16            Environmental Committee Permits 
          17            Workgroup, analyzed all three options 
          18            and are continuing to analyze to 
          19            determine the processes affected and 
          20            the regulatory implications and permit 
          21            requirements for each option. 
          22                    Table 1 of my remarks is a list 
          23            of the 18 processes in a typical 
          24            refinery that are likely to be directly 
          25            or indirectly impacted by the proposal 


                                                               116
           1            rule.  Table 2, is an analysis, all ten 
           2            pages of it, of these 18 processes for 
           3            each of the three scenarios.  The 
           4            analysis covers:  Direct and indirect 
           5            air emissions, and could we put the 
           6            slide up; applicable federal 
           7            regulations; other media impacts; and 
           8            required permits.  And this 
           9            transparency is just one page.  It's an 
          10            excerpt of actually two pages that 
          11            shows some of the issues in obtaining 
          12            permits. 
          13                    All three scenarios analyzed 
          14            are energy intensive and create waste 
          15            by-products in all environmental 
          16            medias, air, water and solid waste.  
          17            One cannot do an adequate analysis in 
          18            the current permitting climate without 
          19            looking at all environmental impacts.  
          20            This would include changes in steam and 
          21            electric generation and new or modified 
          22            streams entering NSPS regulated units 
          23            such as the sulfur plant, FCCU and fuel 
          24            gas system.  It would also include air 
          25            quality impacts of both hazardous and 


                                                               117
           1            criteria air pollutants.  Finally, all 
           2            three scenarios will have impacts on 
           3            safety management systems such as 
           4            flares and spill control which are 
           5            strictly regulated by either OSHA or 
           6            the EPA. 
           7                    The normal construction process 
           8            involves design, permitting, detailed 
           9            engineering, construction, and start-up 
          10            and shakedown.  This takes four to five 
          11            years in the United States.  In a 
          12            normal situation, the permitting 
          13            process for major projects has taken up 
          14            to 18 months.  However, the permit 
          15            "land rush" touched off by the proposed 
          16            rule would severely complicate matters 
          17            beyond the normal case.  All refineries 
          18            will be operating on the same 
          19            timetable, with all design/construction 
          20            occurring at the same time.  This will 
          21            severely strain or exhaust both the 
          22            regulatory permitting resources in the 
          23            states and EPA regions and 
          24            engineering/construction resources 
          25            available in the private market. 


                                                               118
           1                    For example, in the State of 
           2            Texas there could be as many as 29 
           3            refineries lined up in the queue 
           4            requesting permits at the same time.  
           5            In the State of New Jersey, there could 
           6            be three refineries with many multiple 
           7            permits.  Neither state, in my opinion, 
           8            nor the regions existing have the 
           9            trained manpower in place to turn these 
          10            permits around as the EPA suggests in 
          11            six months.  If public hearings are 
          12            requested, which is part of the normal 
          13            state process, the scheduling alone for 
          14            them can take four to five months.  
          15            Again an estimate of 18 months for EPA 
          16            and the state regulatory agencies to 
          17            complete their tasks might be more 
          18            realistic. 
          19                    To further complicate the 
          20            picture, a number of federal permits 
          21            are affected by federal regulations 
          22            that are under current review and 
          23            development.  The likely result is 
          24            additional, currently unforeseeable, 
          25            changes in federal permit requirements 


                                                               119
           1            which will directly affect the permits 
           2            required for gasoline sulfur.  Some of 
           3            the regulations in question:  Major NSR 
           4            permitting; Part 70, Title V rules; 
           5            public notification and review; Urban 
           6            Air Toxic requirements; and emissions 
           7            Trading laws. 
           8                    The new NSR revisions and 
           9            permits will be a serious obstacle to 
          10            any attempt to fast track the air 
          11            permitting process for Tier 2 fuels.  
          12            EPA's proposal suggests that industry 
          13            can use legal means to avoid NSR.  
          14            However, the definition of "legal" is 
          15            currently being debated by lawyers and 
          16            judges all over this country through 
          17            enforcement cases.  Therefore, industry 
          18            and state regulators will be very, very 
          19            cautious in taking any steps to avoid 
          20            NSR without EPA's formal blessing 
          21            because of the extensive enforcement 
          22            actions being taken by the agency 
          23            against industry under existing NSR 
          24            regulations.  To repeat, NSR is a 
          25            significant obstacle to the states and 


                                                               120
           1            EPA completing their review tasks in a 
           2            timely manner. 
           3                    Finally, no one can overlook 
           4            the additional impact of environmental 
           5            justice claims.  Whatever its intrinsic 
           6            merit, an environmental justice lawsuit 
           7            can tie up a facility's permitting 
           8            process for years.  Environmental 
           9            Justice proponents sometimes ask 
          10            legitimate questions about obtaining 
          11            nationwide environmental quality 
          12            improvements at the expense of the 
          13            environmental quality in the 
          14            neighborhoods surrounding petroleum 
          15            refineries.  EPA has largely encouraged 
          16            the assertion of environment 
          17            justice-like claims and that policy, 
          18            like the increased emphasis on zealous 
          19            enforcement, will lengthen the permit 
          20            process for compliance with the 
          21            gasoline sulfur rule.  
          22                    The National Petrochemical & 
          23            Refiners Association, together with 
          24            other industry representatives, 
          25            advocate the only effective solution to 


                                                               121
           1            the impending permit crisis.  That 
           2            solution is to establish a reasonable 
           3            time frame for the regulators to review 
           4            and issue the necessary permits.  Over 
           5            a thousand years ago an English king 
           6            reminded his subjects that, whatever 
           7            his temporal powers, he could not 
           8            prevent the tide from coming in.  EPA 
           9            should follow his example and admit the 
          10            realities of the permit approval 
          11            process.  One of these, long 
          12            demonstrated, is "the course of true 
          13            permitting does not run smooth."  
          14            Before finalizing this rule, EPA should 
          15            choose a much more realistic date for 
          16            compliance than the fall of 2003.  
          17            Extending the date would give both EPA 
          18            and states the necessary time and 
          19            resources to permit the more than the 
          20            90 refiners struggling to comply. 
          21                    Although additional time is the 
          22            only real answer to avoiding the permit 
          23            logiam, other solutions offer limited 
          24            hope.  They include:  1, providing 
          25            limited relief through standardized 


                                                               122
           1            permits written into the rule; 
           2            establishing prescribed time frames for 
           3            applications by refiners and review by 
           4            permitting agencies with presumptive 
           5            approvals; and, 3, establishing 
           6            presumptive BACT requirements. 
           7                    If the environmental benefits 
           8            from this rule are as desirable as 
           9            proposed in the EPA documents, 
          10            regulators will need to determine how 
          11            to best permit and mitigate increases 
          12            of emissions of regulated pollutants at 
          13            a refinery within the confines of 
          14            current technology limits.  This is not 
          15            an insignificant task for the 
          16            regulatory bodies.  The limits on the 
          17            refining industry's ability to produce 
          18            new fuels may not only be the 
          19            technology associated with the fuel, 
          20            but also the technology associated with 
          21            the control of stationary source 
          22            emissions within the confines of the 
          23            nation's desired environmental quality.  
          24            This is not a scenario that either the 
          25            agencies or industry has been receptive 


                                                               123
           1            to but which must be addressed. 
           2                    Coastal and I understand NPRA's 
           3            Environmental Committee want to join 
           4            the EPA in addressing the very real 
           5            permitting problems so that our 
           6            facilities can be in compliance with 
           7            this rule on the required date.  I hope 
           8            that the very specific information on 
           9            this point which I have made a part of 
          10            this testimony will serve both as an 
          11            indicator of the problem facing us and 
          12            our willingness to find a practical and 
          13            acceptable solution. 
          14                    Thank you.
          15                    MS. OGE:  Thank you.
          16                    Mr. Brochu, how do you 
          17            pronounce your name?
          18                    MR. BROCHU:  Brochu. 
          19                    MS. OGE:  Good morning.
          20                    MR. BROCHU:  Good morning.  
          21            Thank you.  Thank you for this 
          22            opportunity to testify on a matter of 
          23            great environmental and economic 
          24            significance to Valero Energy 
          25            Corporation.  My name is Paul Brochu 


                                                               124
           1            and I'm director of business 
           2            development for Valero Energy.  Valero 
           3            Energy is one of the largest 
           4            independent refining and marketing 
           5            companies in the United States.  The 
           6            company owns and operates five 
           7            refineries in Texas, Louisiana and New 
           8            Jersey.  Valero is recognized 
           9            throughout the industry as a leader in 
          10            the production of premium, clean fuels 
          11            and oxygenates like MTBE. 
          12                    Members of the panel, the 
          13            answer to sensible development and 
          14            implementation of fuel specifications 
          15            has always been sound innovation in the 
          16            petroleum refining and petrochemical 
          17            sectors.  And in innovation, 
          18            independent refiners have often led the 
          19            way because refining gasoline is our 
          20            principle business.  Consider the 
          21            phase-down of lead in gasoline.  We met 
          22            this challenge in the mid-1970s by 
          23            developing important new uses for 
          24            oxygenates as octane-enhancers or the 
          25            roll out of the reformulated gasoline 


                                                               125
           1            program in the early 1990s.  Again it 
           2            was the independents that stepped up to 
           3            the plate in working out the 
           4            complexities in the system and in 
           5            producing one of the most successful 
           6            air and fuel quality programs in 
           7            history.  Valero alone invested more 
           8            than $300 million to meet the RFG 
           9            specifications.  In short, we have a 
          10            solid track record and again stand 
          11            ready to focus considerable commitment 
          12            to innovation in fuel chemistry to 
          13            achieve effective fuel desulfurization.  
          14            We are somewhat dismayed, however, that 
          15            the current proposed implementation for 
          16            the sulfur rule does not result in the 
          17            optimal conditions for innovation that 
          18            EPA assumes to be the case in its 
          19            Regulatory Impact Analysis.  In order 
          20            to restore the proper balance to the 
          21            rule and to allow for appropriate 
          22            process changes to be implemented, 
          23            Valero recommends incorporation of the 
          24            following changes as the EPA moves to 
          25            finalize this rule:  A more realistic 


                                                               126
           1            timeline, including resolution of the 
           2            diesel fuel standard; elimination of 
           3            the advantages to foreign and small 
           4            refiners created by the rule; and 
           5            resolution of the uncertainty 
           6            surrounding the high-octane clean 
           7            burning additive MTBE.  Without these 
           8            changes, Valero and other independent 
           9            domestic refiners cannot realistically 
          10            meet the EPA's environmental objectives 
          11            and certainly refiners are unlikely to 
          12            recover their capital costs.  Let me 
          13            explain. 
          14                    The tradition of innovation 
          15            that has made independent refining a 
          16            viable sector assumes sufficient lead 
          17            time to benefit from technological 
          18            changes in our own companies and within 
          19            the marketplace.  However, if the 
          20            government puts significant burdens in 
          21            place without time to marshal 
          22            resources, the results could be 
          23            far-reaching and costly to consumers, 
          24            leading to gas supply interruptions and 
          25            price spikes.  Valero alone will need 


                                                               127
           1            to invest more than $125 million to 
           2            meet the proposed standard, which will 
           3            be extremely difficult in light of the 
           4            current downturn in refining margins.  
           5            Another challenge will be meeting the 
           6            deadlines under the existing permitting 
           7            process.  Under the proposed rule, 
           8            refineries will require modifications 
           9            that trigger Title V permitting, itself 
          10            a source of delay given backlogs at 
          11            state regulatory agencies.  States 
          12            should be consulted on this issue. 
          13                    The rule presents certain 
          14            technological uncertainties that again 
          15            require a pragmatic timeline to 
          16            resolve.  Without sufficient transition 
          17            time, we can anticipate difficulty 
          18            associated with unproven technology 
          19            resulting in significant price 
          20            increases and supply problems, both of 
          21            which could undermine the viability of 
          22            the industry and the rule. 
          23                    Also, if EPA decides to issue 
          24            its proposed diesel rule on a similarly 
          25            tight schedule, EPA must recognize that 


                                                               128
           1            doubling our compliance obligations 
           2            over the same compressed deadline only 
           3            magnifies the timing issues that 
           4            disrupt the ability of Valero and other 
           5            refiners to innovative new solutions. 
           6                    By extending the deadline to 
           7            2006, and by comprehensively changing 
           8            the EPA approach to permitting, 
           9            domestic independent refiners will be 
          10            better able to provide low-sulfur 
          11            gasoline without consumers being forced 
          12            to bear the burden of price spikes from 
          13            supply shortages which can be 
          14            anticipated if the rule is implemented 
          15            as currently proposed. 
          16                    Just as inadequate time quashes 
          17            innovation, so too does a failure to 
          18            take into consideration the realities 
          19            of international marketplace for fuels.  
          20            Currently, according to the National 
          21            Petroleum Council, domestic refiners 
          22            pay 13 cents per gallon for 
          23            environmental compliance. 
          24                    By contrast, many foreign 
          25            refiners do not face these costs and 


                                                               129
           1            are heavily subsidized by national 
           2            governments.  They often provide their 
           3            citizens poor quality gasoline and are 
           4            encumbered by few environmental 
           5            emissions requirements.  During 1998, 
           6            five hundred thousand barrels per day 
           7            of gasoline and gasoline blendstocks 
           8            were imported and 30 percent of the 
           9            imports were from national oil 
          10            companies, most notably Venezuela, 
          11            Saudi Arabia and China.  Competition is 
          12            not a two-way street.  Significant 
          13            structural barriers block increased 
          14            competition by U.S. refiners in foreign 
          15            local markets. 
          16                    Unfortunately, the current rule 
          17            only exacerbates this already unfair 
          18            situation.  As the rule is currently 
          19            proposed, the domestic refiners will 
          20            have to desulfurize their entire 
          21            gasoline pool.  Foreign refiners will 
          22            not.  They will be able to blend their 
          23            cleanest components into gasoline for 
          24            the U.S. market, while selling 
          25            higher-sulfur gasoline in their own 


                                                               130
           1            country or other parts of the world.  
           2            Therefore, they will be able to flood 
           3            the U.S. market with less expensive 
           4            gasoline.  Valero urges that EPA 
           5            consider definitive changes to the rule 
           6            to address this problem, up to and 
           7            including extraterritorial application 
           8            of anti-dumping provisions. 
           9                    At this juncture, more 
          10            comprehensive solutions should also be 
          11            on the mind of the federal government.  
          12            To preserve the domestic petroleum 
          13            refining industry and the world 
          14            environment, it is critical we either 
          15            prohibit foreign imports from refiners 
          16            that don't comply with all U.S. 
          17            environmental regulations or place an 
          18            additional fee to affect environmental 
          19            costs on imported gasoline and blended 
          20            stocks.  By the same token, the U.S. 
          21            should push for compliance with tough 
          22            harmonized international norms as a 
          23            prerequisite for foreign refiner 
          24            participation in U.S. markets. 
          25                    In addition, the economic 


                                                               131
           1            advantage that this rule provides small 
           2            refiners through a relaxed 
           3            implementation schedule further reduces 
           4            an independent's ability to remain 
           5            competitive.  Valero encourages the 
           6            agency to level the playing field by 
           7            either eliminating the small refiner 
           8            provision or by allowing all 
           9            independent domestic refiners to meet 
          10            the same compliance deadline.  The 
          11            smaller refiner provision can also 
          12            magnify the international disparities 
          13            discussed earlier because all foreign 
          14            refiners may demand the same treatment 
          15            as small domestic refiners under 
          16            certain interpretations of equal 
          17            treatment under the General Agreement 
          18            of Tariffs and Trade.  EPA and other 
          19            parts of the U.S. government must hold 
          20            firm against this view here at home and 
          21            before the World Trade Organization, if 
          22            it comes to that. 
          23                    According to the EPA, the most 
          24            cost-effective means of reducing sulfur 
          25            in gasoline involves desulfurization of 


                                                               132
           1            the product stream from the fluidized 
           2            catalytic cracker unit.  While this 
           3            process reduces sulfur, it also reduces 
           4            octane.  Octane must be replaced either 
           5            by increasing high-octane blendstocks 
           6            or adding oxygenates.  Our company is 
           7            one of the leading producers of the 
           8            fuel oxygenate MTBE and other 
           9            clean-fuel additives.  As such we fully 
          10            appreciate the environmental benefits 
          11            of blending oxygenates in gasoline. 
          12                    Because oxygenate use will 
          13            increase when this rule is implemented, 
          14            we believe the most responsible course 
          15            for EPA at this time is to express 
          16            clear and unambiguous support for 
          17            oxygenates, including MTBE, even in 
          18            light of recent controversies. 
          19                    In conclusion, Valero will 
          20            continue to build on the progress it 
          21            has made in providing cleaner burning 
          22            fuels.  The proposed regulations for 
          23            reducing sulfur levels in gasoline take 
          24            the next step in gasoline improvements.  
          25            Valero strongly believes that by 


                                                               133
           1            extending the compliance deadline, by 
           2            supporting measures that level the 
           3            playing field for domestic refiners and 
           4            by embracing fuel oxygenates, the EPA 
           5            can create conditions conducive to the 
           6            innovation necessary to meet health and 
           7            environmental objectives in a 
           8            cost-effective manner. 
           9                    Thank you. 
          10                    MS. OGE:  Thank you.
          11                    Mr. Mandel, good morning. 
          12                    MR. MANDEL:  My name is Jed 
          13            Mandel and I'm here today on behalf of 
          14            the Engines Manufacturers Association.  
          15            Among EMA's members are the 
          16            manufacturers of pickup trucks, sport 
          17            utility vehicles, other light-duty 
          18            trucks and passenger cars and the 
          19            diesel engines that are being designed 
          20            to power them. 
          21                    As we all recognize, this rule 
          22            is one of great significance.  It will 
          23            substantially reduce the emissions from 
          24            light-duty vehicles and, depending on 
          25            how the rule is finalized, it can do so 


                                                               134
           1            in a way that it not only reduces HC, 
           2            CO, NOx and PM emissions, but also in a 
           3            way that can reduce CO2 emissions, 
           4            improve fuel economy, help 
           5            commercialize diesel technology that 
           6            can achieve additional reductions from 
           7            other mobile sources and provide 
           8            cleaner fuels to improve the emissions 
           9            from both new and existing vehicles. 
          10                    As we have discussed with you, 
          11            the single most promising 
          12            cost-effective and available technology 
          13            to reduce CO2 and improve fuel economy 
          14            is the diesel engine.  This has been 
          15            confirmed by the work coming out of the 
          16            Partnership for a New Generation 
          17            vehicle program, has been recognized by 
          18            the Department of Energy and the 
          19            administration.  For example, according 
          20            to EPA data comparing similar sized 
          21            gasoline and diesel engines, a diesel 
          22            engine exhibits a 60 percent 
          23            improvement in fuel economy while 
          24            achieving a 30 percent reduction in CO2 
          25            emissions. 


                                                               135
           1                    Diesel engines also are 
           2            inherently low emitters of HC and CO, 
           3            are extremely durable with little or no 
           4            degradation from initial air quality 
           5            emissions and performance levels and 
           6            they can perform more work more 
           7            efficiently than other types of 
           8            engines.  These and many other positive 
           9            attributes of diesel engines can be 
          10            realized if EPA reduces the sulfur 
          11            content in diesel fuel to no more than 
          12            five parts per million, offers greater 
          13            flexibility in allowing manufacturers 
          14            to average their fleetwide emissions 
          15            levels and provides modestly more lead 
          16            time to commercialized new clean diesel 
          17            technologies. 
          18                    Diesel engines that are being 
          19            tested today and are on the cusp of 
          20            commercialization will be quiet, free 
          21            from excessive vibration and free from 
          22            visible exhaust emissions, and they 
          23            will do so while retaining their fuel 
          24            economy and durability advantages.  The 
          25            adoption of Tier 2 standards that allow 


                                                               136
           1            a role for vehicles with diesel-fueled 
           2            engines in the light-duty market has 
           3            significant potential to stimulate 
           4            support and speed major research and 
           5            development and clean diesel engine 
           6            technology, and those new technologies 
           7            can be transferred to other 
           8            applications to provide even more 
           9            extensive benefits. 
          10                    Engine manufacturers already 
          11            have made great strides in reducing 
          12            emissions from diesel-fueled engines 
          13            and we recognize that more can be done.  
          14            The key, however, is to assure that 
          15            world class advanced technology engines 
          16            are paired with world class ultra clean 
          17            fuels.  As EPA has recognized, the 
          18            stringent emissions standards in 
          19            today's proposal require a systems 
          20            approach to compliance in which 
          21            technology and fuels are integrally 
          22            linked.  For light-duty vehicles, a 
          23            diesel fuel with ultra low sulfur level 
          24            at 5 ppm or less is essential.  It 
          25            would provide direct PM  emissions 


                                                               137
           1            reductions, it would enable substantial 
           2            NOx emissions reductions and it would 
           3            provide fleetwide benefits from both 
           4            new and existing vehicles with 
           5            diesel-fueled engines.  Ultra low 
           6            sulfur diesel fuel also is required to 
           7            maintain engine durability.  Without 
           8            it, severe engine wear and poisoning of 
           9            the entire engine system can occur.  
          10            And with the need to reduce carbon 
          11            dioxide emissions from the 
          12            transportation sector and the need to 
          13            provide fuel economy, the increased use 
          14            of diesel-fueled engines using ultra 
          15            low sulfur fuel would decrease carbon 
          16            dioxide emissions. 
          17                    Improved diesel fuel also has a 
          18            role in responding to potential health 
          19            effect concerns.  Ultra low sulfur fuel 
          20            lowers the total mass of particulate 
          21            from the entire fleet and enables the 
          22            use of known after-treatment technology 
          23            such as oxidation catalysts which can 
          24            reduce the organic fracturing of PM 
          25            emissions as discussed above and enable 


                                                               138
           1            technologies to reduce NOx which will 
           2            in turn reduce secondary PM. 
           3                    Diesel engine manufacturers 
           4            accept the challenge of meeting the 
           5            same emissions standards as their 
           6            gasoline engine counterparts.  If that 
           7            challenge can be met, and we think it 
           8            can, EPA and the driving public should 
           9            realize that they will have a power 
          10            option with NOx and PM emissions 
          11            equivalent to a gasoline engine and 
          12            with substantially better fuel economy, 
          13            CO2 emissions and HC, CO and 
          14            evaporating emissions. 
          15                    For EPA to proceed with this 
          16            program, however, there must be 
          17            substantial improvements in diesel fuel 
          18            quality and EPA must recognize that 
          19            larger, heavier, more powerful vehicles 
          20            are needed to meet customer needs.  
          21            Those needs require more work and that 
          22            additional work results in different 
          23            emissions levels.  An 18 wheel truck 
          24            does not emit at the same level as a 
          25            pickup truck because it's required to 


                                                               139
           1            perform more work.  Likewise, a pickup 
           2            truck does not emit at the same levels 
           3            as a passenger car because it too is 
           4            required to perform more work.  EPA 
           5            must recognize that larger, heavier, 
           6            work capable vehicles require different 
           7            emissions levels and more time to meet 
           8            the most stringent standards.  EPA 
           9            should provide manufacturers greater 
          10            compliance flexibility and more lead 
          11            time.  In doing so it should be noted 
          12            that emissions levels from all vehicles 
          13            will be reduced substantially beginning 
          14            in 2004 and each succeeding year. 
          15                    We believe that diesel fuel 
          16            engine technology can remain a viable 
          17            marketplace option without adverse 
          18            emissions impacts.  We believe EPA 
          19            should make every effort to assure that 
          20            low NOx emitting, high performing, low 
          21            CO2 producing diesel fuel engines 
          22            remain an option.  To that end, we urge 
          23            EPA to move ahead promptly with its 
          24            diesel fuel rulemaking and to 
          25            incorporate in this final rule an 


                                                               140
           1            independent mid-term review of the Tier 
           2            2 standards.  Thank you very much.
           3                    MS. OGE:  Thank you.
           4                    Mr. Brochu, I have a couple of 
           5            questions for you.  First of all, thank 
           6            you for your testimony.  We do 
           7            appreciate you coming forward with the 
           8            testimony and the recommendations that 
           9            you're making.  I didn't hear you 
          10            commenting on the national aspects of 
          11            this program.  Could you please tell us 
          12            what is your company's view about the 
          13            national approach of the program as it 
          14            is proposed by EPA?
          15                    MR. BROCHU:   The position of 
          16            Valero would be that we support the 
          17            cleaner fuels and the improvement of 
          18            cleaner fuels.  As I stated in this 
          19            document is that the compliance 
          20            deadline is onerous relative to the 
          21            positions that I've voiced from this 
          22            testimony. 
          23                    MS. OGE:  Yeah.  I'm trying to 
          24            see if there is -- if I can distinguish 
          25            your company's position versus the 


                                                               141
           1            associations that have been 
           2            representing the oil industry today, 
           3            which is the API and NPRA. 
           4                    The second question that I had 
           5            for you is that I believe that you have 
           6            suggested that a more appropriate time 
           7            frame is 2006 versus our proposal of 
           8            2004 time frame.
           9                    MR. BROCHU:  Yes.
          10                    MS. OGE:  And could you please 
          11            comment on the levels.  We have 
          12            proposed a 30 parts per million average 
          13            with a cap of 80 ppm.
          14                    MR. BROCHU:  On the specific 
          15            level, again Valero's position is that 
          16            we support the cleaner fuels and if 30 
          17            parts per million is the level, then we 
          18            support that level and with the time 
          19            frame constraints that we have relative 
          20            to permitting, relative to building the 
          21            processes necessary and to prove the 
          22            technology that is currently somewhat 
          23            unproven in meeting those requirements.
          24                    MS. OGE:  Okay.  You have raised a 
          25            number of issues as they relate to 


                                                               142
           1            foreign importers.
           2                    MR. BROCHU:  Yes. 
           3                    MS. OGE:  And I would invite 
           4            you to continue exploring options with 
           5            EPA and maybe follow up writing 
           6            comments or verbal communication. 
           7                    Just for the record, I wanted 
           8            to both thank you for making 
           9            recommendations, but at the same time 
          10            tell you that the recommendations that 
          11            Valero has made, and I checked with my 
          12            legal people here, we don't believe we 
          13            really have authority to move forward 
          14            with what you are suggesting, but that 
          15            doesn't mean that we are not interested 
          16            in working with you and other refiners 
          17            on this decision.
          18                    MR. BROCHU:  We appreciate 
          19            that.
          20                    MS. OGE:  Thank you.
          21                    MR. BROCHU:  Thank you.
          22                    MS. OGE:  And, Mr. Morris, 
          23            thank you for your testimony and the 
          24            constructive remarks on the permits.  I 
          25            didn't hear you taking any positions 


                                                               143
           1            for your company as far as the national 
           2            nature of this program or the levels or 
           3            the timing.  What do you think is 
           4            inappropriate timing?  So I have given 
           5            you three questions.
           6                    MR. MORRIS:  National versus 
           7            regional, let me skip that.  Okay. 
           8                    MS. OGE:  Okay.  You can follow 
           9            up with me later on.
          10                    MR. MORRIS:  We have supported 
          11            NPRA's position and I am chair of the 
          12            NPRA environmental committee.  We serve 
          13            two markets in the U.S., so whichever 
          14            way I answer the question will be 
          15            wrong.  A time frame from my standpoint 
          16            is in the United States projects that 
          17            we are working on right now is four and 
          18            a half to five years.  We take about 
          19            three and a half years of that; the 
          20            agencies take about 18 months.  So we 
          21            can put -- the time frame is, how do we 
          22            make the time frame work.  I mean the 
          23            time frame can be more than 18 months 
          24            for the regional people.  But it's a 
          25            very, very difficult problem.  And the 


                                                               144
           1            time frame can be condensed.  Where do 
           2            we do it?  But right now it's looking 
           3            like four and a half to five years. 
           4                    And we have taken this up with 
           5            the states.  We have already talked to 
           6            the states about the permitting, what 
           7            we can do to streamline things.  How do 
           8            we make it better?  Except they are 
           9            under the same constraints that 
          10            industry is under is that  they are 
          11            being cutting back.  They are pushed, 
          12            particularly by Title V.  So there are 
          13            a lot of pressures here that tend to 
          14            extend the time frame.
          15                    And the third question.
          16                    MS. OGE:  The level.  The third 
          17            question.  The level.  We have proposed 
          18            a 30 ppm and I would like to know what 
          19            is your company's position on this, not 
          20            necessarily the NPRA's position because 
          21            we do know the NPRA's position.
          22                    MR. MORRIS:  My company's 
          23            position is we'll do whatever we are 
          24            asked to do.  There are certain levels 
          25            in the country that have a major 


                                                               145
           1            problem in putting their system 
           2            together and they definitely have to 
           3            have a fuels component.  I'm not an 
           4            expert on what that level should be.  
           5            So I'm looking to the agency and other 
           6            experts to tell me that number.  But 
           7            we'll do whatever we can do. 
           8                    We have, our sulfur levels in 
           9            New Jersey have always been low, not 30 
          10            ppm, but they have always been low.  
          11            And that actually offers or provides us 
          12            with some problems associated with this 
          13            rule because the banking and trading 
          14            doesn't give us a whole lot of credit 
          15            for that past lowness.  But it's 
          16            whatever EPA and the public wants.
          17                    MS. OGE:  Thank you. 
          18                    Any questions from the panel?  
          19            Mike. 
          20                    MR. HOROWITZ:  I just wanted to 
          21            say for the record to Mr. Brochu, we do 
          22            encourage any comments that you have on 
          23            the issues dealing with foreign 
          24            refiners, and I don't want to say for 
          25            the record that we can't do this, what 


                                                               146
           1            you suggest, but we do have substantial 
           2            legal concerns which I hope you'll 
           3            address.
           4                    MS. OGE:  You're the engineer.  
           5            He's the lawyer. 
           6                    Thank you.  I'd like to thank 
           7            all of you for coming forward today and 
           8            sharing your views with us.  We do 
           9            appreciate you taking the time.  
          10            Thanks.
          11                    We are going to have a lunch 
          12            break until 1:30.  We'll be back to 
          13            this room at 1:30. 
          14                         -  -  -  -
          15               (Thereupon, a recess was had.)
          16                         -  -  -  -
          17                     MS. OGE:  I'd like to call up the 
          18            following names.  As you know at 1:30 
          19            this section is scheduled for our 
          20            unscheduled speakers.  So it will be a 
          21            little less formalized than the morning 
          22            session and the rest of the afternoon 
          23            session.  But I'd ask you all to please 
          24            when I call you come to this front 
          25            table here, take one of the cards that 


