1  
 2                        VOLUME 2
                  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 3             ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                           - - -
 4  
                            1717 Arch Street, 50th Floor
 5                          Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
                            Wednesday, June 10, 1999
 6                           9:00 a.m.
 7                          - - -
 8  
    CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM   : DOCKET NO. A-97-10
 9  NEW MOTOR VEHICLES: PROPOSED    :
    TIER 2 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS  :
10  STANDARDS AND GASOLINE SULFUR   :
    CONTROL REQUIREMENTS            : PUBLIC HEARING
11  
                            - - -
12  
13  
    PRESENT:         MARGO OGE
14                   BARRY McNUTT
                     DAWN MARTIN
15                   CHET FRANCE
                     JUDY KATZ
16                   SUSMITA DUBEY
                     GLENN PASSAVANT
17                   MICHAEL HOROWITZ
                     KARL SIMON
18  
19  
    REPORTED BY:     LISA C. BRADLEY, RPR
20                   BERNADETTE BLACK, RMR
21  
                          - - -
22  
              VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC.
23            Registered Professional Reporters
                     Eleven Penn Center
24              1835 Market Street, Suite 600
              Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
25                     (215) 561-2220
00328
 1  
 2                        I N D E X
 3  WITNESS:                                       PAGE
 4    RON WILLIAMS, Gary-Williams Energy Corp. .... 338
 5    GREGORY DANA, AIAM .......................... 341
 6    EVAN PAPPAS, Maryland PIRG .................. 348
 7    CHARLES AHLERS, American Lung Assoc. ........ 353
 8    DWIGHT WIGGINS, Tosco Refining Company ...... 361
 9    TINA VUJOVICH, Cummins Engine Company ....... 367
10    GINA AMADOR, Penn PIRG ...................... 377
11    KARL WALTER, Penn PIRG ...................... 380
12    JESSICA BROOKS, Penn PIRG ................... 382
13    JEFF EBER, Penn PIRG ........................ 384
14    PATRICK CHARBONNEAU, Navistar ............... 387
15    LEONARD KATA, Volkswagen of America ......... 396
16    Nancy Lavin, Philly Walks ................... 401
17    RONALD STRASSBURGER, Nissan North America ... 403
18    MARIA BECHIS, Sierra Club ................... 410
19    JOHN CRNKO, Antek ........................... 417
20    BRUCE BERTELSEN, MECA ....................... 425
21    LAURA KRIV, 20/20 Vision .................... 432
22    NANCY PARKS, Sierra Club .................... 435
23    KEVIN SCOTT ................................. 442
24    DOMINIC VARRAVETO, Black & Veatch ........... 446
25    REG MODIN, DaimlerChrysler .................. 450
00329
 1  
 2  INDEX (Cont.)                                  PAGE
 3    BROOKS MOUNTCASTLE .......................... 455
 4    GEORGE THURSTON ............................. 458
 5    PETE HOMER, NIBA ............................ 466
 6    BIANCA MORAN, NJ PIRG ....................... 470
 7    KEITH MORRIS, Sierra Club ................... 472
 8    STACY LONG, Penn PIRG ....................... 474
 9    SHAWN SOMERVILLE, Penn PIRG ................. 478
10    RACHEL MADEN ................................ 480
11    J. ASTRA ROONEY ............................. 481
12    CORY HOLDING ................................ 483
13    JASON RASH .................................. 484
14    WILLIAM MENZ................................. 488
15    IRWIN BERLIN, M.D., ALA...................... 493
16    STACEY YOUNG for Peter Kostmeyer............. 503
17    OLIVIA CONROY for Ann Geoke.................. 507
18    ELISSA UNDERWOOD for Jerome Butler........... 509
19    KEITH McKAY for Richard Levine, M.D.......... 510
20    ANDREW ALTMAN from Clean Air Council......... 514
21    JONATHAN SINKER, Nat'l Environmental Trust... 520
22    BRITTA IPRI, ALA of Maryland................. 525
23    HEATHER CORNELL for Jeremy Focht............. 529
24    PETER MICHELE, GEET.......................... 532
25    PETER JOSEPH, Ph.D........................... 539
00330
 1  INDEX (Cont.)                                  PAGE
 2    KITTY CAMPBELL, PA PIRG...................... 545
 3    MINDY MASLIN................................. 548
 4    DAVID COHEN.................................. 550
 5    DENIS WINTER, League of Women Voters......... 553
 6    ERIC WATERS.................................. 556
 7    JOSHUA MITTELDORF, Clean Air Council......... 560
 8    SCOTT ALTHOUSE, Evangelical.................. 569
                      Environmental Network
 9  
      DAVID E. GIBSON.............................. 574
10  
      SUSAN CURRY.................................. 583
11  
      JOHN LANGON.................................. 584
12  
      JACK HECKELMAN, Alliance for a............... 589
13                    Sustainable Future
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
00331
 1
 2              MS. OGE:  Good morning.  I would like
 3  you to take your seats, please.
 4              Good morning.  On behalf of the
 5  Environmental Protection Agency, I would like to
 6  thank you for coming here this morning and welcome
 7  you to this public hearing.  I recognize some of the
 8  faces from the meeting yesterday.  And I would like
 9  to welcome all of you that came yesterday and stayed
10  with us for the whole day and last evening and this
11  morning.  We are looking forward to this opportunity
12  to hear the views that you're going to testify today
13  about the proposal that we believe to be very
14  critical for the future of the air quality in the
15  United States.
16              My name is Margo Oge.  I'm the Director
17  of the Office of Mobile Sources with EPA, and I will
18  be serving as the presiding officer for today's
19  hearing.
20              The proposed regulation that we will be
21  considering today was announced by President Clinton
22  on May 1, 1999, and was published in the "Federal
23  Register" on May 13, 1999.  This is a historic
24  proposal.  The program will exceed a dramatic
25  reduction in air pollution for the 21st Century, and
00332
 1
 2  we will do it in the most cost-effective and
 3  flexible ways.
 4              We estimate emission reductions of
 5  almost 2.2 million tons of nitrogen oxide by 2020.
 6  This is equivalent in removing 166 million cars from
 7  the road.
 8              EPA followed several principles in
 9  developing this proposal:  The proposal is designed
10  to meet the air quality needs of the states in the
11  nation as a whole, to treat autos and fuels as one
12  system, bring sport utility vehicles, minivans,
13  light-duty trucks to the same emission standard as
14  other passenger vehicles, and be fuel-neutral, that
15  is, meet the same standard regardless of fuel use.
16  We wanted to make certain that this proposal would
17  not constraint consumer choice of vehicles or
18  driving styles either due to the cost or
19  technological factors.  And finally, we wanted to
20  provide flexibility for industries in helping to
21  achieve the standards.
22              At the same time we published the Tier 2
23  Proposal, we released an advanced notice of proposed
24  rulemaking considering diesel fuel quality.  We're
25  not are seeking testimony specifically on the diesel
00333
 1
 2  proposal during today's hearing.  However, we have
 3  established a separate docket, A-99-06, for comments
 4  on this proposal.
 5              Many of you are probably aware of the
 6  two recent Court of Appeals decisions regarding EPA
 7  air pollution programs.  The first decision found
 8  that the Clean Air Act is applied in setting new
 9  public health air quality standards for ozone in
10  particular is unconstitutional, is an improper
11  delegation of legislative authority to EPA.  Despite
12  the constitutional ruling, the Court did not
13  question the science on which EPA relied to develop
14  the health standards or criticized EPA's process for
15  making those decisions.  EPA disagrees with the
16  Court's decision, and EPA has recommended to the
17  Department of Justice that they take all necessary
18  judicial steps to overturn the decision.
19              The second decision states the submittal
20  of state plans under the NOx SIP call, which has
21  been scheduled for this fall.  We closely reviewed
22  this decision and have concluded that they do not
23  impact the Tier 2 rulemaking.  The Tier 2 proposal
24  remains on solid grounds in terms of air quality
25  need, technological feasibility, cost, and
00334
 1
 2  cost-effectiveness.
 3              Over 70 million people in this country
 4  are breathing unhealthy air today, and this trend
 5  will continue.  Despite the voluntary National Low
 6  Emissions Vehicle Program, reformulated gasoline,
 7  the NOx SIP call that the agency has put in place,
 8  we believe that the Tier 2 standards as proposed are
 9  needed to attain and maintain the one-hour air
10  quality standard.
11              Although there are a number of areas
12  that today meet NOx air quality standards, there are
13  millions of people that live in areas that are very
14  close in non-attainment, in order to attain the
15  one-hour standard.  We believe that ultimately these
16  people would tremendous benefit from this proposal.
17              Also, we believe that this proposal is
18  technologically feasible and is cost-effective.
19  Projected cost of meeting the proposed standards is
20  about $100 for light-duty cars and about $200 for
21  light-duty trucks.  The cost for gasoline will be
22  between 1 to 2 cents per gallon.
23              Even though our cars and trucks run
24  cleaner than ever before, they still contribute a
25  large part to our air pollution.  In Philadelphia
00335
 1
 2  where we're holding a hearing today, the second day
 3  of the hearings, motor vehicles are contributing
 4  almost one-third of all the nitrogen oxide
 5  emissions.
 6              Americans love to drive and we're
 7  driving more every year.  If we do not act today,
 8  the emissions from our cars and light-duty trucks
 9  combined with the current levels of sulfur in
10  gasoline are threatening to erode the many air
11  quality gains that we have made in recent years.
12              For the first time, this proposal will
13  address both fuel and engines as a system.  We're
14  looking not only to the cars that we drive, but also
15  we're looking to the fuel that they use.  Because
16  sulfur poisons the anti-pollution devices in
17  vehicles, we're proposing to cut sulfur content of
18  gasoline by 90 percent.
19              The proposed rules contains two primary
20  elements:  First, EPA proposed more protective
21  emissions standards for all light-duty vehicles and
22  light-duty trucks.  The proposed Tier 2 standards
23  will require that all vehicles and trucks weighing
24  up to 8500 pounds to meet the corporate average NOx
25  standard of 0.07 standard grams per mile.  This new
00336
 1
 2  standard will result in cars that are 77 percent
 3  cleaner and SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks that
 4  are as much as 95 percent cleaner than today's
 5  vehicles.
 6              The standards will be phased in from
 7  2004 through 2007 for light-duty vehicles and
 8  light-duty trucks up to 6,000 pounds.  Light-duty
 9  trucks between 6,000 pounds and 8500 pounds would be
10  required to meet the Tier 2 standards in 2008 and
11  2009.  For this class of vehicles, EPA has proposed
12  new interim standards beginning 2004.
13              The second element of the Tier 2
14  proposal is a nationwide control of sulfur in
15  gasoline.  The Tier 2 standards cannot be met
16  without cleaner fuel.  With cleaner fuel, not only
17  the Tier 2 vehicles will benefit, but also the cars
18  we drive today will benefit.  Refiners and importers
19  of gasoline would be required beginning in 2004 to
20  meet a 30 parts per million on average, with a
21  banking and trading program that could introduce
22  cleaner fuel in the marketplace as early as 2000
23  time frame and could extend compliance of these
24  requirements to 2006.
25              In the proposal, we have put forward a
00337
 1
 2  number of flexibilities for the industries that this
 3  rule will affect, and we have included a very
 4  significant proposal that will apply to small
 5  refiners.
 6              Before getting started with today's
 7  testimony, I'll take a few minutes to introduce the
 8  Panel and describe how we will conduct this hearing.
 9  On my right is Dawn Martin who is the Chief of Staff
10  of the Office of Air and Radiation in Washington,
11  D.C.  Next to her is Mr. Glen Passavant, and Glen is
12  a senior person in charge of the Tier 2 standard.
13  On my left is Chet France, and Chet is the Director
14  of the Engines and Compliance Programs in the Oxford
15  Mobile Sources of EPA.  And next to Chet France is
16  Mike Horowitz, and he's with the Office of General
17  Counsel; he's the lawyer that's supporting this
18  regulatory proposal.
19              This is the second day of the hearing,
20  of the two-day hearing in Philadelphia.  And we have
21  three additional public hearings, and you're all
22  invited to follow us tonight to Atlanta, and from
23  there to Denver and Cleveland.
24              We have received an overwhelming number
25  of requests to testify, and we'll do our best to
00338
 1
 2  accommodate everyone.  We ask that the witnesses
 3  please limit your testimony to no more than 10
 4  minutes.
 5              Today's hearing is going to be conducted
 6  in accordance with Section 307-D5 of the Clean Air
 7  Act, which requires EPA to provide interested
 8  persons with an opportunity to make an oral
 9  presentation of data, views, or arguments in
10  addition to opportunities to make written
11  submissions.  The comment period and record of this
12  hearing will remain open until August 2nd of 1999
13  for additional written comments.
14              The hearing will be conducted
15  informally, and formal rules of evidence will not
16  apply.  The presiding officer, however, is
17  authorized to strike from the record statements
18  which are deemed irrelevant or needlessly
19  repetitious and enforce reasonable limits of
20  duration of the statement of any witness.
21              Joe Guy is going to try enforce some
22  reasonable time frames for your presentations.
23  There's going to be signs "one minute," "no time,"
24  so please look at Joe and help us out to move the
25  process forward.
00339
 1
 2              We request that witnesses state their
 3  names and affiliations prior to making their
 4  statement.  When a witness has finished his or her
 5  presentation, members of this Panel may ask a person
 6  questions concerning issues raised in the testimony.
 7              Witnesses are reminded that any false
 8  statement or false response to questions may be a
 9  violation of the law.
10              If there any members of the audience who
11  wish to testify who have not already contacted us,
12  please submit your name to the reception table
13  outside of this room.  I also ask that all attendees
14  please sign the register whether or not they are
15  testifying today.
16              Finally, if you would like a transcript
17  of the proceedings, you should make arrangements
18  directly with the court reporter during one of the
19  breaks.  The transcript will be available, however,
20  in the docket within two weeks.
21              And before we begin the testimony, I
22  would like to know if there are any questions before
23  we proceed?
24              Thank you.
25              I would ask for Mr. Ron Williams to
00340
 1   Ron Williams - Gary-Williams Energy Corp.
 2  please stand up and go forward, Mr. Greg Dana, Mr.
 3  David Pontious, Mr. Charles Ahlers.
 4              And I will do my best to pronounce your
 5  names properly, but I cannot be certain that will
 6  happen.
 7              Is Mr. Kevin Scott here?
 8              I would also be bringing individuals
 9  that are walking into today's hearing to testify if
10  there's space for them to testify.
11              Why don't we start with you, Mr.
12  Williams.
13              MR. WILLIAMS:  Thank you.  My name is
14  Ron Williams.  I'm President and CEO of
15  Gary-Williams Energy Corporation, a Dever-based,
16  privately held oil and gas company.  Our primary
17  assets is 50,000 barrels per day refinery within
18  Wynnewood, Oklahoma.  Company-wide we have about 275
19  employees and fall within the definition of a small
20  refinery used for the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur
21  proposed regulations.
22              In our view, the SBREFA process is very
23  thorough and beneficial.  Panel members were
24  knowledgeable, understanding, and willing to propose
25  new approaches in order to keep alive small refiners
00341
 1   Ron Williams - Gary-Williams Energy Corp.
 2  who undoubtedly would have had to shut down if hit
 3  with stringent requirements in a very short time
 4  frame.  In our case, for example, because we
 5  distribute product via pipeline to the east, a
 6  strictly regional approach would not have provided
 7  any relief.
 8              Small refiners do not share the benefits
 9  enjoyed by larger companies owning small facilities
10  because of their sheer size, diversification, and
11  integration.  The competitive advantages of larger
12  refiners include easy access to both debt and equity
13  capital at a lower cost, significant overhead
14  savings and buying power with multiple refineries,
15  and the ability of one segment of their business to
16  subsidize other segments that may not be quite so
17  profitable.
18              Lead-time for equipment construction and
19  obtaining capital could be years longer for small
20  refiners because of the competition for engineering
21  and contracting services and the difficulty in
22  obtaining financing for a capital investment of this
23  magnitude.  For that reason, the SBREFA process, we
24  feel, was very beneficial and also quite fair.
25              Two parts of the proposed small refiners
00342
 1   Ron Williams - Gary-Williams Energy Corp.
 2  standards are particular concern to us.  First,
 3  under the somewhat arbitrary levels proposed for the
 4  year 2004, our refinery will have to cut back from
 5  1997-1998 baseline sulfur level of about 275 parts
 6  per million to 200 parts per million.  Even if we
 7  could meet the reduced levels by changing our crude
 8  slate, we now estimate that the negative economic
 9  impact would substantially offset our normal level
10  of profits.  We may, however, be forced to install
11  the same new equipment to meet the 200 parts per
12  million level that we will ultimately need for the
13  30 parts per million standard.  If that turns out to
14  be the case, we would effectively lose the small
15  refiner advantage and would be competing for funding
16  and engineering and construction expertise in order
17  to install expensive current technology.
18              We feel it is critical that some
19  flexibility be built into the proposed regulatory
20  structure rather than mandating a specific number
21  target such as 200 parts per million.  At a minimum,
22  we believe a small company should have the ability
23  to appeal to the EPA for a higher sulfur level if
24  costs outweigh the benefits of hitting a specific
25  target number.
00343
 1               Gregory Dana - AIAM
 2              Also, I would like to add that because
 3  of the great success, we feel, of the SBREFA
 4  process, we do hope that the EPA will initiate a
 5  similar process that might be impacted by the
 6  proposed diesel regulations in the coming future.
 7              Thank you for the opportunity to address
 8  this hearing.  We would be happy to provide you with
 9  additional information at any time.
10              MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Mr. Greg Dana.
11              MR. DANA:  Good morning.  My name is
12  Gregory Dana.  I'm Vice President, Environmental
13  Affairs for the Association of International
14  Automobile Manufacturers.  AIAM is a trade
15  association representing companies which sell
16  passenger cars and light trucks to the United States
17  that are manufactured both here and abroad.  We
18  welcome the opportunity to appear before you today
19  to discuss the proposed Tier 2 emissions standards
20  and the control of fuel sulfur levels.
21              AIAM's members have long been leaders in
22  the application of advanced emission control
23  technologies and are proud of their record of
24  technological achievements in meeting
25  ever-tightening emission standards.
00344
 1               Gregory Dana - AIAM
 2              The standard suggested in this proposal
 3  would result in a reduction of 99 percent in the
 4  precursors to smog, nitrogen oxides, and volatile
 5  organic compounds from uncontrolled levels in motor
 6  vehicles.  The proposed standards represent an
 7  enormous challenge for the industry both in meeting
 8  the proposed emission limits and the greater
 9  emission control system durability that these rules
10  would require.  However, our members are prepared to
11  take on this challenge and do our best to meet these
12  standards.
13              But a fundamental requirement to
14  achieving these levels will be the removal of sulfur
15  from gasoline.  EPA is well aware of the test
16  programs that have been run by the auto and oil
17  looking at lower sulfur levels.  The data from these
18  test programs prove beyond a doubt that removing
19  sulfur from gasoline not only enables the auto
20  industry to meet tighter standards, but also cleans
21  up the existing fleet of vehicles on the road.  EPA
22  should remember that these test programs probably
23  underestimate the deterioration of the emissions
24  since the method used to load the catalysts with
25  sulfur was unrepresentative based on more recent
00345
 1               Gregory Dana - AIAM
 2  testing by Honda.
 3              Given the fact that the Agency has
 4  proposed NOx levels equivalent to those adopted by
 5  California, it is appropriate that sulfur and
 6  volatility requirements between California and EPA
 7  be harmonized.  AIAM understands that California
 8  plans to announce its intention to move from a
 9  sulfur control level of 30 ppm to some lower level
10  sometime later this year.  We believe EPA should
11  take the same action.
12              AIAM strongly supports the EPA's
13  proposal on sulfur control as a good first step.
14  Moreover, we urge the Agency to take no steps to
15  relax the levels or time lines established in the
16  proposal, and to establish a schedule for tightening
17  these requirements to enable the introduction of
18  advanced technology vehicles in a manner consistent
19  with market demand.  As we have pointed out in the
20  past, NLEV cars will be distributed nationwide in
21  the 2001 model year.  These vehicles will show
22  substantial emission benefits, particularly in NOx
23  control, at lower sulfur levels.
24              To evaluate the claim that gasoline
25  sulfur requirements will be a hardship on the oil
00346
 1               Gregory Dana - AIAM
 2  industry, AIAM and the Alliance commissioned an
 3  analysis done by MathPro, a recognized refinery
 4  modeling consultant.  MathPro's findings indicate
 5  that even the small refineries in the PADD 4 region
 6  of the country should have no problem achieving the
 7  30 ppm standard without economic harm.  Given the
 8  additional breaks for small refiners called that are
 9  called for in the EPA proposal, small refiners
10  should be able to meet these requirements.  It also
11  raises the question of the financial impact of this
12  rule on larger refiners and whether they can meet
13  more stringent controls sooner given their greater
14  assets.  It is imperative that EPA stay the course
15  on its proposal to reduce fuel sulfur or strengthen
16  these requirements.
17              In addition to controlling the level of
18  fuel sulfur, the Agency should also take steps to
19  control fuel volatility, that is, the drivability
20  index, as suggested by the industry petition
21  submitted earlier this year.  Also, EPA should
22  implement measures to control combustion chamber
23  deposits.  Taking these additional steps would
24  essentially harmonize Federal and California fuel,
25  as suggested above.  This should be EPA's goal given
00347
 1               Gregory Dana - AIAM
 2  the similarity of emission standards between EPA and
 3  CARB.
 4              AIAM has several recommendations
 5  regarding the structure of the Tier 2 standards.
 6  The bin structure and NOx fleet average proposed by
 7  EPA will impose limitations on vehicle manufactures.
 8  The least stringent bin establishes a 0.20 gram per
 9  mile NOx cap.  This, in addition to having only bins
10  about the 0.07 NOx average, will limit flexibility
11  and inhibit the further development of current
12  fuel-efficient technologies and the introduction of
13  advanced fuel-efficient technologies.
14              EPA rules should not have the unintended
15  consequence of restricting use of advanced
16  fuel-efficient technologies in the market.  For
17  instance, there are environmental benefits
18  associated with direct injection lean-burn
19  technologies.  These technologies offer the best
20  opportunity to reduce fuel consumption and the
21  emissions of greenhouse gases in the near future.
22  EPA could enhance Tier 2 flexibility by expanding
23  the certification bins.  This effort would be
24  effective in encouraging the further development and
25  introduction of advanced technology vehicles.  In
00348
 1               Gregory Dana - AIAM
 2  addition, this action would come at no air quality
 3  risk since manufacturers would still be required to
 4  meet the same NOx fleet average requirement.
 5              AIAM believes that it is essential for
 6  EPA to conduct a technology review prior to finally
 7  taking effect to assess whether technology has
 8  advanced sufficiently to allow Tier 2 standards to
 9  be achieved.  EPA's proposal is based on the rapid
10  development and deployment of advanced catalytic
11  converter technology.  This forecasted technology
12  may have some unacceptable interactions with sulfur.
13  Manufactures have seen that as precious metals are
14  used more and more efficiently, catalysts become
15  more sensitive to sulfur, even at very low levels.
16  This is no reason to think that this trend will not
17  continue.  If for some reason this forecasted
18  technology does not materialize as rapidly as
19  projected, the auto industry may face an intractable
20  problem in trying to meet the proposed standards.
21  Therefore, we believe that it would be prudent for
22  EPA to conduct such a technology review once
23  manufacturers have taken the time to develop
24  produciton-ready designs.  EPA should be prepared to
25  take quick action if problems in meeting the
00349
 1               Gregory Dana - AIAM
 2  standards do arise.
 3              AIAM supports low sulfur diesel fuel.
 4  Reducing sulfur in diesel fuel has several benefits.
 5  It will result in an immediate reduction of
 6  regulated emissions in existing vehicles, and would
 7  substantially reduce the amount of air toxics
 8  unregulated pollutants from diesel engines.  Low
 9  sulfur diesel would also improve catalyst warm-up
10  time and is an enabler for further NOx and
11  particulate control.
12              Even modest amounts of sulfur in the 20
13  to 30 ppm range inhibit the lean-burn catalyst
14  technology being developed for compression ignition
15  engines.  Near-zero sulfur fuel is necessary to
16  fully realize the environmental potential of diesel
17  engines.  AIAM recommends a sulfur specification for
18  diesel fuel of 5 ppm.
19              There has been much discussion in the
20  media and yesterday at the hearing here of the
21  recent D.C. Court decision overturning EPA's ozone
22  and particulate matter National Ambient Air Quality
23  Standards.  We do not believe that this decision is
24  a reason for not proceeding with this rulemaking.
25  EPA should move forward with tighter emission
00350
 1           Evan Pappas - Maryland PIRG
 2  standards and stringent control of fuel sulfur.
 3  Thank you.
 4              MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Is it Evan Pappas?
 5              MR. PAPPAS:  Yes, that's correct.
 6              MS. OGE:  And you're here for Mr.
 7  Pontious.
 8              MR. PAPPAS:  Speaking for David
 9  Pontious.
10              MS. OGE:  Welcome.  You can start with
11  your testimony.
12              MR. PAPPAS:  My name is Evan Pappas.
13  I'm speaking on behalf of David Pontious from
14  Maryland PIRG.
15              "Good morning.  My name is Dan Pontious.
16  I'm Executive Director of the Maryland Public
17  Interest Research Group or Mary PIRG.  Mary PIRG is
18  a non-profit, non-partisan consumer and
19  environmental watchdog organization and one of the
20  network of state PIRGs across the country.
21              "As the summer ozone season begins in
22  this region, I appreciate the opportunity to testify
23  for you today.  I am here to applaud the many assets
24  of Tier 2 gasoline sulfur rule-making and to urge
25  you to strengthen other aspect.  While I will
00351
 1           Evan Pappas - Maryland PIRG
 2  outline my general comments on rulemaking, I would
 3  like to focus my remarks on why Maryland desperately
 4  needs dramatically stricter auto emission standards
 5  and cleaner gasoline.
 6              "This past Monday was a Code Red ozone
 7  alert day in the Baltimore region.  Maryland,
 8  partners with the environment, issued an alert
 9  urging children to reduce outdoor activity, healthy
10  individuals to limit strenuous outdoor work or
11  exercise, and individuals with respiratory and heart
12  ailments to limit their outdoor activities as well.
13  If this summer matches last summer's pollution
14  levels, we'll have another seriously unhealthy ozone
15  smog season.  Last summer, the air in Maryland
16  violated EPA's revised ozone health standard on 1 of
17  every 3 days.
18              "This pollution is a serious problem for
19  all 5 million Marylanders, but it's especially
20  serious for the approximately 600,000 state
21  residents who suffer from asthma, emphysema, chronic
22  bronchitis, and other lung ailments.  Nearly 90,000
23  children in Maryland suffer from asthma and are
24  especially at risk.  In 1996 an American Lung
25  Association study found that between 2100 and 3200
00352
 1           Evan Pappas - Maryland PIRG
 2  hospital admissions and emergency room visits in
 3  Baltimore in one year alone were linked to this
 4  ozone smog.
 5              "In Maryland automobiles account for
 6  fully one-third of ozone-forming nitrogen oxide
 7  emissions.  Its led only by electric power plants.
 8  In 1997 over 1 million light trucks, such as sport
 9  utility vehicles or SUVs were registered in our
10  state.  With the Baltimore region in severe
11  non-attainment and the Washington region in severe
12  non-attainment for ozone smog, we will not achieve
13  healthy air unless we take dramatic action to reduce
14  pollution from the significant sources.
15              "My comments on the proposed rule echo
16  those of National PIRG and clean air advocate
17  Rebecca Stanfield.  We believe that the proposed
18  Tier 2 standard and gasoline sulfur standard
19  together compromise (sic) a strong integrated
20  approach to reducing pollution from automobiles.  As
21  you know, the revised nitrogen oxide standards will
22  require cars approximately 89 percent cleaner than
23  the Tier 1 standard.
24              "We agree with EPA that the popular
25  sport utility vehicles must be treated no
00353
 1           Evan Pappas - Maryland PIRG
 2  differently for pollution purposes than cars.  The
 3  one million light trucks registered in Maryland are
 4  overwhelmingly used for family trips and commuting.
 5  The justification for allowing SUVs to pollute more
 6  is significantly outdated and new standards should
 7  simply reflect the new role SUVs play in our
 8  society.
 9              "We also agree that a new minimum
10  nationwide sulfur standard should be adopted to
11  prevent the poisoning of sophisticated new pollution
12  control equipment.  The automobile and fuel should
13  be treated as a single system, and EPA has
14  appropriately proposed that new car standards be
15  accompanied by clean gasoline.
16              "While it is a strong proposal, however,
17  we do believe that EPA proposed gasoline sulfur
18  standards allows too much time to pass before
19  significant air pollution benefits can be expected.
20  We urge you to phase in low sulfur gasoline earlier.
21  Failure to do so would undermine the upcoming
22  advances under the National Low Emission Vehicle
23  Program and Tier 2.
24              "The EPA's Tier 2 proposal should also
25  be strengthened before it becomes final later this
00354
 1           Evan Pappas - Maryland PIRG
 2  year.  First, EPA proposes allowing SUVs weighing
 3  between 6,000 and 8500 pounds an extra two years
 4  before the Tier 2 car standards apply, exempting the
 5  popular Ford Exhibition, the Dodge Ram, and the
 6  Lincoln Navigator.  We believe that special
 7  standards for larger SUVs should expire immediately.
 8  In fact, EPA's proposal does not address pollution
 9  from the largest and most-polluting SUVs of all,
10  those over 8500 pounds, such as the Ford Excursion
11  and the Chevy Suburban.  By not including these
12  models in the Tier 2 program, auto manufacturers
13  will likely see an unfortunate opening where they
14  can aggressive develop even larger SUVs.
15              "Finally, EPA's proposal allow the
16  proliferation of diesel vehicles, the pollution from
17  which poses especially severe health threats.  We
18  urge the EPA to remove the highest forms, which
19  includes diesel vehicles from the averaging scheme
20  to protect the public from the carcinogenic nature
21  of diesel exhaust.
22              "Again, thank you very much for the
23  opportunity to comment on the proposed Tier 2 and
24  gasoline sulfur standards.  We in Maryland hope that
25  we can look forward to breathing cleaner air as a
00355
 1      Charles Ahlers - American Lung Assoc.
 2  result of your actions.  Thank you."
 3              MS. OGE:  Thank you.  For the reporter,
 4  that individual who was speaking is Evan Pappas,
 5  P-a-p-p-a-s.
 6              Mr. Charles Ahlers.
 7              MR. AHLERS:  Thank you.  My name is
 8  Charles Ahlers.  I present this statement on behalf
 9  of the American Lung Association in Queens which I
10  serve as a volunteer board member.  I'm also a
11  member of the Queens Clean Air Coalition.
12              We are in full agreement with the
13  statements made at this hearing and yesterday's
14  session by A. Blake Early on behalf the American
15  Lung Association's national office and by Peter
16  Iwanowicz on behalf of the American Lung Association
17  of New York State.  To save time, I shall not repeat
18  the data or the reasoning presented in their
19  statements.  I want to stress that we endorse the
20  positions taken therein.  I wish to explain why we
21  do so and to offer additional grounds for requiring
22  prompt and forceful action on these standards as
23  part of a comprehensive program of achieving cleaner
24  air.
25              Long before the passage of the Clean Air
00356
 1      Charles Ahlers - American Lung Assoc.
 2  Act of 1970, the medical community recognized the
 3  threat posed by air contaminants.  And the American
 4  Lung Association initiated programs to deal with
 5  sharply increased presence of chronic obstructive
 6  pulmonary diseases.  While a major effort was and
 7  continues to be extended to further professional
 8  education and education of patients to help them to
 9  deal with compromised breathing capacity, it was
10  recognized that an essential part of an intelligent
11  approach to the problem was and is prevention.  That
12  means air pollution control and anti-smoking
13  behavior modification.  Both measures are still
14  centrally important.
15              Progress in air pollution control has
16  been very significant in many respects.  In much of
17  the nation's most densely populated areas,
18  incineration of solid wastes have be drastically
19  reduced, combustion products control, the sulfur
20  content in fuel use or power generation has been
21  reduced and stack emissions.  Most passenger cars
22  exhaust emissions have been reduced so that there is
23  less carbon monoxide, sulfur oxide, and hydrocarbon
24  release per vehicle.  And in general, from all
25  sources, there's less large particulate matter,
00357
 1      Charles Ahlers - American Lung Assoc.
 2  soot, going into the air and coming into the lungs.
 3  Very good.  But not good enough that will eliminate
 4  the health hazard and not fast enough.  It should
 5  not have taken 30 years to get where we are.  And
 6  the advance must be encouraged and supported,
 7  technological advances must be encouraged and
 8  supported.  Enforcement is critical.  And
 9  additionally, forcefulness and determination are
10  essential.
11              The position of our association on
12  questions of air pollution is in part a function of
13  our circumstance.  Queens County, part of New York
14  City, is an urban suburban part of that city.  We
15  have a population of very close to 2 million living
16  in 121 square miles.  That's less dense than
17  Manhattan, Bronx, or Brooklyn, and more dense than
18  Staten Island.  We are less than well-served by our
19  subway system which has not been significantly
20  expanded in 50 years while our population in those
21  50 years has increased by a third.  We are heavily
22  dependent on cars, and most of us rely on buses to
23  take us to the subways.  What is remarkable about
24  this is that is it unremarkable in the context of
25  American population patterns.  The bulk of our
00358
 1      Charles Ahlers - American Lung Assoc.
 2  American population is like us, urban and suburban;
 3  and like us, dependent on cars, buses, and trucks.
 4  The density of the vehicles corresponds to the
 5  density of the population, so it is clear that
 6  universal federal standards are appropriate for
 7  dealing with emissions.
 8              A very regrettable similarity between
 9  our situation and the situation around the country
10  is the increased prevalence of asthma in both
11  children and adults with a rise being particularly
12  steep in pediatric asthma and the increased presence
13  of  bronchitis and emphysema particularly among the
14  elderly.
15              A further similarity is that,
16  unsurprisingly, we are witnessing and participating
17  in two consequential national trends:  Major
18  increases in vehicle travel and traffic, and major
19  increases in the proportion of high-pollution
20  vehicles on the road.  These increases explain the
21  worsening air quality in our City, the times and
22  levels of ozone, particulate matter, oxides of
23  nitrogen and sulfur exceed safe standards.  At times
24  of worst air quality, hospital admissions of
25  respiratory patients increase and patients who do
00359
 1      Charles Ahlers - American Lung Assoc.
 2  not require hospital admission report increased
 3  breathing difficulty.
 4              Though we are well aware of the
 5  complexities of ascertaining scientifically the
 6  relationship between individual air contaminates and
 7  distinct respiratory diseases, and while we
 8  understand that responsiveness of the contaminates
 9  can vary greatly among individual patients, we
10  cannot ignore the nearly universal reports from
11  patients.  Kinds of dirty air mean big trouble for
12  many patients.  They deserve protection from such
13  unacceptable defilement of our environment and as
14  promptly fully as possible.  Pretty clearly the
15  public agrees with this.  We all want clean air and
16  don't want to wait decades for it.
