1

          1   

          2   
                   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
          3                       PUBLIC HEARINGS
                                 Docket No. A-99-06
          4   

          5              Regarding Control of Air Pollution
                             from New Motor Vehicles:
          6   
                  Proposed Heavy-duty Engine and Vehicle Standards
          7            and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control
                                    Requirements
          8   

          9   
                               Monday, June 19, 2000
         10                      Crown Plaza Hotel
                                 New York, New York
         11                          10:00 a.m.

         12   

         13   

         14   

         15   

         16   

         17        TRANSCRIPT of hearings as taken by and before

         18   PATRICIA A. SANDS, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary

         19   Public of the State of New York.

         20   

         21   
                      REPORTING SERVICES ARRANGED THROUGH
         22      VERITEXT/NEW JERSEY REPORTING COMPANY, L.L.C.
              Kabot Battaglia & Hammer   -   Suburban Shorthand
         23   Waga and Spinelli   -    Arthur J. Frannicola CSR
                             4 Becker Farm Road
         24              Roseland, New Jersey 07068      
              Tel:(973)992-4111               Fax:(973)992-0990
         25   


                                                                        2

          1   

          2   

          3   

          4   MODERATED BY:

          5   

          6   Margo Oge, presiding officer

          7   Director of the Office of Transportation and Air

          8   Quality

          9   

         10   Kathy Callahan, EPA Region 2 Air Division Director

         11   

         12   Dawn Martin, Chief of Staff of the Office of Air and

         13   Radiation

         14   

         15   Chet France, Director of the Assessment and Standards

         16   Division

         17   

         18   

         19   

         20   

         21   

         22   

         23   

         24   

         25   


                                                                        3

          1                    USEPA PUBLIC HEARINGS

          2                    Monday, June 19, 2000

          3                      New York, New York

          4   

          5             MS. OGE:  Good morning.  On behalf of the

          6   Environmental Protection Agency, I would like to

          7   welcome you to today's hearing and thank you for taking

          8   the time to attend this hearing this morning.

          9             I'm Margo Oge, Director of the Office of

         10   Transportation and Air Quality, and I will serve as the

         11   presiding officer of this hearing.

         12             We will hear testimony today on EPA's

         13   proposed rulemaking for cleaner trucks, cleaner busses,

         14   and cleaner diesel fuel.  This is a historic proposal.

         15   This proposed program will receive a dramatic reduction

         16   in air pollution in the 21st Century.  Last year we

         17   established a new program to reduce emissions from

         18   cars, minivans, pickup trucks, and cleaner burning

         19   gasoline.

         20             We are now focusing much needed attention on

         21   heavy-duty trucks and buses, applying the same

         22   principle of treating vehicles and fuel as a system.

         23   This proposed program will protect the public health

         24   and environment of all Americans by reducing the

         25   sulphur content in highway diesel fuel by 97 percent to


                                                                        4

          1   provide the cleanest diesel trucks and buses in

          2   history.

          3             Heavy-duty trucks and buses are largely

          4   powered by diesel engines.  Diesel engines are more

          5   durable and get higher fuel economy than gasoline

          6   engines, but also tend to pollute more.

          7             Over 100 million people across the country

          8   breath unhealthy air.  Trucks and buses contribute

          9   significantly to this problem.  For example, here in

         10   New York one-third of NOx, which is the nitrogen oxide

         11   emissions, and 11 percent of particulate emissions come

         12   from those trucks and buses.  This pollution causes

         13   lung damage and respiratory problems, and there is

         14   increasing evidence that diesel exhaust may cause lung

         15   cancer.

         16             Before we start the testimony, I would like

         17   introduce the EPA panel and describe how we will

         18   conduct this hearing today.  You have already been

         19   introduced to Kathy Callahan.  Kathy is the director of

         20   the Air Office of the Regional Office here in New York

         21   City.  Thanks for coming, Kathy.

         22             On my right is Chet France, he is the

         23   Director of the Assessment and Standards Division.  On

         24   my left is Dawn Martin, Chief of Staff of the Office of

         25   Air and Radiation.  And Gretchen Graves (phonetic) is a


                                                                        5

          1   lawyer for today's hearing.

          2             This is one of the public hearings that we're

          3   going to hold across the country.  This is the first of

          4   the five public hearings.  Please keep in mind that in

          5   addition to the opportunity for oral testimony today,

          6   this hearing, and the remaining four hearings, the

          7   common period for this proposal rule will remain open

          8   until August 14 to allow for comments.

          9             We are conducting this hearing according to

         10   section 3067-D(5) of the Clean Air Act, which requires

         11   EPA to provide interested persons with an opportunity

         12   for oral presentation of data, in addition to making an

         13   opportunity for submissions today.

         14             We expect a large number of people to come

         15   here to testify, and we will do our best to keep the

         16   process moving smoothly and I'm asking for your help,

         17   so that everyone has an opportunity to speak.  I'm

         18   asking everyone to keep your comments to an absolute

         19   maximum of ten minutes.  You can do a shorter than ten

         20   minutes, that would be great.  If your testimony runs

         21   longer, this is the gentlemen who is going to help you

         22   keep track of your time by signaling you before the ten

         23   minutes are up.  So please look at Ted.

         24             Because of the large number of witness who

         25   will testify today, this hearing may go into the


                                                                        6

          1   evening hours, if necessary.  We will work through

          2   lunchtime and dinner.  I will be conducting this

          3   hearing formally.

          4             We request that witness state their names and

          5   affiliations prior to making the statement.  Please

          6   write your name clearly on the paper provided and place

          7   it in front of you so we know who you are.  When a

          8   witness has finished his or her presentation, a member

          9   of he EPA panel may ask questions concerning your

         10   testimony.

         11             Now, if there are any members of the audience

         12   who wish to testify and have not already signed up, I

         13   would ask you to please submit your names to the

         14   reception table and bring you forward to testify if you

         15   would like a transcript of this proceeding, you should

         16   make arrangements directly with the court reporter.

         17             Before we begin the testimony is, if there

         18   are any questions please let me know, if not, I will

         19   introduce our first panel.

         20             Today, we have few elected officials of this

         21   wonderful state of New York.  A member of the assembly,

         22   Mr. Edward Sullivan is here.  Please come forward.  And

         23   I understand that Ms. Kathy Fried (phonetic), New York

         24   City Councilmember is also here.  Please come forward.

         25             MR. EDWARD SULLIVAN:  Good morning.  Thank


                                                                        7

          1   you for coming to New York, and thank you for inviting

          2   me.  My name is Edward Sullivan, I am a member of the

          3   New York State Assembly and I serve, among other

          4   committees, on the Environmental Conservation

          5   Committee.

          6             But the reason I'm here primarily is for two

          7   reasons.  One is that when I was younger, I was an

          8   asthmatic child.  I suffered from asthma for many

          9   years.  I remember very vividly the difficulties of

         10   breathing.  Simply breathing.  Breathing through the

         11   night.  Breathing through the day.  I remember being

         12   unable to participate in certain activities that

         13   children might normally be expected to participate in

         14   because of my difficulty breathing.

         15             Today, there are an extraordinary number of

         16   young people in the same circumstances.  Many of them

         17   within district, and many of them live near my

         18   district.

         19             I represent an area on the Upper West Side of

         20   Manhattan, which goes up to the edge of the bus barns,

         21   where the buses are kept and where they re-circulate to

         22   go on their routes.  It is also an area where an

         23   enormous number of trucks not only transport goods, but

         24   are served also service stations that are located there

         25   and, therefore, add to the pollution.


                                                                        8

          1             The young people in that area -- not only the

          2   young -- people who are asthmatic in that area not only

          3   go through what I went through as a young person, but

          4   they have the additional burden of polluted air that I

          5   find is unacceptable.

          6             It is bad enough that a young child has to go

          7   through and suffer through asthma, but to ask him to

          8   suffer through polluted air that is imposed upon him or

          9   her by trucks and buses which don't have to do it, is,

         10   I feel, unacceptable.  There are alternatives.  We do

         11   not have to have vehicles driven by diesel engines.

         12             There are alternatives and those alternatives

         13   must be employed to save these young people.  Will it

         14   cost money?  I guess it will.  Then we have to decide

         15   what are the relative values of a healthy child or the

         16   cost of a more efficient engine.  Those are decisions

         17   that we, as a society, have to make.  What is more

         18   important?  What is more valuable to us?

         19             I would like to add one other factor, and

         20   that is recently, some years ago, the Americans with

         21   Disabilities Act was passed, and as I understand it --

         22   I'm not an expert on that Act -- but as I understand

         23   it, the idea was that we, as a nation, are going to

         24   begin including everybody in our activities, everybody

         25   in our social life, and not exclude people who happen


                                                                        9

          1   to have a disability.  Thus, we have, as we have all

          2   witnessed, seen stairwells turned into ramps, or

          3   elevators and doorways widened, and etcetera.  And I

          4   think this is all very good, because as one nation,

          5   instead of a divided nation, we are a stronger nation.

          6             Well, I believe that the Americans with

          7   Disabilities Act would apply to the asthmatic children

          8   who live in areas where unnecessarily polluted air is

          9   being dumped upon them.

         10             If that's the case, if there is an

         11   alternative available, then I would believe that this

         12   polluting of the area takes on not simply a negative

         13   thing to do, but possibly an illegal thing to do under

         14   the Americans with Disabilities Act.  So I would like

         15   to call that to your attention.  I'm not sure I'm

         16   right, but I think it would be something to think about

         17   in the protection of these children.

         18             Let me just finish by citing a quotation from

         19   the Bible, which goes as follows:  "Which of you, if

         20   your son asks for a fish, would give him a stone?"

         21             Well, I ask which of you, if your son or

         22   daughter asked for clean air to breathe, would give him

         23   or her poisoned air to breathe?  Thank you.

         24             MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Ms. Freed.

         25             MS. KATHY FREED:  (Phonetic)  Good morning


                                                                       10

          1   and I thank you for allowing me to speak.  I especially

          2   want to thank you for coming forward with the proposed

          3   new rules for diesel fuel.  I urge you to implement

          4   them as soon as possible.  And if you could do it

          5   tomorrow, I would be just as happy.

          6             I represent lower Manhattan, but I don't want

          7   to just speak for lower Manhattan I want to talk to the

          8   entire City of New York.  We, in many ways, are

          9   unique.  We're certainly the largest city in America,

         10   but we probably are the most polluted city.  Although,

         11   technically, Baltimore is worse.  When the studies that

         12   came out last year, Manhattan was the second-most

         13   polluted city, Queens, the Bronx, and Brooklyn are in

         14   the top ten, and Staten Island was in the top 25.

         15             I think if you add them altogether, what

         16   we're looking at is an environmental disaster.  Every

         17   single day everyone who breaths is a being assaulted by

         18   toxins.  Anyone who has lived here for any length of

         19   time starts to develop what we refer to as the "New

         20   York cough."  Like a two-pack-a-day smoker, after a

         21   certain point you start coughing.

         22             Well, if you live in New York, after a

         23   certain point you notice that you come down with sinus

         24   problems.  You develop respiratory problems.  Suddenly

         25   you have allergies, and you do develop asthma.  That's


                                                                       11

          1   if you moved here as an adult.  If you've been here as

          2   a child -- and an unconscionable number of children

          3   have asthma.  Asthma rates are higher here in the city,

          4   and the number one contributor to that is the air that

          5   we breath.  And certainly diesel fumes.

          6             Another unique thing about New York is that

          7   we get fully 97 percent of the goods that come into

          8   this city come from trucks.  The majority of those

          9   trucks are diesels.  The buses that we have in the

         10   Metropolitan Transit Authority, the majority of them

         11   are also diesels.  We are only now beginning to come in

         12   with some alternatives.  A lot of the proposals are too

         13   little and too late.

         14             If you live in New York, you really are

         15   assaulted daily by the air that we have to breath.  And

         16   in addition to the fact that we have incredible amounts

         17   of diesel, I think 50 percent of the air pollutants are

         18   directly from diesel fumes.  And in certain areas like

         19   West Harlem, where they live by bus terminals, you have

         20   some of the highest asthma rates in the country.

         21             Downtown, where people who live near the

         22   Canal Street corridor, where for 24 hours a day trucks

         23   come from the East River bridge and the Holland Tunnel,

         24   we are totally assaulted by diesel fumes.

         25             We are actually trying to get the state to


                                                                       12

          1   put additional monitors down there, because ironically

          2   in the city of New York we have what's called "opacity"

          3   (phonetic).  Which means that if you can actually see

          4   the diesel soot, that's illegal.  That (inaudible),

          5   because that's the least of the problem.  It's the

          6   small particulate matter that we breath in through our

          7   nose and runs through our respiratory system.  Because

          8   our bodies have no defenses against the small,

          9   invisible (inaudible).

         10             We're also looking at that fact that diesel

         11   soot has been linked to cancer and other respiratory

         12   ailments, which I think we haven't even begun to study

         13   like we probably should.

         14             I don't know what to say except that in New

         15   York we are under assault by our own air, and we

         16   desperately need to be rescued from this.  And if it's

         17   removing sulfur that will do this, then we're all for

         18   it.

         19             Sure there is a cost, but it's been estimated

         20   that last year alone the top ten oil companies reported

         21   $11 billion in profits.  The one-time cost of removing

         22   sulphur from diesel fuel is about a third of that.

         23             And the other irony there is that we're

         24   looking this at a time that the oil companies are

         25   reaping unheard of profits.  In fact, right now an


                                                                       13

          1   investigation is going on in the Midwest to see if

          2   there's been price fixing that's been happening because

          3   of the astronomical oil prices.

          4             But whatever the price, even if it were more

          5   than that, we should pay, because we're paying a much

          6   higher cost in quality of life and death.  The

          7   pollution, we must remember, is deadly.  Asthma does

          8   kill, and it significantly reduces the quality of life

          9   for children, for seniors, for all of us.

         10             So I would implore you to move on this as

         11   soon as possible.

         12             Let me just end by saying another thing about

         13   New York:  We have never been in compliance with the

         14   Clean Air Act.  We have never been in compliance with

         15   the State Implementation Plan.  And there are a lot of

         16   us in the city who are getting fed up with this.

         17             We need a change.  We need decent, safe,

         18   healthy air.  Because if we don't get the air we need,

         19   we are looking at the possibility of a lawsuit, and

         20   many of those millions or billions of (inaudible) will

         21   get us to see to this problem.  But we are going to do

         22   whatever it takes so we can breathe healthy air.

         23             Thank you for these hearings, and I urge you

         24   to do whatever you can to get rid of as much diesel as

         25   possible.  Thank you.


                                                                       14

          1             MS. OGE:  I would like to ask the next panel

          2   and first panel to please come forward.  Peggy Shepard,

          3   Bill Becker, Lewis Frank, Rich Kassel, Bruce

          4   Sertelsen.  Ms. Shepard, we'll start with you.

          5             MS. PEGGY SHEPARD:  Good morning.  I am the

          6   executive director of West Harlem Environmental Action,

          7   Incorporated, (WE ACT); co-chair of the Northeast

          8   Environmental Justice Network; and vice chair of the

          9   National Environmental Justice Advisory Council to the

         10   EPA.

         11             I appreciate the opportunity to address EPA's

         12   new rule intended to dramatically cut diesel pollution

         13   over the next ten years.

         14             WE ACT works in communities of color to

         15   empower residents by educating them on the many

         16   environmental pollutants to which they are exposed and

         17   to help reduce such exposures in order to improve

         18   environmental health, quality of life, and community

         19   well being.  One of the most important issues that we

         20   work to address is air quality and its effect on

         21   respiratory disease; a contemporary urban paradigm of

         22   transportation, air quality, and public health.  In

         23   Northeast urban areas like New York City, Baltimore,

         24   and Boston, those links are unmistakable.

         25             We thank the EPA for initiating this new


                                                                       15

          1   proposal to curb diesel exhaust because dirty diesel

          2   trucks and buses adversely affect me, my family, my

          3   community and other New Yorkers.  Yet, we are troubled

          4   that the communities with a high percentage of

          5   residents who are more vulnerable, such as children,

          6   the elderly, and the immuno-compromised, whose

          7   residents have poor health status such as infant

          8   mortality rates, low life expectancy, and epidemic

          9   asthma rates, that those communities will continue over

         10   the next ten years to see its most vulnerable residents

         11   at risk.  The EPA's schedule for requiring cleaner,

         12   low-sulfur diesel fuel in 2006 is better late than

         13   never; but sooner is both feasible and better for

         14   public health.  Let me tell you why.

         15             Environmental Justice communities, home to

         16   predominately Latinos, Asian, and Native Americans, are

         17   often disproportionately exposed to a variety of

         18   environmental hazards.  Diesel exhaust is only one of

         19   the health risks.  Children in these communities are

         20   losing the fight against asthma.  Not only do

         21   African/American and Latino children have a higher risk

         22   of asthma than white children, but African/American

         23   children are four times more likely to die from asthma

         24   compared to Caucasian youth.

         25             The demographics of residents living in areas


                                                                       16

          1   not in compliance with the federal ozone standard is

          2   52 percent white, 62 percent African/American, and

          3   71 percent Latino.  There are significant studies that

          4   indicate dramatically the correlation between high

          5   ozone levels, increased hospitalizations and emergency

          6   room visits for asthma, and premature deaths of

          7   vulnerable residents like the elderly.

          8             Manhattan, a non-attainment area and listed

          9   as an area with the second highest level of air toxics

         10   in the country by EPA, has never met the federal

         11   regulations for particulate matter.  According to an

         12   air quality test done in northern Manhattan in the

         13   summer of '96 by EPA Region II, the levels of small

         14   PM2.5 particulates in the air exceeded the new federal

         15   standards by as much as 200 percent at several key

         16   intersections.

         17             Several studies demonstrated that children

         18   living near major roadways have poorer lung function

         19   than children living in cleaner areas.

         20             In fact, a study conducted several years ago

         21   in Harlem by Mary Northridge, an epidemiologist at the

         22   Columbia School of Public Health, indicated that of the

         23   50 seventh graders in the control group of the study

         24   attending school in a quiet street in Harlem, over

         25   75 percent had biomarkers for diesel in their urine.


                                                                       17

          1   The majority had decreased lung function.

          2             Neighborhoods in northern Manhattan, which

          3   are home to over 500,000 residents, mostly

          4   African/Americans and Latinos living in 7.4 square

          5   miles, are disproportionately impacted by diesel

          6   pollution.  The neighborhoods of East, West and Central

          7   Harlem and Washington Heights are surrounded by three

          8   major highways which do not allow trucks; instead,

          9   neighborhood streets become designated truck routes.

         10             There is a diesel-fueled Amtrak rail line

         11   running through the community; two sewage treatment

         12   plants, one of which emits high levels of VOCs -

         13   volatile organic compounds like perc; and a marine

         14   transfer station to which over 200 heavy-duty diesel

         15   sanitation trucks travel daily and sit idling their

         16   engines.  And due to the city's new solid waste plan,

         17   that plant may be expanded along our Hudson River

         18   waterfront.  Add to that a large NY/NJ Port Authority

         19   bus station entered by over 630 diesel buses daily, add

         20   over 14 million trucks crossing the Triborough Bridge

         21   at 125th Street, and over 50 million cars and trucks

         22   crossing the George Washington Bridge yearly.

         23             Yet that all pales in light of this fact:

         24   Northern Manhattan neighborhoods are home to over

         25   one-third of the city's 4,200 diesel bus fleet.  There


                                                                       18

          1   are four Metropolitan Transit Authority depots in

          2   Queens, four in Brooklyn, one in the Bronx, and eight

          3   in Manhattan.  Of those eight, six are above 99th

          4   Street.  Of those six, two will receive multi-million

          5   dollar expansions, one which will be totally rebuilt as

          6   a diesel depot, and in the zip code with the highest

          7   asthma hospitalizations and deaths in the nation.

          8             Because bus ridership demand is up over

          9   25 percent, more diesel buses are being purchased, even

         10   while all depots are at capacity.  Even though state

         11   legislature has mandated that the MTA by more natural

         12   gas buses and build no more diesel depots, the MTA over

         13   the last year has leased or purchased three new lots to

         14   house buses outdoors where they will idle, idle all

         15   night in cold weather.  These are three new "virtual"

         16   depots that will have no city or state oversight, no

         17   permits to operate, and no enforcement.  Though they

         18   will house hundreds of idling buses, they will be

         19   listed officially as mere parking lots.

         20             Environmental Justice advocates define our

         21   environment as "where we live, work, play, and go to

         22   school."  Yet in most northern Manhattan neighborhoods,

         23   diesel bus depots and small truck fleet parking lots

         24   are located adjacent to schools, hospitals,

         25   recreational facilities, and large housing complexes.


                                                                       19

          1   One summer day I counted ten diesel buses idling

          2   outside the Manhattanville Depot on 128th and Amsterdam

          3   Avenue, adjacent to an intermediate school while over

          4   fifty youngsters played in a NYC Parks Department

          5   swimming pool just a few yards away.

          6             The impact of diesel soot is compounded by

          7   the fact that it is discharged as street level, where

          8   pedestrians are walking and breathing.  But for other

          9   residents living near northern Manhattan, bus depots,

         10   black soot against their windows makes its way indoors

         11   to mix with indoor air allergens, which are significant

         12   triggers for those with asthma or respiratory illness.

         13             Considering that New York City's asthma death

         14   rate is higher than that of any other city in the

         15   country, it would be accurate to refer to New York as

         16   the asthma capital of the world.  And since northern

         17   Manhattan and South Bronx experience asthma mortality

         18   and morbidity rates at three to five times greater than

         19   the city-wide average, New York City's problem is

         20   northern Manhattan's crisis.

         21             For these reasons, to protect the public

         22   health, we make the following recommendations:

         23             1)  There should be nationwide implementation

         24   of low sulphur diesel fuel in 2006, if not sooner.  The

         25   reduction in sulphur in diesel fuel, along with exhaust


                                                                       20

          1   treatment to reduce nitrogen oxide and particulate

          2   matters in diesel emissions will prevent millions of

          3   asthma attacks and tens of thousands of cancers per

          4   year.  Without lowering sulfur in the fuel, the

          5   heavy-duty truck industry cannot adequately lower

          6   emissions.  We support a cap of 15 parts per million on

          7   sulfur, which represents a 97 percent reduction of

          8   sulfur in fuel.  Sulphur must be nearly eliminated from

          9   diesel fuel.

         10             2)  Lower sulfur in diesel fuel means that

         11   emission traps and filters will work to reduce

         12   pollutants.  We support the implementation of

         13   after-treatment technologies, but believe that the EPA

         14   must be equally as aggressive to mandate the use of

         15   alternative fuels and technologies to diesel.

         16             3)  Now, let's get rid of the phase-in period

         17   for diesel engines.  These standards will not take

         18   effect for seven years, which give manufacturers enough

         19   time to plan and make the switch in technology.  While

         20   we wait to phase-in this rule, many children's lives

         21   will be phased out.

         22             4)  New trucks should be required to meet

         23   tighter limits on smog-forming emissions of nitrogen

         24   oxides by 2007, not 2010.

         25             5)  It is not enough to require new trucks to


                                                                       21

          1   be cleaner.  By 2004, the EPA should also establish a

          2   program for checking in-use emissions for used trucks.

          3             6)  Incentives must be provided for use of

          4   advanced technologies.  It is time to invest in the

          5   next generation of technology that can serve the role

          6   of diesel without the health and environmental impacts.

          7   We support the concept of incentives targeted at

          8   manufacturers who go beyond the mandates of this rule

          9   and create even cleaner alternatives.  EPA should

         10   create incentives for use of natural gas, electric and

         11   fuel cell vehicles in transit, sanitation, and other

         12   key urban fleets.

         13             7)  It is appropriate to conduct an

         14   evaluation and assessment of the impact and

         15   effectiveness of these rules as soon as feasible.

         16   However, there is no need to wait to consider

         17   appropriate penalties for noncompliance.  Penalties

         18   that can ensure compliance should be drafted

         19   immediately.

         20             8)  And finally, there is always a cost to do

         21   something differently.  And I believe that the cost of

         22   increased emergency room visits, hospitalizations, lost

         23   school days, lost work days, and family disruptions are

         24   worth the pennies per gallon and the $1,600 per

         25   heavy-duty vehicle is cost effective.


                                                                       22

          1             MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Mr. Becker, good

          2   morning.

          3             MR. BILL BECKER:  Good morning.  My name is

          4   Bill Becker, I'm the executive director of STAPPA, the

          5   State and Territorial Air Pollution Program

          6   Administrators, and ALAPCO, the Association of Air

          7   Pollution Control Officials, two national associations

          8   of air quality officials in the states and territories

          9   and more than 165 major metropolitan areas across the

         10   country.

         11             I am pleased to be here this morning to

         12   provide our associations' testimony on EPA's recent

         13   proposal to set more stringent emission standards for

         14   on-road heavy-duty engines, and especially to reduce

         15   levels of sulphur in on-road diesel fuel.

         16             On behalf of STAPPA and ALAPCO, I would like

         17   to commend EPA for its continued leadership in reducing

         18   air pollution for the mobile source sector.  Your final

         19   promulgation last December of Tier 2 motor vehicle

         20   emission standards and a national low-sulfur gasoline

         21   program was a remarkable accomplishment that will

         22   benefit the entire country.

         23             This month's heavy-duty engine and low-sulfur

         24   diesel proposal is further demonstration of the

         25   agency's commitment to efficiently and cost effectively


                                                                       23

          1   reducing a wide variety of mobile source-related

          2   emissions to achieve meaningful improvements in air

          3   quality across the nation; we applaud this initiative

          4   and the "systems approach" which addresses both the

          5   engine and its fuel, upon which it is based.

          6             We are especially pleased that the proposed

          7   heavy-duty engine and diesel sulfur program reflects

          8   the key recommendations made by our association.  This

          9   program is of vital importance to our memberships.  For

         10   this reason, our associations has adopted, with almost

         11   unanimous support, a resolution calling upon EPA to

         12   establish a stringent low-sulfur diesel fuel cap to

         13   enable the introduction and effective operation of

         14   advanced technologies, such as lean-NOx catalysts and

         15   adsorbers and particulate filters; a copy of the

         16   resolution is attached to my statement.

         17             We have placed the highest priority on

         18   participating in the rule development process, and are

         19   proud that EPA has concluded that the most appropriate

         20   strategy so closely mirrors that which we have

         21   advocated.

         22             As the officials with primary responsibility

         23   for achieving and maintaining clean, healthful air

         24   across the country, state and local agencies are keenly

         25   aware of the need to aggressively pursue emission


                                                                       24

          1   reductions from the heavy-duty mobile source sector,

          2   which contributes substantially to a variety of air

          3   quality problems.  As EPA acknowledges in this

          4   proposal, by 2007, when the proposed engine standards

          5   would take effect, on-road heavy-duty engines and

          6   vehicles will account for 29 percent of mobile source

          7   NOx emissions and 14 percent of mobile source PM

          8   emissions.

          9             Under the control strategy EPA has proposed,

         10   however, by 2030 on-road heavy-duty vehicle NOx

         11   emissions would be reduced by 2.8 million tons and PM

         12   emissions by approximately 110,000 tons.  These

         13   emissions reductions, as well as others that the

         14   proposed rule would affect, will play a pivotal role in

         15   addressing an array of significant environmental

         16   problems that continue to pose health and welfare risks

         17   nationwide; including those associated with

         18   ground-level ozone; course and fine particulate matter;

         19   sulfur oxides; air toxics; visibility impairment; the

         20   acidification, nitrification and eutrophication of

         21   water bodies; and global warming.

         22             Based on the substantial contribution of

         23   heavy-duty vehicle emissions to air pollution and very

         24   serious public environmental problems, we have no

         25   alternative but to impose greater controls on these


                                                                       25

          1   sources and their fuels, and to do so in a truly

          2   meaningful way.  Further, because many of these

          3   vehicles constantly travel back and forth across the

          4   country, their emissions are ubiquitous.  For this

          5   reason, regulation of the heavy-duty mobile source

          6   sector, and of the fuels used by these sources, must be

          7   done on a national basis as EPA has proposed.

          8             In the coming weeks, our association will be

          9   providing comprehensive written comments on the

         10   complete proposal.  Today, however, I would like to

         11   focus my comments on a few fundamental issues.

         12             The air pollution that comes from big diesel

         13   buses and trucks is not only among the most visible

         14   there is, but it is also among the most offensive.

         15   What is the worse, however, is that the noxious exhaust

         16   brings with it adverse health impacts that can be dire,

         17   posing a serious threat to public health nationwide.

         18   Perhaps the greatest risk comes from the toxic

         19   emissions.  Diesel exhaust contains over 40 chemicals

         20   that are listed by EPA and California as toxic air

         21   contaminants, known human carcinogens, probable human

         22   carcinogens, reproductive toxicants or endocrine

         23   disrupters.  In 1998 California declared particulate

         24   emissions from diesel-fueled engines a toxic air

         25   contaminant, based on data that supported links between


                                                                       26

          1   diesel exposures and human cancer.

          2             Further, last fall the South Coast Air

          3   Quality Management Direct in Los Angeles, California

          4   released a draft final report, the "Multiple Air Toxics

          5   Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin

          6   (MATES-II)," which included an analysis for cancer risk

          7   in the region from exposure to diesel particulate.

          8             Based on this analysis - which estimated

          9   diesel particulate levels by using elemental carbon as

         10   a surrogate and applied a cancer potency factor

         11   determined by the state of California - South Coast

         12   concluded that of the cancer risk posed by air

         13   pollution, 70 percent is attributable to diesel

         14   particulate emissions, with mobile sources being the

         15   dominant contributor.

         16             Our associations were alarmed by South

         17   Coast's findings.  So this past spring, based on a

         18   tailored, more conservative version of the MATES-II

         19   methodology, we sought to extrapolate the evaluation of

         20   cancer risk from diesel particulate to other cities

         21   across the country and to estimate how many cancers

         22   nationwide are the result of exposure to diesel

         23   particulate.  By applying a MATES-II methodology, we

         24   found that on a nationwide basis, diesel particulate

         25   maybe responsible for 125,000 cancers over a lifetime.


                                                                       27

          1             Now let me be clear, this is not a precise

          2   number.  Instead, it is an approximation of a potential

          3   impact of exposure to diesel particulate that

          4   highlights the need for swift and certain regulatory

          5   action.  Further, it allows us to estimate that EPA's

          6   proposal, which includes a 90 percent reduction in

          7   particulate emissions, could prevent 35,000 of these

          8   cancers.  We cannot afford to forego this opportunity.

          9   And EPA, much to its credit, has issued a proposal that

         10   ensures that we will not.

         11             Our association congratulates EPA for

         12   responding to a serious environmental problem with an

         13   equally serious strategy that establishes rigorous

         14   emission standards for on-road heavy-duty diesels and a

         15   commensurately low cap on sulfur in diesel fuel, all

         16   within a time frame that will allow us to reap the

         17   benefits of this program beginning with the 2007 model

         18   year.  Although there are several aspects of the

         19   proposal with which we have concerns, and we will offer

         20   recommendations, the fact remains that key components

         21   of this proposal are rock solid and we support them.

         22             With respect to the emission standards, we

         23   strongly endorse the levels EPA has proposed:  A

         24   particulate matter standard of 0.01 grams per brake

         25   horsepower-hour, and a NOx stand of 0.2 grams per brake


                                                                       28

          1   horsepower-hour, which are 90 and 95 percent cleaner

          2   that today's standards, respectively.  However,

          3   although we are very pleased that the PM standard will

          4   take full effect in 2007, we have concerns regarding

          5   the four-year phase-in period proposed for the NOx

          6   standard, and will offer further discussion of this in

          7   our written comments.

          8             Inextricably linked to the proposed engine

          9   standards is the issue of low-sulfur diesel fuel.  The

         10   ability of heavy-duty diesels to comply with the

         11   stringent engine standards that EPA has appropriately

         12   proposed a directly dependent on a timely, nationwide

         13   availability of diesel fuel with ultra-low levels of

         14   sulfur.  Without such fuel, the technologies capable of

         15   achieving such low emission standards will be rendered

         16   inoperable.

         17             For this reason, STAPPA and ALAPCO vigorously

         18   support the proposed 15 parts per million cap on sulfur

         19   in diesel fuel, to take full effect across the country

         20   in mid-2006, with no phase-in.  This provision of the

         21   proposal is absolutely essential; while an even lower

         22   cap may prove to be necessary, it's crucial that the

         23   final rule include a fully effective, nationwide cap of

         24   no higher than 15 parts per million by mid-2006.

         25             Finally, while non-road diesel engines are


                                                                       29

          1   not addressed by this proposal, we view the control of

          2   non-road diesels to be as critical as the control of

          3   on-road diesels.  Further, we firmly believe that the

          4   technological advances that will occur in order to meet

          5   future, more stringent on-road heavy-duty diesel

          6   standards will carry over to non-road equipment, but

          7   only if very low-sulfur diesel fuel is available for

          8   this sector as well.

          9             We are extremely concerned, however, that EPA

         10   may not be proceeding as quickly or aggressively as

         11   necessary to develop non-road diesel engine and fuel

         12   programs that are commensurate with the enormous

         13   contribution non-road diesels make to air pollution;

         14   more must be done.

         15             In conclusion, I thank you for this

         16   opportunity to provide the associations' preliminary

         17   perspectives on your rulemaking.  We applaud EPA for

         18   seizing the opportunity to take another enormous step

         19   toward cleaning up the mobile source sector and

         20   achieving our nation's clean air goals.

         21             We commend your leadership in developing a

         22   technologically, economically, and environmentally

         23   credible approach for addressing on-road heavy-duty

         24   diesel engines, and fuels.  Preserving the integrity of

         25   the framework that you have proposed is imperative to


                                                                       30

          1   the viability of this program and, moreover, to the

          2   efforts of states and localities across the country to

          3   achieve and sustain clean, healthful air.

          4             MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Mr. Frank, good

          5   morning.

          6             MR. LOUIS FRANK:  I'm Louis Frank, president

          7   of Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC.  My company is the

          8   fourth largest US refiner, operating refineries with a

          9   combined capacity of 935,000 barrels per day --

         10             MS. OGE:  Could you please speak closer to

         11   the microphone, we cannot hear you.

         12             MR. FRANK:  The energy industry asks that you

         13   carefully consider our views on EPA's recently proposed

         14   diesel sulfur regulations.

         15             First, understand that we support reducing

         16   sulfur content in diesel fuel.  This is an area where

         17   fuel producers can make a positive contribution.

         18   US Air quality has benefitted because of, and in

         19   proportion to the extent we have formulated fuels to

         20   cut tailpipe and exhaust stack emissions in the past.

         21             The oil industry proposal of a 90 percent

         22   reduction in highway diesel fuel sulfur levels to 50

         23   parts per million will enable technology to meet EPA's

         24   proposed particulate matter standard, and achieve

         25   80 percent of EPA's proposed nitrogen oxide standard at


                                                                       31

          1   half the cost of EPA's proposal.  Plus, our proposal is

          2   achievable.

          3             EPA's statistics proves that nearly

          4   two-thirds of America's air quality improvement is due

          5   to clean fuels and clean engine technology.  Moreover,

          6   the improvement has been steady and is continuing, and

          7   I'm proud of that result.  Please note that there was

          8   no magic involved, it was a painstaking process of

          9   finding out what worked, technically, economically,

         10   commercially.  And we do this for a living, we can't

         11   afford to be wrong.  Costs and benefits have to

         12   balance.  And that goes to the heart of industry's

         13   contention that pushing beyond a 90 percent reduction

         14   in diesel sulfur puts wishful thinking ahead of market

         15   reality.

         16             The 97 percent reduction is only required

         17   because the agency has arbitrarily targeted a

         18   90 percent reduction in NOx from the 2004 standards.

         19   This proposal would take sulfur levels to 15 parts per

         20   million by 2006.  This is a regulatory triple threat

         21   with the potential to seriously affect diesel supplies,

         22   and harm the entire US economy.

         23             A large capital cost penalty is forced upon

         24   the industry because sulphur reduction to this level

         25   requires new, high pressure, hydrotreating units.  Only


                                                                       32

          1   a handful of suppliers design and build these units.

          2   Refiners will face a choice of having to invest in new

          3   high-cost hydrotreating, or relying on existing units

          4   to produce a reduced volume of diesel fuel from the

          5   available straight run stocks.  Many will choose the

          6   latter course, and the supply of diesel fuel in the

          7   United States will shrink.

          8             Motorists have complained bitterly about this

          9   summer's price spikes caused by the roll-out of new

         10   environmental fuel formulations that have been enacted

         11   by the EPA.  Higher costs and supply shortages could

         12   produce this same effect for diesel fuel consumers.

         13             And these consumers are not Sunday drivers,

         14   they represent the bread and butter of the country's

         15   economy.  These are the people who haul dry freight,

         16   mail, and merchandise from plant to port.  Economic

         17   over-the-road distribution has made just-in-time

         18   inventories a standard requirement for American

         19   factories.  Cheap fuel has kept us competitive with

         20   low-wage markets abroad.  And low diesel prices have

         21   made it possible for independent truckers to earn a

         22   decent living.