                                                               147
           1            you'll see that are on the edge of the 
           2            table and write your name on it like 
           3            this so we can identify you as you come 
           4            through. 
           5                    So the first person would be 
           6            Laurie Kondas, Sarah Rovito, David 
           7            Cornicelli, Rebecca Rollins, Betty Long 
           8            and Betty Perkul.
           9                    Ms. Kondas, good afternoon.  
          10            We'll start with you.  Welcome.
          11                    MS. KONDAS:  I'd like to thank 
          12            you for this opportunity to testify and 
          13            I'm doing so as a registered 
          14            respiratory therapist and I would like 
          15            to take the opportunity to speak on 
          16            behalf of the 30 million Americans that 
          17            suffer from chronic lung disease. 
          18                    I would like to ask everyone 
          19            here today to participate in a small 
          20            experiment, especially if you've never 
          21            had trouble breathing.  What I'd like 
          22            you to do for now, just for the next 
          23            five or ten minutes, is I want you to 
          24            not breathe.  Right now just stop 
          25            breathing.  I'd like you to imagine 


                                                               148
           1            that there is something in the room 
           2            that is poisonous and I want you to 
           3            know if you breathe this substance, if 
           4            it enters your body, it will make you 
           5            very ill and it may possibly even kill 
           6            you.  This will be challenging because 
           7            you must breathe to survive.  You can 
           8            live only a matter of moments if you 
           9            stop breathing.  So no matter who you 
          10            are, no matter where you are or what 
          11            else you need to do, breath is 
          12            literally life.  You really have no 
          13            choice but to breathe the air that's in 
          14            this room right now, either this minute 
          15            or the next.  If you are participating, 
          16            are you finding it hard not to breathe?  
          17            Have you taken a breath yet?  Are you 
          18            still protecting your lungs? 
          19                    We need the air that's around 
          20            us to survive.  This means that our 
          21            bodies are in constant contact with our 
          22            environment.  How well or how poorly 
          23            our lungs perform depends entirely on 
          24            the state of the air that surrounds us.  
          25            We are all exposed to whatever 


                                                               149
           1            pollutants are present in the air we 
           2            breathe.  We are all at risk for the 
           3            damage that may be caused by these 
           4            substances and no one is immune to the 
           5            effects of air pollution.  Everyone of 
           6            us attacked long enough and often 
           7            enough will eventually sustain injury.  
           8            Some of us are unfortunately less able 
           9            to withstand these assaults than 
          10            others.  Some of us because of who we 
          11            are, how old we are, how young we are 
          12            or what we are doing or because we have 
          13            other health problems are especially 
          14            vulnerable to serious and even 
          15            permanent injury by the contaminants in 
          16            the very air that we need to survive.  
          17            Children, the elderly and people with 
          18            asthma are especially at risk. 
          19                    As a registered respiratory 
          20            therapist I have had many opportunities 
          21            to work with individuals that are 
          22            struggling to deal with the symptoms 
          23            imposed by respiratory disease.  I have 
          24            often seen firsthand the far-reaching 
          25            effects of chronic lung disease.  In 


                                                               150
           1            just Cuyahoga County alone there are 
           2            over 170,000 people affected by lung 
           3            disease, over 25,000 of these are 
           4            children under the age of 18 with 
           5            asthma. 
           6                    The most common symptom of all 
           7            lung disease is shortness of breath.  
           8            This can range from mildly 
           9            incapacitating to severely 
          10            debilitating.  For many people with 
          11            lung disease careful preparation and 
          12            planning are successful for just life 
          13            for management of their disease.  These 
          14            individuals learn what medications to 
          15            take, what to eat, how important 
          16            activity is and the importance of 
          17            avoiding triggers.  In essence, they 
          18            must learn how to manage the 
          19            environment in which they live.  
          20            Unfortunately, on some days these 
          21            individuals are faced with the reality 
          22            that the very air they need to survive 
          23            may be contributing to their illness 
          24            and, in fact, it may be killing them. 
          25                    For 11 years I worked in a 


                                                               151
           1            pulmonary rehabilitation outpatient 
           2            clinic.  Unfortunately, during that 
           3            time I had occasion to call our 
           4            patients and suggest they not attend 
           5            their regularly scheduled appointments 
           6            due to a variety of air quality alerts.  
           7            Even though we knew their appointments 
           8            were very important, we knew that 
           9            exposure to high levels of pollutants 
          10            would put them at increased risk.  Of 
          11            all the things we could do and control 
          12            to help improve their health, we knew 
          13            that we could not on that day improve 
          14            the air and make it safe for them to 
          15            breathe. 
          16                    While exposure to air pollution 
          17            causes adverse health effects in 
          18            adults, children are especially 
          19            susceptible.  Their lungs are still 
          20            developing.  They breathe more air 
          21            relative to the size of their lungs 
          22            than do adults.  They spend more active 
          23            time outdoors.  Of special concern are 
          24            these children with asthma.  Both 
          25            particulates and ozone have been 


                                                               152
           1            repeatedly scientifically demonstrated 
           2            to increase the incidents of symptom 
           3            days, restricted activity, asthma 
           4            attack, emergency room visits and 
           5            hospital admissions. 
           6                    Air pollution remains one of 
           7            the most significant threats to our 
           8            health and well-being in every region 
           9            of our country.  Air pollution sends 
          10            children with asthma to the hospital 
          11            and senior citizens frankly to an early 
          12            grave.  Additional pollution reductions 
          13            are needed to protect the public, 
          14            especially the most vulnerable among 
          15            us, and again that includes children, 
          16            the elderly and all people with chronic 
          17            lung disease. 
          18                    Motor vehicle emissions are one 
          19            of the leading sources of outdoor air 
          20            pollution.  Reducing this pollution 
          21            from transportation sources will have a 
          22            significant immediate impact on the 
          23            quality of the air that we all breathe.  
          24            These stricter standards must include 
          25            sport utility vehicles, minivans and 


                                                               153
           1            pickups.  Currently, as you know, these 
           2            vehicles face weaker pollution 
           3            standards than cars and as a result are 
           4            responsible for producing much more 
           5            smog-causing pollution.  All passenger 
           6            vehicles, including minivans and SUVs, 
           7            should and must meet the same emissions 
           8            standards. 
           9                    In addition, the decision to 
          10            move towards cleaner fuels is another 
          11            step in the right direction.  For 
          12            example, sulfur dioxide is created when 
          13            sulfur containing fuels are burned.  
          14            Sulfur dioxide alone constricts air 
          15            passages in everyone, but this creates 
          16            a special problem for people with 
          17            asthma and for young children who have 
          18            smaller airways. The proposed new 
          19            standards for lower sulfur will help 
          20            make catalytic converters more 
          21            efficient and will make cars much 
          22            cleaner. 
          23                    Regarding the economic concerns 
          24            of these proposed standards, personally 
          25            I am more than willing to pay several 


                                                               154
           1            hundred dollars over the life of my van 
           2            or car to protect our air.  Look in the 
           3            face of a child who is literally 
           4            struggling to breathe to live and tell 
           5            them that we can't afford to do this or 
           6            that we need to postpone it.  I'd ask 
           7            you to do that.  Go to any emergency 
           8            room and talk to one of these children 
           9            and watch them literally struggle in 
          10            order to survive. 
          11                    The EPA's proposal once 
          12            implemented will have a huge positive 
          13            impact on air quality and will improve 
          14            and protect the health of our 
          15            community.  These new regulations are 
          16            an important opportunity to improve the 
          17            quality of air that we all need to 
          18            breath and survive. 
          19                    Thank you.
          20                    MS. OGE:  Thank you. 
          21                    Miss Rovito, good afternoon.
          22                    Miss Rovito:  Good afternoon. 
          23                    MS. OGE:  Could you please 
          24            speak in the microphone.
          25                    Miss Rovito:  Thank you for 


                                                               155
           1            affording me this opportunity to speak 
           2            today.  My name is Sarah Rovito.  I am 
           3            14 years old and I'm from the Cleveland 
           4            area, more specifically the suburb of 
           5            Parma.  I have been an asthmatic since 
           6            I was born.  Many things cause me to 
           7            wheeze and sneeze, dog dander, cat 
           8            dander, dust, cigarette smoke and air 
           9            pollution. 
          10                    One of the main ways that 
          11            asthmatics cope with their asthma and 
          12            try to avoid severe asthmatic episodes 
          13            is controlling their environment.  
          14            Asthmatics like myself do this by 
          15            pulling up carpeting in our homes, 
          16            having pet goldfish and by using air 
          17            conditioning and other special 
          18            air-filtering devices in our homes.  
          19            Unfortunately, unless we would opt to 
          20            wear space suits or scuba gear when we 
          21            venture outside of our homes, we are 
          22            not able to do anything about the air 
          23            we breathe while we were at work, 
          24            school or at play. 
          25                    Let me tell a little story.  


                                                               156
           1            When I was an infant during the summer 
           2            smog and heat, I would wheeze just 
           3            lying in my crib.  My parents went out 
           4            and bought a single unit window air 
           5            conditioner and I did much better.  
           6            Consequently, for the next three years 
           7            of my life during the summer I lived in 
           8            one little room of my house.  Imagine 
           9            being an active toddler full of energy 
          10            confined to such a small space but only 
          11            more miserable once you left it.  After 
          12            the horrible summer of 1988 my parents 
          13            had saved enough to afford whole house 
          14            air conditioning and eventually an air 
          15            conditioned car.  I felt like I had 
          16            escaped from prison. 
          17                    The point of my story is that 
          18            poor air quality means poor quality of 
          19            life for asthmatics like me, the very 
          20            old and the very young.  That's what 
          21            brings me here today.  This air 
          22            pollution problem has gone on too long.  
          23            Motor vehicles contribute nearly half 
          24            of the man-made pollution in the United 
          25            States today.  Here is what I believe 


                                                               157
           1            we must do.  Number one, all passengers 
           2            vehicles, including SUVs, minivans and 
           3            diesel-powered vehicles, should be kept 
           4            to the same pollution control 
           5            standards. 
           6                    Number two, we should do more 
           7            to get advanced technology vehicles 
           8            such as electric or fuel cell powered 
           9            vehicles on the road.  Remember, poor 
          10            air quality means poor quality of life 
          11            for people like me now, but in the 
          12            future it might very well likely mean 
          13            poor quality of life for all Americans. 
          14                    Thank you. 
          15                    MS. OGE:  Thank you. 
          16                    Ms. Rollins, good afternoon.
          17                    MS. ROLLINS:  Good afternoon.  
          18            I would like to begin by thanking you 
          19            for this opportunity to speak to you 
          20            today.  I enthusiastically applaud your 
          21            most recent efforts to make our air 
          22            safe to breathe by cutting pollution 
          23            from automobiles.  I am sincerely 
          24            concerned about the detrimental impacts 
          25            that air pollution has on our health. 


                                                               158
           1                    My personal motivation to these 
           2            comments is twofold.  First and 
           3            foremost, my 11-year-old brother 
           4            suffers from cystic fibrosis, a 
           5            terminal respiratory illness.  Adams 
           6            suffers severely and is not even able 
           7            to play on the intramural soccer team 
           8            on days when smog levels are high.  I 
           9            also frequently visit my great 
          10            grandmother who by emphysema is forced 
          11            to rely on an oxygen tank.  On bad air 
          12            days she is trapped in her apartment 
          13            unable to sit outdoors and enjoy the 
          14            day. 
          15                    My second reason for making 
          16            this statement is as an employee of 
          17            Ohio Citizen Action I speak to many 
          18            Ohioans each night who are parents, 
          19            senior citizens and doctors who are 
          20            also very concerned, and in some cases 
          21            even outraged, by the air pollution 
          22            that fills our skies and lungs. 
          23                    The Tier 2 proposal is a big 
          24            step in the right direction, but there 
          25            are three things that must be improved 


                                                               159
           1            before the rule passes into a law.  
           2            First, all passenger vehicles, 
           3            including minivans and SUVs, must meet 
           4            the same standards at the same time.  
           5            Larger SUVs should not be given extra 
           6            time to clean up. 
           7                    Second, there also should be no 
           8            special breaks for dirty diesel 
           9            vehicles. 
          10                    And, finally, the EPA should do 
          11            more to get advanced technology 
          12            vehicles on the road.  We need the 
          13            strongest possible regulations to 
          14            control air pollution. 
          15                    Thank you.
          16                    MS. OGE:  Thank you. 
          17                    Mr. David Cornicelli, good 
          18            afternoon.  I'm glad you found your 
          19            testimony.
          20                    MR. CORNICELLY:  Thank you.  
          21            I'd just have to wing it I guess.  It 
          22            wouldn't be quite as elegant as our 
          23            previous comments were. 
          24                    I wanted to thank you for the 
          25            opportunity to come here today to talk 


                                                               160
           1            about the Tier 2, about Tier 2.  I 
           2            believe that it's going to strengthen 
           3            the 1990 Clean Air Act amendment. 
           4                    My job in Cleveland is as a 
           5            community developer for the Detroit 
           6            Shoreway Community Development 
           7            Organization.  My job actually is 
           8            pretty unique in that Cleveland was 
           9            selected under a U.S. EPA grant from 
          10            the Sustainable Development Challenge 
          11            Grant program to create an ecologically 
          12            designed village within an urban 
          13            neighborhood.  This actually came out 
          14            of a process that happened a couple 
          15            years ago by the, it was funded by the 
          16            EPA which was called the Regional 
          17            Environmental Priorities Project, which 
          18            was part of the EPA, U.S. EPA's 
          19            comparative risk program, and Cleveland 
          20            was one of the models in the country 
          21            that came forward with defining the 
          22            environmental priorities for the 
          23            region, what our citizens felt were the 
          24            most pressing issues.  And the top 
          25            issues that emerged were urban sprawl 


                                                               161
           1            and, slash, quality of the urban 
           2            environment.  They felt that it wasn't 
           3            just one environmental issue, but it 
           4            was kind of a combination of all of 
           5            them.  So urban sprawl and the quality 
           6            of the urban environment were rated 
           7            first under an EPA program.  
           8            Respectively, air and water were then 
           9            listed as number two and number three 
          10            and down through the expected, you 
          11            know, different types of talks and, et 
          12            cetera, that you'd expect to show up on 
          13            an environmental priority.  So this is 
          14            something that this region has been 
          15            grappling with for many years now.  
          16            Urban sprawl or out migration from the 
          17            urban core has taken up about 23 
          18            percent more land in the last eight 
          19            years where our population growth has 
          20            only been three percent.  So we know 
          21            that people are sprawling and using 
          22            more land, therefore, we know they are 
          23            using more vehicles.  And there is a 
          24            direct correlation between using more 
          25            automobiles and the air quality simply 


                                                               162
           1            because of the fuels that we are using.  
           2            We know that they give off NOx gas and 
           3            compounds. 
           4                    I also think that we need to 
           5            take into consideration human health.  
           6            Again, the last three talked about 
           7            human health specifically talking about 
           8            asthma, in particular in children and 
           9            with the elderly.  And it's not just 
          10            about human health.  It's about the 
          11            health of the bioda.  We are not the 
          12            only living creatures here.  There is 
          13            trees, you know, there is little 
          14            critters in the water sheds.  
          15            Everything is related.  Everything 
          16            takes oxygen to breathe, and I think 
          17            that if we don't take into 
          18            consideration the whole bioda, the 
          19            whole ecology of the place, we are kind 
          20            of defining the ethic of Cleveland by 
          21            not caring.  So I think the ethic of a 
          22            place translated down, you might want 
          23            to call it quality of life, is 
          24            something that promotes a healthy 
          25            lifestyle, and I think this Tier 2 is a 


                                                               163
           1            step in the right direction addressing 
           2            or helping us change our behaviors to 
           3            creating a more healthy lifestyle. 
           4                    I also think ethics should be 
           5            reflected in efficiency.  If we want to 
           6            drive more, then let's make our impact 
           7            less.  We are already beginning to feel 
           8            the impact of cars traveling in this 
           9            area, not only socially.  We talked 
          10            about road rage.  On the road people 
          11            are driving a lot more.  Whether it is 
          12            true or not, I feel it.  I think people 
          13            are a little bit more stressed.  I 
          14            drive a little more than I want to 
          15            these days. 
          16                    Environmentally the impacts are 
          17            there.  Economically the impacts are 
          18            there.  We are spending more money on 
          19            fuel.  I rather spend the hundred 
          20            dollars I spend a month on gas on other 
          21            things, recreation or going out to 
          22            dinner a little bit more occasionally.  
          23            The economic benefits of the new 
          24            industry surrounding the counties that 
          25            has occurred through this kind of new 


                                                               164
           1            growth in the area has been astounding.  
           2            The region is strong economically.  But 
           3            that's increased the need for more 
           4            deliveries, more travel time, more 
           5            employees.  We are finding now that in 
           6            Cleveland alone a lot of our residents 
           7            are going out into the suburbs.  Where 
           8            they used to stay in the city to work, 
           9            they are now having to travel farther 
          10            out.  So I think the efficiencies of 
          11            the vehicles needs to be addressed 
          12            there.
          13                    I guess just to close it up, 
          14            our air is our connection to life, just 
          15            like water is our connection to life.  
          16            We've chosen to use land in prevailing 
          17            ways that our current development 
          18            patterns are showing, that being for 
          19            housing and retail plazas, industrial 
          20            developments, but we have had zoning 
          21            laws that have reacted to that in this 
          22            area and we've begun to rise to the 
          23            occasion to limit that growth. 
          24                    There is a national agenda that 
          25            has emerged, the Clinton/Gore 


                                                               165
           1            livability agenda, that says let's take 
           2            into consideration these quality of 
           3            life factors when we consider growth 
           4            and how we want to live.  So I think 
           5            the EPA is following suit and I 
           6            encourage you to look at the 
           7            Clinton/Gore livability agenda and 
           8            encourage the director, her honor, to 
           9            make that a case for pushing this type 
          10            of legislation. 
          11                    We also need to address the 
          12            other consequences of growth and the 
          13            increased traffic that our new found 
          14            lifestyles in the suburbs have created.  
          15            We need to make a better case for 
          16            better development and less use of 
          17            automobiles in the end, but that might 
          18            mean a different law or a different 
          19            type of approach than this.
          20                    I strongly recommend that the 
          21            Tier 2 standards are adopted.  It's not 
          22            just for the air we breathe, but for 
          23            the air that we all share.  We know 
          24            that airborne toxins can travel 
          25            thousands of miles.  They are just not 


                                                               166
           1            limited to our regions.  Air doesn't 
           2            have a political jurisdiction or a 
           3            political boundary.  And I think that 
           4            laws help our society change behavior 
           5            and I think that's where innovation is 
           6            for.  New technologies come out of the 
           7            fact, you know, to help us accommodate 
           8            to the new rules.  We do know that 
           9            there are new fuels available.  There 
          10            are fuel cells, hydrogen fuel cells and 
          11            hybrid cars emerging in California and 
          12            Japan and Germany and elsewhere and I 
          13            think there is no economic incentive 
          14            greater to the one that challenges the 
          15            need for preserving the health of all 
          16            living creatures. 
          17                    Thank you.
          18                    MS. OGE:  Thank you. 
          19                    Ms. Perkul, good afternoon.  Is 
          20            it a son or a daughter?
          21                    MS. PERKUL:  A son.
          22                    MS. OGE:  Welcome both of you.
          23                    MS. PERKUL:  Thank you.  I'm 
          24            here to speak as a minivan driving 
          25            mother and I would like to say that as 


                                                               167
           1            a minivan driver I'm very willing to 
           2            pay whatever extra is needed to make 
           3            the minivans and SUVs more energy 
           4            efficient and have stricter pollution 
           5            controls and emissions controls.  I 
           6            went actually to a minivan reluctantly 
           7            because I was driving a Honda Civic, 
           8            energy efficient, but with him we 
           9            needed to get a larger car. 
          10                    And I'm here to ask you to 
          11            consider, I don't have any statistics 
          12            or anything, but I'm just worried about 
          13            the quality of life for my children and 
          14            I would like my children to be able to 
          15            go outside in the summer and not worry 
          16            about ozone alert days, to feel what 
          17            rain feels like in the summer without 
          18            feeling they can't go outside because 
          19            of acid rain or to taste the snow when 
          20            it falls from the sky because it is too 
          21            dangerous.  I think the quality of life 
          22            of our children is very, very important 
          23            and I would have, like to have us think 
          24            ahead now and take some measures to 
          25            control the pollution so that in the 


                                                               168
           1            future we can have all of our children 
           2            living the same life that we are living 
           3            now.  That's really it. 
           4                    MS. OGE:  Ms. Long, would you 
           5            like to come forward.
           6                    Ms. Perkul, thank you for your 
           7            testimony.
           8                    MS. LONG:  My name is Betty 
           9            Long.  I am euphemistically called a 
          10            golden ager, however, it's a misleading 
          11            title.  I'm getting the age and the 
          12            medical profession is getting the gold.  
          13            We golden agers want clean air.  We do 
          14            not want to have to stay in our homes 
          15            on smoggy days.  If we go out, we find 
          16            ourselves breathing hard, coughing and 
          17            possibly inhaling carcinogenic 
          18            particulates which will shorten our 
          19            lives and damage our lung tissue.  
          20            Stringent EPA measures are the only way 
          21            to go.  Clean as possible fuels for all 
          22            cars and trucks and a cap on the 
          23            industrial stacks that emit harmful 
          24            chemicals into the air that we breathe 
          25            daily in the Cleveland area.  Golden 


                                                               169
           1            agers want the gold, not the carbon 
           2            dioxide smog and other health 
           3            endangering pollutants.  Remember, we 
           4            vote in large numbers and our health is 
           5            a number one issue when we vote. 
           6                    Thank you.
           7                    MS. OGE:  Thank you.
           8                    I'd like to thank all of you 
           9            for coming forward to share with us 
          10            your views, especially the citizens of 
          11            this city, beautiful city that are 
          12            taking the time from your own work 
          13            schedules, whatever you are doing 
          14            today.  Your comments are important to 
          15            us and we will consider them as we are 
          16            moving forward to finalize this 
          17            recommendation.  Thank you very much.
          18                    I would like to call for the 
          19            following individuals to please come 
          20            forward.  Mr. Jones, that is Gil Jones, 
          21            Mr. Mike Frank, Mr. Curtis Strozier, 
          22            Mr. Ed Hogan and Ms. Miller.  Could you 
          23            please print your names on the cards in 
          24            front of you.
          25                    Mr. Frank, good afternoon.  


                                                               170
           1            We'll start with you.
           2                    MR. FRANK:  Well, I just want 
           3            to suggest one thing today, that what 
           4            to do with these three types of 
           5            vehicles, sports utility and pickup 
           6            trucks and minivans, is logical and 
           7            indeed it's just as plain as the fist 
           8            in your face as what to do with them.  
           9            You know, if your neighbor had 20 dogs 
          10            that sort of bit people, sort of 
          11            wandered the neighborhood, you know, 
          12            biting all the little kids and even 
          13            sending some to hospitals, so you go 
          14            over to your neighborhood and you say, 
          15            you know, you got to muzzle those dogs 
          16            if you are going to let them roam.  And 
          17            so he negotiates with you and says I'll 
          18            muzzle 17 of these 20 dogs, but there 
          19            is three of them that I'm not going to 
          20            let them roam.  They are going to be 
          21            guard dogs so I don't muzzle them.  You 
          22            say, okay, that's fine.  But, you know, 
          23            it turns out the 17 dogs go in and out 
          24            a little bit, but these three dogs, 
          25            they kind of roam more than anybody 


                                                               171
           1            else terrorizing everybody, biting 
           2            everybody, and so, you know, it's 
           3            pretty clear what to do about those 
           4            dogs once you discover that they are 
           5            not just guard dogs.  You got to muzzle 
           6            them. 
           7                    Well, you know, we've decided 
           8            that we got to muzzle cars.  That's why 
           9            we have restrictions on car pollutions.  
          10            And we sort of thought that these three 
          11            vehicles were going to be used for work 
          12            and weren't going to be nearly as 
          13            popular as they are, the pickup trucks, 
          14            minivans and sports utility vehicles, 
          15            but they are used everywhere, they are 
          16            everywhere, and they bite, at least 
          17            they bite people who breathe.  And it's 
          18            obvious, if the air pollution laws for 
          19            other cars makes sense, and I think 
          20            they do, they make sense for these.  
          21            These are three dogs that need to be 
          22            muzzled, so muzzle them.  That's what I 
          23            want to say.
          24                    MS. OGE:  Thank you.
          25                    Mr. Gil Jones, good afternoon. 


                                                               172
           1                    Mr. Frank, why don't you stay 
           2            with us, with the panel.  We may have a 
           3            question for you.  Thank you.
           4                    MR. JONES:  Thank you.  My name 
           5            is Gil Jones.  I'm the chief deputy for 
           6            the Franklin County sheriff's office 
           7            and I'm representing Sheriff Jim 
           8            Carnes.  I'm here today testifying to 
           9            share the law enforcements need for 
          10            bigger cars. 
          11                    Every day I and thousands like 
          12            me are putting our lives on the line to 
          13            protect the citizens of Ohio and the 
          14            vehicles we use are a vital tool for 
          15            the services we provide, from transport 
          16            vans and buses, to patrol cars and 
          17            emergency vehicles, the need for 
          18            vehicles that can meet our needs for 
          19            our department is vital. 
          20                    As a law enforcement officer, I 
          21            need to assure the people I'm 
          22            responsible to protect and serve are 
          23            safe and if they are in need of an 
          24            emergency service, that it will be 
          25            there.  I would not want to be the one 


                                                               173
           1            to tell the victims of an accident I'm 
           2            sorry, we are short on emergency 
           3            vehicles because of the new stricter 
           4            EPA emissions standards which will 
           5            increase the cost for the price of the 
           6            vehicles.  After that prisoner 
           7            transports, and it would become a 
           8            nightmare.  Without the availability of 
           9            buses we would have to go to a smaller 
          10            vehicle which would increase the 
          11            frequency of transports thus the cost.  
          12            It would also take away officers from 
          13            the field where they are truly needed. 
          14                    As a government official I have 
          15            the added responsibility to answer to 
          16            the taxpayers regarding expenditures.  
          17            The EPA estimates that these stricter 
          18            standards will increase the cost by 100 
          19            to $200 per vehicle.  I have even heard 
          20            the increases estimated as high as 
          21            $1,000 per vehicle by an independent 
          22            source.  And I'm not sure the cost 
          23            would be even more for emergency 
          24            vehicles, but I guess it would be. 
          25                    As a public servant I have to 


                                                               174
           1            answer to the citizens of Franklin 
           2            County and the additional costs would 
           3            be difficult to support.  More than 
           4            likely our department, as I'm sure 
           5            others across the country, would have 
           6            to buy fewer vehicles.  This in turn 
           7            would diminish our ability to protect 
           8            and serve the citizens of Franklin 
           9            County. 
          10                    I'm sure the intentions of the 
          11            EPA are honorable, however, based on 
          12            the information I've read, I feel that 
          13            stricter standards would not have the 
          14            benefits the EPA has claimed.  Even the 
          15            U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 
          16            of Columbia Circuit ruled the proposal 
          17            unconstitutional to force these states 
          18            to reduce air pollution.
          19                    I hope the EPA will consider 
          20            all the consequences of these standards 
          21            and work with those effected to tougher 
          22            emissions control standards in a manner 
          23            that is helpful to all. 
          24                    Thank you.
          25                    MS. OGE:  Thank you.


                                                               175
           1                    Mr. Hogan, good afternoon.
           2                    MR. HOGAN:  Good afternoon.  My 
           3            name is Ed Hogan and I'm speaking today 
           4            on behalf of the over 120 members of 
           5            the Ohio Coalition for Vehicle Choice.  
           6            I suppose we are also representing 
           7            those three dogs. 
           8                    Our members, which include such 
           9            organizations as Campground Owners 
          10            Association, Chambers of Commerce, 
          11            automobile dealers, ohio farmers, the 
          12            Ohio Legislative Black Caucus, boat 
          13            owners, law enforcement and small 
          14            businesses, are interested in 
          15            preserving America's right to safe and 
          16            affordable motor vehicle 
          17            transportation. 
          18                    Like most Americans, CVC 
          19            members are concerned about our 
          20            environment and preserving and 
          21            improving the quality of life and the 
          22            air we breathe.  We are also concerned 
          23            with preserving our personal mobility.  
          24            Along with developing public policies 
          25            to address legitimate energy and 


                                                               176
           1            environmental concerns, we believe the 
           2            government also has an obligation to 
           3            protect mobility of Americans and the 
           4            need of car and truck users or vehicles 
           5            that provide safe, effective and 
           6            affordable transportation. 
           7                    The EPA's proposed new 
           8            emissions standards might have some 
           9            small environmental benefit, but they 
          10            raise other concerns for those who rely 
          11            on light trucks and who must pay the 
          12            bill for new government regulations.  
          13            Our greatest concern is making sure 
          14            that the new regulations do not 
          15            interfere with the continued 
          16            availability of a wide range of 
          17            vehicles, including light trucks 
          18            suitable for heavy-duty hauling and 
          19            towing. 
          20                    Our members use pickup trucks 
          21            for carrying heavy loads, utility 
          22            vehicles for towing, vans for 
          23            transporting passengers.  They depend 
          24            on the special work capabilities of 
          25            light trucks including adequate engines 


                                                               177
           1            and suspensions.  Because heavy-duty 
           2            light trucks do more work than 
           3            passenger cars, they have different 
           4            engines and different emissions 
           5            characteristics.  Current light trucks 
           6            are already very clean, but the 
           7            emissions still aren't quite as low as 
           8            clean, new cars.  EPA's proposals would 
           9            require new cars and light trucks of 
          10            all sizes and ranges to meet the same 
          11            set of extremely ambitious emissions 
          12            limits.  That's going to be tough to do 
          13            for heavy-duty light trucks, especially 
          14            when the technology to meet those ultra 
          15            low standards has not yet been 
          16            invented. 
          17                    We are concerned that the EPA 
          18            rules may drive up the cost of our 
          19            vehicles and perhaps reduce performance 
          20            or force some useful model 
          21            configurations out of the market, and 
          22            that can be counterproductive by 
          23            discouraging the replacement of older, 
          24            higher-emitting trucks with cleaner, 
          25            more efficient models.  At a minimum, 


                                                               178
           1            EPA should make every effort to make 
           2            sure that standards are, in fact, 
           3            practically achievable and reasonably 
           4            cost-effective. 
           5                    We recommend adequate lead time 
           6            to develop and introduce the new 
           7            technology.  We understand that the 
           8            auto industry has recommended an 
           9            independent review of the standards of 
          10            larger vehicles a few years into the 
          11            program to examine such things as 
          12            technological feasibility, the effect 
          13            on competitiveness and whether or not 
          14            the standards are cost-effective and to 
          15            see if the original schedule still 
          16            looks practicable. 
          17                    EPA's proposal for heavy-duty 
          18            vehicles to meet the ultra low limits 
          19            by 2009 seems very optimistic.  Some 
          20            groups are pushing for shorter time 
          21            tables on vans, on diesel-powered 
          22            trucks, but those groups typically show 
          23            no understanding or interest in the 
          24            useful services that light trucks 
          25            provide.  Since current trucks are 


                                                               179
           1            already quite clean, there is really no 
           2            downside to ensuring the adequate time 
           3            for an orderly transition for cleaner 
           4            trucks into the future. 
           5                    We also believe EPA should do 
           6            more to emphasize the progress that has 
           7            been made in reducing the emissions 
           8            from light trucks and cars and the 
           9            gains already achieved in improving 
          10            overall air quality.  Some press 
          11            reports have inaccurately stated that 
          12            light trucks have been exempt from 
          13            federal emissions standards, which is 
          14            most definitely not the case.  Others 
          15            have suggested a growing problem with 
          16            smog when statistics show that our air 
          17            quality has, in fact, improved 
          18            dramatically.  And many press accounts 
          19            also fail to recognize that cars and 
          20            light trucks are now a small share of 
          21            overall emissions and most of that is 
          22            due to older and poorly maintained 
          23            vehicles. 
          24                    Most areas around the U.S. are 
          25            already in or close to compliance with 


                                                               180
           1            national air quality standards that are 
           2            currently in force.  As you know, the 
           3            courts have invalidated the revised air 
           4            quality standards adopted by EPA in 
           5            1997.  Those invalid air rules should 
           6            not be used as a justification for new 
           7            vehicle rules.  Instead, the focus 
           8            should be on the proposal's likely 
           9            real-world impact on America including 
          10            cost and mobility as well as air 
          11            quality. 
          12                    We recommend closer attention 
          13            by EPA to the cost and benefits of the 
          14            proposed standards.  The cost estimates 
          15            of 100 to $200 per vehicle seem low, 
          16            especially when much of the technology 
          17            has yet to be invented.  One 
          18            independent source has estimated the 
          19            cost of complying with the proposed 
          20            rule as around $1,000.  Even if EPA's 
          21            estimates are accurate, that still 
          22            means an additional cost to American 
          23            consumers of 2 to $3 billion per year 
          24            for this regulation.  And since 
          25            emissions from new vehicles are already 


                                                               181
           1            low, the total reduction from the new 
           2            standards will be relatively small.  
           3            Our members are asking whether we can 
           4            find other, more productive ways to 
           5            invest that 2, 3 billion a year for 
           6            growing public health benefits.  That's 
           7            something EPA should consider and 
           8            answer in the course of this ruling. 
           9                    Thank you.
          10                    MS. OGE:  Thank you.
          11                    Mr. Strozier, good afternoon.
          12                    MR. STROZIER:  Thank you.  My 
          13            name is Kurt Strozier and I'm president 
          14            and CEO of World Satellite Network, 
          15            Incorporated based out of Columbus, 
          16            Ohio, and for four years we have been 
          17            providing telecommunication services 
          18            for Ameritech and Americast.  We 
          19            provide telephone bury drops for 
          20            Ameritech from Mansfield all the way 
          21            down to the Ohio River, and for 
          22            Americast we provide installation and 
          23            disconnection services for apartment 
          24            complexes.  We also recover cable TV 
          25            equipment and we bury cable TV drops. 