17              That's why we support the proposed
18  emissions standard, the extension to bigger and
19  heavy vehicles and the proposed reduction of sulfur
20  in fuel.  That's why we'd like you to pass the
21  implementation schedule.  It should not take 10
22  years to bring SUVs and light trucks up to standard.
23              As important as the proposed standards
24  are and as fervently as we favor them, especially if
25  they're strengthened and given earlier
00360
 1      Charles Ahlers - American Lung Assoc.
 2  implementation, they do not, of course, by
 3  themselves constitute a comprehensive air pollution
 4  control program.  EPA must continue some of the best
 5  and most productive and consequential elements of
 6  past programs, encouragement for technical
 7  improvement, encouragement of mass transit programs,
 8  discouragement of highway subsidies that threaten to
 9  undo progress made in other modes of pollution
10  control, and working at least slowly to reverse the
11  pattern of federal subsidy and highway travel and
12  the neglect of rail transport.
13              Finally, if the proposed standards are
14  not adopted or are adopted in a form that judged by
15  the states who offer less than hoped for benefits,
16  the State should retain the option to adopt
17  California Low Emission Vehicle Program.  This
18  variety will be a spur to all concerned and make the
19  Tier 2 standards work effectively.
20              Thank you for the proposal of the new
21  standards and for the opportunity to comment.
22              MS. OGE:  Thank you.
23              Mr. Dana, thank you for your testimony.
24  We do agree with the position that your organization
25  has taken.  We are committed at all levels,
00361
 1  
 2  including the President of the United States, to
 3  finalize the proposal by the end of the year.
 4              Yesterday we heard from the American
 5  Petroleum Institute, a set of issues that were very
 6  different with the positions that you have taken
 7  this morning.  They have suggested a program that
 8  controls sulfur at much higher levels then what
 9  you're suggesting this morning, 150 ppm instead of
10  30 ppm for the rest of the country.  Could you
11  please explain to us why your association believes
12  that a low level of sulfur, 30 ppm and maybe using 5
13  today is needed across the country and why your
14  particular design catalyst to perform with higher
15  levels of sulfur in gasoline.
16              MR. DANA:  As you know, we've run tests
17  on both as the industry alone and the industry
18  proponents looking at the effects of sulfur on
19  automobile technology.  And in any single car that
20  was tested in both of those programs, we saw
21  significant reduction emissions when sulfur was
22  taken out of the fuel.  And that effect declines
23  after  time, it gets lower and lower levels of
24  sulfur.  So it's clear to us that as you look at,
25  not only the existing fleet of vehicles out there,
00362
 1  
 2  but if you look at future technology we must
 3  enforce, so that getting sulfur at a critical level
 4  in fuel is absolutely critical.  As we look at the
 5  catalyst developments we plan to use in the future,
 6  we see them being even more insensitive to sulfur.
 7  And as we look at the things like NOx to build a
 8  catalyst in lean-burn engines in the future, those
 9  become another order of magnitude sensitive to
10  sulfur.  So it becomes clear to us as we look at the
11  future that every test, piece of testing that we've
12  seen, makes it clear that removing sulfur to extent
13  possible is the best approach.
14              MS. OGE:  Thank you.
15              Do the panel members have any questions?
16              Thank you very much.  Thank you for the
17  taking the time to share your views with us.
18              Maybe those who are signed up for later
19  on this afternoon and would like to speak earlier,
20  please see the receptionist and we will try to
21  accommodate you.
22              Next, Mr. Dwight Wiggins.  We have a
23  change; instead of Bob Jorgensen, we have Ms. Tina
24  Vujovich, Ms. Maria Bechis, and Ms. Nancy Lavin.
25              We will start with you, Mr. Wiggins.
00363
 1        Dwight Wiggins - Tosco Refining Co.
 2              MR. WIGGINS:  Thank you much.  My name
 3  is Dwight Wiggins.  I'm the president of Tosco
 4  Refining Company.  Tosco is an independent refiner
 5  and marketer of gasoline and other petroleum
 6  products in the United States.  Our seven refiners
 7  have a combined crude oil capacity of approximately
 8  450,000 barrels a day.  Tosco markets gasoline and
 9  other petroleum products through a network of
10  approximately 4500 retail outlets primarily under
11  the Union 76 and Circle K brands.
12              Tosco supports the EPA's proposal sulfur
13  standard of 30 parts per million as we originally
14  announced on May the 3rd.  We believe the nation
15  needs to continue to improve air quality, and the
16  current proposal is an important step in reducing
17  ozone levels.  Although the newer lower sulfur
18  standards will impose significant additional cost on
19  the refining industry, Tosco is committed to
20  gasoline as a clean fuel in the future.  It's clear
21  the reduction of gasoline sulfur will lower
22  emissions in future vehicles.
23              On the other hand, the current proposal
24  includes relief from the new sulfur standards for
25  small refiners both domestic and foreign.  Tosco
00364
 1        Dwight Wiggins - Tosco Refining Co.
 2  generally does not support special provisions which
 3  will unnecessarily dilute the air quality benefit of
 4  the new standard and create potential competitive
 5  inequities.
 6              We believe all refiners, domestic and
 7  foreign, should be held to the same standards on the
 8  same time table.  We, therefore, urge the EPA to
 9  adopt the final rule that applies to new sulfur
10  standards consistently to all producers.  This will
11  help ensure that the full air quality and health
12  benefits of a cleaner low sulfur fuel are available
13  to all citizens as early as possible and in no
14  sector of the refining industry suffers an unequal
15  competitive burden of compliance.
16              It's also very important to remember
17  that foreign refiners will have an inherent
18  competitive advantage over domestic refiners in
19  meeting the new sulfur standards.  While domestic
20  refiners will have to meet the standards for their
21  entire gasoline pool, foreign refiners will have the
22  option of selecting low sulfur extremes for export
23  to the US market by disposing of high-sulfer
24  extremes in their countries or other markets outside
25  the US.  Therefore, foreign refiners may be able to
00365
 1        Dwight Wiggins - Tosco Refining Co.
 2  continue exporting gasoline to the United States
 3  without substantial investment or potentially any
 4  investment in new desulfurization equipment.  It's,
 5  therefore, very important that the final gasoline
 6  rule not contain a loophole that will allow foreign
 7  refiners to import gasoline with sulfur content in
 8  excess of the new standard.  Such loop holes could
 9  undermine the air quality purposes of the regulation
10  and place an even greater competitive disadvantage
11  on domestic refiners.  Giving foreign refiners a
12  further competitive advantage could result in
13  increased imports of gasoline, displacement of
14  domestic refining industry, and loss of employment
15  in the industry.
16              While petroleum refining is not labor
17  intensive, the industry provides well-paid primarily
18  unionized manufacturing jobs that supports thousands
19  of US families.
20              We're also concerned that foreign
21  refiners of substantial size could take advantage of
22  the proposed special treatment for small refiners.
23  Because petroleum refining is not labor intensive,
24  it's possible that some large foreign refiners could
25  qualify as small merely because they have fewer than
00366
 1        Dwight Wiggins - Tosco Refining Co.
 2  1500 employees. For example, Tosco's largest
 3  refinery with a crude oil capacity of approximately
 4  250,000 barrels per day have significantly fewer
 5  than 1500 employees.  In fact, none of Tosco's seven
 6  refineries has more than 1500 employees.  And based
 7  on Tosco's experience with refinery staffing, a work
 8  force of 1500 employees as discussed in the current
 9  regulation could operate a refinery with 500,000
10  barrels per day or more capacity.
11              If the EPA decides to retain the special
12  compliance time table or small refineries, this
13  potential loophole could be limited by including the
14  fee stocks capacity limits of 75,000 barrels per day
15  as contained in the Small Business Administration
16  size standards.  Using the SBA dual capacity and
17  employment test would be consistent with a criteria
18  that's used to qualify small refiners for the
19  procurement preferences used by the Department of
20  Defense in acquiring military fuel.  The SBA dual
21  size standard is based on sound reasoning.  SBA
22  concluded after hearings and public comment that a
23  dual criteria standard of both capacity and
24  employees was a much better measure of size for
25  petroleum refiners than a single measure alone.
00367
 1        Dwight Wiggins - Tosco Refining Co.
 2              In a regulation of motor fuel under the
 3  Clean Air Act there is ample preference for union
 4  capacity limits to restrict special compliance
 5  provisions for small refiners.  In the 1977 lead
 6  phase-down provision, Congress expressively imposed
 7  a capacity limit of 50,000 barrels per day for the
 8  special lead content levels allowed for small
 9  refiners.  Similar capacity limits have been used in
10  providing small refiners relief from state fuel
11  emissions requirement.
12              In allowing small refiners an extended
13  compliance period under the California diesel sulfur
14  regulations, the Air Resources Board restricted the
15  extensions to refiners to no more than 50,000
16  barrels per day in crude oil capacity.  A similar
17  capacity limit of 55,000 barrels a day was applied
18  to an extended period allowed for small refiners to
19  comply for California's Phase 2 reformulated
20  gasoline requirement.
21              If the final sulfur rule provides an
22  extended compliance period for small refiners.  The
23  final rule should also require eligible small
24  refiners to demonstrate their commitment to
25  complying low sulfur gasoline at the end of the
00368
 1        Dwight Wiggins - Tosco Refining Co.
 2  extended period.  Both federal and state emission
 3  regulations have required such demonstrations as
 4  prerequisite to special compliance schedules.
 5              In order to use extended compliance
 6  schedule an EPA's diesel sulfur program a small
 7  refiner was required to demonstrate a commitment to
 8  producing complying fuel by the end of the extended
 9  period.  The required demonstration included capital
10  commitments to the necessary modifications,
11  contracts for design and construction, approved
12  construction permits, and on-site construction to be
13  in progress.  Requiring a demonstrated commitment to
14  compliance is necessary to prevent small refiners
15  from simply using the extended period to sell
16  high-sulfur gasoline into a low sulfur market.
17  Without any investment in compliance, a small
18  refiner could merely cease gasoline production at
19  the end of the extended compliance period.
20              As EPA recognized in implementing its
21  diesel sulfur program, it would enable a small
22  refiner to gain, by their terminology, a windfall in
23  profit by selling lower grade product into a premium
24  market with no long-term air quality benefit to
25  offset the short-term emissions detriment.
00369
 1        Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co.
 2              In conclusion, Tosco recommends that EPA
 3  retain the proposed sulfur standard of 30 parts per
 4  million for gasoline.  However, to avoid the
 5  dilution of air quality benefit to the regulation
 6  and potential competitive inequities, we urge the
 7  EPA to apply the standard equally of all domestic
 8  and foreign refiners.  If the extended compliance
 9  period for small refiners remain, EPA should adopt
10  its capacity limit of 75,000 barrels per day for
11  both and domestic small refiners.
12              Finally, if extensions are granted, the
13  EPA should make the extension available only to
14  small refiners that demonstrate a commitment to
15  produce complying low sulfur gasoline at the end of
16  the extended period.
17              That concludes my remarks.  Thank you
18  for your consideration.
19              MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Ms. Tina Vujovich.
20              MS. VUJOVICH:  Good morning.  My name is
21  Tina Vujovich.  I'm the Vice President in charge of
22  worldwide marketing for bus and light commercial
23  automotive applications as well the environmental
24  management work for Cummins Engine Company.
25              Cummins produces diesel and natural gas
00370
 1        Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co.
 2  fuel, heavy-duty engines for automotive,
 3  construction, agricultural, marine, and power
 4  generation applications around the world.  Cummins
 5  is the large producer of commercial heavy-duty
 6  engines rated above 150 horsepower in the world.
 7              Cummins has recently developed a new
 8  concept engine for application in the light-duty
 9  vehicle, the subject of the proposed regulations
10  under consideration today.  A portion of the funding
11  for this development is coming from the United
12  States Department of Energy.  The Department of
13  Energy's objectives of this effort, as laid out at
14  the initiation of the program, are shown in this
15  figure.  There are two major performance goals, a
16  significant improvement in fuel economy, as you can
17  see, 50 percent over gasoline counterpart; and
18  compliance with future emission standards.  And the
19  standards given to those who participated in this
20  program at the time are listed in the chart here, as
21  you can see.  The figure at the bottom of the chart,
22  the total DOE funding represents the total funding
23  to all those participating in the program.  We're
24  not there in Cummins, although I would have loved to
25  have seen that figure given to Cummins.
00371
 1        Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co.
 2              These emissions targets represent
 3  significant reductions from Tier 1 emissions
 4  standards as shown on this figure.  The light-duty
 5  truck 4, light-duty truck 3, are the standards in
 6  effect today as Tier 1 standards.  You can see the
 7  DOE program goals as the red diamonds on the chart,
 8  a significant reduction.
 9              When we entered the program a few years
10  ago, we felt that these standards were very
11  challenging targets and we still feel that these are
12  challenging targets.
13              As proposed, when including the 50,000
14  mile intermediate useful life standard, the Tier 2
15  requirements would preclude engines which meet these
16  objectives from entering the marketplace in 2004 and
17  beyond.  We believe that this would foreclose the
18  most cost-effective and most readily available
19  opportunity to improve fuel economy and meaningfully
20  reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
21              The Department of Energy initiated this
22  program to produce to reduce the fuel consumption of
23  the growing light-duty vehicle segment known as
24  light-duty trucks.  Light-duty trucks sales
25  represent an increasing percentage of an
00372
 1        Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co.
 2  ever-increasing light-duty truck category
 3  approaching 50 percent this year.
 4              The next couple of charts that you will
 5  see are data from the Energy Institute.  In this
 6  chart you can see that the transportation energy use
 7  represents about one-third of the total energy
 8  consumption in the United States.  Of the energy
 9  consumed by the transportation sector, approximately
10  50 percent is consumed by the light-duty vehicles,
11  including passenger cars and light-duty trucks as
12  shown on this slide, again by the Energy Institute.
13              Direct injection, compression ignition,
14  diesel cycle engines have the potential to
15  significantly reduce light-duty vehicle energy
16  consumption.  As shown on this slide, the results of
17  our engine compared to the gasoline engines that it
18  would replace in a sport utility vehicle is
19  illustrated here.  And as you can see, as we have
20  tested this engine, there is an improvement of 71
21  percent in fuel economy over the gasoline engine
22  that it will replace.
23              For a vehicle that drives about 15,000
24  miles annually, the fuel savings would amount to
25  about 446 gallons per year of fuel.  Now, let's
00373
 1        Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co.
 2  assume that there were about 7.4 million light-duty
 3  trucks sold in the United States last year.  Had
 4  only 50 percent of these been diesel powered rather
 5  than gasoline, the fuel savings last year would be
 6  over 1.5 billion gallons of fuel.
 7              There is a lot of debate about global
 8  warming, but it seems more and more that researchers
 9  are becoming convinced that it is a real issue.  The
10  magnitude of carbon dioxide emission reductions
11  envisioned in the discussions taking place around
12  the world would require major changes.  To reduce
13  the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by light-duty
14  trucks in the United States in the year 2010 to the
15  levels that we were experiencing in 1990 would
16  require a decrease in carbon dioxide between 35 and
17  40 percent per vehicle, depending on the growth
18  assumptions that one would make.  As shown on this
19  slide, the diesel engine that we are in the process
20  of developing achieves a 37 percent reduction from
21  the carbon dioxide emission levels of the gasoline
22  engine that it would replace.
23              Earlier I showed you the Department of
24  Energy program goals, including the emissions
25  targets.  The proposed Tier 2 standards are much
00374
 1        Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co.
 2  more stringent, as shown on this figure.  It is true
 3  that the Department of Energy and the manufacturers
 4  participating in this program recognize that EPA
 5  would be coming out with Tier 2 proposals and also
 6  recognized that program goals would change as a
 7  results of those proposals.
 8              As you can see from this chart, again,
 9  the current Tier 1 standard.  The Department of
10  Energy target, again, is represented by the red
11  diamond.  And you can barely see, written very tiny,
12  the standards that have been proposed in the Tier 2
13  proposal.
14              Improvements in the engine-out emissions
15  from today's best light-duty diesel engines, which
16  employ cooled exhaust gas recirculation, wastegated
17  turbochargers, and air-to-air aftercooler, can be
18  made.  And Cummins believes that with the increased
19  amounts of EGR, the use of fuels systems capable of
20  higher injection pressures and cylinder heads with
21  four valves per cylinder, that engine-out oxides of
22  nitrogen particulate matter emissions for light-duty
23  trucks can be cut in half.
24              Reductions beyond these levels will
25  require significant exhaust aftertreatment.  Lean
00375
 1        Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co.
 2  NOx aftertreatment is still in the development
 3  stage.  However, Cummins believes that such systems
 4  capable of at least 50 percent reductions of oxides
 5  of nitrogen will be commercially viable in the time
 6  frame when the Tier 2 standards are proposed to
 7  begin a phase-in.
 8              Particulate aftertreatment systems, such
 9  as catalyzed soot filters, will also be required.
10  Regeneration, the process of removal the particles
11  from the filters, is still the biggest hurdle for
12  such systems, especially during sustained light load
13  conditions and cold ambient temperatures. Cummins is
14  hopeful that filters with 80 percent or greater
15  trapping efficiency will be able to regenerate
16  continuously under all operating conditions.  The
17  sulfur content of diesel fuel, therefore, must be
18  reduced significantly in order to enable the use of
19  these aftertreatment systems.
20              The anticipated reductions from current
21  best technology through improvements in engine
22  design and through the use of aftertreatment
23  systems, as just described, and as they are applied
24  to light-duty trucks still fall short of the
25  reductions necessary to comply with Bin 7 standards,
00376
 1        Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co.
 2  the least stringent of the Tier 2 bins.
 3              Cummins believes that fuel economy and
 4  carbon dioxide emissions benefits
 5  compression-ignition, diesel-cycle engines bring,
 6  warrant their inclusion in the light-duty market.
 7  Given the long-term horizon and major advances
 8  required to develop conforming commercially viable
 9  diesel product, Cummins recommends that a mid-term
10  technology review be included to assess the progress
11  by these highly fuel efficient engines toward Tier 2
12  compliance.
13              We're pleased to see the Agency's
14  advanced notice of proposed rulemaking requesting
15  comment on the need to changes in diesel fuel.
16  Cummins will provide separate comments to this
17  advanced notice, but inasmuch as fuel changes have a
18  large impact on feasibility of the technology to
19  meet the standards proposed in this rulemaking, it
20  is important to state here that both highly
21  efficient oxides of nitrogen and particulate
22  aftertreatment systems will require the use ultra
23  low sulfur fuel, that is, fuel with less than 5
24  parts per million sulfur.
25              In addition, Cummins believes that
00377
 1        Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co.
 2  flexibility provided by an averaging program that
 3  allows the setting of family emission limits is
 4  needed.  The large gaps between the 5 interim bins
 5  and the seven Tier 2 bins really discourage emission
 6  reductions that are significant but may fall short
 7  of the next lower bin.  Manufacturers would still
 8  have to comply with the same stringent oxide of
 9  nitrogen fleet average, so such an averaging system,
10  while providing greater compliance flexibility and
11  the reduction of the cost of compliance, would
12  really not negatively impact the environmental
13  improvements sought by the proposal.
14              In conclusion, Cummins recommends:  One,
15  that the proposed bin structure be replaced by an
16  averaging program that allows manufacturers to set
17  family emission limits.
18              Number two, that a mid-term technology
19  review be included to assess the progress by these
20  highly fuel efficient engines toward the Tier 2
21  compliance and revise, if necessary, those
22  provisions.
23              And finally, that the maximum sulfur
24  content of the fuel stream for the light-duty
25  vehicles be capped at 5 parts per million.
00378
 1        Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co.
 2              I appreciate the opportunity to speak on
 3  this proposed rulemaking and would address any
 4  questions that you might have.  Thank you for your
 5  attention.
 6              MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Any questions?
 7              MR. PASSAVANT:  May I ask?
 8              MS. OGE:  Yes.
 9              MR. PASSAVANT:  I would like to ask
10  Tina, if she would, when you provide your written
11  comments here, I heard you ask for an FEL approach.
12  If you would please do two things for us.  Number
13  one, if you would take a look at what we said in the
14  preamble about the pros and cons of that which is
15  the approach we used.  And second, since you've
16  suggested that more bins would be helpful if we
17  stuck with the bins approach, if you could get to us
18  sometime what bins you're thinking about.
19              MS. VUJOVICH:  Just a clarification, Mr.
20  Passavant.  What we've suggested is an FEL approach
21  as opposed to a bin approach.
22              MR. PASSAVANT:  I understand.  But if we
23  were to stick with the bin approach, if you could
24  suggest to us which bins you would like to see.
25              MS. VUJOVICH:  Okay.  I will do that in
00379
 1               Gina Amador - Penn PIRG
 2  our written comments.
 3              MR. PASSAVANT:  Thank you.
 4              I'd like to ask Mr. Wiggins, do you have
 5  with you a written copy of your testimony to make
 6  available?
 7              MR. WIGGINS:  I believe we did.  You
 8  asking for a written copy?
 9              MR. PASSAVANT:  I guess that takes care
10  of that.  Thank you very much.
11              MS. OGE:  Any other questions?  Thank
12  you very much, both of you.
13              MS. OGE:  Before we go to the next
14  panel, I would like to ask for Ms. Gina Amador to
15  step up if she's here.  Mr. Karl Walter, Ms.
16  Stephanie Mayers, Jillian Gill, Mrs. Jessica Brooks,
17  and Mr. Jeff Eber.
18              If you could take the time to print your
19  names, and if with you're any association, please
20  also print the name of the association and then we
21  can start with your remarks.
22              MS. AMADOR:  My name is Gina Amador.
23  I'm very excited to be here because I am among a
24  group of people that carry many perspectives on a
25  very complexion issue of air pollution and I see a
00380
 1               Gina Amador - Penn PIRG
 2  lot of potential here for coming to grasp on the
 3  complexities of this problem and I want to share
 4  with you some of my personal experience with the air
 5  pollution problem.
 6              I came two years ago from Mexico City to
 7  study here for college.  In Mexico City I have seen
 8  the tremendous effects that an air pollution crisis
 9  can have on people's daily lives.  On every street
10  corner I have seen people literally struggling
11  taking a breath, on every street corner.  And every
12  day I see people that are in a bad mood with
13  headaches.  I myself have experienced that because
14  it's just very difficult to cope especially if
15  somebody doesn't have a proper nutrition or balance
16  every day can be very difficulty with levels of
17  pollution as high as we do experience in Mexico
18  City.
19              I have also tried to see what people are
20  doing in Mexico City about the air pollution, and I
21  see that people are improvising, that there is no
22  sustainable plan for attacking this problem, but
23  there's crisis of air pollution and the public
24  sometimes doesn't even know what they're being
25  exposed to.  There's a great information gap.  Even
00381
 1               Gina Amador - Penn PIRG
 2  though we do have technology to monitor this air
 3  pollution, it's very hard to know and to explain to
 4  the public what it is that they are experiencing.
 5  And there's very little technological studies.  Even
 6  though I am very hopeful that we will find a
 7  solution, I see the effects of not preventing air
 8  pollution.  I see the effects of waiting until it's
 9  almost too late to take action.
10              Here in the United States I think that
11  there is a lot of potential to prevent what is
12  happening in Mexico.  And I see a lot of people that
13  care about air pollution.  Every day I go out and
14  canvass with Penn PIRG and I talk about 40 people
15  and people care about the air pollution.  Every day
16  I've met somebody with asthma, somebody that has a
17  very serious relation to air pollution problems
18  here.  And so I'm very convinced that this is a
19  pressing problem and that there is a potential in
20  this room to come to grips with the problem and
21  start to unravel the complexities of this
22  phenomenon.
23              I just was here yesterday for a couple
24  of hours, and excuse me for my over-simplification
25  of the problem, but I saw the auto and oil industry
00382
 1              Karl Walter - Penn PIRG
 2  saying, "Time is money, we want more time; we need
 3  wait 10 years, a decade; the problem is not serious
 4  enough."  And then on the other hand I have seen
 5  environmental groups and public health groups
 6  saying, "Time is life and we need to act now."
 7              And I think we have to prioritize the
 8  life aspect of time.  And I really think that this
 9  is a great opportunity.  I really thank everybody
10  that is here for listening to each other's
11  perspectives.  I happen believe in Surgi (ph) which
12  is like if you give, you gain.  And I think that in
13  this tug-of-war, if both parties give, they will
14  both gain and we will all gain.  And I think there
15  is a lot of hope for cutting-edge technologies that
16  give us sustainable and integrative plan for
17  changing the face of our plant.  Thank you.
18              MS. OGE:  Thank you very much.  Mr.
19  Walter.
20              MR. WALTER:  My name is Karl Walter.
21  I'm a resident of North Huntington, Pennsylvania,
22  which is a suburb and Pittsburgh.  I'd like to share
23  a little story.  As you know, asthma rates among
24  children are up 75 percent since 1980.  One of the
25  children lucky enough to be born within that time is
00383
 1              Karl Walter - Penn PIRG
 2  my little sister Nancy.  She was born in Pittsburgh
 3  which has the eighth worst air pollution in the
 4  nation.  And she began having trouble breathing
 5  around her 14th birthday.  Naturally, my family and
 6  I, we were little scared because my little, all of a
 7  sudden her face starts turning purple and we don't
 8  know what to do.  We start taking her to the
 9  hospital, and the doctors, nobody knows what to do.
10  Finally, we figure out she has asthma, my little
11  sister.
12              She's lived with this health problem
13  five years, my younger sister.  There's days when
14  she can't go out and jog because the air pollution
15  is so bad.  One out of three days is an ozone action
16  today.  Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday in Pittsburgh
17  were ozone action days.  She could not go outside
18  and ride a bike because she couldn't breathe on
19  these days.
20              Automobiles are responsible for about 30
21  percent of the smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution
22  and 20 percent of volatile organic compounds which
23  contribute to the formation of smog.  And what we
24  would like see in the Penn PIRG is heavy regulations
25  on these automobiles because they are a major
00384
 1             Jessica Brooks - Penn PIRG
 2  contributor to the air pollution that has affected
 3  my family and my little sister so dearly.
 4              Basically, we would like to see the
 5  loophole for the SUVs closed.  For ten years the
 6  biggest of those, Ford Excursions, things like this
 7  are able to continue polluting our air.  Ford
 8  Excursion is actually not even required to clean up
 9  in 10 years.  These are excluded with the proposal
10  right now.
11              We applaud the proposal that the EPA has
12  put forth, but we would like to see them enforce
13  more strictly to help children and older elderly
14  people who have been affected so dearly by this
15  horrible air pollution.  Thank you for your time.
16  Thanks for listening.
17              MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Ms. Brooks.
18              MS. BROOKS:  Hello.  My name is Jessica
19  Brooks, and I also work for Penn PIRG, although I'm
20  not really here today to talk about my job with Penn
21  PIRG.  I'd like to talk about my job last summer.  I
22  actually was camp counselor dealing with children
23  who would spend a week at the camp.  And at the camp
24  we would spend a lot of time doing outdoor
25  activities and playing outside and having soccer
00385
 1             Jessica Brooks - Penn PIRG
 2  games and swimming.  And a lot these children, it's
 3  very sad to see, had to stop themselves when they
 4  would go to play their games.  They were not able to
 5  play anymore at their camp.
 6              And I can remember being a child when I
 7  was going to camp, and that was one of the best
 8  things of my summer.  And the smog and air pollution
 9  is taking that away from children these days.
10              When I was a child at camp, you didn't
11  understand -- these weren't things that you thought
12  about.  But now all of the children understand the
13  problem, the ones that have asthma and the ones that
14  don't.  They all know about it; it's so common that
15  all of the children are understanding, oh, little
16  Tommy can't play now because he has to stop, he
17  can't breathe.  Have you ever looked in a child's
18  eyes when they can't breathe, the fright and the
19  sadness, the embarrassment of not being able to keep
20  up with the other kids?
21              This is a problem that needs to have a
22  solution.  I understand that asthma may not be
23  specifically caused by air pollution, but it is
24  problematic because of air pollution.  Their attacks
25  are triggered by this and they can't breathe.  So we
00386
 1               Jeff Eber - Penn PIRG
 2  need to come out and we need to make sure that this
 3  pollution is cleaned up.  We need to have as strong
 4  and as tough standards as possible.
 5              There should not be exemptions for the
 6  heavier vehicles.  These are the most pollutant.
 7  These children need to have cars out there that are
 8  less pollutant, they need standards on all of the
 9  cars, and they need them as soon as possible so when
10  they have children they don't have to deal with the
11  same thing.
12              So we would like to come out and thank
13  you for your support of the clean standards and of
14  the clean air proposal, but we also would like to
15  say that they do need to be stronger.  And I'd just
16  like to thank you.
17              MS. OGE:  Thank you, Ms. Brooks.  Mr.
18  Jeff Eber.
19              MR. EBER:  My name is Jeff Eber.  And I
20  am with the many canvassers for Penn PIRG.  I speak
21  to many people every day.  I've actually found that
22  of the people that I talk to, probably one more than
23  half are in support of our group.
24              Right now I'd just like to relate a
25  personal story, that of my sister who actually
00387
 1               Jeff Eber - Penn PIRG
 2  didn't develop symptoms of asthma until she was 14
 3  or 15.  Although when she went to the doctor, the
 4  doctor didn't specifically say, "You have asthma now
 5  because of the air pollution right now," but I think
 6  that a problem that's being ignored is that when
 7  children are developing at a younger age, they
 8  actually need more oxygen for their growing bodies
 9  in proportion to their bodies than the average
10  adult.  In cities, especially Philadelphia where
11  smog is a big problem, they can't get the vital air
12  that they need; they're taking in too much
13  pollution.  And although they don't see the effects
14  right at that very moment, it's an ongoing process
15  that develops over time.
16              My sister entered high school and she
17  started to become very active in sports which she
18  hadn't been before.  That is when she noticed the
19  problem.  She developed asthma in high school.  And
20  she was really into volleyball, ice skating, and
21  playing sports, and now she can't due to the fact
22  that she's developed asthma at such an older age.
23  And I think is a big problem.
24              The auto industry, from quotes that I've
25  read, like to downplay it saying that although
00388
 1               Jeff Eber - Penn PIRG
 2  pollution does harm children a little bit, it's not
 3  that much.  They say that it only hurts the lungs
 4  and hurts the respiratory system a little bit.  The
 5  problem is, is that it might be do that at that
 6  point, but it's a developing thing that develops
 7  over time.  So the longer that we wait to stop the
 8  polluting, it will just keep getting worse.  We need
 9  to realize that children now don't see the problems
10  with the air pollution right now, but they will in
11  the future and as the problem gets worse.  It will
12  continue to get worse.
13              MS. OGE:  Any members have any questions
14  for them?
15              I'd like to thank you for taking the
16  time to be with us this morning.  Your views are
17  very important to the work that we are doing here.
18  Thank you very much.
19              I would ask for Mr. Pat Charbonneau to
20  please come forward.  We will try to make some
21  changes this morning to accommodate people that are
22  signed up to speak with us today.  We suggest that
23  we move forward with the panel that is scheduled to
24  speak at 1:15.
25              So Mr. Charbonneau, Mr. Kata, Leonard
00389
 1           Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar
 2  Kata, is he here?  Mr. Robert Strassburger, and Mr.
 3  Jason Rash.
 4              Also there were two additional
 5  individuals that were scheduled to testify at 10
 6  o'clock, and they were not here this morning.  I'd
 7  like to see if they are here.  Ms. Maria Bechis and
 8  Ms. Nancy Lavin.
 9               (Pause.)
10              MS. OGE:  Good morning.  We can start
11  with Mr. Charbonneau.
12              MR. CHARBONNEAU:  My name is Patrick
13  Charbonneau.  I'm Vice President of Engine
14  Engineering for Navistar.  I'm here today to discuss
15  the impact of the proposed Tier 2 emission standards
16  on diesel engine technology which Navistar is
17  developing for light-duty vehicle applications in
18  partnership for our customer, Ford Motor Company.
19              We believe that greater reliance on
20  diesel engines in this important market segment can
21  provide important environmental and economic
22  benefits.  We support challenging but achievable
23  Tier 2 standards which create incentives for our
24  industry to invest in new generation diesel engines
25  which deliver superior emissions control
00390
 1           Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar
 2  performance.  Clean diesel fuel with sulfur levels
 3  at or below 5 parts per million is a critical
 4  enabler for the new technologies we are developing.
 5  We need EPA's help in assuring the availability of
 6  ultra low sulfur fuel for light-duty diesel by 2004
 7  in order to achieve the very aggressive Tier 2
 8  targets the EPA has proposed.
 9              With ultra-clean diesel fuel and new
10  aftertreatment systems, we foresee dramatic
11  breakthroughs in emissions control.  For example,
12  Navistar recently conducted a demonstration of
13  passive trap technology using a school bus with a
14  heavy-duty diesel engine and ultra low sulfur fuel.
15  We're pleased to report that we achieved reductions
16  in particulate emissions were over 90 percent, which
17  will be required to achieve the stringent Tier 2
18  limits for particulates.  The success of this
19  demonstration is an exciting example of how great
20  strides forward we can take with the combination of
21  new generation diesel technology and ultra low
22  sulfur fuel for both light-duty and heavy-duty
23  diesels.
24              I would like to make two other points:
25  One, the particulates are 50 percent lower than the
00391
 1           Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar
 2  best 1998 certified compressed natural gas engine.
 3              And secondly, the hydrocarbon emissions
 4  are lower than can be measured in certified test
 5  cells.
 6              For those of you who have seen our
 7  school bus in the front of the building, you can
 8  attest that there is no smoke and there is no diesel
 9  odor associated with this vehicle.
10              Navistar is a major North American
11  manufacturer of medium and heavy trucks and buses
12  marketed under the International name.  Navistar is
13  also the world's largest manufacturer of mid-range
14  diesel engines.  We supply these engines both to
15  other Navistar divisions as well as to Ford.
16              Although we've made major strides in
17  emissions performance, Navistar expects to achieve
18  dramatic additional improvements by continuing to
19  invest in advanced emissions control systems.  As
20  these new technologies come to fruition, light-duty
21  diesels should be able to meet extremely stringent
22  emission reduction goals.  Thus, provided we have
23  realistic phase-in dates and assuming we have clean
24  diesel fuel available, Navistar believes light-duty
25  diesel has the potential of meeting EPA's
00392
 1           Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar
 2  challenging Tier 2 targets.
 3              As we approach Model Year 2004,
 4  reductions in engine-out emissions of NOx and
 5  particulates will be obtained through the
 6  introduction of completely technologically advanced
 7  engines.