         23             The American Trucking Association, and more

         24   than 1.8 million farm families and 4,000 agriculture

         25   cooperatives have joined with us in calling for a


                                                                       33

          1   slower, more prudent approach to diesel standards.

          2             EPA does not share our caution.  But EPA's

          3   case is based on the use of vehicle technology that is

          4   still today unprovable.  This is technology, which

          5   EPA's admits has not advanced from the chalkboard to

          6   field trial stage.  In preliminary tests, the EPA

          7   recommended technology has failed to hit target

          8   emission levels regardless of fuel sulphur content.

          9   EPA is requiring our industry to spend billions of

         10   dollars on its belief that this unproven technology

         11   will be there when it's needed.

         12             Industry knows how to hit the 15 parts per

         13   million standard.  But we also know that volumes are

         14   cost-constrained.  Refiners will choose to produce less

         15   product.  Any trucker or fleet operator can tell you

         16   what that will do to their business.  Our estimate is

         17   that EPA's proposal would add about $2,600 to the cost

         18   of a trucker's annual operation.  And that is before we

         19   address the cost required for the infrastructure

         20   adjustments that keep the new, cleaner fuel separate

         21   from the high level sulfur fuels.

         22             Real-world constraints will also affect our

         23   ability to maintain the 15 parts per million standard

         24   through thousands of miles of pipeline, shipment,

         25   terminal storage, and service station disposition.


                                                                       34

          1   Fifteen parts per million is equivalent to less than a

          2   tablespoon of water in an Olympic size swimming pool.

          3   Contamination at the molecular level could endanger

          4   this fragile standard.

          5             The reality is that the refiners would

          6   actually have to reduce levels below 15 ppm to have

          7   regional assurance that the product stayed on

          8   specification.  Even after taking the steps, 10 to

          9   20 percent of the proposed ultra-pure fuels will become

         10   contaminated and will have to be downgraded into higher

         11   sulphur products, and/or shipped back to the refineries

         12   for reprocessing.

         13             EPA has raised the possibility of phasing in

         14   its sulfur requirements to mitigate their impact.  This

         15   would necessitate purchasing additional tanks, piping,

         16   and pumps to accommodate the sale of two grades of

         17   highway diesel fuel.  This is nothing less than

         18   requiring a second grade of on-road diesel fuel which

         19   is extremely expensive.  This may sound simple, but it

         20   will require a whole new infrastructure to be created,

         21   which will only be needed for two to three years.  The

         22   bottom line is:  Less efficiency and more cost.

         23             I'm saying to you, on behalf of America's

         24   energy industry, that we have prepared to undertake a

         25   landmark 90 percent reduction in diesel sulfur levels,


                                                                       35

          1   knowing full well what that entails in terms of

          2   production cost, quality maintenance, and capital

          3   investment.  Moreover, the 90 percent reduction should

          4   achieve virtually all the emission reductions of EPA's

          5   more severe standard.

          6             We support this reduction and we understand

          7   its potential health benefit.  But this is not a poker

          8   game.  We are not arguing over table stakes.  Anyone

          9   can demand too much too soon.  Setting an appropriate

         10   regulatory standard demands wisdom, courage, and care.

         11             Is 15 parts per million an appropriate

         12   standard?  A reasonable person will acknowledge that

         13   market and technological realities mean more than

         14   wishful thinking when it comes to goal setting.  And

         15   such a person will also acknowledge that American

         16   well-being is measured in the quality of life its

         17   people can afford and its transportation-based economy

         18   can support.  In that light, the 15 parts per million

         19   standard is actually counterproductive.

         20             In summary, I would like to say that this

         21   proposed rule is bad rulemaking in that it should be

         22   moderated and tempered to something that can seem to be

         23   achievable within the industry.

         24             I would like to thank you for your time and

         25   consideration, and I would be happy to answer any


                                                                       36

          1   questions that anybody might have.

          2             MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Mr. Kassel, good

          3   morning.

          4             MR. RICHARD KASSEL:  Good morning.  My name

          5   is Richard Kassel.  I'm a senior attorney for the

          6   National Resources Defense Council, (NRDC,) a national

          7   environmental advocacy organization with over 400,000

          8   members nationwide, many of whom live in New York.

          9             I coordinate the Dump Dirty Diesels

         10   Campaign.  I am a representative on EPA's mobile source

         11   technological review subcommittee.  Thank you very much

         12   for the proposal and for the opportunity to comment

         13   today.  I'm going to speak briefly, we have more

         14   details in our written statement.  We will also

         15   supplement our written statement.

         16             NRDC has been working to clean up diesel

         17   emissions since the mid-1970s.  Ironically, in the

         18   attempt to remove lead from gasoline, we began a new

         19   phase of the campaign, the Dump Dirty Diesels Campaign,

         20   when we decided it was time to work and focus on urban

         21   bus fleets in New York, Los Angeles, and later

         22   Washington, to move beyond diesel to cleaner

         23   alternative fuels.

         24             The Dump Dirty Diesels Campaign in both local

         25   forums and national forums, are a top priority


                                                                       37

          1   campaign.  In our view, diesel's toxic particles and

          2   nitrogen oxide emissions are probably the most serious

          3   air pollution threat facing many Americans, not only

          4   New Yorkers, but many urban areas.

          5             So we're here to congratulate EPA for the

          6   proposal, and to urge EPA to keep to the levels for

          7   particulates, nitrogen oxide, formaldehyde and, of

          8   course, sulfur.

          9             The reasons for our concern are clear:  EPA's

         10   proposal means cleaner air and better health for all of

         11   us.  Diesel exhaust is filled with asthma-attack

         12   producing soot particles.

         13             NRDC recently applied the California EPA risk

         14   assessment for diesel particulate to the diesel

         15   particulate levels that are found right here in midtown

         16   Manhattan, and we estimate that at the current level of

         17   diesel pollution, that could yield a lifetime of

         18   potential cancer risk of 8870 cancers per million.  I

         19   might add that while this estimate is not an exact

         20   predictor, it is clearly illustrative of the order of

         21   magnitude of diesel potential for cancer risks.

         22             The reasons for concern are clear, but so are

         23   the reasons for applause.  Implementing your proposal

         24   in full will be the environmental equivalent of

         25   removing 13 million of today's trucks from the roads.


                                                                       38

          1             The barrier to cleaner trucks and buses is,

          2   in a word, sulphur.  Just as lead in gasoline was a

          3   barrier to cleaner cars in the 1970s, today's

          4   high-sulfur diesel fuel is the barrier to cleaner

          5   trucks and buses for a similar reason:

          6             Because it prevents the use of advanced

          7   control technology that, in this case, could eliminate

          8   diesel's black cloud.

          9             EPA and the administration should continue to

         10   hold firm, you're on the verge of a watershed moment in

         11   air pollution regulation.  When it happens, removing

         12   sulfur from diesel fuel will be the biggest vehicle

         13   pollution news since the removal of lead from gas.

         14             By cleaning up every bus and truck in the

         15   nation, this should mean longer, healthier lives for

         16   asthmatics, and many other Americans who currently hold

         17   their breath when a diesel truck blows by.

         18             It's worth noting that New York City is a

         19   great place for your first hearing on this proposal for

         20   several reasons:

         21             First, as you've heard, we live with some of

         22   the highest diesel particulate matter levels in the

         23   nation.  Over half of the particulate emissions in

         24   midtown Manhattan come from diesel tailpipes.  That's

         25   more than ten times the national average contribution


                                                                       39

          1   of diesel particulate to ambient particulate.

          2             Second, we live with chronically high

          3   summertime smog levels.  Here in the northeast there

          4   were 339 exceedances of the eight-hour ozone standard

          5   in just the first eleven days of June.  This past

          6   Saturday, EPA was actually reporting and forecasting

          7   more.

          8             Third, New York State is home to more than a

          9   million asthmatics, including over 500,000 children. We

         10   live with some of the highest asthma rates in the

         11   nation.

         12             And finally, New York City and State are at

         13   the forefront for adopting clean-fuel bus

         14   technologies.

         15             The NRDC celebrated a huge victory here in

         16   New York, when the state's Metropolitan Transportation

         17   Authority agreed to finally clean up its bus fleet --

         18   after a decade-long campaign -- with a combination of

         19   low-sulfur diesel, natural gas, and hybrid-electric

         20   buses.  Likewise, the city's Department of

         21   Transportation already has had a long-standing

         22   commitment and is converting its entire bus fleet to

         23   compressed natural gas.

         24             What these actions show is not only that

         25   cleaner heavy-duty vehicles are necessary and desirable


                                                                       40

          1   from an environmental and public health perspective,

          2   but that they are feasible from a perspective of some

          3   of the largest bus fleets in the nation.

          4             With the time that I have left, I would like

          5   to touch briefly on NRDC's support.  More detailed

          6   comments are in my written testimony, which I submit

          7   into the record.

          8             First, we strongly support EPA's proposed

          9   national sulfur cap of 15 parts per million.  NRDC

         10   would strongly oppose any relaxation of that proposal.

         11             Implementing the new sulfur cap nationally by

         12   mid-2006 makes sense for at least two reasons.  First,

         13   a national approach to low-sulfur diesel is critical,

         14   given the mobility of the vehicles themselves.  Second,

         15   implementing the low-sulfur cap in mid-2006 ensures

         16   that the fuel supply of low-sulfur diesel will be

         17   adequate to service those first model year 2007

         18   vehicles that are sold typically in the summer and fall

         19   preceding the calendar year.

         20             Third, it's critical that EPA adopts the

         21   sulfur cap.  Any sulfur cap less stringent will

         22   jeopardize the technical feasibility of the proposed

         23   particulate and NOx standards by disabling some of the

         24   most promising NOx controls on the drawing boards, and

         25   by reduce the (inaudible) that are already on New York


                                                                       41

          1   City streets.

          2             Let's me be clear:  The oil industry has

          3   already recommended what they call a more reasonable

          4   approach.  But the reality is:  It's a statement of

          5   opposition to achieving the particulate and NOx

          6   standards that EPA has set forth in its proposal, and

          7   by association it's a statement of opposition to the

          8   asthma and cancer reductions provided by those

          9   particulate and nitrogen oxide reductions.  The same

         10   industries that fought unleaded gasoline are now

         11   fighting against desulfurized fuel.

         12             Because they can't win on the science or

         13   health, the oil industry argues poverty and harm to the

         14   US economy.  Let's put this in perspective.

         15             America's largest oil companies reported

         16   nearly $12 billion in profits in just the first quarter

         17   of 2000; yet industry-wide compliance costs less than 4

         18   billion for the entire roll out of this rule.  Surely

         19   this investment is a reasonable cost of continuing what

         20   is obviously an extremely profitable business.

         21             As for the US economy, it's estimated that

         22   these rules could add three or four cents to the cost

         23   of a gallon of diesel fuel.  Hardly enough to derail

         24   the nation's strong economy.  It is worth noting that

         25   BP Amoco has already reported that its 15 ppm sulfur


                                                                       42

          1   fuel will be sold in California next year at an

          2   incremental cost of only 5 cents a gallon.  And that's

          3   even without the economies-of-scale benefits of a

          4   nationwide fuel.

          5             Some industry opponents, of course, are

          6   urging delay by asserting a need for more time to study

          7   the proposal, that the EPA should not rush to reduce

          8   diesel emissions this year.

          9             To them, NRDC responds:  You've had more than

         10   20 years' notice from the environmental and public

         11   health community that it's time to dump the dirty

         12   diesels, and time's up.

         13             Europeans are using technologies that require

         14   low-sulfur diesel, and are reaping the benefits.

         15   Americans should too.

         16             We support the proposed standards, and we

         17   strongly the NOx standard.  By 2007, low sulphur diesel

         18   full should be available nationwide so there's no fuel

         19   barrier to the national use of advanced controls.

         20             The implementing all of the new standards at

         21   the same time will minimize the cost and burdens of

         22   compliance.

         23             Low emissions (inaudible) activities from

         24   around the world and European communities, upcoming

         25   diesel fuel and emission requirements will create


                                                                       43

          1   momentum for product development, and national

          2   non-diesel alternatives will significantly

          3   (inaudible).

          4             I would just like to say a word in support of

          5   strong Blue Sky standards.  (inaudible) to provide

          6   creative incentives and guidance to state and local

          7   fleet programs that are trying to introduce the

          8   cleanest technology, and trying to ensure that they

          9   meet their set goals for the next decade.  Thank you

         10   very much.

         11             MS. OGE:  Mr. Mandel, good morning.

         12             MR. JED MANDEL:   Good morning.  My name is

         13   Jed Mandel, I am here today on behalf of the Engine

         14   Manufacturers Association.  Among EMA's members, the

         15   principal manufacturers of the truck and bus engines

         16   covered by today's proposal.

         17             As we sit here today we are on the cusp, the

         18   critical turning point, of something spectacular.  We

         19   have within our grasp the potential to dramatically

         20   reduce the emissions of the most fuel efficient,

         21   reliable, and durable source of motor power available

         22   today, and the backbone of our nation's transportation

         23   and delivery system.

         24             The diesel engine can be as clean, if not

         25   cleaner, than any other power source.  It is capable of


                                                                       44

          1   meeting emission standards significantly below today's

          2   levels.  And let me remind everyone that the emissions

          3   from today's diesel engines already have been reduced

          4   by over 90 percent.  Yet we recognize that more, much

          5   more, in fact, can and should be done.

          6             The key of course, is to greatly reduce the

          7   sulfur content of diesel fuel.  Future reductions in

          8   diesel engine emissions are going to require much more

          9   than new engine designs and technologies.  As EPA

         10   appropriately recognizes, future emission reductions

         11   requires a systems approach involving the engine,

         12   after-treatment, and fuel.

         13             In a sense, the future of clean, low emitting

         14   trucks and buses rests on a three-legged stool.  And

         15   the stool will fall without all the legs in place.  One

         16   of those legs, fuel quality, enables the technologies

         17   necessary to make the other two legs stand.

         18             Without removing essentially all sulfur from

         19   diesel fuel, advanced NOx after-treatment devices will

         20   not be feasible; advanced PM after-treatment will be

         21   poisoned and engines will be exposed to excessive wear,

         22   increased maintenance costs, and impaired durability.

         23             I cannot emphasize enough the critical

         24   importance of ultra-low sulfur fuel:  It enables

         25   substantial NOx and PM emission reductions; it provides


                                                                       45

          1   direct PM emissions reductions; and it provides

          2   benefits not just from new engines, but from the entire

          3   fleet of diesel fueled vehicles.

          4             Improved diesel fuel also has a role in

          5   responding to potential health effects concerns.

          6             Ultra-low sulfur fuel lowers the total mass

          7   of particulate from the entire fleet and enables the

          8   use of known after-treatment technologies, such as

          9   oxidation catalysts and catalyzed particulate filters,

         10   which can reduce the organic and carbonaceous

         11   components of PM emissions, can reduce hydrocarbon

         12   emissions, and enables technologies to reduce NOx

         13   which, in turn, will reduce secondary PM.

         14             We applaud EPA for recognizing the critical

         15   role of fuel sulphur.  We strongly support the need for

         16   a uniform, nationwide low-sulfur fuel standard with a

         17   hard cap on sulphur content.  Regional differences on

         18   sulfur content will not allow the systems approach

         19   necessary to meet EPA's very stringent NOx and PM

         20   emission levels.

         21             Further, a hard cap on sulfur is critical.

         22   Averages simply will not work.  They are difficult and

         23   impractical to enforce.  Moreover, the engine and

         24   after-treatment legs of the stool must be assured of

         25   never being exposed to high sulfur fuel.


                                                                       46

          1             In our view, 15 ppm does not go far enough.

          2   And fuel improvements shouldn't only be limited to

          3   trucks and buses.  Non-road fuels also must be

          4   improved.

          5             We are aware of the various arguments raised

          6   by the oil industry against improving fuel quality.

          7   They don't want to reduce sulfur to even 15 ppm, let

          8   alone to lower levels.

          9             Nationwide ultra-low sulfur fuel can - no,

         10   must - be achieved, and it can be done cost effectively

         11   without undue economic harm to either the oil industry

         12   or to the trucking industry, the users of both our

         13   engines and the oil industry's fuels.  We will provide

         14   detailed comments on the need for ultra-low sulfur fuel

         15   in our written submission.

         16             So today we are enthusiastic we are

         17   enthusiastic, excited, and hopeful about the future of

         18   the diesel engine and our industry's ability to produce

         19   reliable, durable, fuel efficient, high-performing

         20   diesel engines that are also as clean or cleaner than

         21   any other power source.

         22             There are issues which would require a great

         23   deal of work by the manufacturers and the Agency.  But

         24   it is no longer a question of "if."  Give us fuel

         25   improvements, sufficient time, compliance flexibility,


                                                                       47

          1   and testing certainty and tremendous emission reduction

          2   can be achieved.

          3             Thank you for your time.

          4             MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Mr. Bertelsen, good

          5   morning.

          6             MR. BRUCE BERTELSEN:  My name is Bruce

          7   Bertelsen, and I'm executive director of the

          8   Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association,

          9   (MECA).  MECA is pleased to submit testimony in support

         10   of EPA's proposed heavy-duty engine and vehicle

         11   standards and highway diesel sulfur control

         12   requirements.

         13             We believe an important opportunity exists to

         14   significantly further reduce emissions from highway

         15   heavy-duty diesel engines by utilizing an engineered

         16   systems approach that incorporates and combines

         17   advanced engine designs, advanced emission control

         18   technology, and very low sulfur diesel fuel.

         19             EPA's regulatory initiative recognizes the

         20   importance of promoting this systems-type approach and

         21   the Agency's proposal constitutes a carefully crafted

         22   and balanced program.  If the program is finalized, it

         23   will result in substantial, cost-effective emission

         24   reductions over the next several years.  Indeed, EPA's

         25   initiative will bring about the age of the truly clean


                                                                       48

          1   diesel engine.

          2             By way of background, MECA is a nonprofit

          3   association made up the world's leading manufacturers

          4   of motor vehicle emission controls.  Our member

          5   companies have over 30 years of experience and a proven

          6   track record in developing and commercializing exhaust

          7   control technologies for motor vehicles.

          8             Today, I will briefly summarize MECA's

          9   position on EPA's proposed initiative.  We have

         10   extended discussions in the written statement we

         11   submitted to you, and we will be submitting even more

         12   extensive comments prior to the end of the comments

         13   period.

         14             In the interest of time, I would like to

         15   focus on two issues today:  First, the technological

         16   feasibility of the diesel heavy-duty engine standards;

         17   and second, the critical need for very low sulfur

         18   diesel fuel to meet those standards.

         19             First, with regard to the technical

         20   feasibility, we believe the emission standards proposed

         21   can be achieved in a cost-effective manner within the

         22   lead time provided, if very low sulfur diesel fuel is

         23   available.

         24             EPA, in its proposal, identified two primary

         25   candidate technologies for the meeting the proposed


                                                                       49

          1   emission limits -- catalyst-based diesel particulate

          2   filters for PM control, and NOx adsorber technology for

          3   oxides of nitrogen control.

          4             Catalyst-based diesel particulate filters are

          5   commercially available today.  The only remaining

          6   engineering effort is optimize the filter systems for

          7   the specific engine to which they will be applied.

          8             Worldwide there are over 20,000 engines

          9   equipped with diesel filters.  And it's important to

         10   note that in Europe, or parts of Europe where diesel

         11   fuel with a sulphur level below 10 ppm is available, a

         12   number of filters are operating and have operated very,

         13   very successfully with no problems.  Some of those

         14   vehicles operated hundreds of thousands of miles in

         15   providing very, very significant PM reduction.

         16             With regard to NOx adsorber technology, the

         17   development and optimization of this technology is

         18   progressing at a rapid rate.  Our members fully expect

         19   that with the availability of very low sulphur diesel

         20   fuel, this technology will be commercialized in the

         21   2007 time frame.  This technology is way beyond the

         22   chalkboard stages.

         23             We'll discuss the rapid developments in this

         24   area in more detail in our written statement, but I

         25   would like to make a couple of comments.


                                                                       50

          1             First, our members believe there are no

          2   barriers to the commercialization, the changes are

          3   engineering in nature.

          4             Secondly, these companies, with over 30 years

          5   of experience in emission control technology, are

          6   making the investment because they believe it will

          7   become commercialized.

          8             And, finally, I think it's important to point

          9   out that when the EPA first began talking about the

         10   possibility of setting the 15 ppm cap, these companies

         11   significantly increased their development efforts with

         12   regard to the need for very low sulfur fuel.

         13             A couple of comments.  On meeting the 0.2 NOx

         14   standard and the 0.01 ppm standard over the full useful

         15   life of a heavy-duty engine as certified over the

         16   combined transient and steady-state certification test

         17   procedures with not-to-exceed standards, as previously

         18   stated, we believe these changes can be met and the

         19   ultimate goal of a truly clean diesel engine is

         20   possible.  But, again, very low sulfur diesel fuel must

         21   be available.

         22             Our members believe with a sulphur cap of

         23   15 ppm, emission control strategies can be developed to

         24   meet the proposed emission limits.  Specifically with a

         25   15 ppm cap, our members are extremely confident that


                                                                       51

          1   all catalyst-based filter technologies will be designed

          2   to meet the level of 0.01 ppm, and that NOx absorber

          3   technology will be optimized.  NOx standards at levels

          4   above 15 ppm, we doubt the 0.2 NOx and 0.01 ppm

          5   standard would be feasible.

          6             In closing, I would like to again commend EPA

          7   for a truly remarkable and forward thinking proposal.

          8   We recognize that the proposed highway heavy-duty

          9   engine and vehicle standards present real engineering

         10   challenges, but we also believe that these changes can

         11   and will be met.

         12             As I mentioned earlier, the key is to employ

         13   a systems approach.  And from our standpoint, our

         14   industry is committed to do our part to ensure that if

         15   the proposed standards are adopted and the diesel

         16   sulfur limits are implemented, the desired reductions

         17   will be achieved.  Thank you very much.

         18             MS. OGE:  I'd like to introduce Tom Appelt,

         19   from Corning, Incorporated.  Welcome, good morning.

         20   Please state your name.

         21             MR. THOMAS APPELT:  My name is Thomas Appelt,

         22   I'm the business director, mobile emission products, at

         23   Corning, Incorporated.  Corning appreciates the

         24   opportunity to testify at today's hearing, and to fully

         25   support the testimony of the Manufacturers of Emission


                                                                       52

          1   Controls Association.

          2             In the early 1970s Corning, Incorporated

          3   joined the campaign for cleaner air when it developed

          4   an economical, high-performance cellular ceramic

          5   substrate, and a few years later diesel particulate

          6   filter that are now standards for mobile emission

          7   control devices.  We continue to improve upon these

          8   industry standards with new technologies to enhance the

          9   product performance and manufacturing "know how" which

         10   will support the increase in demand in the coming

         11   years.

         12             Corning, Incorporated firmly believes that

         13   the emission challenges set forth by the EPA proposal

         14   can be met in the time frame given.  But low sulfur

         15   diesel full, no higher than 15 ppm cap, must be part of

         16   the regulatory program as it is the enabler in meeting

         17   the proposed standards.  Thank you very much.

         18             MS. OGE:  I have a question for all of the

         19   panel members, and I would like to start with

         20   Mr. Frank.  And obviously the issue, one of the most

         21   challenging ones that we're dealing with in this

         22   regulatory program, is the level of sulfur in diesel.

         23             In our proposal, we have proposed a

         24   97 percent sulfur reduction in diesel in order to

         25   achieve a 95 percent reduction in NOx and a 90 percent


                                                                       53

          1   reduction in particulates.  We also have analyzed the

          2   proposal that the oil industry has put on the table,

          3   that is 90 percent reduction of diesel sulfur in fuel,

          4   and our conclusion is that if you reduce sulfur by

          5   90 percent, you will reduce nitrogen oxides and

          6   particulate emissions only by 20 percent.  It's a

          7   significant big difference.

          8             Mr. Frank, in your testimony you testified

          9   that the oil industry proposal will achieve an

         10   80 percent reduction in NOx.  I don't believe you have

         11   testified what reductions will be for PM.  I would like

         12   to ask if you can tell us how did your industry, or

         13   your company, arrive to that conclusion?

         14             And I also would like to ask the engine

         15   representatives, and maybe the catalyst technology

         16   representatives, to speak to that.

         17             How far do you think we can go in reducing

         18   NOx and PM if we were to adopt a 90 percent sulfur

         19   reduction in diesel?

         20             But I will start first with Mr. Frank.

         21             MR. FRANK:  I think that the important point

         22   here is that we do not see any beneficial qualities of

         23   sulfur.  But that the practicality of being able to

         24   take down sulfur levels to the extreme levels that

         25   we're talking about will not exist within the refining


                                                                       54

          1   business and that there will be significant shortages

          2   of diesel fuel supplies available within the United

          3   States.

          4             I think that that is important, given the

          5   fact that the situation we're facing with the gasoline

          6   initiative today, where nobody understands the high

          7   prices.  But there is a reduction in the amount of

          8   gasoline available under the EPA guidelines that have

          9   been in effect that have caused a price response in the

         10   marketplace.  And a similar thing, I think, will happen

         11   with diesel fuels.

         12             Another important consideration is that I

         13   think that these NOx adsorbers, even while it's been

         14   testified today that they think that they can develop

         15   the technology by 2006, they do not exist today that

         16   can operate with any sulfur level above zero.  And zero

         17   is impractical to get to.

         18             I think those are important considerations

         19   that are driving what is practical and achievable in

         20   the time frame.  And then again, the phase-in of

         21   gradual sulfur reductions over three-year time frame in

         22   some areas just won't work, and that's what the EPA's

         23   proposing there.

         24             So I think that a lot of what's being

         25   proposed and advocated are wishful thinking and not


                                                                       55

          1   being able to recognize what the real world is.

          2             MS. OGE:  Mr. Frank, we would definitely

          3   appreciate it if you have any supporting documentation

          4   that you can provide to the agency for the record how

          5   your company believes that a 90 percent reduction in

          6   sulfur and fuel will achieve 80 percent reduction in

          7   emissions.  Again, our position on that is that it's

          8   only 20 percent reductions.  It's a very different set

          9   of numbers that we're dealing with.

         10             MR. FRANK:  We will submit that

         11   documentation.

         12             MS. OGE:  I would like to ask the engine

         13   expert and the after-treatment expert to speak to that

         14   effect.  What do you think can be done with a

         15   90 percent reduction in diesel sulphur?

         16             MR. MANDEL:  Sulphur is a poison, and it must

         17   be removed from the fuel.  It's particularly important

         18   to remove it in the context of this rule, because that

         19   enables the after-treatment technologies.  That is the

         20   systems approach to what EPA's proposing, and I think

         21   that's the specific benefits of the package you put

         22   together.

         23             So without getting to the ultra-low levels of

         24   sulfur that we are recommending, we are not going to be

         25   able to enable the technologies that get to those very


                                                                       56

          1   low levels that the Agency is seeking.

          2             We have not calculated, although we will try

          3   calculate whether we think without after-treatment we

          4   can get additional NOx and PM benefits along the lines

          5   of 20 percent.  (Inaudible) -- so far reducing

          6   emissions by 90 percent.

          7             But to get the additional reduction, we need

          8   after-treatment.  And after-treatment needs no sulfur

          9   in the fuel quality.

         10             MS. OGE:  Thank you.

         11             MR. BERTELSEN:  I have to say over the years

         12   many times I have disagreed and sometimes I have

         13   agreed, but I to have to say on this point we

         14   completely agree with the Engine Manufacturers.

         15             Very low sulfur fuel is absolutely

         16   essential.  A 50 ppm sulfur fuel, I can tell you that

         17   if that level is set, work on NOx adsorber technology

         18   will cease.  Obviously we would prefer to operate in a

         19   sulfur free environment, but what we are seeing now is

         20   that it is possible to apply this technology.

         21             50 ppm, unfortunately, is out of the

         22   question.  And I truly believe that work on that

         23   technology will cease for filter technology.  Again, we

         24   feel it's very, very important to have the very low

         25   sulfur fuel to have this technology completely


                                                                       57

          1   effective and to ensure the ability of (inaudible).

          2             We will provide additional comments, but I

          3   hope that will provide you a sense of where we are.

          4             MR. BECKER:  Bill Becker with STAPPA and

          5   ALAPCO.  It's a very good question, Marge, because the

          6   difference in NOx reduction between the oil industry

          7   proposal and the EPA proposal, if it's 20 percent,

          8   30 percent, or 60 percent, will have to be made up

          9   someplace else.

         10             Air pollution, as we all know, is a zero sum

         11   game.  And to the extent that the oil industry proposal

         12   goes into effect, the serious gap between the

         13   effectiveness of that proposal versus EPA's proposal,

         14   will have to be made up on the back of some other

         15   sector of the economy, including mom and pop

         16   businesses.

         17             So while the oil industry is suggesting that

         18   there is an economic effect on their operations, there

         19   will be a much more serious effect on the operations of

         20   mom and pop businesses around the county, who will be

         21   required by necessity to make up that difference.  And

         22   that's an important issue to governors and state and

         23   local regulators around the country.

         24             MR. KASSEL:  Richard Kassel from NRDC, just

         25   very briefly.  I defer to EMA and MECA on the


                                                                       58

          1   engineering that underlies these products that are

          2   being developed.  But I think it's important to come

          3   back to the health issue -- the asthma, the cancer, the

          4   other health impacts that we've heard about and will

          5   hear about today -- and realize that the lowest

          6   possible sulfur will create the greatest possible

          7   emission reductions.  And by virtue of that, the

          8   greatest possible health benefits.

          9             The world is already developing moving

         10   towards a consensus that low-sulfur diesel has to move

         11   beyond.  It needs to move to perhaps a 10 part per

         12   million cap, as Sweden is doing, as the European

         13   community is discussing.  (Inaudible.)

         14             That's where -- if we are to lead in terms of

         15   cleaning up diesels and providing maximum health

         16   benefits -- those cleaner vehicles, that's where we

         17   need to go to.  And I think that we've heard very

         18   promising testimony from the engineering side on that.

         19             MS. OGE:  I would like to thank all of the

         20   panel members for coming here to testify in this very

         21   important proposal.  Thank you very much.

         22             I would like to ask for the following -- I

         23   guess we have members of the public and also we have

         24   different organizations.  David Levy, Mr. Charles

         25   Franceshini, Ms. Alice McIntosh, Mr. Corey Bearak, I


                                                                       59

          1   believe, Samara Swanston, and Mr. Alan G. Hevesi,

          2   please come forward.

          3             MR. DAVID LEVY:  Good morning.  My name is

          4   David Levy, and I am an independent environmental

          5   activist and political consultant from Staten Island,

          6   New York.

          7             I'm here today for two reasons:  I'm very

          8   excited by the EPA's proposed new rules, and I am very

          9   concerned about the lobbying blitz that I expect from

         10   the oil industry to have those rules rolled back.

         11             I got involved in air pollution issues for

         12   the following reason:  I used the bicycle to work in

         13   Manhattan, I don't bicycle any more.  If you have ever

         14   bicycled, you move as a city bus that (inaudible).  In

         15   addition to the usual comments of belching of delivery

         16   trucks, you find yourself blasted with hot putrid

         17   exhaust, only to have this happen all over again.

         18             I used to get behind buses all the time, I

         19   used to combine my cycling with my exercise routine and

         20   commuting, but I stopped because I read that one should

         21   not exercise in polluted air.  What's the cost to me?

         22   Commuting costs.  I have to work out separately.  I

         23   lose about three hours a week.

         24             I also would like to add regarding bicycling,

         25   I hesitated purporting go that comment because the


                                                                       60

          1   current state of affairs in this country is that

          2   bicyclists are virtually laughed at on the city

          3   streets.  And this eventually is going to have to

          4   change if we're going to have a sustainable life from

          5   now and on and into the next several centuries.  So

          6   cycling is not a minor consideration, it's going to be

          7   become a very major consideration over the next few

          8   years.  Especially as global warming is becoming a

          9   major issue.

         10             Finally, as I return to home on Staten Island

         11   Ferry and see (inaudible) I think:  "We don't have to

         12   live this way."

         13             I won't go into detail on the myriad

         14   advantages of the proposed rules, since other advocates

         15   have and will do that; however, I will just touch on

         16   these rules are the best initiative for reducing

         17   vehicle pollution since lead was removed from gas in

         18   the 1970s.  That's over 25 years ago.  And it's none

         19   too soon.  That would be tantamount to removing

         20   (inaudible) at a cost of only 3 to 4 cents a gallon.

         21   Is it worth it?  I think so.

         22             Residents of New York are assaulted every day

         23   with toxic fumes that causes lung cancer, asthma, and

         24   other respiratory diseases.  (Inaudible)  I don't see

         25   why we to have wait five years in order to see ultra


                                                                       61

          1   low-sulfur fuel come on the market.

          2             And, lastly, given that there are currently

          3   1 million trucks on the road that are specifically

          4   manufactured to meet the (inaudible.), I urge the EPA

          5   to require ongoing emissions testing.  That's not

          6   testing out of factory, but ongoing emission testing to

          7   ensure that this sort of criminal behavior never

          8   happens again.

          9             Regarding negative health impact you will

         10   hear several witnesses showing through scientific

         11   studies (inaudible).  However, you will not hear

         12   defenders of the status quo demonstrating through

         13   scientific studies how harmless diesel pollution is.

         14   Why is that?

         15             What happened to the precautionary

         16   principle?  The principle states that a substance

         17   should not be introduced into common use until it has

         18   been proven safe.  Why does the burden of proof always

         19   fall on the public?

         20             Humans have introduced over 200,000 new

         21   chemical compounds into the environment in the last two

         22   centuries.  If the precautionary principle had been

         23   used, we would have avoided disasters like (inaudible),

         24   mercury poisoning, Love Canal, and tens of thousands

         25   early deaths due to pollution annually.


                                                                       62

          1             According to the US (inaudible) educations

          2   funds (inaudible).  The oil industry contributed to

          3   congressional candidates.  In addition, the oil

          4   industry devotes dollars to paid lobbyists or former

          5   elected officials who know the ins and outs of

          6   governments and of the oil industry.  If it hasn't

          7   already done so, it will probably (inaudible) a

          8   publicity blitz to convince the America public to think

          9   jobs will be lost (inaudible.)

         10             Over regulation.  What do we citizens have to

         11   counteract that?  Very little.  We have the public

         12   advocacy groups like the American Lung Association, the

         13   PIRGs, environmental justice groups, etcetera.  We

         14   (inaudible) while the journalists listen to experts on

         15   the industry payroll.

         16             The only people standing between us and a

         17   continuation of dirty air, respiratory distress, and

         18   environmental degradation are (inaudible) as 2000

         19   protesters showed last week in Calgary.  People are

         20   tired of watching the oil industry manipulate the

         21   political process to the detriment of environmental and

         22   public health.  I don't bicycle any more.  Why?  Too

         23   much danger of accidents and too much pollution.

         24             Please pass the proposed rules on a faster

         25   schedule so I can ride my bicycle, and so that people


                                                                       63

          1   yearning to breathe free can finally do so.  This is

          2   only a step in making our cities livable again, but a

          3   very significant one.  Thank you.

          4             MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Mr. Franceshini.

          5             MR. CHARLES FRANCESHINI:  I'm a resident of

          6   Staten Island.  I live approximately 200 yards from the

          7   MTA bus depot in Staten Island.  I began fighting with

          8   them for idling their buses for years.  During the

          9   summer and during the winter you can't even walk

         10   outside the door, because they continued to idle the

         11   buses.  I have a 14-month old grandson, and he's

         12   asthmatic.  You know.  And I called the DEP, the EPA,

         13   and they laugh at me:  You're going after the MTA?

         14             This is what happens with them.  You have

         15   just one big circle.  I wrote to the government, to the

         16   Mayor, to the borough president -- and nothing.  Now,

         17   they are extending the bus depot.  Now they're going to

         18   be ten feet away from me.  When is this going to stop?

         19   When they kill everybody in the neighborhood?

         20             I have been fed up with them because I say to

         21   them, I says:  All the money that you spend on idling

         22   the buses during the winter time and during the summer,

         23   you could do something about this, about keeping the

         24   buses warm.  You know?  I could have been paying the

         25   whole Staten Island -- maybe the fuel bill for all of


                                                                       64

          1   Staten Island.

          2             This is only one location.  I notice that

          3   other people in Bensonhurst have the same problem, you

          4   know.  And they they're looking to raise fares to buy

          5   more diesel.  Thank you very much.

          6             MS. OGE:  Alice McIntosh.

          7             MS. ALICE MCINTOSH:  I'm Alice McIntosh, and

          8   I am public health education consultant here in New

          9   York City, and currently doing some work with the

         10   Pulmonary Division at Harlem Hospital as their senior

         11   public health educator.

         12             I wanted to say a couple of things about what

         13   is proposed today.  With increasing efforts to improve

         14   the quality of life for patients suffering with chronic

         15   and often debilitating diseases like asthma,

         16   determining health status must go beyond diagnosing and

         17   treating disease.

         18             Patients want to enhance the quality of care

         19   they receive, as well as the quality of their lives, as

         20   they cope with their illness.  We have learned that

         21   asthma presents special problems for its sufferers and

         22   their ability to self manage.