                                                               182
           1                    Like most Americans, I am very 
           2            concerned about keeping our air clean 
           3            and preserving and improving the air I 
           4            breathe.  However, as a business owner 
           5            that relies on the use of vans and 
           6            light trucks, I am concerned, I am also 
           7            concerned about how these strict new 
           8            standards will affect my ability to run 
           9            my business and provide the services to 
          10            my customers.  Vans and trucks are 
          11            vital to my operation.  Every day I 
          12            have techs or technicians on service 
          13            calls from Mansfield to the Ohio River.  
          14            These techs have got to use heavy-duty 
          15            equipment.  This equipment that they 
          16            use requires the use of light trucks 
          17            and some heavy vehicles.  This 
          18            equipment you have got to understand 
          19            requires vehicles with high-efficient 
          20            engines and they have got to be 
          21            efficient fuelwise. 
          22                    Today's light trucks and vans 
          23            are very clean and auto makers are now 
          24            introducing cleaner vehicles under the 
          25            new national low emissions vehicle 


                                                               183
           1            program.  Why drive up the cost of all 
           2            cars and light trucks to reduce 
           3            emissions standards that are already 
           4            being reduced.  At the minimum the EPA 
           5            should take every effort to make sure 
           6            the standards are practical and 
           7            cost-effective.  The courts have 
           8            invalidated the strict air quality 
           9            standards imposed by the EPA.  So why 
          10            are you now using those rules to 
          11            impose, reduce emissions standards? 
          12                    I know you often hear the 
          13            argument I am a taxpayer.  Well, I am 
          14            too, as everyone in this room are 
          15            taxpayers.  It is the government's job 
          16            to be fair to all taxpayers, not 
          17            support, not to support a certain 
          18            special interest group or to push their 
          19            agenda.  I hope that the EPA will take 
          20            a stand and account for the needs of 
          21            all taxpayers and truly listen to all 
          22            of our concerns which consider imposing 
          23            those strict new standards. 
          24                    And again thank you. 
          25                    MS. OGE:  Thank you.


                                                               184
           1                    I'd like to make a statement 
           2            and then a question.  Since a number of 
           3            you, since a number of you mentioned 
           4            the court case, I don't know if you 
           5            were here this morning, but we 
           6            discussed this.  I'm going to make it 
           7            very clear that the court did not say 
           8            that ozone and particulate matter 
           9            doesn't cause significant health 
          10            problems. 
          11                    Second, I want to make it very 
          12            clear that I think we can look at the 
          13            court decision and we are moving 
          14            forward because we believe we met the 
          15            air quality need. 
          16                    Mr. Hogan, you mentioned in 
          17            your remarks that these regulations you 
          18            believe will have insignificant or very 
          19            small environmental benefits.  Could 
          20            you quantify for us what are these 
          21            benefits?  Why are you calling these 
          22            benefits insignificant?
          23                    MR. HOGAN:  Well, I didn't say 
          24            insignificant.
          25                    MS. OGE:  Small.


                                                               185
           1                    MR. HOGAN:  Small.
           2                    MS. OGE:  Did you say small?  
           3            Do you consider 2.2 million tons of 
           4            nitrogen dioxide reductions, hundreds 
           5            of thousands of toxin reductions as 
           6            small?
           7                    MR. HOGAN:  What I understand 
           8            is it's very hard for the EPA to 
           9            quantify what effect that's going to 
          10            have.  We are talking these numbers, 
          11            but what it means in the real world, 
          12            what it means in terms of reducing 
          13            emissions, I don't think you have the 
          14            answers to that yet.
          15                    MS. OGE:  Well, I would 
          16            strongly suggest you take a look at the 
          17            record we have developed.  We believe 
          18            that we have a very strong case to 
          19            quantify the air quality benefits 
          20            across the country of the millions of 
          21            people that suffer from respiratory 
          22            effects to environmental improvements 
          23            and would be glad to share all this 
          24            information with you. 
          25                    And I would like to ask -- I'm 


                                                               186
           1            sorry, Ms. Miller, I didn't see you.  I 
           2            would ask you to please come forward 
           3            and also give us your testimony.  Good 
           4            afternoon.
           5                    MS. MILLER:  I appreciate your 
           6            time very much.  And I'd like to make 
           7            just three comments outside of the 
           8            prepared testimony that I have.  Just 
           9            after listening to some of the previous 
          10            testimony, I'd like to point out as a 
          11            citizen in this area of Cleveland and 
          12            Cuyahoga County who would definitely 
          13            have to rely on the police and 
          14            emergency folks if I was ever in a case 
          15            to need them, I feel that if their job 
          16            is to protect and serve us, which it 
          17            is, that they ought to be using 
          18            vehicles that are much safer because if 
          19            they are using something that is 
          20            polluting my air, then I don't see that 
          21            as protecting and serving me. 
          22                    Also, I wanted to make the 
          23            comment that I do believe that there 
          24            are a lot of technologies out there, a 
          25            lot of new technologies out there that 


                                                               187
           1            are showing us much more efficient and 
           2            effective ways that we can run our 
           3            vehicles.  In fact, I think they have 
           4            been there for years and it's probably 
           5            something that the public doesn't know 
           6            a whole lot about for a good reason 
           7            because it's been kept from us. 
           8                    And also I certainly understand 
           9            that while folks run businesses that 
          10            have to use light pickup trucks, vans, 
          11            maybe even sports utility vehicles, 
          12            it's important in order for us to 
          13            continue to be able to run those 
          14            businesses and continue to be citizens 
          15            of this country and this world that we 
          16            be alive and we need clean air to be 
          17            alive.
          18                    I'm very concerned about the 
          19            impacts that air pollution has on 
          20            myself and my fellow citizens.  
          21            Something serious has to be done to 
          22            ensure that there is clean air to 
          23            breathe.  It is imperative that you 
          24            allow nothing to stand in the way of 
          25            you doing your job, protecting your 


                                                               188
           1            fellow human beings.  I don't know 
           2            about you, but I'm very sick and tired 
           3            hearing the tragic stories all over the 
           4            world about cases of asthma.  These are 
           5            unnecessary.  Every citizen ought to be 
           6            able to take clean air for granted.  
           7            The United States of America is largely 
           8            responsible for this unhealthy 
           9            situation.  We as a nation have an 
          10            obligation to solve this problem in the 
          11            best manner possible. 
          12                    The standards you proposed in 
          13            the Tier 2 proposal are a step in the 
          14            right direction.  It's about time that 
          15            sport utility vehicles, minivans and 
          16            pickup trucks meet the same protective 
          17            standards as passenger cars.  It's 
          18            about time that sulfur levels in 
          19            gasoline are significantly reduced.  
          20            And it's also about time that passenger 
          21            cars are made cleaner than those on the 
          22            road today.  By putting these measures 
          23            in place you will be giving the world 
          24            another breath of fresh air. 
          25                    It's a shame that the auto 


                                                               189
           1            industry does not feel the same way.   
           2            I find it even more interesting that 
           3            these industries keep whining about how 
           4            much money they will have to spend to 
           5            implement these measures.  Consumers 
           6            are the ones that pay.  I believe it 
           7            should be up to me, not them, as to 
           8            whether I pay more for cleaner air.  I 
           9            would be very happy to pay extra, 
          10            whether that's a hundred or a thousand 
          11            dollars, whatever the amount is for any 
          12            vehicle I desire to purchase and the 
          13            gasoline it takes to power it if it 
          14            would ensure that my air was cleaner. 
          15                    The U.S. EPA has an obligation 
          16            to protect the environment.  Please 
          17            institute the strongest possible auto 
          18            pollution regulations to protect the 
          19            health of all people of the world.  Do 
          20            not allow the auto corporate lobby to 
          21            dissuade you from what all people need. 
          22                    Thank you.
          23                    MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Thank you 
          24            very much. 
          25                    I'd like to ask the next group 


                                                               190
           1            of panelists to please come forward.  
           2            Mr. John Paul, Mr. Tom Bond, Dawn 
           3            Friest I believe, Mr. Eliot Levinsohn, 
           4            Mr. John Moos and Ms.  Amy Ryder.
           5                    Mr. Paul, good afternoon.  
           6            We'll start with you.
           7                    MR. PAUL:  Good afternoon.  My 
           8            name is John Paul and I'm the 
           9            supervisor of the Regional Air 
          10            Pollution Control Agency, RAPCA, of 
          11            Dayton, Ohio.  RAPCA is a six-county 
          12            local agency serving the counties of 
          13            Clark, Darke, Greene, Miami, Montgomery 
          14            and Preble in mid-southwestern Ohio.  I 
          15            want to thank you for this opportunity 
          16            to present testimony in support of 
          17            EPA's recent proposal to the Tier 2 
          18            motor vehicle controls and low-sulfur 
          19            gasoline and the advance notice of 
          20            proposal for diesel fuel.  I also wish 
          21            to acknowledge and fully support the 
          22            comments of Mr. Charles Lagges who 
          23            testified on behalf of STAPPA/ALAPCO 
          24            and Mr. Cory Chadwick who testified on 
          25            behalf of OLAPCOA.  RAPCA is an active 


                                                               191
           1            participant in both of those 
           2            associations and voted for the adoption 
           3            of the resolutions which are attached 
           4            to their comments. Whereas these two 
           5            presented comments reflecting the 
           6            national and regional benefits of EPA's 
           7            proposal, I want to give you an 
           8            illustration of the need for this 
           9            proposal policy with regard to one 
          10            specific local agency, that being 
          11            RAPCA. 
          12                    And I want to begin this 
          13            testimony by commending the EPA for 
          14            this proposal.  We are very pleased to 
          15            see the proposal's combination of 
          16            vehicle standards and clean fuel.  This 
          17            proposal for low-sulfur gasoline will 
          18            provide air quality benefits from 
          19            existing vehicles and make possible 
          20            much cleaner vehicles in the future.  
          21            This is as encouraging a proposal as we 
          22            can envision for controlling mobile 
          23            source emissions in the future.  We are 
          24            also encouraged by EPA's proposed 
          25            inclusion of strict emissions standards 


                                                               192
           1            for light-duty trucks, sport utility 
           2            vehicles and vans beginning in the year 
           3            2004.
           4                    RAPCA is technically the Bureau 
           5            of Engineering within the Division of 
           6            Environmental Health of the Combined 
           7            Health District of Montgomery County.  
           8            We contract with the Boards of Health 
           9            of each of our counties within our 
          10            jurisdiction.  Our direct authorities 
          11            are those of the Boards of Health.  The 
          12            reason we exist is because of the local 
          13            concern over the adverse health effects 
          14            of air pollution.  Our main charge is 
          15            the protection of public health, as is 
          16            reflected in our adopted mission 
          17            statement which let me read for you. 
          18                    "The primary mission of the 
          19            Regional Air Pollution Control Agency 
          20            is to protect the citizens of Miami 
          21            Valley from the adverse health and 
          22            welfare impacts of air pollution.  This 
          23            is accomplished through the enforcement 
          24            of federal, state and local air 
          25            pollution control regulations, and 


                                                               193
           1            through implementation of the state's 
           2            industrial permit system.  RAPCA 
           3            personnel strive for technical 
           4            credibility and accountability in all 
           5            issues and actions." 
           6                    And I think that the testimony 
           7            that you've heard today, especially 
           8            from the citizens, really brings out 
           9            the responsibility that we share, you 
          10            as federal EPA, we as a local agency, 
          11            to our citizens.  It's obvious that 
          12            they are dependent upon us to control 
          13            air pollution.  And it's also 
          14            interesting some of the comments with 
          15            regard to the permits, Bob Morris' 
          16            comments, I think we share a 
          17            responsibility there also.  We need 
          18            these rules, so we need to work 
          19            together to make sure that the permits 
          20            that the refineries need to implement 
          21            these measures, that we are working on 
          22            those permits and we can handle those 
          23            permits within the time frames.  And I 
          24            would pledge to you that we will work 
          25            with you on that issue. 


                                                               194
           1                    Existing as a public health 
           2            agency dealing with air pollution in 
           3            the early 1970s, it was a natural event 
           4            for us to become a delegated extension 
           5            of the U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA when these 
           6            two agencies came into existence.  
           7            Today RAPCA is a direct grantee of U.S. 
           8            EPA and a contractual agent of Ohio 
           9            EPA, and we perform most of the duties 
          10            common to an air pollution control 
          11            agency, including source inspections, 
          12            complaint response, air quality 
          13            monitoring, writing of permits and so 
          14            on.  We do not have direct authority 
          15            with regard to vehicle emissions 
          16            standards and fuel standards, which is 
          17            one of the reasons why we are so 
          18            supportive of the U.S. EPA for taking 
          19            this action. 
          20                    Throughout our 30-year history 
          21            of dealing with air pollution in the 
          22            Miami Valley, we have measured air 
          23            quality for the National Ambient Air 
          24            Quality Standards, as set by U.S. EPA.  
          25            We have been designated in the past as 


                                                               195
           1            nonattainment for carbon monoxide, 
           2            total suspended particulates, sulfur 
           3            dioxide and ozone.  However, through an 
           4            aggressive program to control air 
           5            pollution, we have over the years met 
           6            each of these health-based standards 
           7            and been redesignated as attainment for 
           8            each.  Our last redesignation was for 
           9            ozone in 1997.  This was also the 
          10            toughest standard for us to meet.  Our 
          11            attainment plan, which was devised and 
          12            approved through a coordinated effort 
          13            with our local metropolitan planning 
          14            agency, called for a combination of 
          15            stationary and mobile source controls.  
          16            Among the mobile source controls 
          17            recommended and adopted through the 
          18            state process were stage II vapor 
          19            controls at gasoline dispensing 
          20            facilities and an enhanced 
          21            inspection/maintenance program for 
          22            mobile sources.  A measure which was 
          23            recommended locally but was not adopted 
          24            at the state was a call for clean 
          25            gasoline, defined either as low RVP 


                                                               196
           1            gasoline or the federal reformulated 
           2            gasoline.
           3                    I want to call to your 
           4            attention the adoption of the enhanced 
           5            inspection/maintenance program.  The 
           6            area was officially classified as a 
           7            moderate nonattained area, so the 
           8            enhanced program was not required.  But 
           9            it was recommended by the local 
          10            decision makers, along with the stage 
          11            II vapor control and clean gasoline 
          12            because of the recognition of the 
          13            importance of controlling the mobile 
          14            source emissions.  We felt that unless 
          15            the mobile source sector was adequately 
          16            addressed, attainment could not be 
          17            projected into the future with any room 
          18            at all for growth.  The local decision 
          19            makers very clearly chose those control 
          20            options to preserve public health and 
          21            to allow for growth in the region.  We 
          22            were disappointed when the state chose 
          23            not to implement our recommendation for 
          24            clean gasoline, and we never received a 
          25            formal statement regarding its 


                                                               197
           1            rejection.  This is one of the reasons 
           2            once again we favor a national program 
           3            implemented by EPA. 
           4                    The ozone measures implemented 
           5            have been successful.  We continue to 
           6            measure attainment for the one-hour 
           7            standard.  But the measures have not 
           8            been without their dissenters.  The 
           9            enhanced I/M program has received its 
          10            share of criticism and has been 
          11            adjusted by the state, reducing its 
          12            effectiveness, while presumably 
          13            increasing its public acceptability.  I 
          14            have personally attended several public 
          15            hearings on the program and heard the 
          16            public complaints, among those 
          17            complaints several are common.  
          18            Primarily we hear about emissions from 
          19            vehicles that drive through the region, 
          20            from outside the region, especially 
          21            from other states, and we hear about 
          22            diesel truck emissions.  People feel 
          23            there should be more equity in 
          24            responsibility for emissions controls, 
          25            and the proposal before us today would 


                                                               198
           1            go a long way to meet those stated 
           2            concerns. 
           3                    Now, the Miami Valley has 
           4            within it the crossing of two major 
           5            interstate highways, Interstate 70 
           6            running east and west from the Atlantic 
           7            Ocean all the way to Utah, and 
           8            Interstate 75 running north and south 
           9            from Ontario, Canada to Alligator Alley 
          10            in the Florida Everglades.  These 
          11            highways carry a large amount of 
          12            interstate traffic, cars that are 
          13            likely not a part of an enhanced 
          14            inspection/maintenance program.  Of the 
          15            22 million vehicle miles traveled in 
          16            the Miami Valley each day, 
          17            approximately one-third are on these 
          18            two interstates and I-675 which 
          19            connects the two.  Control of the 
          20            emissions from these vehicles is 
          21            essential to our future. 
          22                    The limitation of sulfur in 
          23            gasoline will greatly enhance the 
          24            control of these highway vehicle 
          25            emissions.  There are several aspects 


                                                               199
           1            of EPA's proposal that I wish to stress 
           2            our support on.  Chief among these is 
           3            the uniform national and year-round 
           4            aspect of the proposal.  As far as 
           5            Interstates 70 and 75 stretch, they 
           6            carry vehicles traveling great 
           7            distances from the east, west, north 
           8            and south.  Localized or regional 
           9            gasoline standards would be limited in 
          10            their effectiveness.  Vehicles 
          11            traveling from one area to another 
          12            could have their catalysts poisoned by 
          13            the high-sulfur content of another 
          14            area.  Likewise, a summer only program 
          15            would have reduced effectiveness with 
          16            off-season poisoning of catalysts.  The 
          17            national year-around aspect of the 
          18            proposal is essential.  And I would add 
          19            that EPA needs to set a schedule for 
          20            attaining the 80 parts per million cap 
          21            and 30 parts per million average as 
          22            aggressively as possible.  The sooner 
          23            these levels are reached, the better 
          24            our air quality. 
          25                    I need to add at this point 


                                                               200
           1            that we are not meeting the new 
           2            eight-hour standard for ozone, which 
           3            was upheld by the court I might add, at 
           4            five of our six counties and just 
           5            recently communicated to Ohio EPA.  We 
           6            have communicated to Ohio EPA our 
           7            recommendation that four of our six 
           8            counties be classified as nonattainment 
           9            for the new eight-hour standard.  Once 
          10            these designations are formalized and 
          11            the area is once again designated 
          12            nonattainment, there will be increased 
          13            attention given to the economic impacts 
          14            of the nonattainment designation and 
          15            there will likely be a renewed call for 
          16            control measures. 
          17                    Additionally, I want to point 
          18            out that ozone is not the only ambient 
          19            air quality standard that will be 
          20            improved through implementation of the 
          21            proposals.  It's my understanding that 
          22            emissions of carbon monoxide and fine 
          23            particulate will be reduced, which 
          24            would in turn, will improve air quality 
          25            with regard to PM fine, toxics and 


                                                               201
           1            regional haze.  I also want to point 
           2            out our endorsement for the Tier 2 
           3            application of the same standards for 
           4            light-duty trucks, sport utility 
           5            vehicles and vans as applies to the 
           6            light-duty vehicles.  This will correct 
           7            inequity that has existed for too long.  
           8            There are many, many benefits from the 
           9            implementation of the proposal before 
          10            us today.  Support for the proposal is 
          11            very easy for a public health official 
          12            such as myself. 
          13                    Finally, and before I conclude, 
          14            I want to offer support for the advance 
          15            notice of public rulemaking with regard 
          16            to sulfur and diesel fuel.  Just to 
          17            relate that back to the two major 
          18            complaints, we hear of cars driving 
          19            through the region and emissions from 
          20            trucks, obviously we need to address 
          21            that.  And so we'll work with you on 
          22            that. 
          23                    In conclusion, I want to offer 
          24            the full support of the Regional Air 
          25            Pollution Control Agency for EPA's 


                                                               202
           1            proposed Tier 2 standards of low-sulfur 
           2            gasoline and the advance notice of 
           3            public rulemaking on sulfur and diesel 
           4            fuels.  We are very pleased with EPA's 
           5            proposal and urge its full adoption. 
           6                    Thank you for this opportunity 
           7            to comment.
           8                    MS. OGE:  Thank you. 
           9                    Mr. Bond, good afternoon.
          10                    MR. BOND:  Good afternoon.  I'm 
          11            Tom Bond, manager of Fuel Technology at 
          12            BP Amoco.  I appreciate this 
          13            opportunity to present our views on 
          14            EPA's Tier 2 and gasoline sulfur 
          15            proposal. 
          16                    BP Amoco commends EPA for its 
          17            efforts to reduce emissions from 
          18            passenger cars, light trucks, including 
          19            sport utility vehicles, minivans and 
          20            pickup trucks.  BP Amoco also agrees 
          21            with EPA that gasoline sulfur levels 
          22            should be reduced to help cut vehicle 
          23            emissions and improve overall air 
          24            quality. 
          25                    We have never disagreed with 


                                                               203
           1            EPA about the goal we are trying to 
           2            reach in terms of lower sulfur 
           3            gasoline, that is 30 ppm average, 80 
           4            ppm cap.  What we need now is to focus 
           5            on how to most effectively implement 
           6            this type of national program.  If done 
           7            correctly, the rule could spur 
           8            development and deployment of more 
           9            fuel-efficient vehicle technology in 
          10            tandem with fuel changes and thus 
          11            improving overall air quality. 
          12                    We believe that by working 
          13            together with the government and the 
          14            auto industry, fuel providers can 
          15            provide customers with products in the 
          16            marketplace that do not require 
          17            consumers to make a choice between 
          18            environmental quality and automotive 
          19            performance.  We have always advocated 
          20            that the vehicle emissions reductions 
          21            must be achieved through a system 
          22            approach, that is looking at both fuel 
          23            changes and changes in vehicle 
          24            emissions hardware and software.  This 
          25            system approach should be our 


                                                               204
           1            collective goal. 
           2                    As many of you know, BP Amoco 
           3            has committed to moving quickly 
           4            worldwide to voluntarily bring cleaner 
           5            fuels to cities with air quality 
           6            programs as outlined in the speech by 
           7            our chief executive John Browne in 
           8            January of this year.  In doing so, BP 
           9            Amoco publicly acknowledged that clean 
          10            air is one of the public's most highly 
          11            regarded resources.  We have already 
          12            introduced cleaner fuels into the 
          13            market in the U.K.  Later this year, we 
          14            will outline our plans for actions in 
          15            the U.S. and other cities around the 
          16            world. 
          17                    Although we can and will take 
          18            some small steps on our own to act 
          19            early, EPA must develop a program that 
          20            recognizes that the transition to 
          21            low-sulfur gasoline on a national basis 
          22            will take time and require considerable 
          23            upgrading of the U.S. total refining 
          24            capacity.  While we applaud EPA's 
          25            efforts to provide incentives for early 


                                                               205
           1            action and flexibility in timing, the 
           2            rule as proposed needs some 
           3            improvements if those goals are to be 
           4            met. 
           5                    Therefore, I would like to 
           6            focus my comments on three areas today 
           7            that we think need improvement, that is 
           8            banking and trading, individual 
           9            refinery treatment, and the permitting 
          10            issue. 
          11                    Banking and trading.  BP Amoco 
          12            supports the concept of banking and 
          13            trading and credit for early action.  
          14            Those have long been the fundamental 
          15            elements of our climate change program.  
          16            A properly designed gasoline sulfur 
          17            banking and trading program can help 
          18            ensure that EPA's environmental 
          19            objectives are achieved at the lowest 
          20            cost by building on the experience of 
          21            other successful training programs such 
          22            as that developed for sulfur dioxide to 
          23            address acid rain concerns. 
          24                    If designed properly, a banking 
          25            and trading program will encourage 


                                                               206
           1            early reductions in gasoline sulfur.  
           2            Such a program also will reward 
           3            technological innovation and help 
           4            facilitate early implementation of new 
           5            refining technologies. 
           6                    We agree with EPA's use of the 
           7            historical baseline to avoid gaming 
           8            with regard to credit generation.  Also 
           9            we commend EPA for seeking to implement 
          10            a banking and trading program as soon 
          11            as possible after the rule is 
          12            finalized, and as a refiner we hope to 
          13            be one of the first companies to 
          14            generate credits in the year 2000.  
          15            However, if EPA is to realize the type 
          16            of flexibility needed to facilitate the 
          17            move to lower sulfur gasoline, 
          18            additional improvements are needed in 
          19            the proposed banking and trading 
          20            program to ensure that adequate 
          21            incentive are available for credit 
          22            generation. 
          23                    The step down in cap and 
          24            measurable average in the years 2004 
          25            and 2006 should be removed.  As 


                                                               207
           1            constructed, it removes the flexibility 
           2            that a credit program seeks to provide 
           3            and forces a more costly implementation 
           4            path. 
           5                    2, the life of credit should be 
           6            extended providing the type of 
           7            transition time that is similar to the 
           8            phase in of the lower emissions 
           9            vehicles. 
          10                    3, consideration should be 
          11            given to allowing credit for the full 
          12            reduction achieved in refinery's 
          13            conventional gasoline average compared 
          14            to its baseline without having to meet 
          15            a trigger point.  Credits should be 
          16            calculated and available for each 
          17            refinery. 
          18                    We will provide additional 
          19            detailed comments on banking and 
          20            trading in our written submission, but 
          21            thought that it would be worthwhile to 
          22            identify early on a few areas for 
          23            additional consideration by EPA. 
          24                    Small refinery issue.  Another 
          25            issue that I believe is worthy of 


                                                               208
           1            further consideration by EPA is the 
           2            special treatment accorded to certain 
           3            small refiners.  We recognize that 
           4            small refineries may face special 
           5            challenges in meeting the proposed 
           6            standard.  That is the reason why we 
           7            have, that we think it essential to 
           8            improve the banking and trading program 
           9            to ensure that there are enough credits 
          10            available to generate and facilitate an 
          11            effective credit market for those who 
          12            cannot act early on this rule. 
          13                    However, in exempting certain 
          14            small refineries from the requirements, 
          15            EPA has disadvantaged other small 
          16            refineries that must compete head to 
          17            head with those who are exempt, thus 
          18            creating a market distortion and 
          19            raising questions about the continued 
          20            viability of some small refineries. 
          21                    Competition in the refining and 
          22            marketing industry is fierce.  Every 
          23            refinery must meet its own financial 
          24            goals on a stand-alone basis regardless 
          25            of its ownership.  Therefore, if a rule 


                                                               209
           1            provides differential treatment based 
           2            on size, all refineries of that 
           3            capacity should be treated the same and 
           4            a level playing field provided on a 
           5            refinery-by-refinery basis.  Refineries 
           6            in the same marketplace with the same 
           7            air quality issues should operate under 
           8            this same set of rules. 
           9                    Permitting challenges.  A third 
          10            area of concern relates to the 
          11            potential impact of various permitting 
          12            requirements on the industry's ability 
          13            to move quickly to meet the proposed 
          14            gasoline sulfur standards.  EPA has 
          15            recognized this concern and we look 
          16            forward to additional discussion on how 
          17            permitting procedures can be 
          18            streamlined, not only with regard to 
          19            meeting that compliance, the compliance 
          20            dates, but also with the goal of 
          21            encouraging early action by refiners.  
          22            BP Amoco urges EPA to develop 
          23            innovative approaches to avoid these 
          24            permitting barriers where possible as 
          25            well as establishing new tools for 


                                                               210
           1            streamlining the permit process. 
           2                    In conclusion, BP Amoco looks 
           3            forward to working with EPA on the most 
           4            reasonable and effective strategy for 
           5            implementing the new controls on 
           6            gasoline sulfur.  Thank you for this 
           7            opportunity.  We will be submitting 
           8            more comments in a written comment 
           9            period on this important rule. 
          10                    Thank you.
          11                    MS. OGE:  Thank you. 
          12                    Ms. Ryder, good afternoon.
          13                    MS. RYDER:  Thank you.  My name 
          14            is Amy Ryder.  I'm the Cleveland area 
          15            director for Ohio Citizen Action.  Ohio 
          16            Citizen Action is the state's largest 
          17            citizens organization with 150,000 
          18            members statewide.  For the past 23 
          19            years we have organized all public 
          20            health and consumers issues on behalf 
          21            of all Ohioans. 
          22                    When people around the country 
          23            hear about the State of Ohio's position 
          24            on air quality, they are often given 
          25            the misconception that Ohioans don't 


                                                               211
           1            care about clean air standards.  In 
           2            fact, the State of Ohio has not 
           3            accurately or fairly represented the 
           4            opinion of its citizens on this issue.  
           5            Elected officials in the Ohio EPA for 
           6            decades have undermined the U.S. EPA's 
           7            and citizens' efforts to get stronger 
           8            air pollution regulations. 
           9                    Recently the State of Ohio 
          10            signed on as a plaintiff in a case to 
          11            roll back the new NOx standards.  The 
          12            Ohio General Assembly also recently 
          13            passed a polluter secrecy law which the 
          14            Ohio EPA strongly enforced which makes 
          15            it virtually impossible for the State 
          16            of Ohio to enforce public health 
          17            standards established under the Clean 
          18            Water Act and the Clean Air Act.  This 
          19            week when we asked the Ohio EPA what 
          20            their position was on the Tier 2 
          21            proposed standards, they responded that 
          22            they didn't have one.
          23                    I'm here to tell you today that 
          24            the behavior and action on the Ohio EPA 
          25            and our elected officials does not 


                                                               212
           1            reflect the attitudes of the public 
           2            when it comes to stronger air quality 
           3            standards.  Ohio Citizen Action 
           4            conducts its public outreach through a 
           5            year-round door-to-door and telephone 
           6            canvass.  Each year statewide our 
           7            door-to-door canvass knocks on over a 
           8            million doors and our telephone canvass 
           9            has an additional 160,000 telephone 
          10            conversations with our members.  When 
          11            we communicate with our members about 
          12            the issues of clean air, clean water 
          13            and safe food, we consistently hear the 
          14            same responses, and that is people want 
          15            cleaner air, they want cleaner water 
          16            and they want safer food to feed their 
          17            families.  
          18                    Last week our organization 
          19            spent some time communicating with some 
          20            of our members about these Tier 2 
          21            standards and we found overwhelming 
          22            support for the new standards that 
          23            would force auto manufacturers to make 
          24            cleaner vehicles and force the oil 
          25            industry to produce cleaner gasoline.  