 8              After these advanced engine technologies
 9  are implemented, further reductions in NOx and
10  particulates in the 2004 time frame will require new
11  aftertreatment technology.  Several options are
12  under consideration including advanced oxidation
13  catalyst and passive particulate traps to production
14  particulates and de-NOx catalyst and NOx absorbers
15  to reduce NOx.  Evaluating and then selecting the
16  best technologies will require major R & D effort by
17  Navistar and vendors of aftertreatment devices.
18  Once he have identified viable aftertreatment
19  methods, additional time and investment will be
20  needed to mature these technologies to the point
21  where they perform efficiently under on-road
22  conditions.  Although the aftertreatment option we
23  are considering are currently developing
24  technologies, our goal is to make these technologies
25  available in Model Year 2004 through 2007.  This
00393
 1           Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar
 2  assumes the availability of ultra low sulfur fuels
 3  so that the effectiveness of the aftertreatment is
 4  not compromised by sulfur contamination.
 5              While this rulemaking does not address
 6  vehicles in the over-8500 pound class, the
 7  technological breakthroughs spurred by light-duty
 8  emission standards could eventually be transferred
 9  to the heavy-duty engine line.  Navistar has a long
10  history of leveraging common technologies across
11  product lines from pickup trucks to Class 8 trucks.
12  For example, Navistar's HEUI fuel system was
13  originally developed for light heavy-duty engines in
14  order to meet the emissions control, fuel economy,
15  and sociability requirements for this market.
16  Navistar then applied this technology to its larger
17  engines.  In a similar manner, we would expect these
18  base engine improvements and aftertreatment
19  technologies developed to meet Tier 2 light-duty
20  market would ultimately be transferred to the
21  heavy-duty diesel engines.  This leveraging of
22  emissions control breakthroughs could have
23  substantial environmental benefits by creating the
24  technological foundation for lower emitting
25  heavy-duty diesels.  With an expanding presence in
00394
 1           Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar
 2  the light-duty market as Tier 2 standards take
 3  effect, Navistar could justify sizable R & D
 4  investment required to support these new emissions
 5  control technologies.  These will be applicable to
 6  all of our engine classes.
 7              With tighter controls on nitrogen oxide
 8  emissions and particulate matter, Navistar's new
 9  generation of light-duty engines will provide an
10  unsurpassed combination of environmental benefits.
11  In comparison with gasoline engines, diesel offers
12  greatly increased fuel economy, substantially
13  reduced carbon dioxide emissions and greater engine
14  durability and significantly lower emissions of
15  hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide.
16              These a benefits have been recognized
17  not just by industry, but by government
18  policymakers.  The Administration's partnership for
19  a new generation of vehicles has selected
20  compression ignition engines as the leading
21  technology candidate for achieving greatly increased
22  fuel economy without burdening consumers with added
23  cost or reduced convenience.  This increase in fuel
24  efficiency will translate into reduced greenhouse
25  gas emissions as well as producing additional
00395
 1           Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar
 2  benefits like lower carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon
 3  emissions.
 4              Based on these emissions benefits,
 5  countries in the European Union are encouraging
 6  rapid dieselization of the light-duty fleet in order
 7  to achieve the EU's goal of 25 percent reduction in
 8  mobile source CO2 emissions by 2008.  If the United
 9  States were to adopt policies which discourage
10  conversion of light-duty vehicles to diesel
11  technology, our near-term ability to address global
12  warming could be seriously compromised.  Despite the
13  long-time promise of fuel cells and other
14  cutting-edge innovations, most knowledgeable experts
15  agree that their commercialization will not be
16  feasible for many years and that diesel is the only
17  high-efficiency engine technology that is
18  economically viable for widespread use in the near
19  future.
20              There is one caveat for our ability to
21  make dramatic strides in reducing NOx and
22  particulate emissions.  We must have assurance that
23  ultra-clean diesel fuel, with sulfur levels at or
24  below 5 parts per million, is available for
25  light-duty vehicles by 2004.  All of our R & D work
00396
 1           Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar
 2  on rests on the premise that low sulfur fuel is a
 3  critical technology enabler, without which we cannot
 4  achieve the levels of NOx and PM control called for
 5  by the Tier 2 proposal.  Based on our discussion
 6  with our suppliers and our review of data, we're
 7  convinced that effective aftertreatment will depend
 8  on reduction of fuel sulfur levels to 5 parts per
 9  million or below.  Higher sulfur levels in diesel
10  fuel will interfere with aftertreatment by causing
11  catalyst poisoning and the generation of sulfate
12  particulates within the aftertreatment systems.
13              As we will explain in our comments on
14  EPA's advance notice of proposed rulemaking on
15  diesel fuels, we favor the phased approach EPA is
16  developing for introduction of low low-sulfur diesel
17  fuel.  Under this approach, the EPA's initial
18  priority would be to making slow-sulfur fuel
19  available at the 5 parts per million level by 2004
20  for light-duty trucks.
21              While there are implementation issues
22  that would need to be resolved under this approach,
23  it would efficiently meet the needs of the small and
24  targeted light-duty diesel market covered by Tier 2
25  requirements while permitting the industry to gain
00397
 1           Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar
 2  experience on aftertreatment technology and develop
 3  refining infrastructure necessary to support the
 4  broader desulfurization requirements.
 5              Again, I want to stress our ability to
 6  meet Tier 2 emissions targets is conditioned on the
 7  timely availability of clean fuel.  If the EPA has
 8  not mandated low sulfur diesel fuel when it
 9  finalizes the Tier 2 rule, that rule would need to
10  provide alternate NOx and PM limits for diesel
11  engines that could be feasible using current grades
12  of diesel fuel.
13              There is one aspect of the proposed rule
14  which is of great concern to our industry.  We see
15  no reason why the EPA should establish a more
16  stringent 50,000 mile standard for diesel vehicles
17  given their durability and consistency of their
18  emission profile over time.  The 50K standards in
19  EPA's proposal is simply infeasible for diesel
20  engines and should either be eliminated or adjusted
21  so they are identical to the 120,000 mile standards.
22              Because of the aggressive targets we
23  will face under Tier 2, we strongly agree with the
24  EPA that a technology review in 2004 should be
25  conducted to assess the feasibility of its HDLT NOx
00398
 1              Leonard Kata - Volkswagen
 2  and particulate limits in Model Year 2007 and
 3  beyond.  This review would provide the necessary
 4  opportunity to evaluate the maturation of the
 5  aftertreatment technologies as well as the
 6  effectiveness of cleaner fuel in controlling NOx and
 7  PM.
 8              In summary, ultra low fuel sulfur is
 9  mandatory for Tier 2 compliance.  Technologies that
10  are developed for light-duty diesels are
11  transferable to heavy-duty diesels.  The Tier 2 rule
12  will not be feasible without the elimination of the
13  intermediate 50,000 mile standards, and a technology
14  review will be essential to assess the feasibility
15  of the post 2006 standards.
16              And lastly, we can demonstrate several
17  of these points at our demonstration school bus
18  parked outside if anyone would like to see it.
19              Thank you.  I hope Navistar's comments
20  will be helpful to the EPA.  And I would be happy to
21  answer any questions.
22              MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Mr. Leonard Kata.
23              MR. KATA:  Good morning.  My name is
24  Leonard Kata.  I'm the team leader for the Emission
25  Regulations and Certification Group at Volkswagen of
00399
 1              Leonard Kata - Volkswagen
 2  America.  My comments today are presented on behalf
 3  of Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Rolls-Royce, and
 4  LAMBORGHINI.
 5              Volkswagen is a member of the Alliance
 6  of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of
 7  International Automobile Manufacturers.    As such,
 8  we support the testimony presented by these
 9  associations.  In my testimony before you, I intend
10  to limit my comments to a few key issues which merit
11  re-emphasizing and are also of critical importance
12  to Volkswagen.  More detailed written comments will
13  be prepared and submitted for the record before the
14  close of the comment period.
15              First, vehicle emissions and fuel
16  specifications must be regulated as a package.  The
17  Tier 2 requirements will necessitate the control of
18  exhaust emissions to extremely low levels.  Without
19  the availability of low sulfur fuel, the emission
20  reduction benefits of the emissions control systems
21  necessary to meet the Tier 2 standards will not be
22  realized.  Further, near-zero sulfur fuel is
23  essential to enabling new emission control
24  technology.
25              In this rulemaking process, EPA has
00400
 1              Leonard Kata - Volkswagen
 2  separated the gasoline and diesel fuel
 3  specifications issues.  I would like to emphasize
 4  that both issues are equally important and merit
 5  your consideration, especially considering that the
 6  proposed emission standards are fuel-neutral.  Just
 7  as low sulfur gasoline is essential for compliance
 8  with the Tier 2 emission requirements, clean diesel
 9  fuel is equally essential.  While it would result in
10  an immediate reduction in the emissions of current
11  diesel vehicles, low sulfur clean diesel fuel is an
12  enabler for further NOx and particulate control.
13              Lean burn catalyst technology being
14  developed for compression ignition engines can be
15  inhibited by even modest amounts of sulfur.
16  Therefore, to fully realize the emission control
17  potential to produce clean diesel engines, near-zero
18  or 5 ppm sulfur diesel fuel is required.  Volkswagen
19  has some experience with very low sulfur fuels, less
20  than 10 ppm, such as the fuel marketed in Sweden and
21  England, and the emission reduction results are
22  significant.  These results were reported in an SAE
23  paper presented earlier this year.
24              The Tier 2 emissions standards should
25  not preclude the availability of particular engine
00401
 1              Leonard Kata - Volkswagen
 2  technologies.  As proposed by EPA, the bin structure
 3  and stringent NOx fleet average will impose
 4  limitations on vehicle manufacturers.  The least
 5  stringent bin establishes a 0.2 grams per mile NOx
 6  cap, Bin 7.  Further, there are only 2 bins above
 7  the 0.07 NOx average.  These requirements will limit
 8  the flexibility, inhibit the further development of
 9  current fuel-efficient technologies and inhibit the
10  introduction of advanced fuel-efficient
11  technologies.  Additional bins, above Bin 7, are
12  required to address the needs of heavier vehicles
13  with large displacement engines and vehicle powered
14  by lean-burn efficient engines.  While limited
15  flexibility may be available during the Tier 2
16  phase-in period, additional Tier 2 bins that
17  continue beyond the phase-in period are needed to
18  encourage the ongoing development of current and
19  advanced lean-burn technology.
20              There are environmental benefits
21  associated with direct injection lean-burn
22  technologies.  These technologies offer the best
23  opportunity to reduce fuel consumption in the near
24  future.  In the case of diesel direct injection, the
25  advantages also include inherently low NMOG, CO,
00402
 1              Leonard Kata - Volkswagen
 2  cold-start, evaporative, and refueling emissions.
 3  However, these lean-burn technologies present
 4  difficult emission control challenges.  Today's
 5  emissions control technology cannot achieve the
 6  level of NOx control needed to meet the very tight
 7  standards in these applications.
 8              As presented in the Alliance of
 9  Automobile Manufacturers' proposal, EPA could
10  enhance Tier 2 flexibility by expanding the
11  certification bins, without incurring any loss of
12  Tier 2 stringency.  This effort would be effective
13  in encouraging the further development and
14  introduction of advanced technology vehicles.
15  Finally, the action would come at no air quality
16  risk since manufacturers would still be required to
17  meet a NOx fleet average requirement.
18              In summary, the EPA rules should not
19  have the unintended consequence of restricting
20  vehicle design or precluding the use of vehicle
21  technologies in the market, particularly advanced
22  fuel-efficient technologies.  Volkswagen recommends
23  that EPA should include certification bins that
24  allow individual vehicles to meet NOx levels of up
25  to 0.6 gram per mile, at least through 2007 model
00403
 1              Nancy Lavin - Philly Walks
 2  year and 0.4 grams per mile thereafter.
 3              In conclusion, Volkswagen encourages the
 4  Agency to continue to pursue the control of sulfur
 5  in fuel, both gasoline and diesel, as an integral
 6  part of the Tier 2 rulemaking process.
 7              In addition, Volkswagen recommends that
 8  the EPA Tier 2 rule provide the needed flexibility
 9  to ensure the continued development of vehicle
10  designs and emissions control technology.  This
11  flexibility would come in the form of vehicle
12  emissions standards, fleet average compliance
13  requirements, and a phase-in time line that does not
14  inhibit the continued availability or further
15  development of advanced technology.
16              This concludes my prepared remarks.
17              MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Ms. Nancy Lavin.
18  Good morning.
19              MS. LAVIN:  Good morning.  Thank you for
20  your invitation to hear me.  I am the Chair of
21  Philly Walks in Philadelphia, the only Philadelphia
22  organization who devoted solely to pedestrian
23  advocacy.  We are affiliated with the Philadelphia
24  Clean Air Council.  I have asthma, and I suppose you
25  can hear it in my voice and I hope you can hear me.
00404
 1              Nancy Lavin - Philly Walks
 2  If not, let me know.  It developed after I moved to
 3  the city.
 4              Now, we know that walking distances is a
 5  healthy and desired activity, but not where the air
 6  is unhealthy.  I can no longer walk long distances.
 7              Just one example, school and tour buses
 8  and delivery trucks wait curbside for extended
 9  periods of time outside our cultural and
10  entertainment institutions with their motors
11  running.  What we need is help from you.  We need
12  your assessments, your recommendations, because we
13  need regulations in place in order for enforcement
14  to occur against this activity.
15              During trips to quiet suburban areas, I
16  experience very few breathing problems, even during
17  the high allergy season, which is now.  Therefore, I
18  can only conclude in an empirical sort of way that
19  breathing difficulties can be exacerbated by Mother
20  Nature, but breathing problems definitely occur in
21  the presence of man-made pollutants such as vehicle
22  exhaust.
23              As you may know, asthmatics require
24  rigorous treatment and expensive medication.  I did
25  have a very good quality of life at one time.  Now
00405
 1       Ronald Strassburger - Nissan North America
 2  I'd like it back; we all would.
 3              I wanted to refer you just briefly to an
 4  article that appeared in this morning's New York
 5  Times and it talks about children in crisis.  It
 6  refers to the fact that 38 percent of the 8,000
 7  homeless children in New York City have been
 8  definitely diagnosed with asthma.  Again, I think we
 9  can conclude that that is because they are not in a
10  suburb, they are not quietly at home often, they are
11  outside, and that is taking a toll.
12              Well, thank you very much for hearing
13  me.  I appreciate it.
14              MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Thank you for
15  taking the time to share your views with us.
16              Mr. Strassburger.
17              MR. STRASSBURGER:  Good morning.  My
18  name is Ronald Strassburger.   I'm corporate manger
19  of technical affairs at Nissan North America.  This
20  morning I'd like to focus my comments on the
21  mid-term review posed by the Alliance of Automobile
22  Manufacturers.  But first, let me just say, number
23  one, Nissan is a member of the Alliance as well as
24  AIM.  We were involved in preparing the testimony,
25  and we fully support the testimony given by those
00406
 1       Ronald Strassburger - Nissan North America
 2  two associations.  Also, Nissan supports the goals
 3  laid out by EPA for this rulemaking, and we're very
 4  pleased that EPA has recognized the linkage between
 5  vehicle and fuels and the fact that they work as a
 6  system and that they have proposed and integrated
 7  rules, and we feel important that the final rule
 8  also be integrated with it.
 9              Let me turn to the mid-term review.  The
10  Alliance has proposed a two-step phase-down to a
11  common 0.07 NOx fleet average requirement for all
12  vehicles 0 to 8500 pounds.  This is similar to the
13  proposal that EPA has made with one distinction, and
14  that is, EPA has proposed a single set of
15  phase-downs for vehicles under 6.  We do agree that
16  this is a historic rulemaking, not only in the
17  levels of standards that are proposed here, but
18  because we are at a point in time when there is a
19  revolution of sorts brewing in the types of
20  powertrains that may power our vehicles in the
21  future.
22              The industry is working towards
23  perfecting advanced fuel efficient technologies such
24  as gasoline direct injection engines, hybrid
25  electric vehicles and fuel.  The automotive industry
00407
 1       Ronald Strassburger - Nissan North America
 2  is committed to continuing development of these new
 3  technologies but, however, with any research, there
 4  are no guarantees.  EPA determinations with regard
 5  to feasibility, cost, energy impacts and the cost
 6  impact on competition will rely on some degree on
 7  the Agency's ability to make educated guesses about
 8  what will happen in the future.  And the most
 9  reasonable way to minimize this uncertainty is to
10  conduct a mid-term review.
11              Therefore, the Alliance is calling for
12  that EPA should require, via this rulemaking, an
13  independent third-party review of its standards, and
14  that this review should be commenced in 2004 with
15  the purpose of assuring based on accurate and
16  up-to-date information that the post-2007 standards
17  that the Alliance or the EPA has called out continue
18  to meet statutory requirements.  Such pre-planning
19  would ensure the fairness and workability of a Tier
20  2 rule and would help to avoid a costly and
21  time-consuming judicial review process on the issue
22  of feasibility.
23              Yesterday we heard -- I think I heard,
24  anyway, some threats that they there might be
25  litigation.  That's not unthinkable that that would
00408
 1       Ronald Strassburger - Nissan North America
 2  occur.  I think the mid-term review would actually
 3  strengthen EPA's hands in that regard in defending a
 4  mid-term review.  An important thing about a
 5  mid-term review is that it allows manufactures to
 6  build on the healthy down payment that they have
 7  made via the NLEV program and make additional
 8  reductions, capture additional reductions under the
 9  Tier 2 program while we continue to work toward
10  advanced technology vehicles.
11              Therefore, we are calling for a panel of
12  experts with expertise in automotive engineering,
13  environmental engineering, and economics to be
14  brought together and selected through a joint
15  government industry process, again, beginning in
16  2004.
17              We believe the mid-term study should
18  examine the availability of technology including
19  costs for meeting for the exhaust emissions
20  standards for Model Year 1998 and later model year
21  vehicles for all vehicles 0 to 8500 pounds.  And in
22  examining the availability and cost technology to
23  meet the standards in the facing schedules proposed,
24  the study should address such things as reliability,
25  whether reasonable, reliable technologies will be
00409
 1       Ronald Strassburger - Nissan North America
 2  available in the time frames required by the rule.
 3  It should address the availability of precious
 4  metals.  Yesterday we heard Honda testify about
 5  their concern about the availability of precious
 6  metals, and that is actually an industry concern.
 7              The study should also look at the cost
 8  of emission control technologies.  For this purpose,
 9  we would be recommending through our written comment
10  that reasonable cost effectiveness metric to be used
11  during the study.
12              The study should also consider the
13  capability of use in lean-burn and fuel-efficient
14  engines.  The panel should consider whether
15  technology satisfying the emissions criteria will be
16  capable of being used in vehicles powered by
17  lean-burn and fuel-efficient internal combustion
18  engines running on the fuels mandated for nationwide
19  sales by January 2, 2007, and thereafter.
20              The study should also look at consumer
21  welfare effects the Tier 2 proposal will have, the
22  possibility of imposing standards that could force
23  certain vehicles out of the market, the vehicles
24  that consumers want and need.  It should also look
25  at the employment impact.  And finally, it should
00410
 1       Ronald Strassburger - Nissan North America
 2  also look at other federal policy considerations,
 3  such as fuel economy and other auto safety
 4  regulations that may come into effect in the time
 5  period proposed.
 6              The EPA should use this mid-term review
 7  to determine whether mid-course corrections to the
 8  standards proposed in the out years is necessary and
 9  that it determines -- and this is an important
10  point, this is a EPA determination.  If EPA
11  determines that the technology likely to be
12  available in the time frame 2008 to 2011 fails to
13  satisfy any of the criteria set forth and agreed
14  upon by the panel, then the standards applicable in
15  Model Year 2007 should continue until such time as
16  EPA revises the schedule.
17              And I want to emphasize here that we are
18  not proposing triggered standards.  The concept here
19  is patterned after the concept followed in
20  California when they have set technology enforcing
21  standards, that is, the concept of biannual review;
22  or perhaps more accurately, the model that they used
23  when they formed the battery technology assessment
24  panel to review the zero emissions vehicle mandate;
25  again, a panel of experts.
00411
 1       Ronald Strassburger - Nissan North America
 2              The standards are put in place.  This is
 3  what we work an engineer to and they are only
 4  changed after EPA has determined that they need to
 5  be changed.
 6              MS. OGE:  How are we doing, Joe, with
 7  time?  You're the time-keeper.
 8              MR. GUY:  Just about one minute.
 9              MR. STRASSBURGER:  I also want to
10  emphasis that this is not an attempt to derail
11  Tier 2.  This is an attempt to move forward in the
12  face of uncertainty to allow the industry to take on
13  increased risk and capture additional gain,
14  emissions reduction gain.  I would note that the
15  Clean Air Act, it's the very process that we're
16  involved in began with a study.  And in that study
17  there was a set of default standards that were
18  suggested.  And in actual fact, the standards
19  proposed are significantly more stringent than the
20  default standards.  Thank you.
21              MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Mr. Strassburger,
22  the only comment that I would make is that I did
23  have the opportunity to meet with a number of
24  members of Nissan last Tuesday, and I would strongly
25  recommend that for the written testimony, additional
00412
 1               Maria Bechis - Sierra Club
 2  testimony, that you need consolidate the information
 3  that was provided to me on Tuesday and the testimony
 4  that you have given us here today so the public can
 5  have the full view of Nissan's perspective of this
 6  program.
 7              MR. STRASSBURGER:  We will be submitting
 8  written comments and we will also be commenting
 9  through the Alliance and we expect to make several
10  recommendations in this area, in terms of structure,
11  evaluation metrics, et cetera.
12              MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Ms. Maria Bechis.
13              MS. BECHIS:  Good morning.  My name is
14  Maria Bechis.  I am Vice Chair of Bucks County Group
15  of the Sierra Club.  I am here not only as a
16  representative of an environmental advocacy
17  organization, but because I have witnessed firsthand
18  the debilitating impact of asthma on children and
19  adults.  My nine-year-old daughter and 47-year-old
20  husband have asthma.  My daughter took time off from
21  school yesterday morning to attend a press
22  conference in front of this EPA building.  My
23  daughter and husband have difficulty breathing and
24  breathe painfully on bad ozone days in the summer.
25  My daughter did not undergo necessary surgery in
00413
 1               Maria Bechis - Sierra Club
 2  1997 because of her wheezing.
 3              Death rates for asthmatic children,
 4  rising 6 percent a year, have doubled between 1980
 5  and 1993.  Nearly 5 million children, 7 percent of
 6  the population, have asthma.  The medical treatment
 7  for these children cost $6.2 billion a year.  These
 8  children sulfur miserably.  They cannot play
 9  outdoors in the summer and are dependent on
10  medications and inhalers.  The Clean Air Act directs
11  the EPA to set air quality standards at levels that
12  protect public health with an adequate margin of
13  safety.  The EPA must base their decisions on the
14  best available science and public health
15  considerations alone and must not consider the cost
16  of implementing such standards.  That is the law.
17  To harried parents in hospital emergency rooms, no
18  cost is too high to protect the health and lives of
19  their children.
20              Volatile organic compounds, oxides of
21  nitrogen, and sulfur dioxide are the precursors for
22  ground level ozone, smog, and the particular matter
23  that cause excess mortality, hospital admissions for
24  respiratory diseases, and decreased lung function.
25              Bucks County, where my family resides,
00414
 1               Maria Bechis - Sierra Club
 2  does not meet air quality standards.  We need
 3  cleaner air to breathe.  We, the Bucks County Group
 4  of the Sierra Club, and an Sierra Club as a whole,
 5  support Tier 2 standards for nitrogen oxide and
 6  sulfur proposed by EPA for vehicle emissions and
 7  gasoline which will slash smog-forming pollution.
 8              We strongly urge the EPA not to heed the
 9  oil industry and auto industry, especially sport
10  utility vehicle manufacturers to extend the time
11  line for implementation of these standards.
12              I brought with me something that little
13  children use with there inhalers.  Because little
14  children have difficulty taking in the right dose,
15  they have these gadgets and they carry them around
16  with them in school and they attach their inhaler to
17  these gadgets and they must breathe through this so
18  that they get the appropriate dose of their
19  albuterol or other medications that they use for
20  asthma.  And my daughter carries one of these around
21  in the spring and early summer when she is in school
22  because she does have difficulty breathing on bad
23  ozone days.  These little gadgets are quite
24  expensive.  They're $25 apiece.  And she's quite
25  responsible; she hasn't lost hers.  But when you
00415
 1               Maria Bechis - Sierra Club
 2  consider that little children misplace these things,
 3  lose these things, damage these things, it can get
 4  quite expensive for families.
 5              And we'd like you to consider carefully
 6  the increased benefits, the decreased number of days
 7  children will be losing from school, the number of
 8  days my husband loses from going to work.  All of
 9  this far outweighs the cost required to implement
10  these new standards.  And we will respectfully
11  submit the comments to the panel the, EPA panel.
12              And to my comments I have attached a
13  letter that my 9-year-old has written for all of you
14  to see.  Thank you for consideration.
15              MS. OGE:  Would you like to read the
16  letter?
17              MS. BECHIS:  It was a short letter that
18  she brought with her yesterday.  And what she says
19  in this letter is:
20              "My name is Meggy Bechis.  I am 9 years
21  old and I have asthma.  We learned that I had asthma
22  in 1997.  I was scheduled to have ear tubes put in
23  my ears, but when I went to Children's Hospital and
24  they listened to my chest.  They hear Wheezing so
25  they didn't do my operation.  It would be dangerous
00416
 1               Maria Bechis - Sierra Club
 2  because of the Wheezing.
 3              "When there are hot summer days and
 4  sometimes even in the winter, I have to use this
 5  inhaler.  It helps me breathe much better.  It's
 6  really hard to breathe especially when air is dirty.
 7  Sometimes I can't play outside because it's too hard
 8  to breathe.
 9              "I am here to ask the EPA to stop
10  harmful chemicals from coming out of the tailpipes
11  of cars and trucks."
12              Thank you for your consideration.
13              MS. OGE:  Thank you.
14              (Applause.)
15              MS. OGE:  I have a question for Mr.
16  Kata.  I believe you testified that VW recommends
17  bins of .6 grams per NOx until 2007 and potentially
18  .4 bins beyond 2007; is that accurate?
19              MR. KATA:  Yes.
20              MS. OGE:  I just want to ask is this
21  recommendation, would you consider this type of
22  recommendation if fuel, the diesel fuel, is clean?
23  Or you are suggesting that you need clean diesel
24  fuel to meet this .6 and .4 upper bin requirements?
25              MR. KATA:  We need clean diesel fuel to
00417
 1  
 2  meet the -- the recommendation for the .6 and .4 was
 3  basically the endorsing the Alliance proposal.  We
 4  are a member of the Alliance and have worked with
 5  them, and that recommendation was endorsed under the
 6  Alliance proposal and would like to have those bins
 7  available to allow us to continue development of
 8  technology, particularly the area of advanced fuel
 9  efficient technology over the period of time until
10  more advanced emission control systems can be
11  developed.
12              MS. OGE:  But the .6 and .4 numbers that
13  you have suggested and the Alliance suggested could
14  be met with today's fuel or today's technologies?
15              MR. KATA:  In some cases they can.
16              MS. OGE:  And then Mr. Charbonneau
17  earlier testified that with cleaner diesel fuel --
18  his company believes that they can meet the .07
19  grams per NOx standard that EPA has proposed.  What
20  is your view on that or your company's view on that?
21              MR. KATA:  With respect to the diesel
22  technology that we have been looking at and also
23  testified today the fact that the level compared to
24  California, we've made the comment that we would
25  need 30 ppm to get our light-duty diesels down to a
00418
 1  
 2  level of .3 grams using aftertreatment technology,
 3  namely, a de-NOx galleys.  So that is about as far
 4  we've gone on public record in terms of stating our
 5  capabilities with light-duty diesels.
 6              MS. OGE:  Mr. Kata, let me see if I
 7  understood what you said.  You have testified that
 8  the California Level 2 program that VW could meet --
 9  did you say .03?
10              MR. KATA:  I think may have misspoke.
11  0.3.
12              MS. OGE:  Okay, that's what I heard.
13  Why don't you correct the record.
14              MR. KATA: 0.3.
15              MS. OGE:  O.3 with 30 ppm.
16              MR. KATA:  That statement was made in
17  the contents of 30 ppm.
18              MS. OGE:  Does your company have any
19  views about going further than .3 with cleaner fuel?
20              MR. KATA:  I did allude to an SAE paper
21  where we have done some studies with fuels that are
22  available in Europe and these fuels are below 10 ppm
23  and show promise for both reduced engine emissions
24  and enable the technology using aftertreatment.
25              MS. OGE:  Could you elaborate?  What is
00419
 1                   John Crnko - Antek
 2  it?  Is it farther below .3?
 3              MR. KATA:  I don't have it.
 4              MS. OGE:  Along with your verbal
 5  testimony, will you provide any additional
 6  information about what your company is doing.  Thank
 7  you.
 8              Any other comments.  Thank you.
 9              I would like to thank Ms. Maria Bechis
10  for coming away from home to meet with us to share
11  your testimony and your daughter's letter.  Thank
12  you very much.  Thank you all.
13              We will start with our 10:45 panel.  We
14  would like John Crnko, Mr. Bruce Bertelsen.
15              Mr. Crnko, we will start with you this
16  morning.
17              MR. CRNKO:  My name is John Crnko.  I'm
18  with Antek.  There's Antek industrial group.  I'm
19  with the Antek instruments group.
20              This presentation is not necessarily
21  concerned with when or what levels of sulfur are
22  eventually mandated as the US moves toward cleaner
23  motor fuels.  It does put forward the notion that no
24  matter what sulfur levels are targeted, US EPA
25  should designate as its primary method the most
00420
 1                   John Crnko - Antek
 2  economical and capable ASTM test method.
 3              In their proposed Tier 2 regulations, US
 4  EPA has stated D2622, WDXRF, be designated as the
 5  primary test method for sulfur.  For the
 6  determination of sulfur fuels in the future and
 7  particularly at levels proposed by EPA, D5454, or
 8  UVF, has proven to be a superior method to D2622.
 9  This presentation will provide evidence that
10  demonstrates why D5453 should be designated as the
11  primary test method for sulfur in fuels.
12              Based on testimony heard so far during
13  these hearing, there can be little doubt that the US
14  marketplace will have lower sulfur fuels in its not
15  too distant future.  Regardless how the proposed
16  sulfur levels and effective dates pan-out the
17  petroleum community will need its most accurate and
18  flexible tools.
19              If a gasoline sulfur program that is
20  similar to the current proposed EPA Tier 2
21  regulations is enacted, the oil industry will soon
22  be routinely analyzing motor fuels for very low
23  sulfur levels.  Should the Averaging, Banking and
24  Trading or ABT provisions be enacted, refiners and
25  blenders will need to measure ever lower sulfur
00421
 1                   John Crnko - Antek
 2  levels as they seek to earn maximum ABT sulfur
 3  credits.
 4              Obviously both regulations in industry
 5  must consider the impact of producing low sulfur
 6  fuels.
 7              In September 1992, the California Air
 8  Resources Board, or CARB, adopted regulations
 9  requiring reformulation of California gasoline.  The
10  CARB regulations established a comprehensive set as
11  of gasoline specifications designed to achieve
12  reductions in emissions of VOCs, NOx, carbon
13  monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and toxic air pollutants
14  from gasoline-fueled vehicles.  The CARB regulations
15  also set standards for eight gasoline parameters:
16  Sulfur, benzene, olefins, aromatic hydrocarbons,
17  oxygen, Reid vapor pressure, and distillation
18  temperatures for the 50 percent and 90 percent
19  evaporation points.
20              During blending operations, the
21  specifications for benzene, olefins, Reid Vapor
22  pressure, et cetera, are sometimes met well before
23  the sulfur level reaches 30 parts per million.
24  Therefore, many current producers of gasoline for
25  California consumption routinely must measure
00422
 1                   John Crnko - Antek
 2  gasoline with sulfur concentration at less than 15
 3  parts per million.
 4              US EPA is correct to seek comment as to
 5  if ASTM D5453, sulfur by UVF, should be designated
 6  as the primary sulfur test method.  Currently D2622,
 7  sulfur by WDXRF, has been designated as the only EPA
 8  approved sulfur test method.  However, the EPA has
 9  recognized that in certain situations D2622 has
10  limitations.  For instance, where 30 ppm to 80 cap,
11  low sulfur fuels must be produced, the EPA agreed to
12  recognize test methods allowed by the California
13  EPA.
14              As we know, in the mid-1990s gasoline
15  produced for California consumption was required to
16  meet 30 ppm average to 80 ppm cap sulfur
17  specifications.  This prompted a group of refiners,
18  Western States Petroleum Association, or WSPA, to
19  petition the California Air Resources Board, CARB,
20  for more flexible and economic sulfur test methods.
21              What WSPA and CARB needed was an
22  economical test method that could measure very low
23  levels of sulfur while giving the same or equivalent
24  results as found when D2622 was used for the
25  analysis of higher sulfur levels.  Various
00423
 1                   John Crnko - Antek
 2  laboratory studies and cooperative multi-laboratory
 3  testing revealed D5453 was such a sulfur test
 4  method.  The displayed California laws resulted.
 5              Further evidence that the California law
 6  was analytically sound is readily available.  Under
 7  ASTM leadership, an independently-run sample
 8  cross-check testing program, allows individual
 9  laboratories to participate in an ongoing sulfur
10  analysis comparison called Round Robin.
11              Data for samples containing less than 10
12  ppm sulfur has been collected from this ASTM
13  cross-check program.  This data comes from about a
14  three-year time period ending around December '98.
15  This data was compiled by Southwest Research
16  Institute, or SWRI, and clearly illustrates that
17  D2622 has much higher relative standard deviation,
18  or RSD, with samples that contain less than 10 ppm
19  sulfur.
20              A convenient term to describe the
21  message delivered by this data is the term
22  "reproducibility."  ASTM uses reproducibility to
23  express the degree of agreement that a group of
24  separate laboratories demonstrate when they analyze
25  the same sample using the same test method.  The
00424
 1                   John Crnko - Antek
 2  high D2622 RSD numbers indicate that different
 3  laboratories would have trouble getting the same
 4  answer.
 5              Another critical analytical range lies
 6  between 10 and 30 ppm.  In this range, D2622
 7  continues to have difficulty with sulfur levels less
 8  than 15 ppm, as evidenced by the much higher RSD.
 9  Note that around 30 ppm , D2622 can have an improved
10  reproducibility, but D5453 still have one-half the
11  variation exhibited by D2622.
12              These 10 to 30 milligram samples are
13  also from ASTM laboratory cross-check program.  They
14  include reformulated gas.  That's RFG that you see
15  up there.  This table summarizes data generated
16  within the ASTM cross-check program between June of
17  '96 and approximately December 1998.
18              It should be emphasized here that all
19  this data being presented here today has been
20  independently produced and gathered.  It's not
21  cooked up the Antek's Laboratories; it represents
22  work does by dozens of different laboratories and
23  often on a world-wide basis.