         23             As health care providers, whether we are

         24   health education specialists, physicians, nurses, or

         25   pharmacists, we must be particularly creative in our


                                                                       65

          1   approaches to care.  We work very, very hard to treat

          2   and educate our patients, but how can we increase

          3   patient self-efficacy and compel our patients to

          4   self-manage when we send them to homes with mold,

          5   mildew, peeling lead paint, and streets cluttered with

          6   exhaust from diesel engines knowing that these and

          7   other factors exacerbate the afflictions?

          8             If EPA's program is implemented as proposed,

          9   diesel trucks and buses will be 95 percent cleaner,

         10   particulate levels 95 percent below current levels,

         11   nitrogen oxides 95 percent below current levels, and

         12   sulphur content reduced by 95 percent.

         13             The impact of this rule will be far reaching

         14   for cleaner air and for the health of residents in New

         15   York City, particularly those suffering with asthma,

         16   thank you.

         17             MS. OGE:  Thank you.

         18             MR. COREY BEARAK:  My name is Corey Bearak,

         19   and I work as legislative counsel for Bronx Borough

         20   President Ferrer.  Thank you for this opportunity to

         21   comment on the proposed rules.

         22             Last Thursday the borough president unveiled

         23   a program to promote the use of clean air vehicles.

         24   This program required the use of government purchasing

         25   power to develop (inaudible) for our school buses, MTA,


                                                                       66

          1   and taxies to operate on clean air technology.

          2             The borough president urges the US to adopt

          3   the most stringent rules rather than a phase-in to

          4   2010, and full implementation no later than 2007.  That

          5   adoption will help drive local, state, and regional

          6   efforts, including the borough president's ten-point

          7   strategic clean air plan.  (inaudible).

          8             The government must not allow (inaudible) and

          9   exacerbate the symptoms of asthma.  As a former chair

         10   of the health committee of the city, I (inaudible).

         11   Hospitalization just under 10,000 in the New York City

         12   and (inaudible).

         13             We must seize the opportunity to make a

         14   difference.  The borough president also urges

         15   (inaudible) mandate city and state to convert to the

         16   (inaudible reading from the borough president's plan).

         17   We are also pleased that the National Resources Defense

         18   Counsel (inaudible).

         19             The key point to make is that by having these

         20   stringent rules, it helps drive the local plans and

         21   local initiative to move forward to get to clean air at

         22   the earliest possible stages, and that would make the

         23   biggest difference.

         24             MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Good morning.

         25             MS. NANCY ANDERSON:  My name is Nancy


                                                                       67

          1   Anderson, I'm the senior environmental advisor to the

          2   New York Comptroller, Alan G. Hevesi.

          3             I am pleased to be here on the comptroller's

          4   behalf to express his support for the rule proposed by

          5   the United States Environmental Protection Agency that

          6   would lower the permissible level of sulfur in diesel

          7   fuel by 97 percent in 2006.

          8             Let me take this opportunity to applaud the

          9   EPA for proposing a rule of such importance to all

         10   Americans, and also let me congratulate the American

         11   Lung Association, West Harlem WE ACT, the Natural

         12   Resources Defense council, and other groups for their

         13   tireless efforts to solve the problems of diesel

         14   pollution.

         15             New York City, connected directly to the

         16   mainland of the United States only in the borough of

         17   the Bronx, is particularly reliant on diesel trucks for

         18   the movement of goods and the export of solid wastes

         19   because it lacks convenient rail-freight links.

         20             Although air pollution coming from cars,

         21   factories, and incinerators has been substantially

         22   reduced since the 1970s, air pollution coming from

         23   diesel-powered engines and distant coal burning power

         24   plants remains a chronic problem.  Adding to this

         25   chronic problem is the fact that our robust national


                                                                       68

          1   economy is accompanied by more vehicle miles traveled

          2   every year.  In turn, this means more diesel fuel is

          3   being consumed, and this means more air pollution and

          4   public health problems.

          5             Recently, increasing sales of popular SUVs

          6   has introduced another source of microscopic

          7   particulates and nitrogen oxides to our environment and

          8   our lungs.  The combination of all these factors in a

          9   city dominated by urban canyons that trap air

         10   pollution, helps explain why New York City has been in

         11   chronic non-attainment for regulated particulate

         12   standards under the Clean Air Act.

         13             Of particular significance is the New York

         14   State Department of Environmental Conservation estimate

         15   that over half of the breathing level particulate

         16   matter in Manhattan comes from diesel tailpipes.

         17             The rule under discussion here today will

         18   improve the lives of 8 million New Yorkers by enabling

         19   them to breath easier and be healthier if it is

         20   adopted.

         21             The EPA is correct to focus its efforts on

         22   both diesel fuel used by heavy-duty vehicles and the

         23   vehicle engines themselves.  By requiring the

         24   97 percent reduction in sulfur and diesel fuel from 500

         25   parts per million down to 15 ppm, smog-causing nitrogen


                                                                       69

          1   oxides will be cut by 95 percent and particulates would

          2   be cut by 90 percent, as has already been testified

          3   to.

          4             These dramatic cuts in pollution can only be

          5   achieved through EPA's two-pronged approached, because

          6   the pollution control equipment that will be installed

          7   on diesel engines can properly function only if the

          8   sulfur is removed from that diesel fuel.

          9             What will the adoption of these proposed

         10   rules mean in human health terms for New Yorkers?

         11             According to the New York City Health

         12   Department's publication in 1999, "Asthma Facts,"

         13   asthma is the leading cause of hospitalization in New

         14   York City children aged 0 to 14.

         15             In 1997 14,780 children were hospitalized for

         16   this disease.  This translates into an asthma

         17   hospitalization rate of 10.2 per 1000 for city kids 0

         18   to 14 in comparison to the national rate of 3.7 for the

         19   same age group.  That's almost three times as high.

         20   The hospitalization rate for New Yorkers of all ages

         21   during 1997, 33,348 admissions for asthma were

         22   recorded.

         23             The Health Department has reported that

         24   hospitalizations for asthma are strongly correlated

         25   with socioeconomic status.  During 1997 the asthma


                                                                       70

          1   hospitalization for children 0 to 14 from Manhattan's

          2   Central Harlem/Morningside Heights community was

          3   28.8 per thousand.  In Staten Island's

          4   South-Beach/Tottenville, the rate was much lower, 2.4

          5   per thousand.

          6             Many of the city's low income neighborhoods

          7   are located proximate to major industrial hubs, such as

          8   the Hunts Point area in the South Bronx.  Hunts Point

          9   is home to the city's central produce market as well as

         10   many waste transfer stations, and both industries are

         11   truck reliant.  Adopting the low-sulfur diesel

         12   regulations would greatly benefit such communities.

         13             While science cannot tell us that asthma will

         14   be eliminated when airborne particulate pollution is

         15   eliminated, science does give us reason to believe that

         16   the scourge of asthma can be controlled.  According to

         17   the National Jewish and Medical Research Center in

         18   Denver, people with asthma suffer from chronic

         19   inflammation of their airways; therefore, by definition

         20   they are particularly sensitive to such airborne

         21   irritants that make asthma worse.

         22             Both fine particulates and oxides of nitrogen

         23   are of concern here.  The American Lung Association

         24   describes particulate matter as a combination of fine

         25   solids and aerosols.  Particles of special pulmonary


                                                                       71

          1   concern are the very small ones, those less than 2.5

          2   microns in diameter.

          3             Fine particulates are easily inhaled deep

          4   into the lungs, where they can be absorbed into the

          5   bloodstream or remain embedded in the lungs for a long

          6   time.  Therefore, they pose particular health threats

          7   to people with asthma and other chronic pulmonary lung

          8   diseases, including bronchitis and emphysema.  Recent

          9   research also links exposure to premature death in the

         10   elderly, and for those with preexisting lung and heart

         11   disease.

         12             In conclusion, I urge the Environmental

         13   Protection Agency to adopt this proposed rule requiring

         14   a 97 percent reduction of sulfur in diesel fuel by

         15   2006; it's a lifesaver.

         16             MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Mr. Swanston.

         17             MR. SAMARA SWANSTON:  Thank you.   My name is

         18   Samara Swanston, I'm the Executive Director of the

         19   Watchperson Project of Greenpoint/Williamsburg.  I'm

         20   also the (inaudible) and vice chair of the New York

         21   City group of the Sierra Club.

         22             Greenpoint and Williamsburg have high rates

         23   of environmental disease, including cancer and asthma

         24   and low birth rate.  Babies in particular.  We have

         25   (inaudible) elevated rates of cancer, including child


                                                                       72

          1   leukemia.  We have an asthma rate that is triple the

          2   national average, and high rates of low birth rate.

          3   Interestingly, we have high numbers of people in their

          4   fifties dying of lung cancer who never smoked

          5   cigarettes.

          6             Greenpoint and Williamsburg also have a

          7   significant number of environmental facilities that

          8   emit air pollution.  We have 12 major sources of air

          9   pollution.  We have (inaudible) sources of air

         10   pollution, and we have 22 waste transfer stations,

         11   which is half the permitted capacity of the City of New

         12   York.  Each and every one of those served by diesel

         13   truck fleets.

         14             We support the new low-sulfur diesel fuel

         15   because we believe it's more protective of the health

         16   of children.  Public health studies show that heavy

         17   truck traffic exacerbates asthma.  (Inaudible) in the

         18   city of New York asthma also a killer and I had two

         19   asthma deaths in the family.  My daughter has asthma

         20   now.

         21             Public health studies also show that the

         22   fetal growth is impeded if exposed to particulate

         23   matter during pregnancy.  And, of course, we know that

         24   the current diesel (inaudible.)  You simply cannot

         25   drive through the streets of Greenpoint and


                                                                       73

          1   Williamsburg without being either stuck behind trucks

          2   that are packing or making a delivery, or next to an

          3   idling truck.

          4             And we call on the EPA to visit our community

          5   so that they can see the impact of diesel emissions on

          6   our communities.

          7             We applaud the new standards, because we

          8   believe it's a step toward protecting the health of

          9   children and adults in Greenpoint, Williamsburg, and

         10   statewide.  Thank you very much.

         11             MS. OGE:  I would like to thank you for

         12   taking the time to come in and testify this morning.

         13   Thank you very much.

         14             Mr. Shin, good morning.  We'll start with

         15   you.

         16             MR. ROBERT SHINN:  I am Bob Shinn, the

         17   Commissioner of the New York Department of

         18   Environmental Protection.  I would like to thank the US

         19   EPA for the opportunity to comment on heavy-duty engine

         20   and vehicle standards and highway diesel fuel sulfur

         21   control proposal.

         22             I am pleased to support the agency's efforts,

         23   which are most critical to the health and welfare of

         24   our residents.  This EPA proposal which will establish

         25   new emission standards for the model year 2007 and


                                                                       74

          1   later heavy-duty diesel and gasoline engines, also

          2   provides for low-sulfur diesel fuel with a cap of 15

          3   parts per million to enable new engine technology to

          4   meet standards.  (Inaudible) proposal measures are

          5   critical not for attainment, than for the maintenance

          6   of the National Air Quality Standards for ozone.

          7             This is especially important for the New

          8   York/New Jersey air quality control region.  New York

          9   and New Jersey will have (inaudible) just to attain the

         10   standard prior to the target year 2007.

         11             Even more daunting for us will be the task of

         12   the meeting the more stringent health based eight-hour

         13   standards.  As you all are aware, this new standard is

         14   currently scheduled for review after the US sent

         15   (inaudible) to EPA for further justification.  I am

         16   optimistic that when the dust settles, good judgement

         17   will prevail.

         18             We must act with the expectation that we will

         19   need to comply with such a health based standard in the

         20   near future.  (Inaudible) to protect public health,

         21   which means the air in this region will continue to be

         22   unhealthy.

         23             Also of concern to us in the region is fine

         24   particulate.  This proposal will clearly provide a

         25   major impact on this pollutant which, in the past and


                                                                       75

          1   (inaudible) which directly impinges upon the public's

          2   perception of New Jersey (inaudible) that many areas of

          3   the state, particularly urban areas, will be unable to

          4   meet the PM standard.  (inaudible) as part of its daily

          5   care quality index.

          6             Since May 1st we have recorded eight days

          7   that exceeded code for PM 2.5.  That is eight days when

          8   fine particulates reached unhealthy levels for the same

          9   (inaudible) which ozone registered as code orange or

         10   code red.

         11             (Inaudible) we expect to see reductions,

         12   thanks to New Jersey's enhanced inspection and

         13   maintenance program for heavy-duty diesel engines.

         14   This program alone cannot adequately address the

         15   problem.  The EPA's efforts in this regard are thus

         16   critical to the success (inaudible) and ozone reduction

         17   strategy.

         18             We also share EPA's concerns with diesel

         19   exhaust as a likely human carcinogen, which also causes

         20   respiratory and cardiovascular disease.  We in New

         21   Jersey are concerned with reducing (inaudible) emit

         22   into our air.  EPA's soon-to-be-released 1996 National

         23   Air Toxic Assessment is likely to show that almost a

         24   third of the 34 most critical air (inaudible) in New

         25   Jersey are generated by on-road sources.


                                                                       76

          1             This proposal should make important strides

          2   in addressing this pollution from on-road sources.

          3             Just as critical are non-road emissions.

          4   (inaudible) EPA's announced intention to pursue further

          5   controls for these engines in the coming years is

          6   vital, and we will be rigorous advocates.

          7             We have long known that New Jersey is

          8   responsible for a significant portion of the very air

          9   pollution we are seeking to control with today's

         10   proposal.  In fact, the same 1996 inventory is likely

         11   to show that (inaudible) for more than half or

         12   52 percent of the total statewide air toxins.  As we

         13   continue to reduce emissions from highway sources, the

         14   percentage contributed by non-road engines can be

         15   expected to grow.

         16             To be sure, the states have not be been idle

         17   in addressing this issue.  For example, beyond our own

         18   emission checks from heavy-duty trucks and buses, New

         19   Jersey is actively contributing to regional pollution

         20   reductions projects.  (Inaudible) fleet of heavy-duty

         21   vehicle for the Department of Transportation in New

         22   Jersey will be retrofitting up to four thousand

         23   (inaudible) with PM oxidation catalyst.

         24             Secondly, New Jersey Transit plans to test

         25   new diesel buses using advanced (inaudible).  New


                                                                       77

          1   Jersey Transit also has begun a (inaudible) which

          2   success will also (inaudible) the retrofit controls.

          3             Finally, on a regional level, we will be

          4   working with necessary come to test about 20 heavy-duty

          5   trucks which have been retrofitted with (inaudible).

          6   This effort is part of the Department of Justice's

          7   efforts to help remedy excess NOx emissions caused by

          8   manufacturer's use of so-called "defeat devices."  In

          9   the proposal, the EPA asks for comments on a number of

         10   which are considered, but not included, in the proposed

         11   program design.  The alternative option included a

         12   phase-in of the low sulphur content cap and an average

         13   sulfur standard of 25 parts per million.

         14             Because our region depends on the adoption of

         15   the most stringent program designs, we support EPA's

         16   decision to (inaudible) any phase-in of the low-sulfur

         17   standards, for example, will jeopardize the

         18   effectiveness of the new advanced control technology,

         19   which must rely on low-sulfur fuels.

         20             Finally, we have long recognized the

         21   importance of implementing not just state, but regional

         22   and national ozone sources.  New Jersey has worked

         23   actively with (inaudible) by the ozone transport

         24   assessment groups to come up with regional solutions to

         25   ozone and NOx.  Transport motor vehicles (inaudible),


                                                                       78

          1   which makes localized control measures of limited

          2   effectiveness.

          3             Therefore, I strongly support this proposal

          4   because it provides a national fuel standard.  Early

          5   this morning as a member of OTC, I wrote a

          6   (inaudible).  The OTC declared its support on the

          7   proposed cap of sulfur in on-road diesel of 15 parts

          8   per million.  The OTC urged EPA to finalize rules

          9   during the 2001 period to subject non-road fuel to the

         10   same standards.  (Inaudible) urge EPA to (inaudible),

         11   so that highway and non-road diesel operate as cleanly

         12   in reality.

         13             Finally, the OTC resolved to continue to

         14   examine the need for more timely and more aggressive

         15   implementation as may be necessary to meet National Air

         16   Quality Standards.  Thank you again for this

         17   opportunity to comment.  We look forward to continuing

         18   with (inaudible) efforts.

         19             MS. OGE:  Thank you very much.  I understand

         20   that there are two members of the public that are

         21   interested in testifying prior to 12 o'clock, and I

         22   will ask them to come up here.

         23             MR. RED CAVANEY:  Thank you members of the

         24   panel.  I am Red Cavaney, president and CEO of American

         25   Petroleum Institute, which represents all sectors of


                                                                       79

          1   America's oil and national gas industry.

          2             Thank you for the opportunity to testify on

          3   an issue of such importance to our members, to US

          4   consumers, and to our nation.  I also want to express

          5   our appreciation for your willingness to meet with us

          6   earlier during your planning and preparation of the

          7   diesel sulfur proposal.  Sound regulations are

          8   difficult without an exchange of information between

          9   government and industry, and we hope this can

         10   continue.

         11             EPA and our industry agree that the sulfur

         12   content in diesel fuel must be substantially reduced

         13   and, as you know, API proposed a 90 percent reduction

         14   last winter.  Reducing sulfur in both diesel fuel and

         15   gasoline is key in reducing vehicle emissions.

         16             Your latest air quality report shows that

         17   emission reductions from cleaner vehicles powered by

         18   cleaner fuels made up more than two-thirds of the total

         19   national decline in criteria pollutant emissions

         20   between 1970 and 1998.  This is the single most

         21   important reason why Americans today are breathing

         22   cleaner air and experiencing fewer health concerns

         23   related to air pollution.

         24             As the industry responsible for fueling all

         25   of our nation's consumers, we are concerned that the


                                                                       80

          1   Agency's diesel sulfur proposal -- which would reduce

          2   sulfur 97 percent -- risks too much by going too far,

          3   too fast we.  We believe EPA's proposed rule will

          4   degrees the total volume of diesel fuel produced,

          5   falling short of satisfying clearly rising consumer

          6   demand.  The national Petroleum Council, in a "soon to

          7   be released" report on behalf of the US Department of

          8   Energy, calls the risk of inadequate supplies

          9   "significant."

         10             Consumers need not face this risk.  By

         11   adopting the 90 percent reduction we have recommended,

         12   the chances of disrupting diesel supplies would be

         13   greatly lessened, yet emissions would still be cut

         14   substantially.  We believe that a 90 percent reduction

         15   in sulfur is right.  That is the amount of reduction

         16   the agency is requiring of gasoline sulfur -- and how

         17   much EPA said diesel sulfur content should be lowered

         18   in a press release last October.

         19             Were EPA to disregard our 90 percentage

         20   reduction initiative and go forward with its rule as

         21   proposed, a number of refiners will certainly elect to

         22   make the requisite, considerable investment to meet the

         23   rule.  However, this is not the entire picture.

         24             Total US diesel fuel supply and demand are in

         25   reasonable balance.  For investment return levels


                                                                       81

          1   and/or other reasons, a number of refiners will likely

          2   not undertake EPA's costly sulphur reductions, choosing

          3   instead to make other products.  Yet other companies

          4   will end up producing less of the new diesel than

          5   current diesel capacity.  All of these actions will

          6   have the effect of reducing overall diesel capacity and

          7   creating supply/demand imbalances.  Upward cost

          8   pressures on supply will be considerable.

          9             Making the ultra low-sulfur diesel that EPA

         10   proposes will require huge refinery investments, closer

         11   to $8 billion than the $4 billion the agency has

         12   estimated.  The difference can be explained by the

         13   failure of EPA to adequately take into account the

         14   difficulty and expenses of removing sulfur from all of

         15   the refinery streams that will have to be used in order

         16   to make ultra low-sulfur diesel.

         17             Additionally, distribution problems are

         18   likely to affect supply.  Refiners will have to move

         19   ultra low-sulfur diesel to market using common

         20   pipelines and storage facilities, risking contamination

         21   of some of the volumes from the sulphur residues of the

         22   other fuels having to utilize those same facilities.

         23   This may force costly reprocessing or downgrading of

         24   portions of each batch of ultra low-sulfur diesel,

         25   further decreasing available supplies.


                                                                       82

          1             The majority of the America's goods move by

          2   truck.  We estimate that EPA's proposal could add

          3   $2,600 to the cost of a trucker's annual operations in

          4   higher diesel fuel costs.  This does not include the

          5   additional cost of emission control hardware, which

          6   could be several thousand dollars per truck; nor does

          7   it factor in other time and inconvenience costs

          8   associated with less readily available diesel supply.

          9             Higher costs could also hurt others,

         10   including businesses with small fleets of vehicles like

         11   bakeries and nurseries and the like, and, ultimately,

         12   all consumers.

         13             Has the agency considered how consumers and

         14   others might be protected, if supply and cost

         15   dislocations come to pass?  A waiver certainly wouldn't

         16   be practical, because it would expose new trucks to

         17   higher sulfur diesel, which, according to EPA's own

         18   assessment, could damage the emission control equipment

         19   needed to meet the proposed diesel exhaust standards.

         20   In the near term, increase imports probably wouldn't be

         21   able to fill big gaps, because few foreign refiners

         22   will be making the same diesel.  And foreign producers

         23   also have their own capacity constraints.  Eventually,

         24   US or foreign refiners may well expand capacity to

         25   provide additional supplies, but this would require


                                                                       83

          1   installation of new equipment, a process that could

          2   take years.

          3             No one can predict with 100 percent

          4   confidence what might happen, but given the volatility

          5   we have seen in the fuels markets this year, are the

          6   risks described worth taking?  Are the small or

          7   nonexistent additional benefits EPA's proposal is

          8   likely to achieve worth this gamble?

          9             According to a study by a well-known

         10   automotive engineering consulting firm, the most

         11   advanced vehicle emissions reduction technology that we

         12   know will work reduces emissions about the same with

         13   either fuel.  EPA hopes that a different technology

         14   will be used, but it takes the facility to support this

         15   belief.  According to the agency, this technology has

         16   not advanced to the field trail stage.  And, in

         17   preliminary laboratory tests sponsored by industry and

         18   government, it has not cut emissions to the levels EPA

         19   wants no matter how much sulphur was reduced.

         20             In short, there's a strong likelihood that

         21   going to the 90 percent reduction and the latest SCR

         22   technology would provide essentially all of the air

         23   quality benefits that are possible, save billions of

         24   dollars for consumers in the process, and greatly

         25   decrease the risks of a considerable diesel supply


                                                                       84

          1   shortfall.

          2             We encourage EPA to carefully consider the

          3   concerns we have raised today.  Cleaner air demands

          4   that we reduce diesel sulfur, and we have volunteered

          5   to do so by a significant amount -- 90 percent.  Too

          6   severe a reduction could result in unintended negative

          7   consequences for consumers and for the industry.  With

          8   reasonable adjustments to EPA's proposed rule, we

          9   believe these can be minimized.

         10             Providing a dependable supply of fuel at

         11   affordable prices is what consumers want.  Working

         12   constructively together to address the full range of

         13   potential impacts on consumers, the agency, and

         14   industry can provide both significant emissions

         15   reductions and a reliable fuel supply.  Consumers

         16   deserve no less than full-faith efforts by each and

         17   every one of us.  Thank you.

         18             MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Mr. Billings, good

         19   afternoon.

         20             MR. PAUL BILLINGS:  Good afternoon.  My name

         21   is Paul Billings, I'm the assistant vice president of

         22   Government Relations for the American Lung

         23   Association.

         24             The American Lung Association is pleased to

         25   support the low-sulfur fuel and heavy-duty vehicle


                                                                       85

          1   rulemaking.  We strongly support the low-sulfur diesel

          2   provisions and view the cap of 15 ppm on diesel sulfur

          3   as the critical element of the rule.

          4             I want to highlight the urgent public health

          5   need to clean up diesel fuel and heavy-duty vehicles,

          6   and show the overwhelming public support for this

          7   program as demonstrated by a recent public opinion

          8   poll.  In addition, I want to suggest to the EPA how

          9   accelerating the implementation would enhance its

         10   efficacy.

         11             The most critical element is the 97 percent

         12   reduction of sulfur.  We commend EPA for proposing this

         13   level.  EPA must cap the sulfur in diesel fuel at no

         14   higher than 15 ppm, and must fully implement the fuel

         15   sulfur rule no later than mid-2006, nationwide.  No two

         16   fuels:  One fuel nationwide.

         17             Cleaning up diesel fuel and heavy-duty

         18   vehicles is necessary because the air is dirty.  Diesel

         19   engines contribute considerable pollution to our

         20   continuing air pollution problems.  Even with more

         21   stringent heavy-duty highway engine standards set to

         22   take effect in 2004, these engines will continue to

         23   emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides and particulate

         24   matter, both which contribute to serious health

         25   problems in the United States.  These include premature


                                                                       86

          1   mortality, aggravation of respiratory and

          2   cardiovascular disease, aggravation of existing asthma,

          3   acute respiratory systems, chronic bronchitis, and

          4   decreased lung function.

          5             Numerous studies also link diesel exhaust to

          6   increased incidents of lung cancer.  The "National

          7   Toxicology Program's 9th Report on Carcinogens"

          8   classified diesel exhaust particulates as reasonably

          9   anticipated to be a human carcinogen.

         10             In 1998, California declared particulate

         11   emissions from diesel-fueled engines as a toxic air

         12   contaminant, a probable carcinogen requiring action to

         13   reduce public exposure and risk, based on data that

         14   supported the links between diesel exposure and

         15   cancer.

         16             Nitrogen oxides contribute to ozone, commonly

         17   know as smog.  Ozone is a powerful respiratory

         18   irritant.  Symptoms include shortness of breath, chest

         19   pain, wheezing and coughing.  Research on the effects

         20   of prolonged exposures to relatively low levels of

         21   ozone has found reductions in lung function, biological

         22   evidence of inflammation of the lung lining, and

         23   respiratory discomfort.  Researchers liken ozone

         24   exposure to a sunburn of the lungs.  Studies of animals

         25   found an increased susceptibility to bacterial


                                                                       87

          1   pneumonia infection.

          2             Ozone triggers asthma attacks.  People with

          3   chronic bronchitis and asthma already suffer from

          4   reduced lung function and therefore cannot tolerate an

          5   additional reduction in lung function due to ozone

          6   exposure.

          7             The health risks from diesel exposure is

          8   greatest for children, the elderly, people who have

          9   respiratory problems or who smoke, people who regularly

         10   exercise strenuously in diesel-polluted areas, and

         11   people who live or work near diesel exhaust sources.

         12   Studies have shown that the proximity of a child's

         13   residence to major roads is linked to hospital

         14   admissions for asthma, and there is a positive

         15   relationship between school proximity to freeways and

         16   asthma occurrence.  Truck and traffic intensity and

         17   exhaust measured in schools were significantly

         18   associated with chronic respiratory symptoms.

         19             Diesels are a large source of particulate

         20   pollution.  Particles of special concern to the

         21   protection of lung health are know a fine particles,

         22   2.5 five microns in diameter.  Fine particles

         23   particulates are easily inhaled deep into the lungs

         24   where they can be absorbed into the bloodstream or

         25   remain embedded for long periods of time.  A recent


                                                                       88

          1   study showed a 17 percent increase in mortality in

          2   areas associated with high concentrations of small

          3   particles.

          4             Recent research has also linked the exposure

          5   to relatively low concentrations of particulate matter

          6   with premature death.  Those at greatest risk are the

          7   elderly and those with preexisting respiratory and

          8   heart disease.

          9             To understand how far we have to go to clean

         10   the air, one need only look a day earlier this month,

         11   Saturday, June 10th.  Preliminary data, from the

         12   Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association, show

         13   on this particular Saturday, 144 monitors in eight

         14   states from North Carolina to New York and the District

         15   of Columbia had ozone levels above the .08 ppm

         16   eight-hour standard.  Millions of people live in this

         17   region.  Twenty-six monitors reported air pollution

         18   above the .12 ppm one-hour standard, including peaks

         19   of .146 ppm in Fair Hill, Maryland; .147 ppm in

         20   Norristown, Pennsylvania, and .145 in Riverhead, New

         21   York, in Suffolk County on Long Island.

         22             Ozone remains a pervasive and immediate

         23   health threat for millions of Americans.  The public

         24   overwhelmingly supports the clean up of trucks and

         25   buses.  In a nationwide public opinion survey conducted


                                                                       89

          1   earlier this month, nearly nine out of ten Americans

          2   believe that big diesel trucks and buses should be

          3   required to use the best available pollution control

          4   technology.  In addition, the survey found that nearly

          5   seven of ten believe that cleaner diesel fuel and

          6   stricter diesel vehicle standards will require less

          7   than five years.

          8             The public wants this soon.  On the critical

          9   question of diesel fuel 85 percent of survey

         10   respondents believe that up to 4 cents a gallon is a

         11   reasonable price to pay.

         12             As I indicated earlier, the American Lung

         13   Association strongly supports the EPA proposal.  In our

         14   written comments we will address many of the specifics

         15   raised in the proposal.  I will highlight the most

         16   critical elements here.

         17             We strongly endorse the levels EPA has

         18   proposed.  We support the 90 percent reduction of

         19   particulate matter to 0.01 grams per brake

         20   horsepower-hour standard and the 95 percent reduction

         21   of NOx to the O.2 standard.  We are pleased that EPA is

         22   calling for the particulate standard to be fully

         23   implemented by 2007.

         24             However, we believe the four-year phase-in

         25   period proposed is unwarranted and unnecessarily will


                                                                       90

          1   postpone the needed air quality benefits.  We call on

          2   EPA to require 100 percent of the new vehicles to meet

          3   the 0.2 grams per brake horsepower-hour NOx standard in

          4   2007.

          5             Once again, we reiterate that the most

          6   critical element of this rule is the 97 percent

          7   reduction of sulfur in diesel fuel.  EPA must cap the

          8   sulfur in diesel fuel at no higher than 15 ppm and must

          9   fully implement the fuel sulfur rule nationwide no

         10   later than June 2006.

         11             The American Lung Association also supports

         12   the development of a Blue Sky performance standard for

         13   truly clean technologies, and we will further expand on

         14   this concept in my written comments later.

         15             In conclusion, some, especially in industry,

         16   will say that the air is getting cleaner so cleaning up

         17   diesel fuel and heavy-duty trucks is unnecessary.  Some

         18   data do show that the air pollution levels in some

         19   cities are lower than they were than a decade or two

         20   ago.  Congratulations, it is tribute to the clean air

         21   strategies implemented so far.

         22             But this is not true for all areas of this

         23   country.  In some areas, air pollution is increasing.

         24             As a parent of two small children, I don't

         25   care that the air used to be even dirtier.  I care


                                                                       91

          1   about the air my children are breathing today.  The

          2   fact is that the air that my kids are breathing is

          3   still unhealthy is unacceptable.

          4             We know much more about the health effects of

          5   air pollution today than we did in 1980 or even 1990.

          6   We know that exposure to ozone at much lower

          7   concentrations poses health risks, including the

          8   exacerbation of asthma.  We know that particulate

          9   pollution has been linked to premature death.  We know

         10   that diesel exhaust has been linked to cancer.

         11             With all we know about air pollution health

         12   effects, we do not need more delays.  The American Lung

         13   Association urges the immediate adoption of the low

         14   sulfur diesel/heavy-duty vehicle rule.

         15             MS. OGE:  Thank you.

         16             MR. PAT CHARBONNEAU:  My name is Patrick

         17   Charbonneau.  I am Vice President of Engine Engineering

         18   for International Truck and Engine Corporation.  Which,

         19   as many of you know, formerly was known as Navistar.

         20             I'm here today to discuss EPA's proposed

         21   model year 2007 emission standards for heavy-duty

         22   engines, as well as the agency's proposed on-road

         23   diesel fuel quality requirements.

         24             At the outset, International commends the EPA

         25   for its landmark proposal to address heavy-duty


                                                                       92

          1   emissions through a systems approach involving both

          2   fuel quality and engine technology.

          3             There is no question that diesel engine

          4   technology is making dramatic strides in emissions

          5   control.  As we know, the availability of ultra-clean

          6   diesel fuel is a prerequisite toward meeting the

          7   challenging new emissions standards beginning in 2007.

          8   And with the clean diesel fuel, we can count upon the

          9   advanced NOx and PM after-treatment technologies needed

         10   to achieve unprecedented emissions reductions.

         11             For that reason, we are pleased that the EPA

         12   is mandating fuel that will enable these advanced

         13   technologies to be used on all heavy-duty engines.

         14             International is investing hundreds of

         15   millions of dollars in the development of new

         16   technologies for all markets -- heavy-duty and

         17   light-duty -- where our engines are sold.  We are

         18   re-inventing all of our engine lines through

         19   revolutionary engine redesign and the development of

         20   advanced after-treatment technologies.

         21             Our technological breakthroughs will allow us

         22   to achieve unparalleled emissions reductions.  Indeed,

         23   we are developing "green diesel" technology today that,

         24   with clean fuel, has already demonstrated the

         25   capabilities of particulate filter technology to reduce


                                                                       93

          1   hydrocarbon and PM emissions to levels that are at or

          2   at least below what agency is proposing in 2007.

          3             In that regard, it's important to note that

          4   progressive oil companies are already making 15 parts

          5   per million diesel fuel commercially available.  These

          6   oil companies have earned recognition and our applause

          7   for their efforts to bring clean diesel fuel to the

          8   marketplace early.

          9             With this ultra-clean fuel available so soon,

         10   International will commercialize its "green diesel"

         11   engine technology next year, and thus achieve EPA's

         12   proposed MY 2007 hydrocarbon and PM emission standards

         13   six years ahead of schedule.  This is just one example

         14   of the impressive environmental benefits that accrue

         15   from a systems approach involving both clean fuel and

         16   clean engines technologies.

         17             I also commend the agency for its willingness

         18   to phase-in the proposed NOx standards.  We strongly

         19   support a NOx phase-in approach, which underscores the

         20   challenges facing industry in meeting NOx control

         21   targets.  The EPA's proposal goes far in addressing

         22   these technological challenges, but we believe that we

         23   could do even more without compromising important

         24   environmental objectives.

         25             In that regard, I'm pleased to say that


                                                                       94

          1   International, along with EMA, soon will be presenting

          2   to EPA a new NOx phase-in proposal.

          3             Under this proposal, there would be a single

          4   NOx emissions standard for all engines in 2007.  The

          5   NOx standard in 2007 would be significantly below the

          6   NOx standard applying to MY 2006 engines.  Then, in

          7   2010, the NOx standard would be stepped down to a new

          8   and significantly tighter NOx standard.  Importantly,

          9   this proposal will meet and exceed targets in this

         10   rulemaking, while at the same time providing

         11   manufacturers with needed flexibility to meet those

         12   targets.

         13             For these reasons, we believe that the agency

         14   will find this proposal to be a win-win for consumers

         15   and the environment alike, and I am looking forward to

         16   discussing this in greater detail.

         17             We also believe that it will be critical for

         18   the agency to conduct a narrow technology review to

         19   confirm the status of the NOx adsorber technology,

         20   which is the NOx after-treatment technology of choice

         21   in meeting -- and EPA's basis for selecting -- the

         22   proposed NOx emissions targets.  A mid-term technology

         23   review will allow us to assure that NOx adsorber

         24   development is on schedule to meet the agency's

         25   objectives.


                                                                       95

          1             In closing, I wish to reiterate

          2   International's strong support for EPA's proposal to

          3   reduce diesel fuel sulfur levels, which will enable the

          4   use of NOx and PM after-treatment technologies needed

          5   to achieve the agency's reduction objectives.  We look

          6   forward to discussing in our written comments these and

          7   other technical details of EPA's proposed rule.  I

          8   thank you for giving us the opportunity to present

          9   International's views today, and I'll be happy to

         10   answer any questions you may have concerning my

         11   testimony.

         12             MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Mr. John Huber.

         13             MR. JOHN HUBER:  On behalf of the Petroleum

         14   Marketers Association of America (PMAA), we would like

         15   to commend EPA for moving diligently forward to improve

         16   diesel emissions.

         17             Diesel vehicles are the backbone of industry,

         18   they deliver products locally and nationally.  They

         19   bring soda to the local stores; cement and asphalt to

         20   construction sites, and supplies to all businesses.

         21   Additionally, diesel powered buses transport commuters

         22   and tourists throughout the country.

         23             Improving emissions from these vehicles is

         24   vital and supported by the petroleum industry, the

         25   truck manufacturing industry, and users of these


                                                                       96

          1   vehicles.  Curtailing emissions from these vehicles

          2   will be appreciated by the American public and is an

          3   extraordinarily worthy goal.

          4             However, in improving the emissions

          5   performance of these vehicles, EPA has many

          6   challenges.  First and most importantly, substantial

          7   gains in emissions must occur.  Second, and more

          8   difficult, is to ensure that the program itself and the

          9   costs associated with the program will not deter or

         10   prevent the program from being successful.

         11             EPA has done substantial research and

         12   analysis to adopt an aggressive program to reduce

         13   emissions, and should be applauded for those efforts.

         14             PMAA, however, is concerned that the program

         15   proposed may have some problems associated with

         16   implementation, and urges EPA to be extremely cautious

         17   in those areas.