                                                               213
           1            I brought with me today over 300 
           2            telewires from our members asking that 
           3            these proposed standards go into 
           4            effect.  I'd like to submit them to you 
           5            today to be placed as part of the 
           6            public hearing. 
           7                    Along with the general public, 
           8            Ohio Citizen Action applauds the U.S. 
           9            EPA's efforts to reduce emissions from 
          10            vehicles and reduce sulfur in gasoline.  
          11            I do, however, caution you not to cave 
          12            to industry pressure when they tell you 
          13            they need more time to achieve these 
          14            standards or they lobby for weaker 
          15            standards.  Remember last summer that 
          16            communities across Ohio reported 423 
          17            violations of the smog standards, 
          18            standards that your agency regulates to 
          19            protect our public health. Last week in 
          20            Cleveland we suffered seven ozone 
          21            action days.  These Tier 2 standards 
          22            are a necessity in Ohio and nationwide 
          23            to improve the quality of life by 
          24            enabling people to breathe easier.
          25                    MS. OGE:  Thank you.


                                                               214
           1                    Mr. Levinson, good afternoon.
           2                    MR. LEVINSON:  Good afternoon.  
           3            Thank you.  My name is Eliot Levinson 
           4            and I'm representing the Ohio Lung 
           5            Association of Michigan.  On behalf of 
           6            our Michigan volunteers, the American 
           7            Lung Association of Michigan is pleased 
           8            to offer testimony today at this final 
           9            hearing. 
          10                    Over the last few years in 
          11            Michigan some modest reductions in smog 
          12            pollution have been achieved as 
          13            measured against the old one-hour 
          14            standard.  Nevertheless, as measured 
          15            against the now court demanded new 
          16            eight-hour standard, ozone monitors 
          17            across the state recorded the 1998 smog 
          18            season 123 times that that level was 
          19            exceeded. So far beginning in early May 
          20            of this year monitors have already 
          21            recorded unhealthful levels of ozone 
          22            over 70 times in this smog season. 
          23            Through June 11th in the Detroit 
          24            geographic region alone seven 
          25            consecutive ozone action days were 


                                                               215
           1            recorded going on record as the most 
           2            consecutive ozone action days in air 
           3            quality history of southeast Michigan.  
           4            To date southeast Michigan has had more 
           5            ozone action days than we experienced 
           6            in all of the 1998 ozone season. 
           7                    Based on the results of two 
           8            recent school-based studies on asthma 
           9            prevalence in the city of Detroit, the 
          10            estimated asthma prevalence rate is 
          11            slightly over 17 percent.  That's more 
          12            than three times the national average 
          13            for asthma prevalence rates.  In Wayne 
          14            County where Detroit is seated it's 
          15            estimate that as many as 50,000 
          16            children suffer from asthma.  Also at 
          17            risk from ozone exposure in Wayne 
          18            County is more than 450,000 children 
          19            under the age of 14 and nearly 270,000 
          20            adults over the age of 65.  According 
          21            to a recent American Lung Association 
          22            national study, 22 counties across the 
          23            State of Michigan with more than 
          24            230,000 asthmatics or 907,000 children 
          25            and about 506,000 elderly are 


                                                               216
           1            populations at risk to unhealthy levels 
           2            of ozone.  In only two Michigan 
           3            counties, which includes Wayne County, 
           4            over 123,000 asthmatics, almost 500,000 
           5            children and more than 270,000 are 
           6            populations at risk to particulate 
           7            matter exposures. 
           8                    The ALA's June '96 report 
           9            called Breathless Air Pollution and 
          10            Hospital Admissions Emergency Room 
          11            Visits in 13 Cities attributes the 
          12            number of respiratory emergency room 
          13            visits to Detroit hospitals at an 
          14            estimated average of nearly 3,000, or 
          15            about 6 percent of the total 
          16            respiratory emergency room visits.  Of 
          17            the more than 15,000 total respiratory 
          18            hospital admissions in Detroit during 
          19            the high ozone season of the same year, 
          20            an estimated average of 944 or 6.3 
          21            percent were admitted for exposure to 
          22            high ozone levels. 
          23                    It's readily apparent to the 
          24            American Lung Association and our many 
          25            volunteers and thousands of other 


                                                               217
           1            Michigan residents, including our 
           2            children, the elderly and those who 
           3            suffer from asthma and chronic lung 
           4            disease, that Michigan's air quality is 
           5            presently in a state of relative 
           6            crisis.  Without significant new 
           7            national controls on motor vehicle 
           8            emissions, millions of Americans and 
           9            thousands of Michigan residents will 
          10            continue to breathe unhealthy air.  
          11            Just behind California, Texas and 
          12            Florida, Michigan is the fourth highest 
          13            ranked state that would attain drastic 
          14            NOx reductions if the proposed 
          15            standards are enacted.  A proposed Tier 
          16            2 emissions standard and gasoline 
          17            sulfur standard if enacted would reduce 
          18            Michigan's ozone forming NOx emissions 
          19            level by over 62 thousand tons per year 
          20            helping Michiganians, especially our 
          21            more vulnerable populations, to breathe 
          22            cleaner air while living healthier, 
          23            longer and more productive lives. 
          24                    On June 3rd of this year the 
          25            board officers, many of who are 


                                                               218
           1            prominent physicians of the American 
           2            Lung Association of Michigan, 
           3            unanimously approved the resolution to 
           4            support the proposed Tier 2 and 
           5            gasoline sulfur standards with the 
           6            following recommendations.  Therefore, 
           7            to achieve the greatest long-term air 
           8            quality benefits for the nation, the 
           9            American Lung Association of Michigan 
          10            urges the U.S. EPA to enact the 
          11            strictest Tier 2 standards possible 
          12            that would require the following:  All 
          13            pickup trucks, minivans and sport 
          14            utility vehicles up to 8,500 pounds 
          15            gross vehicle weight to meet the same 
          16            emissions control standards by 2004 as 
          17            would be required for passengers cars. 
          18                    Number 2, eliminating all the 
          19            air pollution exemptions for diesel 
          20            cars, SUVs and pickup trucks and 
          21            requiring them to meet the same strict 
          22            emissions standards as proposed for 
          23            non-diesel vehicles. 
          24                    3, sharply reducing the average 
          25            sulfur level in gasoline to 30 parts 


                                                               219
           1            per million phased in by 2004 and 
           2            requiring the sulfur content of diesel 
           3            fuel to be reduced. 
           4                    And, last, adopting a program 
           5            that becomes more stringent over time 
           6            to ensure cleaner air and stimulated 
           7            advancement of vehicle emissions 
           8            control technologies. 
           9                    In summary, the American Lung 
          10            Association of Michigan representing 
          11            our volunteers and tens of thousands 
          12            who are at risk in our state implores 
          13            the EPA to enact the strongest possible 
          14            tailpipe and sulfur in gasoline 
          15            standards eliminating all diesel 
          16            loopholes.  Most importantly, we urge 
          17            the EPA to finalize these rules by the 
          18            end of this year so that the date for 
          19            the rule to go into effect will not be 
          20            significantly delayed. 
          21                    On behalf of our volunteers, 
          22            thank you for allowing the American 
          23            Lung Association of Michigan to offer 
          24            testimony at this important hearing.  
          25            We thank you, thank the EPA for 


                                                               220
           1            exemplary leadership in cleaning up our 
           2            air and we applaud you for that. 
           3                    Thank you.
           4                    MS. OGE:  Thank you. 
           5                    Ms. Dawn Friest, good 
           6            afternoon.
           7                    MS. FRIEST:  Good afternoon.  
           8            Thank you for the opportunity to speak 
           9            to you today.  My name is Dawn Friest 
          10            and I'm here representing Detroit 
          11            Diesel Corporation, but more 
          12            importantly I'm also here speaking as a 
          13            mom.  My daughter, Kes, is two and a 
          14            half years old. 
          15                    I care about clean air.  I want 
          16            my daughter to grow up in an 
          17            environment as free from pollution as 
          18            possible.  The people I work with share 
          19            my concerns and my goals.  Many of us 
          20            have children.  We believe that the 
          21            Alliance Tier 2 proposal offers the 
          22            best path to achieve this common goal 
          23            of improved air quality.  In fact, the 
          24            Alliance proposal offers greater 
          25            emissions reductions than EPA's 


                                                               221
           1            proposal.
           2                    I have heard many people refer 
           3            to diesel "loopholes" in EPA's proposal 
           4            rule.  Clearly, there are no such 
           5            loopholes in EPA's proposal.  In fact, 
           6            the proposal as it stands today, would 
           7            prevent the use of clean diesels 
           8            technologies.  For some, that would be 
           9            just fine.  But let me explain how 
          10            clean diesel technologies can help us 
          11            reach our common goal of improved air 
          12            quality for our children.
          13                    I'm asking you to set aside the 
          14            images of past generations of diesel 
          15            engines and consider this:  Diesel 
          16            engines emit much lower levels of 
          17            certain critical emissions compared to 
          18            their gasoline counterparts.  Diesel 
          19            engines produce:  28 percent less 
          20            carbon dioxide; 30 percent less 
          21            non-methane hydrocarbons; 69 percent 
          22            less carbon monoxide; and virtually 
          23            zero evaporative emissions. 
          24                    In addition, diesel engines 
          25            provide more miles per gallon than any 


                                                               222
           1            other engine type.  Better fuel economy 
           2            means lower fuel consumption.  When 
           3            less fuel is consumed, emissions of CO2 
           4            are lower and air equality is improved.
           5                    I invite you to take a closer 
           6            look at a new diesel powertrain.  We 
           7            have a sport utility vehicle with us 
           8            today.  It is a Dodge Durango powered 
           9            by a Detroit Diesel DELTA four liter V6 
          10            common rail engine.   The vehicle is 
          11            available for viewing outside the front 
          12            lobby entrance.
          13                    I would like to emphasize that 
          14            we are not asking for different 
          15            standards for diesel-powered vehicles.  
          16            We are committed to meeting the same 
          17            standards as gasoline vehicles.  
          18            However, if EPA fails to consider the 
          19            Alliance proposal and other key inputs 
          20            when finalizing the Tier 2 rule, EPA 
          21            may foreclose the most realistic and 
          22            economically viable opportunity to 
          23            reduce carbon dioxide emissions and 
          24            improve fuel economy. 
          25                    In addition to diesel engine 


                                                               223
           1            technologies, SUVs in particular have 
           2            been portrayed very negatively over the 
           3            course of these hearings.  Consider the 
           4            people in this room alone.  I'm willing 
           5            to bet that at least some of us here 
           6            drive SUVs.  Some may do so because of 
           7            practical needs.  Maybe they tow a boat 
           8            or recreational vehicle.  Others just 
           9            simply like the look and feel of a 
          10            larger vehicle. 
          11                    Consumer demand for these 
          12            vehicles exists for a variety of 
          13            reasons.  I am convinced that despite 
          14            the best efforts of many groups to push 
          15            consumer choices to smaller vehicles, a 
          16            demand will remain for SUVs.  How do we 
          17            deal with this situation in a way that 
          18            maximizes potential air quality 
          19            improvements?  We do so by allowing the 
          20            cleanest available technologies, 
          21            including clean diesel technologies, to 
          22            develop to their full potential.  We do 
          23            not have to sacrifice clean diesel 
          24            technologies to gain air quality 
          25            improvements.


                                                               224
           1                    I would like to mention three 
           2            primary areas of concern with the Tier 
           3            2 proposal.  Number 1, Tier 2 emissions 
           4            standards must be accompanied by 
           5            simultaneous fuel quality improvements, 
           6            reducing diesel fuel sulfur levels to 
           7            the zero to five ppm range.  Fuel 
           8            sulfur directly contributes to 
           9            increased particulate emissions.  In 
          10            addition, fuel sulfur is a barrier for 
          11            identified diesel exhaust 
          12            aftertreatment technologies. 
          13                    2, additional time must be 
          14            allowed to establish the fuel supply 
          15            infrastructure, develop high efficiency 
          16            diesel aftertreatment systems and 
          17            launch a new generation of clean diesel 
          18            powertrains in North America. 
          19                    3, Tier 2 rules must include 
          20            additional BIN flexibility.  This 
          21            involves providing greater BIN 
          22            resolution and implementing only the 
          23            longer 120,000 mile emissions 
          24            standards. 
          25                    Many of us share the same goal 


                                                               225
           1            to achieve the best air quality 
           2            possible for our children.  I wanted to 
           3            speak on behalf of Detroit Diesel today 
           4            because I believe we are on the right 
           5            track.  My interest and concern about 
           6            this issue is grounded in my desire to 
           7            provide the best air quality possible 
           8            for my child. 
           9                    With the considerations 
          10            outlined earlier, diesel engine and 
          11            vehicle makers can bring fuel 
          12            efficient, clean diesel technologies to 
          13            the United States consumers and 
          14            contribute to achieving air quality 
          15            improvements.  Please allow us the 
          16            time, fuel and flexibility to make a 
          17            difference for tomorrow.  Thank you for 
          18            your attention. 
          19                    MS. OGE:  Thank you.
          20                    Mr. Moos, good afternoon.
          21                    MR. MOOS:  Good afternoon.  Hi.  
          22            I'm Jerry Moos.  I'm vice president of 
          23            economics and planning for United 
          24            Refining Company, which operates a 
          25            small 65,000 barrels a day refinery in 


                                                               226
           1            the small town of Warren in rural 
           2            northwest Pennsylvania.  While several 
           3            other speakers, either here today or at 
           4            other locations, have addressed the 
           5            need to make this proposal a little 
           6            more practical and cost-effective for 
           7            the oil industry in general, I would 
           8            like to focus my remarks today on the 
           9            importance of small refiner relieve 
          10            under this proposed rule and the need 
          11            to modify the current small refiner 
          12            provision in the rule to allow it to 
          13            provide real, significant relief. 
          14                    In regard to the small refiner 
          15            provisions of this rule, executives of 
          16            several large oil companies, as well as 
          17            of the American Petroleum Institute, 
          18            which is primarily a representative of 
          19            major oil companies, have been quoted 
          20            recently as calling for a so-called 
          21            level playing field, meaning identical 
          22            treatment of all refiners regardless of 
          23            size.  At the same time, some of these 
          24            same executives have been quoted as 
          25            predicting, almost gleefully on some 


                                                               227
           1            occasions, to shut down between 20 and 
           2            50 small refineries as the direct 
           3            result of the implementation of the 
           4            rule.  These predictions of refinery 
           5            shutdowns are ample evidence that the 
           6            concept of a level playing field with 
           7            United Refining Company or one of our 
           8            small refiners at one end of the field 
           9            and a mammoth combination of oil 
          10            companies such as the recent 
          11            Exxon/Mobile combination, the 
          12            Shell/Texaco merger on the downstream 
          13            operations or the BP/Amoco/ARCO 
          14            combination at the other end of the 
          15            field is patently ridiculous.  
          16            Furthermore, it is clear that even the 
          17            advocates of this policy totally 
          18            understand that a so-called level 
          19            playing field is anything but. 
          20                    The large capital investments 
          21            required to comply with this proposed 
          22            rule, United Refining estimates a $30 
          23            million investment even at our small 
          24            refinery, and by the way this is in 
          25            addition to $70 million that we've 


                                                               228
           1            spent since 1992 on previous 
           2            environmental regulations, are clearly 
           3            more feasible for large companies which 
           4            can fund them from internal cash flow 
           5            than for small refiners like United 
           6            that must borrow the funds.  
           7            Furthermore, should the major oil 
           8            companies choose to finance these 
           9            investments with borrowing, they will 
          10            enjoy a dramatically lower interest 
          11            rate because of their larger size and 
          12            their higher credit ratings.  Finally, 
          13            the entire oil industry recognizes that 
          14            there will be a severe shortage of 
          15            qualified contractors to design, permit 
          16            and construct the required facilities 
          17            by the 2004 deadline.  It is obvious 
          18            that the major oil companies and the 
          19            supermajors born from the frenzied 
          20            merging of majors with one another in 
          21            the last two years will have the clout 
          22            to ensure that their projects are 
          23            completed on time while smaller 
          24            refiners are denied timely access to 
          25            the resources they need to comply with 


                                                               229
           1            the proposed rule. 
           2                    It is precisely the massively 
           3            unlevel playing field when small 
           4            companies must meet the same 
           5            regulations as immense supermajors 
           6            which is recognized by the Small 
           7            Business Regulatory Fairness 
           8            Enforcement Act under which the EPA, 
           9            SBA and OMB met with a panel including 
          10            several small refiners to develop the 
          11            small refiner provision included in the 
          12            current proposed rule.  I believe this 
          13            provision is a useful basis, but there 
          14            are two critical changes needed to make 
          15            this provision effective and fair.  
          16            First, the definition of a small 
          17            refiner as one of the 1500 employees, 
          18            but including all affiliates whether 
          19            engaged in oil refinery or connected 
          20            activities or not, is inappropriate for 
          21            the current rule.  A much better gauge 
          22            of refinery size is crude oil 
          23            processing capacity, both for purposes 
          24            of determining the ability of the 
          25            facility to afford the required 


                                                               230
           1            investment or for purposes of assessing 
           2            whether granting relief to the refinery 
           3            in question will interfere in any 
           4            significant way with the rule's 
           5            environmental goals.  United Refining 
           6            Company and several other small 
           7            refiners have proposed that a small 
           8            refinery be defined as one with 75,000 
           9            barrels per day or less of crude oil 
          10            refining capacity.  If EPA feels that 
          11            for such a definition to be acceptable, 
          12            the total companywide refining capacity 
          13            must also be limited, then United would 
          14            support a proposal by another small 
          15            refiner to limit corporate capacity to 
          16            175,000 barrels per day of crude oil 
          17            which this refiner calculates will 
          18            grant relief to less than seven percent 
          19            of the U.S. crude oil capacity.  We 
          20            estimate the percentage of U.S. 
          21            gasoline production qualifying under 
          22            this definition of a small refiner 
          23            would be even less, almost certainly 
          24            less than five percent. 
          25                    The second critically needed 


                                                               231
           1            change in the currently proposed 
           2            smaller refiner provision is to 
           3            eliminate the counterproductive interim 
           4            sulfur reductions.  While smaller 
           5            refiner would have until 2008 to reduce 
           6            gasoline sulfur to 30 ppm, they would 
           7            currently have to make significant 
           8            interim sulfur reductions by 2004.  
           9            This defeats one of the key purposes of 
          10            the delay until 2008 for small 
          11            refiners, which was to allow small 
          12            refiners time to adopt promising but as 
          13            yet unproven new technologies which 
          14            would achieve the reduction of 
          15            significantly lower investment as well 
          16            as much lower operating costs.  Interim 
          17            reductions by 2004 would have to employ 
          18            expensive current technologies which 
          19            several small refiners cannot afford 
          20            and which even if they could afford 
          21            them would force them to compete with 
          22            supermajors for scarce contractor 
          23            services. 
          24                    Effective smaller refiner 
          25            relief is essential to the survival of 


                                                               232
           1            the nation's small refiners.  There is 
           2            much more at stake in our survival than 
           3            our stockholders' investments or 
           4            management's careers.  Most small 
           5            refineries still exist precisely 
           6            because we are located in rural areas 
           7            which are not easily supplied by the 
           8            huge refineries operated near major 
           9            population centers by the majors and 
          10            supermajors.  We, therefore, often 
          11            operate in small rural towns where we 
          12            are one of the few, often the only, 
          13            source of high-wage industrial jobs.  
          14            The shutdown of small refineries, 
          15            therefore, not only imposes hardship 
          16            upon employees unlikely to find 
          17            comparable employment and on their 
          18            families, but devastates the entire 
          19            local economy. 
          20                    A number of speakers today have 
          21            spoken about the fact that $200 per 
          22            vehicle is a small price to pay for 
          23            clean air.  I'd like them to consider 
          24            that the cost that could be imposed 
          25            upon a few thousand or perhaps a couple 


                                                               233
           1            tens of thousands of employees of small 
           2            refineries around the country is a lot 
           3            higher.  They are threatened with the 
           4            loss of their jobs, the loss of their 
           5            careers, the devastation of their local 
           6            economies.  And I think most of this 
           7            could be avoided simply by effective 
           8            relief for a group of small refineries 
           9            which represents in any case probably 
          10            no more than five percent of the total 
          11            gasoline production in the United 
          12            States and would have negligible impact 
          13            upon the environmental objectives of 
          14            this rule. 
          15                    On a national scale, there is a 
          16            broader public interest in preserving  
          17            small refineries.  Ever since the 
          18            elimination of lead from gasoline in 
          19            the early 1980s, the major oil 
          20            companies and trade associations which 
          21            represent them, I would like to 
          22            reiterate the American Petroleum 
          23            Institute is primarily the 
          24            representative of the major oil 
          25            companies, does not represent us or in 


                                                               234
           1            any real way the other smaller 
           2            refiners.  These associations and major 
           3            oil companies have consistently since 
           4            the early 1980s overpredicted the cost 
           5            to the public of each new environmental 
           6            regulation imposed on the industry.  
           7            There is clear reason why these 
           8            overpredictions have been made.  It's 
           9            that each time the major oil companies 
          10            have predicted that the full cost of 
          11            investment and operating expenses for 
          12            implementing the rule would be born by 
          13            the public in the form of higher fuel 
          14            prices.  The reason that these 
          15            predictions have been consistently 
          16            wrong is that the small refiners have 
          17            continued to exist and coupled with 
          18            excess capacity in the refining 
          19            industry have exerted enough 
          20            competition in the marketplace, the 
          21            major oil companies have each time been 
          22            forced to absorb a significant 
          23            proportion of the cost rather than pass 
          24            it along to the public.  However, 
          25            without effective small refiner relief, 


                                                               235
           1            the situation may now be fundamentally 
           2            different with this proposed rule.  The 
           3            last 20 years of environmental 
           4            regulations have now almost entirely 
           5            eliminated the excess capacity in the 
           6            U.S. refining industry.  This is 
           7            evidenced by the fact that for several 
           8            weeks of the last year during the peak 
           9            driving season the industry was 
          10            operating at more than 100 percent 
          11            capacity, that is to say at a 
          12            nonsustainable rate.  In this situation 
          13            the approximate one million barrels per 
          14            day of capacity operated by small 
          15            refiners, though a small percentage of 
          16            the approximate 15 million barrel U.S. 
          17            refining capacity represents the 
          18            difference between adequate supply and 
          19            shortage and its elimination would give 
          20            the major oil companies their first 
          21            real opportunity in 20 years to 
          22            actually pass along to the public the 
          23            full cost of new regulations.  That is 
          24            why they are opposing effective small 
          25            refiner relief while gleefully 


                                                               236
           1            predicting the widespread refinery 
           2            shutdowns in which lack of effective 
           3            relief will certainly result. 
           4                    Thank you.
           5                    MS. OGE:  Thank you.
           6                    Mr. Bond, thank you for your 
           7            testimony.  As you know, the American 
           8            Petroleum Institute has recommended a 
           9            regional program and we at EPA have 
          10            proposed a national program of 30 parts 
          11            per million average.  What is BP 
          12            Amoco's position on the geographic type 
          13            of a program that should be, that they 
          14            just should go forward?
          15                    MR. BOND:  Well, as you know, 
          16            and you mentioned now, you, EPA, have 
          17            proposed a national program and our 
          18            comments today were trying to help you 
          19            best implement that program relative to 
          20            a regional program.
          21                    MS. OGE:  So is your company 
          22            supporting a national program?
          23                    MR. BOND:  I guess you could 
          24            read that.
          25                    MS. OGE:  So I read that for 


                                                               237
           1            the record. 
           2                    The second question, Mr. Bond, 
           3            I understand that BP has made a lot of 
           4            efforts in the area of diesel, 
           5            especially in England.  Could you 
           6            briefly tell us what are you doing in 
           7            England as far as diesel fuel is 
           8            concerned?  Specifically keep your 
           9            comments to the sulfur changes.?
          10                    MR. BOND:  Well, there was a 
          11            need for fuel in that market and that 
          12            is our home market and there was an 
          13            opportunity to respond and we found our 
          14            local refining capacity was capable of 
          15            responding to that with only a small 
          16            investment, and I think as most of you 
          17            noted and have studied that area there 
          18            was a significant tax incentive to 
          19            bring that to market also.  So the 
          20            ability to move quick, having two 
          21            refineries that had a favorable kit on 
          22            the ground that did not need a lot of 
          23            capital investment, we were able to 
          24            take advantage of that opportunity.  
          25            And, you know, around the world we are 


                                                               238
           1            looking at, as you know, the lead issue 
           2            in other undeveloped countries.
           3                    MS. OGE:  But could you 
           4            specifically tell us what is your 
           5            target level for sulfur in diesel in 
           6            England?
           7                    MR. BOND:  We are very close to 
           8            less than ten.
           9                    MS. OGE:  Parts per million.  
          10            Thank you.
          11                    MR. BOND:  I have to comment on 
          12            that though.
          13                    MS. OGE:  Please go ahead.
          14                    MR. BOND:  That bringing, 
          15            looking at a total refinery, when you 
          16            get down to those levels, it's very 
          17            easy to get contamination.  We are 
          18            talking -- so you must keep that in 
          19            mind.  We are able to segregate in that 
          20            market and do it, but it's tough.
          21                    MS. OGE:  We obviously are 
          22            interested in seeking written comments 
          23            from BP Amoco on the issue.  As you 
          24            know, we have published an advance 
          25            notice for the proposed rulemaking for 


                                                               239
           1            the diesel fuel program and we are very 
           2            interested to understand your 
           3            experience with the work that you are 
           4            doing in England.
           5                    Ms. Friest, thank you for your 
           6            comments.
           7                    MR. BOND:  Could I add one more 
           8            comment?
           9                    MS. OGE:  Yes.
          10                    MR. BOND:  It should be made on 
          11            the record here, I'm pretty sure that 
          12            you people here understand that, the 
          13            entire European refining capacity is 
          14            based on hydrocrackers which make a lot 
          15            of diesel and they take sulfur out in 
          16            doing that.  The entire U.S. refining 
          17            capacity is based on FCC units and that 
          18            is a major difference.  We are designed 
          19            to make gasoline in this market, not 
          20            diesel.  And so that is why in my 
          21            testimony I indicated that we've got -- 
          22            we want to get the whole industry 
          23            moving, but we got to be careful how we 
          24            do it.
          25                    MS. OGE:  That's a very good 


                                                               240
           1            point.  Thank you.  Any more comments 
           2            before I go to Ms. Friest, Mr. Bond?  
           3            No.  Okay.  Thank you.
           4                    Ms. Friest, that you for your 
           5            statement and the comments.  We have 
           6            heard throughout these public hearings 
           7            some different views from the diesel 
           8            engine companies as what is feasible, 
           9            technologically feasible to be achieved 
          10            by diesel engines let's say in 2007, 
          11            2008 time frame.  If we indeed provide 
          12            the cleaner fuel that you suggested 
          13            that you need, the five parts per 
          14            million, could you please tell us what 
          15            does Detroit Diesel believe the 
          16            technical feasibility will be for these 
          17            diesel engines assuming that the fuel 
          18            is there?  And I'm talking about 
          19            light-duty market now.  And we have 
          20            proposed 0.07 grams per mile of NOx.
          21                    MS. FRIEST:  I'm not sure I can 
          22            give you the detail that you want, but 
          23            I can try and address what I'm hearing 
          24            from you.  Part of the reason I think 
          25            that you are hearing, you know, some 


                                                               241
           1            differences among manufacturers 
           2            reflects the infancy of the technology.  
           3            It reflects the long way that we have 
           4            to go and the further out.  The farther 
           5            away you are from your goal, I think 
           6            you are bound to get differences among 
           7            different people at different levels.
           8                    MS. OGE:  Okay.  And I'm 
           9            looking for Detroit Diesel.  You have 
          10            recommended the five parts per million 
          11            diesel fuel.  My question is what type 
          12            of emissions standards you can meet 
          13            with five parts per million diesel 
          14            fuel?
          15                    MS. FRIEST:  With the five 
          16            parts per million with advanced 
          17            aftertreatment technologies, with 
          18            flexibility in the BINS, we are looking 
          19            at the Alliance proposal as being a 
          20            goal that we are hoping we can achieve, 
          21            but it's a stretch goal.
          22                    MS. OGE:   Okay.  So your goal 
          23            is 0.07 grams per mile?
          24                    MS. FRIEST:  We are looking at 
          25            the BIN proposal from the Alliance.