24              The superior performance of D5453 can be
25  illustrated.  Here, the D5453 data from the previous
00425
 1                   John Crnko - Antek
 2  two slides is graphed.  You'll see X exist on the
 3  horizontal, concentration milligrams per kilogram.
 4  On Y axis is the standard deviation number.
 5              This graph illustrates that D5453 is
 6  capable of very good accuracy and between lab
 7  reproducibility levels less than 30 ppm and is
 8  particularly capable of accurate precise results
 9  when sulfur levels get below 15 ppm.
10              Here D2622 performance for the same
11  samples are graphed.  When compared to the previous
12  slide, D2622 reproducibility is clearly less than
13  that demonstrated by D5453.  Again, the X axis is
14  concentration.  Y axis is standard deviation.
15              D2622 should be designated as the
16  alternate test method because its results can be
17  unreliable at lower sulfur concentrations.  D2622
18  has a proven record for determination of higher
19  level sulfur concentrations.
20              D5453 also has the analytical range to
21  provide equivalent sulfur results in higher
22  concentration fuels.  Here is a collection of all
23  fuel samples analyzed by both D5453 and D2622 for
24  sulfur levels less than 500 parts per million,
25  again, from the ASTM laboratory cross-check program.
00426
 1                   John Crnko - Antek
 2              It includes reformulated gasoline, motor
 3  gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.  This table
 4  summarizes data generated within the ASTM
 5  cross-check program between June 1996 and
 6  approximately December 1998.
 7              MS. OGE:  Excuse me, Mr. Crnko.  Your
 8  time is almost up.
 9              MR. CRNKO:  This data confirms and
10  reinforces the conclusions of the WSPA and
11  California EPA regarding the equivalency of D2622
12  and D5453 for higher sulfur concentration samples.
13              D5453 provides superior sulfur test
14  results at lower sulfur levels and equivalent
15  measurements at higher sulfur concentration levels.
16  Allowing the use of D5453 could enable significant
17  capital savings for the fuel-producing community,
18  while giving them a better measurement tool as
19  sulfur concentrations continue to drop.
20              The D5453 test method has already been
21  approved by other regulating agencies and has proven
22  its worth time and time again in daily low sulfur
23  fuel production as well as in general use on a
24  worldwide basis.
25              D5453 should be designated as the
00427
 1                 Bruce Bertelsen - MECA
 2  primary sulfur test method.  D2622 and possibly
 3  other ASTM test methodologies should be designated
 4  as the alternate test methods.
 5              MS. OGE:  Mr. Crnko, please submit your
 6  statement for the record.
 7              Mr. Bertelsen.
 8              MR. BERTELSEN:  Good morning.  My name
 9  is Bruce Bertelsen.  I'm the Executive Director of
10  the Manufactures of Emission Control Association.
11              MECA is pleased to present testimony in
12  support of the EPA's proposed Tier 2 standards and
13  limits on the sulfur levels in gasoline.  We believe
14  an important opportunity exists to significantly
15  further reduce emissions from passenger cars and
16  light-duty trucks by utilizing a systems approach
17  which combines advanced engine designs, advanced
18  catalyst technology, and low sulfur fuel.  EPA's
19  regulatory initiative recognizes the importance of
20  promoting this systems-type approach and the
21  Agency's proposal constitutes a carefully crafted
22  and balanced program that, it finalized, will result
23  in substantial cost-effective emission reductions
24  over the next several decades.
25              MECA is a non-profit association made up
00428
 1                 Bruce Bertelsen - MECA
 2  of the world's leading manufacturers of motor
 3  vehicle emission controls.  Our members include
 4  companies with over 25 years of experience and a
 5  proven track record in developing and
 6  commercializing exhaust control technology.
 7              Today I'd like to briefly summarize
 8  MECA's position on EPA's proposed initiative.  MECA
 9  plans to submit more detailed written comments.
10              We believe the EPA standards for
11  vehicles greater than 8500 pounds are
12  technologically feasible.  The proposed standards
13  pose engineering challenges, but a clear
14  technological pathway to meeting those standards
15  exists and we're confident the engineering
16  challenges can and will be met.  The Tier 2
17  standards likely will be met by combining advanced
18  catalyst technology already available, and being
19  further optimized with advanced engine designs and
20  fuel preparation/delivery systems that are already
21  beginning to be utilized on an increasing number of
22  light-duty vehicles.  Engineering efforts between
23  now and when the standards take effect will focus on
24  optimizing control systems to match particular he
25  emission reduction needs of the particular vehicle
00429
 1                 Bruce Bertelsen - MECA
 2  involved.
 3              EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis
 4  thoroughly documents the technical basis and
 5  evidence for concluding that Tier 2 standards are
 6  technologically feasible.  Over the past several
 7  years, MECA has appreciated the opportunity to work
 8  with the EPA to help demonstrate the role advanced
 9  catalyst technology can play as part of a complete
10  emission control system to meet very low emission
11  levels.
12              MECA recently completed a test program
13  which provides further illustration of the types of
14  low emission levels that are achievable.  In the
15  program, four vehicles certified to meet federal
16  Tier 1 standards were equipped with advanced
17  catalyst technology.  These vehicles evaluated
18  included two passenger cars and two pick-up trucks,
19  one an LDT2 and an LDT3.  The control systems were
20  optimized, including modifications to the engine
21  controls and were emissions tested.  The tests
22  included evaluations after the catalysts were aged
23  using a recognized aging cycle to simulate high
24  milage accumulation.  To give you a frame of
25  reference, all four of the vehicles had emissions
00430
 1                 Bruce Bertelsen - MECA
 2  levels after being aged below the Tier 2 120,000
 3  mile Bin No. 4 standards.  A report summarizing the
 4  results of this test program has been provided to
 5  the EPA and we will include it together with our
 6  written comments.
 7              The application of the types of advanced
 8  engine and catalyst technologies used in passenger
 9  cars and some light, light-duty trucks can be
10  applied to heavy, light-duty trucks.
11  Engine/emission optimizations have not been fully
12  explored for this categories of vehicles compared to
13  the technologies already beginning to be appearing
14  on passenger cars.  Also, the thermal durability of
15  three-way catalysts historically was seen by some as
16  a limiting factor because of the heavier operating
17  loads of vehicles designed and used for commercial
18  applications generate higher exhaust temperatures.
19  The thermal durability of three-way catalysts,
20  however, has greatly increased in the past five
21  years from 900 degrees Celsius to 1100 degrees
22  Celsius.  Thus, the higher temperatures that might
23  be experienced with these categories of vehicles are
24  not a barrier to applying the same type of advanced
25  catalyst technologies used on passenger cars.
00431
 1                 Bruce Bertelsen - MECA
 2              Reducing emissions to meet the Tier 2
 3  standards is without question the greatest
 4  engineering challenge posed by the Tier 2 proposal.
 5  We believe substantial emission reductions from
 6  light-duty diesel-powered vehicles are possible by,
 7  again, combining advanced diesel engines with
 8  advanced exhaust emissions.  Our member companies
 9  are continuing their efforts to optimize a variety
10  of exhaust controls to reduce PM and NOx emissions,
11  including oxidation catalysts, PM filters, and lean
12  NOx controls.  The current level of sulfur in diesel
13  fuel is a barrier to the introduction of some of
14  these promising technologies, including lean NOx
15  catalysts, NOx absorbers, and certain particulate
16  filter designs.  Consequently, we support reducing
17  the sulfur level in diesel fuel, and we will submit
18  comments in response to EPA's federal register
19  request for information on this issue.
20              We support EPA's proposed measures
21  designed to provide vehicle manufacturers
22  considerable flexibility in meeting the requirements
23  of the Tier 2 program.  Phasing in the Tier 2
24  standards over several years, utilizing a corporate
25  average NOx approach, allowing manufacturers to
00432
 1                 Bruce Bertelsen - MECA
 2  select from different bins to meet their compliance
 3  obligations, providing intermediate in-use
 4  compliance standards for the first two years, and
 5  other similar measures will help enable the vehicle
 6  manufacturers to meet the challenges of the proposed
 7  Tier 2 program in the most effective and less
 8  disruptive manner.
 9              With regard to gasoline sulfur limits,
10  MECA supports EPA's proposal as it relates to the
11  levels of sulfur in gasoline.  Reducing the levels
12  of current levels of sulfur in gasoline is
13  absolutely critical to maximizing the emissions
14  reduction benefits of EPA proposed Tier 2 program.
15              As EPA has documented in its regulatory
16  support documents, sulfur in gasoline inhibits the
17  emission control performance of catalyst technology.
18  Sulfur is an inhibitor which strongly competes with
19  the exhaust pollutants for space on the active
20  catalyst surface.  Also, it is well known that
21  sulfur can penetrate into the catalyst surface and,
22  upon extended exposure to sulfur, can cause
23  irreversible damage to the catalyst.
24              A series of studies by the auto
25  manufacturers and the Coordinating Research Council
00433
 1                 Bruce Bertelsen - MECA
 2  confirm the negative impacts on vehicles designed to
 3  meet the LEV and ULEV standards with sulfur in fuel.
 4  While some improved sulfur tolerance of catalyst
 5  technology has been achieved, a completely sulfur
 6  tolerant catalyst is not available, nor do we expect
 7  that such a catalyst will be developed.  On the
 8  issue of reversibility, a recent CRC study showed
 9  that the effects of sulfur are not always fully
10  reversible.  In addition, that data generated by one
11  of our members further confirms that when catalysts
12  are aged on high-sulfur fuel, the prospects are not
13  good for complete regeneration of the catalyst even
14  when the vehicle subsequently operated on fuel with
15  low sulfur levels.
16              Finally, we believe the prospects for
17  catalyst regeneration will continue to diminish due
18  to the elimination of the wide air/fuel ratio
19  excursions as control systems are improved to meet
20  increasingly tighter standards that go beyond LEV
21  and ULEV standards and to comply with EPA's new
22  Supplemental Federal Test Procedure.
23              We also believe that EPA should consider
24  the benefits of further reductions in sulfur beyond
25  the levels currently proposed in light of the
00434
 1               Laura Kriv - 20/20 Vision
 2  emerging technologies such as lean NOx catalyst and
 3  NOx absorber technologies which likely will be used
 4  on direct injection engines.  If very low sulfur
 5  gasoline was available, it would increase the
 6  options available to the auto manufacturer to offer
 7  very fuel efficient vehicles meeting Tier 2
 8  standards.
 9              In conclusion, while we recognize that
10  the proposed Tier 2 standards and sulfur limits
11  presents new challenges, we also believe those
12  challenges can and will be met.  We are optimistic
13  that the end result of the considerable efforts that
14  will be needed to meet EPA's proposed program will
15  be a wide choice for the consumer of high
16  performance, high quality, fuel efficient, and clean
17  vehicles that achieve Tier 2 standards.  Our
18  industry is committed to do our part to ensure that
19  if the Tier 2 program is adopted, the desire
20  emissions reductions will be achieved.
21              MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Mrs. Laura Kriv.
22              MS. KRIV:  Good morning.  My name is
23  Laura Kriv.  I'm Legislative Director of 20/20
24  Vision.  20/20 Vision is a grassroots group and is
25  based in Washington, D.C.  On behalf of our over
00435
 1               Laura Kriv - 20/20 Vision
 2  10,000 members nationwide and our 1,000 members in
 3  Pennsylvania, I'm pleased to support EPA Tier 2
 4  standards.  20/20 Vision would like applaud EPA for
 5  your commitment to protecting the public health and
 6  the health of our environment and for taking the
 7  steps needed to make sure the next generation of
 8  vehicles on the road are clean.  With over 20,000
 9  vehicles registered in the US traveling over 2
10  trillion miles annually, auto pollution is one of
11  the main sources of air pollution.  As vehicle use
12  escalated and populations are on the rise, more
13  people than ever before are suffering health impacts
14  because of air pollution.  As you know, children,
15  the elderly, and those with respiratory illnesses
16  are most at risk.  While we may not be able to
17  significantly reduce the number of cars on the road,
18  the EPA Tier 2 proposal will help strengthen auto
19  emissions standards for cleaner cars and cleaner
20  air.
21              Specifically, our members support the
22  following key elements in the Tier 2 proposal:
23  Requiring new cars and light trucks to emit 80
24  percent less, setting the same tough standards for
25  cars, SUVs, and light trucks, and requiring low
00436
 1               Laura Kriv - 20/20 Vision
 2  sulfur gas to be sold nationwide.
 3              It's clear that the American public want
 4  consistent standards.  A recent pole by the American
 5  Lung Association found 91 percent of you believe
 6  SUVs and minivans should be required to meet the
 7  same standards as cars.  Our members were shocked to
 8  learn that under the current standards they were
 9  allowed to emit more pollution than cars.
10              EPA estimates the Tier 2 proposal
11  combined with low sulfur gasoline will have the
12  equivalent effect of taking 166 million cars off the
13  road when the proposal is fully implemented.
14              However, 20/20 Vision feels that there
15  are improvements that need to be made to strengthen
16  this proposal.  There should no special treatment
17  for heavier vehicles.  Heavier vehicles are the
18  dirtiest vehicles.  Although the fleet average
19  between 6,000 and 8500 pounds are fairly small, it
20  is one of the fastest growing segments of new
21  vehicle sales.
22              The 10-year phase-in schedule for the
23  larger SUVs and minivans should meet the same
24  standards at the same time.
25              There should be no special treatment of
00437
 1               Nancy Parks - Sierra Club
 2  diesel engine technologies.  All of the vehicles,
 3  regardless of engine technology, should meet the
 4  same tough standards.
 5              The phase-in period for low sulfur fuel
 6  should be faster.  The current proposal to reduce
 7  sulfur content in gasoline gives more time to small
 8  refiners.  Low sulfur gasoline need to be adopted
 9  nationally at the same time as new emissions
10  standards.
11              There should also be increased
12  incentives for advanced technology vehicles.  The
13  current proposal do not provide incentives for the
14  development of cleaner technologies.
15              I appreciate the opportunity to express
16  our support and to offer ways to improve this
17  program.  Tier 2 is a strong proposal.  Since this
18  decision will affect our air quality for decades to
19  come, we need the strongest possible standards now
20  that will protect our health, our children's health,
21  and our environment.
22              On behalf of 20/20 Vision and our
23  members and on behalf my one-year-old daughter, I
24  thank you for your leadership in establishing a
25  program that will ensure cleaner air and cleaner
00438
 1               Nancy Parks - Sierra Club
 2  environment for years to come.  Thank you.
 3              MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Ms. Parks.
 4              MS. PARKS:  Good morning.  I thank the
 5  EPA for this opportunity to testify in support of
 6  the next round of NOx and particulate matter
 7  pollution limitations in American vehicles.  I am
 8  Nancy F. Parks, Chair of the Sierra Club,
 9  Pennsylvania Chapter Clean Air Committee.  I
10  represent over 19,000 members in Pennsylvania and I
11  also serve on the Sierra Club Clean Air Committee.
12              I want to applaud the EPA's current
13  efforts to make the air safer to breathe for the
14  children and the elderly, and those with chronic
15  respiratory disease in Pennsylvania.  And with a 117
16  million Americans living in areas with chronic ozone
17  smog exposure, and as many as one-half of all
18  Pennsylvanians still chronically exposed, and with
19  asthma rates in children rising 75 percent since
20  1980, it is vital that EPA continue to target all
21  large polluting sectors, including motor vehicles.
22  This new round of vehicle emission controls is
23  timely and necessary, with a focus on vehicles as
24  the largest of the non-industrial sources of ozone
25  smog-forming NOx precursors and particulate
00439
 1               Nancy Parks - Sierra Club
 2  pollution.
 3              Pennsylvanians are worried.  In the
 4  Chesapeake Bay Foundation's 1998 pole, 26 percent of
 5  Pennsylvanians thought that the environment in
 6  Pennsylvania was getting worse; 56 percent thought
 7  the environment had stayed the same, effectively not
 8  doing any better; 46 percent of Pennsylvanians
 9  thought that their air and their water would be more
10  polluted 20 years from now than it is.
11              The Sierra Club must agree.  With the
12  recent decisions of the DC Circuit Court which may
13  have stopped dead, however temporarily, the efforts
14  of EPA to reduce dangerous NOx, ozone smog and PM
15  air pollution from plants, we must wonder what can
16  be the future for reducing air pollution by
17  emissions limits based on human health-based
18  standards.  Reductions are absolutely necessary to
19  our children's health here in Pennsylvania.
20  Additionally, in July of 1998 NESCAUM released a
21  report that showed that the financial impact of not
22  implementing NOx controls in the Northeast United
23  States for air pollution transported from power
24  plants elsewhere would likely reach between 1.4 to
25  $3.9 billion in additional costs linked to local
00440
 1               Nancy Parks - Sierra Club
 2  control measures that must to compensate for no
 3  reduction in transported pollution.  With the DC
 4  Circuit decisions, it has become vital that we
 5  attack large inputs of NOx pollution elsewhere, and
 6  the Tier 2 NOx controls on passenger vehicles will
 7  help to relieve some of the ozone smog precursor
 8  nitrogen pollution burden.
 9              Already the CBF poll found that 65
10  percent of adult Pennsylvanians believe that
11  Pennsylvania's existing regulations are not strictly
12  enforced.  More than half, 56 percent, believe that
13  our state's environmental regulations are already
14  too weak.
15              EPA must use all possible authority that
16  it clearly possesses under the Clean Air Act to
17  decrease the range of air pollutants that are
18  emitted by the wide diversity of polluting sectors.
19  This is another reason why the Sierra Club supports
20  such a well-structured Tier 2 air pollution
21  reduction program.
22              In the CBF poll, 25 percent of
23  Philadelphians specifically felt that in general
24  pollution was the biggest problem in Philadelphia,
25  with a full 21 percent of those contacted thought
00441
 1               Nancy Parks - Sierra Club
 2  that air pollution was the single more environmental
 3  problem facing the State of Pennsylvania today.
 4              So here Philadelphians think that air
 5  pollution is one of their biggest problems.  We
 6  couldn't agree more.  This city literally stinks of
 7  air pollution.  It burns your eyes, irritates your
 8  lungs, and this city is not going to be truly
 9  liveable until soot, smog, toxins, and stink the
10  malodors are removed.  EPA must proceed full speed
11  ahead with its vehicle emissions reductions, which
12  it unquestionably has the authority to do.
13              I have recently read EPA's enforcement
14  alert entitled, "Compliance with Permitting Critical
15  to Clean Air Act Goals."  EPA has identified an
16  ongoing problem with make the Clean Air Act affected
17  sources, both industrial and non-industrial
18  polluters, comply with existing mandatory
19  requirements.  Delays, appeals and litigation are
20  common.  But delays in achieving safety for our
21  children through clean are for them to breathe is
22  the result.  So you see for this reason, we see more
23  and more reasons EPA must proceed as quickly as
24  possible with each sector's pollution reduction
25  structure schedule, timetable an enforcement.  And
00442
 1               Nancy Parks - Sierra Club
 2  hence, the current focus on passenger vehicles.
 3              So what should new controls on dirty
 4  vehicles accomplish?  There should be no special
 5  treatment of heavier vehicles.  Close that loophole.
 6  All passenger vehicles, including minivans and the
 7  ubiquitous sport utility vehicles should all meet
 8  the same requirements at the same time, by 2007.
 9              The heaviest SUVs should not be given
10  extra time to clean up on a separate schedule.  A
11  10-year phase-in schedule for the heaviest SUVs far
12  exceeds any phase-in period ever applied to other
13  passenger vehicles.  And the victims of air
14  pollution, once again, will be forced to wait for
15  their relief.
16              Additionally, these overgrown SUVs could
17  become the focus of increased production of
18  automakers, as business attempts to, once again,
19  evade regulatory requirements.
20              There can be no special treatment of
21  diesel engine technologies.  Diesel engines emit
22  twice the PM soot and up to 10 times the ozone smog
23  forming NOx, but because these engines are
24  efficient, automakers want to expand use of these
25  engines in SUVs.  Because diesel exhaust contains
00443
 1               Nancy Parks - Sierra Club
 2  toxics and likely contains carcinogens, there should
 3  be no incentives created for the use of these
 4  engines in SUVs.
 5              Current sulfur levels in gasoline will
 6  damage the advanced emission control technology
 7  systems, catalytic converters, on cleaner passenger
 8  vehicles to be sold in 2004.  And while the average
 9  sulfur content and gasoline at this time is 300 ppm,
10  reducing sulfur content in all gasoline should occur
11  at the same time as the tailpipe emissions limit
12  become stricter.  And also, EPA should not provide
13  time for small refiners.  Reducing sulfur in
14  gasoline to this level would be analogous to
15  removing 54 million passenger cars off our roads
16  nationally.
17              These new tailpipe standards should
18  encourage and provide incentives for advanced
19  technology vehicles running on alternative fuels and
20  engines systems.  And EPA should add incentives for
21  hybrid, electric and fuel cell vehicles.
22              Thank you.  And I would welcome the
23  opportunity to comment in more technical detail by
24  your August 2 deadline.
25              MS. OGE:  Thank you, Mrs. Parks.  Mr.
00444
 1                      Kevin Scott
 2  Kevin Scott, welcome for the second time.  Mr. Scott
 3  was with us last night with 12 of us here and he
 4  wanted to come back and share his views with the
 5  rest of you, so please go ahead.
 6              MR. SCOTT:  Good morning.  Thank you for
 7  giving me this opportunity to share my views as a
 8  citizen and taxpayer.  I want to commend the EPA for
 9  taking this very significant step toward reducing
10  air pollution.  We know that tens of thousands of
11  Americans die prematurely each year as a result of
12  air pollution, while millions more sulfur illness
13  because of it.  It's therefore tragic that we'll
14  have to wait years before we see these reductions.
15  These deaths and illnesses are all the more tragic
16  considering that the oil and auto industries could
17  have easily attained these reductions and pollution
18  years age but have thus far chosen not to do so.  So
19  unlike those who become ill and die from smoking
20  cigarettes, a choice that they themselves have made,
21  the victims of air pollution suffer as a result of
22  choices made by others.
23              Well, given that people are dying and
24  getting sick from air pollution and given that the
25  oil and auto industries are capable of doing
00445
 1                      Kevin Scott
 2  something about it, the question arises, well, why
 3  haven't they already done so?  The answer is simple:
 4  Money.  Unfortunately, these corporations that focus
 5  on the bottom line while ignoring their
 6  responsibility to the society.
 7              The oil and the auto industries have
 8  fail to voluntarily make the relatively modest
 9  investment necessary to mitigate the harm that their
10  products cause to our health.  That's why they must
11  now be required to do what they could have and
12  should have done long ago.  But while the
13  industries' lack of initiative in reducing harm from
14  their products is at best irresponsible, their
15  coming here today in an active attempt to derail,
16  delay, and weaken the Tier 2 standards is
17  unconscionable.  EPA proposal's is more than
18  generous in giving the industries plenty of time to
19  meet the standards at a minimal cost.  What the
20  industry representatives are really saying is that
21  any cost which affects their current record-breaking
22  profits, no matter how slight, is unacceptable to
23  them and that they don't care about our health.  I
24  find this level of greed and disregard for human
25  health and safety to be shocking and appalling, not
00446
 1                      Kevin Scott
 2  only on a corporate level, but on an individual
 3  level.  I think that every single person who's come
 4  here today to oppose the Tier 2 standards should be
 5  ashamed of themselves.
 6              For the record, no one is paying me to
 7  be here.  I wonder what the industry reps are being
 8  paid.  I hope it's a lot.  I hope they haven't sold
 9  out everyone in this country for a pittance.
10  However much money it is, I wonder how they live
11  with themselves.  I wonder how they look their
12  neighbors in the eye knowing that they're actively
13  working to endanger those people's health.  I wonder
14  how they face their families knowing that if their
15  efforts are successful, they're likely to harm the
16  health of their own children for money.
17              We all breathe the same air.  No one has
18  the right to force me to breathe their pollution,
19  not when it's so unnecessary and not just to
20  maintain their profits.
21              Ladies and gentlemen of the EPA, I ask
22  you and everyone at EPA to remember the importance
23  of the mission, to protect human health.  Americans
24  want clean air.  More to the point, Americans need
25  clean air.  I urge the EPA to stand strong against
00447
 1                      Kevin Scott
 2  these disingenuous and amoral efforts of industry
 3  and adopt the strongest possible Tier 2 standards.
 4  Thank you.
 5              (Applause.)
 6              MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Thank you, panel,
 7  for taking the time to share your views with us.  We
 8  appreciate your statements and your comments.  I
 9  don't have any questions.  I don't if my panel
10  members do.
11              MR. PASSAVANT:  I have one question.  Do
12  you represent a company that markets D5453?
13              MS. OGE:  This question is towards Mr.
14  Crnko.
15              MR. CRNKO:  We make apparatus that
16  complies to that test method.
17              MR. PASSAVANT:  How about 2622?
18              MR. CRNKO:  We do not, for that method.
19              MR. PASSAVANT:  Will you send a brochure
20  that describes your product when you send in your
21  comment?
22              MR. CRNKO:  Yes.
23              MS. OGE:  Thank you very much.
24              MS. MARTIN:  We'd like to move forward
25  with the panel that was scheduled at 11:30.  And the
00448
 1           Dominic Varraveto - Black & Veatch
 2  first speaker would be Mr. Dominic Varraveto, Mr.
 3  Reg Modlin, Brooks Mountcastle, and Mr. George
 4  Thurston.  We also ask Mr. Peter Homer to join this
 5  panel.
 6              Mr. Varraveto.
 7              MR. VARRAVETO:  Good morning, and thank
 8  you for the opportunity to testify today.  My name
 9  is Dominic Varraveto and I am representing Black &
10  Veatch, a global provider of technology,
11  engineering, and construction services to the
12  petroleum refining, gas processing and electric
13  power industries.  Black & Veatch is a recognized
14  leader in providing sulfur control and recovery
15  technology to refineries through its process
16  division subsidiary formerly known as the Pritchard
17  Corporation.  I am also representing a joint
18  technology effort between Black & Veatch and Alcoa
19  Industrial Chemicals & Adsorbents, a provider of
20  catalysts and catalyst powders to the petroleum
21  refining industry and to suppliers of automotive
22  converter catalysts.
23              Black & Veatch and Alcoa have jointly
24  developed a breakthrough technology for removing
25  sulfur from gasoline.  The IRVAD process, as the
00449
 1           Dominic Varraveto - Black & Veatch
 2  technology is called, uses solid alumina adsorbent
 3  to countercurrently contact liquid hydrocarbon in a
 4  multistage adsorber.  The adsorbent is regenerated
 5  continuously using heated reactivation gas.  In
 6  pilot plant tests, the IRVAD process has reduced the
 7  sulfur content of olefinic gasoline low enough to
 8  meet blend requirements for 30 ppm sulfur in
 9  gasoline as required by the Tier 2 proposal.  This
10  low sulfur gasoline can be produced without the
11  octane debit typically associated with hydrotreating
12  processes.  In fact, by selectively removing
13  molecular species with a pro-knock or predetonation
14  tendency, the octane rating of the IRVAD adsorber
15  effluent is actually increased.
16              As Black & Veatch and Alcoa move forward
17  with plans for commercialization of IRVAD
18  technology, we have been encouraged by the positive
19  response from the refining industry.  However, we do
20  have concerns to bring to your attention today.
21  Specifically, I would like to make a few comments
22  about the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur proposal regarding
23  EPA's analysis of technical feasibility,
24  implementation and cost.
25              First, I would like to point out that as
00450
 1           Dominic Varraveto - Black & Veatch
 2  an enabler of technology and facilitator of business
 3  strategies via engineering and construction project
 4  implementation, Black & Veatch has first-hand
 5  experience in successfully managing projects for
 6  industrial markets.  Our project management
 7  experience tells us that project success is always
 8  constrained by technical requirements, schedule, and
 9  cost.  It is unrealistic to attempt to
10  simultaneously fix all three of these constraints.
11  I would caution of EPA that in the case of the
12  proposed low sulfur gasoline requirements they may
13  have overspecified the implementation equation.  By
14  simultaneously setting rigorous nationwide
15  reductions in gasoline sulfur content, by proposing
16  industry implementation of new technology in a very
17  narrow time frame and by presenting cost projections
18  based on as yet commercially unproven technology,
19  the EPA proposal portrays an unrealistic view for
20  the public of the impact of the proposal.  It is
21  possible and highly probable that the refining
22  industry will be able to deliver low sulfur gasoline
23  to the US consumer in the proposed 2004 to 2006 time
24  frame, but it is not as likely that the refining
25  industry will be able to achieve this goal for the
00451
 1           Dominic Varraveto - Black & Veatch
 2  cost projected by EPA.
 3              My second comment regarding the Tier 2
 4  low sulfur gasoline proposal is presented from the
 5  viewpoint of technology provider.  Black & Veatch
 6  and Alcoa are concerned about the way EPA has
 7  portrayed new and emerging technologies for gasoline
 8  sulfur removal.  In the proposal, EPA specifically
 9  and exclusively references two technologies and
10  makes only vague references to other alternatives.
11  We should urge the EPA to more clearly acknowledge
12  other alternatives, like the IRVAD process.  We do
13  not think the EPA should endorse specific
14  technologies for refiners to solve the low sulfur
15  gasoline challenge.  We would prefer the refining
16  marketplace make this decision.  Refiners should be
17  given adequate time and incentive to evaluate,
18  select and implement the most cost-effective
19  solutions for supplying low sulfur gasoline.
20              Finally, I would like to complete my
21  comments this morning by saying that Black & Veatch
22  and Alcoa stand ready to support the goal of
23  improved air quality by providing technology,
24  engineering, and construction services for the
25  production of low sulfur gasoline to the US refining
00452
 1              Reg Modlin - DaimlerChrysler
 2  industry.
 3              Thank you again for the opportunity to
 4  testify today.
 5              MS. OGE:  Thank you.
 6              Mr. Modlin.
 7              MR. MODLIN:  My name is Reg Modlin, I'm
 8  here today to speak on behalf of DaimlerChrysler
 9  Corporation on the subject of EPA's proposal to
10  modify vehicle emissions control regulations.
11              DaimlerChrysler is an industry leader
12  when it comes to supporting the development of
13  environmentally sound vehicle technologies.  We
14  demonstrated this in March when we introduced the
15  world's first zero-emission hydrogen fuel cell
16  passenger vehicle, and in May when we discussed our
17  research on developing a gasoline fuel cell.  We're
18  demonstrating this commitment now by supporting the
19  pursuit of tough emission performance goals.
20  Reducing emissions will help in achieving the
21  nation's clean air goals, and we stand ready to do
22  our part.
23              As a member of the Alliance of
24  Automobile Manufacturers, we contribute to the
25  development of that organization's position and we
00453
 1              Reg Modlin - DaimlerChrysler
 2  fully support it.  Our program was offered in the
 3  spirit of the industry's previous voluntary
 4  initiative.  The proposal was configured to address
 5  a few objectives:
 6              One, we attempted to match prospective
 7  technology needed to meet emissions standards with
 8  fuel that will be available to customers when that
 9  technology is introduced in the future.
10              Next, we respect that oil industry's
11  claim that time is needed to plan capital
12  investments that would enable the production of
13  cleaner burning gasoline.
14              And in the interim, we wanted to make
15  optimal use of foreseeable technologies as we
16  continue to work towards meeting clear air goals.
17              The Alliance's proposal makes sense
18  because it meets our objectives and soundly beats
19  the projected performance of EPA's proposal.
20  Compared to the EPA's emission reduction goals
21  800,000 tons per year by 2007 and at 1,200,000 tons
22  per year by 2010, the program proposed by the
23  Alliance would achieve about 957,000 and 1,248,000
24  tons per year reductions projected for the same
25  years.  A Alliance proposal also continues to
00454
 1              Reg Modlin - DaimlerChrysler
 2  provide even greater reductions into the future.
 3              DaimlerChrysler supports a program in
 4  which car and light truck standards for nitrogen
 5  oxides eventually converge to a comparable level
 6  provided that an independent review in about 2004
 7  verifies:  That the price of emission reductions is
 8  cost-effective and affordable to our customers; and
 9  the feasibility of the program on, and availability
10  of gasoline that limits sulfur content to less than
11  five parts per million is in place, as identified;
12  and standards are feasible for fuel-efficient
13  lean-burn technologies; and standards do not
14  adversely affect any company relative to others in
15  the industry.
16              With these points in mind, I emphasize
17  that we believe that removing sulfur from gasoline
18  is critically important to giving auto manufacturers
19  the chance to meet nitrogen oxide fleet average
20  objectives.
21              Sulfur is a poison to exhaust treatment
22  devices.  As vehicle hardware becomes clogged up,
23  it's ability to operate at maximum effectiveness and
24  efficiency is seriously compromised.  The conversion
25  efficiency of a control device tested here shows a
00455
 1              Reg Modlin - DaimlerChrysler
 2  loss of efficiency of 10 percent points within about
 3  1200 miles when comparing the effects of gasoline
 4  containing 50 parts per million sulfur and 8 parts
 5  per million sulfur.  A loss of 40 percentage points
 6  is noted as the mileage increases.  The story is
 7  complete when we see the effect of reduced
 8  efficiency on emissions.  A total loss of even 10
 9  percent of catalyst efficiency will result in a
10  vehicle not meeting the proposed standards, as you
11  can see from the example.
12              A nationwide program is required.
13  Everyone from New York to Montana deserves cleaner
14  air.  Ozone may be the issue in the East and Ohio
15  Valley, while regional haze is the issue in the
16  West.  Reducing sulfur content of gasoline is an
17  emission reduction strategy that promises to improve
18  air quality conditions across the country.  The
19  mobility of the nation's vehicle fleet also demands
20  nationwide control of fuel quality.  Allowing
21  control systems to be poisoned in one area so that
22  they can increase the pollution in another does not
23  make sense.
24              Sulfur-free gasoline would allow the
25  manufacturers to bring cleaner, more fuel-efficient
00456
 1              Reg Modlin - DaimlerChrysler
 2  hardware to the market.  Devices that could further
 3  reduce nitrogen oxide and particulate matter are
 4  intolerant to sulfur in gasoline.  DaimlerChrysler
 5  has consistently demonstrated its willingness to
 6  develop cleaner, world-class vehicles.  We believe
 7  that these vehicles deserve cleaner, world class
 8  fuel.  Unfortunately, much of the gasoline sold in
 9  the United States today has a sulfur content that
10  exceeds that sold in third-world nations.
11              To reach the performance levels called
12  for by the tough new standards all sectors,
13  specifically the auto and oil industries, must do
14  their part.  All of the tools in the toolbox must be
15  available to meet the performance levels we want to
16  achieve.  We will work in tandem with our suppliers
17  to vigorously test the limites of technology for
18  control system hardware.  We call on the refiners to
19  do the same in order to bring to market gasoline
20  that does not hamper vehicles from operating as
21  cleanly as possible.