         18             A diesel truck is essentially a rolling

         19   factory, with a chassis, an engine, and either a cargo

         20   bed or cement mixer or other equipment over the

         21   chassis.  The operators of the trucks make rational

         22   decisions on component replacements whether to buy new

         23   trucks or to rebuild components, including the engine.

         24   Diesel engines can last an extremely long time, and

         25   many of the diesel-powered vehicles used in a


                                                                       97

          1   metropolitan area will tend to be low mileage vehicles,

          2   whose engine life-span can be extremely long.

          3             It is PMAA's opinion that for air emissions

          4   to improve, neither the new vehicle nor the fuel that

          5   will power it should encourage the operator of the

          6   vehicle to defer purchasing the new engines and the new

          7   fuel by rebuilding his current engine.

          8             If such incentives occur or anticipated to

          9   occur, we may see trucking companies purchasing record

         10   numbers of trucks in 2005 and early 2006, buying

         11   engines to put in their existing trucks with the goal

         12   of avoiding the new trucks and the new fuel.  An

         13   article in "Transport Topics" earlier this year

         14   examined the number of tractors sold in 1999; that

         15   numbered shattered the previous record by nearly

         16   20 percent or 50,000 units.

         17             However, as 2000 developed, production seems

         18   to be way down.  The original equipment manufacturers

         19   were turning their attention to this huge inventory of

         20   used trucks in the market, and that the pressure from

         21   these trucks was dampening sales in 2000.  Volvo

         22   indicated that they were cutting production in their

         23   Virginia factory.

         24             If this were to occur with this important

         25   program or an amplified effect, then there would be


                                                                       98

          1   fewer of the cleaner trucks in the market.  And

          2   depending on how EPA decides to phase-in the new fuel,

          3   we could end up in a vicious cycle where the new fuel

          4   is underproduced, which drives the price up, which

          5   deters new vehicle sales.  Such a vicious cycle could

          6   derail the program for a period of time, and would

          7   almost certainly defer the gains that have been

          8   promised to the American public.

          9             PMAA, thus, would urge the Agency to listen

         10   to the comments from manufacturers of petroleum

         11   products.  They have stated to both you and I that the

         12   15 ppm cap is overly ambitious, will be expensive, and

         13   will be outside the range for many refiners to produce

         14   economically.  If this occurs, fewer refiners will make

         15   the product which will affect supply.  Any supply

         16   reductions will have a strong impact on price.

         17             Additionally PMAA believes that this low

         18   sulphur level will increase the pressure on the

         19   Administration to develop alternative phase-in

         20   provisions for the new fuel.  In the proposal, EPA

         21   discusses many of these alternative approaches.  PMAA

         22   does not have confidence that any will work

         23   successfully.

         24             PMAA starts with the premise that EPA must

         25   select a diesel fuel that can and will be produced in


                                                                       99

          1   volumes adequate to satisfy the entire market.  We

          2   would reiterate our comments submitted with the ANPRM

          3   that this is necessary and to avoid misfueling, ensure

          4   adequate supplies that are available universally, and

          5   ensure that there are no disincentives for purchasing

          6   new vehicles.  However, in an effort to respond to the

          7   agency's request for information on these phase-ins, we

          8   will discuss our concerns.

          9             The Agency discusses misfueling as a concern,

         10   and PMAA shares concerns regarding misfueling.  There

         11   are a number of issues regarding misfueling that are

         12   relevant and must be considered.  First, are there

         13   incentives for the consumer to use the appropriate

         14   fuel, and what harm will result from using the wrong

         15   fuel?

         16             In examining the proposal, it appears that

         17   the 500 ppm fuel will come to the market with a much

         18   lower price.  In those situations, price will be an

         19   incentive to use the old fuel.  The countervailing

         20   incentives are that it may damage the pollution

         21   prevention equipment on the truck and disable the

         22   trap.

         23             The second problem is the sharply reduced

         24   fuel mileage and possible damage resulting from the use

         25   of the wrong fuel.  PMAA believes that those will serve


                                                                      100

          1   as significant deterrents to using the wrong fuel.

          2   However, EPA does not indicate whether the equipment

          3   can be easily disabled or bypassed.  If so, the price

          4   will then become a powerful incentive to use the wrong

          5   fuel.  Assuming there is a 500 ppm fuel as well as a

          6   15 ppm fuel in the marketplace, the EPA will be tasked

          7   with preventing deliberate as well as accidental

          8   misfuelings.

          9             Preventing deliberate misfuelings will be

         10   difficult if there is a substantial economic incentive

         11   to use the old fuel.  EPA raises the possibility of

         12   changing the nozzle interface.  However, while that

         13   worked in the unleaded gasoline rule, the answer is not

         14   as simple this time.

         15             First, diesel is generally distributed

         16   through large nozzles at fuel dispensers and that can

         17   accommodate flow rates of 30 gallons per minute safely.

         18   This is typical of the equipment at truck stops, and

         19   most diesel trucks have large openings in their fuel

         20   tank.  However, at many retail service stations, the

         21   diesel is dispensed through a smaller nozzle suitable

         22   for fueling vehicles.  The gasoline distribution

         23   industry has a preference for using interchangeable

         24   parts, and most service stations use small nozzles.

         25             Thus, in considering a nozzle interface, EPA


                                                                      101

          1   could consider having the diesel tanks have extremely

          2   small openings, which won't work for fueling

          3   efficiency, or adopt an alternative configuration for

          4   the nozzle and fuel interface.  However, given the

          5   small nozzles at some service stations, EPA will have

          6   to design a very narrow lateral cut.

          7             Of course, such interface restrictions don't

          8   recognize that most diesel trucks use saddle tanks,

          9   tanks that can readily be removed and replaced by the

         10   owner of the vehicle.  Additionally, as the Agency

         11   noted, disabling or avoiding a nozzle restriction is

         12   not typically difficult.

         13             EPA also discusses the possibility of an

         14   availability requirement.  PMAA is convinced that if

         15   new trucks are required to buy the new fuel, and have

         16   not disabled the equipment, that the fuel will be

         17   available.  The free market is likely to mimic some of

         18   the requirements that are now going on for alternative

         19   fuels, whereby only centrally fueled fleets purchase

         20   new trucks under this option, because that will ensure

         21   that they are able to purchase fuels for the new

         22   vehicles.  It is also likely that some areas of the

         23   country will have only limited supplies of the new

         24   fuel.

         25             In mandating and considering an availability


                                                                      102

          1   requirement, EPA should be extremely cautious on how it

          2   proceeds.  In previous rules, and as discussed in this

          3   proposal, EPA would require sites selling diesel at a

          4   certain volume to sell the new ultra-low sulfur fuel.

          5   As EPA knows, the high volume sites are principally

          6   travel plazas and truck stops.  Mandating that these

          7   sites sell the fuel would appear attractive to EPA,

          8   since it would ensure the fuel is sold throughout the

          9   country.

         10             However, PMAA believes first that such a

         11   mandate would not be necessary, since this class of

         12   trade will configure itself to serve the market.

         13   However, in some cases, the investment may not be

         14   warranted in installing a second fueling system.

         15             For example, in some cases two truck stops

         16   may be in competition.  And if one decides to sell the

         17   fuel, then why should the other be required to sell

         18   it.  Additionally, it should be noted that nearly one

         19   third of the trucks use their own fueling

         20   infrastructure.  Thus, a truck stop which may be

         21   competing with these private resources will be even

         22   further disadvantaged.

         23             PMAA is also concerned that to ensure the

         24   fuel is widely available, that service stations will be

         25   required to sell the new fuel.  In that case, the


                                                                      103

          1   volume of the new fuel will increase dramatically and

          2   the alleged benefits of a phase-in will be forfeited at

          3   the same time the regulatory burden increases.

          4             Further, it's clear that a low volume service

          5   station cannot make the investment to install the

          6   second tank, and would thus have to sell the new low

          7   sulfur fuel.  In some cases there may be no customers

          8   needing to buy that fuel.  However, he is not without

          9   competition, in the industry several companies are now

         10   fueling fleets from trucks at night.

         11             If the new fuel costs 4 to 6 cents more per

         12   gallon, that may be enough to drive the fixed retailer

         13   out of the business.  Thus, EPA in requiring

         14   availability, would be forcing him out of the diesel

         15   business, and possibly forcing him out of business.

         16             Additionally, since all refiners will not be

         17   manufacturing the new fuel, but may instead be buying

         18   credits or may be exempt because of their size, where

         19   will these retailers get the new fuel.  If they have to

         20   truck it in for 500 miles, the price will be

         21   exorbitant, and it will be wiser to stop selling

         22   diesel, since they may be competing with other

         23   customers who are selling both grades of diesel or

         24   having just the one.  Thus, EPA may be mandating

         25   retailers to sell a fuel, even though they have


                                                                      104

          1   provided an option for manufacturers to not make the

          2   fuel.

          3             We would now like to comment on the various

          4   ideas that EPA has suggested for phasing in the fuel.

          5             First, EPA has suggested three possible

          6   scenarios for phasing in the new fuel with different

          7   volume levels required to be manufactured.  While we

          8   recognize that EPA is attempting to provide flexibility

          9   to the market, we do not think that is the best

         10   approach.

         11             First, as EPA certainly recognizes, matching

         12   supply and demand is extremely difficult.  Under each

         13   of these phase-in approaches, the refiners will be

         14   making substantially more fuel than is likely to be

         15   consumed by the vehicles required to use it.  In such a

         16   situation, supply will be greater than demand, and the

         17   likelihood of recovering costs will be lessened.  This

         18   will discourage refineries from making the necessary

         19   investments to supply the demand, which may result in

         20   shortages in both the old and newer product as

         21   producers decide to forego the investment in a new fuel

         22   where EPA has fixed the game so they will not recover

         23   their investments.

         24             As second alternative which has been

         25   suggested is refiner ensured availability.  It is our


                                                                      105

          1   understanding of this concept that the refiners would

          2   be entitled to manufacture 500 ppm fuel in some ratio

          3   to the amount of 15 ppm fuel that they have ensured is

          4   in the marketplace.  PMAA is dubious on how this will

          5   work, and believes that it could provide unique

          6   benefits to certain refineries or truck stop operators.

          7             In closing, 2000 has been characterized as

          8   the third oil crisis by some notable energy experts.

          9   Distribution problems for fuel in the Northeast and the

         10   Midwest have sharply raised costs for fuel.  The

         11   Northeast heating oil problem was alleviated by

         12   bringing heating oil and diesel from Europe and

         13   relaxing the sulfur standards for heating oil.

         14             In St. Louis, reformulated gasoline was not

         15   available, and EPA waived the rules so that

         16   conventional gasoline could be used.  It should be

         17   noted that relief did not come before prices spiraled

         18   out of control.

         19             Chicago and Milwaukee are now experiencing

         20   prices for gasoline that many consider too high.  Too

         21   many fuels, not enough refineries, not enough domestic

         22   production all contribute to these problems.

         23             EPA must work through these issues and

         24   develop a fuel for the future, and a program to improve

         25   diesel emissions that is sure to succeed.  Thank you.


                                                                      106

          1             MS. OGE:  Ms. Stanfield.

          2             MS. REBECCA STANFIELD:  My name is Rebecca

          3   Stanfield, and I'm the director of the clean air

          4   programs for the United States Public Interest Research

          5   Group for the national lobby office.  We are nonprofit,

          6   nonpartisan, and active in 28 states with about a half

          7   million members around the country.

          8             Thank you for giving me an opportunity to

          9   comment today on a rule with important and far-reaching

         10   implications for our nation's air quality.

         11             It is a daily reality for most Americans

         12   living in urban suburban areas to encounter thick,

         13   black clouds of noxious diesel pollution, and suffer

         14   the foul smell and taste, itchy eyes, sneezing,

         15   coughing, wheezing, and long-term health effects that

         16   are a direct result from breathing this exhaust.  In my

         17   time working on air quality issues for the State PIRGs,

         18   I know that our canvassers who talk to millions of

         19   Americans each year at their doors hear this story all

         20   the time.

         21             It is common sense that cutting the pollution

         22   from these trucks will result in enormous public health

         23   benefits, and will vastly improve the quality of life

         24   in our cities and suburbs.  This common sense notion

         25   was recently supported by 87 percent of the people in a


                                                                      107

          1   poll commissioned by the American Lung Association.

          2             Common sense in the case of diesel pollution

          3   is confirmed time and time again by the health studies

          4   showing that exposure to diesel pollution can lead to a

          5   range of symptoms from asthma attacks to premature

          6   death and lung cancer.  Based on over 30

          7   epidemiological studies, we know that exposure to

          8   diesel exhaust can increase the risk of lung cancer by

          9   as much as 89 percent.  Earlier this spring, an

         10   association of state air regulators estimated that more

         11   than 125,000 cases of cancer in the US are the result

         12   of breathing diesel pollution.

         13             Add to these 125,000 cases of cancer the

         14   following health impacts:  Thousands of American lives

         15   cut short annually due to fine particulate pollution;

         16   thousands of hospitalizations and emergency room visits

         17   annually for asthma and other respiratory disease; and

         18   millions of days of restricted activity annually for

         19   vulnerable populations.  It is to prevent these health

         20   impacts the US PIRG strongly supports the proposed

         21   standards to reduce heavy-duty bus and truck

         22   pollution.

         23             There are three key pieces that form the

         24   cornerstone of the proposed standards, and these pieces

         25   need to be preserved at all costs if this program is to


                                                                      108

          1   be effective.

          2             The first is the 15 parts per million cap on

          3   diesel fuel sulfur content, to be effective by 2006.

          4   The second is the 0.01 one grams per brake

          5   horsepower-hour particulate standard, effective in

          6   2007.  And the third is the 0.2 grams per brake

          7   horsepower-hour standard for NOx and hydrocarbons.

          8             I'm going to use the remainder of my time to

          9   touch on four briefs points.  The first point is that

         10   clean diesel fuel is essential.  We've heard it over

         11   and over today.  US PIRG supports EPA's proposal to cap

         12   diesel fuel sulfur levels at 15 parts per million,

         13   effective in 2006.

         14             And we believe it would be an expensive

         15   exercise in futility to spend the next ten years

         16   phasing-in advanced engine and afterburner pollution

         17   controls for heavy-duty engines, only to allow these

         18   controls to be poisoned and rendered infective by the

         19   presence of sulfur in the fuel.  Given the ability of

         20   refiners to remove sulfur from the diesel fuel, as

         21   evidenced by recent statements of support for the

         22   standards by two major oil companies, there is no

         23   reason to tolerate a scenario in which dirty diesel

         24   fuel damages or destroys these essential pollution

         25   controls.


                                                                      109

          1             Other observers have suggested alternative

          2   caps, and averaging systems.  For example, the American

          3   Petroleum Institute suggests that a cap of 50 parts per

          4   million would be sufficient; however, the consequences

          5   of setting a cap higher than 15 ppm include:  Increased

          6   incidence of particulate filter failure; deterioration

          7   of engine performance; and poisoning of the NOx

          8   catalysts.

          9             For the public, this means more pollution,

         10   more asthma attacks, more hospitalizations, more

         11   premature mortality, and more cancer.  We urge EPA to

         12   reject this alternative.

         13             The second point is that EPA's proposed NOx

         14   standards should be applied to all new engines in 2007,

         15   EPA's proposal holds all new engines to a particulate

         16   standard of 0.01 grams per break horsepower-hour in

         17   2007, and but allows a four-year phase-in of the NOx

         18   standard, delaying full implementation until 2010.

         19             We believe that this unnecessarily delays the

         20   smog reduction benefits of the rules, prolonging the

         21   chronic smog problems faced by more than 117 million

         22   Americans who live in likely ozone non-attainment areas

         23   across the nation.

         24             The urgency of our need to reduce emissions

         25   cannot be overstated.  At the end of 1999, we compiled


                                                                      110

          1   smog monitoring data from every monitor in the nation,

          2   and found that the health standard for smog had been

          3   exceeded more than 7000 times.  Moreover, according to

          4   a 1990 study by Abt Associates, smog was the cause of

          5   more than 6 million asthma attacks, 150,000 emergency

          6   room visits; and 50,000 hospital admissions in a single

          7   summer of 1997.

          8             We believe that all new engines should be

          9   able to meet the 0.20 grams per bhp-hour by 2007.  The

         10   Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, an

         11   association of companies who are most directly involved

         12   in providing the technology to achieve these standards,

         13   agree that the technologies to meet the NOx standard

         14   will be available in 2007.  Again, this hinges on the

         15   availability of clean fuel.

         16             The third point is that we believe that a

         17   technology review is unnecessary and

         18   counterproductive.  US PIRG urges the EPA to reject the

         19   suggestion by some to include a technology review for

         20   the 2003 time frame.  We believe that this review would

         21   be unnecessary, given the high degree of confidence

         22   that clean fuels will enable rapid development of NOx

         23   emission control technologies.

         24             Moreover, we see the proposed technology

         25   review as a disincentive to actually develop cleaner


                                                                      111

          1   engines.  Giving the industry an opportunity to escape

          2   from new standards, contingent on their own lack of

          3   future progress in developing NOx control technologies

          4   is far too much like the fox guarding the hen house. It

          5   should be remembered that this industry has a history

          6   of illegal actions to escape from pollution standards.

          7             In addition, one could view this technology

          8   review as little more than an opportunity to take

          9   advantage of the changing political landscape under a

         10   new administration, and one that make be less committed

         11   to protecting public health.

         12             Finally, the last point that advanced

         13   heavy-duty technology should be encouraged.  While

         14   diesel engines are known as the workhorse of our

         15   present transportation system, it's important to

         16   acknowledge that far cleaner technologies are being

         17   commercialized.  The promotion of these technologies,

         18   including fuel cells, hybrids, and electric propulsion

         19   systems, can lead to critical additional public health

         20   and environmental benefits.

         21             We strongly support the inclusion of the Blue

         22   Sky program to define a set of propulsion technologies,

         23   and/or a set of lower emission standards for vehicles

         24   to be designated for receipt of incentives under local,

         25   federal, or state incentive programs.


                                                                      112

          1             Thank you, again, for giving us this

          2   opportunity.

          3             MS. OGE:  Thank you.

          4             UNIDENTIFIED:  I want to talk mainly about

          5   West Harlem.  We will be commenting on your rules once

          6   we've read them.  We have not seen a copy as yet, we

          7   will be looking at it.

          8             Statistics shows that both city and private

          9   industrial facilities are violating neighborhoods of

         10   color.  North River Community Environmental Review

         11   Board, which I chair, will complete its 15th year

         12   advocating and trying to protect the health of Harlem.

         13   West Harlem in particular.  And, of course, of other

         14   communities.

         15             West Harlem is the seat of six of New York

         16   City's bus depots, the West Harlem Highway, and the

         17   Amtrak Rail.  Diesel fuel from heavy-duty gasoline

         18   trucks primarily coming in from other boroughs, buses

         19   commuting, and commuters on the West Side Highway pass

         20   through Harlem's neighborhoods.  New York City is

         21   planning to close (inaudible).  Harlem is being plagued

         22   with an over-saturation of hazardous waste of

         23   (inaudible) carbon monoxide.

         24             We need continuous testing of PM 2.5

         25   throughout Harlem, and West Harlem in particular.


                                                                      113

          1   Through the (inaudible) the New York City DEP has

          2   installed the North River Water Pollution Control Plant

          3   Air Quality Control Monitoring System to monitor

          4   various types of contaminants in the area, which affect

          5   residents of West Harlem communities and the river

          6   banks.  According to the New York City DEP, North River

          7   opened in March of 1986.  We began to address the

          8   (inaudible) from the (inaudible), which actually became

          9   unbearable.

         10             Now that we are finally getting some

         11   validated data from the Air Quality Control Monitoring

         12   System that was installed to monitor the contaminants

         13   of North River through the consent order, New York City

         14   DEP has applied to New York State DEC for consent to

         15   remove the North River Air Quality Monitoring System

         16   and discontinue air monitoring.  This is unacceptable.

         17   The North River Air Quality Station system needs

         18   upgrading.  And the North River Community Environmental

         19   Review Board has requested various upgrades and

         20   improvements (inaudible).

         21             West Harlem is in dire need of a (inaudible)

         22   air quality environmental impact evaluation

         23   (inaudible).  The North River Water Pollution Control

         24   Plant Air Quality Monitoring System should be looked at

         25   by the US EPA to make sure that it is made permanent


                                                                      114

          1   and that it will not be removed.  The improvements to

          2   the Environmental Impact Air Quality Monitoring System

          3   has been requested by the North River Communities

          4   Environmental Review Board, and we can give you copies

          5   of those letters.  If not, however, you should have

          6   them in your office, because you're on my mailing

          7   list.

          8             Preferred plans by New York City Department

          9   of Sanitation to enlarge the 135th Street (inaudible)

         10   rail, water, and trucks moving garbage in and

         11   throughout lower Manhattan (inaudible).  This is an

         12   injustice to the residents of West Harlem.  If each

         13   borough is to have its own garbage, 91st Street and

         14   (inaudible) 135th Street, each handling the same amount

         15   of garbage, only the same amount of (inaudible) and the

         16   same amount of (inaudible).

         17             More industry contaminated racism on Harlem

         18   and West Harlem is unacceptable (inaudible).  In

         19   particular, because they make sure that these

         20   contaminated facilities are not located in their area

         21   and they are forced into our communities.  That's an

         22   injustice.

         23             A few years ago when the 91st Street and 59th

         24   Street Marine Transfer Stations were renovated, they

         25   moved uptown to 135th Street, we had (inaudible) going


                                                                      115

          1   in and out with three shifts.  The 91st street is

          2   closed, all of them are closed now, with the exception

          3   they keep (inaudible).  The plans that they have are

          4   unacceptable.

          5             And if they opened only the 135th station,

          6   then we will have over and above 2000 trucks coming in

          7   per day.  More diesel fuel, more PM 2.5, more asthma,

          8   more diesel, more cancer.  And that means that while we

          9   are (inaudible), we will be dying at a much higher

         10   rate.

         11             I want to thank US EPA for holding this

         12   hearing and allowing us to be heard, we appreciate

         13   that.  And we will be commenting on your rules before

         14   your commenting period ends.  We apologize for having

         15   not seen a copy of it, but I just heard from you on

         16   Thursday night and we have not had time to look at it.

         17             So if there is any help, if you can come to

         18   West Harlem and see the problems that we have there, it

         19   would be most appreciated.

         20             MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Mr. Stead.

         21             MR. CRAIG STEAD:  My name is Craig Stead, I'm

         22   from Putney, Vermont (phonetic), and I have served as

         23   an expert on composition toxicity, toxicity and human

         24   health effects of diesel exhaust.  I have been studying

         25   diesel exhaust for seven years at this point.  I have a


                                                                      116

          1   master's degree in chemical engineering, and I am a

          2   registered professional engineer.  I have worked for

          3   the petroleum and the chemical industries.  I am also

          4   an asthmatic, and I found diesel exhaust is a potent

          5   asthma trigger.

          6             I'm going to raise a new concern that has not

          7   been discussed.  And this new concern is new, highly

          8   toxic, diesel exhaust pollutant that requires no

          9   (inaudible).  And it is briefly discussed in EPA

         10   documents, but it is far more serious than the

         11   discussion indicates.

         12             The new highly toxic pollutant is ultra-fine

         13   particles that are generated by modern clean burning

         14   diesel engines.  So the first question obviously is

         15   what are ultra-fine particles?  These are particles

         16   that are incredibly small, less than  0.1 microns in

         17   size.  This is to be compared with the standard PM 10,

         18   or the new standard of PM 2.5, which is 2.5 microns,

         19   these are 0.1 microns.

         20             As a result of the small size, these

         21   particles are (inaudible).  And they cannot be seen in

         22   a diesel exhaust pipe, so that exhaust looks perfectly

         23   clean.  It is not.  It is deadly.  These particulates

         24   have no weight.  A million of them weigh nothing.  As a

         25   result of this, mass-based or weight-based standards


                                                                      117

          1   (inaudible) are meaningless in addressing ultra-fine

          2   particulates.  Thus, statements that we have a

          3   90 percent reduction in (inaudible) meaningless in

          4   regards to ultra-fine particulates.

          5             These particulates, because of their

          6   fineness, stay aloft for a week, it is estimated, and

          7   can travel thousands of miles.  So the air pollution of

          8   New York City is the air pollution of Vermont when it

          9   gets pushed up to Connecticut Valley.  And I can't

         10   (inaudible).  They found that ultra-fine particles

         11   cause severe inflammation (inaudible) in animals.  They

         12   are associated with asthma.  Because of the fine size

         13   of these particles, when you breathe them, you retain

         14   almost 100 percent of them.  They have found that these

         15   particles enter the respiratory tract and can trigger

         16   serious lung health damage.

         17             So having heard the story of ultra-fine

         18   particles, you somehow must now address the ultra-fine

         19   particle.  In fact, it is important, because with the

         20   change in diesel engine technology through what they

         21   call "clean burning diesels," in fact, they are

         22   producing primarily ultra-fine particles, which are

         23   invisible.  And they have found -- these are

         24   researchers in Europe as well as the University of

         25   Minnesota -- that the modern engines produce more


                                                                      118

          1   particulates (inaudible).  The modern ones, you don't

          2   see the toxicity coming out of that exhaust pipe.  They

          3   are estimated at 10 to 100 million ultra-fine particles

          4   per cubic centimeter of diesel exhaust.  And for those

          5   of you who can't visualize, that's about the size of a

          6   marble.

          7             The only method that has been found to

          8   control ultra-fine particles in diesel engine exhaust

          9   from a modern, clean burning engine is a particulate

         10   trap with an oxidation catalyst to remove what is

         11   called "soluble organics fraction."

         12             I would refer the EPA to their own document,

         13   which is an impressive and massive document -- and I

         14   did not read it all, either -- but I read where they

         15   discuss particulates and they make the following

         16   statement.  This is on page 161, and it's a statement

         17   by Kettleson (phonetic), who's probably one of the

         18   cutting-edge investigators on ultra-fine particulates.

         19             Kettleson confirmed that ultra-fine particles

         20   can be reduced by a factor of 10.  By (inaudible)

         21   volatile organics (inaudible reading from document) --

         22   and I would emphasize this -- additional factor of 10

         23   by reducing sulphur in the fuel, (inaudible)

         24   particulate traps efficiently, (inaudible) nearly all

         25   of the volatile organic particulate.


                                                                      119

          1             This is important, because what happens is in

          2   the diesel exhaust (inaudible) these ultra-fine

          3   particles.

          4             This is why you need this after-treatment

          5   technology.  And he said elimination of as much sulfur

          6   as possible will dramatically reduce the number of

          7   ultra-fine particulates emitted from diesel engines.

          8   And I emphasize that.

          9             Therefore, the combination of particulate

         10   traps with low-sulfur fuel is expected to result in a

         11   very large reduction in particulate matter.  And I

         12   emphasize this again:  Ultra-fine particulates will be

         13   almost completely eliminated.

         14             Thus, I pose the question to this audience

         15   and EPA:  Do we really have any choice on this issue of

         16   sulphur in fuel and 15 parts per million cap?  I don't

         17   believe so.

         18             The proposal with the 15 parts per million

         19   cap on sulfur must be implemented as soon as possible

         20   for the protection of asthmatics, and all of us.  Thank

         21   you.

         22             MS. OGE:  Thank you.  I have couple of the

         23   statements.  (Request for Mr. Cavaney and Mr.

         24   Charbonneau to provide more information.)

         25             I would like to thank all of the panel


                                                                      120

          1   members for taking the time to testify.  And given the

          2   fact we have so many people, I would suggest that we

          3   work through our lunch break to see if we can pick up

          4   some time.  So I would call for Candida Bido, Maria

          5   McMorran, Carlos Padilla, Adele Bender.

          6             We'll start with Candida Bido.

          7             MS. CANDIDA BIDO:  My name is Candida Bido,

          8   and I'm the (inaudible) for West Harlem Environmental

          9   Action, (inaudible) environmental justice in our

         10   community, and I'm here really to speak on a personal

         11   level.

         12             I'm an asthmatic and I have discovered

         13   personally the effect for all of the diesel fumes that

         14   have traveled to my community.  And let me say to you

         15   that it might be very expensive for them to convert,

         16   but it was extremely expensive for my family and me to

         17   go up to the hospital to go to the emergency room every

         18   day as I was growing up, and after that going to school

         19   to learn.

         20             The costs in my family has been extremely

         21   high, too, and it is not comparable to the amount of

         22   money that they have earned through all of the years

         23   that they have been operating in our community.

         24             The things is that many, a lot of those

         25   people that they take their goods to, that they are


                                                                      121

          1   supplying the oils to -- eventually we're going to

          2   die.  And if that is the case, (inaudible).  And that's

          3   the reality that they need to deal with.  It is not

          4   cost effective to not do it.  It is not expensive to

          5   them to actually change the way of doing business.

          6             It is more expensive to our community to

          7   be -- really to be put through this process where we

          8   get up, we cannot breathe at night, we end up at night

          9   in the hospital, in the emergency room.  Then we go to

         10   school all drugged up because of the medicine that they

         11   give us in the hospital and that causes a later

         12   problem.

         13             So I urge you to be strong and really make

         14   the changes that are needed so that those people behind

         15   me -- the kids in my community, my son, my nieces, my

         16   nephew, my neighbor -- they can they have a healthy

         17   life and be part of a productive community.

         18             We are really being assaulted (inaudible).

         19   This is not an environmental justice issue -- I have a

         20   right to a clean neighborhood, and I want you to

         21   protect my right as well as those of my community.

         22   Okay, thank you so much.

         23             MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Ms. Maria McMorran.

         24             MS. MARIA McMORRAN:  Good afternoon.  Hi, my

         25   name is Maria McMorran, and I'm here as a concerned


                                                                      122

          1   citizen.  I would just like to echo many of the people

          2   who have gone before me and spoken in support of the

          3   EPA's proposal.

          4             Clean air is fundamentally important to

          5   quality of life for all New Yorkers, as this woman who

          6   has just spoken has personally shown.  Especially so

          7   for asthmatics and people who already suffer from

          8   respiratory diseases.

          9             So, we've heard many people, many exerts,

         10   talk so far about the fact that the technology is

         11   something that is feasible.  The health and

         12   environmental benefits are known, and I think that we

         13   don't really have any choice but to go forward with

         14   these rules.  It's important to all of us in terms of

         15   our quality of life.  Thank you.

         16             MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Okay, could you state

         17   your name?

         18             MR. DANIEL PEREZ:  My name is Dan Perez, and

         19   I am here representing the Community Board in Harlem.

         20   And I'm going to share my time with Yvonne Robinson.

         21   I'm here representing (inaudible).

         22             I am pleased to be here today with the

         23   opportunity to not only to call attention to the

         24   environmental condition that is our community, but also

         25   to be a support to the EPA to diesel regulation.  If


                                                                      123

          1   implemented, this regulation finally promised to

          2   (inaudible) the life of millions of New Yorkers who are

          3   both of (inaudible) by drastically reducing the

          4   emissions of particulate.

          5             Environmental have gone on for too long may

          6   be stop may be able to (inaudible).  Harlem today is a

          7   community with thousands of residents suffering with

          8   the effects of asthma and costs, and by the very diesel

          9   pollution and (inaudible) like these buses and trucks

         10   that are based in Harlem.  This pollution is poisoning

         11   the very air that we breathe.  This degrades the

         12   quality of our life.  (Inaudible).  I would like to not

         13   have family, friends, neighbors to suffer from that.

         14   Or to have asthma attacks (inaudible).  To live in

         15   Harlem means to know the constant (inaudible) of the

         16   elderly, and the (inaudible).  What is in particular

         17   painful for me is that all the community in North

         18   Manhattan (inaudible), which they have remedies

         19   (inaudible).

         20             All of the people involved in this issue are

         21   fully aware of the alternates of diesel fuel vehicles,

         22   which would have permanent impact on air quality.  We

         23   know New York (inaudible) high level.  We all know that

         24   the EPA has rated New York City second only to the Los

         25   Angeles (inaudible) pollution.  Half of which is


                                                                      124

          1   created from diesel.  We all know that diesel

          2   (inaudible) a certain form of cancer.

          3             Finally the issue of (inaudible) the lack of

          4   consent and leadership.  Using the (inaudible)

          5   facility, which is a massive amount of diesel

          6   pollution.  Two and three quarters of most people are

          7   located in upper Manhattan, the areas known as Harlem

          8   and Washington Heights, are communities of color.  In

          9   Manhattan, six of the MTA large bus depots are located

         10   in these two communities.

         11             Race appeared to be a large factor, not only

         12   in (inaudible) but also funding.  The future looked no

         13   better.  The MTA proposed 80 percent on (inaudible)

         14   maintained a diesel depot and in communities of color

         15   (inaudible).  The only significant change is that the

         16   downtown bus depot and extension (inaudible).

         17             Technologies have made the tolerance of

         18   diesel buses a matter of choice, not of necessity.

         19   (inaudible) those will not care less about deadly and

         20   (inaudible) each and every day.  I would like to invite

         21   you and your members to visit Harlem so you could smell

         22   how sick.

         23             MS. MARTIN:  I ask you, for clarification of

         24   the record, you stated that you were West Harlem

         25   Environmental Action?


                                                                      125

          1             MR. PEREZ:  I'm with the Community Board, but

          2   I work very close to the West Harlem.

          3             MS. MARTIN:  Now we'll hear from Mr. Carlos

          4   Padilla.

          5             MR. CARLOS PADILLA:  My name is Carlos

          6   Padilla.  I'm a President of South Bronx Clean Air

          7   Coalition, who for the past 12 years has shutdown two

          8   medical waste facilities -- one being an incinerator

          9   and one plan to retrofit -- when they were destroying

         10   the health of communities by emitting particulates and

         11   (inaudible), which they were denying, themselves, that

         12   was coming out of their plant.  The EPA organizations

         13   were able to have them reevaluate the systems and found

         14   the errors of their ways.

         15             I would like to thank the EPA for this

         16   opportunity and I would also like to invite the EPA to

         17   a tour up in the South Bronx.  The South Bronx,

         18   basically known as "Dodge City," is an area where you

         19   have seven bridges that service Manhattan.  These seven

         20   bridges are most of the time congested with vehicles

         21   that would not ordinarily pass any kind of emission

         22   standard if it were to be tested.

         23             I understand that you're trying to change the

         24   sulfates to create a cleaner diesel, but we're looking

         25   at seven years and looking at a hard fight, from the


                                                                      126

          1   examples that we've seen here.  They seem to be

          2   (inaudible).  It's going to be a very tough fight and

          3   things have happened in the past, sometimes a middle

          4   grounds there have been negotiated.

          5             I have a feeling the EPA should not

          6   negotiate, should stay firm and strong.  One of the

          7   issues they have also is that I haven't seen anyone

          8   address the petroleum industry the way (inaudible)

          9   addressed for the negligence in selling cigarettes.  I

         10   do believe that the petroleum industry will surface

         11   erroneous statements and documents.  Doctored up

         12   documents.

         13             I also understand that the EPA gave a fine to

         14   the General Motors, I believe it was about three or

         15   four years ago, for $25 million for (inaudible) rating

         16   the emission test on the engines.

         17             We're getting more to a situation -- I have a

         18   community where there are highways and seven bridges.

         19   This community is suffering one of the highest death

         20   rates of asthma and we need from the EPA to come up and

         21   take a look at why there is no enforcement.  If you go

         22   down to midtown Manhattan, in certain areas you blow

         23   your horn and the police pull you over and you get

         24   ticketed.  Trucks are running with black streamers

         25   coming from their pipes in front of daycare centers,


                                                                      127

          1   garbage trucks are parked in front of senior citizen

          2   homes and hospitals.

          3             You have to come take a look at a complete

          4   disregard.  They claim there's laws on the books that

          5   will not allow this -- this is being allowed.  There is

          6   no enforcement.  If you were to stop the police

          7   officers in that community, in the South Bronx, and

          8   question them on truck traffic, they will not be able

          9   to give you a first regulation of how to stop or how to

         10   ticket.  These are some of the problems.

         11             I know there is a lot of work ahead of all of

         12   us to try to prove to go towards clean diesel.  There

         13   is a wonderful seminar at Bronx Community College to

         14   give (inaudible) to identify a lot of areas to be

         15   explored.  We have a one-size-fits-all mentality, where

         16   if we don't clean up diesel, nothing is going to

         17   happen.

         18             I believe the majority of trucks in our

         19   communities are local.  For instance, in the service of

         20   the hotel, school buses -- anything associated with

         21   diesel, these vehicles (inaudible) I speak up.  The

         22   Hunts Point Market, the New York Post, the buses, these

         23   vehicles are burning their engines approximately 8 to

         24   12 hours a day in the same communities.  The majority

         25   of trucks in our communities are ten years old and


                                                                      128

          1   better.

          2             The average of these trucks leave in the

          3   morning, they have diesel burning engines, and they

          4   also have (inaudible) are running approximately 10 to

          5   12 hours a day non-stop.  School buses, city buses, all

          6   these local transportation methods are running 8 to 12

          7   hours per day.