                                                               242
           1                    MS. OGE:  So is it .4?  I'm 
           2            just trying to figure out exactly.  If 
           3            we were to deliver this cleaner fuel 
           4            that Detroit Diesel has suggested, what 
           5            type of emissions reductions Detroit 
           6            Diesel would deliver?
           7                    MS. FRIEST:  I can't give you 
           8            an exact number.  What I can say is 
           9            what I've already said in my comments 
          10            from Detroit Diesel is that the 
          11            Alliance proposal offers an alternate 
          12            frame work that we believe we can work 
          13            with to get diesel engines where they 
          14            need to be to be on par with gasoline 
          15            engines.
          16                    MS. OGE:  Ms. Friest, I would 
          17            welcome any supplemental information 
          18            that you may want to provide for the 
          19            record on this specific issue.
          20                    Thank you. 
          21                    Any other questions from this 
          22            panel? 
          23                    Well, thank you very much.  
          24            Thank you for taking the time to come 
          25            and share your views with us.  We'll 


                                                               243
           1            take your comments into consideration 
           2            as we are moving forward to finalize 
           3            this very important program.  Thank 
           4            you.
           5                    I would like to move forward 
           6            with the next group.  I guess Miss Lana 
           7            Pollack or Mr. David Wright. 
           8                    Why don't we just take a few 
           9            minutes to straight -- our recorder has 
          10            been working very hard this morning and 
          11            this afternoon.  I think she needs a 
          12            break.
          13                         -  -  -  -
          14               (Thereupon, a recess was had.)
          15                         -  -  -  -
          16                    MS. OGE:  Start with the 3:00.  
          17            Ms. Jennifer Price, Mr. Bob Morgan, Mr. 
          18            Kurt Waltzer and Mr. Bradley Flamm.  
          19            Please print your names in the card in 
          20            front of you.  Would ask you to keep 
          21            your statements to ten minutes or less. 
          22                    If it's okay in with this 
          23            panel, I would like to start with Mr. 
          24            Bradley Flamm.  I understand he has 
          25            another appointment.  Go ahead.  Good 


                                                               244
           1            afternoon.
           2                    MR. FLAMM:  Good afternoon.  
           3            Thank you very much.  Thank you for the 
           4            opportunity to speak today on the U.S. 
           5            EPA's proposed new automobile emissions 
           6            standards and low sulfur gasoline 
           7            rules.  My name is Bradley Flamm and 
           8            I'm here today representing EcoCity 
           9            Cleveland and Northeast Ohio 
          10            Environmental Planning Organization.  
          11            EcoCity Cleveland supports the proposed 
          12            new auto emissions standards and low 
          13            sulfur gasoline rules.  Good health and 
          14            a clean environment for all Americans 
          15            depend in large part on making 
          16            automobile emissions as clean as 
          17            possible.
          18                    These proposals are an 
          19            important step in the right direction.  
          20            In the short run, in fact, these 
          21            proposals seem to be the only step that 
          22            we can take to improve air quality.  
          23            Expected improvements to the air most 
          24            urban Americans breathe are not 
          25            occurring, despite the fact that cars 


                                                               245
           1            have become much cleaner in recent 
           2            decades.  Why; because our collective 
           3            response to cleaner cars has simply 
           4            been to increase the number of miles we 
           5            drive every day overwhelming the 
           6            benefits of cleaner fuels and vehicles.
           7                    In Ohio we have shown ourselves 
           8            to be unable to address this relentless 
           9            rise in average vehicle miles traveled.  
          10            We apparently will not plan our 
          11            transportation investments and land 
          12            uses with a regional perspective in 
          13            mind that emphasizes efficiency and 
          14            sustainability.
          15                    Consequently, we find ourselves 
          16            incapable of creating communities that 
          17            offer true transportation alternatives 
          18            and require less driving.  In the long 
          19            run, one of the most important 
          20            solutions to our air-quality problems 
          21            is to promote better urban design that 
          22            links transportation investments with 
          23            wise land use planning.
          24                    Until then, closing the 
          25            loopholes that allows sport utility 


                                                               246
           1            vehicles, light trucks and minivans to 
           2            pollute our air at much higher rates 
           3            than automobiles is the only realistic 
           4            response available to us.
           5                    Even these proposals, however, 
           6            could be much better.  While we support 
           7            the intent of the EPA's proposals for 
           8            cleaner emissions vehicles and lower 
           9            sulfur gasoline, we share other groups' 
          10            and individuals' concerns that the 
          11            following revisions to them be made 
          12            before they go into effect.  The 
          13            largest most polluting sport utility 
          14            vehicles should not be exempted from 
          15            the clean air emissions standards.
          16                    SUVs, light trucks, utility 
          17            vans used primarily as passenger 
          18            vehicles should meet the same standards 
          19            at the same time.  The phase-in 
          20            schedule for making SUV emissions 
          21            cleaner is much longer than it needs to 
          22            be and should be shortened as much as 
          23            is technically feasible.  The exemption 
          24            of diesel vehicles from the clean air 
          25            emissions standards should also be 


                                                               247
           1            eliminated.  They should not be allowed 
           2            to continue polluting more than 
           3            gasoline-powered cars and trucks.  And 
           4            finally, the phasing period for 
           5            low-sulfur gasolines is too long and 
           6            should also be shortened.
           7                    Thank you again for your time 
           8            and attention.
           9                    MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Ms. 
          10            Pollack, good afternoon.
          11                    MS. POLLACK:  Good afternoon.
          12                    MS. OGE:  If you could please 
          13            speak closer to the microphone.  Thank 
          14            you.
          15                    MS. POLLACK:  Thank you, Madame 
          16            Chair and members of the panel, my name 
          17            is Lana Pollack.  I'm the president of 
          18            the Michigan Environmental Council, the 
          19            coalition of 53 different organizations 
          20            representing 175,000 individuals in 
          21            Michigan.  And on behalf of those 
          22            member organizations and the citizens 
          23            who cannot be here today, I would like 
          24            to submit that we do indeed support, in 
          25            general, the proposed rules.  We will 


                                                               248
           1            be submitting more detailed comments 
           2            towards the end of the comment period.
           3                    Having served 12 years in the 
           4            Michigan state legislature and having 
           5            spent many more years beyond that in 
           6            politics, I'm fully aware that the 
           7            challenges that you are facing here in 
           8            the matter of clean and healthy air are 
           9            at least as political as they are 
          10            technological engineering or economic 
          11            in nature.  And I think that's 
          12            important to recognize.
          13                    I'd also like to point out that 
          14            all of us in Michigan are particularly 
          15            sensitive to the well-being of the 
          16            domestic auto industry.  Our state's 
          17            economy, our family's income and indeed 
          18            the capacity to fund our universities, 
          19            our prisons, our public safety, our 
          20            public health is all dependant on the 
          21            well-being of the auto industry.
          22                    With that said, there is 
          23            nothing in Tier 2 in your proposal, 
          24            fairly applied, would compromise the 
          25            economic viability of this industry or 


                                                               249
           1            the economic well-being of our state.  
           2            We've already heard, and I will not, 
           3            therefore, repeat from Mr. Levinsohn of 
           4            the American Lung Association, of the 
           5            significant impact of poor air quality, 
           6            that has on the lives of our families, 
           7            particularly some populations.
           8                    I was shocked to hear that a 
           9            representative on an earlier panel said 
          10            the black caucus of the legislature in 
          11            the State of Ohio was not in support of 
          12            this when I know full well the impact 
          13            on the black population.  I would like 
          14            to see that more fully developed via 
          15            better discussion of representatives 
          16            and not be compromised perhaps by also 
          17            representing an industry that is 
          18            impacted.
          19                    Additional air pollution 
          20            reductions are needed from on-road 
          21            mobile sources to protect the public 
          22            health from ground level ozone.  And we 
          23            know that and it has been said 
          24            repeatedly today that these are sources 
          25            of significant impact.  This is why the 


                                                               250
           1            MEC, my organization, would also like 
           2            the EPA to complete the phase out of 
           3            the equivalent standards for sport 
           4            utility vehicles, minivans and light 
           5            mini trucks prior to 2009, as currently 
           6            proposed.  These vehicles are currently 
           7            being marketed and used, aggressively 
           8            marketed, in fact, as passenger cars 
           9            and are outselling passenger cars.
          10                    As pointed out by the EPA under 
          11            Tier 1 standards, these vehicles are 
          12            allowed to pollute from three to five 
          13            times more than passenger cars.  And 
          14            while we are pleased, even delighted, 
          15            that the alliance auto manufacturers, 
          16            which does, I believe, represent all 
          17            auto manufacturers, except perhaps for 
          18            Honda, which has even higher standards 
          19            for itself, that they have endorsed the 
          20            goals of Tier 2.  We in the 
          21            environmental community will be alert 
          22            to any results, any requests by the 
          23            industry to delay implementation of 
          24            these goals.
          25                    We remind the panel, all 


                                                               251
           1            interested parties, the long history 
           2            that the industry has, all industries, 
           3            in fact, have, saying it can't be done 
           4            when confronted with additional 
           5            regulatory requests for improvements.  
           6            Whether it's the chemical industry, 
           7            whether it's auto industry, with clean 
           8            air, in the past they said it couldn't 
           9            be done.  Always it has been done.  
          10            It's been done with considerable 
          11            ingenuity, American genius, even to 
          12            adjust to new challenges and done with 
          13            the result of resulting prosperity to 
          14            our economy around our country.
          15                    So in closing, once again, I 
          16            would like to thank you.  And I'd like 
          17            to also state that never in my long 
          18            experience with legislative panels, and 
          19            other panels as well, as in taking 
          20            testimony, have I ever seen a more 
          21            attentive and more courteous chair and 
          22            panel.  I think your mother's would be 
          23            proud of you.
          24                    MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Maybe my 
          25            18 and 20-year-old daughters would be 


                                                               252
           1            proud of me.
           2                    MS. POLLACK:  They should be.
           3                    MS. OGE:  Thank you for your 
           4            kind remarks.
           5                    Mr. Wright, good afternoon.
           6                    MR. WRIGHT:  Good afternoon.  
           7            My name is David Wright and I'm a 
           8            policy specialist with the Michigan 
           9            Environmental Council.  I'm a 
          10            mechanical engineer.  And prior to 
          11            joining the Michigan Environmental 
          12            Council, I worked for 12 years in the 
          13            industry on the evaluation, development 
          14            and testing of automotive emissions 
          15            control systems.  I am pleased to 
          16            testify in support of the proposed Tier 
          17            2 and low sulfur gasoline regulations 
          18            on behalf of our member organizations.
          19                    Today, I want to emphasize our 
          20            agreement with support of the comments 
          21            provided at today's hearing by Jayne 
          22            Mardock, director of the Clean Air 
          23            Network.  The Michigan Environmental 
          24            council supports the integrated 
          25            approach taken by EPA to address both 


                                                               253
           1            vehicle emissions and dual composition 
           2            engines.
           3                    In addressing the effects of 
           4            sulfur on emissions control system's 
           5            performance will provide immediate air 
           6            quality control benefits and improve 
           7            the performance of future advanced 
           8            emissions control technology.  Our 
           9            organization is pleased that EPA will 
          10            ultimately require both light-duty 
          11            trucks and passenger cars to meet the 
          12            same emissions standards.  Our 
          13            organization is also pleased the EPA 
          14            has not proposing a different set of 
          15            standards for diesel fuel vehicles.
          16                    In addition, we believe that 
          17            the proposed rule can and should be 
          18            strengthened.  EPA is allowing too much 
          19            time for the heaviest trucks to meet 
          20            the proposed Tier 2 standard.  Vehicles 
          21            between 6,000 and 8,500 pounds are one 
          22            of the fastest growing market segments.  
          23            Sales of these vehicles have increased 
          24            dramatically during the past decade.  
          25            Reducing emissions from these vehicles 


                                                               254
           1            will be a challenge.  However, waiting 
           2            a decade is too long.  These vehicles 
           3            need to be fully integrated into the 
           4            Tier 2 program by 2007.
           5                    Although we support the concept 
           6            of a fleet average, we do not believe 
           7            the manufacturers should be able to 
           8            carry a deficit into the next model 
           9            year.  Sufficient flexibility exists 
          10            with this rule that allows for banking 
          11            and trading with other manufacturers.  
          12            EPA should prohibit a manufacturer from 
          13            carrying a deficit in the fleet average 
          14            into the following year.  This is 
          15            important to insure improvements in air 
          16            quality continue yearly into the Tier 2 
          17            program.
          18                    The phase-in period for 
          19            reducing the sulfur concentrations is 
          20            also too long.  Sulfur can permanently 
          21            degrade performance of catalysts.  
          22            Reducing sulfur will provide 
          23            significant immediate benefits in air 
          24            quality by not degrading emissions 
          25            controls on current technology 


                                                               255
           1            vehicles.
           2                    The impact becomes even more 
           3            significant as advanced technology 
           4            vehicles are introduced into the 
           5            market.
           6                    In conclusion, the Michigan 
           7            Environmental Council supports the 
           8            strong position the EPA has taken with 
           9            this proposal.  The organization is 
          10            pleased that the EPA is meeting its 
          11            responsibilities to improve public 
          12            health and the environment.  Overall, 
          13            this rule will result in cost-effective 
          14            air pollution reductions.
          15                    On behalf of the Michigan 
          16            Environmental Council and our members, 
          17            thank you for giving me the opportunity 
          18            to express our support of the proposed 
          19            Tier 2 regulation.
          20                    MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Ms. 
          21            Price, good afternoon.
          22                    MS. PRICE:  Good afternoon.  
          23            Again, my name is Jennifer Price and 
          24            I'm the director of public affairs for 
          25            the American Lung Association of Ohio.  


                                                               256
           1            And although I realize that we have 
           2            some time constraints here today, I 
           3            have to stray from my prepared comments 
           4            for a moment and I have to come clean.  
           5            I drive a SUV.  I, being a new mom, 
           6            thought I was buying a station wagon of 
           7            the '90s.  I even bought American, like 
           8            many other Americans, though I never 
           9            realized that SUVs were exempted from 
          10            any clean air standards.  And I have to 
          11            admit that I would like to buy another 
          12            SUV, but I want it to be as clean as 
          13            other passenger vehicles.  The American 
          14            Lung Association of Ohio applauds EPA's 
          15            Tier 2 and low sulfur gas proposal as a 
          16            most important measure for protecting 
          17            public health since the issuance of the 
          18            new national ambient air quality 
          19            standards for ozone and particulate 
          20            matter.
          21                    The EPA estimates that these 
          22            new rules will significantly reduce the 
          23            amount of air pollution.  Most 
          24            important to the American Lung 
          25            Association of Ohio is that cleaner 


                                                               257
           1            cars and trucks and cleaner gasoline 
           2            will help save lives and reduce 
           3            illness.
           4                    Here in Ohio, these new rules 
           5            will help the hundreds of thousands of 
           6            people who suffer from chronic lung 
           7            disease.  Without question, air 
           8            pollution exacerbates the symptoms of 
           9            lung disease.  Lung diseases such as 
          10            lung cancer, emphysema, chronic 
          11            bronchitis and asthma.  The coughing 
          12            becomes louder, the wheezing becomes 
          13            deeper and the breathing becomes 
          14            harder.
          15                    Of particular concern to us is 
          16            the growing prevalence of asthma in 
          17            Ohio.  More than 400,000 adults have 
          18            asthma and another 200,000 of Ohio's 
          19            children suffer from this disease.  
          20            This disease is not a simple 
          21            inconvenience.  Asthma is deadly and 
          22            asthma attacks can and are triggered by 
          23            air pollution.  Though air pollution 
          24            affects all asthma sufferers, children 
          25            with asthma are at greatest risk when 


                                                               258
           1            exposed to ozone because their airways 
           2            are especially sensitive to this potent 
           3            lung irritant.
           4                    Take a moment to consider what 
           5            dirty air means to an Ohio family.  
           6            Begin by considering the financial 
           7            ramifications of one trip to an 
           8            emergency room when a child has an 
           9            asthma attack.  First there's the 
          10            emergency room charge, then there's the 
          11            pharmaceutical charges, not to mention 
          12            the lost work time of the parent.
          13                    Next, consider the other costs 
          14            associated with an asthma attack.  The 
          15            cost of the resulting, the cost of the 
          16            permanent lung damage, the emotional 
          17            trauma to the child and the stress to 
          18            the family.  Simply watching a child 
          19            suffocating from a lack of fresh air is 
          20            frightening to an onlooker let alone 
          21            the young child who's experiencing it.  
          22            How strange it must be to an asthmatic 
          23            child riding along in the family car, 
          24            watching black clouds of diesel blow 
          25            out of trucks, knowing the sick, black 


                                                               259
           1            smoke can trigger an asthma attack at 
           2            any time.
           3                    Ozone does not discriminate.  
           4            However, children are at particular 
           5            risk of ill health effects from ozone.  
           6            Even healthy children.  They spend more 
           7            time outdoors in the summertime when 
           8            the ozone levels are high.  They spend 
           9            more time engaged in vigorous activity 
          10            thereby increasing the amount of ozone 
          11            inhaled deep into their lungs, and 
          12            likewise, they've taken more air 
          13            relative to their body weights and 
          14            lungs surface than do adults.  Because 
          15            their lungs are still developing, their 
          16            biological defenses against pollution 
          17            are not fully mature and their airways 
          18            are narrower than those of adults, thus 
          19            enhancing the inflammatory effects of 
          20            ozone air pollution.  Unfortunately, 
          21            Ohio's children by design are greatly 
          22            susceptible to the dangers of ozone.
          23                    As I said before, ozone does 
          24            not discriminate.  Ohio senior citizens 
          25            are also at significant risk of the 


                                                               260
           1            dangers of dirty air.  Senior citizens 
           2            tend to be frail and weaker than they 
           3            once were.  They are more vulnerable to 
           4            infections, raising their 
           5            susceptibility to pneumonia and 
           6            influenza because of a degree of 
           7            declining lung function as part of the 
           8            natural aging process.  The elderly 
           9            have fewer reserves and, therefore, may 
          10            be less able to tolerate additional 
          11            declines among functions forming from 
          12            air pollution.
          13                    A number of epidemiological 
          14            studies have linked air pollution with 
          15            premature death and hospital admissions 
          16            for cardiovascular and respiratory 
          17            problems in the elderly.  The elderly 
          18            population constitutes the fastest 
          19            growing portion of our population.
          20                    The American Lung Association 
          21            of Ohio commissioned a poll to measure 
          22            the public opinion of American's 
          23            heartland on their concerns of air 
          24            pollution.  The results were 
          25            overwhelming.  More than eight of ten 


                                                               261
           1            respondents, 83 percent, voiced concern 
           2            about the impact of poor air quality on 
           3            their health.  The survey also revealed 
           4            that Ohioans support a number of 
           5            measures that can help clean up the 
           6            air.  Nearly 90 percent of those 
           7            surveyed would buy and use cleaner gas 
           8            in their personal cars.  Likewise, 88 
           9            percent would pay more for cleaner gas.  
          10            These respondents were willing to pay 
          11            at least three cents more per gallon of 
          12            gas.
          13                    Most of the respondents, 61 
          14            percent, were willing to pay at least 
          15            five cents more per gallon of gas and 
          16            another 27 percent would pay ten cents 
          17            or more per gallon of gas if it meant 
          18            it would protect public health.
          19                    It's simple.  Ohioans want 
          20            cleaner cars and trucks and they want 
          21            cleaner gasoline.  The EPA should 
          22            require auto makers and oil refineries 
          23            to give the people of Ohio what they 
          24            want.  While we support the majority of 
          25            this proposal, we urge you to consider 


                                                               262
           1            the recommendations which will expedite 
           2            the reduction of public health.  We 
           3            encourage you to reduce the timeline 
           4            phase-in for both cars and fuel 
           5            standards and the special treatment for 
           6            some type of sport utility vehicles and 
           7            the promotion of diesels through higher 
           8            standards and to promote the use of 
           9            advanced technology vehicles as a way 
          10            to reduce air pollution.
          11                    I thank you for allowing me an 
          12            opportunity to come before you today.  
          13            This proposed standard takes major 
          14            strides for protecting the health of 
          15            Ohio citizens.  Ohio's children should 
          16            not be forced to stay indoors as a 
          17            result of dirty air.  We need cleaner 
          18            air for our kids.  They should be 
          19            spending more time at the neighborhood 
          20            swimming pool this summer.  I'm also 
          21            attaching a copy of the top line data 
          22            from that Ohio poll.
          23                    MS. OGE:  Thank you.
          24                    Mr. Morgan, good afternoon.
          25                    MR. MORGAN:  Good afternoon.


                                                               263
           1                    MS. OGE:  And welcome back.
           2                    MR. MORGAN:  Thank you.
           3                    MS. OGE:  If you could speak 
           4            directly into the microphone.  Thank 
           5            you.
           6                    MR. MORGAN:  Good afternoon.  
           7            I'm Bob Morgan representing Placid 
           8            Refining Company, L.L.C.  thank you for 
           9            the opportunity to once again address 
          10            the subject of Tier 2 from the small 
          11            refiners' perspective.
          12                    Placid is a small refiner by 
          13            every statutory definition, with the 
          14            capacity of 50,000 barrels per day, or 
          15            refining capacity of 50,000 barrels per 
          16            day.  Placid's refinery is in Port 
          17            Allen, Louisiana, directly across the 
          18            Mississippi River from Exxon's 432,000 
          19            barrel Baton Rouge facility.
          20                    Placid manufactures gasoline, 
          21            diesel and military jet fuel, which is 
          22            distributed through terminals in six 
          23            southeastern states.  The great 
          24            majority of our gasoline is marketed in 
          25            the U.S. Gulf Coast Petroleum 


                                                               264
           1            Administration for Defense District 3, 
           2            which is dominated by large refiners.
           3                    As you must know, the number of 
           4            small refiners has declined 
           5            substantially over the last few years 
           6            and the impact of any regulation has a 
           7            disproportional economic significance, 
           8            as Mr. Moos pointed out earlier.
           9                    Regulatory flexibility is of 
          10            utmost importance to small business.  
          11            More particularly, to the viability of 
          12            small refiners.  The Small Business 
          13            Regulatory and Flexibility Act clearly 
          14            expresses the will of Congress that 
          15            administrative agencies to accommodate 
          16            concerns of small business, recognizing 
          17            that, quote, a vibrant and growing 
          18            small business sector is critical in 
          19            creating jobs in a dynamic economy, 
          20            close quote.
          21                    SBREFA has provided an 
          22            effective vehicle for comment.  We are 
          23            pleased with the SBREFA process and the 
          24            opportunity it has afforded to us to 
          25            present information helpful to EPA in 


                                                               265
           1            formulating the implementation of this 
           2            proposed rule.  We appreciate EPA's 
           3            attention to our concerns and the 
           4            information we provided in support of 
           5            our position.
           6                    We're especially grateful to 
           7            this group of panel members who went to 
           8            great lengths to educate themselves 
           9            firsthand in the operational and 
          10            logistical concerns common to small 
          11            refiners.  We're also indebted to 
          12            Frontier Refining Company, which opened 
          13            its facility to the panel for a 
          14            firsthand view of the operation.
          15                    The SBREFA report recognizes 
          16            and succinctly addresses the concerns 
          17            of small refineries in general.  The 
          18            EPA has perceptively incorporated the 
          19            SBREFA findings in the proposed rule.  
          20            Specifically, to recognize the problems 
          21            that affect the economy of scale, the 
          22            access to capital, capital recovery 
          23            potential, access to technology and the 
          24            availability of the drilling supplier.
          25                    Although Placid and small 


                                                               266
           1            refineries in general would prefer even 
           2            greater flexibility than that proposed, 
           3            we're confident that the proposed 
           4            standard will allow us to continue to 
           5            operate, although at substantially 
           6            higher costs.  Any further weakening of 
           7            the flexible implementation proposed by 
           8            EPA will pose a serious threat to the 
           9            viability of small refiners.
          10                    Finally, some concern has been 
          11            expressed that the proposed flexibility 
          12            for small refiners might obligate the 
          13            United States to give equivalent 
          14            treatments to foreign refiners under 
          15            the general agreement on tariffs and 
          16            trade.
          17                    This issue was fully reviewed 
          18            in the SBREFA process without side 
          19            counsel opinion letters being provided 
          20            by three small refiners.  This issue is 
          21            more fully addressed in a letter from 
          22            Gracewell and Patterson to Mr. Jere 
          23            Glover, chief counsel of the SBA 
          24            office, on behalf of Placid.  These 
          25            opinions clearly show that flexibility 


                                                               267
           1            to small domestic refiners would not 
           2            open the flood gates for imports of 
           3            higher sulfur gasoline.  Under GATT, 
           4            any importer would have to meet the 
           5            same small refiner requirements as 
           6            domestic refiners and as of the SBREFA 
           7            meeting.  No importer of gasoline to 
           8            the U.S. was identified as meeting 
           9            these requirements.  We will include a 
          10            copy of that letter in our written 
          11            comments.  We will supplement the 
          12            record with further written comments as 
          13            appropriate within the allowed period.
          14                    We welcome the opportunity to 
          15            discuss our position with any entity or 
          16            group that might take issue with us on 
          17            the smaller refiner flexibility 
          18            provisions.  And let me agree with Ms. 
          19            Pollack on her observations of the 
          20            panel and I thank you for your courtesy 
          21            and applaud you for your stamina.
          22                    MS. OGE:  Thank you.
          23                    Ms. Bobbi Medlen.
          24                    MS. MEDLEN:  Thank you.
          25                    MS. OGE:  Good afternoon.


                                                               268
           1                    MS. MEDLEN:  Good afternoon.  My 
           2            name is Bobbi Medlen and I'm 
           3            representing Ohio Environmental 
           4            Council.  OEC is an Ohio-wide network 
           5            organization of citizens committed to 
           6            protect our health and natural 
           7            resources.  We're testifying today in 
           8            support of U.S. EPA proposed rule that 
           9            will establish lower tailpipe emissions 
          10            and cleaner gasoline.
          11                    In particular, we endorse the 
          12            requirement that will not only require 
          13            cleaner emissions from cars, but will 
          14            also require minivans, SUVs and other 
          15            light trucks to meet the same standards 
          16            as cars.  Not only is this fair, but 
          17            it's one of the most important in light 
          18            of the fact that SUVs and minivans are 
          19            rapidly replacing passenger cars on the 
          20            road.
          21                    We respectfully suggest that 
          22            this fairness and effectiveness would 
          23            be greatly enhanced if the U.S. EPA 
          24            would improve the ruling by requiring 
          25            all SUVs to meet the new standard by 


                                                               269
           1            2004 rather than the biggest and 
           2            dirtiest trucks to delay meeting the 
           3            standards until 2007.
           4                    We'd like to commend the agency 
           5            for helping us to get twice the bang 
           6            for our buck by requiring significant 
           7            reductions in sulfur in gasoline.  Not 
           8            only will this reduce our exposure to 
           9            fine particles, it will reduce our 
          10            exposure to ozone.  Ozone, in fact, is 
          11            a problem that exists here in Ohio.  
          12            Last summer we exceeded the new 
          13            eight-hour ozone standards 440 times.  
          14            And the old one-hour ozone standard 
          15            seven times at 50 different monitoring 
          16            sites throughout Ohio.  This year we 
          17            seem to be gearing up to break that 
          18            record.  Before summer has even 
          19            officially started, we've exceeded the 
          20            new ozone standard 201 times and the 
          21            old ozone standard 12 times.
          22                    I'm from the Columbus area, 
          23            which generally has been considered a 
          24            low ozone area in terms of the old 
          25            eight-hour standard.  And so far we've 


                                                               270
           1            exceeded that old standard twice just 
           2            last week reaching a high of 144 parts 
           3            per million last Wednesday and 154 
           4            parts per million last Thursday.  
           5            Levels like these make air unsafe for 
           6            everyone.  Not just elderly and 
           7            children with asthma.
           8                    It's important to know the 
           9            monitor which reported this data is 
          10            located in an area of sprawling urban 
          11            development and it's only been at this 
          12            location for a few years.  I don't 
          13            think anything can better illustrate 
          14            the air problems associated with the 
          15            urban sprawling cars.
          16                    As monitoring data suggests, 
          17            smog is not just a local problem.  It's 
          18            a statewide problem and, therefore, it 
          19            requires the comprehensive solutions.
          20                    According to analysis by the 
          21            U.S. EPA, NOx SIP call could reduce the 
          22            number of days Ohio exceeded the new 
          23            tailpipe standards by 98 percent.  
          24            Clearly an effective set of 
          25            requirements to reduce tailpipe 


                                                               271
           1            emissions in conjunction with cleaning 
           2            up utility smoke stacks could 
           3            completely eliminate ozone days in 
           4            Ohio.
           5                    The OAC supports these 
           6            broad-based solutions as the best 
           7            approach to addressing ozone problems 
           8            in Ohio.  These are, in fact, preferred 
           9            over E-check types of solutions, 
          10            inspection and maintenance programs 
          11            that are now broad-based and thus are 
          12            not viewed as fair by many members of 
          13            the general public.
          14                    The E-check program is a useful 
          15            tool to have in the clean air tool box.  
          16            But our first priority should be 
          17            implementing the broad-based solutions, 
          18            such as Tier 2 and the standards in the 
          19            NOx SIP call.
          20                    I'd like to close by voicing 
          21            once again that we support the U.S. 
          22            EPA's proposed rule to raise tailpipe 
          23            emissions and clean up gasoline.  We 
          24            have the cost-effective technology and 
          25            we should be using it.