22              Improved gasoline formulation is a
23  critical tool in the effort to reduce auto
24  emissions.  In this decade, reducing sulfur is the
25  most effective, immediate way to accomplish this
00457
 1            Brooks Mountcastle - Jeff Tober
 2  goal.  Sulfur is a poison to the emission control
 3  system that, over time, will clog the pipes and
 4  prevent the system from working.  EPA's proposal to
 5  reduce sulfur to 30 ppm is a good first step.  The
 6  sophisticated, clean burning systems that automakers
 7  will develop to make Tier 2 standards will be wasted
 8  if sulfur in gasoline is not limited further by this
 9  rule.
10              Thank you for your attention and the
11  opportunity to address these very important issues.
12  Thank you.
13              MS. OGE:  Mr. Modlin, thank you.
14              Mr. Brooks Mountcastle.
15              MR. MOUNTCASTLE:  Good morning.
16              "I am writing to give my strong support
17  to the proposed Tier 2 standards as a good first
18  step toward making our air cleaner and safer.  I
19  live in the City of Philadelphia where I cycle to
20  work and work outdoors with children and seniors 10
21  months of the year in urban parks.  My father,
22  grandmother, and two cousins suffer from respiratory
23  conditions.  In addition, I am an avid hiker in the
24  Eastern Appalachians, where I have witnessed
25  firsthand the damage done by smog and acid rain.  In
00458
 1            Brooks Mountcastle - Jeff Tober
 2  so many ways, I and the ones I love and work with
 3  are dependent on clean air.  Unfortunately, the air
 4  you and I breathe today does not qualify as clean or
 5  safe.
 6              "Clean air is something we all deserve
 7  and the EPA now has a wonderful opportunity to make
 8  positive changes for us all.  I implore you to take
 9  the following steps:
10              "Require sport utility vehicles,
11  minivans, and light trucks to adhere to the same
12  emission standards as regular automobiles.  The
13  current exemption allowing them to pollute
14  inordinately is completely out of date and must be
15  closed now.
16              "Secondly, the fuel we use must be
17  cleaner.  Current sulfur levels are far too high.
18  Sulfur can damage pollution control systems in
19  vehicles and must be significantly decreased
20  nationwide.  I would be more than happy to pay more
21  for gasoline to ensure cleaner air.  Along those
22  lines, diesel vehicles should not receive any
23  special treatment.  They should be held to the same
24  standards as other vehicles.  Please address these
25  in the final proposal.
00459
 1            Brooks Mountcastle - Jeff Tober
 2              "Thirdly, we need to have better
 3  vehicles utilizing cleaner, less polluting
 4  technology on the read sooner rather than later.
 5  Necessity is the mother of invention and there is a
 6  definite public outcry saying that we need clean
 7  air.  We can do better than the internal combustion
 8  engine and I implore the EPA to do all it can to
 9  make cleaner, more efficient vehicles available to
10  the public.
11              "A few weeks ago, I saw a large
12  advertisement painted on the showroom window of a
13  Lincoln/Mercury dealer outside of philadelphia.  It
14  was advertizing their two new SUVs, the Navigator
15  and the Mountaineer.  The painting showed mountains,
16  trees and rolling waters promising that the
17  mountaineer and Navigator were Mother Nature
18  approved.  When I called the dealer to ask why they
19  were approved by Mother Nature, I was told because
20  they could take whatever she had to dish out.  Well,
21  that may be so, but I'm afraid Nature can't take
22  everything that the SUVS are dishing out.  There is
23  no point in delaying these necessary steps. We all
24  want and deserve clean, safe, fresh air.  We can
25  have a healthy economy and healthy air.
00460
 1                George D. Thruston - NYU
 2              "I thank you for taking the strongest
 3  possible steps to safeguard our collective air."
 4              Thank you.
 5              MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Mr. George
 6  Thurston.  Good morning -- or good afternoon.
 7              MR. THURSTON:  I am George D. Thurston,
 8  a tenured Associate Professor of Environmental
 9  Medicine at the New York University School of
10  Medicine.  My scientific research involves
11  investigations of the human health effects of air
12  pollution.
13              I am also Director of the National
14  Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' (NIEHS)
15  Community Outreach and Education Program at NYU.  A
16  goal of this program is to provide an impartial
17  scientific resource on environmental health issues
18  to decision-makers, and that is my purpose in
19  speaking to you here today.
20              In 1997, I was named Chairman of the
21  Canadian Government's Health and Environmental
22  Impact Assessment Panel of their Joint Industry
23  Government Study of Sulfur in Gasoline and Diesel
24  Fuels.  That panel's work resulted in a report that
25  evaluated the potential health-related benefits, and
00461
 1                George D. Thruston - NYU
 2  their monetary valuations, that would be expected to
 3  result from lowering the sulfur content of gasoline
 4  in Canada.
 5              In part on the basis of that study, the
 6  Canadian government has now acted to require
 7  lowering of gasoline sulfur content down to 30 parts
 8  per million by the year 2005.  Their final
 9  sulfur-in-fuels regulations, which are very similar
10  to those now being proposed by the US EPA, will be
11  published in the Canadian Gazette, Part II, on June
12  23, 1999.
13              What we found from the examination of
14  both the costs and benefits of removing sulfur from
15  gasoline was that this regulation will be a "win,
16  win" both economically and environmentally.  The
17  costs to industry of removing the sulfur contaminant
18  in gasoline will be greatly exceeded by the monetary
19  valuation of the health benefits that would be
20  derived from such a step.
21              The air pollution emissions benefits
22  that result from removing sulfur from gas apply to
23  all cars on the road.  The removal of sulfur from
24  gasoline stops the sulfur from poisoning the
25  catalytic converters in cars, allowing the
00462
 1                George D. Thruston - NYU
 2  converters to do their job of lowering pollution
 3  more efficiently, as we just heard.  All motor
 4  vehicles, new and old, will benefit from the removal
 5  of sulfur, making them burn cleaner.  In addition,
 6  this will contribute toward eliminating ozone air
 7  pollution episodes like the ones we have experienced
 8  in the past two weeks here in the Northeast.
 9              In addition to allowing the cars'
10  catalysts to do their jobs better and, thereby,
11  lowering hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions
12  from cars and reducing ozone in the air, the
13  elimination of sulfur also cuts down on the sulfuric
14  acid particles that can result from the sulfur
15  itself.  Breathing less particulate matter pollution
16  is a noteworthy benefit of this regulation, as
17  exposure to acidic sulfate particles have been shown
18  by numerous studies, including those that I have
19  conducted, to be associated with excess numbers of
20  hospital admissions and daily deaths, as well as
21  other health impacts.  These various adverse health
22  impacts will now be voided by the implementation of
23  the EPA's new sulfur in gasoline regulations.
24              Also, if I have time, I brought along
25  overheads I'd like some to show you.   The Canadian
00463
 1                George D. Thruston - NYU
 2  study of the benefits of removing sulfur from
 3  gasoline confirms what the EPA analysis has said:
 4  The health benefits to the public of this proposed
 5  regulation far outweigh the clean-up cost to
 6  industry.
 7              The Canadian joint industry/government
 8  study was conducted to assess the cost and benefits
 9  of removing sulfur from gasoline in the Canadian
10  cities of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Edmonton,
11  Winnipeg, Halifax, and St. John or 40 percent of
12  that nation's population.  Using sulfate as an index
13  pollutant for the atmospheric pollution reductions
14  expected, projected adverse effects reductions were
15  estimated for premature deaths, hospital admissions,
16  emergency room visits, asthma symptom days,
17  restricted activity days, and new respiratory
18  disease cases.  Monetary valuations derived from the
19  published literature for each health outcome were
20  used to estimate the monetary values ascribed to the
21  avoided pollution health effects.
22              The results of this Canadian study
23  indicated that the health and monetary benefits of
24  reducing sulphur in gas can be significant, with for
25  example over 127,000 asthma symptom days a year and
00464
 1                George D. Thruston - NYU
 2  82 premature deaths a year avoided in the seven
 3  largest Canadian cities in the year 2020.  And for
 4  the year 2000, that's what this chart is of, the
 5  adverse health effects avoided and their monetary
 6  valuation by the year 2020 in those seven cities.
 7              The estimated net present value of the
 8  monetary valuation of health benefits over the
 9  period 2001 to 2020 amounted to 5.2 billion Canadian
10  with a 30 parts per million gasoline scenario, i.e.,
11  the control level adopted by Canada, and now being
12  proposed by the US EPA, even after discounting at 3
13  percent.   I don't really like discounting health
14  effects like a piece of equipment.  It's lives, but
15  that's what I'm reporting.  The health benefit
16  valuation estimates derived in this manner for these
17  seven cities alone greatly exceeded the central
18  estimates of the nationwide control costs for all
19  scenarios when viewed on a net per value basis.  For
20  the seven cities, the benefit-to-cost ratio came to
21  1.5 for the 30 ppm sulfur case, and when the entire
22  Canadian population was considered, the
23  benefit-to-cost ratio increased to about 2.3.  Thus,
24  the Canadian benefits were more than double the
25  control costs.
00465
 1                George D. Thruston - NYU
 2              To find a copy of the various Canadian
 3  reports on this subject, including my expert panel's
 4  report, on the internet, you can visit the web page.
 5  It's in my testimony.  I can give you my web page.
 6              In closing, I would like to point out
 7  that the projected benefits of preventing adverse
 8  health effects are not something nonexistent today
 9  that would be generated by the requirement to remove
10  sulfur from gasoline.  Instead, they represent real
11  and already adverse health effects that will
12  continue to occur if nothing is done.  More
13  important, they also represent adverse health events
14  that can be avoided from happening by moving forward
15  with the EPA proposed regulations.
16              Thus, this regulatory step should be
17  viewed as a process of reducing the health price
18  that is already being paid by the American people
19  day in and day out in the form of reduced quality of
20  health from high sulfur gasoline.
21              The EPA should move forward with their
22  proposal to remove sulfur from gasoline in order to
23  provide relief to the American people from the
24  adverse health effects that are now needlessly
25  occurring as a result of the fact that we have
00466
 1                George D. Thruston - NYU
 2  allowed, and presently still allow, the sale of more
 3  polluting high sulfur gasoline to the American
 4  public.
 5              MS. OGE:  How are we doing on time?
 6              MR. GUY:  Two and a half minutes.
 7              MR. THURSTON:  The Health Benefits of
 8  Removing Sulfur from Gasoline was a title of an
 9  abstract we presented recently at the 1999
10  International Conference of the American Thoracic
11  Society in San Diego, California.  And the abstract
12  is published in the American Journal of Respiratory
13  and Critical Care Medicine in March 1999.  And the
14  list of co-authors are all members of the expert
15  panel that I headed and include David Bates, R.
16  Burnett, F. Lipfert, B. Ostro, A. Krupnick, R. Rowe
17  from Status Consulting in Denver, so a blue ribbon
18  panel looked at this question.
19              This is background.  I think you know
20  the Canadian Government was considering lowering the
21  sulfur in gasoline from present levels, around
22  300-400 ppm, down to as low as 30 ppm, which was the
23  lowest one that they looked and ultimately was the
24  one that they selected.  So the sulfur in fuels
25  study was conducted to aid in the determination of a
00467
 1                George D. Thruston - NYU
 2  cost-effective sulfur limit.
 3              So the objectives were to estimate the
 4  health benefits that may be achieved in Canada by a
 5  reduction of the sulfur content and to compare the
 6  economic valuation benefits in the seven largest
 7  Canadian Cities with the nationwide economic costs
 8  of the cleanup.
 9              Methods, selecting a suitable index
10  pollutant of the atmospheric pollutant reduction
11  expected.   We used a somewhat similar method EPA
12  used.   So it was sort of independent check.  We
13  identified the health effects able to be considered.
14  We applied suitable concentration response
15  relationships from the published literature.  And
16  then we also looked at best available monetary
17  values.
18              MS. OGE:  Maybe you give us the
19  conclusions.  And it would be great if you can
20  provide everything for the record so we can have it.
21              MR. THURSTON:  These are in my
22  submission.  Basically our conclusion were the
23  health and monetary benefits of lowering sulfur in
24  gas can be significant.  At 30 ppm, the Net Present
25  Value of the estimated health benefits exceeded the
00468
 1                   Pete Homer - NIBA
 2  Nationwide clean-up costs by a factor of 1.5.  And
 3  then when you looked at the nation, the benefit cost
 4  ratio was over 2.
 5              And again, I have the web pages here.
 6              MS. OGE:  I was trying to read.  What is
 7  it?  If you can read --
 8              MR. THURSTON:  At 30 ppm, the estimated
 9  health benefits amounted to 5.2 billion Canadian
10  dollars.  And they exceeded nationwide cleanup costs
11  by 1.5.  And then, as I said, they're 8 billion once
12  you adjust that to population.   And the final
13  report is on the web at this quite long address, and
14  also their recent decision to set 30 ppm sulfur
15  limit is on the web as well on the government site.
16              And so when the sulfur content of US
17  gasoline is lowered, similar important benefits can
18  also be expected.
19              MS. OGE:  Thank you.
20              Mr. Pete Homer, please proceed.
21              MR. HOMER:  Thank you.  I'm a Native
22  American from a Mohave tribe of Arizona.  I'm the
23  President of the National Indian Business
24  Association.  We represent 24,000 American Indian
25  and Alaska native owned businesses.  We're a
00469
 1                   Pete Homer - NIBA
 2  national trade organization that works out of
 3  Washington, D.C.  I want to thank you for the
 4  opportunity to be here to testify on some of the
 5  these very, very important issues.
 6              I'm here today in the interest of
 7  preserving the health and welfare of Native American
 8  and Alaska Native families and protecting the
 9  commercial interests of their family-owned
10  businesses from the unintended consequence of
11  government regulation.
12              The National Indian Business Association
13  supports EPA's efforts to improve the nation's air
14  quality through regulations that are rational,
15  technologically feasible, and cost-effective.  In
16  Indian country, Native Americans and Alaska native
17  owned family businesses, especially small and
18  disadvantaged businesses, rely heavily on the use of
19  pickup trucks and other medium and heavy-duty light
20  trucks to maintain their livelihoods and family
21  structures.  These vehicles are essential to the
22  continued economic viability and our commercial and
23  recreational interests.
24              The automobile industry as a whole has
25  made a great stride in reducing vehicle emissions
00470
 1                   Pete Homer - NIBA
 2  including medium and heavy-duty light trucks and
 3  application of new technologies.  At the same time,
 4  the National Indian Business Association believes
 5  more should be done by the auto industry to help
 6  assure continued improvements in our nation's air
 7  quality.  NIBA also believes, however, when imposing
 8  future regulatory requirements as are necessary to
 9  future control of vehicle emissions, that automakers
10  be afforded appropriate flexibility and lead time
11  needed to maximize cost or potential adverse product
12  impacts.  This is especially important for those
13  manufacturers of medium and heavy-duty light upon
14  which NIBA members depend.
15              EPA's proposed Tier 2 rulemaking would
16  impose new requirements that, for the first time,
17  would require medium and heavy-duty light trucks to
18  meet the same emission standards as passenger cars
19  and could affect affordability and utility of these
20  vehicles.
21              As we understand it, the Alliance of
22  Automobile Manufacturers has proposed to EPA an
23  alternative that NIBA believes not only to be a
24  rational technology, but an achievable alternative
25  that along with requiring cleaner burning fuels, but
00471
 1                   Pete Homer - NIBA
 2  meet or achieve objectives while minimizing
 3  potential adverse effects on the ability and utility
 4  of medium and heavy-duty light trucks including
 5  diesel powered vehicles.
 6              So on behalf of its over 24,000 members,
 7  National Indian Business Association calls on EPA to
 8  give the utmost consideration to the Alliance of
 9  Automobile Manufactures' alternative proposal to
10  EPA's Tier 2 Gasoline Sulfur proposed rule.  Thank
11  you.
12              MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Any questions?
13              We have one question.
14              MS. MARTIN:  Mr. Homer, I was wondering
15  if you could expand for me the type of businesses
16  your association represents and how the differences
17  between the Alliance's proposal and EPA proposal
18  would effect those types of businesses specifically.
19              MR. HOMER:  Let me give you an example
20  of the that.  95 percent of the families and
21  businesses drive medium sized trucks.  When we talk
22  economics, when we talk what's right and making
23  recommendations, you're looking at sort of like a
24  new breed of American Indian in this country that is
25  the businessman and the businesswoman who care about
00472
 1                 Bianca Moran - NJ PIRG
 2  their employees and care about the costs of all
 3  types of items.  And so we think that we recommend
 4  that we have a balance here that is a balance
 5  between EPA and the automobile industry and that you
 6  come together with some sensible ideas of technology
 7  to get the job done.  And to do that, we think it
 8  would be a level playing field if you could get
 9  together and do that.  We have so many business.
10  There are 103,000 Native American and Alaska Native
11  owned business in this country.  They're all kinds
12  various business.  A lot of construction, a lot of
13  agricultural businesses, a lot of farming industry.
14  Rural America is involved.  Rural America is a
15  little different than Philadelphia.  And so I talk
16  and I represent those individuals in this issue.
17              MS. OGE:  Thank you, Mr. Homer.  I'd
18  like to thank each one of the panel members for
19  talking the time to visit with us and sharing your
20  views.  Thank you very much.
21              Before we break for lunch, I would like
22  to call on the following individuals to please come
23  forward.
24              (Pause.)
25              MS. MARTIN:  Ms. Moran,  if you'd like
00473
 1                 Bianca Moran - NJ PIRG
 2  to begin.
 3              MS. MORAN:  I'm here with the New Jersey
 4  PIRG.  Some of you may remember me from the ozone
 5  action kick-off at the museum a few weeks ago for a
 6  different program.
 7              The reason I'm here today is that my mom
 8  is a school teacher and for years I would go and
 9  have lunch with her at her school because it
10  coincides with mine.  And each year that I do this,
11  more and more children are staying inside for lunch
12  and recess.  And if you see these kids and you ask
13  them how they feel about it and compare that to how
14  these companies feel about their profits, I think
15  the priority should be obvious here.
16              My point here is that we can't extend
17  any time lines for any of these companies because
18  it's technologically possible, EPA time lines or
19  even more stringent one.  It's entirely possible and
20  that's what needs to happen here.  If we were
21  talking about time lines, I'd like to share
22  something.  Think about the time lines for those
23  kids.  Think about 14.6 million people in the US who
24  suffer from asthma.  What do their time look like?
25  It might look a little like this, the increase in
00474
 1               Keith Morris - Sierra Club
 2  Americans with asthma since 1980, that's where it
 3  starts.  Then asthma attacks are the number one
 4  reason for children missing school.  Next stage is
 5  that these children, especially from here from
 6  Philadelphia, we're fourth worst air quality and
 7  nationally there are 117 million Americans who live
 8  in air unsafe to breathe due to ozone or smog
 9  pollution.  And then we come to 1998, where in the
10  smog season in 1998 there were 47 violations of the
11  EPA health standard from smog in Pennsylvania.
12  This is what their time line looks like.  At the end
13  of their time line they suffer from 30 percent of
14  the smog from NOx as from automobiles.  They suffer
15  from the 80 percent of deadly fine particles in our
16  air caused by automobiles and the soot from vehicles
17  classified as a human carcinogen.  They suffer from
18  the fact that automobiles cause 20 percent of carbon
19  dioxide at leads to global warming, and 40 thousand
20  Americans die prematurely each year from soot in our
21  air.  That's their time line.  And until you can
22  find a way to extend their time line, you can't do
23  it for the automobile and oil industries.  You
24  cannot give them more time to fix this.  They need
25  to do it is now and sooner because you can't extend
00475
 1               Keith Morris - Sierra Club
 2  the time line for these kids.  Thank you.
 3              MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Mr. Morris.
 4              MR. MORRIS:  Good afternoon.  My name is
 5  Keith Morris, and I'm a student presently working
 6  with the Sierra Club as a field manager.  I spend
 7  every weekday going door-to-door talking about
 8  environmental issues.  I can say the overwhelming
 9  majority I speak with express serious concern for
10  the quality of our air.  However, many don't
11  understand the impact of our driving habits and
12  inefficient unclean motor vehicles.  Instead of
13  working towards clean and efficient cars and trucks,
14  oil companies and manufacturers are spending
15  tremendous amounts of time and money to confuse the
16  issue and to continue their exploitation of the
17  public and abuse of the planet as a whole.  Today
18  and yesterday we stand witness to this expensive
19  campaign; traveling expenses, executives, slides and
20  charts.   If we really share the same goals, it
21  seems that this is an effort that could be directed
22  toward meeting or exceeding the proposal instead of
23  fighting and complaining about a very crucial time
24  line.
25              To me, the Automobile Manufacturers
00476
 1                 Stacy Long - Penn PIRG
 2  Alliance appearance is a cooperative effort to
 3  withhold progress for the sake of profits with total
 4  disregard for public health and opinion.  I
 5  challenge manufacturers who are not part of the
 6  Alliance to fully accept to existing terms or
 7  stronger ones.  I know they would receive my
 8  support, and hopefully that of the American public.
 9              The oil refinery is the main obstacle to
10  the real aims of this proposal.  Frankly, the
11  transportation industry should lay oil companies to
12  rest where we all know they belong by now.  I
13  challenge manufacturers to begin manufacturing an
14  affordable electrical or other forms of
15  transportation immediately and challenge the public
16  to demand them.
17              I commend the EPA's landmark standards.
18  We need the strongest possible regulation as soon as
19  possible.  Perhaps we are finally nearing the
20  extinction of this hungry and dangerous dinosaur
21  known as the internal combustion engine.  Thank you.
22              MS. OGE:  Ms. Stacy Long.
23              MS. LONG:  My name is Stacy Long from
24  Pittsburgh Penn PIRG.  I have canvasses with Sierra
25  Club and just yesterday I was with the Clean Air
00477
 1                 Stacy Long - Penn PIRG
 2  Campaign.  I find it very, very amusing that as soon
 3  as we arrive, the entire auto industry seem to have
 4  left.
 5              MS. OGE:  But we are here.
 6              MS. LONG:  It's a shame, because I
 7  wanted to address specifically Ford's
 8  representative, I believe, Kelly Brown, and I don't
 9  think she's in the room.
10              MS. OGE:  He's a male.
11              MS. LONG:  I'm sorry.
12              MS. OGE:  I called him Mr. Ford
13  yesterday.  I don't want to change his sex.
14              (Laughter.)
15              MS. MARTIN:  We have some automotive
16  people here.  Reg is here.  We have a couple of
17  people.
18              MS. LONG:  I wanted to address Ford
19  because actually the other day my boyfriend and I
20  were looking over a magazine and we found a very
21  interesting ad for the Ford -- not the Explorer, it
22  was the Lincoln Navigator.  It said, "We now produce
23  less pollution than the average car."  Now according
24  to our research, the average car produced .4 grams
25  of nitrous oxide; the average SUV, 1.11.  So we
00478
 1                 Stacy Long - Penn PIRG
 2  thought, let's call the number they gave us, let's
 3  call, let's see exactly what the numbers are.  I
 4  called the number that was listed.  Nobody had any
 5  idea what I was talking about.  They tried to refer
 6  me to a dealer in my area.  They never -- "Nitrous
 7  oxide?  What are you talking about," they said.
 8  "Who are you?  Where are you from?"  So they
 9  referred me to corporate, the top dogs, and they
10  also had absolutely no clue what I was talking
11  about.
12              Now, my question is, how can they make
13  claims like this, and then when you actually
14  investigate to see if that's true, they have no idea
15  what you're talking about?  I don't understand that.
16              I personally am very upset about a lot
17  of things.  I'm upset we have to have these
18  hearings.  This shouldn't have to happen.  We know
19  people are dying.  We know people are in the
20  hospital.  This shouldn't have to happen.  They
21  should lobby politicians.  They shouldn't beg for
22  time.  The industry -- the economy is booming.
23  These guys are not in any financial difficulty.  We
24  don't need to give them more time.  We don't need to
25  do anything for them.  They need to do for us
00479
 1                 Stacy Long - Penn PIRG
 2  because our kids are suffering.  This affects every
 3  one of us.
 4              I go door-to-door every day.  Every day
 5  lately the past five days have been high ozone days
 6  because of this very problem.  So I get to walk
 7  around in 95 plus heat and get sweaty and filthy
 8  from the pollution and I talk to people and they're
 9  worried.
10              Yesterday I was in a very poor
11  neighborhood.  These people gave me more than $15 a
12  piece; that is what they gave me.  I had eight new
13  names and many contributors although they are at or
14  below the poverty level.
15              And I'm sorry, we don't six figures.
16  Most of these people do, if not more.  We don't have
17  the money to fight this.  But hopefully it, seems we
18  have your understanding on our side.  You have
19  proposed new laws and regulations.  I really hope
20  you will at least enforce them.  I want you to go
21  the extra mile and do it all.   This is not
22  acceptable.  People are dying because people don't
23  want -- the big auto industries have more money than
24  I can count.  They don't need more time.  This is a
25  public health hazard.  I don't think it's necessary.
00480
 1              Shawn Somerville - Penn PIRG
 2  I had notes, but I don't know -- but another point,
 3  these executives, maybe if their children have
 4  asthma, maybe they can afford to hospitalize them
 5  and get really good care.  Most Americans can't,
 6  most Americans can't speak up for themselves.  So
 7  basically we're trying to say stop the corruption.
 8  This is ridiculous.  We don't need to put up with
 9  this anymore.  We are human.  Because if they die of
10  asthma -- never mind.  You know what I'm talking
11  about.  I'm very upset.
12              I really, really urge you to adopt this
13  proposal and go further, adopt stronger ones.  Thank
14  you.
15              MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Mr. Shawn
16  Somerville.
17              MR. SOMERVILLE:  I also work with the
18  Pittsburgh PIRG.  I'm originally from Houston which
19  has an air pollution problem.  With millions of cars
20  on the road belching out pollutants, we had HOV
21  lanes, we tried bus lines, we tried to get people to
22  car pool together.  It doesn't work.  People love
23  their cars and they're always going to be driving
24  them.  That's why we have to have less pollution
25  from the cars.  It's not going to come from city or
00481
 1              Shawn Somerville - Penn PIRG
 2  local government.  It has to come from the top, from
 3  the EPA.
 4              When I'm in Pittsburgh -- I'm a student.
 5  I use a bicycle for transportation.  I'm actually a
 6  pretty healthy guy.  But when I'm riding my bike
 7  through town, I have to stop a lot of times, not
 8  because I'm tired, but because my lungs give out; I
 9  can't stand what I'm breathing.  Maybe the person
10  that's driving in their huge SUV, in their insulated
11  air-conditioned vehicle doesn't quite get the same
12  effect from the smog as I do.
13              Actually, yesterday as I was walking
14  around Philadelphia after going door-to-door with
15  this issue, I was next to, I guess, 476.  I started
16  getting sick.  I don't have asthma, but I was
17  coughing for nearly an hour.  I felt nauseous just
18  from the pollution in the area.
19              People are really concerned about this.
20  But they bring up a number of strange points; well,
21  what does it matter?  Third world countries pollute
22  more than we do.  They have to clean up their act.
23              I'm sorry, we're not a third world
24  country.  We should hold ourselves to the highest
25  standard.  We're the wealthiest, technologically
00482
 1                      Rachel Maden
 2  advanced nation in the world.  Why is the air
 3  quality so poor?  Why can't the auto industry --
 4  actually, as the gentleman from DaimlerChrysler
 5  expressed, they can meet the standards and actually
 6  exceed them.  We can't wait for them to do it on
 7  their own.  We can't wait for the auto industry and
 8  the fuel industry.  No, the parent organization are
 9  the people who make the rules.  EPA has to step in
10  and enforce strict guidelines.
11              I'd like to thank you for having us.
12              MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Rachel Maden.
13              MS. MADEN:  My name is Rachel Maden.  I
14  live in New Brunswick, New Jersey.  And while these
15  hearings are being held in Philadelphia, I can tell
16  you firsthand that air pollutions is not limited to
17  Philadelphia.  New Jersey is not the butt of the
18  nation for no good reason.  Every day millions of
19  cars, minivans, SUVs and trucks travel our highways.
20  The exhaust of those vehicles release smog-forming
21  nitrogen oxide.  The smog is dangerous for everyone,
22  but especially children, the elderly, and those with
23  respiratory illness.
24              So I am here today with a question for
25  you.  Why is it that America is a leader in
00483
 1                    J. Astra Rooney
 2  business, a leader in technology, a leader in
 3  creativity, but not a leader in protecting the
 4  health of the very people who have made our country
 5  what it is today?
 6              I applaud the effort of the EPA.  I
 7  think it is an excellent first step.  However, I
 8  believe it is only a first step.  I believe this
 9  effort is not enough.  Passenger vehicles, including
10  SUVs and minivans, should be subject to the same
11  standards as cars.  There should be no exceptions
12  for super-sized SUVs.  All of these vehicles are
13  family vehicles.  And at a time when it seems like
14  all people in America can talk about our family
15  values, I think to myself, shouldn't one of these
16  values be protecting the health of those very
17  families?  We need the strongest possible
18  regulations to control auto pollution here in the
19  leader of the countries in the world.
20              I thank you for your time and I applaud
21  your efforts and hope you will take them to the next
22  necessary step.
23              MS. OGE:  Thank you.  J. Astra Rooney.
24              MS. ROONEY:  I'm from the Princeton
25  Office in New Jersey.  We walk around and talk about
00484
 1                    J. Astra Rooney
 2  environmental consumer interests every day.  The
 3  State of New Jersey, like it's been pointed out, one
 4  out of three days it's unhealthy to breathe air.
 5  The Department of Environmental Protection actually
 6  has a hotline that you can call up and they'll tell
 7  you when you can breathe the air outside.  This is
 8  not a solution.  The solution to these problems is
 9  tougher emissions standards for all vehicles.
10              I do walk around.  The beginning of this
11  week were very hot days where we were in high ozone
12  but we were still outside talking to people.  I was
13  out walking around on those 2 days.  Yesterday I
14  came to Philly.  Yesterday morning at this hearing,
15  I had my voice.  I walked, canvassed yesterday
16  afternoon, and now I can barely speak.  This makes
17  my job a lot harder.  I believe that it's a direct
18  link to the air quality in the area.  And I think
19  that's very simple and simply put.  I don't have
20  asthma.  I don't have a history of respiratory
21  problems, but today this is what my voice sounds
22  like.  Like I said, it was perfectly fine yesterday
23  morning.
24              I applaud this first step in making the
25  effort by the EPA to improve standards.  I believe
00485
 1                      Cory Holding
 2  that we should be looking at solutions to the
 3  problem that we face, and that does mean tougher
 4  emissions standards and looking at standard fuel
 5  efficient engines and fuel so we don't have to rely
 6  so heavily on the oil and gas industry.  So I thank
 7  you very much for your time and I applaud your
 8  efforts.
 9              MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Ms. Cory Holding.
10              MS. HOLDING:  My message is pretty
11  simple, too.  Basically having been a part of these
12  hearings for the last couple days and having heard
13  both sides and thought about both sides, I am still
14  definitely an advocate for clean air as soon as
15  possible.  It seems to me like a sort of simple case
16  for you all for mostly four basic reasons.  One, the
17  technology does exist as was explained to us by
18  panel members like Mr. Bertelsen and Mr. Modlin
19  also.  Number 2, the capital and manpower also
20  exists which we can, I feel, assume based on the
21  wealth and size of the auto industry.  Third, there
22  is a physical need for change which has been
23  explained, pleaded over and over and over by the
24  people and by panel members like Dr. Thurston who
25  just spoke.  And fourth, there is certainly a strong
00486
 1                       Jason Rash
 2  public demand which has been certainly shown to you
 3  all by groups like the Public Interest Research
 4  Group and the Sierra Club, the Clean Air Council and
 5  many other groups that have been here.
 6              It seems to me that basically it's a
 7  matter of priority.  Which do you prefer to kind of
 8  appease, the automobile gurus, so to speak, or the
 9  people who really need this right now?  I implore
10  you to hear the people.  And I thank you so much for
11  coming out and listening.  And I thank you guys for
12  sticking around to hear us.  We really appreciate
13  it.
14              MS. OGE:  Well, for Stacy Long, I'll be
15  more than glad give you Kenny Brown's phone number,
16  and I'll ask him first if I can do that.  But I
17  think he would be very glad to share with you about
18  the their vehicles.  This is public information.  I
19  can give you that information so you can call me
20  afterwards.
21              But seriously, I want to thank you for
22  coming and meeting with us and sharing your
23  experience, walking on the streets and sharing what
24  you're hearing from the public and what you are
25  feeling.  And I want to commend your interest in the
00487
 1                       Jason Rash
 2  issue.  Thank you very much.
 3              I understand that we may have additional
 4  people that would like to speak.
 5              MR. RASH:  I'll be brief.  I am here
 6  representing the board of directors of the Greater
 7  Philadelphia Clean City Program which is an program
 8  dedicated to the use of alternative fuels and
 9  alternative fuel vehicles in the Greater
10  Philadelphia region.  The Clean City Program was
11  established in 1993 and is widely recognized as one
12  of the successful United States Department of Energy
13  clean cities programs in the country.  Thanks to the
14  efforts of its members, local governments,
15  companies, and consumers in the Greater Philadelphia
16  area want vans, trucks, cars, and buses on
17  alternative fuel such as compressed natural gas,
18  propane, ethanol, methanol, and electricity, the
19  results being improved air quality and a reduction
20  of reliance on foreign oil.
21              While the Greater Philadelphia Clean
22  City sees EPA Tier 2 proposal for emissions as a
23  positive step, it calls for EPA to give increase
24  attention to alternative fuels and give as much
25  attention to them as tailpipe emissions.  The
00488
 1                       Jason Rash
 2  reasons are simple.  Transportation revolves around
 3  motor vehicles that run on gasoline and diesel made
 4  in catalytic converter technologies and will
 5  continue to contribute to the ground level ozone
 6  problem well into the next century.  Each year there
 7  are more vehicles on the road driving more miles
 8  than the year before.  Furthermore, the world oil
 9  supply is not limitless and the source of great
10  political instability witnessed by  the OPEC crisis
11  in the seventies and the Gulf War.  As a result, the
12  United States is forced to spend billions of dollars
13  each year importing half of its oil from politically
14  unstable regions of the world.  The public health
15  and ground ozone and the increasing reliance on
16  foreign oil seriously threats to our nation's
17  future.  That is why the Greater Philadelphia Clean
18  Cities Program is calling for its increased presence
19  in the alternative fuel arena.
20              Alternative fuel might correct a
21  pollution problem in conventional automobiles.  Some
22  even have zero emissions.  Compressed natural gas,
23  electricity, and ethanol are in great abundance here
24  in the United States.  Its shift will not take plays
25  overnight, but it is imperative that it occur.
00489
 1                       Jason Rash
 2  There is a willingness to have vehicles, but its
 3  growth is continuing, and we better start working
 4  with other global agencies and private industry to
 5  improve all fuel and vehicle development.  Thank
 6  you.