          8             The trucks in our community, I don't care

          9   what the truck, you give me a truck, give me the

         10   registration, I go up to a gas station, I bring back an

         11   inspection sticker.  This is what goes on.  And there

         12   is nobody (inaudible).  This is why our communities are

         13   oversaturated with respiratory problems and are

         14   completely taken advantage of, because there is no

         15   enforcement.

         16             There are rules on the books.  We are talking

         17   about improving the emissions by reducing the sulfates,

         18   and I agree with you.  But in the interim I think there

         19   has to be some sort of dignity.

         20             What is the quality of the (inaudible).  None

         21   of this is taken seriously.  Trucks running all over

         22   the senior citizens.  I understand that we have to take

         23   a look at (inaudible).  We're all working towards

         24   (inaudible).  Well, right now some of the impacts are

         25   created just because burning -- diesel is being allowed


                                                                      129

          1   to burn, is another one of the problems.

          2             In the Bronx, you have the rail yard which

          3   was downsized.  At a time when we need all the rail,

          4   some developer who (inaudible) all the rail, okay,

          5   ripped up the rail, enough rail for his friends in the

          6   waste industry to be able to utilize.  A lot of goods

          7   and services are being forced to be trucked in because

          8   the rail has been taken from you.  I remember I was in

          9   the trucking business.  In New Jersey, half a mile

         10   before you get to the piers you can smell the diesel

         11   out there, that's how bad it was.  (inaudible).  I

         12   think we're going to have to take a look at various

         13   different technologies.

         14             I want to thank you all for allowing me to

         15   testify, and I really think it's important to come and

         16   take a look and see the complete disrespect.  The

         17   regulatory agencies are not there stop some of these

         18   trucks and look at their inspection (inaudible).  How

         19   did they manage to get an inspection sticker with a

         20   vehicle in that type of condition?

         21             We suffer, our children are suffering.  Talk

         22   to the community.  Take a look.  Please come up, I will

         23   be happy to give you a tour of the situation and then

         24   turnaround and say where is the enforcement?  What's

         25   the sense of having a law if nobody's going to be there


                                                                      130

          1   to enforce it?  Thank you very much.

          2             MS. MARTIN:  Thank you.  Adele Bender.

          3             MS. ADELE BENDER:  My name is Adele Bender,

          4   and I'm a member of the Queens Senior Citizens

          5   Organization.

          6             When I hear all of the people talking, I

          7   think "the best things in life are free," and it seems

          8   the air you breathe is no longer free, you pay for it

          9   with your life and with your health.  And it's

         10   disgusting and it's a disgrace when I hear the fuel

         11   industry talking about the economy and the money, and

         12   that they won't do as well with profit, or whatever.

         13             I got to tell you something fuel industry:

         14             I'm worth it, you're worth it, we're all

         15   worth it.  I don't care if the economy is not so great,

         16   I want to be healthy.  And if they're so worried about

         17   cost effectiveness, maybe the health insurance people

         18   should be down here testifying to that.  Because with

         19   the bad air and all of the toxic things that are going

         20   on, the hospitals will save money, insurance companies

         21   will save money.  Perhaps, if money is always a bottom

         22   line, maybe that will convince them we can breathe.

         23             I live in Forest Hills, Queens, and I was

         24   talking to some of the women.  They happened to tell me

         25   about a building that they know of, have some friends


                                                                      131

          1   living there on Queens Boulevard and, of course, they

          2   keep their windows open.  There are eight people they

          3   know on one floor that they have cancer, and they feel

          4   it's possible because they live above very heavy

          5   traffic and maybe breathing in all that stuff over the

          6   years.  And, for sure (inaudible), but it is very

          7   possible.

          8             Other thing I would like to bring on also,

          9   this tells me that the government -- I don't know if

         10   you're going to have to work with industry -- but what

         11   you, EPA, is proposing to do, they're going to really

         12   have to move themselves and really do a lot of very

         13   heavy and important work on alternative fuel sources,

         14   you know, whatever, and in five or six years from now.

         15   People don't have five or six years, so you, they want

         16   to pass laws and profit motives or for industries --

         17   it's amazing they are planning to do these things and

         18   they really have to go through very, very quickly.

         19             It's going to cost money, and that means it's

         20   jobs, it's people maybe could earn living doing some

         21   good and improving the quality of our life.  This is a

         22   very, very important thing.

         23             The other thing I wanted you to know, I

         24   wanted to say is that, again, these things have to be

         25   done pretty much, I guess, like everything.  But I


                                                                      132

          1   wanted to say one other thing I didn't want to say and,

          2   but when I see these trucks with black smoke coming out

          3   of those pipes, I say why don't they (inaudible)

          4   everything else, any clean air law that is passed for

          5   the cars, as far as I'm concerned, when that black

          6   smoke comes out.

          7             And there's more and more trucks.  I have

          8   nothing against the guy learning earning a living, but

          9   if you don't have the laws for the big trucks that go

         10   through, it's going to berate everything you did.  And

         11   you do have to depend more on your rail system.  Thank

         12   you.

         13             MS. MARTIN:  Now, if we could hear from

         14   Ms. Yvonne Robinson.

         15             MS. YVONNE ROBINSON:  Good afternoon.  My

         16   statement is both personal and professional.  My name

         17   is Yvonne Robinson and I live in the South Bronx which,

         18   as you know, has a very high rate of asthma.

         19             I have a 22-month old son.  When I take him

         20   outside my building to the playground, you can see

         21   (inaudible).  To make it worse, there is a warehouse

         22   supermarket across the street, so, therefore, there are

         23   constant deliveries being made by 18-wheelers with

         24   diesel fuel.  And then on a block over there is a

         25   sanitation plant.  This greatly concerns me, as I do


                                                                      133

          1   not want my son to develop asthma or any other

          2   respiratory illness, I want my son to grow up with

          3   healthy lungs.

          4             On a professional side, I'm a community

          5   liaison with the outreach component of Harlem

          6   hospitals.  As an (inaudible) initiative within our

          7   program, we have a group called "Asthmatics."  The

          8   majority of our members did not develop asthma until

          9   they were well into their fifties, so clearly the

         10   effects of air pollution can affect you sooner or

         11   later.

         12             The passage of this proposal is of concern to

         13   me, please treat it as such.  Thank you.

         14             MS. MARTIN:  Thank you very much.  Now the

         15   last person, I believe, on this panel is Ms.

         16   Sally Lindsay.

         17             MS. SALLY LINDSAY:  I'm Sally Lindsay, I'm an

         18   artist living and working in Soho.  My loft is 12

         19   stories above (inaudible) Street at Broadway, which is

         20   right down the street from the Holland Tunnel.

         21             When I went there in 1971 it was like being

         22   in the country, it was wonderful.  Now when you open

         23   the windows and doors, your eyes sting and the air is

         24   foul most of the time.  So this is just a little

         25   anecdote about environmental pollution.


                                                                      134

          1             MS. MARTIN:  Thank you to all the members on

          2   the current panel.  And we will take a short recess for

          3   the court reporter.

          4             (Recess.)

          5             MS. MARTIN:  We will please begin this panel

          6   with the testimony of City Councilmember Stanley

          7   Michaels.

          8             MR. STANLEY MICHAELS:  Thank you very much.

          9             I am Councilmember Stanley Michaels, and

         10   chair of the Environmental Protection Agency of the New

         11   York City Council.  And I'm also a member of the local

         12   government advisory committee of the EPA.

         13             I'm very pleased to be here.  Let me say this

         14   at the outset:  I fully support EPA's proposed

         15   standards requiring advanced pollution control devices,

         16   both diesel and heavy-duty gasoline truck devices.

         17             These rules are long overdue, and have been

         18   enthusiastically received by everyone concerned about

         19   the continuing serious pollution problems in the New

         20   York City area and the deleterious effect on public

         21   health.

         22             I urge you -- repeat -- I urge you to

         23   implement these rules nationwide at the earliest

         24   possible date.  At least by the year 2006, as you have

         25   proposed.


                                                                      135

          1             Diesel fuel and vehicles have been the only

          2   major source of pollution not to be covered by updated

          3   federal regulations in recent years.  These new rules

          4   recognize the fact that the trucks and buses, together,

          5   represent a disproportionately large source of nitrogen

          6   oxides.  Especially as emissions from private cars,

          7   power plants, and factories have been reduced.

          8             The EPA is to be congratulated and commended

          9   for tackling this issue head on.  And for seeking not

         10   just a modest improvement, but a 90 percent cut of

         11   emissions by the end of this decade.

         12             As far as I'm concerned, this standard is as

         13   important to the future of New York City, and the rest

         14   of the country, as President Kennedy called the landing

         15   of man on the moon in the early 1960s.

         16             New York City is overly dependent on buses

         17   and truck drivers and mass transit for commercial goods

         18   deliveries.  And to that I might add that over

         19   95 percent of all goods that come to New York, comes by

         20   truck.  So we're captive of the truck industry.

         21             We are literally choking on the fumes from

         22   diesel-powered engines.  New York State estimates that

         23   by the year 2007 heavy-duty trucks and buses will be

         24   the source of one-third of all nitrogen oxide emissions

         25   from vehicles, even though the trucks and buses account


                                                                      136

          1   for only 7 percent of the total miles traveled.  The

          2   problem is undoubtedly worse in New York City.

          3             This is why we, and the rest of the country,

          4   needs these EPA rules as quickly as possible.  We urge

          5   you not to back down.  You are on the right road, the

          6   road to cleaner air.  So it's extremely important to

          7   all of us, especially to New York City and State.  It

          8   does us no good on a regional basis, it has to be on a

          9   nationwide basis.  I appreciate it, and I wish you

         10   Godspeed in working.  Thank you.

         11             MS. MARTIN:  Thank you very much.  Mr. Peter

         12   Lehner.

         13             MR. PETER LEHNER:  I'm the Chief of the

         14   Environmental Protection Bureau in the New York State

         15   Attorney General's Office.  On behalf of Attorney

         16   General Eliot Spitzer, I'm here to speak strongly also

         17   in favor of the proposed emission standards for

         18   heavy-duty engines and vehicles, and the proposed

         19   highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements.

         20             The substantial reductions in nitrogen

         21   oxides, nonmethane hydrocarbons, particulate matter,

         22   sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and air toxics that

         23   would be achieved by the implementation of the proposed

         24   emissions standards is very badly needed.  Despite New

         25   York State's leadership in fighting air pollution, our


                                                                      137

          1   state continues to suffer the consequences of smog,

          2   particulate matter, acid rain, and nitrogen

          3   deposition.

          4             The New York City metropolitan area has some

          5   of the highest levels of ozone and particulate matter

          6   in the United States, as well as extremely high levels

          7   of asthma and other respiratory illnesses.  Upstate,

          8   because of acid rain causing sulfur dioxide pollution,

          9   many Adirondack lakes are devoid of life and forests

         10   are deteriorating.

         11             And as EPA's impact analysis for the proposed

         12   standard shows, the eutrophication of Long Island Sound

         13   is exacerbated by nitrogen deposition, disrupting the

         14   marine habitat and resulting in large shellfish kills.

         15             Diesel exhaust is one of the most damaging

         16   sources contributing to New York's air pollution

         17   problems, particularly in the metropolitan area.

         18   Diesel-powered vehicles produce a significant

         19   proportion of New York City's loads of particulates and

         20   smog forming nitrogen oxides.

         21             The New York State DEC estimates that almost

         22   53 percent of airborne particulate matter in New York

         23   City comes from diesel tailpipes.  And that number is

         24   even larger with respect to PM 2.5, which comprise over

         25   90 percent of particulate matter in heavy-duty diesel


                                                                      138

          1   engines exhaust.

          2             As EPA has recognized in lowering the

          3   national ambient air quality for ozone and adopting a

          4   PM 2.5 NAAQS, these pollutants cause or contribute to a

          5   variety of respiratory illnesses.  And, too often,

          6   these adverse effect are disproportionately felt by

          7   low-income and minority communities.

          8             While I go into greater detail with the

          9   written testimony on some of the impacts of this, I

         10   would like to emphasize that EPA's action is an

         11   important complement to what the states are doing at

         12   the local level.

         13             In our office of the Attorney General's

         14   office, we are doing all we can to enforce and protect

         15   the clean air laws that we have in place.

         16             In a major environmental initiative, we sued

         17   a number of coal-fired power plants in the Midwest that

         18   have upgraded or expanded their old facilities without

         19   making the necessary emission control upgrades required

         20   by the Clean Air Act.  We are also pursuing legal

         21   action against a number of similar plants in New York

         22   State.  We are pleased that the federal government,

         23   seven other Northeast states, and numerous

         24   environmental and community organizations have joined

         25   our efforts.


                                                                      139

          1             We have also supported EPA in a number of

          2   other rulemaking efforts.  In Michigan versus EPA, for

          3   example, we intervened to support their action

          4   requiring extensive reductions in NOx emissions from

          5   Midwestern states.  And in another case, Appalachian

          6   Power versus EPA, we intervened to support EPA's grant

          7   of New York's petition under Section 126 of the Clean

          8   Air Act.  And, finally, as we all are involved in the

          9   American trucking case, we have submitted and will

         10   submit additional amicus briefs on EPA's tightened

         11   ozone and PM 2.5 standards.  So we're used to

         12   supporting EPA, and we're glad to be doing so again.

         13             More locally, last spring we sued the New

         14   York City Department of Sanitation for failure to

         15   produce an environmental impact statement, or

         16   addressing a plan to send hundreds of highly polluting

         17   diesel garbage trucks per day through the Holland and

         18   Lincoln tunnels and over the George Washington Bridge,

         19   to deliver garbage from Manhattan to New Jersey.

         20             New York City DOS, however, did not address

         21   PM 2.5, despite the clear and overwhelming evidence of

         22   adverse public health impacts from these particulate

         23   matter, nor did they use correct modeling approaches.

         24   We cited to an EPA letter that similarly noted that

         25   under the National Environmental Policy Act, the 2.5


                                                                      140

          1   analysis would be required.

          2             In developing that lawsuit, we found that

          3   many effective after-treatment devices exist that can

          4   be put on new vehicles, or that can easily be

          5   retrofitted on to existing trucks.  We also discovered

          6   the importance of low-sulfur fuel for the proper

          7   functioning of these devices, and the impact that

          8   low-sulfur fuel alone can have on particulates and

          9   other emissions.

         10             And finally, with EPA, our office

         11   participated in the settlements with the heavy-duty

         12   diesel emission manufacturers, who deliberately

         13   deceived the EPA on their emissions tests, resulting in

         14   an extra 1.3 million tons of nitrogen oxides emissions

         15   each year.

         16             In addition to these actions, we have

         17   underway several investigations that you may hear about

         18   before too long.  So in summary, at the Attorney

         19   General's office, we are doing everything in our power

         20   to clean the air in New York State.  But we cannot

         21   bring air quality to a safe level without more

         22   stringent emissions standards for heavy-duty diesel

         23   vehicles.  We are, therefore, very supportive of the

         24   EPA's proposed plan to reduce these dangerous diesel

         25   emissions.


                                                                      141

          1             EPA's proposed plan addresses the heavy-duty

          2   diesel vehicles and its fuel as a single system.  This

          3   is essential for the success of the proposal, as the

          4   standards are based on the use of high-efficiency

          5   catalytic after-treatment devices.  Because the devices

          6   are damaged by sulfur, EPA is right to propose new fuel

          7   quality requirements to remove 97 percent of the sulfur

          8   from highway diesel fuel before the vehicles are

          9   required to meet the new standards.

         10             Independent of its effect on after-treatment

         11   devices on new engines and vehicles, reducing the

         12   sulfur content of diesel fuels will also significantly

         13   reduce the particulate emissions from the existing

         14   fleet of diesel trucks and buses.  And as I noted

         15   earlier, it allows the installation of retrofit

         16   devices.  Reducing the sulfur content to the level

         17   proposed by EPA alone will reduce PM emissions by

         18   approximately 20 percent.

         19             We are examining whether the sulfur

         20   reductions can be accomplished more quickly, allowing

         21   for immediate emissions reductions and general use of

         22   treatment devices well before 2006, the proposed date

         23   of implementation.  Our written comments will address

         24   that issue.

         25             This sulfur reduction only applies to fuel


                                                                      142

          1   that will be used by highway vehicles.  We recommend

          2   the sulfur reductions be extended for use in off-road

          3   vehicles and diesel-powered construction and farm

          4   equipment as well.

          5             Cleaning up diesel fuel by 97 percent, in

          6   tandem with its proposed emission standards, will allow

          7   the EPA to cut NOx emissions from heavy-duty

          8   diesel-powered vehicles by 95 percent, and soot by

          9   90 percent.

         10             While EPA proposes to fully implement the

         11   particulate matter emissions standards in 2007, it

         12   proposes to phase-in the NOx standard over four years.

         13   Our office is studying the feasibility of shortening

         14   the phase-in schedule, and plans to submit further

         15   comments to the EPA on this issue.

         16             Having learned from the emissions testing

         17   experience with diesel engine manufacturers, the EPA

         18   should also continue to take measures to ensure that

         19   the heavy-duty vehicles are meeting the emissions

         20   standards on the roads, not just during engine tests.

         21   And the new rule should address that issue.

         22             Lastly, we would like to commend EPA for

         23   proposing a cost-effective program that will result in

         24   tremendous gains for the environment and the public

         25   health.


                                                                      143

          1             Thank you for providing the opportunity for

          2   our office to testify.  We'll look forward to

          3   continuing to work with the EPA toward cleaner air and

          4   improved public health.  Thank you.

          5             MS. MARTIN:  Thank you very much.  Christine

          6   Vujovich.

          7             MS. CHRISTINE VUJOVICH:  Good afternoon,

          8   Ms. Martin.  My name is Christine Vujovich.  I am the

          9   Vice President for Environmental Policy and Product

         10   Strategy for Cummins Engine Company.

         11             Cummins manufactures heavy-duty diesel and

         12   natural gas engines for a variety of applications,

         13   including marine, agriculture, construction, stationary

         14   power and heavy-duty on-road vehicles, the subject of

         15   the proposal before us today.

         16             Before providing you with the Cummins

         17   specific comments, I wanted to express Cummins' support

         18   of the comments made by the engine manufacturers

         19   earlier today, and those of the diesel technology forum

         20   later this afternoon.

         21             Cummins has long appreciated the opportunity

         22   to participate in the public hearing process for

         23   rulemaking.  Doing so challenges us to fully understand

         24   what it takes to satisfy the needs of society.  And

         25   based on this understanding, offer constructive


                                                                      144

          1   suggestions for enhancement or alternatives to EPA's

          2   proposals.

          3             As a company, we are absolutely committed to

          4   pursuing technologies that benefit the environment.  We

          5   are equally committed to providing products that offer

          6   superior performance and meet our customer's

          7   expectations.

          8             EPA's proposal is significant in many ways

          9   today.  It, for the first time, recognizes the

         10   importance of low-sulfur fuel in implementing

         11   technologies to reduce nitrogen oxides and particulate

         12   matter from diesel engines.  It also represents the

         13   biggest percentage reduction of NOx and PM of any

         14   previous rule.

         15             We support these efforts to improve

         16   emissions, but we do have our concerns when it comes to

         17   how the proposed reductions will be accomplished.  The

         18   complex array of after-treatment technologies and

         19   controls that are necessary to reduce PM and NOx

         20   together, as of today, do not exist outside of the

         21   lab.

         22             Beyond this, there are various uncertainties

         23   embedded in this proposal that complicate our ability

         24   to thoroughly asses the impact of these rules.  Among

         25   them are the test requirements for which we have no


                                                                      145

          1   final knowledge; measurement capability for which

          2   instruments do not currently exist; and many others.

          3             I have chosen to focus today only on the

          4   current state of technology purported to be needed to

          5   achieve these standards.

          6             We have monumental challenges to overcome

          7   before we can contemplate whether what the EPA is

          8   proposing is practicable.  Therefore, I am here today

          9   to urge EPA to slow down the review process.  Instead

         10   of rushing to finalize these rules by the end of the

         11   year, Cummins asks the EPA to take a more measured

         12   approach that will allow for the careful assessment of

         13   the technology necessary to meet these goals.

         14             Diesel engines are significantly cleaner than

         15   they were even just ten years ago, and progress will

         16   continue.  By 2002, NOx emissions from our heavy-duty

         17   products will have been reduced by 87 percent, and PM

         18   emissions by 90 percent from their unregulated levels.

         19             This has been done in steps, with each step

         20   preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, such as

         21   this one.  There is a significant difference, however,

         22   between this rulemaking and those that have come

         23   before.  The majority of the reductions achieved to

         24   date have been through in-cylinder and engine

         25   sub-system control technologies.  Technologies which,


                                                                      146

          1   as engine manufacturers, we specify and install as part

          2   of the assembly of the engines.

          3             This reduction will be the first time that as

          4   manufacturers of record for certification, the

          5   emissions capability and the useful life of our entire

          6   automotive products depend on the suppliers outside our

          7   sphere of development and production.  That is to say,

          8   we must rely on technologies that we neither make nor

          9   install.

         10             I am certain, however, that the

         11   after-treatment suppliers are actively researching and

         12   inventing the systems necessary to trap sulfur, filter

         13   particulates, chemically reduce oxides of nitrogen, and

         14   oxidize whatever hydrocarbons might slip through the

         15   systems.  But this work is being done in carefully

         16   controlled lab situations right now -- where it should

         17   be -- but one pollutant control system is optimized at

         18   a time.

         19             The truth is that none of these complex

         20   systems where NOx and PM are controlled together to

         21   these very low levels is developed to even a point of

         22   adequate laboratory demonstration, let alone field

         23   tests.

         24             Furthermore, active regenerative controls

         25   which permit the continued use of the catalysts have


                                                                      147

          1   not been developed, so anyone's statement today that

          2   these systems are practicable is really unfounded.

          3             Many of you on the EPA panel know that I have

          4   been participating in the development of environmental

          5   regulations and controls for over 20 years.  In those

          6   20 years, this is the first time that my company is

          7   unable to ascertain whether the standards will be

          8   achievable at this time in the rulemaking process.

          9             It is not that we aren't trying to do that.

         10   We fully support the air quality improvements that this

         11   effort represents.  Nor is it that we are unfamiliar

         12   with the technology options.  In fact, it is simply

         13   because at this time we just don't know the

         14   capabilities of all these technologies that are

         15   necessary.

         16             We expect that a new regulation will be in

         17   place in 2007.  There's no reason not to take the time

         18   now to make certain that we get it right for 2007.

         19             We have the time to approach this rulemaking

         20   in a systematic way, so that those who must certify the

         21   technology have the opportunity to establish its

         22   practicability before they commit to achieving any

         23   specific emissions level.

         24             We also have the time to approach this

         25   rulemaking in a systematic way, so that those who must


                                                                      148

          1   develop the technology can assure its effectiveness

          2   before they commit to its reliability.  That's only

          3   fair and it's only responsible.

          4             Now one might ask, "What's the difference?

          5   Why not finalize the standard at the end of the year?

          6   Then Cummins and all the rest will have nearly six

          7   years of lead time to develop the technology to achieve

          8   the emission standards.  After all isn't lead time what

          9   the manufacturers want?"

         10             The point is, there is a difference.  On the

         11   one hand, having final rules set by the end of this

         12   year would provide many years to sort out the

         13   technology to achieve very low emissions standards.

         14   And on the other hand, we would have agreed to a final

         15   rule without any certainty that the technology we

         16   suspect will be necessary is even a viable option.

         17             The last time EPA permitted us a long lead

         18   time -- and I believe it was six years -- was when EPA

         19   and the manufacturers negotiated the year 2004

         20   regulations.  In that case, we knew what the standards

         21   would be; but, most importantly, we had real experience

         22   with workable technology that was required to achieve

         23   those 2004 levels.  The exhaust gas re-circulation

         24   technology already existed, and the wonderful lead time

         25   enabled us to effectively apply EGR to the heavy-duty


                                                                      149

          1   engines with some confidence that we would meet these

          2   standards on the Federal Test Procedure by 2004.

          3             In today's case, we to have rely on

          4   technologies for which we have no proof of reliability,

          5   durability, useful life, practicability, or cost.  Thus

          6   committing to any standard with even six years of lead

          7   time, but having no out-of-lab experience with the

          8   technology, is unreasonable and irresponsible.

          9             Our customers, and the public, deserve to

         10   know with confidence that manufacturers will deliver on

         11   their commitments.  The only way we can get improved

         12   air quality is if there is a demand for the technology

         13   that brings about the improvement.  If the technology

         14   is disruptive to the operation, or is cost prohibitive,

         15   then no one buys and no one benefits.

         16             It is imperative that manufacturers be

         17   permitted the time to carefully assess the technology

         18   in order to confidently provide the emissions control

         19   we will need to deliver.  Cummins, for one, will be

         20   much better able to commit to the public its abilities

         21   and levels of control, if it is given the time to fully

         22   asses the technology and Cummins' ability to apply that

         23   technology.  This company is committed to providing the

         24   air quality needs of our customers and society at

         25   large.


                                                                      150

          1             But once again, we strongly recommend that

          2   EPA keep open this rulemaking beyond the end of the

          3   year to allow us and others, yourselves included, to

          4   more carefully and responsibly asses the technologies

          5   necessary to meet our collective goals.

          6             Thank you for your attention, and at the

          7   appropriate time I will be happy to answer any of your

          8   questions.

          9             MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Ms. Williams, good

         10   afternoon.

         11             MS. STEPHANIE WILLIAMS:  Thank you.  My name

         12   is Stephanie Williams, I'm the director of

         13   Environmental Affairs for the California Trucking

         14   Association.  Our members represent 2,500 truck

         15   companies and suppliers that operate into and out of

         16   California.  The majority of our membership is

         17   interstate registered.

         18             I'm here today to support EPA and their

         19   efforts at passing a 15 parts per million diesel fuel

         20   standard cap, along with the 0.01 grams per break

         21   horsepower-hour particulate standard, and the 0.2 NOx

         22   standard.

         23             The California Trucking Association is taking

         24   our mission for clean air on the road for five reasons,

         25   and the first one is air quality.


                                                                      151

          1             Unlike some of the other states who are

          2   coming into the same kinds of considerations,

          3   California has been under them for many years.  Air

          4   quality is a zero sum game.

          5             State implementation plans require states to

          6   sit down, come up with an inventory, figure out their

          7   emissions.  Ozone and (inaudible) are on the horizon.

          8   In California, Sacramento and the South Coast will not

          9   meet the attainment dates, unless serious concerns are

         10   taken on diesel fuel.

         11             As a regulated industry, if we don't have a

         12   national fuel standard, we're going to end up with

         13   regulations on trucks that interfere with operation,

         14   time of day, and other problems that put our truckers,

         15   and truckers coming into our state, in a very bad

         16   competitive disadvantage.

         17             It is important to have a national fuel

         18   standard.  The trucking industry is the end user.  We

         19   don't make fuel, we don't make trucks.  We bring goods

         20   to market.  And we need to do that in a safe,

         21   environmentally considerate engine.  And that's what we

         22   are asking for today.

         23             The ozone standards and PM standards are what

         24   drive this hearing, and should drive this hearing.

         25   There should be no other consideration.  Federal law


                                                                      152

          1   requires us to meet standards based on the air quality

          2   in our communities.  The public wants diesel cleaned

          3   up.  To take the pressure off the trucking industry, a

          4   national fuel standard is the only suitable remedy.

          5             You can't ignore the inventory, you cannot

          6   blame the railroads or off-road.  Emission standards

          7   start with the smallest engine first.  What would have

          8   happened if the car people pointed to the trucks and

          9   said why aren't you going after them?

         10             You start with the technology that's

         11   feasible, and you move forward to avoid diesel bans in

         12   communities, which will be what happens next.  You'll

         13   have communities like the gentleman who's sitting next

         14   to me, that are targeting the very trucks that we want

         15   to use because the emission standards aren't tight

         16   enough.  As a trucking representative, we can't change

         17   the emission standards on our trucks.  We can't make

         18   different fuel.

         19             The next four reasons that we support this

         20   proposal are economic.  Regional diesel fuels are a

         21   disaster for the trucking industry.  Regional diesel

         22   fuels are a windfall for the oil companies.

         23             In California in 1993, we introduced

         24   California Air Resources Board diesel.  Car diesel

         25   number two comes in at about 120 parts per million


                                                                      153

          1   sulfur.  Much cleaner than the fuel used in the other

          2   49 states.  350 is the average federal fuel sulfur

          3   standard from all our testing outside the State of

          4   California.

          5             What happened with this proposal is a fuel

          6   island was created.  Diesel fuel prices shot up, not

          7   because there wasn't enough diesel fuel, because the

          8   number of people producing diesel fuel had a greater

          9   hold on the market.  The profits of oil companies were

         10   investigated by the Attorney General, and still are to

         11   this day.

         12             What I'm saying on a regional fuel standard

         13   is the only beneficiary are the oil companies.  The

         14   nation needs a national clean fuel standard.  The

         15   reason for this is price and supply.

         16             If all states are competing in the market,

         17   they can bring clean diesel fuel to the states, to

         18   communities, for a cheaper price than if we allow the

         19   oil companies to regionalize fuel and Texas has a fuel,

         20   California has a fuel, the Northeast has a fuel,

         21   everyone could have a dirty fuel, we would pay more for

         22   fuel in this nation because of the regionalization than

         23   we would if we had the cleanest fuel possible that EPA

         24   is asking for today.  Regional diesel fuels are a bad

         25   economic decision for this country.


                                                                      154

          1             Fuel prices and supply is the second economic

          2   reason that we support this proposal.  As has been said

          3   many times, I'm not going to go over it again today.

          4             15 ppm maximizes emission controls with fuel,

          5   eliminates enough sulphur so the by-products of

          6   hydrochloric sulfates don't come out, H2SO, spoiling

          7   the traps.  That is a maintenance problem for the

          8   trucking industry, and there is a fuel penalty.  When

          9   you go above 15 ppm fuel, the trucker, the end-user,

         10   pays the economic cost in reduced fuel economy.  That's

         11   not fair.

         12             The next is maintenance.  The maintenance

         13   costs associated with this rule are based on the fuel

         14   standard.  Anything above 15 ppm disadvantages the

         15   end-user.  The spoiled emission controls for the

         16   particulate trap and the NOx adsorber, which are the

         17   preferred technology by the end-user -- the

         18   continuously regenerated PM trap and the NOx

         19   adsorber -- are spoiled by anything above 15 ppm.

         20             It would be unfair to the trucking industry

         21   to force manufacturers to provide a product that would

         22   be inferior in maintenance.

         23             And finally, diesel fuel is right now the

         24   backbone of this country.  To preserve the use of this

         25   technology, EPA needs to act today.  There are areas in


                                                                      155

          1   the state that are banning diesel, because it's not

          2   meeting the emission requirements.

          3             On Friday, the South Coast Air Quality

          4   Management District banned the use of diesel fuel in

          5   the four counties in the area:  Riverside, Orange, LA,

          6   and San Bernadino.  No more diesel tractors, trucks, or

          7   buses can be purchased there.  That is the biggest

          8   reason that EPA needs to reformulate diesel fuels to

          9   15 ppm and adopt these standards.  Thank you very

         10   much.

         11             MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Ms. Cooper.

         12             MS. JOSEPHINE COOPER:  Good afternoon.  My

         13   name is Jo Cooper, and I'm the President and Chief

         14   Executive Officer of the Alliance of Automobile

         15   Manufacturers.

         16             Our 13 member company represents more than

         17   90 percent of US vehicle sales.  It seems like deja vu,

         18   it's only been a year, but it seems like yesterday we

         19   were here talking about the Tier 2 emission standards

         20   for sulfur in gasoline.  So as we start this, I think

         21   we can all look back and now look forward.

         22             The Alliance's main interest in this

         23   rulemaking today is to preserve diesel engines as an

         24   option for the light-duty market.  EPA stated in its

         25   proposal that diesel fuels, diesel vehicles, have


                                                                      156

          1   inherent advantages over the gasoline vehicles with

          2   respect to fuel economy, lower greenhouse gas emissions

          3   and lower evaporative hydrocarbon emissions.

          4             Our members are working hard to advance state

          5   of the art diesel technology so that it will meet the

          6   Tier 2 emission standards adopted last year.  The most

          7   critical factor in this endeavor is quality of the

          8   fuel, especially sulfur.  The emerging new emission

          9   control technologies for diesel engines simply are not

         10   viable without sulphur-free fuel.

         11             So we applaud EPA for taking this crucial

         12   first step toward enabling highly efficient, advanced

         13   technology diesel vehicles in this country.  It opens

         14   the door to continued investment in clean diesel

         15   technologies, which are advancing rapidly.  We say this

         16   proposal is a first step, because it stops short of

         17   enabling the new clean diesel technology to operate at

         18   optimum levels.

         19             Many stakeholders support reducing sulfur to

         20   ultra-low levels.  Earlier today we heard the testimony

         21   of the Engine Manufacturers Association.  Like us, it

         22   is depending on ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel to enable

         23   the new clean diesel technology.  The Manufacturers of

         24   Emissions Controls Association, state and local air

         25   pollution control officials, environmentalists all


                                                                      157

          1   support ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel to enable these

          2   new technologies.

          3             We believe the EPA has done several things

          4   right with this proposal.  First, the agency has

          5   reinforced the notion that the vehicle and its fuel are

          6   an integrated system, and should be treated as such for

          7   both the existing and future on-highway diesel fleets.

          8             Second, EPA has proposed a dramatic reduction

          9   in diesel fuel sulfur level for the purpose of enabling

         10   new after-treatment technology.  Numerous research

         11   programs are demonstrating just how clean diesel can

         12   be.  Recent tests show that ultra low-sulfur diesel

         13   fuel allows diesel buses with advanced controls to run

         14   as clean or cleaner than buses running on compressed

         15   natural gas.  I think you probably agree with us that

         16   this is remarkable.

         17             In this sense, the proposal goes beyond the

         18   Tier 2 rulemaking, which only allowed existing

         19   technology to meet the standards.  With Tier 2 sulfur

         20   levels up to 80 parts per million in gasoline, auto

         21   makers probably will be unable to introduce lean-burn

         22   gasoline engines in this country.  I would be remiss if

         23   I didn't note that we hope EPA eventually will seek to

         24   enable these new gasoline technologies by reducing the

         25   sulfur and gasoline to near zero.


                                                                      158

          1             Third, EPA has proposed to introduce the new

          2   fuel on a nationwide with a common deadline across the

          3   country, and very limited exceptions.  This is

          4   necessary to prevent the fuel from contaminating

          5   sensitive new after-treatment systems.  Besides

          6   reducing emissions all around the country, it will help

          7   ensure that trucks will be able to deliver their goods

          8   throughout the US.

          9             And fourth, EPA's has proposed introducing

         10   the cleaner fuel before the new heavy-duty technology

         11   will have to be introduced.  To the extent the proposed

         12   cap leads to near-zero sulfur fuel while automakers are

         13   still developing their Tier 2-compliant technologies,

         14   it will encourage them to continue working on the new

         15   fuel efficient diesel technologies.  The future is

         16   bright for this technology, but additional investments

         17   are needed.  And the availability of sufficiently clean

         18   diesel fuel will encourage that investment.

         19             Does this proposal go far enough for Tier 2

         20   diesel vehicles?  Not quite.  More needs to be done.

         21   The fundamental problem is getting the vehicle to meet

         22   the nitrogen oxide and particulate matter standards at

         23   the same time, as EPA has recognized.  It will require

         24   near-zero sulfur levels -- up to a 5 ppm cap -- for the

         25   after-treatment systems to be used on these vehicles to


                                                                      159

          1   meet new emission standards throughout their useful

          2   life.

          3             Near-zero or sulfur-free is the level that

          4   automakers around the world are endorsing.  The

          5   recently updated World-Wide Fuel Charter explains that

          6   "sulfur-free" means a cap of between 5 and 10 ppm, to

          7   be further defined as more data become available.  And

          8   I would commend the World-Wide Fuel Charter to your

          9   observations, if you haven't seen it.  In this country,

         10   the Tier 2 emission standards justify adopting the

         11   lower limit.  Emerging data from the Department of

         12   Energy Research support this view.

         13             The Manufacturers of Emission Controls

         14   Association continues to recommend a cap of 5 parts per

         15   million, though supporting a 15 part per million cap on

         16   the assumption that most of the fuels will be below

         17   10 parts per million.

         18             The automakers are much less certain of this

         19   possibility and expect that refiners, as they improve

         20   their capability, will learn how to shrink their

         21   compliance margins from existing levels.  Smaller

         22   compliance margins will enable refiners to market much

         23   more diesel fuel with a sulphur level above 10 parts

         24   per million, and this will likely be too high for both

         25   heavy- and light-duty vehicles.


                                                                      160

          1             Besides sulfur, EPA also should adjust other

          2   fuel properties, as described in the World-Wide Fuel

          3   Charter.  Including cetane, aromatics, and

          4   distillation.

          5             Is our position realistic?  Are we asking too

          6   much?  We think not.  Refiners already are marketing

          7   clean diesel fuel in this country and abroad.  Sweden,

          8   England, Germany are all on their way, as are Equilon

          9   and ARCO in the United States.