                                                               272
           1                    I'd also like to express OEC's 
           2            support in both in NOx SIP call as well 
           3            as the ozone particulate standards.  As 
           4            citizens of Ohio, we appreciate the 
           5            U.S. EPA fighting for our right to 
           6            breathe cleaner, healthier air.  Thank 
           7            you for your continuing effort to 
           8            defend this right in court and in 
           9            forums for public debate.  Thanks for 
          10            your time.
          11                    MS. OGE:  Thank you.  And 
          12            again, thanks to all of you for your 
          13            testimony and words of encouragement, 
          14            support, views, recommendations.  Thank 
          15            you very much.  We will fully consider 
          16            your comments as we're moving forward 
          17            to finalize this very important 
          18            program.  Thank you.
          19                         -  -  -  -
          20               (Thereupon, a discussion was had off
          21                the record.)
          22                         -  -  -  -
          23                    MS. OGE:  We will take a short 
          24            break.  I would recommend to get back 
          25            at 4:00.  A ten-minute break for the 


                                                               273
           1            next panel. 
           2                         -  -  -  -
           3               (Thereupon, a discussion was had off
           4               the record.)
           5                         -  -  -  -
           6                    MR. FRANCE:  Mr. Welsh, when you 
           7            are ready.
           8                    MR. WELSH:  Thank you very 
           9            much.  I was going to have slides, but 
          10            my slide technician had to go catch an 
          11            airplane so I'll do my best to go 
          12            through it as it is written.
          13                    My name is John Welsh.  I'm an 
          14            application chemist with Antek 
          15            Industrial Instruments.  We're a 
          16            manufacturer of on-line process 
          17            instrumentation for the determination 
          18            of sulfur in fuels specifically.  If I 
          19            may read a quotation from the Federal 
          20            Register, volume 64, number 92, page 
          21            26097, which states," However, we are 
          22            requesting comment on whether ASTM 
          23            method D 5453-93, entitled Standard 
          24            Test Method for Determination of Total 
          25            Sulfur in Light Hydrocarbons, Motor 


                                                               274
           1            Fuels and Oils by Ultraviolet 
           2            Fluorescence, should be the primary 
           3            method."
           4                    The U.S. EPA is correct to seek 
           5            comment as to if ASTM D 5453, sulfur by 
           6            UV fluorescence, should be designated 
           7            as the primary sulfur test method.  
           8            Currently D 2622, sulfur by WDXRF, has 
           9            been designated as the only EPA 
          10            approved sulfur test method.  However, 
          11            the EPA has recognized that in certain 
          12            situations D 2622 has limitations.
          13                    In my previous testimony, I 
          14            presented evidence from published ASTM 
          15            documents that described the 
          16            limitations of ASTM D 2622 and the 
          17            absence of these limitations for D 
          18            5453.
          19                    I'll review them very quickly.  
          20            Section 1.2 of the D 2622 test method 
          21            scope includes an estimation of the 
          22            test methods pooled limit of 
          23            quantification.   This calculation, 
          24            based upon a special subset of the 
          25            lowest samples analyzed during D 2622 


                                                               275
           1            verification, or otherwise known as the 
           2            round robin, finds a PLOQ for D 2622 of 
           3            only 15 parts per million.
           4                    Section 1.5 of the D 2622 test 
           5            method scope reinforces the problems 
           6            that can occur with samples with a 
           7            changing matrix.  Analytical errors 
           8            caused by these matrix effects can 
           9            become critical as sulfur 
          10            concentrations decline.  It is this 
          11            issue that most limits D 2622's 
          12            usefulness in the dynamic blending 
          13            future of Tier 2 gasoline.
          14                    Section 5.1 of the D 2622 test 
          15            method states, "When the elemental 
          16            composition, excluding sulfur, of 
          17            samples differs significantly from the 
          18            standards, errors in the sulfur 
          19            determination can result.  For example, 
          20            differences in the carbon-hydrogen 
          21            ratio of sample and calibration 
          22            standards introduce errors in the 
          23            determination."
          24                    D 5453 will not suffer from 
          25            interferences from products covered in 


                                                               276
           1            this Tier 2 proposal because halogen 
           2            contamination is stringently controlled 
           3            in modern motor fuels.
           4                    D 5453 has proven itself to be 
           5            an excellent test method for the 
           6            determination of sulfur in all sorts of 
           7            motor fuels.           
           8                    This is possible because D 5453 
           9            uses a sample combustion technology 
          10            that is very selective and free from 
          11            the carbon-hydrogen ratio and metal 
          12            contamination interference that affects 
          13            the proposed primary sulfur, regulatory 
          14            method, D 2622.  Instrument calibration 
          15            is straightforward and not biased by 
          16            the matrix of the calibration material.
          17                    D 5453 has a proven history of 
          18            performance in the measurement of 
          19            sulfur at very low levels.  The test 
          20            method initial publication in 1993 
          21            indicated the ability to measure down 
          22            to 1 milligram per kilogram sulfur 
          23            parts per million.  A pooled level of 
          24            quantification, PLOQ, recently 
          25            completed this year, last year, excuse 


                                                               277
           1            me, 1998 ASTM round robin was less than 
           2            1 part per million.  Another quote from 
           3            the Federal Register by the EPA says 
           4            that, "We believe that ASTM D 5453 
           5            would significantly reduce capital 
           6            costs for test equipment and that 
           7            operational costs would be similar to 
           8            ASTM D 2622."
           9                    A cost comparison between D 
          10            2622 and D 5453 for laboratory 
          11            instrumentation was presented at the 
          12            Denver hearing and is now part of the 
          13            record.  I would like to present today 
          14            a cost analysis for on-line process 
          15            instrumentation using UV fluorescence.
          16                    What would have been shown if 
          17            the slide had been up, that the initial 
          18            estimated purchase price for 
          19            instrumentation, on-line 
          20            instrumentation for 5453 is in the 
          21            neighborhood of $58,000, space 
          22            requirement costs in the neighborhood 
          23            of $3,600 and annual maintenance costs 
          24            of $3,000. 
          25                    However, for 2622, as of this 


                                                               278
           1            date, I am not aware of teh use of this 
           2            method for the on-line determination of 
           3            sulfur.  Therefore, I will not attempt 
           4            to estimate the cost of this technology 
           5            for on-line use.  However, please note 
           6            that from previous testimony laboratory 
           7            instrumentation using D 2622 costs 
           8            three times more than laboratory 
           9            instrumentation using D 5453.
          10                    Also, if such an instrument did 
          11            exist, I would believe that it would 
          12            require permits and could present 
          13            potential personnel exposure problems.
          14                    As previously shown, D 5453 is 
          15            very selective and free from the 
          16            carbon-hydrogen ratio, matrix effect, 
          17            interference.  This allows for an 
          18            accurate sulfur determination in 
          19            multiple streams with a widely varying 
          20            component matrix.
          21                    The development of an on-line 
          22            certification program begins with the 
          23            establishment of a direct correlation 
          24            between on-line and laboratory results.   
          25            The ability to use D 5453 in the 


                                                               279
           1            laboratory and on-line for the 
           2            determination of sulfur eases and 
           3            simplifies the establishment of this 
           4            correlation of results.  The issue of 
           5            test method bias is eliminated.  The 
           6            development of an on-line certification 
           7            procedure should provide refiners with 
           8            a substantial cost benefit.
           9                    Again, as of this date, I am 
          10            not aware of the use of the current 
          11            regulatory method of D 2622 for the 
          12            on-line determination of sulfur.
          13                    For low sulfur fuels, D 5453 is 
          14            the technology of choice.  It has the 
          15            analytical range, cost savings, 
          16            availability and flexibility in 
          17            applications that the oil industry will 
          18            need on its journey toward Tier 2 motor 
          19            fuels.
          20                    D 5453 provides a superior 
          21            sulfur test method, results in lower 
          22            sulfur levels and equivalent 
          23            measurements at higher sulfur 
          24            concentrations levels.  Allowing the 
          25            use of D 5453 could enable significant 


                                                               280
           1            capital savings for the fuel-producing 
           2            community, while giving them a better 
           3            measurement tool as sulfur 
           4            concentrations continue to drop.
           5                    The D 5453 test method has 
           6            already been approved by other 
           7            regulating agencies and has proven its 
           8            worth time and time again in daily low 
           9            sulfur fuel production as well as in 
          10            general use on a world-wide basis.
          11                    D 5453 should be designated as 
          12            the primary sulfur test method.  D 2622 
          13            and possibly other ASTM test 
          14            methodologies should be designated as 
          15            the alternate test methods.
          16                    In conclusion, I would like to 
          17            summarize what has been said in the 
          18            four hearings by myself or my 
          19            colleague, John Crnko.
          20                    In testimony given during four 
          21            public hearings, Philadelphia, Atlanta, 
          22            Denver and Cleveland, a compelling 
          23            argument has been made for the 
          24            designation of ASTM D 5453 as the 
          25            primary method for the determination of 


                                                               281
           1            sulfur in fuels.  Data from 
           2            peer-reviewed published ASTM documents 
           3            and other independently conducted 
           4            studies has been presented that attests 
           5            to the superiority of ASTM D 5453.  The 
           6            data presented in these hearings has 
           7            demonstrated that ASTM D 5453 is a 
           8            superior method in the following areas:
           9                    Analytical Range:  ASTM D 5453 
          10            has an analytical range that is 
          11            equivalent to ASTM D 2622 for fuels 
          12            with high sulfur levels.
          13                    Limit of Quantification:  ASTM 
          14            D 5453 demonstrates an LOQ of 1 
          15            milligram per kilogram sulfur per part 
          16            per million versus 15 milligrams per 
          17            kilograms sulfur for ASTM D 2622 which 
          18            has questionable results below 20 
          19            milligrams per kilograms sulfur.
          20                    Interferences:  One 
          21            interference is listed for ASTM D 5453, 
          22            which is insignificant in modern fuel 
          23            formulations, versus the well-known 
          24            carbon to hydrogen ratio and heteroatom 
          25            interferences found in ASTM D 2622.


                                                               282
           1                    Cost Effectiveness:  Laboratory 
           2            instrumentation using ASTM D 5453 costs 
           3            one-third that of instrumentation using 
           4            ASTM D 2622.  On-line instrumentation 
           5            using UV fluorescence is widely used in 
           6            California refineries.  As of this date 
           7            and to the best of my knowledge, no 
           8            on-line instrumentation using 
           9            wavelength dispersive x-ray 
          10            fluorescence is available.
          11                    Established Technology: 
          12            Instrumentation using ASTM D 5453 is 
          13            available and currently in use in many 
          14            refinery and contract laboratories.  D 
          15            5453 can be implemented as the primary 
          16            sulfur test method and many companies 
          17            will have little or not cost.
          18                    Flexibility:  The use of UV 
          19            fluorescence in the laboratory and 
          20            on-line will ease and simplify the 
          21            establishment of on-line certification 
          22            procedures that should provide refiners 
          23            with a substantial cost benefit.
          24                    Thank you very much for getting 
          25            me in on time.  And if I could, I need 


                                                               283
           1            to run to catch an airplane.
           2                    MR. FRANCE:  Thank you, 
           3            Mr. Welsh.
           4                    MR. WELSH:  Thank you.
           5                    MR. FRANCE:  Mr. Gelfand.
           6                    MR. GELFAND:  Thanks for coming to 
           7            Cleveland.  As one of the things, one 
           8            of the first things I noticed in this 
           9            rule is that there's a comment 
          10            expiration date or comment deadline of 
          11            August 2nd.  And we're very thankful 
          12            there is that deadline because there's 
          13            150 pages of the rule and then I just 
          14            heard another 400 pages of regulatory 
          15            analysis to slough through.  So the 
          16            congressman is going to have written 
          17            testimony within the time of the 
          18            deadline.  But I do want to take this 
          19            opportunity to thank you for coming to 
          20            Cleveland.  And in particular, thank 
          21            you for coming to the the 10th 
          22            Congressional District.  We appreciate 
          23            that, the Congressman appreciates you 
          24            coming.
          25                    I know that you've only, you've 


                                                               284
           1            been to three other cities.  This is 
           2            the fourth out of them.  And we 
           3            appreciate appreciate that you have 
           4            come to Cleveland to hear the testimony 
           5            of the people here in northeastern 
           6            Ohio.  People want to live, work and 
           7            play in this county, or it is very 
           8            important to, you know, to hear from 
           9            us.  And, you know, pass on to the 
          10            administrator that we thank her for 
          11            doing that, for keeping Cleveland in 
          12            mind.
          13                    We will have testimony for you 
          14            on this rule within the deadline time.  
          15            So I'll pass to my distinguished 
          16            colleagues at this table.  Thank you.
          17                    MR. FRANCE:  Ms. Aveni. 
          18                         -  -  -  -
          19               (Thereupon, a discussion was had off
          20               the record.)
          21                         -  -  -  -
          22                    MS. AVENI:  Mr. Chairman and 
          23            members of the committee, thank you for 
          24            the opportunity to testify before you 
          25            on the issue faced by your agency in 


                                                               285
           1            its implementation of the Clean Air Act 
           2            Amendments.
           3                    Cuyahoga County has implemented 
           4            vehicle emissions testing in the mid 
           5            1980s, upgraded, as you probably know, 
           6            with great political angst, to enhanced 
           7            testing in the early 1990s.  The 
           8            financial cost of controls on 
           9            stationary sources since 1971 has been 
          10            significant, but most citizens I 
          11            believe here believe it's well worth 
          12            the cost in human health and quality of 
          13            life.   
          14                    The County Planning Commission 
          15            is not the responsible agency for local 
          16            ambient air compliance, but it is 
          17            seriously engaged in planning for our 
          18            56 municipalities, the character of 
          19            their neighborhoods and their prospects 
          20            for thriving in the 21st century.  As 
          21            an older urban industrial community, 
          22            quality of life issues such as air, 
          23            clarity of the air, including the way 
          24            it smells, whether it's good and 
          25            healthful, are factors in whether 


                                                               286
           1            people want to live, work and play in 
           2            this county or whether they find air 
           3            pollution another reason to abandon the 
           4            cities where they grew up and move to 
           5            the farmlands and rural communities 
           6            distant from the urban core.
           7                    Joe or Jane Citizen may not 
           8            have considered whether PM10 or PM2.5 
           9            means any difference to his or her 
          10            health, but they do understand the 
          11            sniff test when sulfur permeates the 
          12            air, when particulates blur the view of 
          13            the Terminal Tower from the lakefront 
          14            and when the closeness of the air is 
          15            suffocating.  Their best guess is that 
          16            it is not only more pleasant to move to 
          17            Geauga County where there are still 
          18            trees and open spaces, but healthier 
          19            for their children.  And we know that 
          20            this is a pretty good assumption.
          21                    My point is that Cuyahoga 
          22            County and the City of Cleveland are 
          23            investing significant resources in new 
          24            entertainment facilities, new housing 
          25            in the center city and even new parks 


                                                               287
           1            in the Cuyahoga River steel valley.  We 
           2            have worked diligently to create the 
           3            infrastructure to redevelop Brownfields 
           4            properties on our old industrial 
           5            property, but without clean air and 
           6            water, our urban and inner-ring 
           7            suburban communities will never attain 
           8            the potential they deserve.
           9                    Vehicle emissions standards 
          10            should take into account those vehicles 
          11            which are the growing market of SUVs, 
          12            diesel trucks and buses must be 
          13            controlled and soon.  I am particularly 
          14            disappointed that the rules have not 
          15            foreseen the growing behemoths, giant 
          16            SUVs which are not covered by the 
          17            proposed rule-making.  Automobile 
          18            drivers who have paid their $19 for the 
          19            E-check test see a Lincoln Navigator or 
          20            a diesel truck belching nasty 
          21            sulfur-smelling black smoke roaring by 
          22            them on the highway and know that there 
          23            is no or minimal pollution control on 
          24            the vehicle.  They complain loudly 
          25            about RTA buses which lack diesel 


                                                               288
           1            controls.  Although many of our fleet 
           2            have converted to natural gas, there is 
           3            a recommendation to policy of 
           4            purchasing natural gas vehicles.  I 
           5            hope that these factors that are taken, 
           6            that are going to be completed and more 
           7            considerations will help them make a 
           8            decision.  But these problems are seen 
           9            as loopholes by the public and need to 
          10            be closed as an issue of fairness to 
          11            other motorists.
          12                    Mr. Chairman, we have neither 
          13            the information nor the inclination to 
          14            make a case for particular fuels in a 
          15            cost-benefit basis.  I understand that 
          16            Congress mandates that you perform 
          17            those calculations and I have no 
          18            problem with the requirement.  But 
          19            common sense and your responsibility 
          20            for health under your charter dictate 
          21            that you get complete these hearings, 
          22            evaluate your studies and regulate 
          23            those emissions not presently 
          24            controlled, but which do require 
          25            regulations.  We suggest that the rule 


                                                               289
           1            be implemented on time and at the 
           2            minimum level required to do the job.
           3                    Thank you for holding the 
           4            hearings in Cleveland and thank you for 
           5            listening to us all.  I will be glad to 
           6            answer any questions.
           7                    MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very 
           8            much.
           9                         Ms. VanGilder.
          10                    MS. VANGILDER:  My name is 
          11            Rachel VanGilder and I'm a research 
          12            associate at Environmental Health Watch 
          13            in Cleveland, a community-based 
          14            information assistance and advocacy 
          15            organization.  I appreciate the 
          16            opportunity to give testimony on this 
          17            important issue.
          18                    My remarks deal with two 
          19            concerns.  The first is toxic air 
          20            pollutants from motor vehicles.  The 
          21            second is the relationship between 
          22            indoor and outdoor pollution triggers 
          23            for asthma.
          24                    Air toxics, sometimes called 
          25            hazardous air pollutants, are air 


                                                               290
           1            pollutants that cause serious adverse 
           2            health effects.  The U.S. EPA has 
           3            focused most of its air toxics work on 
           4            carcinogens, air pollutants that cause 
           5            cancer.  Motor vehicles emit several 
           6            pollutants that U.S. EPA classifies as 
           7            known or probable human carcinogens.  
           8            These include benzene, formaldehyde, 
           9            acetaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene and diesel 
          10            particles.
          11                    U.S. EPA estimates that mobile 
          12            sources of air toxics, that is, cars, 
          13            trucks and buses, may account for as 
          14            much as half of all cancers attributed 
          15            to outdoor sources of air toxics.  Some 
          16            of these toxic chemicals are present in 
          17            gasoline and are emitted to the air 
          18            when gasoline evaporates, passes 
          19            through the engine as unburned fuel, or 
          20            as a result of incomplete combustion.  
          21            Benzene, for example.  Other chemicals 
          22            are not present in fuel, but are 
          23            by-products of incomplete combustion.  
          24            Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, 
          25            1,3-butidiene and diesel particles, for 


                                                               291
           1            example.  Some air toxics are formed 
           2            when other mobile source pollutants 
           3            undergo chemical reactions in the 
           4            atmosphere.  Formaldehyde and 
           5            acetaldehyde are formed in this 
           6            secondary process.
           7                    We have used data from the U.S. 
           8            EPA cumulative exposure project to 
           9            estimate exposure to toxic air 
          10            pollutants from mobile sources in 
          11            Cuyahoga County.
          12                    The cumulative exposure project 
          13            developed a computer model to estimate 
          14            outdoor exposure to 148 air toxics, by 
          15            census tract, for the continental U.S.  
          16            the model is based on 1990 emissions 
          17            source inventories, including 
          18            background, point, area and mobile 
          19            sources.  An air dispersion model 
          20            estimated how far the pollutants travel 
          21            after emissions, based on wind speed 
          22            and direction, breakdown of chemicals 
          23            secondary formation of pollutants.
          24                    It is important to note that 
          25            there are many limitations to this kind 


                                                               292
           1            of study. Its estimates have been 
           2            criticized as being too high because 
           3            they are based on outdated 1990 source 
           4            data, prior to recent improvement in 
           5            air quality.  However, our comparison 
           6            of model estimates with the recent Ohio 
           7            EPA monitoring data from Cleveland and 
           8            Cincinnati found generally good 
           9            correspondence between the two.  In 
          10            addition to the exposure estimates, the 
          11            cumulative exposure project developed 
          12            health effects benchmarks for those 
          13            chemicals for which sufficient health 
          14            data was available.  For cancer, the 
          15            benchmark is based on one-in-a-million 
          16            excess cancer deaths from lifetime 
          17            exposure.
          18                    The results of the CEP modeling 
          19            are startling and disturbing.  
          20            Nationally, seven air toxics exceeded 
          21            the cancer benchmark in all 60,000 U.S. 
          22            census tracts. Estimated exposure for 
          23            benzene, formaldehyde and 
          24            1,3-butadiene, mobile source air 
          25            toxics, exceed the cancer benchmark in 


                                                               293
           1            over 90 percent of U.S. census tracts.
           2                    Some census tracts in the U.S. 
           3            had as many as 32 pollutants that 
           4            exceeded the cancer benchmark.  The 
           5            average was 14 per census tract.
           6                    Our analysis of the cumulative 
           7            exposure project data for Cuyahoga 
           8            County found 14 air toxics estimated to 
           9            exceed the cance5r benchmark.  Four of 
          10            these derived primarily from mobile 
          11            sources.  Mobile air toxics had the 
          12            highest exceedences of the cancer 
          13            benchmarks by far.  The estimated 
          14            exposures for benzene, formaldehyde and 
          15            1,3-butadiene exceeded the cancer 
          16            benchmarks by 23 time, 36 times and 86 
          17            times, respectively.
          18                    The current control measures 
          19            for automobile help reduce their toxic 
          20            emissions.  But nearly half of all 
          21            passenger vehicles sold in 1998 were 
          22            so-called light trucks, not subject to 
          23            the same pollution controls as 
          24            automobiles.  The SUVs, minivans and 
          25            small pickups not only produce more 


                                                               294
           1            toxic emissions per gallon of gas, but 
           2            because they are less fuel efficient, 
           3            they use more gas.
           4                    The proposed Tier 2 emissions 
           5            standards for vehicles and gasoline are 
           6            a big step in the direction of reduced 
           7            air toxic exposure from motor vehicles.  
           8            However, there are a few elements of 
           9            the standard that should be 
          10            strengthened.  Give no special 
          11            treatment for heavier vehicles.  They 
          12            should be required to meet the same 
          13            public health standard.  Give not 
          14            special treatment for diesel engines.  
          15            Again, they should be required to meet 
          16            the same public health standard.  
          17            Provide more incentive for the 
          18            development of alternative technologies 
          19            that can dramatically reduce toxic air 
          20            pollution.
          21                    Now, let me address briefly a 
          22            somewhat different air pollution 
          23            question that my organization, 
          24            Environmental Health Watch, has been 
          25            involved with.  We have been working 


                                                               295
           1            for several years on programs to 
           2            control indoor pollution hazards 
           3            related to children's health, lead 
           4            poisoning and asthma in particular.
           5                    Opponents of stricter 
           6            regulations for air pollution have been 
           7            trying to minimize the adverse health 
           8            effects of outdoor air by pointing to 
           9            the role of indoor pollution in 
          10            illnesses such as asthma.  However, 
          11            research on the significance of indoor 
          12            hazards does not get outdoor pollution 
          13            off the hook.  Both indoor and outdoor 
          14            pollutants have been found to increase 
          15            the frequency and severity of breathing 
          16            problems for asthma sufferers and there 
          17            is, therefore, a need to control both 
          18            exposure pathways.
          19                    Asthma is the most common 
          20            chronic disease of childhood. 
          21            Prevalence has more than doubled in the 
          22            last two decades.  Deaths of children 
          23            from asthma now nearly 1,500 a year, 
          24            increased by 50 percent in the 1980s.  
          25            Urban poor children are at greatest 


                                                               296
           1            risk.  The American Lung Association 
           2            estimates that in the Cleveland area 
           3            23,000 children suffer from asthma.  It 
           4            is not known why asthma rates have 
           5            increased in the last several years, 
           6            particularly among children.  But we do 
           7            know that with the greater prevalence 
           8            of asthma, whatever the cause, many 
           9            more people are now especially 
          10            sensitive to both indoor and outdoor 
          11            pollution.
          12                    There is a natural division of 
          13            responsibility in the control of indoor 
          14            and outdoor pollutants that trigger 
          15            asthma attacks.  For example, there are 
          16            things parents can do to reduce their 
          17            children's exposures to tobacco smoke, 
          18            cockroaches, dustmites and molds.  
          19            Landlords have a responsibility to 
          20            provide housing that is free of roach 
          21            infestation, water leaks and other 
          22            defects that give rise to these asthma 
          23            triggers.  But neither parents nor 
          24            landlords control pollution in the 
          25            outdoor air.  That must be done by 


                                                               297
           1            government and industry.
           2                    Lead poisoning is a good 
           3            example of this division of 
           4            responsibility for indoor and outdoor 
           5            pollution.  Until the early 1980s, when 
           6            EPA regulations began to remove lead 
           7            from gasoline and to reduce industrial 
           8            lead emissions, an astonishing 53 
           9            percent of children nationally were 
          10            lead poisoned, as compared to less than 
          11            2 percent today.  This is a dramatic 
          12            public health success, though lead 
          13            poisoning levels are still unacceptably 
          14            high, particularly among poor children 
          15            living in deteriorated housing.  
          16            Parents and building owners still have 
          17            a serious responsibility to protect 
          18            children from lead paint hazards and 
          19            soil contaminated from past use of 
          20            leaded gasoline.  But these measures by 
          21            themselves, without the dramatic drop 
          22            in air lead levels, would never have 
          23            reduced lead poisoning so 
          24            substantially.
          25                    A brochure from the Northeast 


                                                               298
           1            Ohio Ozone Task Force warns parents of 
           2            asthmatic children that on high ozone 
           3            days they should limit their children's 
           4            time outdoors.  Do we really want a 
           5            public health policy that tells parents 
           6            of asthmatic children to try to find a 
           7            safe place in the house where their 
           8            children must hide when the outside air 
           9            is damaging to their lungs.
          10                    I applaud U.S. EPA for 
          11            proposing the Tier 2 standards to 
          12            protect public health.  I urge adoption 
          13            of these standards, with the 
          14            strengthening modifications noted.  
          15            Thank you for this opportunity to 
          16            speak.
          17                    MR. FRANCE:  Thank you so much 
          18            for your comments.
          19                    Mr. Ports.
          20                    MR. PORTS:  My name is Mike 
          21            Ports.  I'm president of Ports 
          22            Petroleum Company in Wooster Ohio.  
          23            Ports Petroleum owns and operates 71 
          24            unbranded retail motor fuel outlets in 
          25            12 states under the name Fuel Mart.


                                                               299
           1                    I appear today on behalf of our 
           2            company and the Society of Independent 
           3            Gasoline Marketers of Ohio.  I serve as 
           4            second vice-president of SIGMA and am a 
           5            member of SIGMA's board of directors.  
           6            SIGMA is a trade association with 
           7            approximately 270 members in all 50 
           8            states.  Collectively, SIGMA members 
           9            sell over 20 percent of the motor fuels 
          10            in the nation annually.
          11                    As noted in SIGMA's name, we 
          12            are an independent marketer of motor 
          13            fuels.  We are not a refiner of motor 
          14            fuels and do not fly the flag of any 
          15            major oil company at our outlets.  
          16            Instead, we compete on a daily basis 
          17            head to head with the major integrated 
          18            refiners.  SIGMA members are able to 
          19            compete with these refiners who in many 
          20            cases operate both as suppliers of our 
          21            outlets and as our direct competitors 
          22            because we have access to numerous 
          23            suppliers and diverse sources of 
          24            gasoline supplies.  If the number of 
          25            potential suppliers decrease or the 


                                                               300
           1            amount of overall supply decreases, 
           2            then the role of the independent 
           3            marketer as the most price competitive 
           4            segment of the gasoline marketing 
           5            industry is jeopardized.
           6                    This is the reason I am 
           7            appearing before you today.  SIGMA is 
           8            deeply concerned about the potential 
           9            impact of the gasoline sulfur proposal 
          10            both on overall gasoline supplies and 
          11            on the number of gasoline suppliers.  
          12            Quality is extremely difficult to 
          13            predict the future.  I am very 
          14            concerned that some of the refineries 
          15            that my company counts on for 
          16            substantial portions of our gasoline 
          17            supplies will not be in business in 
          18            five years if this proposal is not 
          19            modified before it's finalized.  Many 
          20            of the refineries our companies buy 
          21            gasoline from are smaller, independent 
          22            refineries, such as Ergon Refining in 
          23            Newell, West Virginia and Pennzoil in 
          24            Rouseville, Pennsylvania.  These 
          25            refineries, despite being small in 


                                                               301
           1            terms of output, will not qualify for 
           2            compliance flexibility as small 
           3            refiners under the definition the EPA 
           4            has proposed because they are parts of 
           5            parent companies with more than 1,500 
           6            employees.  And yet I'm not all sure 
           7            that these refineries will remain 
           8            viable business entities under this 
           9            sulfur proposal.
          10                    If these small refineries close 
          11            because they cannot afford the capital 
          12            upgrades to meet the proposed sulfur 
          13            standards, our company and other 
          14            independent marketers will be forced to 
          15            increase our reliance on integrated 
          16            refiners for gasoline supply.  And I 
          17            can tell you from personal experience 
          18            that these large, integrated refiners 
          19            are becoming less and less interested 
          20            in doing business with unbranded 
          21            independent marketers.  If the number 
          22            of refiners is reduced and refining 
          23            capacity is concentrated in fewer and 
          24            fewer hands, then large integrated 
          25            refiners will have no incentive to do 


                                                               302
           1            business with our company, their direct 
           2            competitor.  If our company can not 
           3            locate adequate gasoline supplies, we 
           4            are out of business.  If this happens, 
           5            consumers will be the group that 
           6            suffers as a result because of 
           7            decreased marketplace competition and 
           8            increased retail prices for gasoline.
           9                    We need look no further than 
          10            California for a case study of the 
          11            potential impact of this proposal on 
          12            small refiners, independent marketers 
          13            and consumers.  California led the way 
          14            in mandating low sulfur gasoline and 
          15            diesel fuel.  Today, only a handful of 
          16            small independent refineries make 
          17            California gasoline.  All of the rest 
          18            of the production is controlled by 
          19            large, integrated refiners.  Many 
          20            independent marketers in California 
          21            have either branded their stations or 
          22            ceased doing business altogether.
          23                    And these trends have had a 
          24            dramatic impact on consumers in 
          25            California where gas is more expensive 


                                                               303
           1            than in any other state.  California 
           2            consumers were paying over two dollars 
           3            a gallon for that state's low sulfur 
           4            gasoline earlier this year.  While 
           5            there may have been many reasons for 
           6            these high prices, SIGMA feels it's 
           7            directly traceable to the increased 
           8            concentration of refining capacity in 
           9            the state and in the hands of the large 
          10            integrated companies, the reduced role 
          11            of independent marketers and the 
          12            stringent California gasoline 
          13            standards.  If EPA is not careful, the 
          14            California experience may well spread 
          15            to the rest of the nation.
          16                    Our company and SIGMA urges EPA 
          17            to modify this definition of a small 
          18            refiner.  We urge EPA to adopt a 
          19            definition that gives added compliance 
          20            flexibility to all refineries with a 
          21            capacity of 75,000 barrels per day or 
          22            less.  If this step is not undertaken, 
          23            SIGMA is deeply concerned that many of 
          24            these small refineries will be closed, 
          25            no matter how big their corporate 


                                                               304
           1            parent may be, to the detriment of 
           2            independent gasoline marketers, such as 
           3            Ports Petroleum and to consumers across 
           4            much of the nation.
           5                    Thank you for listening to the 
           6            views of our company and SIGMA.  I 
           7            would be pleased to answer any 
           8            questions you might have.
           9                    MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very 
          10            much.
          11                    Ms. Russell.
          12                    MS. RUSSELL:  Thank you.  Good 
          13            afternoon.  My name is Erin Russell.  
          14            I'm the Clean Cities Coordinator for 
          15            The Earth Day Coalition, a local 
          16            Cleveland based environmental 
          17            organization.
          18                    I'm here today to voice support 
          19            for the proposed Tier 2 standards.  
          20            While many sport utility vehicles, or 
          21            SUVs, and other so-called light trucks 
          22            are driven as business and commercial 
          23            vehicles, we have seen a significant 
          24            shift in their use in the private 
          25            sector over the last 15 years.  SUVs 


                                                               305
           1            are now frequently driven as passenger 
           2            vehicles by hundreds of thousands of 
           3            people every year.  All passenger 
           4            vehicles, including SUVs and minivans, 
           5            should meet the same emissions 
           6            standards.
           7                    Last year SUVs comprised 
           8            roughly 50 percent of the total vehicle 
           9            sales in the United States.  While 
          10            passenger cars have become cleaner over 
          11            the past two decades, those gains are 
          12            decreasing due to the expanded use of 
          13            polluting SUVs.  This translates 
          14            directly into a public health issue.  
          15            According to the U.S. Department of 
          16            Energy, vehicle pollution is often the 
          17            single largest contributor to poor air 
          18            quality in many cities.  A recent study 
          19            by the International Center for 
          20            Technology Assessment estimates that 
          21            Americans annually absorb roughly $39 
          22            billion in medical costs related to 
          23            automotive air pollution alone.
          24                    Also, by imposing the same 
          25            emissions criteria to diesel cars and 