 7              MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Any other
 8  individuals  who would like to speak?
 9              Thank you very much.  We will break for
10  lunch and convene at 2:30 for additional
11  organizations and individuals to testify.
12              (Luncheon recess taken at 12:45 pm.)
13              (Court reporter excused.)
14                         - - -
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
00490
 1                  William Menz, CT DEP
 2              MS. MARTIN:  Bill Menz from the
 3  Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.
 4  Please go ahead, right ahead straight to the table.
 5  Irwin Berlin, Stacey Young, Olivia Conroy, and
 6  Elissa Underwood.
 7              MS. OGE:  Good afternoon.  I would like
 8  to welcome you to the panel.  Since I would suspect
 9  many of you or any of you were not here this
10  morning, I would just like to give you some guidance
11  as to how we are going to do this meeting.
12              Write your names, and if you are with an
13  organization, please indicate that on the card in
14  front of you.  We are going to give you ten minutes
15  to make your oral presentations, and then the panel
16  members may have questions of you.  If not, we will
17  ask the next group of people to come forward.
18              We will start with Mr. Bill Menz.
19              MR. MENZ:  Menz.
20              MS. OGE:  Menz.
21              MR. MENZ:  My name the Bill Menz.  I am
22  an air pollution control engineer representative of
23  the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental
24  Protection Bureau Air Management.  The State of
25  Connecticut is pleased to offer these comments on
00491
 1                  William Menz, CT DEP
 2  EPA's Tier 2 motor vehicle standard low-sulfur
 3  gasoline proposed rule.
 4              The State of Connecticut strongly
 5  supports the proposed rule as the critical
 6  components of the Northeast state's strategy to
 7  achieve and maintain the national ambient air
 8  quality standards for the one-hour ground level
 9  ozone and fine particulates and to improve the
10  public health by reducing air toxics.
11              We applaud EPA's efforts in developing
12  the proposed rule but have specific concerns as
13  indicated below.  But we encourage the EPA to
14  consider in promulgating the requirements of the
15  final rule.
16              In particular Connecticut strongly
17  supports the following provisions of the Tier 2
18  low-sulfur gasoline proposed rule:
19              The single average exhaust emission
20  standard for both passenger cars and all light-duty
21  trucks up to 8500 pounds;
22              The choice of NOx as the pollutant for
23  the average exhaust emission standard;
24              A NOx fleet average exhaust emission
25  standard as comparable to the NOx standard for LEV
00492
 1                  William Menz, CT DEP
 2  and ULEV vehicles in the California LEV II rule;
 3              Lengthening the useful life of motor
 4  vehicle emission standards to 120,000 miles;
 5              The inclusion of new standards for the
 6  supplemental federal test procedure;
 7              A fuel neutral emission standard;
 8              A single set of NOx fleet average
 9  standards for cars and light trucks used for
10  passenger applications;
11              A reduction in gasoline sulfur levels to
12  the 30 parts per million with an 80 parts per
13  million cap;
14              A credit program to provide incentives
15  for refiners to reduce sulfur levels in gasoline
16  prior to the effective date of the final ruling;
17              A national rather than a regional
18  gasoline sulfur standard.
19              A national gasoline sulfur standard
20  allows EPA to establish one real world federal test
21  fuel for motor vehicles and protects catalysts in
22  vehicles driven from a low-sulfur gasoline region to
23  high sulfur gasoline region from damage by the
24  temporary use of sulfur gasoline.
25              The State of Connecticut has three
00493
 1                  William Menz, CT DEP
 2  significant concerns with the proposed rule and
 3  makes the final recommendations with respect to the
 4  final rule.
 5              First, EPA failed to adequately justify
 6  the proposed rule in relation to the one-hour
 7  standard relying rather on the need for states to
 8  meet the eight-hour ozone standard.  Connecticut
 9  needs the emission benefits the proposed rule would
10  provide in order to help solve our one-hour ozone
11  problem.
12              For example, during the ten-day period
13  beginning on May 29th, 1999 and ending just this
14  past Monday, exceedences of the eight-hour ozone
15  standard have been recorded on seven days and
16  perhaps more significant exceedences of the one-hour
17  standard have been recorded on three days at
18  monitoring sites in Connecticut.
19              By the way, this past Tuesday we
20  reported our eighth exceedence of the eight-hour
21  ozone standard.
22              The effect of the recent decision by the
23  Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia which
24  found new air quality standards unenforceable
25  including the eight-hour standard is yet to be fully
00494
 1                  William Menz, CT DEP
 2  determined.  In view of this, we recommend the EPA
 3  include a significant justification for the proposed
 4  rule based on the one-hour standard alone.
 5              Second, with fuel cells and other
 6  emerging technology on the horizon which may require
 7  low levels of sulfur in gasoline, we recommend that
 8  EPA continue to examine the benefits and
 9  practicality of achieving even lower sulfur levels
10  than those proposed.
11              Third, we recommend EPA conform the
12  requirements of the final rule to the California LEV
13  II program in terms of emission reductions and air
14  quality benefits.  The Northeast states require a
15  comprehensive examination of the emission benefits
16  from LEV II and the Tier 2 low-sulfur gasoline
17  proposal rule in order to make an informed choice
18  from among the two programs.
19              Thus far, comparisons have been
20  superficial and difficult to make given the lack of
21  the MOBILE6 and other appropriate tools.
22              We recommend that EPA conduct a
23  comprehensive, in-depth comparison of the LEV II and
24  the proposed rule.
25              Under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act,
00495
 1                 Irwin Berlin, M.D., ALA
 2  States have the option of adopting the California
 3  LEV II program.
 4              If such a comparison does not
 5  demonstrate the proposed Tier 2 low-suffer gasoline
 6  program is substantially equivalent to the LEV II
 7  program, many states may find it necessary to
 8  implement the LEV II program.
 9              In conclusion, we support EPA's proposed
10  rules as an effective way to reduce air pollution
11  for cars and trucks in the future.  We recommend
12  that EPA make the following improvements in the
13  final rule:  A justification based on a one-hour
14  ozone standard; the potential for the lower sulfur
15  levels in near term; and a comprehensive comparison
16  with the California LEV II program.
17              Thank you for giving us this opportunity
18  to comment.
19              MS. OGE:  Thank you.
20              Mr. Irwin Berlin.
21              MR. BERLIN:  My name is Dr. Berlin, and
22  I am chief of pulmonary medicine at St. Elizabeth
23  Hospital in Elizabeth, New Jersey, and I am on the
24  National Council of American Lung Association, and I
25  am a board member of the New Jersey American Lung
00496
 1                 Irwin Berlin, M.D., ALA
 2  Association.
 3              It is the American Lung Association's
 4  position that sport-utility vehicles must meet the
 5  new auto emission standards within three years, not
 6  as EPA proposes in the ten years.
 7              Sport-utility vehicles grew three times
 8  as much as the standard car, they use much more
 9  gasoline, and since they are larger and heavier than
10  most standard cars, they can cause a great deal of
11  damage in an accident with smaller vehicles.
12              I want to remind the EPA and give them a
13  little bit of an overview about air pollution.  Air
14  pollution has had adverse effects on health
15  throughout history starting at the time we invented
16  fire for heating and cooking with exposure to
17  smoke.  And rise of cities concentrated those
18  emissions of pollutants from dwellings and from
19  manufacturing facilities within restricted locales.
20              During the 20th Century, mobile sources,
21  including cars, trucks and other possible fuel-
22  powered vehicles, created a new type of pollution,
23  photochemical pollution, or smog, first recognized
24  in the LA air basin.
25              The unprecedented growth of some urban
00497
 1                 Irwin Berlin, M.D., ALA
 2  areas, what we now call megacities, such as Mexico
 3  City, Sao Paulo and Shanghai has led to unrelenting
 4  air pollution from massive vehicle fleets and
 5  snarled traffic and from polluting industries and
 6  power plants.
 7              Health effects on air pollution have
 8  long been of concern.  During the reign of King
 9  Edward I in 1272 in London, the pollution by coal
10  smoke prompted a royal proclamation banning a
11  burning of sea-coal in open furnaces.
12              But air pollution was not regulated in
13  England until two centuries later with the passage
14  of The Smoke Nuisance Abatement Act.
15              In the United States, recognition of the
16  public health dimensions of air pollution just began
17  in the middle of the 20th Century, driven by rising
18  problems of smog in Southern California and the 1948
19  air pollution episode in Donora, Pennsylvania, which
20  caused 20 excess deaths and thousands of illnesses.
21              This modern era of air pollution
22  research and control dates to the episodes in Donora
23  and other cities during which extremely high levels
24  of pollution caused clearly evident excess deaths.
25              These episodes led to regulations for
00498
 1                 Irwin Berlin, M.D., ALA
 2  the control of outdoor air pollution and to the
 3  conduct of research designed to develop evidence on
 4  the health effects of outdoor air pollution as a
 5  foundation for control measures.
 6              The research includes:  Characterization
 7  of the pollutants in outdoor air as to their
 8  sources, concentrations, chemical and physical
 9  properties;
10              Toxicologic investigation on the injury
11  caused by air pollution;
12              And the underlying mechanism,
13  epidemiologic survey's top health effects of air
14  pollution in the community.
15              These approaches remain fundamental to
16  research on air pollution today.
17              Atmospheric pollutants, whether they are
18  indoors or outdoors, exist in both gaseous and
19  particulate forms.  In evaluating clinical
20  consequences of specific exposures, the clinician
21  has to recognize that penetration into and retention
22  within the respiratory tract of toxic gases varies
23  widely depending on the physical property of the gas
24  and solubility, concentration of the gas in the
25  inspired air, the rate and depth of ventilation, and
00499
 1                 Irwin Berlin, M.D., ALA
 2  the extent to which the material is reactive.
 3              The spectrum of adverse effects of air
 4  pollution is broad, ranging from consequences of
 5  acute and very dramatic exposures, which can lead to
 6  death, to far more subtle and chronic effects on
 7  disease, risk and well-being.
 8              Perhaps the most common adverse effect
 9  is a loss of sense of well-being from the diminished
10  aesthetic value of a polluted environment.
11  Clinicians are more likely to be concerned with the
12  less common, more acute effects with clinical
13  consequences-acute responses, often in asthmatics,
14  for which a link to air pollution exposure, may be
15  made by history or challenge testing.  The more
16  subtle and long-term consequences are typically a
17  focus for public health researchers and regulators.
18              To interpret the scientific evidence on
19  the effects of air pollution, clinicians need a
20  framework to determine whether an effect is
21  adverse.  Judgment on the adversity of response is
22  societal and reflective of prevalent valuations and
23  perceptions of risk.  The Clean Air Act, it uses the
24  term "adverse" without a definition.
25              In a 1985 report, the Committee of the
00500
 1                 Irwin Berlin, M.D., ALA
 2  American Thoracic Society offered guidelines for
 3  defining adverse respiratory health effects in
 4  epidemiologic studies in outdoor air pollution.
 5              The Committee turned to a medical basis
 6  for this determination of finding adverse
 7  respiratory health effects as medically significant,
 8  physiological or pathological changes.
 9              So what are these effects on the health
10  of particulate and increased ozone air pollution?
11  Increase in daily mortality; increase in total
12  deaths; increase in respiratory deaths; increase in
13  cardiovascular deaths; increase in hospital usage,
14  specifically ER admissions, admissions to the
15  hospital; exacerbation of asthma; asthmatic attacks;
16  increase in the use of bronchodilators; increase in
17  respiratory symptom reports in the lower respiratory
18  tract, the upper respiratory tract; and the
19  increased incidence of cough; and specifically,
20  decrease in lung function; decrease in FEV 1;
21  decrease in peak expiratory flow.
22              So who are the populations that we are
23  talking about who are at risk?  Certainly you and I
24  are all at risk, but there are some people who are
25  obviously more susceptible:
00501
 1                 Irwin Berlin, M.D., ALA
 2              The asthmatic has a potential mechanism
 3  for increased airway responsiveness with increased
 4  risk for exacerbation and respiratory symptoms;
 5              Cigarette smokers have impaired defects,
 6  and they are at increased damage through synergists;
 7              The elderly have impaired respiratory
 8  defenses with reduced functional reserves.  And they
 9  are at increased risk for respiratory infection and
10  increased risk for clinically significant effects on
11  function.  We now know that seniors also face asthma
12  as a separate specific illness.  Asthma does occur
13  in the elderly.
14              Infants and children obviously also have
15  immature defense mechanisms of the lung, and they
16  are at increased risk.
17              Persons with coronary heart disease have
18  impaired myocardial oxygenation, and they are at
19  increased risk for myocardial ischemia.
20              And persons with COPD have reduced
21  levels of lung function, and they are at increased
22  risk for significant -- clinically significant
23  effects on function.
24              The American Lung Association of New
25  Jersey, as one of its prime focuses on outdoor air
00502
 1                 Irwin Berlin, M.D., ALA
 2  pollution, our goal is to prevent and control
 3  outdoor air pollution.
 4              Over 7.8 million people live in New
 5  Jersey and are exposed to unhealthy levels of air
 6  pollution, including 4.6 million Jerseyites who are
 7  particularly at risk from the health effects of air
 8  pollution.
 9              Asthma rates have been increasing with
10  current prevalence of approximately 540,000 persons
11  in New Jersey, and 150,000 children in New Jersey.
12              It has been shown in my hospital and
13  other hospitals in New Jersey that there are
14  increased levels of ozone in the air which resulted
15  in increased episodes of asthma and increased visits
16  to the emergency room and increased visits in
17  hospitalizations.
18              Nationwide approximately 60,000
19  premature deaths and 2,000 excess cancer death cases
20  are estimated to be caused by outdoor air
21  pollution.  The direct and indirect health and
22  productivity costs of outdoor air pollution are
23  estimated to be $50 billion each year.
24              The Lung Association, I remind the EPA,
25  should be a key source of expert information on the
00503
 1                 Irwin Berlin, M.D., ALA
 2  sources, health effects and control of outdoor
 3  pollution.  And we are instrumental in influencing
 4  the adoption and implementation of effective state
 5  and local air pollution control legislation and
 6  regulations.
 7              In New Jersey, when we look at in 1995,
 8  1996 and 1997, the number of high ozone days in the
 9  unhealthy range, despite the best effort, certainly
10  in my county of Union County that has 500,000
11  people, 98,000 children under the age of 14, 76,000
12  people over the age of 65.  We've had increasing
13  numbers of unhealthy high ozone days as recently as
14  last week.
15              American voters strongly favor requiring
16  car companies to make sport-utility vehicles and
17  minivans meet strict air pollution standards.
18  Nearly nine out of ten owners agreed that car
19  companies should be required to make these vehicles
20  meet the same strict air pollution standards as
21  passenger cars.
22              The survey also revealed that the voters
23  overwhelmingly support cleaner gasoline nationwide.
24  A vast majority of voters also are willing to pay up
25  to 2 cents more per gallon of cleaner gasoline that
00504
 1                 Irwin Berlin, M.D., ALA
 2  the United States and Environmental Protection
 3  Agency estimates it will cost.
 4              The survey results were released as you
 5  began your -- conducting your public hearing on new
 6  clean gasoline and clean air standards.
 7              According to the president of the
 8  American Lung Association, Ernest Frank, American
 9  voters --
10              MS. OGE:  Excuse me, Dr. Berlin, I
11  would like you to conclude your remarks.
12              MR. BERLIN:  Yes.  Two more minutes.
13              MS. OGE:  I didn't indicate to you
14  that there is an important person sitting in
15  front of you, John Guy.  And he has cards showing
16  the time that is left for each one of you.  So
17  please go to your remarks.
18              MR. BERLIN:  Thank you.
19              The public is demanding that the EPA
20  close the loophole that allows SUVs to pollute
21  more.  The auto industry is pushing to continue
22  special SUV loopholes to avoid or postpone air
23  pollution clean-up.
24              Much of the oil industry opposes
25  strong national clean gasoline standards and
00505
 1            Stacey Young for Peter Kostmeyer
 2  wants to allow dirtier, higher sulfur gasoline.
 3  We have already experienced smog problems this
 4  summer.
 5              In conclusion, there should be no
 6  special treatments for heavier vehicles; there
 7  should be no special treatment of diesel
 8  technologies; sulfur levels in gasoline should be
 9  lowered to 30 parts per million; there should be
10  increased incentives for advanced technology
11  vehicles.
12              Thank you.
13              MS. OGE:  Thank you.
14              Ms. Stacey Young.
15              MS. YOUNG:  Hi.
16              MS. OGE:  Hi.  Good afternoon.
17              MS. YOUNG:  My name is Stacey Young.
18  I am here representing Former-Congressman Peter
19  Kostmeyer.
20              Peter served as EPA's regional
21  administrator for the Middle Atlantic states and
22  served as the executive director of the nonprofit
23  environmental organization Zero Population
24  Growth.  Peter Kostmeyer is a U.S. Senate
25  candidate challenging the Pennsylvania State
00506
 1            Stacey Young for Peter Kostmeyer
 2  senate seat currently held by Rick Santorum.
 3              Today, as much of the nation
 4  experiences the beginning of 1999 smog season, we
 5  have a great opportunity to curb pollution from a
 6  much larger source, the automobile.  This should
 7  be among our nation's highest priorities.
 8              Air pollution threatens the health of
 9  at least 117 million Americans who live where
10  smog levels are a frequent health threat.  Those
11  who are among the most vulnerable to the health
12  impact of air pollution?  Children and people
13  with asthma.
14              There are over 15 million Americans
15  with asthma, 5 million of whom are children.  We
16  must establish pollution controls that protect
17  these vulnerable populations from smog.
18              Although we do have cleaner cars
19  today than two decades ago, automobile air
20  pollution is on the rise.  This is because people
21  drive more than ever and are choosing larger,
22  more polluting vehicles.  Therefore, we must
23  insist upon advances in automobile pollution
24  control technology in order to keep pace with the
25  trends toward more driving and larger vehicles.
00507
 1            Stacey Young for Peter Kostmeyer
 2              As "The New York Times" pointed out,
 3  the popularity of SUVs could obliterate recent
 4  improvements in air quality.  The EPA's Tier 2
 5  and gasoline sulfur proposal should be applauded,
 6  because it is a strong program that will lead to
 7  dramatically cleaner cars.
 8              Specifically I agree with EPA that
 9  new cars should pollute 90 percent less than
10  today's cars and a nationwide clean gasoline
11  standard is necessary to ensure that vehicle
12  pollution controls remain effective over the
13  lifetime of the car and the popular sport-utility
14  vehicle should be included in the program.
15              However, the EPA should strengthen
16  its standards in several important ways:  Number
17  one, no special treatment should be given to
18  bigger, dirtier SUVs.  EPA's proposal as written
19  will not require the clean-up of the largest and
20  dirtiest sport-utility vehicles on the market and
21  give some SUVs until 2009 before standards
22  applied.
23              This loophole creates clear incentive
24  for automobile manufacturers to aggressively make
25  and market ever-larger and more polluting SUVs.
00508
 1            Stacey Young for Peter Kostmeyer
 2  All cars and SUVs should meet the same pollution
 3  standards at the same time.
 4              Number two, no special treatment
 5  should be given to diesel vehicles.  Automobile
 6  makers are aggressively moving toward diesel
 7  engines in the largest passenger vehicles.  EPA's
 8  proposal leaves the door open for higher
 9  polluting diesel trucks to be sold indefinitely.
10              Number three, clean gasoline should
11  be given -- should be available earlier.  Under
12  EPA's proposal, high sulfur gasoline will be on
13  the market in significant quantities as late as
14  2006.
15              In 2004 when clean cars begin to come
16  off the assembly lines, clean gasoline should be
17  required nationwide to prevent measurable damage
18  to the car's pollution control equipment.
19              I am convinced that higher standards
20  are just as good for our economy as they are for
21  the environment.
22              The United States can and will
23  continue to have the most prosperous economy in
24  the world if we rise to the challenge by leading
25  the way in creating cleaner, safer and more
00509
 1               Olivia Conroy for Ann Geoke
 2  efficient technology.
 3              Again, thank you for the opportunity
 4  to speak.
 5              The EPA should be credited for
 6  proposing stringent standards for cars, and I
 7  urge the adoption of this program with the noted
 8  strengthening amendments.
 9              Thank you.
10              MS. OGE:  Thank you.
11              Ms. Olivia Conroy.
12              Good afternoon.
13              MS. CONROY:  Hello.  My name is
14  Olivia Conroy, and I am speaking today on behalf
15  of Ann Geoke.  She is the coordinator for
16  Lancaster Greens.
17              We are writing to voice our support
18  for cleaner air and the EPA's Tier 2 proposal to
19  cut auto pollution.  We are very concerned about
20  the health impacts that air pollution has already
21  had on our health.
22              We know that in Lancaster County
23  there has been an incredible increase of
24  breathing problems like asthma especially with
25  our children.
00510
 1               Olivia Conroy for Ann Geoke
 2              We have been advocating in our
 3  community for everyone to take serious notice of
 4  this increasing polluted air that we are exposed
 5  to daily.
 6              The warnings for dangerous bad air
 7  days have now started during spring rather than
 8  only during summertime.  This means there has
 9  been a tremendous increase during these past few
10  years.
11              This proposal will be a big step in
12  the right direction, but we request that three
13  things must be improved before you rule it as
14  final:
15              First, all passenger vehicles,
16  including minivans and SUVs, should meet the same
17  standards at the same time.  Larger SUVs should
18  not be given extra time to clean up;
19              Second, there should be no special
20  breaks for dirty diesel vehicles;
21              And finally, the EPA should do more
22  to get advanced technology vehicles on the road.
23              We urge you to create a strong
24  regulation to control auto pollution and help
25  clean our air.  If we begin to reverse this
00511
 1           Elissa Underwood for Jerome Butler
 2  destructive trend, we will not only help the
 3  people who are now suffering from asthma due to
 4  polluted air, but in the long run you will save
 5  lots of unnecessary money to be spent due to an
 6  unhealthy community.
 7              We have a membership of 85 people,
 8  and we firmly believe that we have a right to
 9  clean air and urge our government to protect this
10  right.
11              Thank you.
12              MS. OGE:  Thank you.
13              Elissa Underwood.
14              MS. UNDERWOOD:  I am speaking on
15  behalf of Jerome Butler, director of the
16  Environmental Law Project at the Public Interest
17  Law Center of Philadelphia.
18              I want to support EPA's Tier 2
19  proposal for the control of emissions of
20  automobiles, sport-utility vehicles and
21  light-duty trucks.
22              The EPA proposal developed after
23  years of study is a compromise between components
24  of more stringent standards to improve the human
25  and ecological environments and performance will
00512
 1  
 2  allow us to degrade our environment in their
 3  mistaken belief that such degradations will
 4  improve their bottom-line profits.
 5              Industry, in opposing Tier 2, is
 6  acting in its traditional manner when in the
 7  1970s and 1980s EPA implemented the first auto
 8  emission inspection and maintenance regulations.
 9  Industry forecasted that the sky would fall; the
10  sky didn't fall but industry now repeats the same
11  theme song.
12              The EPA's Tier 2 is not a radical
13  proposal.  It is designed merely to maintain the
14  present quality of our air environment; that is
15  the least the nation should expect of the EPA.
16              Thank you.
17              MS. OGE:  Thank you.
18              Any questions?
19              Thank you very much.  Thank you for
20  taking the time to come and share your views with
21  us.
22              Mr. Keith McKay, Mr. Andrew Altman,
23  Mr. Jonathan Sinker, Ms. Britta Ipri, Ms. Heather
24  Cornell, Mr. Peter Michele.
25              Place print your names and your
00513
 1          Keith McKay for Richard Levine, M.D.
 2  affiliation of the organization that you are
 3  with, also.  And I would like to remind you to
 4  please keep your remarks to ten minutes or less.
 5  John is helping you out with that.  Now we have a
 6  sign giving you a warning at one minute and then
 7  no time left.
 8              We will start with Mr. Keith McKay.
 9              MR. McKAY:  Good afternoon.
10              MS. OGE:  Good afternoon.
11              MR. McKAY:  I am actually testifying
12  on behalf of Richard Levine, who is a family
13  practitioner for Tatem Brown Family Practice
14  Center.
15              MS. OGE:  Would you please speak
16  closer to the mike, if you can?
17              MR. McKAY:  What may seem like common
18  sense today was often met with criticism during
19  the last three decades; for example, who in their
20  right mind would allow a child to ride a bicycle
21  without a helmet, yet when we were growing up
22  nobody wore helmets.
23              Seat belts were often disconnected so
24  the annoying buzzer wouldn't sound, allowing
25  people to drive without being restrained, without
00514
 1          Keith McKay for Richard Levine, M.D.
 2  a seat belt.  How long did it take for seat belts
 3  to become the rule rather than the exception?
 4              The more modern example is the use of
 5  the air bag.  General Motors introduced air bags
 6  in the 1970s but they did not become popular
 7  until the mid 1980s, until it was sued by a car-
 8  accident victim because the Ford she was driving
 9  did not have an air bag yet.  It was common
10  knowledge at the time that air bags protected
11  occupants better than seat belts alone.
12              Obviously the public has been
13  clamoring for increased safety in vehicles for
14  many years but is only now beginning to see the
15  impact of vehicles on the environment.
16              As a family physician I have
17  witnessed firsthand the effects of pollution on
18  human beings.  More and more children are being
19  diagnosed with asthma and the symptoms are
20  increasingly difficult to control.
21              Although difficult to prove, it has
22  been postulated by leading researchers in
23  pulmonary medicine that the rise in asthma rates
24  since the early 1980s is directly related to the
25  amounts of ozone in the environment.
00515
 1          Keith McKay for Richard Levine, M.D.
 2              Not only are children at risk, but
 3  also the elderly and persons with pulmonary
 4  problems.
 5              Just today a 23-year-old patient of
 6  mine is having difficulty breathing because of
 7  the excessive heat and ozone triggered by her
 8  asthma.  Why treat asthma with medications if we
 9  can prevent it from occurring in the first
10  place?
11              On days when air pollution is at its
12  worst, my office is busier than usual with
13  patients suffering from respiratory problems.
14              I support cleaner air and the EPA's
15  Tier 2 proposal to cut auto pollution.  There
16  should not be the special treatment for trucks,
17  minivans and SUVs.  Now that these vehicles
18  account for over half of Ford's and Chrysler's
19  sales in the U.S., it is obvious that these
20  vehicles should be viewed in the same light as
21  passenger cars.
22              Car manufacturers have the technology
23  now to cut emissions, so why allow them ten years
24  to phase in stricter tailpipe emissions?
25              Ten years from now, it will seem like
00516
 1            Andrew Altman, Clean Air Council
 2  common sense that the government should have
 3  treated trucks just like passenger cars in our
 4  duty to clean our air.
 5              Aren't our children worth it?
 6              Thank you.
 7              MS. OGE:  Dr. McKay, thank you.
 8              Mr. Andrew Altman.
 9              MR. ALTMAN:  Good afternoon.  My name
10  is Andrew Altman.  I am deputy director of Clean
11  Air Council.  Clean Air Council is Pennsylvania's
12  leading environmental advocacy organization
13  working on air issues.  The Council has offices
14  in Philadelphia and Harrisburg, and the Council
15  has been working for the last 32 years to protect
16  everyone's right to breathe clean air.
17              The Council is perhaps best known for
18  its willingness to sue the U.S. EPA and
19  Commonwealth of Pennsylvania when they do not
20  properly implement the Clean Air Act.
21              Air pollution is dangerous for all of
22  us.  It is even a more serious problem for
23  children, the elderly and people with preexisting
24  respiratory diseases.  The group health
25  professionals are most concerned about are
00517
 1            Andrew Altman, Clean Air Council
 2  children with asthma.  Asthma rates among
 3  children are up 75 percent since 1980 with 4.6
 4  million children suffering from asthma.
 5              In 1998, Pennsylvania had 616
 6  recorded exceedences of the eight-hour health
 7  standard.  Most Pennsylvanians are still
 8  regularly exposed to unhealthful levels of
 9  ozone.  In the Philadelphia Area, Montgomery
10  County exceeded the eight-hour standard on 19
11  different occasions in 1998.  Bucks County had
12  14, Philadelphia County 27 and Delaware County
13  had 19.  Pittsburgh had a record of 33
14  exceedences.
15              During the summer of 1998, 27
16  Pennsylvania counties exceeded the eight-hour
17  standard, and 31 other states and the District of
18  Columbia have similarly severe ozone
19  exceedences.
20              The same anti-environmental forces
21  that are delaying the implementation of the
22  revised eight-hour ozone standard and new fine
23  particulate standard, both health-based, are now
24  in front of the EPA trying to delay these mobile
25  source emission proposals.
00518
 1            Andrew Altman, Clean Air Council
 2              And the Air Council calls on EPA
 3  today to close the loophole for SUVs and other
 4  light trucks, set national standards for
 5  low-sulfur gasoline, and require the engines of
 6  all passenger cars, whether diesel- or gasoline-
 7  powered to meet the same low emissions standards.
 8              Support for Tier 2:  There can be no
 9  doubt about the public health need for cleaner
10  motor vehicles.
11              Americans now drive 2.5 trillion
12  miles per year, more than doubling 1970 levels.
13  Cars and light trucks spew out more than 30
14  percent of the smog throwing oxides of nitrogen
15  that fouls the air in the Philadelphia area.
16              Improvements in the emissions for new
17  passenger vehicles are being offset by the
18  dramatic trends in purchases of SUVs.  Sales of
19  these vehicles are now equal to the sales of the
20  traditional passenger vehicles.
21              According to the survey done by the
22  American Lung Association, America strongly
23  favors uniform national clean gasoline standards
24  and are even willing to pay more for cleaner
25  gasoline if it will result in clean air --
00519
 1            Andrew Altman, Clean Air Council
 2  cleaner air.
 3              Significant advances have been made
 4  in vehicle emissions and control technology.
 5  These advances are continuing.  The advanced
 6  technologies on the market today are the result
 7  of the technology-forcing nature of the low
 8  emission vehicle programs.
 9              EPA must strengthen and simplify the
10  national low emission program to guarantee
11  emission reductions.  EPA has chosen to follow
12  the California model in allowing emission goals
13  to be calculated on a per company average rather
14  than a per vehicle average or basis.
15              The Council believes that the
16  California approach may not be translated to a
17  much larger national program with integrity.  The
18  section of the proposal rule which adds extra
19  emission bins and vehicle categories extends
20  deadlines for full compliance.
21              In particular, the proposal to allow
22  higher emissions and later deadlines for heavier
23  light-duty trucks makes the proposed system
24  vulnerable to fraud and delay.
25              The Council makes the following
00520
 1            Andrew Altman, Clean Air Council
 2  recommendations:  EPA should substantially
 3  shorten the compliance schedule of the heavier
 4  SUVs to 2005;
 5              EPA should eliminate extra provisions
 6  that provide for an allowable higher emission
 7  level for heavy vehicles;
 8              EPA should not include a formal
 9  technology review of the Tier 2 standards;
10              EPA as it monitors the Tier 2
11  implementation can adjust the program.  It is
12  unnecessary and unwise for the formal review
13  provision to be included in the final rule;
14              EPA should delete from the average
15  banking and trading portion of the proposed rule
16  any ability of an automobile manufacturer to
17  address violations of emission unit also by
18  borrowing emission reduction credits from the
19  next model year.
20              The program will be meaningful only
21  if participants are required to meet targets on
22  time.
23              At yesterday's hearing Mr. German
24  from Honda Motor Company expressed why the
25  Council supports the adoption of the National Low
00521
 1            Andrew Altman, Clean Air Council
 2  Sulfur in -- Low Sulfur in Fuel Program.
 3              He stated sulfur -- I quote from
 4  him:  "Sulfur is a catalyst poison which has many
 5  detrimental effects.  It is a barrier to reaching
 6  low emission levels; it is a barrier to the
 7  introduction of new technologies."
 8              Unless EPA is willing to be
 9  aggressive in its implementation of the national
10  low sulfur fuel program, automobile manufacturers
11  will be delayed in implementing significant
12  reductions in vehicle emission controls.
13              Honda then goes on to conclude that
14  the Tier 2 standards proposed by EPA are
15  technically feasible.
16              The Clean Air Council believes that
17  EPA is wrong and that its proposal does not
18  deliver cleaner gasoline at that time, the same
19  time that the new technology vehicles are
20  required under NLEV and Tier 2 to become
21  available to consumers.
22              The Council makes the following
23  recommendations:
24              EPA should phase in more quickly its
25  caps for sulfur and fuel;
00522
 1      Jonathan Sinker, National Environmental Trust
 2              EPA must tighten its trading rules in
 3  order to prevent pockets of high sulfur gasoline;
 4              EPA should reject the suggestion by
 5  some interested parties to adopt a more regional
 6  approach to sulfur in fuel.  Sulfur is poison to
 7  a car's pollution control equipment, wherever
 8  that car may be driven.
 9              On diesel, Americans overwhelmingly
10  believe that the diesel fuel vehicles should have
11  the same or equivalent strict emission standards
12  as gasoline vehicles.  Every vehicle designed
13  primarily for passenger use should meet the same
14  pollution control standards regardless of the
15  chosen fuel vehicle weight or engine type.
16              In conclusion, Clean Air Council
17  reserves the right to submit more detailed
18  testimony in writing before the close of the
19  comment period.  Any questions to this testimony
20  should be addressed to Joseph Minott, our
21  executive director.
22              Thank you very much.
23              MS. OGE:  Thank you.
24              Mr. Jonathan Sinker.
25              MR. SINKER:  My name is Jonathan
00523
 1      Jonathan Sinker, National Environmental Trust
 2  Sinker.  I am the organizer for the National
 3  Environmental Trust in Pennsylvania and
 4  Delaware.  The Environmental Trust is a
 5  nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to
 6  educating the American public on contemporary
 7  environmental issues.
 8              Since it was founded in 1995 at the
 9  Environmental Information Center, NET has worked
10  to promote strong health, safety and
11  environmental protections on issues including
12  food, air, drinking water, safety, local climate
13  change, public right-to-know policies, and
14  endangered species protection.
15              Clean Air Act mandates that EPA set
16  national ambient air quality standards that will
17  protect public health.  There is no doubt that
18  the air in Pennsylvania and Delaware is not
19  protective of public health.
20              In 1998, Pennsylvania had 16 -- 616
21  readings where the eight-hour standard was
22  exceeded.  Most Pennsylvanians are still
23  regularly exposed to unhealthful levels of ozone.
24              In the Philadelphia area, if you live
25  in Montgomery County, the eight-hour standard was
00524
 1      Jonathan Sinker, National Environmental Trust
 2  exceeded on 19 different occasions; 14 times in
 3  Bucks County; 27 times in Philadelphia County;
 4  and 19 times in Delaware County.
 5              During the summer of 1998, 27
 6  Pennsylvania counties exceeded the eight-hour
 7  standard.  In Delaware the reading exceeded the
 8  eight-hour standard 88 times in 1998.