         10             The key message:  Refiners know how to make

         11   clean diesel fuel.  Tax incentives and market demand

         12   will bring this fuel to market even faster than public

         13   estimates have predicted.  We urge EPA to focus on its

         14   incentive packages as a way to encourage the

         15   marketplace to make the new fuel widely available and

         16   as soon as possible.

         17             We understand the concern that some refiners

         18   may choose not to make on-highway diesel fuel.  We

         19   believe that fuel supply will be driven by

         20   profitability, not cost.

         21             To the extent that maintaining low sulfur

         22   levels throughout the distribution system becomes a

         23   challenge, we believe in the collective problem-solving

         24   capabilities of the free enterprise system to get there

         25   by the 2006 deadline.


                                                                      161

          1             We've come a long way in the debate over

          2   sulfur.  Two years ago, automakers petitioned the EPA

          3   to reduce sulfur and gasoline to California levels.

          4   Today, everyone accepts the critical role that sulfur

          5   plays in our national environmental policy.  Nations

          6   around the world are working to reduce sulphur in both

          7   gasoline and diesel fuel.

          8             The issue is no longer whether to reduce

          9   sulfur, or even that near-zero sulfur fuels eventually

         10   will be needed -- but when will these fuels become

         11   available.

         12             For our part, our members want to bring

         13   advanced technologies, such as the highly

         14   fuel-efficient turbocharged direct injection, and

         15   hybrid electric diesel vehicles to the point where they

         16   can operate cleanly and meet consumer needs.

         17             The proposed 15 parts per million cap on

         18   diesel fuel sulfur is a very strong step toward helping

         19   clean diesel technology take its place among our

         20   options for the future.  With diesel fuel quality on a

         21   par with the World-Wide Fuel Charter at sulfur-free

         22   levels, the American public would be able to get the

         23   full benefit of its investments in these advanced

         24   technologies.  Thank you.

         25             MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Mr. Williams.


                                                                      162

          1             MR. RON WILLIAMS:  Good afternoon.  My name

          2   is Ron Williams.  I am an owner, President and CEO of

          3   Gary-Williams Energy Corporation, a Denver-based

          4   independent oil and gas company.  Our primary asset is

          5   50,000 barrels per day crude oil refinery in Wynnewood,

          6   Oklahoma.  Company wide, we have about 275 employees

          7   and fall within the definition of small business

          8   refiner used for the proposed diesel sulfur

          9   regulations.

         10             Small business refiners face the same

         11   problems as the majors with this rulemaking, but in

         12   most cases are problems are somewhat greater.  We are

         13   less able to raise the necessary capital and to endure

         14   the related increased operating costs, which

         15   desulfurization investments will require.  We face

         16   proportionately higher costs, because we do not enjoy

         17   the same economies of scale.  And because of our size,

         18   we cannot compete effectively for the limited

         19   construction and energy resources.

         20             Many of us are faced with meeting the

         21   stringent Tier 2 gasoline standards in approximately

         22   the same time frame.  In our case, the impact of the

         23   combined proposals is somewhat devastating, and could

         24   cause us to shutdown our refinery -- with disastrous

         25   results on the local economy.


                                                                      163

          1             The SBREFA process offered an important

          2   opportunity for us and other small refiners to explore

          3   issues related to this rulemaking, and to express our

          4   deep concerns about the disastrous impact of a very

          5   stringent standard, particularly when coupled with an

          6   almost simultaneous Tier 2 gasoline standards.

          7             There is no one solution that will enable all

          8   small refiners to survive.  However, we do very much

          9   support the effort to provide cleaner fuels.  However,

         10   we were extremely disappointed that the preamble to the

         11   proposed rule includes no provision that would

         12   accommodate a small refiner in the near term.

         13             We can see only three possible avenues which

         14   might be of benefit.  Number one, our greatest priority

         15   is access to the capital required to install the

         16   desulfurization equipment.  And we believe that it

         17   would be very beneficial and appropriate for the

         18   administration to consider tax credits, loan

         19   guarantees, and other incentives which might enable

         20   small refiners to accomplish this together.

         21             We estimate in our case that our capital

         22   costs to reach 15 parts per million diesel sulfur

         23   alone, for a total of approximately $46 million.  That

         24   is more than twice what we paid for the refinery in

         25   1995.  In addition, our annual operating costs and


                                                                      164

          1   maintenance costs will increase from five to six

          2   million dollars per year.

          3             Number two, if we must install currently

          4   available gasoline desulfurization equipment for the

          5   2004 interim deadline, we estimate engineering,

          6   construction, and capital costs at $50-75 million, for

          7   gasoline alone.  And an increase in the annual

          8   operating costs of at least $5 million.

          9             We know of no possible financing sources

         10   willing to provide that kind of capital to our small

         11   business, particularly in the face of the increased

         12   capital costs for diesel desulfurization.

         13             We strongly endorse the concept of

         14   flexibility on the gasoline standard that the small

         15   refiner is also subject to the diesel standard.  We

         16   seek delay of all Tier 2 gasoline requirements until

         17   the year 2008, at the earliest for qualified small

         18   refiners.

         19             The EPA has said it will consider temporary

         20   waivers based on extreme hardship circumstances on a

         21   case-by-case basis.  We are deeply concerned, however,

         22   about the potential arbitrariness and timing of

         23   case-by-case negotiations.  We think that hardship

         24   extension should automatically be granted for at least

         25   three full years before the 2004 Tier 2 implementation


                                                                      165

          1   deadline.

          2             At the very least clear, straightforward and

          3   easy to administer hardship criteria must be delineated

          4   immediately with a small business refiner concurrence,

          5   so that our companies will be able to determine their

          6   eligibility.  We will, in our written comments, address

          7   in some detail the criteria that we think will be

          8   relevant and appropriate for a temporary hardship

          9   waiver.  We do need clarification of the hardship

         10   situation immediately.

         11             Number three, retaining the small refiners'

         12   access to the off-road market is our third

         13   recommendation.  It is critically important that we

         14   know as soon as possible the EPA's intention for the

         15   regulation of off-road diesel.

         16             We believe that it is imperative that small

         17   business refiners be given an exemption from any new

         18   off-road standard, and allowed to continue to sell at

         19   the current level of diesel fuel in the off-road

         20   market.

         21             In our case, the great majority of our diesel

         22   product currently is used in rural agriculture

         23   communities.  Some measures must be adopted to conserve

         24   the off-road market for small businesses, and prevent

         25   larger companies from dumping higher sulfur diesel


                                                                      166

          1   fuels and diluting that market.

          2             And we have other written comments addressing

          3   the other EPA proposed options, but I don't want to

          4   take your time with those now.

          5             MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Mr. Slaughter.

          6             MR. BOB SLAUGHTER:  Good afternoon, Margaret

          7   and members of the panel.  My name is Bob Slaughter,

          8   I'm General Counsel of the NPRA, the National

          9   Petrochemical and Refiners Association.  NPRA is a

         10   trade association of virtually all and large and small

         11   US refiners and petrochemical producers who have

         12   processes similar to refiners.

         13             NPRA is deeply concerned about the impact of

         14   EPA's new diesel sulfur proposal.  We do not believe

         15   that it is possible to consistently maintain needed

         16   supplies of highway diesel within the 15 ppm sulphur

         17   cap level.

         18             Although some refiners may be able to produce

         19   some amount of this diesel, many would be forced by its

         20   high costs to limit or forego participation in the

         21   highway diesel market.  This would reduce supplies well

         22   below those available under a more realistic sulfur

         23   cap.

         24             In addition, with the current logistics

         25   infrastructure, it will be extremely difficult to


                                                                      167

          1   deliver highway diesel with a 15 ppm sulfur cap to

          2   consumers and maintain the integrity of the sulphur

          3   level of the product.  This highway diesel must share a

          4   distribution system with other products that have

          5   significantly higher sulphur levels.

          6             At the proposed 15 ppm sulfur level, a

          7   significant amount of highway diesel will have to be

          8   downgraded to a higher sulfur product due to product

          9   contamination at the interfaces.  This means a loss of

         10   highway diesel supply.  With the enforcement at retail

         11   as opposed to the refinery gate, refiners would be

         12   forced to target their production to 7-9 ppm sulfur in

         13   order to account for the increased sulfur content

         14   picked up in the distribution system after the product

         15   leaves the refinery.

         16             In short, we view this proposal as a

         17   blueprint for future fuel shortages and severe economic

         18   impacts.  It threatens to leave American consumers a

         19   legacy of scarce and unnecessarily costly energy

         20   supplies.

         21             Throughout protracted discussions with the

         22   EPA, the refining industry suggested a more reasonable

         23   way to reduce diesel emissions.  We favor lowering the

         24   current 500 parts per million diesel sulfur cap to

         25   50 parts per million, which will be a 90 percent


                                                                      168

          1   reduction.  This is a very significant step.  We

          2   believe it will enable diesel engines to meet the

          3   particulate matter standards sought by EPA, and also to

          4   achieve significant NOx reductions.

          5             Our plan is still expensive, we estimate it

          6   will cost the industry roughly $4 billion to

          7   implement.  But unlike the much more costly EPA

          8   proposal, this level of sulfur reduction is

          9   sustainable.  Most refiners would choose to make the

         10   more affordable investments needed to make 50 ppm

         11   diesel.

         12             On the other hand, under EPA's proposed

         13   program, only some refiners would invest in the

         14   expensive new equipment necessary to produce 15 ppm

         15   diesel.  Many others would be unable to make the large

         16   investments necessary to produce the product.  They

         17   would find other uses or markets for their current

         18   diesel output, significantly reducing the supply of

         19   highway diesel fuel available and creating volatility

         20   in prices.

         21             More than 30 percent of the current supply of

         22   highway diesel could be lost until additional

         23   investments are made and new desulfurization capacity

         24   is built.  This would be in response to higher diesel

         25   prices resulting from a market shortage.  It could take


                                                                      169

          1   as long as four years for the industry to respond to

          2   these market factors at that time.

          3             Some refineries will would likely go out of

          4   business.  The proposed 15 ppm is estimated to cost the

          5   industry somewhere between $8-10 billion.  This amount

          6   comes on top of the $8 billion in costs the industry is

          7   already incurring to implement EPA's gasoline sulfur

          8   program in the very same time frame.

          9             A study to be released this week by the

         10   National Petroleum Council, a joint industry/government

         11   body, concludes refiners do not have the capability to

         12   make these investments within this time frame, and

         13   additional time is required for the low-sulfur diesel

         14   investments.

         15             When a refinery closes, we lose its entire

         16   output:  Gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, home heating oil.

         17   With the demand for petroleum products projected to

         18   increase, we, as a nation, cannot afford to lose any

         19   more refineries.  Unfortunately, the agency appears

         20   unwilling to make the major changes in this proposal

         21   which are needed to avoid supply problems and resulting

         22   price volatility.

         23             The industry's warnings about this rule are

         24   well-founded.  One of our members, CITGO Petroleum, has

         25   facilities at the Lyondell-CITGO Refinery, which are


                                                                      170

          1   referenced in EPA's proposed rule as having the diesel

          2   desulfurization technology capable of producing 15 ppm

          3   sulfur diesel fuel.

          4             Based on actual operating experience,

          5   however, the capital and operating costs are more than

          6   twice as high at the 15 ppm sulfur cap than has been

          7   claimed in the proposal, and the ability of technology

          8   to consistently produce below 15 ppm diesel is

          9   problematic.

         10             What looks simple in theory doesn't always

         11   work in practice.  The industry's scarce capital is

         12   needed for implementation of the gasoline sulphur rule

         13   and maintaining or expanding capacity to meet the

         14   increased demand for gasoline, diesel, and other

         15   products.  Clearly, we should not ignore the warning

         16   signs of an already stressed supply system and rush to

         17   implement a plan like this diesel proposal, which

         18   really is based on little more than wishful thinking.

         19             There are other serious problems with both

         20   this diesel program and the time frame in which EPA

         21   wants the changes.  Engineering, planning, and

         22   construction resources will be in sort supply due to

         23   the implementation of the gasoline sulfur program in

         24   the same time frame.  And we know that the demand for

         25   these resources comes from not only the US


                                                                      171

          1   requirements, but from efforts to reduce sulfur in

          2   Canada and Europe as well.

          3             We also know that gasoline sulfur will exceed

          4   the permitting capabilities of EPA and state agencies,

          5   which means that their resources could be unable to act

          6   on applications for diesel-sulfur related permits in

          7   the same time period.  Few synergies exist between

          8   steps necessary to implement sizable sulfur reductions

          9   for both gasoline and diesel.  It is counterproductive

         10   to attempt to do both in the same period.  And the

         11   unrealistic level of diesel sulfur reduction sought by

         12   EPA strongly suggests that efforts to comply with it

         13   will fail.

         14             EPA argues that its proposal is needed to

         15   enable heavy-duty engines to meet stringent NOx

         16   standards in the 2007-10 time frame.  Of course, that

         17   standard was arbitrarily selected.  It is considerably

         18   lower than NOx standards for the same period in Europe

         19   and Japan, and is probably unrealistic.  The

         20   $10 billion plan for 15 ppm diesel is largely based

         21   upon this arbitrary and unattainable target.

         22             Fuel transportation systems can become

         23   severely stressed.  The refining industry is faced with

         24   more than 12 regulatory actions over the next ten

         25   years.  The cost of these programs, which are largely


                                                                      172

          1   uncoordinated, is astronomical.  As a result of this

          2   crushing burden on refiners and fuel distributors, we

          3   are starting to see signs of stress in the system.  The

          4   impact of unforeseen situations, such as refinery

          5   outage, a pipeline malfunction, or even the weather, is

          6   magnified under such conditions.

          7             We strongly believe that diesel sulfur level

          8   should be reduced, but EPA should not adopt a

          9   regulation that puts the nation's energy supply at

         10   risk.  Fuel and engine emission standards should be

         11   based on developed technologies and cost effectiveness.

         12   An adequate supply of sulfur diesel for highway cannot

         13   be assured, and distribution of this 15 ppm fuel is

         14   also probably not feasible.

         15             NPRA urges the agency to discard that

         16   approach in favor of the more practical and sustainable

         17   50 ppm diesel sulfur cap, which the refining industry

         18   advocates.

         19             I want to thank you again for this

         20   opportunity to appear, and will be glad to respond to

         21   any questions that you have.

         22             MS. OGE:  Thank you very much.  Mr. Ken

         23   Colburn.

         24             MR. KEN COLBURN:  Thank you.  My name is Ken

         25   Colburn, and I'm the Director of the Air Resources


                                                                      173

          1   Division of the New Hampshire Department of

          2   Environmental Services.

          3             Today I speak on behalf of the NESCAUM

          4   Organization, the Northeast States Coordinated Area

          5   Management, which represents the air quality control

          6   programs in the eight Northeast states.

          7             The need to reduce pollution from heavy-duty

          8   engines and vehicles is clear.  Construction, buses,

          9   and other heavy-duty vehicles are significant

         10   contributors to elevated levels of ozone, particulate

         11   matter, and several key toxic air pollutants of concern

         12   in the Northeast.

         13             For some pollutants, heavy-duty engines

         14   single-handedly represent the majority of the

         15   emissions.  Within the Northeast corridor, for example,

         16   they are responsible for approximately one-third of the

         17   oxide emissions, three-quarters of the motor vehicle

         18   related PM, and 60 percent of the aldahyde emissions,

         19   some of which are probable human carcinogens.

         20             As a result, reducing heavy-duty engine

         21   emissions is a top priority in the Northeast.  In fact,

         22   Northeast states have already dedicated significant

         23   resources for reducing emissions from heavy-duty

         24   vehicles.

         25             For example, we have the implementation of


                                                                      174

          1   diesel smoke capacity enforcement programs throughout

          2   the region.  Several retrofit programs, including those

          3   on construction equipment in Boson and on urban buses

          4   in New York.  The development of other retrofit

          5   programs in collaboration with the EPA under its VMEP

          6   program.  And the implementation of SCR demonstration

          7   projects undertaken with the manufacturers as part of

          8   supplemental and environmental programs.

          9             The political commitment that was necessary

         10   to implement these initiatives illustrates the

         11   sincerity of state's desires to reduce diesel

         12   pollution.  It's no surprise, then, that the Northeast

         13   states are extremely pleased that the EPA has put forth

         14   all proposals to substantially reduce pollution from

         15   these sources.

         16             Attainment of the National Ambient Air

         17   Quality standards for ozone is of immediate concern to

         18   the states in the Northeast region, and may require

         19   substantial VOC and NOx reduction in addition to those

         20   anticipated from current stationery sources and motor

         21   vehicle control programs.

         22             Moreover, the plan reductions won't ensure

         23   maintenance of the ozone standard as growth occurs.

         24   Urban air shed modelling suggests that NOx reductions

         25   on a regional scale are more effective than VOC


                                                                      175

          1   reductions.  So programs that have substantial NOx

          2   reduction benefits, such as (inaudible) for heavy-duty

          3   diesel engines and vehicles are essential.

          4             In addition to reductions needed to attain

          5   and maintain the one-hour standard, the NESCAUM states

          6   are concerned about the significant health effects

          7   associated with long-term exposures to ozone below the

          8   current one-hour standard.  As a zero threshold

          9   pollutant, the health effects from exposure to even

         10   moderate levels of ozone are genuine and, at this

         11   point, virtually chronic.  Unhealthful ozone levels

         12   were measured at 56 monitors in the NESCAUM region over

         13   the last three years, and have already occurred this

         14   spring.

         15             Ambient toxic concentrations are also of

         16   concern for the Northeast states.  Measured annual

         17   average concentrations of benzene, formaldehyde, and

         18   other toxics exceed cancer risk thresholds throughout

         19   the region.  Heavy-duty diesels and gasoline vehicles

         20   contribute substantially to these concentrations, so

         21   it's imperative to reduce toxic emissions from these

         22   sources in the region.

         23             Particulate matter has also been linked to a

         24   broad range of serious respiratory health problems,

         25   several of which you have already heard about so I


                                                                      176

          1   don't need to repeat them here.  But California, as you

          2   know, has declared particulate emissions from diesel

          3   fuel emissions a toxic air contaminate.  And several

          4   entities, including NIOSH, (inaudible) and EPA, in a

          5   draft report, have labeled it a probable human

          6   carcinogen.

          7             The NESCAUM states support the agency's

          8   efforts to use available irrefutable scientific

          9   evidence to characterize potential cancer causing

         10   elements of diesel exhaust.  Scientific evidence of

         11   cancer and non-cancer health effects of diesel exhaust

         12   exacerbates the existing public concern and frustration

         13   over smoking vehicles, buses, trucks, and heavy

         14   equipment.

         15             This coalescing together of expert and public

         16   opinion provides added impetus to timely efforts

         17   regarding NOx, PM, and toxic emissions from heavy-duty

         18   engines.

         19             The NESCAUM states have several specific

         20   comments on the EPA proposal, a few of which I'll go

         21   over now.  We will submit more detailed comments in

         22   writing later.

         23             The NESCAUM states strongly support the 0.2

         24   grams per break horsepower-hour standard for heavy-duty

         25   diesel engines in 2007.  The standard is both


                                                                      177

          1   technically and economically feasible using NOx

          2   adsorbers.  Recent studies of adsorbers have shown

          3   greater than 90 percent reductions in diesel NOx

          4   emissions, and the EPA proposal provides the

          5   manufacturers of diesel engines ample lead time, seven

          6   years, to integrate adsorber technology into the new

          7   diesel engines.

          8             The NESCAUM states also strongly support

          9   the .01 gram per break horsepower-hour PM standard.

         10   Currently available emission control technology, such

         11   as particulate filters, have been shown to reduce PM by

         12   90 percent or more in heavy-duty vehicles.

         13             Crucial to the widespread introduction and

         14   long-term durability of these technologies is a very

         15   low-sulfur fuel.  Accordingly, the states strongly

         16   support EPA's proposal to require refiners to supply

         17   diesel fuel capped at 15 ppm sulfur.  Desulfurization

         18   techniques necessary to reach this level exist

         19   commercially today.  In fact, several oil companies in

         20   the US, including ARCO, are already supplying very

         21   low-sulphur fuel to customers.

         22             Beyond new heavy-duty engines, the agency's

         23   proposal to cap highway diesel fuel sulfur at 15 ppm,

         24   will also facilitate retrofitting existing highway

         25   diesel vehicles with particulate traps.  Given the


                                                                      178

          1   durability of heavy-duty diesel vehicles, retrofitting

          2   existing trucks and buses is an important, readily

          3   achievable public health benefit.

          4             The introduction and widespread use of

          5   low-sulfur highway diesel fuel, including it's use in

          6   non-road applications, will also allow states to move

          7   forward with retrofit programs for non-road vehicle

          8   equipment, such as construction equipment.  Due to the

          9   large NOx and PM contribution from non-road diesel

         10   engines, a contribution that approaches or may even

         11   exceed that of on-road diesel engines, the NESCAUM

         12   states urge EPA to establish parity between highway and

         13   non-road engine and diesel standards, and diesel sulfur

         14   fuel requirements in the shortest time.

         15             Finally, the NESCAUM states strongly support

         16   EPA's proposed heavy-duty gasoline engine and vehicle

         17   standards.  Advances in three-way catalysts and

         18   catalytic converters (inaudible) durable and effective

         19   emissions control at the high temperatures that can

         20   occur when heavy-duty gasoline engines are running at

         21   full load.

         22             The agency is also proposing more stringent

         23   evaporative controls for heavy-duty gasoline vehicles,

         24   which will reduce toxic emissions such as benzene and

         25   (inaudible), both of which are known human


                                                                      179

          1   carcinogens.

          2             In conclusion, the nature of this heavy-duty

          3   engine emissions (inaudible) air quality standards to

          4   more effectively protect the public from exposure to

          5   ozone, particulates and toxics is evident.  Equally

          6   evident is the fact that the Northeast air quality

          7   problems cannot be solved by state and local measures

          8   targeting traditional sources.

          9             Further, states are federally preempted from

         10   regulating heavy-duty engines and diesel fuel.  These

         11   facts make it incumbent upon the EPA to move forward

         12   promptly and aggressively with the proposals, in order

         13   protect the health and quality of the life of over one

         14   quarter of the nation's citizens within the NESCAUM

         15   region.

         16             The NESCAUM states applaud EPA's aggressive

         17   initiative to reduce heavy-duty engine emissions and

         18   sulphur in diesel fuel.  When fully implemented, the

         19   current proposal will reduce 2 million tons of NOx per

         20   year nationwide.  In addition, it will reduce over

         21   82,000 tons of PM, and will enable additional

         22   reductions through retrofits.  Toxics will be reduced

         23   by 32,000 tons.

         24             The magnitude of this air quality improvement

         25   is simply unavailable in any other sector, and the


                                                                      180

          1   costs are quite competitive with the measures already

          2   implemented in other sectors.

          3             The health and welfare of the nation cannot

          4   afford to miss or delay this opportunity.  So that we

          5   trust the EPA will more forward with this and finalize

          6   the regulations by the end of the year.

          7             Thank you and a final comment, some of the

          8   thoughts we've had today leave me to recall the rule of

          9   thumb developed in (inaudible), of which both you and I

         10   are veterans, that when you ask an engineer if you can

         11   do something you get nothing but problems; when you

         12   tell an engineer to do something, you get nothing but

         13   solutions.

         14             MS. OGE:  A couple of your comments were

         15   consistent with the supply and distribution problems as

         16   we were developing the proposal.  We have analyzed the

         17   potential supply and distribution issues, and we have

         18   put forward our position, our proposed position on the

         19   supply and distribution problems.

         20             We would very much appreciate it if you have

         21   specific data analysis that would lead us to believe

         22   something contrary to what we propose, we would very

         23   much appreciate it if you would get that information in

         24   writing during the comment period.

         25             And we still have until August 14th.  So then


                                                                      181

          1   we would encourage you, if you have actual information

          2   that would lead us to a different conclusion than the

          3   conclusion that we have put forward, which is, you

          4   know, adequate supply and distribution problems, it

          5   would be very important to us as we're moving forward

          6   towards putting the final law together.

          7             MR. WILLIAMS:  As you know, we'll be glad to

          8   supply data as part of our comments for you.

          9             MS. OGE:  Thank you very much.  Thank you for

         10   coming forward to testify.

         11             I would like to ask for the next panel

         12   members to please come forward.  State Senator Tom

         13   Duane, Mr. Alec Evans, Mr. Gerald Faudel, Mr. John

         14   Duerr, Mr. Carl Johnson, Mr. Tim Zellers, and Ms. Marie

         15   Curtis.

         16             Senator Duane, good afternoon and welcome.  I

         17   will start with you.

         18             MR. TOM DUANE:  Good afternoon ladies and

         19   gentlemen.  I'm New York State Senator Tom Duane,

         20   representing the 27th Senatorial District in

         21   Manhattan.  And by EPA's own monitoring data, the

         22   district I represent is a densely populated,

         23   demographically diverse area, with approximately

         24   300,000 residents, contains some of the most highly

         25   polluted air in the United States.


                                                                      182

          1             On behalf of my constituents, I am here today

          2   to urge you to adopt these proposed new emission and

          3   fuel content standards without any dilution of their

          4   requirements and without any delay in the time frame

          5   for implementation.

          6             As we speak, rates of asthma and other

          7   respiratory elements are frighteningly high and rising

          8   in much of New York City, and particulate matter or

          9   soot is found in our air at levels well above what

         10   federal guidelines are for health and safety

         11   recommendations.

         12             This proposed package of new regulations

         13   would go a very long way toward reducing these urgent

         14   health problems, and could not come too soon.  With

         15   volumes of traffic, particularly diesel fuel powered

         16   traffic, steadily climbing in our city, and with the

         17   possible introduction over the next several years of

         18   new types of diesel fuel vehicles, strict reductions in

         19   the output of dangerous pollutants from diesel vehicles

         20   are absolutely necessary to preserve the health of

         21   residents of my district, and this city and, indeed, to

         22   preserve the very liveability of our communities.

         23             It is clearly time for these sorts of

         24   regulations to be put in place.  A generation ago,

         25   federal guidelines which mandated the reduction of lead


                                                                      183

          1   contented gasoline and introduced the widespread use of

          2   catalytic converters to reduce the output of toxic

          3   pollutants by motor vehicles in the United States, had

          4   a profound impact on the cleanliness and safety of our

          5   air.  One merely has to travel to any country which

          6   does not require such guidelines for gasoline content

          7   to perceive the palpable difference in the air one

          8   breathes.  And sadly, statistics regarding respiratory

          9   elements in many of these regions of the world bear out

         10   these first-person observations.

         11             This new set of proposed guidelines will do

         12   much the same for diesel fuel powered vehicles, making

         13   them dramatically cleaner in their output, and

         14   substantially reduce the amount of pollutants emitted

         15   into our air.

         16             In a country which is so motor vehicle

         17   intensive in its use as ours, strengthening and

         18   extending this sort of requirement to include these

         19   classes of vehicles is critical.  In a city like New

         20   York, where people live, work, and play in such close

         21   proximity to these sources of dangerous pollutants, it

         22   is an absolute public health necessity.  It is hard to

         23   imagine how much of New York City would meet newly

         24   imposed national air quality standards without these

         25   strict new regulations in place.


                                                                      184

          1             More than one in ten Americans lived in,

          2   worked in, or traveled to New York City last year.

          3   These millions of Americans breathed air with

          4   shockingly high concentrations of pollutants linked to

          5   lung cancer, leukemia, reproductive and developmental

          6   defects, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and

          7   premature death.

          8             Diesel fuel powered vehicles such as trucks

          9   were a major contributor to this pollution output, and

         10   account for a much higher percentage of such pollution

         11   output than in many other parts of the country.  New

         12   York is, and unfortunately will probably remain for the

         13   foreseeable future, dependent upon trucks powered by

         14   diesel fuel for commerce and delivery of goods and

         15   materials.  These trucks, along with diesel fuel

         16   powered buses of all sorts, utilize our highways which

         17   ring our neighborhoods, and are in uniquely close

         18   proximity to where large numbers of people live.

         19             In narrow Manhattan island, the most densely

         20   populated area of the United States and the destination

         21   of by far most of the commuters and visitors to New

         22   York City, we are literally encircled by such

         23   roadways.  Much worse for us, however, these currently

         24   highly polluting vehicles very frequently use our city

         25   streets not just to get to or from delivery points, but


                                                                      185

          1   as a means of traversing the New York Metropolitan

          2   region.

          3             Because of a federal law passed in 1986, a

          4   one-way westbound toll is mandated on the

          5   Verrazano-Narrows bridge.  This has had the unfortunate

          6   and dangerous effect of encouraging large truck traffic

          7   to find other means of getting across New York City

          8   when headed westbound to avoid this steep double toll.

          9   All too often, that means taking one of the East River

         10   bridges or tunnels to enter Manhattan from its East

         11   Side, traveling through the narrow and densely built-up

         12   streets of Lower and Mid-Manhattan to get to the

         13   Holland or Lincoln tunnels, and exiting Manhattan from

         14   its West Side as a means of reaching New Jersey and

         15   other points west.

         16             We continue to fight to get this unfair and

         17   unduly burdensome law changed, and recognize that the

         18   EPA cannot necessarily reduce the volume of this black

         19   smoke-belching diesel fuel truck and bus traffic we see

         20   on our streets, and really right outside our windows,

         21   every day.  However, with these regulations in place,

         22   you can at least significantly reduce the volume and

         23   danger of the clouds of smoke which they emit into in

         24   the air in our homes, workplaces, parks, playgrounds,

         25   and hospitals.


                                                                      186

          1             The proposed regulations will involve a small

          2   increase in costs for the new diesel fuel and new

          3   compliant engines it would mandate.  However, the cost,

          4   as compared to the savings undoubtedly resulting from

          5   lowered levels of nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons,

          6   particulate matter or soot, sulphur oxides, carbon

          7   monoxide, benzene, acetaldehyde, and butadiene in our

          8   air and the health problems which they create or

          9   exacerbate, would be quite small.

         10             As the regulations allow reasonable time for

         11   conversion and compliance, I again urge you as strongly

         12   as I can to move forward with the implementation in

         13   full, without any weakening amendments or delay.

         14             I thank the EPA and the Administration for

         15   its hard work, intelligence, and foresight in moving

         16   these regulations forward.  And I look forward to

         17   enjoying, along with my constituents and all my fellow

         18   New Yorkers, the safer, healthier air which these

         19   regulations will allow all of us to breath.  Thank

         20   you.

         21             MS. OGE:  Thank you, Senator Duane.  Mr. Alec

         22   Evans.

         23             MR. ALEXANDER EVANS:  Good afternoon.  My

         24   name is Alexander J. Evans.  I'm a student,

         25   environmentalist, captain of Haverford College's


                                                                      187

          1   basketball team, and the outreach coordinator for the

          2   Clean Air Council.  Most importantly, I'm a brother.

          3             My brother, Nicholas is a 26-year old

          4   graduate student at Harvard University.  He is a

          5   budding political theorist who has always maintained a

          6   passion for sports.  Although he has continually

          7   remained active, my brother suffers from an irregular

          8   heartbeat.

          9             I do not know how many of you in this room

         10   have a family member who suffers from a heart condition

         11   or other ailment that is affected by air pollution.  I

         12   can assure you, however, that if a member of your

         13   family suffers from an irregular heartbeat, or for that

         14   matter, any other serious affliction that is

         15   exacerbated by toxic diesel emissions, you will

         16   understand the passion of my testimony.

         17             Since I was young, I have always looked up to

         18   my brother.  I owe him so much.  He is my role model

         19   and I marvel at how much he has managed to teach me.

         20   Throughout my childhood I was always amazed at my

         21   brother's athletic abilities.  I cherish the time that

         22   he spent with me in the backyard.  From basketball to

         23   baseball to soccer, he was always willing to spend time

         24   with me.  There is no doubt in my mind that my athletic

         25   prowess is the direct result of his tireless efforts.


                                                                      188

          1   As a young child, more than any other pro athlete or

          2   entertainer, I looked up to my brother and followed his

          3   every step.

          4             I will never forget the day when my brother

          5   was diagnosed with an irregular heartbeat.  I will

          6   never forget the sight of my brother running up and

          7   down the stairs of the doctor's office with his shirt

          8   off and his chest full of devices designed to monitor

          9   his heart rate.  As I looked at my brother, I wondered

         10   how someone who had always been deeply involved in

         11   athletics could have an irregular heartbeat.  I was

         12   worried that something was terribly wrong with my

         13   brother.

         14             After it was determined that his heart beat

         15   at an irregular rate, my brother was told that he would

         16   probably never notice his condition.  As time passed,

         17   however, and the doctors continued to monitor my

         18   brother's heart rate, they began to worry that his

         19   heart would react adversely to the ever-increasing air

         20   pollution of large cities.  My brother, to this date,

         21   has never had a serious episode.  Nevertheless, he is

         22   still monitored by doctors and he is restricted from

         23   exercising when the national ambient air quality

         24   standards for ozone reach or surpass either the 1 or 8

         25   hour federal health standards.  Essentially the only


                                                                      189

          1   thing that can seriously aggravate my brother's heart

          2   condition is air pollution.

          3             My brother is not alone.  Millions of

          4   Americans suffer from similar conditions.  Many of

          5   these individuals do not share my brother's luck.

          6   People with irregular heartbeats are extremely

          7   susceptible to harmful particulates.  Particulates,

          8   which constitute a majority of the harmful emission

          9   divulged from diesel vehicles, interfere with the

         10   body's ability to control its heart rate and rhythm.

         11             For someone who suffers from an irregular

         12   condition, exposure to particulate matter can be

         13   fatal.  Recent studies have shown that particulate

         14   matter directly limits the body's ability to control

         15   the human heart rate.

         16             The evidence is clear:  Emissions from

         17   unregulated vehicles have a direct effect on our

         18   communities.  To make matters worse, thousands of

         19   people are unaware that they suffer from an irregular

         20   heartbeat.  If diesel engines are allowed to keep

         21   polluting the air at their current rate, the

         22   repercussions will be disastrous.  Individuals who once

         23   did not have to worry, may soon begin to feel the

         24   effects of diesel engine emissions.

         25             There is other conditions, such as asthma and


                                                                      190

          1   lung disease, are also exacerbated by dangerous soot

          2   emissions.  A recent study estimated that 2,599

          3   premature deaths are caused by soot particles each year

          4   in Philadelphia alone.  Although diesel exhaust

          5   specifically endangers children, the elderly, and those

          6   living near highways and bus depots, the pollution has

          7   an effect on each and every one of us.  This is a

          8   serious problem.

          9             It worries me that my brother may soon have

         10   to deal with this issue every day.  It worries me that

         11   he lives in a city wrought with pollution and dirty

         12   air.  I pray that the harmful particulates and nitrous

         13   oxides emitted from diesel vehicles will never affect

         14   my brother, but I am not confident.

         15             This proposed rulemaking will have a direct

         16   effect on the health of millions of Americans.  Not

         17   only will it help children, the elderly, and people

         18   with other health conditions, but it will help ease the

         19   pain for all those connected to anyone with the

         20   aforementioned health problems.

         21             This proposed rulemaking will have a direct

         22   effect on the health of millions of individuals, and

         23   all of those who care for them.  If this nation cares

         24   about the health of its citizens, this proposed

         25   rulemaking must be approved.  Thank you for allowing me


                                                                      191

          1   to speak on this crucial issue.

          2             MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Mr. Johnson.

          3             MR. CARL JOHNSON:  Thank you.  Good

          4   afternoon.  I'm Carl Johnson, Deputy Commissioner of

          5   Air and Waste Management of the New York State

          6   Department of Environmental Conservation.

          7             I am pleased to be here today to offer the

          8   Department's comments on the EPA's proposed heavy-duty

          9   engine and vehicle standards and the highway diesel

         10   fuel sulfur control requirements.

         11             On behalf of DEC's Commissioner, John Cahil,

         12   I want to commend the EPA for its strong proposals for

         13   making long-term reductions in emissions from diesel

         14   powered vehicles.  We've seen continued progress, we're

         15   very pleased with the Tier 2 rule.  (inaudible) as

         16   well, and striking against emissions from diesels is

         17   the next logical step we have to make.

         18             Air quality concerns confront New Yorkers

         19   every day, as you've heard from so many people here

         20   today.  The New York metropolitan area is a

         21   non-attainment for ozone, and Manhattan is

         22   non-attainment for particulate matter, as well.

         23             The health effects associated with reduced

         24   air quality have been widely discussed here today, and

         25   is well documented.  But we're greatly concerned by


                                                                      192

          1   recent information that has linked fine particulate

          2   matter to not only respiratory distress, but also to

          3   increased cancer risks and possibly pulmonary disease

          4   as we've just heard.

          5             To address these issues, the DEC has

          6   implemented a wide range of control programs at the

          7   state level, impacting almost every source of pollution

          8   from large industrial boilers, to automobiles,

          9   architectural coatings, and even personal hygiene

         10   products.

         11             We've learned, as well, that nearly

         12   15 percent of the New York metropolitan area NOx

         13   inventory is related to on-road diesel engines.  An

         14   additional 22 percent we expect is related to non-road

         15   engines.  As much as half of the PM10 measured in

         16   certain areas of New York City has been linked to

         17   diesel.