                                                               306
           1            light trucks, public health will be 
           2            further protected.  However, those same 
           3            standards need to be extended to all 
           4            diesel vehicles.  According to the 
           5            World Health Organization, 
           6            particulates, including those from 
           7            diesel exhaust, are responsible for 
           8            nearly one-half million premature 
           9            deaths around the world every year.  A 
          10            1996 study conducted by the Natural 
          11            Resources Defense Council ranked 
          12            Cleveland tenth in the nation in 
          13            estimated annual cardiopulmonary deaths 
          14            attributable to particulate air 
          15            pollution.  The study estimated that 
          16            1,169 early deaths occur every year in 
          17            Cleveland due to particulate matter in 
          18            the air.  As you know, diesel exhaust 
          19            is a suspected carcinogen.  While a 
          20            diesel engine is extremely fuel 
          21            efficient, and that issue will become 
          22            increasingly important over the next 
          23            decade as oil reserves decline, it is 
          24            imperative that efficiency gains are 
          25            not made at the expense of 


                                                               307
           1            environmental and public health.
           2                    While I urge the EPA to exact 
           3            stricter emissions standards on cars, 
           4            light trucks, SUVs and diesel vehicles, 
           5            I also urge you to increase incentives 
           6            for advanced technology vehicles.  
           7            Through the U.S. Department of Energy's 
           8            Clean Cities program, clean alternative 
           9            fuel vehicles are being promoted and 
          10            used nationwide.  However, this program 
          11            focuses primarily on national security 
          12            and domestic energy issues.  U.S. EPA 
          13            should do all they can to promote 
          14            cleaner burning internal combustion 
          15            engines, clean domestic fuels and 
          16            advanced fuel cell technologies.
          17                    While involved in the Clean 
          18            Cities program, I have learned that 
          19            many people and companies within the 
          20            automotive industry are capable and 
          21            willing to produce cleaner vehicles.  
          22            There are approximately 20 models of 
          23            clean alternative fuel vehicles 
          24            available from auto manufacturers on 
          25            the market today.  With encouragement 


                                                               308
           1            and assistance from the U.S. 
           2            Environmental Protection Agency, this 
           3            amount could grow significantly.  
           4            Requiring auto manufacturers to produce 
           5            low emissions vehicles, or LEVs, the 
           6            California standard, will, in effect, 
           7            create a national standard that should 
           8            be less complicated for OEMs to meet.
           9                    To close the loop, it is also 
          10            vitally important that oil companies be 
          11            required to produce a cleaner product.  
          12            While the country will undoubtedly 
          13            transition away from petroleum use over 
          14            the coming decades, that transition can 
          15            be made cleaner by requiring the 
          16            production and sale of low sulfur 
          17            gasoline.  This enforcement should be 
          18            adopted at the same time as the new 
          19            emissions standards.
          20                    Why is all this so important.  
          21            I mentioned earlier the extreme health 
          22            costs associated with automotive air 
          23            pollution.  Not only am I an advocate 
          24            for a cleaner environment, I'm one of 
          25            the millions of people in America who 


                                                               309
           1            suffer from asthma.  While I have the 
           2            disease moderately in control now, I 
           3            fear a future of dirtier air that will 
           4            take its toll as I age.  Please adopt 
           5            strong vehicle emissions standards that 
           6            will protect our air quality for many 
           7            years to come.  Thank you for giving me 
           8            the opportunity to address you on this 
           9            important issue and I'll be happy to 
          10            answer any questions.
          11                    MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very 
          12            much for your comments.  We will 
          13            consider your comments. 
          14                         -  -  -  -
          15               (Thereupon, a discussion was had off
          16               the record.)
          17                         -  -  -  -
          18                    MR. GREENBAUN:  Hi, my name is Bob 
          19            Greenbaun.  I'm the chairman of the 
          20            local Sierra Club in northeastern Ohio 
          21            and we're very happy to have you here 
          22            and working on an issue near and dear 
          23            to our hearts.  I'd like to give you a 
          24            slightly different viewpoint on the 
          25            proposed regulations that I think I've 


                                                               310
           1            heard in the last little bit here 
           2            listening in.  I have two basic points 
           3            I'd like to share with you.  One is 
           4            it's a shame you folks weren't able to 
           5            join us here in Cleveland last week 
           6            because last Monday we had an ozone 
           7            alert and it ran on for a number of 
           8            days.
           9                    And while this ozone alert was 
          10            hitting us in 90 degree plus weather 
          11            last Monday, I happened to be out and 
          12            about Monday morning about 11:00 in 
          13            morning.  I had to be driven home 
          14            because I was no longer capable of 
          15            driving.  I was getting deprived of 
          16            oxygen to the brain, as many asthma 
          17            suffers do in this kind of weather.  I 
          18            was having trouble lifting things, like 
          19            glasses.  And so I had to go into 
          20            hibernation for a little while.
          21                    I predict that the industry 
          22            panels, who I've heard and listened 
          23            respectfully to their testimony here, 
          24            would have an entirely different 
          25            viewpoint on air pollution from 


                                                               311
           1            automobiles if say GM's Roger had a kid 
           2            with asthma.  Because I think about the 
           3            first time that a father looks at a 
           4            child turning blue or has to throw them 
           5            in the back seat of the car and rush 
           6            them down to the emergency room, 
           7            there's a very different perspective 
           8            that you obtain as to, you know, the 
           9            relationship between your business and 
          10            your family and the values of life in 
          11            general.  Because, you know, although 
          12            we're told in churches and synagogues 
          13            and mosques that it's immoral for us to 
          14            make our living by causing the injury 
          15            or death of others, that tends to not 
          16            sit home, that moral lesson tends not 
          17            to sit in the forefront of the mind as 
          18            we go about our daily routines and 
          19            everything's no problem.  There doesn't 
          20            appear to be much there.  So in a sense 
          21            it's unfortunate you missed the 
          22            pleasure of Cleveland during an ozone 
          23            alert.
          24                    Please keep us in mind as you 
          25            are evolving rules on this subject.  


                                                               312
           1            Because you are talking directly of the 
           2            ability to function, the health and 
           3            longevity of the people of this area 
           4            and other areas that are subject to 
           5            ozone alerts, okay.
           6                    With regard to the upcoming 
           7            recommendation that you all have, you 
           8            know, on the proposed regulations here, 
           9            I would like to suggest one way of 
          10            resolving an industrial problem that I 
          11            have been hearing here and at many 
          12            other hearings of this type throughout 
          13            the years.  And that is the problem of 
          14            industrial people saying they either do 
          15            not know how to comply with this 
          16            request or can't do it for financial 
          17            reasons.
          18                    I would like to propose that 
          19            EPA start, in the spirit of free 
          20            enterprise that has come to us more 
          21            recently through the ideas of Ronald 
          22            Reagan and the right wing, I would like 
          23            you to throw this open to an 
          24            inventor's, I'd like to throw open for 
          25            an inventor's lottery.  And I suggest 


                                                               313
           1            that you run it as follows:  That you 
           2            throw out to the public the possibility 
           3            of coming up with inventions to permit 
           4            the rapid improvement of the 
           5            environment through automobiles, 
           6            gasoline and any other medium and 
           7            empower a panel of engineering 
           8            societies to evaluate these proposals 
           9            as they may affect the health, safety 
          10            and environment of the community at 
          11            large.  And then help the inventors 
          12            market these inventions to the 
          13            companies and so forth who have been 
          14            resistant through the years to new 
          15            ideas.
          16                    I think this would help this 
          17            industrial albatross that we have to 
          18            look at suggestions and ideas that come 
          19            from a culture not quite as steeped in 
          20            its own methodology and maybe a whole 
          21            new perspective for solving some of 
          22            these problems and we may get to a more 
          23            rapid thing.  It would certainly enable 
          24            the EPA to say to GM, for example, that 
          25            well, if you're having trouble meeting 


                                                               314
           1            the requirements for various 
           2            pollutants, here are a number of 
           3            inventions that the society of 
           4            mechanical engineers and, you know, so 
           5            on and so forth, all the various 
           6            societies could look at.
           7                    I don't know of a single bridge 
           8            builder engineer who would not just 
           9            drool at the possibility of reducing 
          10            weight in the frames of some of these 
          11            sport utility vehicles.  They could 
          12            make a lot of money selling those ideas 
          13            to Detroit.
          14                    So to help out our friends in 
          15            the industry who are having trouble 
          16            with this and lacking ideas, let's have 
          17            an inventor's lottery and give these 
          18            folks a portion of the ideas that could 
          19            help and so forth. 
          20                    And the last thing I would like 
          21            to suggest that you are going to get 
          22            complaints at the EPA on the duration, 
          23            how long it this will take to implement 
          24            these standards and how long it will 
          25            take to develop new processes and 


                                                               315
           1            manufacturing facilities and so on and 
           2            so forth.  No matter what timetable you 
           3            propose, you're going to get the same 
           4            complaints.  So I think that what you 
           5            should do is propose the fastest 
           6            timetables that you can and the most 
           7            inclusive timetables.  And that means 
           8            no more exceptions.
           9                    We had exceptions on fuel 
          10            efficiency for light trucks and look 
          11            what happened.  So if we have 
          12            exceptions for anything, sport utility 
          13            vehicles, small diesel or even 
          14            full-size diesel, any exception will be 
          15            exploited as a marketing opportunity 
          16            where a manufacturer will have the 
          17            opportunity to compete and offer a 
          18            product that doesn't have to conform to 
          19            the same standards as everyone else.  
          20            So I strongly urge you to rationalize 
          21            and unify the standards for diesel, for 
          22            heavier cars and so forth.  And this 
          23            will take us a long way towards an 
          24            improved country.  And 20 years from 
          25            now you will be able to say to your 


                                                               316
           1            grandchildren that you contributed to a 
           2            better world than the one that you were 
           3            born into by doing these things.  And 
           4            the bitching from the industry is going 
           5            to remain the same and you have nothing 
           6            to lose by doing this.
           7                    I would like to thank you for 
           8            your attention and for your joining us 
           9            here in Cleveland.  And I certainly 
          10            hope you go back and take a very strong 
          11            and hard line.  I would be very pleased 
          12            to answer any questions.
          13                    MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very 
          14            much.  Any questions.  Thank you. 
          15                         -  -  -  -
          16               (Thereupon, a discussion was had off
          17               the record.)
          18                         -  -  -  -
          19                    MR. SNAPE:  Good afternoon and 
          20            thanks.  This is what, your fifth day 
          21            of doing this.  You're holding up 
          22            remarkably well.
          23                    I would also like to add my 
          24            voice to the many you've heard today.  
          25            And I'm really going to make two sets 


                                                               317
           1            of comments.  One of them fairly 
           2            general and one rather specific.
           3                    Basically, I wish to speak in 
           4            support of EPA's Tier 2 proposal for 
           5            improving human health in the urban 
           6            environment by cutting 
           7            transportation-related pollution.  I'm 
           8            concerned about the health impacts that 
           9            air pollution has on our health and the 
          10            health of our society's weakest 
          11            members.  During the 1998 ozone season, 
          12            Ohio managed to have almost 450 days 
          13            where the new ozone standards were 
          14            violated.  Given that we know that 
          15            health impacts occur in sensitive 
          16            populations well below the new ozone 
          17            standards, the importance of these 
          18            regulations cannot be overstated.
          19                    For example, in northeast Ohio, 
          20            the childhood asthma rates have come 
          21            close to tripling over the past 30 
          22            years.  Moreover, we continue to 
          23            devalue the quality of life of our 
          24            elders.
          25                    My father is slowly dying from 


                                                               318
           1            lung disease and high particulate and 
           2            high ozone days are extremely stressful 
           3            on his breathing and destroy quality of 
           4            life he has left.  Last week when we 
           5            had five high ozone days in a row he 
           6            had particular severe difficulty 
           7            breathing.  It is ironic that the 
           8            pollution that so limits his breathing 
           9            that he is forced to stop walking and 
          10            take his car, the very tool that 
          11            created much of the problem in the 
          12            first place.
          13                    Some step needs to be taken to 
          14            clean air quality for all of those with 
          15            poor respiratory health.  Given the 
          16            failure of the current NOx SIP call to 
          17            deal with transportation sources, not 
          18            to mention its ambiguous legal status, 
          19            the Tier 2 standards are one of the 
          20            best tools we have to really begin to 
          21            bring transportation emissions under 
          22            control.
          23                    This proposal's a big step in 
          24            the right direction, but there are 
          25            three things that might be improved 


                                                               319
           1            before this rule becomes final.  First, 
           2            all passenger vehicles, including 
           3            minivans and SUVs, should meet the same 
           4            standards at the same time.  Larger 
           5            SUVs should not be given extra time to 
           6            clean up.
           7                    I recently interviewed one of 
           8            the senior design engineer's at Honda.  
           9            He was employed as one of the project 
          10            managers on their new SUV project that 
          11            will be coming out next year.  In that 
          12            interview, he pointed out that he will 
          13            be able to meet national NLEV standards 
          14            for approximately $225 above the 
          15            existing vehicle costs on what they 
          16            currently are planning.  As this 
          17            vehicle's classed as a large SUV and 
          18            will retail for approximately $35,000, 
          19            extra cost brings this behemoth into 
          20            compliance at approximately 0.64 
          21            percent of its base cost.
          22                    If I am going to spend $35,000, 
          23            I'm doubtful that that last one-half of 
          24            one percent that will make this vehicle 
          25            substantially cleaner will deter too 


                                                               320
           1            many consumers who might otherwise 
           2            purchase the vehicle.  Clearly, cost is 
           3            hardly significant and nothing exists 
           4            to prevent immediate implementation. 
           5                    The technology is already in 
           6            existence and on the shelf.  A ten-year 
           7            phase-in merely allows us to maintain a 
           8            status quo that fails to work for even 
           9            longer periods of time without one 
          10            single compelling reason.
          11                    A second thing I'd like you to 
          12            think about is that the current 
          13            standards are much too lax when dealing 
          14            with diesel vehicles.  While these 
          15            regulations mark a valuable step 
          16            forward, they are still too permissive.  
          17            All vehicles, regardless of engine 
          18            technology or fuel use, should meet the 
          19            same public health-related standards.  
          20            There's no logical justification for 
          21            special treatment for diesel 
          22            technologies.  Rather than go on about 
          23            that, I'll just simply cite the 
          24            gentleman who was just here.  If you 
          25            give them a reason to separate profit 


                                                               321
           1            line, they will do so because it 
           2            becomes marketable.  And there's no 
           3            need to encourage that.
           4                    While I would speculate that 
           5            EPA, by doing little about diesel to 
           6            this point, now feels that they need to 
           7            phase in the new limitations, while 
           8            this might be politically astute, you 
           9            merely insure that we will need Tier 3 
          10            standards to deal with diesel and allow 
          11            the negative health consequences to 
          12            perpetuate.  The Tier 2 proposal has 
          13            created two vehicle categories that 
          14            would permanently allow diesel engines 
          15            to pollute twice as much soot as 
          16            gasoline engines and up to ten times as 
          17            much smog-forming nitrogen oxide.  I 
          18            would reconsider the diesel standard 
          19            and act more aggressively in bringing 
          20            these sources into line with automobile 
          21            standards.
          22                    Finally, and on a much more 
          23            specific level, the Clean Air 
          24            Conservancy is a national environmental 
          25            group whose mission is to find 


                                                               322
           1            market-based solutions that serve to 
           2            clean the air while doing so at the 
           3            lowest possible cost.  I would 
           4            particularly like to now focus on the 
           5            issue of implementing the 30 part per 
           6            million standard.
           7                    Specifically, I'm concerned 
           8            that the way we're currently in the 
           9            existing Tier 2 legislation going to 
          10            implement the standard is going to lead 
          11            to the equivalent of what we've seen in 
          12            the SO2 market or hot spots.  That by 
          13            allowing people to go ahead and setting 
          14            a minimum standard that they'll be 
          15            accountable for but no maximum standard 
          16            which they cannot exceed.  We've seen 
          17            in the SO2, national sulfur dioxide 
          18            market, that midwestern utilities have 
          19            pursued a buy-and-burn program where 
          20            they go out, purchase allowances and 
          21            find cheaper to burn them than comply, 
          22            thus leaving the New York state 
          23            legislature, who repeatedly tried to 
          24            drop off sales of surplus sulfur 
          25            dioxide allowances by their utilities 


                                                               323
           1            to Ohio utilities because they're 
           2            viewing it as we just simply get air 
           3            pollution dumped back on us.
           4                    What we would propose is to 
           5            reconceptionalize your allowance 
           6            credits that you're currently looking 
           7            at and set both the minimum and maximum 
           8            levels.  That any refinery that manages 
           9            to go below their target number, they 
          10            shouldn't be awarded allowances for 
          11            staking use in the next year  or they 
          12            consult other refineries.  However, 
          13            there should also be a maximum cost 
          14            allowance so that they cannot exceeded 
          15            a certain level and so that we do not 
          16            find, excuse me a second, this 
          17            happening, which is what I greatly 
          18            expect will happen.  Which is over time 
          19            what will happen as the utilities move 
          20            toward, into the program, you'll see 
          21            some who are much more aggressive in 
          22            their reductions and thereby year four, 
          23            three out of the four utilities are 
          24            well below the level.   However, that 
          25            one remaining utility is still at .095 


                                                               324
           1            parts per million. 
           2                    Where this becomes a real 
           3            problem is in the large SUVs which 
           4            currently have the technology to go 
           5            down to current or close to NLEV 
           6            standards, they're unable to do so 
           7            because of the high sulfur content.  
           8            And given the volume of gasoline and 
           9            emissions they have to push because of 
          10            their size, this becomes a problem 
          11            issue.  They can't implement a 1400 dpi 
          12            catalytic system much above seven parts 
          13            per million.  Consequently, any one 
          14            utility or refinery in this case that 
          15            is still above, even the market is 
          16            drifting downward, and from an 
          17            aggregate viewpoint, you would be 
          18            perfectly consistent and would be in 
          19            complete compliance because they can 
          20            buy allowances and have no annual limit 
          21            on their emissions, they can block the 
          22            entire limitation of the large-scale 
          23            SUV.  Because with some of that fuel 
          24            out there, you're going to wind up 
          25            clogging the systems and rendering them 


                                                               325
           1            useless.
           2                    Consequently, we propose going 
           3            to a dual-level system so that annually 
           4            there will be a maximum amount, a 
           5            maximum decline as well.  That still 
           6            gives predictability for the 
           7            refineries, it gives the market forces 
           8            a chance to continue to generate the 
           9            lowest costs, but it also prevents one 
          10            or two actors from delaying 
          11            implementation of crucial standards.  
          12            This would also allow us to speed up 
          13            our yearly implementation so that to 
          14            bring large-scale SUVs into compliance 
          15            be done much more rapidly if we're 
          16            going to use the second maximum level.
          17                    Thank you for your time.  
          18                    MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Thank 
          19            you very much.  Thank you.  Any 
          20            questions?  Thank you very much.
          21                    MR. SIMON:  I don't have any 
          22            questions, but I would encourage you to 
          23            follow up your testimony today with 
          24            some detailed written statements 
          25            including your slides.


                                                               326
           1                    MR. SNAPE:  I dropped those off 
           2            out front.  I will be more than glad, 
           3            if you windup with any questions, my 
           4            information's on the testimony.  Please 
           5            feel free to call.
           6                    MR. FRANCE:  Is there anyone 
           7            else that wants to testify?
           8                         Why don't we take a break 
           9            and reconvene at about 5:15 and we'll 
          10            take stock at where we're at at that 
          11            point. 
          12                         -  -  -  -
          13               (Thereupon, a recess was had.)
          14                         -  -  -  -
          15                    MR. FRANCE:  It's 5:15.  We'll 
          16            start again.  If you will be kind 
          17            enough to write your names and any 
          18            affiliation on the cards for the court 
          19            reporter.  Appreciate it. 
          20                         -  -  -  -
          21               (Thereupon, a discussion was had off
          22               the record.)
          23                         -  -  -  -
          24                    MR. FRANCE:  Ms. Dunn, you go 
          25            first.


                                                               327
           1                    MS. DUNN:  Sure.  Good morning 
           2            -- not morning anymore.  Good evening.  
           3            My name is Jessica Dunn and I greatly 
           4            appreciate the opportunity to speak to 
           5            you on this important and timely issue.
           6                    Today, as much of the nation 
           7            experiences the beginning of the 1999 
           8            smog season, we have a great 
           9            opportunity to curve pollution from 
          10            it's second largest single source, the 
          11            automobile.  This should be among our 
          12            nation's highest priorities, especially 
          13            in light of the difficulties U.S. EPA 
          14            is having implementing the current NOx 
          15            SIP call on utility NOx emissions.  Air 
          16            pollution, especially NOx pollution, 
          17            threatens the health of at least 117 
          18            million Americans who live where smog 
          19            levels are a frequent health threat.
          20                    Those who are most vulnerable 
          21            to the health impacts of air pollution 
          22            are children and people with asthma.  
          23            The growing number of American children 
          24            now go to asthma camps instead of 
          25            summer camps, miss school to avoid 


                                                               328
           1            breathing smog, stay indoors instead of 
           2            playing outside with friends on smoggy 
           3            summer days and end up in hospital 
           4            emergency rooms from asthma attacks 
           5            brought on by smog.  There are over 15 
           6            million Americans with asthma, 5 
           7            million of whom are children.  We must 
           8            establish pollution controls that 
           9            protect these vulnerable populations 
          10            from smog.
          11                    Although we do have cleaner 
          12            cars today than two decades ago, 
          13            automobile air pollution is on the 
          14            rise.  This is because people drive 
          15            more than ever before and are choosing 
          16            larger, more polluting vehicles.  
          17            Therefore, we must insist upon advances 
          18            in automobile pollution control 
          19            technology in order to keep pace with 
          20            the trends toward more driving and 
          21            larger vehicles.  As the New York Times 
          22            pointed out, the popularity of SUVs 
          23            could obliterate recent improvements in 
          24            air quality.
          25                    I applaud EPA's Tier 2 and 


                                                               329
           1            gasoline sulfur proposal because it is 
           2            a strong program that will lead to 
           3            dramatically cleaner cars.  
           4            Specifically, I agree with EPA that new 
           5            cars should pollute 90 percent less 
           6            than today's cars, that a nationwide 
           7            clean gasoline standard is necessary to 
           8            insure that vehicle pollution controls 
           9            remain effective over the lifetime of 
          10            the car and that the popular sport 
          11            utility vehicles should be included in 
          12            the program. While not all would agree 
          13            with the scope of the risk, as Richard 
          14            Klimisch, the vice-president of the 
          15            American Automobile Manufacturers 
          16            Association, reported, "The effects of 
          17            ozone are not that serious... what 
          18            we're talking about is a temporary loss 
          19            in lung function of 20 to 30 percent.  
          20            That's not really a health effect."
          21                    Another anonymous oil industry 
          22            lobbyist was quoted as saying, 
          23            "Asthmatic kids need not go out and 
          24            ride their bicycles on smoggy days."
          25                     Despite these opposing views, 


                                                               330
           1            the EPA should strengthen its standards 
           2            in several important ways.  No special 
           3            treatment should be given to bigger, 
           4            dirtier SUVs. 
           5                    EPA's proposal, as written, 
           6            will not require the cleanup of the 
           7            largest and dirtiest sport utility 
           8            vehicles on the market and gives some 
           9            SUVs until 2009 before the standards 
          10            apply.  This loophole creates a 
          11            perverse incentive for automobile 
          12            manufacturers to aggressively make and 
          13            market ever-larger and more polluting 
          14            SUVs.  All cars and SUVs should meet 
          15            the same pollution standards at the 
          16            same time under the new standards.
          17                     No special treatment should be 
          18            given to diesel vehicles.  Automobile 
          19            makers are aggressively moving toward 
          20            diesel engines for the largest 
          21            passenger vehicles.   EPA's proposal 
          22            leaves the door open for higher 
          23            polluting diesel trucks to be sold 
          24            indefinitely.
          25                    Clean gasoline should be 


                                                               331
           1            available earlier.  Under EPA's 
           2            proposal, high sulfur gasoline will be 
           3            on the market in significant quantities 
           4            as late as 2006.  In 2004 when clean 
           5            cars begin to come off the assembly 
           6            lines, clean gasoline should be 
           7            required nationwide to prevent 
           8            irreversible damage to the car's 
           9            pollution control equipment.
          10                     Again, thank you for the 
          11            opportunity to speak.  I applaud EPA 
          12            for proposing stringent standards for 
          13            cars and urge the adoption of this 
          14            program with the noted strengthening 
          15            amendment.
          16                    MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very 
          17            much. 
          18                    Mr. Galik.
          19                    MR. GALIK:  Thank you for the 
          20            opportunity to speak here today.  I am 
          21            here to voice my support for the EPA's 
          22            Tier 2 proposal to push forward 
          23            important environmentally effective 
          24            standards that will insure cleaner air.  
          25            As an environmentally conscious 


                                                               332
           1            citizen, college student and life-long 
           2            resident of the greater Cleveland area, 
           3            I have researched and studied both the 
           4            health and environmental problems that 
           5            the proposed regulations focus upon.  
           6            Environment problems such as increased 
           7            automobile emissions, the degradation 
           8            of air quality and the significant 
           9            buildup of ground level ozone are of 
          10            great concern to me since the public 
          11            health impact on the surrounding areas 
          12            and region are serious.
          13                    I applaud the EPA in their 
          14            efforts to eliminate sulfur from 
          15            gasoline since it is of utmost 
          16            importance.  Low or no sulfur gas would 
          17            lead to cleaner air by lessening the 
          18            pollution emissions by vehicles.  The 
          19            current gasoline pollution controls 
          20            found on vehicles today are sulfur 
          21            tolerant.  However, new and better 
          22            control technologies are available and 
          23            comparatively priced to current 
          24            technologies.  Unfortunately, they are 
          25            not sulfur tolerant.


                                                               333
           1                    The oil industry is fighting 
           2            against such a policy stating that it 
           3            would be too costly to the consumer to 
           4            refine out the sulfur and that the 
           5            EPA's proposal requires more than is 
           6            reasonably possible.  Contrarily, the 
           7            technology to eliminate sulfur from gas 
           8            is readily available and increases in 
           9            the price would be more than likely 
          10            comparative to those that occurred with 
          11            the elimination of lead.  Big business 
          12            such as the oil industry has 
          13            continually made such claims in 
          14            vehement opposition to environmental 
          15            regulations.  They try to scare the 
          16            public with absurd economic figures 
          17            that have been shown time and time 
          18            again to be far too high once the 
          19            policy was actually enacted.
          20                    Furthermore, I am glad to see 
          21            the EPA is attempting to close the SUV 
          22            loophole, which means that light trucks 
          23            and SUVs would have to meet similar 
          24            pollution standards as are currently in 
          25            the place for our average cars.  The 


                                                               334
           1            proposed new pollution standards are 
           2            needed to combat the tremendous 
           3            increase in light trucks, SUVs, 
           4            minivans and pickups from less than 20 
           5            percent some 25 years ago to one of the 
           6            fastest growing types of automobiles 
           7            sold today.  The policy would fix the 
           8            problem of SUVs emitting up to three 
           9            times as much pollution as an average 
          10            car and make new cars about 90 percent 
          11            cleaner than the current cars.
          12                    In addition to closing the 
          13            loopholes of light trucks, I'm happy to 
          14            see the EPA proposal addresses 
          15            diesel-run vehicles for the first time.  
          16            Necessary regulations are finally being 
          17            placed on emissions levels for some 
          18            diesel-run vehicles.  Even though the 
          19            proposal only provides minimal 
          20            emissions standards to be set, I think 
          21            this is a step in the right direction.
          22                    Degradation of air quality and 
          23            public health is inherent in all the 
          24            diesel and SUV traffic going on in the 
          25            exurbs, which can be combatted by the 


                                                               335
           1            Tier 2 proposal.  SUV and diesel 
           2            vehicles are amongst the largest 
           3            producers of air pollutants threatening 
           4            public health.  The air pollution that 
           5            traffic produces has a significant 
           6            impact on local, state and national and 
           7            global environments.  There are serious 
           8            health ramifications due to the 
           9            increased distances and volumes of 
          10            automobile traffic.  This leads to 
          11            higher pollution emissions and 
          12            decreasing air quality since more and 
          13            more vehicles travel on our roads every 
          14            day emitting massive amounts of 
          15            pollution.  30 percent of the 
          16            smog-forming nitrogen oxide or NOx 
          17            pollution arises from cars and light 
          18            trucks.  In addition, they are 
          19            responsible for about 20 percent of 
          20            smog forming volatile organic 
          21            compounds, not to mention that 20 
          22            percent of the total U.S. carbon 
          23            dioxide or greenhouse gas emissions are 
          24            produced by cars and light trucks.  All 
          25            of these numbers would be increased if 


                                                               336
           1            diesel-run vehicles were added to the 
           2            equation.
           3                    Furthermore, these vehicles 
           4            produce particulate matter that is seen 
           5            in the form of soot.  This can be 
           6            translated in the degradation of our 
           7            surrounding areas that impact the 
           8            environment, i.e., human health, 
           9            buildings, monuments, crops, etc.  One 
          10            can easily see the impact of more 
          11            stringent air pollution standards would 
          12            have on all suburban areas.  One of the 
          13            major health risks stemming from all of 
          14            this is that the health impact of 
          15            ground level ozone.  According to the 
          16            American Lung Association, ground level 
          17            ozone reacts with lung tissue, 
          18            inflaming breathing passages and 
          19            decreasing lung function.  It acts as a 
          20            powerful respiratory irritant, which at 
          21            high levels can cause shortness of 
          22            breath, coughing, wheezing, headaches, 
          23            nausea and lung damage.  Children, the 
          24            elderly and those with respiratory 
          25            disorders are at an even greater risk.  