 9              Air pollution is dangerous for all of
10  us.  It is an even more serious problem for
11  children, the elderly and people with preexisting
12  respiratory diseases.  The group most health
13  professionals are concerned about are children
14  with asthma.
15              Asthma rates among children are up 75
16  percent since 1980 with 4.6 million children
17  suffering from asthma.  Ozone is responsible for
18  up to 10 percent of all hospital admissions
19  during the summer.
20              Ozone is a powerful lung irritant.
21  It can inflame lungs and cause harmful changes in
22  breathing problems.  According to the American
23  Lung Association, ozone pollution even at low
24  levels has the ability to increase hospital
25  admissions and emergency room visits and
00525
 1      Jonathan Sinker, National Environmental Trust
 2  respiratory problems.
 3              Exposure to elevated levels of ozone
 4  is particularly a problem for children because
 5  the respiratory system is still being developed,
 6  and they breathe more air per pound for body
 7  weight than adults.
 8              The United States is currently
 9  responsible for about 25 percent of the growth
10  for global warming gases.  The Tier 2 proposal
11  will have the important benefit of lowering
12  global warming gas emission.
13              NET joins the rest of the
14  environmental community in supporting the EPA's
15  Tier 2 low-sulfur gasoline proposal.  The
16  national environmental trust calls on EPA today
17  to:
18              Number one, close the loophole for
19  SUVs and other light trucks.  The SUV emission
20  loophole that allows such cars to pollute three
21  to five times more than passenger cars needed to
22  be addressed and it has been obvious for years.
23  Yet only now is EPA proposing to act.  And even
24  now it acts in a way that will still exempt the
25  largest SUVs, the worst polluters expeditiously
00526
 1      Jonathan Sinker, National Environmental Trust
 2  reducing their emissions.
 3              Number two, set national standards
 4  for low-sulfur gasoline.  Sulfur is poisonous for
 5  pollution control devices on cars.  New tougher
 6  emission standards being proposed today cannot be
 7  achieved with dirty gasoline.
 8              And number three, require the engines
 9  of all passenger cars whether diesel or
10  gasoline-powered meet the same low emission
11  standards.
12              Americans overwhelmingly believe that
13  diesel fuel vehicles should have the same,
14  equivalent, strict emission standards as gasoline
15  vehicles.
16              Every vehicle designed primarily for
17  passengers' use should meet the same pollution
18  control standards regardless of the chosen fuel,
19  vehicle weight or engine type.  There can be no
20  doubt about the public health need for cleaner
21  motor vehicles.
22              NET reserves the right to submit
23  additional written comments during the comment
24  period.  Thank you.
25              MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Ms. Britta
00527
 1              Britta Ipri, ALA of Maryland
 2  Ipri?  Is that how you pronounce your name?
 3              MS. IPRI:  Yep.  You got it right on
 4  the first try.
 5              My name is Britta Ipri speaking on
 6  behalf on the American Lung Association of
 7  Maryland.
 8              The American Lung Association of
 9  Maryland applauds the efforts of the EPA to make
10  our air safer to breathe by cutting pollution
11  from automobiles.  This comes at a time when
12  asthma rates are on the rise and more people than
13  ever before are vulnerable to severe health
14  impacts of air pollution.
15              It is clearly evident our nation
16  needs the strongest possible air regulation
17  controlling our pollution from all major sources.
18              Right now Maryland has a very serious
19  air pollution problem.  Maryland alone had over
20  54 violations of the new eight-hour health
21  standard for smog last summer.  A report released
22  in 1996 revealed that Baltimore, Maryland, ranked
23  second only to Los Angeles in the number of
24  respiratory-related hospital emissions and
25  emergency room visits related to air quality.
00528
 1              Britta Ipri, ALA of Maryland
 2              Children, the elderly and those with
 3  respiratory illnesses are most at risk.  Asthma
 4  rates in children have increased 75 percent since
 5  1980.  Automobiles are the largest non-industrial
 6  source of smog-forming nitrogen oxides.
 7              This proposal is a big step in the
 8  right direction, but there are a few things that
 9  should be improved before the rules become
10  final.
11              First, there should be no special
12  treatment for heavier vehicles.  All passenger
13  vehicles including minivans and SUVs should meet
14  the same standards at the same time.  Larger SUVs
15  should not be given extra time to clean up.
16              Right now the proposal includes a
17  separate schedule for these heavier vehicles.
18  These vehicles will have more protection
19  standards than any other vehicle class.
20              The industry has always responded
21  with new technologies and products when standards
22  are firm and deadlines are reasonable.
23              The ten-year phase-in schedule for
24  heavier vehicles far exceeds any phase-in period
25  for passenger vehicles ever proposed.  This
00529
 1              Britta Ipri, ALA of Maryland
 2  schedule asks the victims of air pollution to
 3  once again wait for relief.
 4              If anything, the time line should be
 5  shortened.  In addition, this proposal does
 6  nothing to clean up super-sized SUVs such as the
 7  Ford Excursion.  This could lead to increased
 8  sales and production of these overgrown passenger
 9  cars.  Heavy-duty trucks should be required to
10  clean up their emissions as well.
11              Second, there should not be any
12  special treatment of diesel technologies.  All
13  vehicles, regardless of engine or fuel use should
14  meet the same public health standards.  There is
15  no logical justification for special treatment
16  for diesel technologies, yet the Tier 2 proposal
17  has created two vehicle categories that would
18  permanently allow diesel engines to pollute twice
19  as much soot as gasoline engines and up to ten
20  times as much smog-forming nitrogen oxide.
21              Given the toxic and likely
22  carcinogenic nature of diesel exhausts, there
23  should be no incentives to increase the amount of
24  diesel vehicles on the road.
25              Third, the sulfur levels in gasoline
00530
 1              Britta Ipri, ALA of Maryland
 2  should be lowered to 30 parts per million.  The
 3  current proposal will reduce sulfur content in
 4  gasoline but will allow an extended timetable for
 5  small refiners.  Low-sulfur gasoline needs to be
 6  adopted nationally at the same time as the new
 7  emission standards.
 8              By allowing some refiners to continue
 9  to produce dirty gasoline, there will be negative
10  impacts on the pollution control technologies of
11  newer and cleaner cars.  We believe people are
12  willing to pay the extra 1 to 2 cents per gallon
13  that it will take to clean up sulfur levels if it
14  will mean being able to breath cleaner air.
15              And, fourth, there should be no --
16  there should be increased incentives for advanced
17  technology vehicles.  The new standards do not
18  provide sufficient incentives to spur the
19  development of cleaner technologies such as
20  battery electric and fuel-cell powered cars.
21              In other words, to move the market
22  toward-future-advanced technology vehicles, EPA
23  must do more to get more of these vehicles on the
24  road.
25              The Tier 2 proposal is a strong start
00531
 1            Heather Cornell for Jeremy Focht
 2  to reducing air pollution; however, since this
 3  decision will affect our air quality for decades
 4  to come, we cannot afford to risk the public
 5  health by documenting a proposal that does not
 6  address the above-mentioned areas of concern.
 7              We need the strongest possible
 8  regulations to control air pollution.
 9              On behalf of the American Lung
10  Association of Maryland, thank you again for your
11  leadership on this issue.
12              MS. OGE:  Thank you.
13              Ms. Heather Cornell.
14              MS. CORNELL:  I am speaking today on
15  behalf of Mr. Jeremy Focht.  He is a research
16  process engineer with the agricultural chemical
17  division of Rohm & Haas Corporation.
18              As a practicing chemical engineer,
19  part of my job deals with ensuring that our
20  company's chemical processes will be able to
21  adhere to strict EPA guidelines.
22              Air emissions from chemical plants
23  are highly regulated by the EPA, and rightfully
24  so.  But for an industry that is perceived to be
25  a large polluter by many, an examination of the
00532
 1            Heather Cornell for Jeremy Focht
 2  1997 EPA statistics tells a different story.
 3              The chemical industry contributes to
 4  seven-tenths of 1 percent of nitrogen oxides, 1.5
 5  percent of carbon monoxide, and 2.4 percent of
 6  the volatile organic compound emissions.
 7              However, on-the-road vehicles
 8  contribute to 29.8 percent of NOx, 57.5 percent
 9  of carbon monoxide, and 27.2 percent of VOC
10  emissions in the United States.
11              The chemical industry has worked hard
12  over the past several decades to curb our
13  emissions, and it's time for the transportation
14  industry to use all available technology to put
15  forth a serious effort to decrease their
16  emissions.
17              I urge the EPA to adopt the Tier 2
18  standards.  The Tier 2 standards would allow for
19  a consistent approach to emissions control.
20  Instead of exempting the fastest growing portion
21  of the automobile industry, the current emission
22  requirements should be extended to include
23  sport-utility vehicles and light-duty trucks.
24              In fact, we need to go further than
25  the Tier 2 requirements by extending the current
00533
 1            Heather Cornell for Jeremy Focht
 2  emission standards immediately, not in 2004.
 3              In addition, certain emission
 4  standards should be applied to all vehicles that
 5  travel our nation's roadways.  With the
 6  diesel-powered vehicles contributing 26 percent
 7  of the xOx emissions and over 60 percent of the
 8  particulate emissions from all U.S. vehicles, any
 9  standards not addressed in this transportation
10  class would be incomplete at best.
11              It seems absurd that I can spend $50
12  for an emissions test for my compact car only to
13  pull away from the service station into a cloud
14  of black diesel exhaust of a passing
15  semi-trailer.
16              The Tier 2 emission standards coupled
17  with the reduction of sulfur in gasoline would
18  help to reduce acid rain formation, decrease the
19  formation of smog in urban areas and help make
20  the air safer for us all to breathe.
21              The adoption of the Tier 2 standards
22  is not only a sound environmental investment but
23  also a cost-effective way of achieving beneficial
24  environmental results.
25              The extra $200 required per SUV to
00534
 1                  Peter Michele - GEET
 2  bring it into emission compliance amounts to less
 3  than 1 percent of that vehicle's cost.  The
 4  sport-utility vehicle market that sells thousands
 5  of vehicles for prices that would pay for two of
 6  many other vehicles, this additional cost should
 7  not be considered as a deterrent for extending
 8  emissions guidelines.
 9              In closing, on-road vehicles
10  contribute a large portion of the total U.S. air
11  emissions in a number of different categories.
12  The Tier 2 standards would be an important step
13  in reducing on-road vehicle emission.
14              In addition, I urge the EPA to extend
15  guidelines to all on-road vehicles.  The Tier 2
16  standards lend consistency to air emissions
17  guidelines across the industry, and I believe
18  that the EPA should adopt the Tier 2 standards.
19              Thank you for your time.
20              MS. OGE:  Thank you.
21              Mr. Peter -- is it Michele?
22              MR. MICHELE:  Michele, yes.
23              My name is Peter Michele.  I am a New
24  Jersey resident and an advocate for a cleaner
25  environment.  And I am here today on a volunteer
00535
 1                  Peter Michele - GEET
 2  basis to represent Global Environmental Energy
 3  Technology in support of the stricter Tier 2
 4  standards.
 5              I have listened to a lot of the
 6  stories presented here today by people who are
 7  themselves suffering from asthma or relating
 8  stories of close relatives or children with
 9  asthma.  I found myself able to fully relate to
10  their pleas for cleaner air, myself having a 31-
11  year-old sister who has suffered immensely from
12  asthma for over 15 years.  In 1991 my sister was
13  hospitalized 29 times for severe asthma.  That's
14  insane.
15              And while air pollution from vehicles
16  is not the sole cause of this, I cannot count the
17  number of times I've seen her condition
18  exacerbated on ozone alert days.
19              Only three weeks ago she was
20  hospitalized again for a week with severe
21  asthma.  I can't tell you how many times I've
22  feared she might die and watch my parents worry
23  so much about her.  She is not getting any better
24  with her condition.  She really needs cleaner air
25  to breathe.
00536
 1                  Peter Michele - GEET
 2              Being frustrated with this situation
 3  for years and realizing that air pollution was a
 4  significant contributing factor, I searched for
 5  solutions to help reduce the pollution.
 6              Realizing that money, unfortunately,
 7  makes the modern industrial world go round versus
 8  love, I knew it to be a solution that industry
 9  could both live and benefit from.  It had to be a
10  win/win arrangement between the industrialists
11  and the people they serve.
12              After years of looking for such a
13  solution, I found a humanitarian-based company
14  who puts people before profits and who offered a
15  solution.  The company's name is GEET, Global
16  Environmental Energy Technology, and they have
17  the technology to reduce air pollution today, not
18  five to ten years from now.  And it is economical
19  and well within the reach of consumers, not like
20  some $200,000 hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle.
21              GEET has over 400 inventions from
22  inventors all over the world who wanted to help
23  the environment.  Many of these technologies are
24  far in advance of what most engineers and
25  scientists would currently consider being
00537
 1                  Peter Michele - GEET
 2  possible.
 3              Specifically today, I would like just
 4  to mention one of these technologies, known as
 5  the GEET fuel pre-treater that was patented last
 6  August.  Use of this fuel pre-treater, which
 7  consists of a specially designed reaction
 8  chamber, effectively converts both gasoline and
 9  diesel as well as crude oil and a host of other
10  unlikely fuels to a new fuel there, GEET gas,
11  which is rich in hydrogen and burns extremely
12  clean.
13              With GEET fuel pre-treaters,
14  emissions can be reduced by 95 percent while the
15  engine gets double the fuel mileage.  In
16  addition, engines have been shown to have a
17  longer life expectancy, from two to ten times the
18  standard, due to the cleaner fuel.
19              Although I am not an expert in
20  chemistry, I am able to comprehend common sense.
21  And the dramatic results GEET has achieved have
22  made far more sense to me than various other
23  industry proposals I have heard and reviewed thus
24  far.
25              A hot topic here today has been the
00538
 1                  Peter Michele - GEET
 2  reduction of sulfur in fuel.  I just spoke with
 3  the inventer, Paul Pantone (ph.) of Salt Lake
 4  City a few minutes ago and mentioned this.  I
 5  asked him:  What about sulfur?
 6              He said:  They have not yet performed
 7  tests for sulfur emissions as of yet.  But he
 8  related to me they ran a stand-alone 10
 9  horsepower-engine in a closed room for eight and
10  a half hours using sulfur-rich crude oil as
11  fuel.  Testing the emissions showed zero carbon
12  monoxide, zero carbon and zero hydrocarbons.
13              Also prior to the run, the air in the
14  room showed an oxygen content of 21 percent.
15  After the run the oxygen in the room was 23
16  percent.
17              Think of what this would mean in
18  Mexico City or Los Angeles:  Clean the air as you
19  drive.
20              GEET has demonstrated a 1985 Suburban
21  with the GEET retrofit.  It was factory equipped
22  with four-wheel drive without overdrive with a
23  normal fuel rating of 8 miles per gallon.  They
24  currently get between 20 and 32 miles per gallon
25  using mixtures of half gas, half water.
00539
 1                  Peter Michele - GEET
 2              The standard hydrocarbons for this
 3  vehicle are 120 to 240 parts per million; they
 4  are getting 5 to 10 parts per million.
 5              They've ruined diesel and gas engines
 6  on junk fuels including coffee, soda pop, battery
 7  acid, used oil, used transmission fluid, and a
 8  host of other unlikely fuels in front of
 9  audiences.
10              There are employees from GM, Ford and
11  Chrysler who purchased plans on how to build a
12  GEET retrofit and put them on their own personal
13  vehicles but they say they haven't fared well in
14  presenting this technology to their companies
15  mostly viewed to an inordinate level of
16  scepticism.
17              People who have built these units
18  themselves have even gotten a 90 percent
19  reduction in emissions using used motor oil as
20  fuel.
21              With such technology available today,
22  what are we waiting for in the country?  GEET is
23  currently negotiating licensing agreements with
24  car and bus manufacturers in China, Korea and
25  Japan who use GEET devices on an OEM basis.
00540
 1                  Peter Michele - GEET
 2              I would like to commend several of
 3  the auto manufacturers here today.  Some of your
 4  efforts seem genuinely sincere while perhaps
 5  others are offering empty excuses for deadline
 6  extensions and for putting limits on the Tier 2
 7  standards.
 8              Let me just close by saying that I
 9  have not and will not receive a dime from GEET or
10  anyone else for being here today and that I have
11  been working for GEET on a volunteer basis for
12  several months.  Global Environmental Energy
13  Technology has committed themselves to helping
14  heal the environment.
15              It is donating a minimum of up 25
16  percent of all company profits back to the
17  community that purchase GEET technology.  This
18  money will be used to continue helping the
19  environment and the people of those areas.
20              On behalf of GEET, myself and my
21  sister, I thank you so much.  I deeply appreciate
22  your consideration.  Your Tier 2 standards are
23  exactly what the doctor ordered.
24              MS. OGE:  Thank you.  I would like to
25  thank all of you for taking the time to come
00541
 1                   Peter Joseph, Ph.D.
 2  forward and give us your views about the Tier 2
 3  program.  Thank you very much.
 4              And I would ask -- I would like to
 5  ask the next panel to please come forward.  Dr.
 6  Peter Joseph, Ms. Kitty Campbell, Ms. Mindy
 7  Maslin, Mr. David Cohen, Eric Waters, and Mr.
 8  Denis Winter.
 9              Please print your name on the piece
10  of paper.  John is going to give you a piece of
11  paper.
12              We will start with Dr. Joseph -- oh,
13  I'm sorry, let's see.
14              MR. JOSEPH:  Good afternoon.  Let me
15  introduce myself.
16              MS. OGE:  Peter -- Dr. Peter Joseph.
17              MR. JOSEPH:  Dr. Peter Joseph, yes.
18  I am a Ph.D., not an M.D.
19              I am a professor in the School of
20  Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania here
21  in Philadelphia.  I am also a member of the
22  Philadelphia Asthma Task Force, which is a
23  special asthma group of experts appointed by the
24  City of Philadelphia Department of Health.
25              My talk today is called the Air
00542
 1                   Peter Joseph, Ph.D.
 2  Pollution Crisis in Philadelphia.  And I suspect
 3  that some of the things I say will be in
 4  disagreement with some of the other opinions that
 5  you have heard today.  However I want to
 6  emphasize that there is no one in this room that
 7  is more passionately devoted to clean air than I
 8  am.
 9              My talk takes just five minutes to
10  read, and it is a series of questions and
11  answers.
12              "Question 1:  Do we have an air
13  pollution crisis in Philadelphia?
14              "ANSWER:  Something is seriously
15  wrong with the air we breath in the Philadelphia
16  region.  Over the last six years, asthma rates
17  have skyrocketed far beyond anything that has
18  ever been seen in the history of the world.
19  Whereas the national average for asthma
20  prevalence is about 6 percent, recent studies in
21  Philadelphia school children are showing rates of
22  25 to 35 percent.  That was not true in 1993 when
23  a study by Harvard doctors found only 7 percent."
24              And I have a graph here for those of
25  you interested to illustrate that.
00543
 1                   Peter Joseph, Ph.D.
 2              "A similar situation exists in a few
 3  other places, most notably New York City.  A New
 4  York City Health Department survey in 1998 found
 5  23 percent of the children had asthma as
 6  diagnosed by the physicians.
 7              A study recently reported in the
 8  "New York Times" showed that homeless children
 9  in New York had an asthma rate of 38 percent --"
10  sounds like there is a missing decimal point
11  there, doesn't it?  "-- 38 percent, far higher
12  than anything that has ever been seen at any time
13  in the history of the human race."
14              Wow.
15              "QUESTION:  Isn't asthma increasing
16  everywhere?
17              "ANSWER:  Yes.  But not nearly as
18  much.  For example, in New York State as opposed
19  to City, New York State had a survey in 1997
20  show, quote, only, unquote, 7 percent prevalence,
21  far less than New York City or Philadelphia.
22              "QUESTION 3:  Isn't the EPA doing
23  everything possible to reduce air pollution in
24  Philadelphia?
25              "ANSWER:  The problem is that
00544
 1                   Peter Joseph, Ph.D.
 2  according to all conventional measures, the air
 3  in Philadelphia and New York City is now cleaner
 4  than it has been in many years.  This includes
 5  ozone, includes sulfur and particulate pollution
 6  that are being discussed in this forum.  The most
 7  obvious conclusion is that there is some unusual
 8  new pollutant that the EPA has overlooked."
 9              And that's my thesis, there is
10  something.
11              "QUESTION:  Is there something
12  unusual about Philadelphia and New York that can
13  explain these disastrous results?
14              "ANSWER:  Yes.  Both regions have
15  been required by the EPA to have high levels of
16  the chemical MTBE in their gasoline since 1992,
17  which I remind you is exactly when the skyrocket
18  began.
19              "QUESTION:  Is there any reason to
20  think that MTBE in gasoline is causing this
21  epidemic?
22              "ANSWER:  Yes.  An epidemic of
23  various respiratory and/or neurologic problems
24  when MTBE was required in Alaska in 1992 and the
25  state government defied the EPA and banned the
00545
 1                   Peter Joseph, Ph.D.
 2  substance.  Since then, literally thousands of
 3  people have been complaining that the gasoline or
 4  exhaust fumes are making them sick.
 5  Unfortunately, the EPA ignored these complaints
 6  and steadfastly required that we continue to use
 7  MTBE in our gasoline.
 8              "QUESTION:  Isn't MTBE making
 9  gasoline burn cleaner and reduce air pollution?
10              "ANSWER:  Not according to two
11  separate studies released by the National Academy
12  of Sciences.  Their 1996 report said MTBE is not
13  really reducing carbon monoxide.  And the recent
14  1999 report said it is not reducing ozone.  In
15  fact, both carbon monoxide and ozone are now
16  lower than they have been in many years and
17  cannot possibly explain the increase in asthma
18  that has occurred here since 1992."
19              It makes absolutely no sense to blame
20  this on ozone.
21              "QUESTION:  Isn't MTBE reducing air
22  toxins such as benzene?
23              "ANSWER:  That depends on how you
24  define, 'toxins.'  MTBE definitely increases --"
25  underline increases "-- the emission of
00546
 1                   Peter Joseph, Ph.D.
 2  formaldehyde, formic acid and methanol, all of
 3  them toxic to the respiratory or neurological
 4  systems.
 5               "More important, the EPA has not
 6  done a complete job of analyzing the toxic
 7  chemicals produced.  They have studied emissions
 8  of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen, but not
 9  of compounds formed from both nitrogen and
10  hydrocarbon.
11              "I believe that MTBE is producing
12  methyl nitrite, a chemical that is literally 100
13  times more toxic than benzene."
14              Let me say that again:  Methyl
15  nitrite is 100 times more toxic than benzene.
16              "There have been no attempts to
17  determine if methyl nitrite is being produced or
18  how much of it is in our air."
19              By the way, it is made in --
20  definitely made in diesel exhaust.  There is a
21  paper about this, if you are interested.
22              "QUESTION:  Is there any reason to
23  think that methyl nitrite is a problem?
24              "ANSWER:  Yes.  Because it is
25  destroyed by sunlight but will be present at
00547
 1                 Kitty Campbell, PA PIRG
 2  night or on dark cloudy days.  Many people
 3  experience their worst symptoms on such days.
 4  Furthermore, most asthma attacks occur at night
 5  and not during the daytime when ozone is at its
 6  maximum.
 7              "QUESTION:  How can one learn more
 8  about this problem?
 9              "ANSWER:  Check the website...
10  www.Oxybusters.org.  Oxybusters is a grass roots
11  citizens group of people whose health has been
12  damaged by MTBE.  Contrary to cost rumors spread
13  by the MTBE industry, Oxybusters does not get any
14  financial help from the ethanol industry."
15              Final question:  "What can one do to
16  help?
17                Please "support the bills in
18  Congress by Representative Frank Pallone of New
19  Jersey and Senator Diane Feinstein in
20  California."  They are trying "to ban the use of
21  MTBE and other ethers in gasoline."
22              Thank you.
23              MS. OGE:  Thank you very much.
24              Ms. Campbell.
25              MS. CAMPBELL:  My name is Kitty
00548
 1                 Kitty Campbell, PA PIRG
 2  Campbell, and I am speaking both personally and
 3  as a person who works for Penn PIRG, Public
 4  Interest Research Group of Pennsylvania.
 5              On a personal level, my nephew -- my
 6  nephew's wife, who lives in Bordentown, New
 7  Jersey has asthma, and there are many days when
 8  she just can't go outside at all.
 9              We live in a free country, and I
10  think the air should be free as well as the other
11  freedoms that we enjoy.  And I think that people
12  like the EPA, we ought to applaud them for taking
13  the initiative to try to do something about
14  taking the responsibility for the air that
15  everybody breathes.
16              Secondly, I work for PIRG.  It is a
17  nonprofit organization, that's Public Interest
18  Research Group, here in Philadelphia.  We fight
19  very hard to clean up our environment, both the
20  air and water, by educating our members and
21  lobbying all over the United States.
22              I personally hope to be able to buy
23  an electric, battery-operated or solar-powered
24  car next time I get one.  So I want to encourage
25  incentives for advanced technology vehicles so
00549
 1                 Kitty Campbell, PA PIRG
 2  more of us can drive less polluting cars.
 3              I am going to definitely -- I am
 4  going to talk to that person from GEET.  It
 5  sounds like a great idea.
 6              I moved to Pennsylvania from
 7  California.  Now in California, the standards of
 8  emissions of smog by cars are much stricter.  And
 9  it has definitely reduced the smog out there,
10  even though it is bad because of the amount of
11  population and building of cities in the middle
12  of mountain valleys where the smog can't escape.
13              It is undeniable that planning around
14  the freeways and having much stricter smog
15  standards on cars has made a huge difference.
16  Smog would be much worse without it.
17              I am letting the EPA know that I
18  believe the majority of Americans will show a
19  willingness to pay as much as necessary so we can
20  improve our air quality with cleaner cars.
21              Isn't being able to breathe freely a
22  lot more important than a few cents more a gallon
23  or a few hundred dollars a year?
24              Thank you for listening.
25              MS. OGE:  Thank you.
00550
 1                      Mindy Maslin
 2              Ms. Maslin.
 3              MS. MASLIN:  Good afternoon.  My name
 4  is Mindy Maslin.  I am speaking as a private
 5  citizen.
 6              EPA's Tier 2 proposal has wonderful
 7  potential for improving our air quality.  Air
 8  pollution is a critical environmental and public
 9  health issue as need for regulations grow as
10  miles are put on our cars and the number of cars
11  on the road increases.
12              Automobiles are the number one
13  non-industrial smog producers and our future
14  depends on implementing strong regulations that
15  limits their damage.
16              I am a professional tree-hugger who
17  works for the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society
18  teaching community groups to keep city trees
19  alive.
20              Trees help lower air pollution,
21  reduce urban heat islands, reduce runoff and
22  subsequent water pollution and much more.
23              However, the effects of the excessive
24  air pollution on them is devastating.
25  Ground-level ozone is one of the stresses that
00551
 1                      Mindy Maslin
 2  leads to the death of many of our Urban trees.
 3  One statistic is that Philadelphia's Urban trees
 4  on the average live less than ten years.
 5              If this trend does not stop,
 6  Philadelphia could become a city that few would
 7  choose to live in increasing other environmental
 8  issues.
 9              My interest is also personal.  I
10  developed asthma as an adult and blame
11  Philadelphia's poor air quality for it.  I cannot
12  leave my home without carrying a bronchodilator
13  and am often forced to limit my activities on bad
14  air quality days like commuting to work via
15  bicycle.
16              There are three areas of the proposal
17  that need strengthening in order for it to have
18  the teeth necessary for the results that we
19  want:  One, there should be no special treatment
20  for minivans and SUVs.  They are high on the list
21  of pollution producers and should be expected to
22  meet standards on time.  These vehicles, the
23  dirtiest of all vehicles, should not receive any
24  exceptions to meeting the standards on time as
25  well.
00552
 1                       David Cohen
 2              The standards must include incentives
 3  for the development of clean alternatives, such
 4  as battery-powered -- excuse me, battery-electric
 5  or fuel-cell-powered cars.  Until the paradigm
 6  shifts in mass transit and rail and other clean
 7  alternatives are used, these clean cars are the
 8  only long-term solution.
 9              The Tier 2 proposal has great
10  potential.  With the above-mentioned concerns
11  met, we will all breathe a little easier.
12              Thank you.
13              MS. OGE:  Thank you very much.  Mr.
14  Cohen.
15              MR. COHEN:  Good afternoon.  My name
16  is David Cohen.  Thank you for allowing me to
17  testify before you today.
18              I am a member of the Clean Air
19  Council and a certified room planner who is in
20  favor of tightening standards on vehicle and
21  emission controls.
22              Tier 2 standards need to be tightened
23  and I feel should have the same emission controls
24  as the Tier 1 vehicles.  The proposed rule is
25  clearly a step in the right direction.  However
00553
 1                       David Cohen
 2  it has two key deficiencies:  First, the ten-year
 3  phase-in for sport-utility vehicles and light
 4  trucks is excessively long.  While I recognize
 5  the manufacturers of these vehicles need time to
 6  achieve design and engineering changes, the
 7  timetable is excessively long and should be
 8  shortened.
 9              Second, heavy-duty trucks should also
10  be required to clean up their emissions.  The
11  emergence of vehicles such as the Ford Excursion
12  will be exempt from the proposed rule change.
13  Currently the Ford Excursion and similar vehicles
14  will be largely used for non-farm and
15  non-industrial activities and will be marketed
16  for suburban transportation.  Thus there should
17  not be a new loophole that enables a more
18  excessive vehicle such as the Excursion to skirt
19  the rules.
20              The proliferation and increased sales
21  and increased market share of the sport-utility
22  vehicle and light trucks coupled with the
23  increase of these vehicles for non-farm and
24  non-industrial activities have had a significant
25  impact on the environment.
00554
 1                       David Cohen
 2              With increased vehicle miles traveled
 3  during this decade, the use of sport-utility
 4  vehicle and light trucks as suburban
 5  transportation vehicles has not only resulted in
 6  increased harmful emissions but have also helped
 7  to contribute to suburban sprawl, loss of farm
 8  land and an excessive use of raw material and
 9  fossil fuels necessary to build and operate
10  sport-utility vehicles and light trucks.
11              Finally, a response to concerns about
12  the cost of implementing the proposed rule:  It
13  is nominal for the benefit.  The estimated cost
14  of 100 to $200 per vehicle represents a
15  negligible cost.  The estimated cost of 2 cents
16  per gallon per gasoline is also negligible.
17              Even if the cost increases gasoline
18  higher, say 5 cents per gallon, it still
19  represents a negligible cost increase.  For those
20  individuals that complain about the increase and
21  the cost of gasoline due to the implementation of
22  the proposed rule, there are two important
23  notes:  First, consumer acceptance of the cost of
24  gasoline is elastic.
25              The cost of gasoline fluctuates up
00555
 1          Denis Winters, League of Women Voters
 2  and down for a variety of reasons.  Consumers may
 3  complain when there is an increase due to
 4  regulatory change or new tax, but the encourage
 5  to use gasoline is not impacted in any
 6  significant way by increasing the price.
 7              Second, the cost of gasoline is
 8  severely underpriced in terms of the negative
 9  impact driving has on our environment and the
10  costs associated with road building and road
11  maintenance.
12              While an increase associated with the
13  proposed rule would merely cover the cost of this
14  deficiency in gasoline pricing, it will at least
15  be a step in the right direction.
16              Thank you for allowing me to testify
17  before you today.
18              MS. MARTIN:  Thank you for coming.
19  And I want to especially thank Mr. Winters for
20  being here for the League Women Voters from
21  Delaware.  Please go forward.
22              MR. WINTERS:  Thank you my name is
23  Dennis Winters.  I am a resident, and I live and
24  work in Center City of Philadelphia.  I am here
25  today to read into the record a statement that is
00556
 1          Denis Winters, League of Women Voters
 2  cosigned by Anita Puglisi, president of the
 3  League of Women Voters of Delaware and Pat --
 4  Patricia Todd, president of the League of Women
 5  Voters of New Castle County, Delaware.
 6              The League of Women Voters of
 7  Delaware appreciates the opportunity to comment
 8  on EPA's new proposal, Air Docket 6102, for
 9  uniform tailpipe standards and reduction of
10  sulfur levels in gasoline.
11              The League's environmental position
12  is to preserve the physical, chemical and
13  biological integrity of the ecosystem with
14  maximum protection of public health and the
15  environment.
16              Two of Delaware's three counties, New
17  Castle and Kent Counties, are part of the
18  Philadelphia/Wilmington metropolitan ozone
19  non-attainment area.
20              One of the main reasons that Delaware
21  is in this non-attainment area is the air
22  pollution generated by traffic on Interstate 95,
23  much of which is through-traffic.
24              Applying the uniform tailpipe
25  standard to cars plus sport-utility vehicles,
00557
 1          Denis Winters, League of Women Voters
 2  minivans and light-duty trucks is certainly a
 3  step toward cleaner, healthier air for the people
 4  of our state.
 5              Requiring cleaner cars, SUVs, vans
 6  and trucks will cut down on the nitrogen oxide
 7  particulate matter and carbon dioxide as well.
 8              The League supports the EPA's
 9  proposals that will make cars 77 percent cleaner
10  and the other vehicles 95 percent cleaner than
11  today's models.  Also a phase-in period of 2004
12  to 2009 does seem reasonable to us.
13              The League also feels that asking oil
14  companies to reduce the sulfur content levels in
15  gasoline from 300 parts per million to 30 parts
16  per million will improve the health of
17  individuals susceptible to respiratory problems,
18  especially the elderly and children.
19              The League recommends a suggested new
20  standard of 30 parts per million which will
21  result in less-corrosive damage to catalystic
22  converters.
23              Thank you.
24              MS. MARTIN:  Thank you.
25              Mr. Waters.
00558
 1                       Eric Waters
 2              MR. WATERS:  Good afternoon.  My name
 3  is Eric Waters.  And I am here just to speak as a
 4  citizen of Philadelphia.  That's all I am.  I am
 5  not a scientist; I don't know a lot of the
 6  details of what these cars produce.
 7              But just from my experience, I would
 8  just like to share that I don't particularly like
 9  breathing the air in Philadelphia.
10              I am a bicycle rider, and I ride my
11  bike all around the town.  And I really don't
12  want to do it.  I would really rather -- I don't
13  enjoy it at all, because, you know, it's pretty --
14  it's pretty disgusting to ride on the streets.
15              And with that, I just want to say
16  that I do hope that we can take the proper
17  measures to try to improve our air quality.
18              I would like to tell a story, which
19  is one of the main reasons I came here today,
20  which is a story my mother told me really
21  recently.  It is about something that happened in
22  the recent past, maybe a couple of years ago, in
23  England, in Oxford.
24              There was a cathedral; it was about a
25  couple hundred years old and -- in Oxford.  And
00559
 1                       Eric Waters
 2  they found that the rafters were starting and the
 3  beams were starting to rot.  And these beams were
 4  made of these -- of wood from trees that were
 5  like 2 feet by 2 feet, these amazingly huge --
 6  huge -- you know, the trunks of trees.