         18             Further, diesel engines are believed to be

         19   the major contributor of fine particulate matter.  And

         20   of course, we'll know more as we begin our first round

         21   of testing, and as we implement the PM Supersites and

         22   for the first time speciate what's in the particles

         23   that were collected.

         24             A wide range of toxic air contaminants for

         25   which ambient quality standards have not been set are


                                                                      193

          1   also known to be emitted from diesel engines.  Without

          2   significant reductions in this category, we will not be

          3   able to meet our air quality goals.

          4             Understanding these concerns, the Department

          5   has started to address heavy-duty vehicle emissions to

          6   do all we can on the state level.  We initiated a

          7   periodic smoke inspection program for diesel trucks

          8   registered in the metro area, and a roadside inspection

          9   program statewide.

         10             In April, Governor Pataki announced that the

         11   Metropolitan Transit Authority, MTA, would begin to

         12   make its New York City bus fleet the cleanest in the

         13   nation.  Activities under this initiative have already

         14   begun with conversion of the Clara Hale Depot to low

         15   sulfur (30 ppm) diesel fuel; the retrofit of 50 buses

         16   at that location with Continuously Regenerating

         17   Technology; by purchasing alternate fuel, hybrid

         18   electric, and clean diesel buses equipped with CRT or

         19   other technologies.  And by retiring the worst buses in

         20   the fleet early, MTA plans to greatly reduce the

         21   emissions of particulate matter from its fleet over the

         22   next few years.

         23             The Department, DEC, will be working with MTA

         24   to verify the emissions reductions through appropriate

         25   measurement technologies, and we expect to be able to


                                                                      194

          1   transfer what we learn about measuring those reductions

          2   to other diesel fleets in the metro area.

          3             In addition, and we're particularly proud,

          4   MTA will be (inaudible) DEC, a state of the art diesel

          5   engine testing facility, which will be one of only

          6   three in the country that we're aware of, that will be

          7   capable of sophisticated analysis of in-use diesel

          8   engine emissions.  It will be able to take something

          9   that's been on the road and analyze what's actually

         10   coming out of the tailpipe.

         11             While the MTA project is a great step

         12   forward, it will only affect about 4,000 buses in a

         13   city that sees ten of thousands of heavy-duty vehicles

         14   every day.  These vehicles travel into and out of the

         15   New York region daily, hundreds of miles from their

         16   point of origin in many cases.  To truly effect

         17   significant changes in diesel emissions, we need a

         18   national program that will impact the entire diesel

         19   vehicle population.

         20             A national emissions initiative for diesels

         21   will ensure the greatest environmental benefits, as

         22   well as levels the playing field economically.  This

         23   issue is critical for both public and private

         24   interests.

         25             As with the light duty Tier 2 standards, the


                                                                      195

          1   EPA correctly views both the diesel engine and fuel as

          2   parts of a system that must be taken together to ensure

          3   the effective control of emissions from heavy-duty

          4   vehicles.  The role of fuel in meeting emission

          5   standards is critical, and must involve a collaboration

          6   between the fuel suppliers and engine manufacturers.

          7   Ultimately, credit for meeting the strict heavy-duty

          8   standards will belong to both sectors.

          9             The Department agrees with the EPA that

         10   significant reductions in diesel fuel sulfur are

         11   necessary to enable emissions control equipment to

         12   function properly at the levels necessary to meet the

         13   proposed standards.  Some of the most promising

         14   technologies may require near-zero sulfur levels.

         15   Therefore, we support the 15 parts per million sulfur

         16   limit included in the EPA's proposal.

         17             While we strongly support this rulemaking,

         18   the DEC believes there are some modifications that

         19   would enhance the benefits to the health and welfare of

         20   the public.  And I will enumerate a few of them.

         21             First, EPA should extend the regulations to

         22   non-road diesel engines as soon as possible.  Non-road

         23   engines are a significant source of NOx, PM, and toxic

         24   materials.  Technology for such control is similar to

         25   on-road controls, and, as such, extending the diesel


                                                                      196

          1   controls to non-road engines should not be unduly

          2   delayed.

          3             We'll note that many of the neighborhoods

          4   that we've heard from today and we'll hear from later

          5   on, in addition to the issues of diesel trucks, we have

          6   diesel generators and diesel construction equipment in

          7   neighborhoods, and a lot of other issues that the

          8   off-road sector really contributes to.

          9             Second, the EPA should consider speeding up

         10   the process of closing crankcases on diesel engines,

         11   and investigate mechanisms to retrofit existing engines

         12   and on non-road engines.  Our testing indicates that

         13   the open crankcase is a significant source of the

         14   toxics that come from the diesel engine.

         15             Third, the EPA should investigate additional

         16   fuel changes.  There is a strong relationship between

         17   cetane and NOx emissions.  A change in the cetane

         18   levels at this time levels would result in NOx

         19   reductions from all in-use diesel engines without

         20   additional retrofit.

         21             Fourth, while the EPA has indicated an

         22   expectation that it will change non-road diesel fuel

         23   standards, those changes are not included in this

         24   rulemaking.  It's our understanding you expect that in

         25   a year or so.  We would really like to have the EPA


                                                                      197

          1   announce its intentions now.  We think that that's fair

          2   for the fuel industry and it's fair for the engine

          3   manufacturers as well, so that they can properly and

          4   economically plan for the changes that will result from

          5   the non-road standard.

          6             Fifth, the EPA should develop a broad

          7   enforcement program with not only an engine

          8   certification, but also includes in-use testing under

          9   real world conditions.  While the new heavy-duty engine

         10   standards are excellent, they must be enforced and

         11   supported by a strong enforcement program.

         12             And, finally, the EPA should support the

         13   inclusion of On Board Diagnostics, as part of any new

         14   engine certification.  OBD, On Board Diagnostics, is an

         15   important element of reducing the deterioration of

         16   emissions control equipment.  It is easy to diagnose

         17   (inaudible) and, of course, is becoming part of our

         18   standard tool bag on dealing with (inaudible)

         19   vehicles.  The early planning for eventual in-use

         20   compliance issues should be emphasized to avoid major

         21   technical and programing issues that may come down the

         22   road.

         23             The EPA must work with the states as partners

         24   in this effort on the common issue of cleaning our

         25   air.  The states are ultimately responsible for


                                                                      198

          1   modifying the final air quality benefits (inaudible).

          2   We need to be part of the effort.  Our request is that

          3   the long-term planning for in-use measurements and

          4   compliance begin early in the technology roll out.

          5             New York State has developed considerable

          6   expertise in the area of heavy-duty vehicle emissions.

          7   Currently, we are developing the testing capability for

          8   heavy-duty vehicles and engines.  We're ready to

          9   partner with the EPA, the engine manufacturers, fuel

         10   providers, and the emissions control interests to

         11   ensure that the federal regulations will deliver the

         12   desired emissions reductions in a reasonable and

         13   practical way.

         14             The Department will submit detailed comments

         15   on EPA's proposed regulations in the near future,

         16   including supporting data from our testing programs.

         17   We are pleased to continue working with you.  Thank

         18   you.

         19             MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Mr. John Duerr,

         20   welcome.

         21             MR. JOHN DUERR:  Thank you and good

         22   afternoon.  My name is John Duerr, I'm here today

         23   representing the Detroit Diesel Corporation.  Detroit

         24   Diesel is a major manufacturer of diesel engines,

         25   including heavy-duty on-highway engines, which are the


                                                                      199

          1   subject of today's rulemaking.  Detroit diesel is

          2   pleased to have this opportunity to present our views

          3   in this proposed rule.

          4             I may also say that Detroit diesel is member

          5   of the Engine Manufacturers Association, and supports

          6   the comments of that organization which were made

          7   earlier today.

          8             Detroit Diesel wants to congratulate the

          9   agency in adopting a systems approach in this

         10   rulemaking by proposing substantial fuel quality

         11   improvements in support of their extremely challenging

         12   new engine emissions standards.

         13             Heavy-duty highway engines have been

         14   regulated since the early 1970s, and since that time

         15   there have been remarkable reductions in engine

         16   emissions.  By the time the 2004 emission standards

         17   take effect, NOx and particulate emissions will have

         18   been reduced by approximately 90 percent.

         19             Carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon, and smoke

         20   emissions from diesel engines have also been reduced

         21   substantially, and today stand at levels that are

         22   roughly 10 percent of the current standards.

         23             For the most part, these impressive emission

         24   reductions have been achieved through improvements of

         25   engine design.  Although this approach has been


                                                                      200

          1   successful in the past, I believe I can state without

          2   the fear of contradiction that the 2004 standards are

          3   very close to the limits of what can be achieved with

          4   engine modifications alone.

          5             Any substantial emission reductions beyond

          6   those reflected in the 2004 standards will require the

          7   use of exhaust after-treatment systems.  Efficient and

          8   durable exhaust after-treatment depends on the

          9   availability of very low sulfur diesel fuel.

         10             Thus, Detroit Diesel not only supports EPA's

         11   approach of considering diesel fuel quality and engine

         12   emissions standards together, we believe that this is

         13   the only viable path for achieving future emission

         14   reductions of significant magnitude.

         15             While Detroit Diesel believes that reductions

         16   in diesel fuel sulphur levels are key to achieving the

         17   next level of emission standards, we are not certain

         18   that the NOx standard that the EPA has proposed will be

         19   feasible even with the fuel meeting a 15 ppm sulfur

         20   cap.

         21             The proposed 0.2 grams horsepower-hour NOx

         22   standard will require the development and use of an

         23   after-treatment system with over 90 percent

         24   effectiveness over an extremely broad range of

         25   operating conditions.


                                                                      201

          1             Detroit Diesel is not aware of any systems

          2   that have demonstrated this level of effectiveness in

          3   the laboratory, let alone meet the requirements of a

          4   production feasible system with minimal deterioration

          5   and effectiveness over the full 435,000 mile useful

          6   life period.

          7             We are continuing to review and analyze the

          8   available data, and will provide more detailed

          9   information regarding the feasibility of the proposed

         10   NOx standard and the adequacy of the 15 ppm fuel sulfur

         11   cap before the end of the comment period.

         12             On a related note, the preamble to the

         13   proposed rule indicates that supplemental not-to-exceed

         14   and steady-state provisions, which are yet to be

         15   finalized as part of the still pending 2004 rulemaking

         16   package, will apply to the proposed 2007 standards.

         17             It is further noted that a number of

         18   modifications to those provisions are expected relative

         19   to the proposal that was released in October of 1999.

         20   These provisions have a very significant impact on the

         21   stringency and feasibility of the proposed standards.

         22             Since we have not, as yet, seen these

         23   finalized provisions, we cannot asses their impact or

         24   comment meaningfully on how these provisions impact the

         25   technical feasibility of the proposed standards for


                                                                      202

          1   2007.  Because of the extreme importance and complexity

          2   of these provisions, the EPA must provide assurances

          3   that there will be adequate time in this rulemaking for

          4   public review and comments on these supplemental

          5   provisions after the 2004 rulemaking has been

          6   finalized.

          7             Detroit Diesel appreciates the EPA's intent

          8   to provide flexibility by proposing an option phase-in

          9   for the proposed NOx, NMHC, and formaldehyde

         10   standards.  While this approach have been successful in

         11   managing the transition to new standards for light-duty

         12   vehicles, we believe this program will be unworkable

         13   for heavy-duty engines because of customer preferences,

         14   cost factors, competition between engine manufacturers,

         15   and issues related to truck design which will make it

         16   impossible for engine manufacturers to manage sales to

         17   meet the proposed phase-in as scheduled.

         18             As an alternative, we suggest that a two-step

         19   implementation with a substantial reduction in the NOx

         20   plus NMHC standard applicable to all heavy-duty diesel

         21   engines in 2007, and a second large reduction in 2010.

         22             We believe two-step implementation will avoid

         23   the problems associated with managing engine sales, is

         24   more aligned with technology readiness, and can achieve

         25   emission reductions that are equivalent to EPA's


                                                                      203

          1   proposed phase-in schedule.

          2             One aspect of the proposed rule that Detroit

          3   Diesel finds troublesome is that the agency did not

          4   include any changes to the emission test procedures.

          5   The emission test procedures that manufacturers are

          6   required to use in certifying and auditing engines are

          7   currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.

          8             These procedures were developed in the early

          9   1980s, and were first applied when the NOx and

         10   particulate emission standards were 10.7 and 0.60 grams

         11   per horsepower-hour respectively.  These procedures

         12   were never designed to provide reliable measurements at

         13   the extremely low emission levels represented by the

         14   proposed standards.

         15             Testing programs conducted jointly by EPA and

         16   the industry show that emission measurement variability

         17   using these procedures is approximately the same

         18   magnitude as the proposed standards.  With testing

         19   variability of this magnitude, it will simply not be

         20   possible to reliably determine if the proposed

         21   standards are being met.

         22             Clearly, substantially improved test

         23   procedures and equipment need to be developed.

         24   Further, the improved procedures must be developed with

         25   sufficient lead-time to allow manufacturers to obtain


                                                                      204

          1   and install the necessary equipment to upgrade their

          2   laboratory facilities and complete the development of

          3   compliant engines before the new standards take

          4   effect.

          5             We believe this is a major undertaking and

          6   one that calls for an immediate initiation of a

          7   large-scale cooperative effort between the agency and

          8   industry.

          9             Again, Detroit Diesel appreciates this

         10   opportunities to present our views on this important

         11   rulemaking.  We will follow-up with more detailed

         12   comments on a number of issues before the end of the

         13   comment period.  Thank you.

         14             MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Mr. Faudel, welcome.

         15             MR. GERALD FAUDEL:  Good afternoon.  I want

         16   to thank you for the opportunity to provide these

         17   comments regarding the diesel fuel sulfur provisions,

         18   and the proposed rulemaking designed primarily to limit

         19   emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines.

         20             My name is Gerald Faudel, I am Vice President

         21   of the Corporate Relations for Frontier Oil

         22   Corporation.  We own and operate a small refinery in

         23   Cheyenne, Wyoming.  With only approximately 700

         24   employees, Frontier is one of the 22 small business

         25   refineries identified by the agency as subject to the


                                                                      205

          1   provisions and protections of the small business

          2   (inaudible).

          3             The small refiners very much appreciate your

          4   formal acknowledgment, as compliance with the

          5   dramatically reduced diesel sulfur standard will cost a

          6   small business such as Frontier as much as 50 percent

          7   more on a per gallon basis than it will cost a large

          8   oil company.  We also very much appreciate your efforts

          9   in this process to find possible ways to partially

         10   offset these disproportionate costs for small

         11   businesses.

         12             However, we have a long way to go.  And

         13   unless this rulemaking process can be extended, a very

         14   short time to get there for a small business refinery

         15   to be allowed a fighting chance to survive.  This

         16   regulation continues to provide much needed competition

         17   in the transportation fields market.

         18             The (inaudible) flexibility a small business

         19   requires within this proposal is a much more difficult

         20   task than the agency's recently successful Tier 2

         21   gasoline (inaudible).  Unlike the passenger vehicle

         22   engine controls in Tier 2, the proposed heavy-duty

         23   diesel engine emission control systems endorsed by the

         24   agency seem to be paradoxically (inaudible), allowing

         25   for absolutely no flexibility in the diesel sulfur


                                                                      206

          1   standards.

          2             In addition, the effects of this standard on

          3   small businesses are much more numerous and widespread,

          4   and much more varied than it was in Tier 2.  Small

          5   business refiners will be adversely impacted by this

          6   rule (inaudible) small refiners in California, who have

          7   already been driven out of the gasoline manufacturing

          8   business by the costs of the California regulations

          9   (inaudible), but it can still make and sell diesel

         10   fuel.

         11             A small native American owner in Alaska that

         12   is pioneering a unique desulfurization process for

         13   diesel fuel, that may not be able to meet a very low

         14   standard with the flexibility proposed.  Small business

         15   refiners that have historically made predominately

         16   off-road diesel, may soon face disintegration if the

         17   prime market of off-road diesel fuel is dumped or

         18   produced by large oil companies.

         19             The small business agriculture co-op refinery

         20   uniquely serving the needs of the Midwest, and a number

         21   of small business refineries like Frontier still

         22   manufacturing both gasoline and diesel fuel, may now

         23   face potentially debilitating costs if there are

         24   simultaneous qualifications on their facilities to meet

         25   these two expensive new gasoline and diesel sulphur


                                                                      207

          1   standards at nearly the same time.

          2             In the preamble to the proposed rule, you

          3   have asked for comments on a number of programs that

          4   may help small businesses like Frontier comply with

          5   this regulation.  With the exception of the suggestion

          6   that small refiners might be granted a higher final

          7   off-road diesel standard than the rest of the industry,

          8   my response to each program suggested is:  Yes, we need

          9   that and we need more.

         10             We must accept that the best that the

         11   heavy-duty diesel engine manufacturers can do to meet

         12   their emission limits, is to design emission control

         13   systems with nearly sulfur intolerance.  The agency has

         14   correctly concluded (inaudible) small business refiners

         15   (inaudible) in other related areas, (inaudible) small

         16   refiners to comply.

         17             Frontier, therefore, believes it is necessary

         18   to allow small business refiners to choose any or all

         19   of the potentially useful combinations identified as

         20   follows, so that we have the best possible chance of

         21   survival.

         22             We further do not believe that any of these

         23   small business refiner combinations will in any way

         24   diminish the environmental benefits.  Unfortunately,

         25   neither can we guarantee all of this will remain


                                                                      208

          1   economically viable.

          2             Number one, small business refiners need the

          3   ability to continue to manufacture and sell on-road

          4   diesel at the current 500 parts per million standard

          5   for as long as there's a market for that fuel.  And

          6   without commensurate requirement to manufacture the new

          7   ultra low sulfur diesel, or for their customer stations

          8   to carry it.

          9             Number two, the EPA must take steps to

         10   protect the off-road diesel market from damage from

         11   dumping of on-road diesel fuel to the off-road market

         12   by large refineries.

         13             Number three, small business refineries who

         14   manufacture both gasoline and diesel fuel must be

         15   granted a four-year extension of all Tier 2 gasoline

         16   sulphur requirements without suffering the uncertainty

         17   or hardship of the original application approval

         18   process.

         19             Number four, small business refiners need the

         20   EPA's help in endorsing and obtaining economic

         21   assistance possibly through income or tax incentives,

         22   or loan guarantees, so that the small businesses can

         23   better absorb the 50 percent (inaudible) the agency has

         24   estimated they will incur.

         25             It is unfortunate that the agency has not


                                                                      209

          1   given adequate time to ensure that this rule is

          2   technologically sound and economically practical when

          3   it was proposed.  It is likely due to the rush to

          4   promulgate it before the end of this election year, but

          5   it will have to be revisited in the future if there is

          6   to be stability in the fuels marketplace.

          7             Regardless of the outcome and irrespective of

          8   the final diesel sulfur standards, small business

          9   refiners like Frontier must obtain the combinations

         10   described above if we are to continue to play a

         11   competitive role in that marketplace.

         12             Thank you again for your consideration of

         13   these comments.  I would like to reserve the

         14   opportunity to supplement this presentation in writing

         15   prior to the end of the comment period.

         16             MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Mr. Tim Zellers, good

         17   afternoon.

         18             MR. TIM ZELLERS:  Good afternoon.  Thank you

         19   for allowing me to speak today.  My name is Tim

         20   Zellers, and I'm a law student at Brooklyn Law School.

         21   I'm the co-chair of the Brooklyn Law School

         22   Environmental Justice Club, and I'm a summer intern at

         23   the New York Public Health Research Group.

         24             I'm here to ask you to adopt a common-sense

         25   approach to cleaning up toxic emissions.  Nationwide,


                                                                      210

          1   40,000 people die each year from breathing pollution.

          2   Diesel soot pollution is worse, because it is linked to

          3   cancer by over 30 independent scientific studies.

          4             Diesel vehicles contribute more than their

          5   fair share of air pollution.  In fact, here in New York

          6   City, when the proposed standards go into effect,

          7   heavy-duty trucks and buses will be responsible for 30

          8   percent of the smog-forming pollution, and 11 percent

          9   of the soot produced by all city vehicles.

         10             Every internship that I've had so far in my

         11   law school experience -- I was at the New York City

         12   Department of Environmental Conservation last spring, I

         13   was at the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance

         14   in the fall, I worked with citizen coalition groups

         15   around Williamsburg last summer -- every issue dealt

         16   with the quality of life.  And the quality of the

         17   people's lives in New York City dealt with the quality

         18   of the air.  And they were all affected by diesel buses

         19   and heavy-duty traffic from trucks moving garbage

         20   about, moving commerce about -- it has a direct

         21   influence on every person living in the city.

         22             I agree with your proposal to protect the

         23   public health, cleaning out big trucks and buses.  Now,

         24   it makes sense that you're proposing to reduce sulphur

         25   levels in diesel fuels by 97 percent before the new


                                                                      211

          1   vehicle standards go into effect.

          2             I urge you not to weaken this provision by

          3   allowing an extended time line, or higher sulfur

          4   levels.  If the newer, cleaner trucks do not have

          5   reliable access to 15 parts per million sulfur, we will

          6   not be able to meet the necessary pollution

          7   reductions.

          8             Furthermore, these newer, cleaner trucks

          9   should be required to meet the emission standards as

         10   soon as possible.  We are already going to have to wait

         11   until 2007 before we see any major reductions in soot

         12   pollution.  We should not wait until 2010 before we get

         13   relief from the smog forming pollutions.  Instead the

         14   emission standards for smog forming pollutions should

         15   be fully implemented in 2007.

         16             Finally, cleaning up existing diesel makes

         17   sense for our health and our country.  By replacing

         18   diesel with cleaner technologies makes even greater

         19   sense.

         20             Therefore, I would ask the EPA to provide

         21   incentives to increase the use of advanced,

         22   technologically clean vehicles.  Thank you.

         23             MS. OGE:  Thank you.  Ms. Curtis, welcome.

         24             MS. MARIE CURTIS:  Thank you, and good

         25   afternoon.  I am Marie Curtis, Executive Director of


                                                                      212

          1   the New Jersey Environmental Lobby.  We're an

          2   organization that represents roughly 100 local,

          3   regional, and statewide environmental groups in New

          4   Jersey, as well as some 1000 individual members.

          5             We are here in strong support of the

          6   Environmental Protection Agency's proposed diesel

          7   rule.

          8             We all know that the California Air Resources

          9   Board has declared diesel exhaust (inaudible).  We know

         10   about the health effects.  And we know that ground

         11   level ozone also affects vegetation, damages the leaves

         12   of the plants and trees, reduces growth rates, weakens

         13   plants making them more vulnerable to diseases and

         14   insect invasions.

         15             But most importantly, for too long our New

         16   Jersey citizens have endured dirty air and the

         17   detrimental effects such chronic exposure entails.  We

         18   have rising rates of asthma, and one of the worst

         19   concentrations of tuberculosis in the world.  And, yes,

         20   tuberculosis is a transmittable disease, but it's also

         21   very difficult for individuals to fight tuberculosis if

         22   they have weakened lung structure.  And that's what

         23   this dirty air has given us.

         24             New Jersey has been in serious non-attainment

         25   of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards right


                                                                      213

          1   from the very beginning of such evaluations.  We have

          2   taken measures to improve stationary source emissions,

          3   and we have required emission checks on family cars.

          4   And are now going to enhance inspections of those

          5   vehicles.

          6             New Jersey, however, is a corridor state.  We

          7   sit between the metropolitan areas of New York and

          8   Philadelphia, and we are also in the center of the

          9   Boston/Washington megalopolis.  In addition, we are the

         10   most densely populated state in the union, with heavy

         11   congestion on our roads from both residents and through

         12   traffic.  Much of the through traffic is heavy-duty

         13   diesel, delivering freight from points outside of the

         14   Garden State to points either in or beyond us.

         15             And freight traffic in New Jersey is even

         16   more heavy, because rail freight must be trucked across

         17   the Hudson, since the nearest rail freight crossing of

         18   that river is four miles south of Albany.  There is no

         19   other way, really, to get freight across the Hudson to

         20   those markets in the city and on Long Island.  But

         21   regardless of destination or origin, diesel emissions

         22   from vehicles foul our air on a daily basis and to a

         23   very great extent.

         24             Diesel trucks and buses are responsible for

         25   11 percent of the nitrogen oxide pollution nationwide.


                                                                      214

          1   With the concentration of vehicular traffic in our

          2   state, we would presume the figure in New Jersey to be

          3   even higher.  Nitrogen oxide is a necessary precursor

          4   to the formation of ground level ozone and smog.  It's

          5   not surprising that we suffer harmful ozone effects

          6   summer and after summer.  We need to require emission

          7   reductions in trucks, just as we have in our

          8   automobiles.

          9             Catalytic converters that reduce NOx and

         10   other pollutants, however, cannot function with current

         11   diesel fuel.  The sulphur content in diesel fuel is

         12   currently roughly 500 parts per million.  This is the

         13   ingredient that renders catalytic converters inoperable

         14   on diesel engines.  The rule proposes to reduce the

         15   level drastically.  The rule would allow only 15 parts

         16   per million by 2007.  This would allow pollution

         17   control equipment to function and, thus, would reduce

         18   pollution and smog from these sources.

         19             However, it isn't just the heavy-duty diesels

         20   on our roads.  Off-road vehicles must be included if we

         21   are to truly achieve the goals that we have set out

         22   here.  We don't believe that phasing in is really

         23   necessary.  We don't believe that we should to have

         24   wait for healthy air.

         25             The Blue Sky's Program mentioned in the rule


                                                                      215

          1   should have the most stringent standards possible.  We

          2   believe that incentives are good, but they must

          3   sufficiently benefit the public to warrant their

          4   introduction in the first place.

          5             In conclusion, really our major criticism of

          6   this proposal, is why it took so long to come forth and

          7   why we must wait so long for implementation.

          8             We strongly endorse the proposed diesel rule,

          9   and we thank you for the opportunity to be heard here

         10   today.

         11             MS. OGE:  Thank you, and I would like to

         12   thank all the panel for taking the time to come and

         13   share their views with us.  Let me call the next panel.

         14             MR. BOB KULIKOWSKI:  Good afternoon, ladies

         15   and gentlemen. My name is Dr. Robert Kulikowski, and I

         16   am pleased to express the view of Manhattan Borough

         17   President, C. Virginia Fields, on this issue.

         18             Let me begin with some background

         19   information.  You are undoubtedly acutely aware that

         20   New York City's air quality is among the worst in the

         21   nation.  EPA projects that ozone precursors generally

         22   will decline next the decade before experiencing an

         23   increase.  However, this is of little comfort to New

         24   York City, since it is currently designated as a

         25   non-attainment zone for ozone under the National


                                                                      216

          1   Ambient Air Quality Standard.

          2             Worse yet, the EPA projects that emissions of

          3   particulate matter will increase over the next decade.

          4   Unfortunately, this already appears to be the case in

          5   New York County, Manhattan, which while not designated

          6   a non-attainment zone for PM and should be.  In 1998,

          7   Manhattan exceeded the NAAQS for PM, but since findings

          8   are based on three-year averages, the lower averages

          9   for 1996 and 1997 brought the three-year average below

         10   the standard.  And clearly we are seeing an increase of

         11   particulate matter in the air.

         12             Manhattan, along with the other boroughs, has

         13   neighborhoods where asthma and other respiratory

         14   diseases are at near epidemic proportions.  As

         15   discussed by the EPA in the background material for

         16   this proposed rulemaking, and indeed many other

         17   sources, ozone and particulate matter found in diesel

         18   exhaust aggravate these conditions.  Especially in

         19   children.

         20             Clearly Manhattan, New York City, and the

         21   region need to clean up their air.  New York City is

         22   also a major transportation hub with goods moving from

         23   other parts of the country into the city and through it

         24   to reach New England and Long Island.  Unfortunately,

         25   this movement of goods occurs predominately by truck.


                                                                      217

          1   Diesel truck.

          2             Major transportation corridors through

          3   Manhattan -- Canal Street and the Holland Tunnel, the

          4   Lincoln Tunnel, Midtown Tunnel, and the George

          5   Washington Bridge -- slice through many residential

          6   neighborhoods.  Even casual observations reveal slow

          7   moving bumper-to-bumper 18-wheelers inching their way

          8   through the borough, spewing diesel exhaust into the

          9   air.  In addition, sanitation trucks, buses, and other

         10   vehicles, fire engines, ply our streets to provide

         11   essential services, but which still generate diesel

         12   exhaust.

         13             Our president, C. Virginia Fields, has long

         14   been a staunch advocate for reducing diesel emissions

         15   in the city.  Recently she has helped convince the

         16   Metropolitan Transportation Authority to reduce its

         17   purchases of diesel buses and to accelerate its clean

         18   bus program for New York City.

         19             This will help our air, but it's not enough.

         20   The entire issue of diesel vehicles must be

         21   addressed -- our municipal fleets and commercial trucks

         22   delivering goods or passing through, as well as

         23   off-road sources.

         24             Therefore, while the total elimination of

         25   diesel fueled vehicles would be the ideal scenario,


                                                                      218

          1   given today's technologies, the Borough President

          2   wholeheartedly supports the EPA's proposed rulemaking

          3   as an initial, comprehensive approach to the diesel

          4   emission problem.  Combining the use of low-sulur fuels

          5   with additional pollution control devices for

          6   heavy-duty vehicles makes ultimate sense.

          7             Specifically, Borough President Fields

          8   supports the 15 parts per million cap on sulfur content

          9   in diesel fuel -- a 97 percent reduction from current

         10   allowed levels; the proposed emission standards for

         11   heavy-duty vehicles that will reduce PM by 90 percent

         12   and oxides of nitrogen by 95 percent; the use of

         13   after-treatment technologies; as well as implementation

         14   of these standards nationwide.

         15             The low-sulfur fuel standard is to be

         16   implemented in 2006 in time for modifications in the

         17   2007-model year vehicle to achieve the standards.  We

         18   would very much like to see this time frame reduced to

         19   the greatest extent possible.  It is our understanding

         20   that the American Petroleum Institute has estimated

         21   that it would take about four years to implement these

         22   standards.  While others may hold differing opinions,

         23   the startup costs of the industry alone should not be

         24   sufficient to delay its implementation.

         25             Finally, the fact that these changes will be


                                                                      219

          1   accomplished with, in our opinion, very little economic

          2   impact is extremely gratifying.  The EPA's estimate

          3   that reducing the sulfur content in diesel fuel will

          4   cost about 4 cents a gallon and, over the long term,

          5   less than $2,000 per vehicle -- an insignificant amount

          6   compared to an average price tag of $250,000.  The

          7   savings in people's health, fewer hospitalizations and

          8   emergency room visits, lost time at work, and an

          9   increase in the quality of life are just a few of the

         10   benefits that will be realized.  Clearly, this is a

         11   no-brainer.  And these rules should be finalized as

         12   soon as possible.  Thank you for the opportunity to

         13   comment.

         14             MS. MARTIN:  Thank you very much.  Mr. Weck.

         15             MR. LARRY WECK:  Good afternoon.  My name is

         16   Larry Weck, I'm the Vice President of Business

         17   Development for Syntroleum Corporation.  My company has

         18   developed a process to convert natural gas into ultra

         19   clean fuel.

         20             My specific interests in this hearing is that

         21   Syntroleum has developed a (inaudible) diesel.  My

         22   comments at this hearing will focus on the potential

         23   impact that Syntroleum's synthetic diesel, and similar

         24   synthetic fuels available from other producers, will

         25   have on the US transportation fuels industry.


                                                                      220

          1             I will also review the significant

          2   environmental and energy security benefits that will

          3   develop with the increased production and use of

          4   synthetic diesel and similar fuels from other producers

          5   during the next decade.

          6             Syntroleum strongly believes that blending

          7   this synthetic fuel into the present diesel fuel can

          8   assist refiners, large and small, in the meeting the

          9   cap of 10 parts per million diesel sulphur requirements

         10   by 2007.

         11             Let me describe the properties of the

         12   synthetic diesel.  Synthetic diesels have been

         13   developed and tested by Syntroleum and others.  These

         14   diesels meet or exceed the properties specified by

         15   ASTM 975, and are highly suitable for conventional and

         16   advanced compression (inaudible) engines in both the

         17   North American and European markets.

         18             Additionally, Syntroleum's synthetic diesel

         19   has been demonstrated to be a viable fuel (inaudible).

         20   This synthetic diesel is physically similar to the

         21   petroleum-based diesel, but it has superior combustion

         22   emission characteristics.  It contains no detectable

         23   levels of sulphur or metals (inaudible).

         24             Our diesel and Swedish city diesel are the

         25   cleanest diesel fuels commercially available today.


                                                                      221

          1   Syntroleum's synthetic diesel never exceeded the

          2   applicable EPA Tier 1 emission standards appropriate

          3   for each test platform, according to your manufactured

          4   vehicle category.

          5             In addition, the SDRI (phonetic) tests

          6   revealed that synthetic diesel emissions for criteria

          7   pollutants are significantly lower than each of the

          8   other diesel fuels tested.  For just the heavy-duty

          9   engine platform, nitrogen oxide emissions are

         10   22 percent lower than EPA provisions, 14 percent lower

         11   than car, and 11 percent lower than the Swedish

         12   diesel.  Particular matter emissions are 38 percent

         13   lower than EPA diesel, 25 percent lower than car, and

         14   25 percent lower than Swedish diesel.  And Air toxic

         15   emissions are 34 percent lower, 13 percent and

         16   27 percent respectively.

         17             These environmental benefits can be realized

         18   immediately because this diesel can be used in the

         19   existing, conventional diesel engines.  The absence of

         20   sulphur enables vehicles to operate on synthetic diesel

         21   with the use of advanced technologies you have heard

         22   about today, including catalytic converters and

         23   particulate traps, to achieve lower emissions.

         24             Moreover, it's truly really a pleasure to

         25   point out to the EPA and to the American public that


                                                                      222

          1   the synthetic diesel under discussion here has a very

          2   low solubility in water.  Additionally, laboratory

          3   testing indicates that this synthetic diesel has a

          4   significantly lower level of toxicity than traditional

          5   diesel, and is more biodegradable.

          6             Synthetic diesel fuel provides substantial

          7   energy security benefits to the US.  Syntroleum

          8   develops (inaudible) technology for both its own

          9   commercial use and for license to others in the

         10   production of diesel fuels.  As such, the synthetic

         11   fuel production technology is broadly available to the

         12   energy industry in the production of synthetic diesel.

         13             Present licensees of this process are ARCO,

         14   now BP, (inaudible), Texaco, Ivanhoe Energy, and

         15   recently the Commonwealth of Australia.  (Inaudible)

         16   natural gas, methane rich gas containing up to

         17   30 percent inerts (inaudible).  These (inaudible) are

         18   abundant worldwide.

         19             Production of these synthetic fuels is the

         20   logical component in the plan to (inaudible) petroleum-

         21   based fuel in the transportation sector, because,

         22   number one, the US has plentiful natural gas

         23   resources.  Number two, numerous countries, in addition

         24   to members of OPEC, have plentiful natural gas

         25   resources.


                                                                      223

          1             The full-cycle fuel energy required to

          2   produce this diesel is potentially more energy

          3   efficient than full-cycle fuel energy required to

          4   produce diesel containing sulfur or reformulated

          5   gasoline.  The comparable full-cycle production of

          6   synthetic diesel requires less energy than the

          7   production of either reformulated diesel or

          8   reformulated gasoline or petroleum.

          9             As a case in point, a study by Oakgrade

         10   (phonetic) National Laboratory identifies the potential

         11   energy security benefits that would be realized with

         12   the increased use of this diesel.  It would reduce

         13   reliance on imported oil as a transportation energy

         14   resource, because it can be manufactured domestically

         15   from US reserves of (inaudible) quality gas.  In

         16   addition, the manufacturer's subsidies would broaden

         17   and diversify supplies, and increase the level of

         18   competition, thus reducing the price.

         19             For the refining industry, this diesel can be

         20   produced economically in a variety of plant

         21   configurations, site conditions, and the proximity of

         22   the plants in the fuel market.

         23             As trucks continue to grow in popularity, the

         24   shift from gasoline to diesel engines is evidenced by a

         25   12 percent growth rate for the period '96 to '98, and a


                                                                      224

          1   44 percent growth rate for the one-year period of

          2   1997-98.  In the heavier portion of this category,

          3   where some of the most popular, full-size SUVs and

          4   large pickup trucks are found, the shift from gasoline

          5   to diesel is even greater:  18 percent for 1996-98, and

          6   50 percent for '97-98.

          7             With the increasing availability of cleaner

          8   diesel fuels, manufacturers of diesel-powered vehicles

          9   will be better able to bring their diesel technology

         10   and experience into the US marketplace.

         11             Of particular interest to this hearing is the

         12   need for the community's fuel to meet Tier 2

         13   standards.  The demand for diesel in the United States

         14   transportation sector is growing three times faster

         15   than gasoline.  If this growth and demand continues,

         16   100,000 barrels per day incremental capacity will be

         17   required (inaudible).  Availability of synthetic diesel

         18   will increase the options available to refiners to

         19   provide for this production of diesel under the

         20   proposed rules.