                                                               337
           1            Also, people who suffer from lung 
           2            disease, like bronchitis, asthma, 
           3            pneumonia, emphysema and colds have 
           4            even a harder time breathing when air 
           5            is polluted.  Nevertheless, these 
           6            potential health risks effect everyone 
           7            in the region.
           8                    One of the best examples of 
           9            these effects that the proposed air 
          10            pollution standards set forth by Tier 2 
          11            would be seen in the area of Medina 
          12            County, which is located in northeast 
          13            Ohio, just south of Cleveland.  In the 
          14            past several years, there has been an 
          15            explosive urban development of the 
          16            Medina County region.  To combat this, 
          17            one of the major interstates, I-71, 
          18            runs through the county, adding to the 
          19            increased traffic flow.  What all this 
          20            means is that the with such increase in 
          21            urban sprawl, which leads to increase 
          22            in traffic congestion in the area, and 
          23            ambient air quality of the area has 
          24            decreased, thus the amount of air 
          25            pollution has, air pollution has 


                                                               338
           1            significantly increased.
           2                    However, the proposal does fall 
           3            short on several key areas.  The first 
           4            being that all passenger vehicles, 
           5            whether it be a sedan, minivan, SUV or 
           6            compact, should be required to meet the 
           7            same standards at the same time.  
           8            Secondly, larger SUVs should not have 
           9            an extended period of time to meet the 
          10            new standards.  Thirdly, that EPA 
          11            should not provide any special 
          12            concessions for dirtier emitting diesel 
          13            vehicles.  Instead, more stringent 
          14            standards should be set to combat the 
          15            pollution effects of diesel-run 
          16            vehicles.    
          17                     Also, the EPA should 
          18            strengthen their efforts to advance 
          19            control technologies to lower emissions 
          20            of all vehicles.  And finally, sulfur 
          21            must be completely eliminated from 
          22            gasoline as quickly as possible.
          23                    Thank you for your time, or for 
          24            the opportunity to speak.
          25                    MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very 


                                                               339
           1            much.  We do appreciate you sharing 
           2            your views with us and we will take 
           3            them under advisement as we modify the 
           4            rule.  Thank you again. 
           5                         -  -  -  -
           6               (Thereupon, a discussion was had off
           7               the record.)
           8                         -  -  -  -
           9               (Thereupon, a recess was had.)
          10                         -  -  -  -
          11                    MR. FRANCE:  Let the testimony of 
          12            William G. Johnson, managing director 
          13            of public affairs, AAA Ohio Motorists 
          14            Association, be submitted into the 
          15            record.
          16                    MR. MAVEC:  My name is Ken 
          17            Mavec and I'm a respiratory therapist 
          18            at Mt. Sinai Medical Center in 
          19            Cleveland.  And I'd like to say thank 
          20            you for your efforts to make the air 
          21            safe to breathe by cutting pollution 
          22            from vehicles.
          23                    I see on a firsthand basis the 
          24            health effects daily when our air 
          25            pollution is high.  We get a lot of 


                                                               340
           1            asthmatics and emphysema and chronic 
           2            lung patients in the emergency room.  
           3            And particularly what affects me is the 
           4            children that can't run outside and 
           5            play because the air pollution is too 
           6            bad.  And they come in the hospital and 
           7            they're in there several days getting 
           8            stuck with needles and getting all 
           9            kinds of medications in order to try to 
          10            breathe.  And it's not fun and they'd 
          11            rather be outside playing or going to 
          12            school.  They lose a lot of days of 
          13            school from being sick.
          14                    And so smog, it's called a 
          15            serious health threat, but I think the 
          16            threat is, it's actually an occurrence 
          17            that occurs.  And that's, some of this 
          18            is unnecessary and we could, by 
          19            applying the same standards for diesel 
          20            and gasoline fuels and eliminating 
          21            sulfur from each of those fuels, we 
          22            decrease a lot of the pollution that 
          23            effects the sulfur dioxide that effects 
          24            the lungs.  And passenger cars, sport 
          25            utility vehicles and light trucks and 


                                                               341
           1            vans should all have the same standard 
           2            applied to them if they're used for the 
           3            same personal transportation.  So 
           4            vehicles, including up to the new 
           5            super-size SUVs, 10,000 pounds, 
           6            personal transportation should have the 
           7            same standards, apply the same 
           8            implementation phase-in and the effect, 
           9            make them effective before the year 
          10            2004 vehicles, that would be helpful.
          11                    And the cancer-causing 
          12            particulates, EM2.5, apply the same 
          13            standards to all the vehicles, whether 
          14            they operate on electricity or diesel 
          15            or gasoline.
          16                    And thank you very much for the 
          17            opportunity to testify.
          18                    MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  We 
          19            appreciate your time today to come 
          20            here.  Thank you very much.
          21                    I appreciate you testifying.  
          22            You can state your name and spell your 
          23            name for the court reporter.
          24                    MR. BELL:  My name is Sam Bell, 
          25            B-e-l-l, and I'll give you a written 


                                                               342
           1            copy as well.  Hello, I'm a certified 
           2            automobile repair technician operating 
           3            the Lusty Wrench Garage in Cleveland 
           4            Heights and a contributing editor at 
           5            Import Service magazine.  I'm also a 
           6            member of the Service Technicians 
           7            Society, the sister organization of the 
           8            Society of Automotive Engineers.  I am 
           9            also a State of Ohio EPA certified I/M 
          10            240 technician trainer.  So it is my 
          11            job and the job of those whom I train 
          12            to maintain and repair the new vehicles 
          13            and systems that will result from the 
          14            regulations ultimately adopted.
          15                     I would like to speak to some 
          16            of the specifics of the proposed Tier 
          17            regulations before us today.
          18                    A.  The proposed low sulfur 
          19            standards for fuel should be 
          20            implemented industry-wide as quickly as 
          21            possible.  Industry-wide implementation 
          22            is necessary because high sulfur fuels 
          23            will irreversibly 
          24            damage next-generation catalytic 
          25            converters rendering them ineffective.


                                                               343
           1                    Another emerging technology 
           2            which shows great promise for increased 
           3            fuel efficiency and reduced emissions 
           4            levels, gasoline direct injection, also 
           5            requires low sulfur fuels.  Low sulfur 
           6            fuels are already in use in California, 
           7            Sweden, Finland and the UK.   The 
           8            proposed market-based system of banking 
           9            and credits will not accomplish the 
          10            needed goal of insuring greater 
          11            converter efficiency, but will instead 
          12            allow small refineries to continue to 
          13            produce and market high sulfur fuels.  
          14            I, therefore, suggest a system of tax 
          15            credits and subsidies on a per refinery 
          16            basis, which would allow universal 
          17            compliance in a shorter time frame.  A 
          18            more detailed discussion of this 
          19            proposal is included in my written 
          20            statement.
          21                    B.  The automobile industry is 
          22            capable of meeting the proposed .07 
          23            grams per mile NOx standard as early as 
          24            model year 2002 or 2003 for all 
          25            vehicles below 10,000 pounds.  The 


                                                               344
           1            EPA's own feasibility testing has shown 
           2            the simple addition of off-the-shelf 
           3            catalytic converter capacity allows 
           4            current production small and 
           5            medium-sized trucks to meet the Tier 2 
           6            standards under full load without even 
           7            reprogramming the vehicle's engine 
           8            management computer.
           9                    A study project conducted at 
          10            the independent Southwest Research 
          11            Center in San Antonio, Texas for MECA, 
          12            the Manufacturers of emissions Controls 
          13            Equipment Association, replaced the 
          14            catalyst of a 6,400 pound Silverado 
          15            showing 120,000 miles on its odometer 
          16            with a larger, more efficient converter 
          17            and other advanced but readily 
          18            available components. This experiment 
          19            achieved NOx emissions of .047 grams 
          20            per mile, more than 30 percent below 
          21            the proposed Tier 2 standards.  This 
          22            study used gasoline with a sulfur 
          23            content of 38 parts per million, 
          24            commercially available now in 
          25            California.


                                                               345
           1                    I will mention only two more of 
           2            the many available strategies by means 
           3            of which the Tier 2 NOx goals could be 
           4            achieved much sooner.
           5                    One, the adoption of 
           6            continuously variable automatic 
           7            transmissions, a technology already 
           8            extensively used by Subaru and DAF, a 
           9            Dutch manufacturer, would allow 
          10            vehicular power plants to operate 
          11            within a narrow band of speed and load, 
          12            achieving the same kind of efficiency 
          13            currently enjoyed by stationary 
          14            engines.
          15                    And two, the use of hybrid 
          16            underhood power plants or multi-stage 
          17            power supplies, incorporating the 
          18            output from one or more auxiliary 
          19            motors to supplement the main engine's 
          20            power during extreme load conditions, 
          21            allowing even the largest vehicles to 
          22            operate substantially 
          23            greater efficiency throughout their 
          24            range of speed and load.  The 
          25            forthcoming Toyota Prius, already a 


                                                               346
           1            best seller in Japan, is a good example 
           2            of a hybrid power plant.
           3                    C.  The emissions regulations 
           4            should be extended to all vehicles up 
           5            to at least 10,000 pounds.  It is 
           6            morally reprehensible and 
           7            environmentally unsound for the very 
           8            largest and dirtiest SUVs to be 
           9            exempted from the regulations.  Indeed, 
          10            the proposed regulations will 
          11            paradoxically encourage vehicle 
          12            manufacturers to devote greater 
          13            marketing and production resources to 
          14            the biggest, dirtiest and least 
          15            efficient class of vehicle, like the 
          16            new Ford Excursion.
          17                    D.  The upsurge in the sale of 
          18            trucks, minivans and sport utility 
          19            vehicles has already resulted in a 
          20            decrease in the average fuel economy of 
          21            the fleet on our highways.  If we are 
          22            to allow these vehicles to be produced 
          23            and driven at all, I propose an 
          24            additional regulation requiring any 
          25            vehicle which falls more than 10 


                                                               347
           1            percent below the average fuel economy 
           2            of the fleet or even of its segment of 
           3            the fleet to display an EPA warning 
           4            label accompanied by the following 
           5            text:  Use of this vehicle is hazardous 
           6            to life on this plant.  This vehicle is 
           7            inefficient and its use hastens the 
           8            degradation of the entire ecosystem.  
           9            This includes you.
          10                    E.  The proposed regulations do 
          11            not adequately address the specific 
          12            problems associated with the 
          13            diesel-powered vehicles.  Soot and fine 
          14            particulate emissions from diesel 
          15            emissions is known health hazards.  
          16            Compared to gasoline engines, diesels 
          17            emit fine particulates and soot at a 
          18            given NOx level.  If the prevalence of 
          19            diesels increases in the passenger 
          20            portion of the fleet, as seems 
          21            inevitable, greatly higher levels of 
          22            particulate emissions will result.  
          23            Although, tighter NOx standards for 
          24            diesels may not be required, tighter 
          25            particulate matter standards are.


                                                               348
           1                    Common-rail, direct-injection 
           2            diesel technologies coupled with better 
           3            self-regenerating particulate traps and 
           4            other appropriate control devices, such 
           5            as those in current production on the 
           6            latest generation Mercedes passenger 
           7            diesels, could bring diesel into the 
           8            mainstream.  Changes in the formulation 
           9            of diesel fuels may also be required to 
          10            inhibit particulate formation.  EPA 
          11            should lead the way through dealing 
          12            more strictly with diesel particulate 
          13            emissions.
          14                    Thank you.
          15                    MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very 
          16            much.  We appreciate you taking the 
          17            time to come here and share your views.
          18                    Do we have any other 
          19            testifiers? 
          20                         -  -  -  -
          21               (Thereupon, a discussion was had off
          22               the record.)
          23                         -  -  -  -
          24                    MS. BROCK:  My name is Kathryn 
          25            Brock.  B-r-o-c-k, Kathryn, 


                                                               349
           1            K-a-t-h-r-y-n.  I live in the City of 
           2            Cleveland.  You want my address?  I 
           3            would just like to say that I am very 
           4            much in favor of the strictest possible 
           5            air emissions regulations for cars and 
           6            SUVs and trucks.
           7                    I presently live in the City of 
           8            Cleveland.  I lived, I live on the west 
           9            side.  And I previously lived in Parma 
          10            Heights, which is south of the Ford and 
          11            the Chevy plant and south of the 
          12            airport.  And so when I first moved to 
          13            Cleveland, I was amazed at how much 
          14            dirtier the air is.  Very often it 
          15            smells like burning electrical cords 
          16            all day.  I mean, if you go outside, 
          17            that's what it smells like.  And I know 
          18            that this is because there's more 
          19            industry in the City of Cleveland and 
          20            probably there's a whole lot more 
          21            pollution.  And I know that you're not 
          22            addressing that problem at this 
          23            hearing, but that is still a huge 
          24            problem and the air emissions of 
          25            vehicles add to that problem as well.


                                                               350
           1                    And I have a particular reason 
           2            for being concerned.  In the last three 
           3            years, I've had cancer twice.  And in 
           4            December of 1995 I had breast cancer on 
           5            one side and in October of '98 I had 
           6            breast cancer on the other side, a 
           7            completely different cell line, 
           8            different kind of cancer.  There is no 
           9            history of breast cancer in my family.  
          10            And I work at Cleveland Clinic, have 
          11            access to Medline and a whole database 
          12            of journal articles.  So I've done a 
          13            lot of research on the subject.  And 
          14            like 95 percent of breast cancers are 
          15            not genetic, which means they're caused 
          16            by environmental factors.  And that 
          17            means the air we breathe, the water we 
          18            drink.  And I know that, I think in the 
          19            Cleveland area breast cancer is like 
          20            one in seven women get it.  That's a 
          21            whole lot of people.
          22                    And while you're just 
          23            addressing the small issue of air 
          24            emissions from vehicles in this 
          25            hearing, I think that air pollution has 


                                                               351
           1            a tremendous effect on the whole 
           2            environment because air deposition to 
           3            Lake Erie is second only in pollution 
           4            to the pollution coming in from the 
           5            Detroit River to Lake Erie.  So it's 
           6            huge dioxins.
           7                    After I lived in Parma Heights, 
           8            I lived in Lakewood for a 
           9            year-and-a-half.  And we had a, the 
          10            apartment building had an incinerator 
          11            where everything was burned, except 
          12            bottles and cans.  And I would come out 
          13            in the morning and my car would be 
          14            covered with soot.  And, I mean, it had 
          15            to be full of dioxins because there's 
          16            all that bleach in the paper and all 
          17            the plastics.  And I called the City of 
          18            Cleveland Air Pollution Control office 
          19            and asked them about the, is this 
          20            building that I live in in compliance.  
          21            And they said actually yes, it's one of 
          22            the better ones.
          23                    Lakewood is a very populous 
          24            community.  It's like the highest 
          25            population per square mile between New 


                                                               352
           1            York and Chicago.  And it is full of 
           2            apartment buildings, all who have these 
           3            old incinerators which they use.  So, 
           4            you know, that's in the air.  And I 
           5            just think that anything that can 
           6            reduce air pollution reduces the air 
           7            pollution contribution to water quality 
           8            in Lake Erie.  And so I would just like 
           9            to see the strictest standards 
          10            possible.  You know, I think that the 
          11            whole United States should have the 
          12            California standards at the very least.
          13                    So that's all I have to say.  
          14            Thank you.
          15                    MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very 
          16            much.  Appreciate you sharing your 
          17            views with us.
          18                    Anyone else?
          19                    Please state your name and 
          20            spell your last name for the recorder.
          21                    MS. MANNERS:  Wanted to add for 
          22            those of you who came in to speak, can 
          23            I get a copy of your written testimony 
          24            as well.  But if you have extra copies, 
          25            if you could leave them with us, too.


                                                               353
           1                    MS. RYDER:  Hi, my name is 
           2            Claire Ryder.  C-l-a-i-r-e R-y-d-e-r.
           3                    My name is Claire Ryder and I 
           4            am 15 years old.  I have taken 
           5            193,646,000 breaths, so I consider 
           6            myself an expert of on breathing.  As 
           7            an expert, I can tell you the air we 
           8            breathe is less than satisfactory.  I 
           9            am here today in favor of the proposal 
          10            that would require SUVs to have 
          11            stronger air quality standards.  
          12            Passing this proposal would make my 
          13            next 493,526,000 breaths healthier.
          14                    I would now like to read two 
          15            letters written by teenagers to Carol 
          16            Browner on the subject.
          17                    Dear Carol Browner, the 
          18            proposed standards of making the cars 
          19            pollute less is a great idea.  Our 
          20            health and environment is too important 
          21            to us to throw away with pollution from 
          22            cars.  Please send me info on these 
          23            standards.  Thank you.
          24                    Dear EPA, the air around here 
          25            isn't so bad, but I've seen it smoggy 


                                                               354
           1            in areas.  I have had problems 
           2            breathing in those areas and I believe 
           3            the people living there have the same 
           4            problems.  Despite the rise in gas 
           5            costs, I want the air cleaner and 
           6            easier to breathe.  Thank you for 
           7            reading this.
           8                    Those were written by teenagers 
           9            that drive.  So if they can afford the 
          10            increase in gas, adults with 
          11            higher-paying jobs can.
          12                    Now you've heard from three 
          13            teenagers.  And if you need more proof, 
          14            I have 17 more letters here.  Thank 
          15            you.
          16                    MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very 
          17            much for sharing that with us.
          18                    Anyone else?  Come on up.  If 
          19            you'd be kind enough to state your name 
          20            and spell it.
          21                    MS. BOTWAN:  My name is Judy 
          22            Botwan, B-o-t-w-a-n.  I just found out 
          23            about this hearing yesterday so I don't 
          24            have a prepared text or anything.  And 
          25            I decided to stop in and see what was 


                                                               355
           1            happening.  And I certainly do have 
           2            something to say though.
           3                    For many years I've noticed 
           4            increasing smog over the City of 
           5            Cleveland and its environments.  You 
           6            don't see a clear sky very often.  This 
           7            is in short contrast to my childhood 
           8            and youth and young adulthood.  It's 
           9            very perceptible.
          10                    Now, in addition, I, like many 
          11            other people, have become asthmatic.  
          12            And I became aware of this in the 1980s 
          13            and started having some problems.  I 
          14            didn't know exactly what it was, but it 
          15            really hit when I was on a trip twice 
          16            and suddenly I realized that I was 
          17            having respiratory difficulties and so 
          18            I had it diagnosed finally.  And it 
          19            renders me more susceptible to 
          20            infections and then I have a great deal 
          21            of difficulty.
          22                    Last week I had a problem 
          23            because we had air aversion.  It was 
          24            extremely hot, we didn't have much 
          25            movement.  And what happens is when I 


                                                               356
           1            go outside, and I really do enjoy the 
           2            outdoors, I really can't tolerate it 
           3            under those conditions.  I couldn't go 
           4            to a meeting because the place wasn't, 
           5            you know, air conditioned and it was 
           6            hot and they had the windows open and 
           7            so on and I just feel really tired.  I 
           8            should point out that I'm otherwise a 
           9            very healthy person.  I don't take any 
          10            medication except for hormone 
          11            replacements.  For a person my age, 
          12            that's pretty darn good, I think, you 
          13            know.  Occasional aspirin, whatever.  
          14            None whatsoever.
          15                    But this is a problem.  And I 
          16            feel that and I know that air quality 
          17            is being seriously compromised not only 
          18            by the emissions of industrial 
          19            corporations but also by cars and 
          20            vehicles not abiding by the standards 
          21            that were set.  But most importantly, 
          22            we have a great increase in the number 
          23            of vehicles that don't have to maintain 
          24            the same standard that passenger cars 
          25            do and these vehicles have been 


                                                               357
           1            increasing numerically.
           2                    I think it's extremely 
           3            important that we improve the standards 
           4            for vehicles so that at least they will 
           5            have to abide by the standards for 
           6            regular passenger cars.  I mean, that's 
           7            the least we can do.  I think we really 
           8            should, of course, improve those 
           9            standards.
          10                    The one thing is that we all 
          11            have to breathe.  And even those 
          12            members of society who consider 
          13            themselves extraordinarily privileged 
          14            can't escape that fact.  Even they have 
          15            to breathe.  And I don't think 
          16            interplanetary travel is progressed to 
          17            the point where they can escape.  Not 
          18            yet.
          19                    So that being the case, I would 
          20            strongly suggest that government, whose 
          21            function is to protect us, sometimes we 
          22            forget about that, take the necessary 
          23            steps to provide that protection.  I 
          24            think that's the least we can do as a 
          25            society that purports to be civilized.


                                                               358
           1                    Thank you very much.
           2                    MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  We 
           3            appreciate you taking the opportunity 
           4            to come here and share your views.
           5                    Any other testifiers? 
           6                         -  -  -  -
           7               (Thereupon, a discussion was had off
           8               the record.)
           9                         -  -  -  -
          10                    MR. FRANCE:  I'd like to welcome 
          11            you all here.  I think you have the 
          12            honor of being the last panel.  And 
          13            we've lost a few of our fellow panel 
          14            members.  They had to catch flights in 
          15            various parts of the country.  But the 
          16            two of us are here to listen carefully 
          17            and take back your comments.  We'll 
          18            consider them as we develop the final 
          19            rule.
          20                    And so with that, why don't we 
          21            start off.  Shawn, if you would state 
          22            your name and any affiliation and give 
          23            us your testimony, we appreciate it.
          24                    MR. SWEENEY:  Shawn Sweeney.  I 
          25            just have something prepared I'm going 


                                                               359
           1            to read real quick.  It's not going to 
           2            be very long.
           3                    Today in front of the hotel 
           4            there was a press conference with about 
           5            75 environmental activists to speak out 
           6            in favor of Tier 2 emissions standards 
           7            for vehicles and gasoline sulfur 
           8            standards for refineries.
           9                    What I wanted just to comment 
          10            on was the testimony about the 
          11            14-year-old girl.  I can't remember her 
          12            name, but she told the story of having 
          13            asthma and what's that like to grow up 
          14            with asthma in a community with a lot 
          15            of toxic air pollution, what that goes 
          16            through.  And my feeling is that that 
          17            should have said it all.
          18                    These standards deal with the 
          19            health of people in this state and in 
          20            this country and that should be the 
          21            bottom line.  Unfortunately, some 
          22            people believe that profits are more 
          23            important than the health of our 
          24            children and of our families.  And 
          25            that's sad.  I think that's sad.  And I 


                                                               360
           1            think that's a bad message that we're 
           2            sending to our children.  I think we 
           3            should send a better message to our 
           4            children by passing stronger air 
           5            standards.  We should send them the 
           6            message that their health comes before 
           7            the profits of big business.
           8                    Those 75 of us or so who stood 
           9            outside today to demonstrate in favor 
          10            of stronger air standards had a message 
          11            that I believe should be heard and 
          12            understood by the EPA.  That message is 
          13            clean air now.  That was the basic 
          14            chant, that we want clean air now.  And 
          15            that's a demand that we think should be 
          16            heard and understood.
          17                    Today I just wanted to take a 
          18            minute and testify in hopes that you 
          19            guys would hear that message and 
          20            understand that message and act on it 
          21            immediately and not in ten years, but 
          22            act on it now.
          23                    The members of the auto 
          24            industry say that it's too expensive, 
          25            they say it costs a lot and so does the 


                                                               361
           1            oil industry.  I for one am willing to 
           2            pay an extra couple cents per gallon 
           3            for gas in order to breathe and I'm 
           4            certainly okay with paying an extra 
           5            hundred dollars or so for a truck.  In 
           6            fact, I own a truck and it's fine with 
           7            me if I decide to buy another one in a 
           8            few years and it costs me more money.   
           9            I think that our health is priceless 
          10            and we can't put a price tag on that.  
          11            I think it's an insult to do so.  And 
          12            the auto industry even admits that it's 
          13            just a few hundred dollars, which is 
          14            just a fraction of what those vehicles 
          15            will cost, and a couple more cents a 
          16            gallon is just a fraction of what it 
          17            already costs.  And I think it's worth 
          18            it, so.
          19                    I think that when the EPA and 
          20            Carol Browner make this decision, they 
          21            need to think of the health of the 
          22            children in this country and the people 
          23            in this country and not worry about the 
          24            pocket book of corporate America and 
          25            remember the message is clean air now, 


                                                               362
           1            not later.  And this has been going on 
           2            too long and we can't wait.  That's it.
           3                    MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very 
           4            much.
           5                    Courtney Christenson.
           6                    MS. CHRISTENSON:  First I want 
           7            to thank you guys for sticking around 
           8            as long as you have because I know it's 
           9            been a long day and I'm sure that the 
          10            message has been pretty consistent all 
          11            day as well.  But I am also here to 
          12            express my support for the Tier 2 
          13            standards.  And I have a letter that 
          14            I've written to Ms. Browner that I 
          15            would like to have taken back to her.
          16                    I'm a community organizer with 
          17            Ohio Citizen Action.  I live in 
          18            Cleveland's Tremont area, which is a 
          19            virtual fallout zone for Cleveland's 
          20            industrial valley.  And I can tell you 
          21            that I do not speak for myself when I 
          22            say that I'm angry that this debate 
          23            over air standards even exists.  I'm 
          24            angry when decisions are made on 
          25            environmental regulation, economic 


                                                               363
           1            development and the industry's bottom 
           2            line always seems to take precedent 
           3            over human life and health.
           4                    I'm angry in this case that the 
           5            oil industry makes my friends and 
           6            family and neighbors become simple 
           7            mathematical and political 
           8            calculations.  Healthy problems like 
           9            respiratory illness, asthma, emphysema, 
          10            these are not medical mysteries by any 
          11            means or sense.  Solutions and 
          12            technology exist to make the quality of 
          13            life better for people who suffer from 
          14            these problems.  But they're not 
          15            aggressively used or regulated.  And 
          16            I'm angry that yet again the industry 
          17            bottom line seems to outweigh human 
          18            health.
          19                    I also live in a country that 
          20            cannot guarantee myself or my family 
          21            medical care.  I believe that the least 
          22            that we can ask is to breathe air and 
          23            drink water and eat foods that do not 
          24            poison our bodies.  And I think we have 
          25            an opportunity now to further progress 


                                                               364
           1            us to that goal.
           2                    If the industry does insist on 
           3            accentuating the bottom line and the 
           4            all-mighty dollar, I would ask they 
           5            hear myself and everyone in my 
           6            community that I speak for when I say 
           7            that I'm 18 grand at least worth of 
           8            consumer that's willing to spend 
           9            another hundred bucks next time I 
          10            purchase an automobile to improve our 
          11            quality of life.  And I would also ask 
          12            the EPA accept no compromise with these 
          13            standards.  Thank you.
          14                    MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.
          15                    Tom Smith.
          16                    MR. SMITH:  Well, I'd also like 
          17            to thank you for staying so late.  I 
          18            just came back from Akron.  It took me 
          19            about an hour and 15 minutes.  So I 
          20            just sat in all those emissions all the 
          21            way up here.
          22                    MR. FRANCE:  Hopefully we miss 
          23            them when we go out, the traffic that 
          24            is.
          25                    MR. SMITH:  Buses, even though 


                                                               365
           1            they spew up instead of out at ground 
           2            level now, it's still there.  Every day 
           3            I travel 25 miles each way to work in 
           4            Solon from the suburb of Lakewood where 
           5            I live following the garbage trucks and 
           6            all the others as they shift gears up a 
           7            hill, spew out all this black 
           8            particulate that ends up in my lungs 
           9            because I'm following them.
          10                    And as a committee concerned 
          11            about urban sprawl, our Sierra Club 
          12            Urban Sprawl Committee, we know one of 
          13            the driving factors of urban sprawl we 
          14            hear over and over again, I want to the 
          15            live out where the air is fresh.  The 
          16            implication being that it's not fresh 
          17            in place that they're living, which is 
          18            the more older urban area and the place 
          19            that everybody sees as they drive in 
          20            every day and experience the auto 
          21            pollution.  And they want to get away 
          22            from that and they want to move out.  
          23            They don't want their children living 
          24            in it.  Especially if children have 
          25            asthma or any health problem.  And it 


                                                               366
           1            is just one of the many factors that 
           2            causes people to move out and leads to 
           3            the decline of older cities.
           4                    I am against extending any time 
           5            limits for the industry to meet these 
           6            standards.  As I read the information 
           7            on the proposed Tier 2 standards, I 
           8            find your time limits are very generous 
           9            to allow people to get ready by 2004.  
          10            2009 I think is almost stretching it in 
          11            some cases.
          12                    I'm old enough to remember the 
          13            whole battle at the time with cars 
          14            starting back when people were losing 
          15            their eyes and noses on hard 
          16            dashboards.  And the auto industry said 
          17            we can't do that.  People won't pay for 
          18            the extra added cost of making soft 
          19            dashboards.  Then it was collapsible 
          20            steering wheels, then engines that go 
          21            down when there's a frontal collision 
          22            instead of crushing the driver, then 
          23            putting the bends in the frames so the 
          24            car acts as an accordion.  The auto 
          25            industry just fought over all of these 


                                                               367
           1            things.  Then it was seat belts.  No 
           2            one will ever use them.  They'll never 
           3            pay for these.  How will we get the 
           4            public to accept air bags.  Oh, no, we 
           5            can't afford that.  And catalytic 
           6            converters, the same thing.  And 
           7            they've done it and they're making 
           8            record profits and we're paying for it.  
           9            And we're all enjoying the cleaner air 
          10            that we have as a result of this.  So 
          11            it can be done.
          12                    And as an engineer that's 
          13            responsible for cleaning up some of the 
          14            air that comes out of the plant where 
          15            he works, I can tell you that if you 
          16            give us fair standards throughout 
          17            industry, that's all we ask, is a level 
          18            playing field.  If we have to pay 
          19            something extra, as long as the other 
          20            guy has to pay it, too, fine.  And we 
          21            really depend on you guys to level the 
          22            playing field and say this is what 
          23            everybody has to do.  So we appreciate 
          24            this.
          25                    We see what people can do in 


                                                               368
           1            California, what kind of emissions 
           2            they're not allowed to do and we wonder 
           3            why can't we do this in Ohio or why 
           4            can't we do this in some other state.  
           5            And we depend on national standards to 
           6            say all right, let's make it fair for 
           7            everybody, all businesses would face 
           8            the same expense.  So please go ahead 
           9            and please make it tough.  And 
          10            obviously the auto industry, which is 
          11            the main subject in today's hearings, I 
          12            guess, has lived with these and has 
          13            prospered and has done very well.
          14                    They say that the average van 
          15            brings the auto industry a profit of 
          16            about $5,000 and these sell for 20 to 
          17            $25,000 a piece.  Well, when I look at 
          18            that sport utility vehicle that sells 
          19            for 30 to $40,000, then for somebody to 
          20            say we can't afford a $200 catalytic 
          21            converter, there isn't even a matter of 
          22            cutting the cost, it's just cut into 
          23            the huge profits that are there.  It's 
          24            very possible to be done.  It's been 
          25            done in case after case, as I've 


                                                               369
           1            mentioned.  Thank you very much.
           2                    MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very 
           3            much.  We appreciate your comments and 
           4            we'll take them under, into 
           5            consideration as we develop our final 
           6            rule.
           7                    This is the final call for any 
           8            testifiers.  Okay.  Since there are 
           9            none, we'll take this opportunity to 
          10            close the record.  And this hearing is 
          11            finished.  Thank you very much. 
          12       
          13       
          14       
          15       
          16       
          17       
          18       
          19       
          20       
          21       
          22       
          23       
          24       
          25       


                                                               370
           1                    C E R T I F I C A T E
           2       
           3       
           4       The State of Ohio, )  SS:
           5       County of Cuyahoga.)
                   
           6       
                         We, Heidi D. Smith and Juliana M. Lawson, 
           7       Notaries Public within and for the State of 
                   Ohio, do hereby certify that the hearing as 
           8       above-set forth was reduced to writing by us by 
                   means of stenotypy, and was later transcribed 
           9       into typewriting under our direction; that this 
                   is a true record of the hearing; that said 
          10       hearing was taken at the aforementioned time, 
                   date and place. 
          11       
                   
          12            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set 
                   our hands and seals of office, at Cleveland, 
          13       Ohio, this _____ day of ______________, A.D. 
                   1986.  
          14       
                   
          15       
                   _____________________________________________    
          16       Heidi D. Smith, Notary Public, State of Ohio
                   1750 Midland Building, Cleveland, Ohio  44115 
          17       My commission expires October 27, 1999
                   
          18       
                   
          19       _____________________________________________    
                   Juliana M. Lawson, Notary Public, State of Ohio
          20       1750 Midland Building, Cleveland, Ohio  44115
                   My commission expires March 10, 2000
          21       
          22       
          23       
          24       
          25