 7              And when they had to be replaced, the
 8  people said to themselves:  How are we going to
 9  ever find these trees that have these amazing
10  trunks like this to replace the rafters in our
11  awesome cathedral?
12              And so it was a problem.  And they
13  didn't know what they were going to do until
14  they, I don't know when, maybe a couple of days
15  or whatever, they were walking outside, realized
16  across the street from the cathedral was a huge
17  grove of pine trees; perfect size, tall and with
18  the width.
19              And they went back and they found out
20  that the people, when they originally built the
21  cathedral 200 years ago, had the foresight to
22  know that 200 years later they were going to need
23  new rafters.  So they planted -- planted a new
24  grove of pine trees that could be used to rebuild
25  the rafters.
00560
 1                       Eric Waters
 2              And it is just that tradition of
 3  foresight, I think, that we need to draw on and
 4  really consider when we think about our
 5  environment and the air we breathe.
 6              Because we can list, you know, facts
 7  about asthma and the things that are happening
 8  right now and the problems that are facing us
 9  right now.  We just need to think and plan for
10  the future.  And that is the mind set that we
11  should have.  We need to take these measures to
12  take care of ourselves and our prosperity.
13              So I thank you for listening.
14              MS. MARTIN:  We thank you all very
15  much for taking the time to come here and join us
16  this afternoon.
17              And, unfortunately, I have to admit,
18  Eric, that we at EPA probably didn't have as much
19  foresight as those people who built the church.
20              And I wanted to explain why some of
21  the people here on the panel, from the government
22  panel, had to leave.  And that is because we have
23  Another public hearing tomorrow morning in
24  Atlanta.  And, unfortunately, this afternoon we
25  found out that a lot of our flight reservations
00561
 1  
 2  were kind of shifted around and planes were
 3  fuller than they told us when we came down here
 4  to Philadelphia.
 5              So please know that the people that
 6  were here feel very bad about having to leave
 7  while there were still other people to testify.
 8              Some of us may also have to leave
 9  while we -- while others of you are testifying.
10  But we will have copies of the record, thanks to
11  our stenographer friend here, and we will
12  certainly pay attention to anything that you add
13  in written form to the record.
14              And someone from EPA will continue to
15  stay here until midnight as long as people are
16  willing to talk about it.
17              But thank you all very much.
18              As far as I know, we actually have
19  just one more panel.  And I would like to call up
20  the three people that we have notification of
21  that are interested in still testifying this
22  afternoon.  That is, Mr. David Gibson, Scott
23  Althouse from the Evangelical Environmental
24  Network and Josh Mitteldorf.  If you would please
25  proceed to the table and sign a name card with
00562
 1          Joshua Mitteldorf, Clean Air Council
 2  the name and the organization you are with.
 3  Thanks very much.
 4              Actually, if there is anyone else
 5  here in the audience that hasn't had a chance to
 6  either sign up or would still like to speak,
 7  please feel free to proceed to the table as
 8  well.  Two more chairs.  Anyone?
 9              Thank you very much.
10              Would the gentleman whose name I did
11  not call please identify yourself?
12              MR. LANGON:  John Langon.
13              MS. MARTIN:  Okay.  And if you would --
14  we will, start with the person who was the
15  quickest in getting his name card up, Mr.
16  Mitteldorf from the University of Pennsylvania.
17  Please begin.
18              MR. MITTELDORF:  My name is Joshua
19  Mitteldorf.  I am a board officer of the Clean
20  Air Council, and I have a small family foundation
21  that is enthusiastic about environmental causes.
22  I am on the biology faculty of the University of
23  Pennsylvania, but my Ph.D. is in computational
24  astrophysics.  And for 20 years I have been a
25  teacher and community advocate for personal
00563
 1          Joshua Mitteldorf, Clean Air Council
 2  health and fitness.  I should add, too, that I am
 3  a parent of two school-aged daughters and a
 4  bicycle commuter.
 5              I came here today with the intention
 6  of voicing support for EPA's Tier 2 standards for
 7  auto emissions.  I came to support them, I
 8  intended to support them, but I cannot support
 9  them.
10              These standards are far too little,
11  too late.  They are already so diluted by
12  corporate lobbying that they will not result in
13  compliance in EPA's ambient ozone standards any
14  time soon, standards in which themselves are
15  probably inadequate to protect our health.
16              The standards and the regulations
17  have become dangerously polluted, and the process
18  itself is as dirty as the air we are forced to
19  breathe.
20              I know that I live in a severe
21  non-attainment area where EPA has called our air
22  dangerously unhealthy.  I know that almost half
23  of our nation lives in places where the air does
24  not meet the EPA's standards, and I know there is
25  substantial research indicating that these
00564
 1          Joshua Mitteldorf, Clean Air Council
 2  standards are not conservative enough, especially
 3  for our children, our elders, and those of us
 4  with compromised lung conditions.
 5              Nonsmokers living in smoggy areas are
 6  four times more likely to develop lung cancer
 7  than others in unpolluted areas.
 8              Even at levels tolerated by the
 9  latest EPA standards, ozone is associated with
10  impaired lung function, increased incidence of
11  asthma and bronchial infections, hardening of the
12  lung tissue.  Chronic exposure leads to permanent
13  lung damage.
14              I have the resources and the
15  background to know these things, but what if I
16  had not known these things?  Would the EPA then
17  deem it less important to promulgate the
18  standards needed to protect my lungs?  What if I
19  was too busy to come to this meeting, or not well
20  enough informed to have heard about it, or not
21  well enough educated to understand the connection
22  between my own health and federal politics?  What
23  if these meetings were packed with people on the
24  payroll of General Motors or Sun Oil who were
25  instructed to take the day off from work to
00565
 1          Joshua Mitteldorf, Clean Air Council
 2  demonstrate public opposition from Tier 2?  How
 3  then would the EPA perceive its responsibilities
 4  if the public seemed apathetic or numbed or busy
 5  or confused?  Would the EPA then say, well, the
 6  science indicates that these standards were a
 7  good idea, but there just isn't enough public
 8  support to warrant the change?
 9              There is something fundamentally
10  wrong with this process that is supposed to be
11  based on science and health but where the ghost
12  of politics is the uninvited guest at every
13  policy forum.  Can this administration make
14  decisions about good science, or are they
15  prisoners of politics?
16              And is politics, in turn, a prisoner
17  of financial interests so that public health,
18  with no interest group, no PAC funds cannot
19  compete for support?
20              For me, the bottom line in this air
21  quality issue is protection of our health.  We as
22  a nation spend over $1.2 trillion on medical care
23  every year, one-sixth of our GDP.
24              This amount is increasing four times
25  faster than the GDP itself.  The economists in
00566
 1          Joshua Mitteldorf, Clean Air Council
 2  and out of government are wringing their hands
 3  asking how can this explosion of medical costs be
 4  contained?
 5              And yet we know that a dollar spent
 6  on prevention now can save many dollars in health
 7  care costs later.  It's estimated that current
 8  levels of ambient air pollution comprising ozone
 9  particulates and sulfur dioxide result in 40,000
10  annual deaths nationwide.
11              The Tier 2 standards for SUVs come
12  with a price tag of about $100 million annually,
13  and the benefit is expected to be a 12 percent
14  reduction in total pollutants.  A little division
15  yields a cost per saved life of $20,000.
16              Now, if a cancer patient was admitted
17  to the hospital, would we deny him lifesaving
18  therapy because it cost him $20,000?  I think
19  even at ten times that cost that the miracles of
20  modern medicine are embraced as a bargain.  If
21  $200,000 for a life saved is no obstacle in the
22  operating room, why would we set the bar so much
23  lower when it comes to environmental protection?
24              Just on the basis of saved lives
25  alone, these Tier 2 measures should be rushed
00567
 1          Joshua Mitteldorf, Clean Air Council
 2  through on an emergency basis while further
 3  measures cutting more deeply into pollution at
 4  somewhat higher costs are embraced as well.
 5              Remember that saved lives are only
 6  the most dramatic benefit from pollution
 7  abatement; reduction in infections, improved
 8  productivity, prevention of damage to crops and
 9  other major benefits.  And then there is the
10  health and well-being of the 14 million Americans
11  with asthma.
12              There's a great disproportion here.
13  There should be nothing controversial about the
14  measures embraced in Tier 2.  We should be here
15  debating a greatly enhanced commensurate with the
16  magnitude of the potential health benefits.
17              Next year I hope to return to these
18  hearings to testify in favor of larger
19  investments and vastly greater imposed costs in
20  the name of health and of our right to breathe
21  clean air.
22              Thank you.
23              I also have here the testimony of Dr.
24  Howard Winant, which he asked me to read for him.
25              Is this the right time to do that?
00568
 1           Joshua Mittledorf for Howard Winant
 2              MR. SIMON:  Yeah.  We are asking
 3  people to be limited to ten minutes, but go
 4  ahead, put it in.
 5              MR. MITTELDORF:  Thank you for the
 6  opportunity to make my views known on the subject
 7  of our air quality.
 8              This is the testimony of Howard
 9  Winant.
10              I am a professor of sociology at
11  Temple University and a resident of
12  Philadelphia.  As a social scientist, not a
13  natural scientist or medical specialist, I cannot
14  speak on the quality of our air.  But as a
15  citizen that suffers from asthma and tries to
16  stay healthy through aerobic exercise, I can,
17  indeed, speak.  As the parent of three children,
18  kids who try to excel athletically and play
19  outdoors at home or at school, I can speak as
20  well.
21              Our Philadelphia air is not good.  It
22  continues to flunk the national standards for
23  clean air.  Although I don't have instruments to
24  measure the amount of contamination we're
25  breathing, I do have my own lungs, which measure
00569
 1           Joshua Mittledorf for Howard Winant
 2  very well the pollution, the particulate matter,
 3  the ozone that I encounter on my regular
 4  three-day -- 3-mile run in Fairmount Park.
 5              I keep myself in good shape.  I am a
 6  good control on the experiment, but gradually I
 7  can feel the added difficulty in breathing that
 8  pollution is causing.
 9              What might the sources of this added
10  pollution be?  Of course there are many, but I
11  hope the EPA is doing the kind of work they
12  should be to identify all them.  But one source
13  that I want to highlight today is SUVs,
14  sport-utility vehicles.
15              The exploding sales of SUVs has been
16  a regular item in the news for several years
17  now.  These vehicles are popular because they are
18  bigger and safer for their occupants, if not
19  those unlucky enough to collide with them.
20              They are seen as hip and cool and
21  sporty even for those who may never drive them
22  off the paved road.  Their emissions are less
23  regulated than ordinary passenger cars.  They are
24  still absurdly considered to be trucks.  This is
25  absurd because they have been converted from the
00570
 1           Joshua Mittledorf for Howard Winant
 2  truck frames they were originally designed to
 3  rest on to become the passenger vehicles that
 4  they are now.
 5              If you look at the SUVs on the
 6  Expressway or lined up in the drop-off areas at
 7  schools or outside the supermarket, will you see
 8  quickly enough that they are no longer trucks,
 9  they are big station wagons, big cars.  Everybody
10  knows this.
11              And there is so many of them now.  I
12  ask the EPA to consider, what is the reason for
13  the exemption from the emissions that these big
14  cars were given?  Is there any sound explanation
15  why citizens like me and my kids have to wheeze
16  more and cough more so that executives driving
17  their SUVs downtown to work in high-rises can
18  save a few bucks on their luxurious cars.
19              Is there some deal, not very secret
20  but not very public either, that allows the
21  manufacturers of these vehicles to avoid
22  pollution laws and controls on these vehicles?
23              SUVs aren't cheap, but I am sure the
24  auto-makers don't want to raise their prices for
25  these popular models, so they resist making the
00571
 1    Scott Althouse, Evangelical Environmental Network
 2  improvements that adequate pollution regulations
 3  would require.
 4              It was ever thus, but as we have seen
 5  in the past, when the car manufacturers finally
 6  heard the complaints being raised by citizens
 7  concerned about air quality, they showed that
 8  they could make the necessary improvements, that
 9  they could install pollution-lowering
10  technology.  They can do that again for the SUVs,
11  but only if the EPA requires it.
12              In the past when the public protested
13  about needless environmental damage and risk, the
14  EPA and Congress finally woke up and listened and
15  required the manufacturers to do what is right.
16  It is time for that to happen again.
17              Thank you.
18              MR. SIMON:  Thank you, Mr.
19  Mitteldorf.
20              Mr. Althouse.
21              MR. ALTHOUSE:  Good afternoon,
22  Members of the Panel, EPA officials,
23  representatives of the automobile and oil
24  industries, representative of the environmental
25  community of the fine people of Philadelphia.
00572
 1    Scott Althouse, Evangelical Environmental Network
 2  Good afternoon.
 3              Today I am appearing before you on
 4  behalf of the public policy team of the
 5  Evangelical Environmental Network.  The EEN is a
 6  fellowship of some 7,000 Christen believers who
 7  are committed to building our Lord's kingdom by
 8  active services to restore and renew the works of
 9  His hands.
10              Our network partners with 19 Christen
11  organizations, including Habitat for Humanity,
12  World Vision, Target Earth, and the American
13  Scientific Affiliation, to name a few.
14              Our network also comprises the
15  evangelical component of what is know as the
16  National Religious Partnership for the
17  environment.
18              Now, more than ever, the public is
19  concerned about environmental issues.  And
20  Christians who obey God's mandate to care for
21  creation are making a statement about their
22  faith.  Jesus loves the earth and so do His
23  people.
24              Every summer one of the forefront
25  environmental issues is about air pollution, and
00573
 1    Scott Althouse, Evangelical Environmental Network
 2  this summer is no exception.  In light of the
 3  recent federal court decision which repealed the
 4  much-needed air quality standards, I applaud the
 5  EPA for issuing this latest series of proposed
 6  rules to improve the quality of life for
 7  countless Americans.
 8              During last year's smog season, the
 9  EPA reported 5200 violations of health standards
10  across the nation.  It is reported that each year
11  40,000 people die prematurely due to poor air
12  quality, and 117 million Americans live in cities
13  where the air is often unsafe to breathe, as in
14  Philadelphia.
15              Our culture's insatiable appetite for
16  energy consumption and our sinful disregard for
17  creation is not only harming the earth but is
18  also killing the people and animals who inhabit
19  it.  This is serious business.
20              The EEN thanks the EPA for this
21  excellent opportunity for concerned believers to
22  voice an unapologetically Christian perspective
23  on the righteous stewardship of God's creation.
24              We pray that Christ's love for the
25  earth and for His affected people will be evident
00574
 1    Scott Althouse, Evangelical Environmental Network
 2  in this public forum.
 3              It is well documented that air
 4  pollution poses unacceptable health risks to the
 5  most susceptible members of our society:  the
 6  sick, the elderly, and, of course, our children.
 7              One of our members, Dr. Phillip
 8  Landrigan, director of Mt. Sinai School of
 9  Medicine Center for Children's Health and the
10  Environment New York, he tells us that asthma
11  rates have more than doubled among American
12  children in the past decade alone.  Approximately
13  600 children die every year from asthma and
14  150,000 are hospitalized.
15              In fact, Dr. Landrigan suggests that
16  asthma is the leading cause of the admission of
17  Children into hospitals.  Dr. Language also knows
18  clearly there are genetic components but also
19  suggests that this inheritance factor is only one
20  part of the explanation of increased rates of
21  asthma.  Both indoor and outdoor air pollution
22  appear to be contributing to the upsurge in
23  asthma rates.
24              It is true that gross black pollution
25  has declined in the past two decades as a result
00575
 1    Scott Althouse, Evangelical Environmental Network
 2  of EPA's air quality standards, but levels of
 3  ozone, oxides of nitrogen, and sulfur and fine
 4  particulates are on the increase.  These
 5  pollutants come mostly from automotive emissions,
 6  and levels have been rising as Americans drive
 7  more and more miles every year.
 8              While our organization supports the
 9  efforts of EPA to institute stricter regulations
10  on auto emissions to help improve air quality, I
11  support the first initiative to close the SUV
12  loophole.
13              Current emission standards for light
14  trucks, sport-utility vehicles and minivans allow
15  two to three times more exhaust pollution than
16  passenger cars.  This is unacceptable.  I support
17  EPA's proposal that new SUV's meet the same clean
18  air standards as new cars.
19              Secondly, I support EPA's proposal to
20  mandate the use of low-sulfur gasoline in all 50
21  states.
22              Participants in this public hearing
23  may have heard or read about the auto or oil
24  industries complaining about the cost of
25  environmental regulations; however, our analysts
00576
 1                     David E. Gibson
 2  including professionals, suggest that all of
 3  these proposed changes will be relatively
 4  inexpensive for the auto industry.
 5              Pollution control technology already
 6  exists to enable SUVs to comply with EPA's new
 7  proposals.  We have heard estimated costs as low
 8  as just $200 per truck.  Additionally, California
 9  has been successful at using the low-sulfur
10  gasoline at a minimal cost of just 2 to 3 cents
11  per gallon.
12              The new EPA regulations are industry
13  and consumer conscious.  The manufacturers have
14  no excuse but to comply and protect the beautiful
15  earth God has given us.
16              Members of the panel and others in
17  attendance, thank you for this opportunity to
18  appear before you in the Creator's service.
19              Thank you.
20              MR. SIMON:  Thank you, Mr. Althouse.
21              Mr. Gibson.
22              MR. GIBSON:  Good afternoon.  My name
23  is David Gibson.  I wish to thank the EPA for
24  holding these hearings and allowing me time to
25  speak today.  I have come to represent no
00577
 1                     David E. Gibson
 2  organization or agency other than myself.  I do
 3  come with 20 years of research and organizing
 4  experience in environmental community and labor
 5  organizing.
 6              There has been a lot of attention
 7  paid to the local and near-term environmental
 8  health benefits of the EPA's proposed standards
 9  for Tier 2.  I'm heartened to see that.
10              In essence, we can all at least --
11  including or friends from the industry who had to
12  leave today, at least we can all publicly
13  announce our agreement on the eventual goals of
14  reductions of auto tailpipe emissions and the
15  ensuing transition to more environmentally-
16  friendly technologies, particularly EV vehicles.
17              I would like to state for the record,
18  I support at a minimum the EPA's proposed new
19  standards as well as my further support for the
20  improvements advocated by the Public Interest
21  Research Group, the Physicians for Social
22  Responsibility, Sierra Club, Clean Air Council,
23  the American Lung Association and many others who
24  have spoken for the proposal for the past two
25  days.
00578
 1                     David E. Gibson
 2              Any discussion of proposed new
 3  standards will be incomplete, however, unless
 4  there is more specific discussion of the need and
 5  the impacts they have regarding the issue we all
 6  call global warning.  This is an issue that I
 7  would like to addresses.
 8              Regardless of the oft stated
 9  perception that the debate climate change is
10  somehow still not conclusive, the overwhelming
11  preponderance of evidence more than suggests the
12  details involved is really in question.
13              Mounting information continues to
14  accumulate.  As recently as two days ago, June
15  8th, 1999, according to the Associated Press, a
16  team of U.S., Russian and French scientists have
17  extracted a 2-mile-long ice core from the
18  Antarctic Ice Sheet which shows levels of
19  greenhouse gases are higher now than at any time
20  in the past 120,000 years.  This is reported to
21  be the longest record of the earth's weather
22  history to date.
23              It further demonstrates that gases
24  such as methane, and more relevant to today's
25  debate, carbon dioxide are more important than
00579
 1                     David E. Gibson
 2  previously thought in warming the planet when ice
 3  ages end.
 4              A study released in London on June
 5  4th, just five days earlier, by scientists from
 6  Columbia University reports research concluding
 7  that winters in Europe, Asia and North America
 8  have been warmer and wetter in the past 35 years
 9  due to the increased amounts of greenhouse
10  gases.
11              The study used model simulations of
12  weather patterns from NASA's Goddard Institute to
13  test their theory.  The study goes on to say,
14  according to the writers, that the effects have
15  shifted wind patterns, strengthening west-east
16  winds carrying warm air from oceans to the
17  continents and colder continental air to the
18  oceans.
19              Now, our auto-makers -- our autos and
20  our smokestacks have been emitting these gases
21  for decades.  The resulting atmospheric
22  concentrations of CO2, the relevant greenhouse
23  gas here today, are 50 percent higher than before
24  the industrial revolution.
25              The Intergovernmental Panel on
00580
 1                     David E. Gibson
 2  Climate Change, or the IPCC, made up of over
 3  2,000 scientists and other experts commissioned
 4  in 1988 by the UN, have concluded that merely to
 5  stabilize concentrations at current levels,
 6  global emission would have to be cut by 50 to 70
 7  percent.
 8              Carbon emissions have been growing by
 9  about 1 percent per year.  This will put twice as
10  much carbon in the atmosphere by 2100 as during
11  pre-industrial era.  The IPCC report Climate
12  Change 1995 predicts an average global surface
13  temperature rise of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by
14  2100 if CO2 and other gases are not curbed.
15              In the words of the report:  "There
16  will be some beneficial effects...there will be
17  many adverse effects, with some being potentially
18  irreversible."
19              The insurance industry has been
20  alarmed at the warming and repeated reality of
21  increases of hurricanes and tornadoes as well as
22  extreme weather events and the ongoing beach
23  erosion that has been occurring.  Hurricane
24  Andrew, just to take one example, costs the
25  industry something like $17 billion.
00581
 1                     David E. Gibson
 2              Climate change as a result of actions
 3  taken years ago and actions we take today will
 4  have impacts that will be felt by our children
 5  and our grandchildren.
 6              Climate change is a runaway train.
 7  And like a train, we need to begin to apply the
 8  brakes now to ease to a stop for future
 9  generations.
10              And obviously, we will have to reduce
11  emissions from other sources than just
12  automobiles.  It is commonly assumed that
13  automobiles do produce about 20 percent of all
14  U.S. carbon emissions.
15              U.S. Department of Energy projects a
16  40 percent growth in greenhouse gases through
17  2015 will be caused not only by cars but other
18  transportation vehicles, but predominantly by
19  cars.  It is about 30 percent less produced by
20  cars now anyway.
21              Clearly the internal combustion
22  engine has become more than a mixed blessing.  It
23  has nearly outlived its usefulness.  When its
24  benefits are being outweighed by its eventual
25  impacts, it becomes a liability.  If we assume
00582
 1                     David E. Gibson
 2  that the average car meets the federally mandated
 3  27.5 miles to the gallon -- I don't think my car
 4  does -- but if we assume that, and say it travels
 5  100,000 miles in its lifetime, we will end up
 6  emitting on average 35 tons of CO2.
 7              So the world's 500 million cars
 8  create 20 to 25 percent of today's greenhouse
 9  gases.  But car ownership is on the rise
10  worldwide?  And if we don't do our part, what
11  does that hold for the future of our children's
12  planet.
13              The UN Population Fund has estimated
14  that developing companies will be emitting four
15  times as much CO2 as industrialized countries
16  do.  In the words of Mark Hertsgaard in his very
17  important book Earth Odyssey, that is why "Taming
18  the car is essential to defusing the greenhouse
19  crisis."
20              Now, the oil and auto industry, I
21  wish they were here, they will tell you two
22  things:  They will say that U.S. autos and U.S.
23  air is cleaner today since new improvements have
24  been implemented, and that we cannot be
25  responsible for consumption patterns in
00583
 1                     David E. Gibson
 2  developing nations.
 3              Well, first, it may be true that cars
 4  and air are cleaner today, but what the auto
 5  industry won't tell you is that improvements were
 6  made only after government action in the early
 7  1970s forced compliance with new standards.
 8              The auto barons aren't fond of
 9  reminding the buying public of how hard they
10  fought to stop or curtail existing improvements,
11  much as they seem to be stonewalling here at
12  these hearings.
13              Second, while it is true that the
14  Tier 2 standards would have no direct effect on
15  autos sold in other countries, the contingent
16  advance in technology required by these standards
17  certainly opens up the availability of new
18  potential market opportunities that would only
19  encourage and eventually compel new markets to
20  adjust behavior.
21              Besides, if you can't count on
22  developing nations to bring down their share of
23  greenhouse gases in the near term, isn't it
24  logical that the industrialized nations had
25  better double their efforts if we are to decrease
00584
 1                     David E. Gibson
 2  the awful potential of extreme climate change and
 3  its intended negative impacts from everything
 4  from health and agriculture to extreme weather
 5  events and a bankrupt insurance industry?
 6              The noble-sounding and self-serving
 7  platitudes by auto and oil executives extolling
 8  our common goals and proud partnerships in
 9  ensuring clean environments are nothing more than
10  spin control when they accept no legal
11  obligations or impositions mandated by federal
12  law.
13              That is why I come here today to urge
14  strong support for the Tier 2 standards and the
15  proposed improvements by the environmental health
16  organizations that have been here for the past
17  two days.  I sincerely hope that this is just the
18  beginning.
19              It is particularly important to see
20  these standards as transitional and for the oil
21  and auto industries to speed up the process of
22  adaptation manifest in the proposals for
23  increased production of alternative technology
24  vehicles and cleaner burning or low-to-zero
25  sulfur fuels.
00585
 1                       Susan Curry
 2              And this is critical if the
 3  automotive industry, if not the human species, do
 4  not want to go the way of the dinosaurs.
 5              I want to thank once again the EPA
 6  for holding these hearings and allowing time for
 7  this important discussion.  And it is only, you
 8  know, with an informed and active public debate
 9  on this that the efforts on democratic
10  decision-making of a narrow, financial,
11  self-interested view can be checked.
12              Thank you.
13              MR. SIMON:  Thank you, Mr. Gibson.
14              Ms. Curry.
15              MS. CURRY:  Hi.  I am speaking
16  today -- and I am not quite sure what faces I am
17  speaking to.
18              But I am here as -- I am a person of
19  one of the people of this nation and one of the
20  people of this generation.  And to me, the proper
21  functions of the government, at least two of
22  them, are securing the safety and health of the
23  people.  And the most basic things to human life
24  are food, water and air.  And these hearings are
25  about air, air quality.
00586
 1                       John Langon
 2              And I request the strongest standards
 3  that prevents every possible harmful or toxic
 4  particle from entering my life space, yours, and
 5  that reduce the purity of air for future
 6  generations.
 7              I request that you close the loophole
 8  for the SUVs; that whatever can be done to clean
 9  up the diesel vehicles -- whenever I drive behind
10  a bus, I hold my breath, if I am caught behind
11  one at a stop sign.  And I always put my air
12  vents on recirculate so I am never taking in
13  exhaust fuels from the cars ahead of me at stop
14  signs.
15              So I request the strongest standards
16  that you prevent every possible harmful or toxic
17  particle from entering my life space, your life
18  space, and the future generations?
19              Thank you.
20              MR. SIMON:  Thank you.
21              Mr. Langon.
22              MR. LANGON:  Good afternoon.  My name
23  is John Langon.  I work with the Fund for Public
24  Interest Research, but today I am here speaking
25  on my own behalf.
00587
 1                       John Langon
 2              First, I want to thank the EPA for
 3  selecting Philadelphia as one of the public
 4  hearing cities.  Our city is under siege from air
 5  pollution, so I think it is quite appropriate to
 6  be here.
 7              I also want to address the recent
 8  ruling by a court of appeals in the District of
 9  Columbia, which evaluated the EPA's ability to
10  make decisions regarding clean air standards.
11  The court rules that only Congress itself has the
12  power to make such decisions.  This is a
13  ridiculous ruling.
14              Congress hasn't the time nor expense
15  to make every decision regarding the affairs of
16  our country.  And as a citizen, I fully support
17  Congress', my Congress' ability to delegate
18  decision-making powers to the EPA.  And, indeed,
19  the EPA has done the necessary research to make
20  such an important decision with its Tier 2
21  proposal.
22              The EPA has, in fact, made a strong
23  proposal for Tier 2, most brilliantly requiring a
24  change in both the gas and the automobile.
25              Both industries have reaped profit
00588
 1                       John Langon
 2  from polluting, and so now they must share the
 3  responsibility of cleaning our air.  The proposal
 4  should, however, be strengthened by requiring the
 5  heaviest of SUVs to come into compliance with
 6  other SUVs by the year 2004.
 7              Exemptions for diesel engines should
 8  be ended as well.  Incentives for alternative
 9  vehicles should be increased, and sulfur content
10  and gasoline should be reduced from its current
11  standards down to 30 parts per million in
12  conjunction with changes in the automobile
13  pollution technology.
14              But what I really want to talk about
15  today is courage.  I'm appealing to the EPA, and
16  you, members of the current EPA panel --
17  unfortunately, most of the original panel has
18  left prematurely.
19              But I want to appeal to you and the
20  entire EPA to be courageous and finalize the
21  strongest Tier 2 policy possible.  Resist the
22  auto and oil industry's influence; reject them as
23  they beg for more time.
24              As they feign helplessness in this
25  situation, simultaneously they will spend
00589
 1                       John Langon
 2  outrageous amounts of money to undermine the
 3  EPA's proposal.  As they beg for a delay now,
 4  they will surely beg for a delay in the future.
 5              And if begging doesn't work, then
 6  they will tie up the courts with lawsuits and try
 7  to buy off Congress with campaign contributions
 8  to pass a law that would ban EPA's ruling.
 9              These have been their tactics every
10  time clean air standards have been proposed.  And
11  industry can certainly make the required changes
12  in the time frame outlined by the EPA.
13              Both industries pride themselves on
14  innovations.  Every car commercial I see touts
15  new technology.  The auto industry has put
16  advanced braking systems, air bags and
17  manufacture control systems into production.
18              With all of this innovation, even if
19  their self-confidence is now slipping, I have
20  full confidence that industry can meet the EPA's
21  Tier 2 proposal.
22              Similarly the oil industry's
23  commercials brag that they have the newest
24  technology to search for and extract oil from any
25  part of the world.  And certainly in this age of
00590
 1                       John Langon
 2  information, technology and speed, EPA should
 3  realize that industry can comply with the
 4  original Tier 2 proposal time frame.
 5              The bottom line, we need cleaner
 6  air.  The medical and scientific community have
 7  confirmed that.
 8              As a resident of Philadelphia, I can
 9  attest for the need for cleaner air.  Earlier
10  this week I was watching the evening local news.
11  Sadly, part of the weather forecast was the air
12  pollution forecast.
13              This is a major wake-up call.  Now
14  instead of watching the weather forecast to see
15  if your child will need to take an umbrella to
16  school, we now need to watch to see if they will
17  need their inhaler.  Or maybe even worse, maybe
18  schools closed altogether due to air pollution
19  like it was here in Philadelphia earlier this
20  week.
21              I am personally asking the EPA to be
22  courageous against industry and implement a
23  stronger version of its Tier 2 proposal.
24              So I am asking the members of the EPA
25  panel here to do their part, do everything in
00591
 1                       John Langon
 2  their power to implement the strongest Tier 2
 3  policy possible.
 4              Thank you.
 5              MR. SIMON:  Thank you.  And even
 6  though there are only two of us, you can rest
 7  assured your message will be heard.
 8              Mr. Heckelman.
 9              MR. HECKELMAN:  Good afternoon.  I
10  support all of the testimony I've heard so far.
11  And you will be pleased to know that as the last
12  presenter in this panel, my testimony is rather
13  short.
14              I am Jack Heckelman, president of the
15  Alliance for a Sustainable Future.  The Alliance
16  strongly supports the EPA, the EPA proposal to
17  apply uniform tailpipe standards to passenger
18  cars, SUVs and light trucks.
19              It is essential to close this
20  loophole especially since SUVs have become such
21  popular vehicles. It is recommended that the
22  automobile companies be urged to comply
23  voluntarily with these standards even before they
24  can become effective in 2004.
25              This will result in much cleaner air
00592
 1    Jack Heckelman, Alliance for a Sustainable Future
 2  and less ground-level ozone generation,
 3  particularly in noncompliance regions such as
 4  Philadelphia, and reduce health problems caused
 5  by excessive ozone.
 6              It is also recommended that SUVs be
 7  required to make higher CAFE standards in order
 8  to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as
 9  ozone-causing emissions.
10              In the area of lower sulfur, again
11  the Alliance strongly supports the reduction of
12  sulfur in gasoline in order to preserve and
13  enhance the operation of catalytic converters to
14  reduce nitrogen oxide and other ozone-causing
15  emissions.
16              In addition, the reduction of sulfur
17  compounds will reduce their contribution to acid
18  rain.  We feel the small cost is a very good
19  investment.
20              On a related issue, we consider the
21  problem of greenhouse gas emissions to be
22  extremely serious and life-threatening for future
23  generations and for ecosystems.  The United
24  States should take a much stronger leadership
25  role so we comply with Kyoto requirements, and
00593
 1    Jack Heckelman, Alliance for a Sustainable Future
 2  this is certainly one important step in that
 3  direction.
 4              And finally, off the record, this is
 5  my own personal comment, I think it's insane that
 6  gasoline costs less than bottled water or milk.
 7  And we should take the initiatives in this
 8  country to raise the taxes on gasoline to the
 9  point where they're somewhat comparable to those
10  in Europe.  I think we would have far cleaner air
11  and we would have a lot of money that could be
12  used for environmental protection.  And that
13  seems to be the only way to go.
14              Thank you for your recording my views
15  with you.
16              MR. SIMON:  Thank you.
17              Questions?
18              MR. HOROWITZ:  No questions.
19              MR. SIMON:  I would like to thank
20  this panel for sharing their views with us today,
21  and I look forward to going forward in the
22  process.
23              Thank you.
24              Are there any other members of the
25  public out in the audience that wishes to speak
00594
 1  
 2  today?
 3              I will take that as a no.
 4              So this concludes the first Tier 2
 5  Gasoline in Sulfur Public Hearing.  We will have
 6  another public hearing in Atlanta tomorrow,
 7  Denver on Tuesday and Cleveland on Thursday.
 8              We thank everybody who has testified
 9  over the last two days, and we appreciate their
10  efforts.  And we also thank the people in the
11  audience who have listened over this process.
12              I would just like to remind people
13  that we are taking written and oral and
14  electronic comments.  The commentary on the
15  proposal closes on August 2nd of this year.
16              Thank you very much, and good day.
17              (Hearing concluded at 4:22 p.m.)
18                        - - -
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
00595
 1  
 2                      CERTIFICATE
 3         I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing
 4  proceedings, of the EPA TIER 2 EMISSION STANDARDS
 5  FOR VEHICLES AND GASOLINE SULFUR STANDARDS, taken
 6  on June 10th, 1999 and that this is a true and
 7  correct transcript of same.
 8  
 9  
10                ______________________________
                  LISA C. BRADLEY, RPR and
11                Notary Public
12  
                           and
13  
14                ______________________________
                  BERNADETTE M. BLACK, RMR and
15                Notary Public
16  
17  
18       (The foregoing certification of this
19  transcript does not apply to any reproduction of
20  the same by any means, unless under the direct
21  control and/or supervision of the certifying
22  reporter.)
23  
24  
25