         21             Synthetic diesel will enable the refining

         22   industry to have more flexibility to meet the

         23   anticipated increasing demand for Tier 2 specs.  Using

         24   only conventional refining technologies for the

         25   production of the 15 parts per million diesel will


                                                                      225

          1   require more processing and more natural gas or

          2   hydrogen production.

          3             Once the diesel fuels improve the current

          4   level, 350 ppm, to below 50, additional reductions in

          5   diesel fuel sulfur require disproportionate increases

          6   in energy and hydrogen.  In this instance, when the

          7   conventional diesel with an additional 30 percent

          8   (inaudible) synthetic diesel reduce sulfur from 20 to

          9   15 ppm, is expected to be a more carbon and energy

         10   efficient means to achieve compliance for numerous

         11   refineries compared to their traditional (inaudible).

         12             Most significant to this hearing is that the

         13   economics of synthetic diesel may be particularly

         14   enhanced and used as a blending agent.  More detailed

         15   information will be supplied on this topic.

         16             In conclusion, our use of synthetic diesel

         17   fuels will bring significant environmental and energy

         18   security benefits to the US during the next decade and

         19   beyond.  Syntroleum strongly believes that the expected

         20   increased availability of these fuels will dramatically

         21   assist refiners in meeting the sulfur requirements by

         22   2007 both by blending the in-place fuel stream, and by

         23   supplementing the refining capacity that will become

         24   economically challenged.  Thank you for the opportunity

         25   to speak today.


                                                                      226

          1             MS. OGE:  Thank you very much.  Mr. Tripp,

          2   good afternoon.

          3             MR. JAMES TRIPP:  Thank you very much.  My

          4   name is James Tripp, I'm the General Counsel of

          5   Environmental Defense, a national environmental

          6   organization.  We have in the New York/New Jersey/

          7   Connecticut metropolitan area somewhere around 30,000

          8   members, we have 300,000 members nationally.

          9             I've prepared a statement, I do not intend to

         10   read it verbatim.  You can do so at your leisure.

         11             Needless to say, in general we strongly

         12   support this rule.  We all would have been better off

         13   if the rule had been proposed ten or fifteen years ago.

         14   But if you live in a metropolitan area like this, as

         15   cars have gotten cleaner, the dirty nature of emissions

         16   from heavy trucks as well as buses has become all the

         17   more evident.

         18             Particulate emissions are a very serious

         19   problem in this metropolitan area.  And I think as Carl

         20   Johnson noted, when and if -- and we hope the sooner

         21   the better -- the EPA finally puts in place the PM 2.5

         22   standard, we will have a clear idea just how serious

         23   the particulate problem is.  And a lot of this problem

         24   is associated with diesel admissions from trucks.

         25             In connection with the DEC proceedings in


                                                                      227

          1   which we are a party, we have looked at the PM 2.5 data

          2   from a couple of air monitors in the South Bronx.

          3             These are monitors which are on top of school

          4   buildings, so they don't really tell you what's going

          5   on at the street level where the heavy trucks are.  But

          6   the analysis that was done by a physicist working with

          7   (inaudible) indicated that the PM 2.5 levels, based on

          8   that data that had been certified, was at or slightly

          9   above 15 micrograms per cubic meter, which is above the

         10   proposed EPA standard for 2.5 particulates.

         11             And my suspicion is that if and when we have

         12   a better and more detailed air monitoring network, and

         13   we're willing to look at what's going on along the

         14   streets that are heavily used by trucks -- whether

         15   we're talking about the Bronx, or lower Manhattan,

         16   Newark, or other parts of the metropolitan area -- we

         17   will find PM 2.5 levels well in excess of 15 micrograms

         18   per cubic meter.  This is a deplorable situation.

         19             We cite in our testimony, and you've probably

         20   already heard today, about the health data about the

         21   nature of diesel particulates.  And, of course, it was

         22   just last month that the Department of Health and Human

         23   Services, in their report on carcinogens, classified

         24   diesel exhaust particulates as reasonably anticipated

         25   to be human carcinogens.


                                                                      228

          1             And I think you're probably also aware of the

          2   fact that the South Coast Air Quality Management

          3   District Board in the Los Angeles area has just come

          4   out with a report on the toxic nature of diesel

          5   emissions, indicating that diesel emissions were

          6   responsible for about 70 percent of all air toxic

          7   carcinogenicity in that region.  There's no reason to

          8   believe that the same isn't the case here.

          9             So it seems to me that the evidence that fine

         10   particulates generated by diesel emissions are of great

         11   health concern throughout this metropolitan area.  But

         12   it is particularly in parts of the city that tend to be

         13   populated with lower income, minority populations that

         14   it is an extremely serious problem.  And certainly we,

         15   therefore, support the particulate rule.

         16             With respect to nitrogen oxides, again other

         17   speakers have indicated that truck NOx emissions are

         18   becoming a larger and larger portion of all nitrogen

         19   oxide emissions.  Probably the most serious general air

         20   pollutant problem that this country faces today is

         21   linked to nitrogen oxide emissions.  Those emissions

         22   have been going up, we to have to do something about

         23   it.  We should reduce by 90 percent, or more, as

         24   quickly as we possibly can, the nitrogen oxide

         25   emissions of trucks.


                                                                      229

          1             Peter Lehner mentioned the eutrophication of

          2   Long Island Sound.  The City of New York is going to be

          3   expected to spend half a billion to a billion dollars

          4   on finalizing nitrogen removal treatment plants.  And

          5   Connecticut, Westchester, Long Island will be doing the

          6   same.  We've got to reduce nitrogen input into Long

          7   Island Sound by a very significant percentage if that's

          8   going to be become a health body of water again.  And

          9   that alone is justification for reducing nitrogen

         10   oxides.

         11             We certainly would support, strongly support,

         12   a much more rapid implementation of the NOx emission

         13   rule.  I believe the rule allows for four years of

         14   implementation, 2007 to 2011.  Given the number of

         15   years that any truck is on the roads in this country,

         16   and the number and the distance that a truck goes

         17   before it's finally retired, the sooner that that rule

         18   can be implemented the better.  We would strongly

         19   support implementing the rule 2006, 2005 -- as early as

         20   possible.

         21             With all of that, diesel fuel has got to be

         22   as clean as possible.  And given what ARCO is doing in

         23   California, and what other refineries are beginning to

         24   do, we think that the 15 parts per million sulfur rule

         25   for diesel fuel is very reasonable in this schedule.


                                                                      230

          1             Just a couple of other points:  We strongly

          2   agree with what some other speakers have said, that

          3   this rule ought to be applied for all non-road

          4   vehicles.  And, again, the sooner the better.  The

          5   off-road vehicles are looming as a larger and larger

          6   portion of all air pollutants.  They've been largely

          7   unregulated -- it's time to move ahead with a program

          8   to regulate those sources.

          9             And we also agree that for this rule to make

         10   sense, there's going to have to be a stringent

         11   enforcement program by the states with the federal

         12   government behind it, because a lot of these trucks

         13   move interstate commerce.

         14             And, finally, we'll just note our support for

         15   the EPA retrofit partnership program.  Which I think

         16   the EPA has recently announced on a demonstration

         17   basis.  We hope that you, that the EPA can find some

         18   partners here, or a partner with whoever, to buy and

         19   make use of retrofit trucks that are found in this

         20   region.  And we would be happy to work with EPA to see

         21   if we can help find some suitable partners.  Thank

         22   you.

         23             MS. OGE:  Thank you very much.

         24             Ms. Fisher.

         25             MS. ALEXANDRA FISHER:  Thanks very much.


                                                                      231

          1             My name is Alexandra Fisher, and I am a

          2   concerned citizen.  I'm very nervous, because I'm

          3   speaking only of my personal experience.

          4             I don't know a lot of numbers and lot of the

          5   statistics, I only know that I'm a life-long resident

          6   of New York City and that on what we call a "bad air

          7   day" when I blow my nose, the kleenex is black.  That I

          8   look at that and wonder what my lungs look like.

          9             And that my brother, who is eight years

         10   younger than I am has asthma.  And that he doesn't live

         11   here in New York anymore, but when I get a call from

         12   him in the hospital and he talks about almost dying,

         13   and I know that part of what is potentially killing him

         14   is the air quality, I become very afraid.

         15             I grew up in the sixties learning that all

         16   war would end, the air would become clean, the water

         17   would become clean, all people would be equal, women

         18   would have equal rights, people of all colors would be

         19   living together in harmony -- and I've been waiting for

         20   this happen.  And I'm not giving up yet.

         21             And it is so frustrating to me when the

         22   answers are within reach.  They're difficult, from what

         23   I'm hearing today.  I'm not stupid, I understand that

         24   this isn't a matter of anybody snapping their fingers

         25   and making change happen.  It's a long-time progress,


                                                                      232

          1   and this country barreled along because nobody knew of

          2   the problems that would be created.

          3             But now that he would have ways of finding

          4   out what the problems are and we start to know what the

          5   solutions are, I find it unbelievable that everyone

          6   doesn't think the way I do and just want to clean

          7   everything up.  Because even the people who are making

          8   lots and lots of money from polluting also have to

          9   breathe this air and drink the water, and their

         10   children do.  And I don't understand why it becomes a

         11   political battle.

         12             I heard about the new standards that are

         13   proposed.  And what I understand of them, I like.  I

         14   agree with the other things that I have heard today,

         15   that I wish they could be implemented sooner.

         16             I am a privileged person in that I have a

         17   job, I work for myself.  If I want to leave New York

         18   City, I can.  And I plan to.  Partly because it's so

         19   dirty.  But, like I said, I'm privileged.  There are

         20   many people who don't have the privilege of leaving

         21   large urban areas, and are subject to the pollution

         22   that continues to grow there.

         23             I myself suffer from bronchitis.  And when

         24   I'm in a bad pollution area I have, at times, had go to

         25   the emergency room myself for bronchitis.  And I know


                                                                      233

          1   that with pollution it happened to me in Mexico City.

          2   And then when it happened to me New York City, I was

          3   amazed that we were as bad as they were, because I had

          4   always heard how awful it was in Mexico City with the

          5   pollution.  And to think that I could get that sick

          6   here was appalling to me.

          7             I don't want to ramble.  I didn't write, I

          8   wrote a few things down for myself here.

          9             But I think the important thing here is that

         10   if I do put a face on my brother, which I can't -- but

         11   he looks almost exactly like me -- and to think that my

         12   brother might live or die, depending on the air

         13   quality, and that my brother is only one of the

         14   millions in this country, and I don't know how many in

         15   the world, who are affected on a daily basis by air

         16   quality, then maybe it will help to move this out of

         17   the political arena, the economic arena, and into one,

         18   as someone mentioned before, where the costs go beyond

         19   what it costs individual companies to comply, or for

         20   the government to help subsidize, and then it will go

         21   into what we mean if we have country full of healthy

         22   people who go to work every day, almost every day.

         23   Where sick days will be maybe because they drank a

         24   little too much the night before, not because they had

         25   to go to the emergency room.  Those kinds of costs, if


                                                                      234

          1   we can hold back and see the larger picture, are what I

          2   think we're really talking about.

          3             I have seen the Hudson River get cleaner, I

          4   never thought that would happen.  When I was little,

          5   that was a lost cause.  It is now -- it is not clean,

          6   it is cleaner.  I would like to see the same thing

          7   happen with air.  I would like not to have to be

          8   finding places that are air conditioned to go to in the

          9   summer when the wind isn't moving across Manhattan.  I

         10   don't like air conditioning.  And, again, that's a

         11   privilege to be able to find it or have it.

         12             So basically I just want to say that I think

         13   the standards, as I've heard them and understand them,

         14   are good ones.  As other people have said, I wish they

         15   could be implemented sooner.

         16             And that I want everyone here to remember, no

         17   matter which side you're on, that this is a human issue

         18   and that we all have to live here and share the air.

         19   We may as well work together to make it the best air

         20   that we can possibly have.

         21             Thank you.

         22             MS. OGE:  Thank you very much for your

         23   testimony.  I wanted to just say to you that to be able

         24   to hear from people like you is exactly why we're here

         25   in New York and going to Chicago, Atlanta, and Denver


                                                                      235

          1   and California and getting out of Washington so that we

          2   can hear from the people.  So thank you very much.

          3             I now understand that Mr. Perez and

          4   Mr. Corbin will be sharing testimony, so however each

          5   of you wish to proceed.

          6             MR. JOE PEREZ:  Good afternoon.  My name is

          7   Joe Perez, I'm President of (inaudible), Vice President

          8   and Chair of the South Bronx Clean Air Coalition.

          9             The oil industry is here fighting this rule

         10   claiming that the reduction of diesel fuel is too

         11   expensive.  That is adding insult to injury to our

         12   community.  It has become apparent that the lives of

         13   Latinos and African/Americans are in a susceptible

         14   role.  The South Bronx in upper Manhattan lead the

         15   nation in emergency room visits due to asthma caused by

         16   air pollution.  Why is it that we are the target for

         17   every major polluting project the city/state can think

         18   of?

         19             To mention a few:  The (inaudible) Medical

         20   Waste Incinerator, which placed toxics into our air

         21   until we shut it down.  Waste transfers stations and

         22   bus depots that increase the amount of diesel fuel

         23   pollution that causes asthma, heart disease, and lung

         24   cancer.  A Home Depot that is being built on 116th

         25   Street that will bring into our community 7,000 more


                                                                      236

          1   cars and 120 more trucks a day.  The New York Post, and

          2   the Harlem River (inaudible).  We are being killed, and

          3   a sad part of it is that we are being made to pay for

          4   it.

          5             Another thing that we need is enforcement of

          6   existing laws.  An example:  An incinerator had 800

          7   violations before they closed it down.  Now any driver

          8   know that if you have a few violations, they're going

          9   to take your license away.

         10             The trucks, they park all over the place.

         11   Three or four of them park right in front of the day

         12   care centers.  On 138th Street in the Bronx, they park

         13   right next to a school, leave the truck running, go out

         14   and eat lunch or breakfast.

         15             When you speak to the police department, they

         16   say well, we don't have no authority against that.

         17   When you speak to the traffic department, they don't

         18   have no authority on that.  Speak to the DEC, they

         19   don't have any authority on that.

         20             Well, now, whose job is it to enforce the

         21   laws that are on the books?

         22             On the question to address the oil industry's

         23   fear of losing millions of dollars:  A child's life is

         24   priceless.  We ask that you please pass this law.

         25             MR. CECIL CORBIN-MARK:  Good afternoon.  My


                                                                      237

          1   name is Cecil Corbin-Mark, and I am the Program

          2   Director for an organization called West Harlem

          3   Environmental Action.  We have members who are

          4   life-long residents of north Manhattan and Harlem.

          5             To be specific, our organization is based in

          6   Northern Manhattan and works on environmental issues

          7   locally, statewide, and nationally.  Since 1988, WE ACT

          8   has worked to educate community residents about the

          9   threat to human health created by these particulates,

         10   and today I'm really here to applaud the EPA for

         11   putting forth such a strong rule.

         12             In 1997 we launched our Clean Air Good Health

         13   campaign, with a series of English and Spanish bus

         14   shelter ads in Northern Manhattan and a battery of

         15   brochures that were all designed to inform people that

         16   if you live uptown, breathing was something that you

         17   did at your own risk.  And to call attention to the

         18   fact that Northern Manhattan was saturated with six out

         19   of eight of the Transit Authority's bus depots, and a

         20   series of networks that comprised a very complex truck

         21   route system, all in area that was only about 7.4

         22   square miles that was also home to more than half a

         23   million residents.

         24             One of the things that I certainly want to

         25   call attention to, or three things that I think are


                                                                      238

          1   important about this particular rule:

          2             One, EPA's new rule, in very short and

          3   succinct terms, for residents of Manhattan will really

          4   mean fewer asthma attacks.

          5             Two, Northern Manhattan, as we understand it

          6   from some of our colleagues who were (inaudible), is

          7   really awash in diesel particulates.  And one of the

          8   major contributors to that is the truck traffic that is

          9   there, as well as the buses.

         10             Now, we've worked for more than a decade to

         11   deal with the buses thinking that that was an avenue

         12   through which we could have some leverage, because

         13   quote unquote, it was a "public service," only to find

         14   that 13 years later after the battle began that we were

         15   now beginning to get to the point where there was some

         16   light, possibly, at the end of the tunnel, but we still

         17   haven't seen it yet.

         18             The trucks, however, we have to throw our

         19   hands up at completely and say well, there seems to be

         20   no hook.  Well, hurrah for the EPA, because today with

         21   this proposed rule if it is implemented, yes, there

         22   really does become a hook that deals with the hundreds

         23   of trucks that we have had our YRDP(?) crew

         24   monitoring -- our YRDP crew is the Youth Reach

         25   (phonetic) Development Project -- monitoring truck


                                                                      239

          1   traffic on our local streets.  Hundreds of trucks just

          2   barreling down the streets on a daily basis, because

          3   New York City has no proper real infrastructure for the

          4   delivery of goods.

          5             The third thing about this rule is that

          6   cleaner air really will be a regional benefit as well

          7   as a national benefit, and it's something that we

          8   should not take lightly.

          9             Now, many are going to come and argue in

         10   opposition to this particular rule.  Some of the

         11   arguments will have to do with the cost.  The oil

         12   industry constantly throws up the cost.  I find this

         13   particularly galling that every time as the state of

         14   science advances and we find out more about how to

         15   either improve the quality of our environment or

         16   protect our public health in a significant way, that

         17   industry seems to come up with a red herring for why we

         18   shouldn't go forth with this, and usually that red

         19   herring is cost.

         20             The first thing that I want to say about cost

         21   is that I was astounded to find out that while the oil

         22   industry particularly throws this up as an issue, that

         23   Exxon Mobile, the largest of the barons, if you will,

         24   in the oil industry, recently published in one of their

         25   financial disclosures, quarterly financial statements.


                                                                      240

          1   And what left me astonished was that in that quarterly

          2   financial statement, one of the things that was

          3   revealed was that in a quarter Exxon Mobile made enough

          4   money to actually have some of this stuff happen.

          5             Now, I don't know understand, if we live in

          6   this particular time that is so opulent and supposedly

          7   so rich -- for some, obviously, but not for all -- why

          8   we're not taking on these challenges.  Costs should not

          9   be a factor.

         10             In fact, if we are going to talk about costs,

         11   then it is incumbent upon me as a resident of Northern

         12   Manhattan to demand that people look at the fact that

         13   there is a cost to the increase in hospital admissions

         14   for asthma cases.  There is a cost to mothers and

         15   fathers who have to take off from work to attend to a

         16   sick child, or to take care of their own asthmatic

         17   conditions that are related, or triggered by this

         18   particular pollutant.  There is a cost to the number of

         19   school days that are lost.

         20             And why are we not factoring in those costs

         21   as well?

         22             I suspect that the reason for that is that

         23   the picture that would be revealed upon that kind of

         24   mathematics would not be a pretty one.

         25             Secondly, one of the things that I am


                                                                      241

          1   troubled by also is that people will say that this

          2   particular type of modification to the oil industry's

          3   infrastructure will actually leave the industry in

          4   fiscal ruin.  Well, I go back, again, to this Exxon

          5   Mobile quarterly statement, and I can't imagine that

          6   that would be true.

          7             I think that it is high time that we own up,

          8   all of us -- both the industry, the private sector,

          9   private residents, all of us -- own up to the challenge

         10   ahead.

         11             When we were faced with this issue of lead in

         12   gasoline poisoning all of our children, America rose to

         13   the task.  And I think we are at another crossroads

         14   like that now.  We must rise to the task.  Because,

         15   really and truly, I believe that in the end our

         16   society's well being will not be judged by the

         17   magnitude of the bottom line, or the fat GNP or GEP

         18   figures, but really it will be judged by the quality of

         19   life we provide for each and every one of our

         20   citizens.

         21             I think this rule moves us in that

         22   direction.  Moves us in the right direction of

         23   improving the quality of the air that we breath, and

         24   providing an opportunity for those who suffer -- like

         25   many of the Northern Manhattan residents -- to improve


                                                                      242

          1   the quality of their health.

          2             Our organization over the last couple of

          3   years has really engaged in a series of community-

          4   based research projects with our academic partner at

          5   Columbia University.  And some of those scientific

          6   research projects have really left us with what we

          7   believe are the smoking-gun findings.

          8             We conducted a study amongst seventh graders

          9   in Northern Manhattan to determine what the lung

         10   function was with the students who were exposed to

         11   diesel and smog.  And because we -- because of the

         12   politics in the city, we had to get started with what

         13   we were calling our quote unquote "control school"

         14   first.

         15             When we were finished and all of the

         16   information was gathered from that control school,

         17   supposedly the school that was supposed to be the least

         18   exposed, we found that the students in those schools

         19   were so much awash in diesel particulates that it

         20   really did not even make sense for us to go forward and

         21   check the exposed school.  The levels of exposure were

         22   so high that even a control school was, in effect, an

         23   exposed school.  That is something that is

         24   intolerable.

         25             I want to end by talking about some of the


                                                                      243

          1   residents that I know in Northern Manhattan who live

          2   there, work there, and call it home.

          3             Joselito (phonetic) Mendez was a young man

          4   that I actually met through our program.  He started

          5   coming to our organization when he was about 14-years

          6   old.  Very overweight, intensely shy, but a very

          7   brilliant mind and a gentleman of a young man who was a

          8   severe asthmatic.  Could not play, could not get

          9   involved in any substantive physical activities for

         10   fear -- all of his life -- for fear that he would be

         11   seized by an asthma attack.

         12             (Inaudible), another young lady who came

         13   through our earth cleaning project, she also was a

         14   severe asthmatic, but determined she was going to

         15   continue to live her life the way that she would.  She

         16   actually fought through her asthma attacks, and decided

         17   that she was not going to be stopped by it.

         18             Jamal is a young child of four-years old who

         19   I just recently became aware of.  And when I first met

         20   his mother her bag was filled -- she opened her bag at

         21   one point with the child in her lap, and began to give

         22   him an inhaler.  A four-year old.  To me, this is some

         23   of what the new rule will help us move beyond.

         24             And lastly, Paris Walsby (phonetic), a woman

         25   who is 44-years old and headed something called the


                                                                      244

          1   Harlem Textiles Project, that in the prime of her life,

          2   died from an asthma attack.

          3             I think that it is time that we move beyond,

          4   I think that it is time that we work collectively to

          5   implement these changes sooner than 2007 or 2006.  And

          6   I think we can do this.  Thank you.

          7             MS. MARTIN:  Thank you very much, sir.

          8             Ms. Rubel.

          9             MS. JENNY RUBEL:   Thank you for the

         10   opportunity to speak to you today.  My name is Jenny

         11   Rubel, and I'm here as an intern from the New York

         12   Public Interest Research Group.  I'm here to urge you

         13   to adopt the toughest possible standards to reduce

         14   pollution from heavy-duty vehicles.

         15             Here in New York, smog sends more than 12,300

         16   people to emergency rooms each year, and causes over

         17   510,000 asthma attacks.  Making matters worse, a study

         18   by local air pollution control officials estimates that

         19   diesel exhaust is responsible for 125,000 cases of

         20   cancer in the United States.

         21             Air pollution is an issue that residents of

         22   urban areas, especially in New York City, have to deal

         23   with on a daily basis.  All throughout the year, but

         24   particularly during the summer, individuals, even those

         25   who do not suffer from asthma or other diagnosed lung


                                                                      245

          1   diseases like myself, can feel the effects of air

          2   pollution from itchy eyes and difficulty breathing.

          3             In order to protect the public health, we

          4   must require drastic reductions in pollution from these

          5   large trucks and buses as soon as possible.

          6             I was, therefore, disappointed to learn that

          7   the EPA has delayed the rating until 2010.  In

          8   addition, because high sulfur fuel will poison the new

          9   diesel clean up technologies, we must ensure that all

         10   diesel fuel is fully cleaned up and readily available.

         11             Specifically, I urge you to, first of all,

         12   reduce diesel sulfur levels to no more than 15 parts

         13   per million nationwide for both on- and off-road

         14   vehicles by 2006.  Secondly, clean up all big trucks

         15   and buses by at least 90 percent 2007.  Third, ensure

         16   that big trucks are meeting the emission standards on

         17   the road, and not just during the engine tests.  And

         18   finally, I urge you to increase the use of diesel

         19   alternatives, such as electric and fuel cell buses.

         20             These measures are critical to the protection

         21   of public health and the environment.  I hope you will

         22   seriously consider them.  Thank you for allowing me to

         23   speak today.

         24             MS. MARTIN:  Thank you very much, we

         25   appreciate it.  And finally Mr. Henry, if you can


                                                                      246

          1   please present your testimony.

          2             MR. CYRUS HENRY:  I have a presentation.  My

          3   name is Cyrus Henry, I am a Ph.D. chemist of Octel

          4   America.  For the last 27 years my principal area of

          5   work is (inaudible).

          6             MS. MARTIN:  Excuse me, if you could please

          7   use the microphone.  Thank you.

          8             MR. HENRY:  One of the provisions of the

          9   proposed rule will prohibit the use downstream of

         10   refineries of additives that contain more than 15 parts

         11   per million of sulphur.

         12             For most additives, that is only an

         13   inconvenience in the sense that the solvent that is

         14   used with the additive must be cleaned up (inaudible).

         15             But there is a small niche group of additives

         16   called "static dissipator additives" that contain

         17   sulphur as part of their active ingredient.  And what I

         18   would like to request today is permission, or some sort

         19   of exception to permit downstream use of these

         20   additives.  And, in fact, there's not an awful lot of

         21   latitude that's required, because in general the

         22   sulphur content in use concentration of these additives

         23   is very small, on the order of a few parts per

         24   million.  And so by allowing the downstream sulfur

         25   contribution of less 0.2 ppm, these additives could be


                                                                      247

          1   used.

          2             Essentially, they help prevent the

          3   possibility of electrostatic ignition during tank

          4   truckloading and loading ramps.  About a million of

          5   these loadings take place every year, and very

          6   frequently the last load in the truck was gasoline, so

          7   there are flammable vapors present.

          8             The API records during the period of

          9   recordkeeping, which stopped in 1981, showed that there

         10   were 121 ignitions during tank truck loading.  These

         11   incidents continue to occur.  The incidents or rate of

         12   incidents has reduced.  But in 1994, which was soon

         13   after the introduction of low-sulfur diesel, a series

         14   of these occurred in Minneapolis.  And the final

         15   ignition destroyed not only the truck, but the loading

         16   rack and damaged several other surrounding trucks.  So

         17   it's a serious problem.

         18             These incidents come about because when fuel

         19   moves through piping pumps and so forth, it tends to

         20   entrain electrostatic charge.  And this occurs in the

         21   same way that you generate a charge rubbing across the

         22   carpet.  Movement causes charge liberation.  This

         23   charge in low conductivity fluids can accumulate with

         24   the fuel in a receiver.  And if you have flammable

         25   vapors present, you may have a spark which can then


                                                                      248

          1   ignite those vapors.

          2             Just as point of reference, if you walk

          3   across the carpet in winter and feel a spark, that

          4   spark was probably energetic enough to ignite a

          5   flammable (inaudible) combination.

          6             The tricky part of this, which even some

          7   people in the business don't understand very well, is

          8   that this can occur even though a truck, a loading

          9   pipe, and all that, are properly grounded.  And that is

         10   because the fuel itself may be so resistant to current

         11   flow, the charge that's in it accumulates (inaudible)

         12   and literally can't get through the fuel itself to the

         13   ground.  And so even if it's grounded, you can still

         14   have this internal spark from the fuel surface to the

         15   interior of the tank, which can cause a fire or

         16   explosion.

         17             So there are a variety of ways that this can

         18   be handled.  There are procedures that are well-known

         19   in the business, like reducing the flow rates and so

         20   on, that help mitigate electrostatic charges.  But that

         21   various over a very broad range, dependent on minor

         22   trace factors such as the composition of materials and

         23   trace materials in the fuel.

         24             The flammable vapors result from switch

         25   loading from gasoline to diesel, which is very, very


                                                                      249

          1   common in the petroleum industry.  It's a fact of

          2   life.  Sparking sources can be minimized, but they

          3   cannot be eliminated.  And one of the best solutions to

          4   help prevent this kind of accident is the use of static

          5   dissipater additives to prevent accumulation of

          6   charge.

          7             These could, of course, be added by the

          8   refiner.  But these are frequently multiple events at

          9   terminal loading racks, and the terminal operation is

         10   often not the responsibility of the refiner.  The fuel

         11   goes from him and the majority of fuel goes through a

         12   pipeline to a terminal maybe several owners away

         13   removed from him.  So it's not really his problem.

         14             And it is well-known that when these

         15   incidents occur, another one is likely.  So that the

         16   downstream operator needs a way to address this

         17   quickly.  And the use of these additives is an

         18   excellent remedy.  Furthermore, when you add them

         19   downstream, you also minimize the concentration.  You

         20   don't to have to worry about loss during the

         21   distribution system.

         22             As I said before, all of the available static

         23   dissipater additives contain more than 15 ppm sulfur as

         24   part of the active ingredient.  However, the normal use

         25   concentration is very low, on the order of one to three


                                                                      250

          1   parts per million typically.  And the concentration in

          2   the fuel is easily monitored with available

          3   instruments, such as those described in the ASTM

          4   D2624.  Something like this.  (Indicating on screen.)

          5             You put the probe three-quarters of its

          6   length into the fuel, press the button marked "major,"

          7   and read the result.  So you can very easily monitor

          8   the conductivity, which can then be a surrogate for

          9   measuring sulphur content.  As you know, the D2622,

         10   which is normally required by the EPA, is fairly

         11   complex and requires requisite expertise.  This

         12   instrument does not.

         13             Also, it allows for 0.2 ppm of sulphur.  It

         14   will be essentially undetectable by D2622.  That will

         15   be about three percent at 0.2 of the precision of the

         16   methods.

         17             We are actively seeking alternative

         18   additives, but certainly at the likely time that this

         19   rule will be implemented it will not be known for sure

         20   whether they will be available.

         21             Hence, I think you can feel very comfortable

         22   that there's going to be pressure to develop such

         23   additives, because refiners and fuel suppliers are not

         24   going to want to give away (inaudible) margin to an

         25   additive supplier.  There are substantial performance


                                                                      251

          1   requirements which are not easy to meet.  And also

          2   there's an advantage to have the same additives for

          3   diesel fuel as used for aviation fuels.

          4             Aviation fuel approval will take eight to ten

          5   years.  I will reiterate my recommendations is that you

          6   modify NPRM to permit downstream use of static

          7   dissipater additives under conditions that assure ULSD

          8   sulfur content is not increased by greater than

          9   0.2 ppm.

         10             MS. MARTIN:  Thank you very much.  This, I

         11   think, concludes this panel.  We appreciate you all

         12   very much for coming, and the rest of you for being so

         13   patient.  We would like to quickly move into the next

         14   panel.

         15             Mr. Carhart, would you like to begin,

         16   please.

         17             MR. BRUCE CARHART:  Good afternoon, thank you

         18   very much.  My name is Bruce Carhart, I'm the Executive

         19   Director of the Ozone Transport Commission, or OTC.

         20   OTC was created by Congress as a result of the Clean

         21   Air Act Amendments of 1990 to coordinate ground-level

         22   ozone control planning in the Northeast and

         23   Mid-Atlantic.  Twelve states and the District of

         24   Columbia are represented on OTC.

         25             I would like to say right up front that we


                                                                      252

          1   support the engine emission and fuel standards

          2   contained in EPA's recent diesel proposal, because we

          3   believe that they will help us in our efforts to clean

          4   up the air in our region.  The Northeast and

          5   Mid-Atlantic states have experienced a pervasive

          6   ground-level ozone problem for many years.

          7             Ground-level ozone is a major public health

          8   concern, and we have already had days in our region

          9   this year which exceed the National Ambient Air Quality

         10   Standards.  Our states have adopted many of their own

         11   air pollution control strategies to reduce the

         12   emissions of pollutants that cause ozone.  Strategies

         13   include both controls on emissions of volatile organic

         14   compounds, also known as VOC, and nitrogen oxides,

         15   known as NOx.

         16             Coordination on a regional level is critical

         17   because ozone is a regional air pollutant.  Ozone can

         18   in fact be transported over hundreds of miles downwind

         19   of NOx and VOC sources.  A regional problem needs a

         20   regional solution, and with the national nature of

         21   motor vehicle traffic and sales, a strong national

         22   program helps us to solve a regional problem.

         23             It is important at this hearing to stress the

         24   role of NOx, because diesel engines are large

         25   contributors to our overall NOx inventory.  Reductions


                                                                      253

          1   in NOx emission are critical.  Our studies of ozone

          2   show that regional NOx emission are strongly related to

          3   regional ozone formation and transport.

          4             Correspondingly, reductions in regional NOx

          5   emissions generally reduce regional ozone formation and

          6   transport.

          7             We in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states

          8   have done a lot to reduce NOx emissions within our

          9   region.  For example, in 1994 we approved the OTC NOx

         10   Memorandum of Understanding or MOU, which substantially

         11   reduces NOx emissions from major stationery sources,

         12   such as power plants and large industrial boilers.  We

         13   just issued a report on the first year of this second

         14   phase of our effort, which documented more than a

         15   50 percent reduction in NOx emissions from affected

         16   sources in 1999.

         17             As stationery sources of NOx are reduced,

         18   mobile sources become a larger proportion of the

         19   remaining NOx which needs to be addressed as a part of

         20   our state plants to reduce air pollution.  EPA's recent

         21   finalization of the Tier 2 program for light-duty

         22   vehicles and trucks is certainly a good step forward to

         23   reducing broad regional reductions of NOx emissions.

         24             However, Tier 2 does not address heavy-duty

         25   diesel engines and fuels, which we know will become an


                                                                      254

          1   increasing part of the problem.

          2             Now let me address EPA's proposal

          3   specifically, and indicate a number of major points we

          4   would like you to keep in mind.

          5             First, we support the proposed engine and

          6   fuel standards that EPA has published.  We know that we

          7   will need additional emission reductions from diesel

          8   engines as soon as possible.  And we know that major

          9   reductions in diesel fuel sulfur are fundamental to

         10   attaining those emission reductions.  It is clear that

         11   diesel sulphur is a major impediment to the development

         12   of a range of emission control technologies for diesel

         13   engines.  Reducing diesel fuel sulphur all the way down

         14   to a cap of 15 ppm by mid-2006 as EPA has proposed,

         15   should provide sufficient flexibility for the

         16   development and utilization of new technologies.  The

         17   EPA should finalize this proposal as soon as possible,

         18   but no later than the end of this year.

         19             Second, while we believe that the engine

         20   standards themselves should be finalized, the phase-in

         21   schedule should be accelerated.  With the

         22   implementation of low sulfur fuel in mid-2006, we are

         23   not convinced that four years are necessary for program

         24   phase-in.  Diesel engines turnover relatively slowly,

         25   and any possible acceleration of the phase-in will be a


                                                                      255

          1   positive step.

          2             Third, we believe that while this proposal is

          3   a major plus for us as states as we prepare our

          4   long-term plans, more needs to be done on the off-road

          5   fuel.  Reduction in on-road diesel fuel sulfur, while

          6   absolutely necessary, does raise the issue of where the

          7   extra sulfur will be directed in the refinery process.

          8             Benefits of the on-road diesel proposal would

          9   be substantially reduced if the sulfur were simply

         10   directed into off-road diesel fuel and other off-road

         11   fuels.  We believe that EPA should finalize rules

         12   during 2001 that makes non-road fuel subject to the

         13   same standards as are being proposed for on-road diesel

         14   fuel.

         15             Fourth, we are pleased that EPA has developed

         16   this proposal to reduce multiple pollutants

         17   simultaneously.  Producing a comprehensive regulation

         18   that reduces ozone precursors and fine particulates,

         19   while reducing toxic air pollutants at the same time,

         20   is good public policy.

         21             In summary, we believe that EPA should

         22   finalize this proposal as soon as possible, but no

         23   later than the end of this year, 2000.  We are

         24   supportive of this proposal, and believe that with a

         25   few changes that it can be even better.


                                                                      256

          1             As a part of my statement, I am including a

          2   copy of the resolution OTC approved at its annual

          3   meeting on June 1, 2000.  We will also be submitting

          4   detailed written comments by the deadline.  Thank you

          5   for the opportunity to come before you today, and I

          6   would be glad to take any questions you may have.

          7             MS. MARTIN:  Thank you very much.  Mr. David

          8   Bartlett.

          9             MR. DAVID BARTLETT:  Thank you, good

         10   afternoon.  My name is Dave Bartlett, and I'm here

         11   today on behalf of the Diesel Technology Forum.

         12             The Forum is a new group working to enhance

         13   public dialogue with a wide range of stakeholders,

         14   including the EPA, other government agencies, and other

         15   interested parties.  Our intention is to explore a wide

         16   range of opportunities to reduce emissions from both

         17   existing and new diesel engines, while recognizing the

         18   inherent benefits of diesel technology.

         19             Diesel power systems -- that is the engines,

         20   the fuels, and the after-treatment systems -- that are

         21   the subject of today's hearing, power our economy.

         22   They are the centerpiece of our nation's supply and

         23   distribution network.  And in the age of the internet

         24   and e-commerce, diesel power systems have taken on an

         25   even more important role facilitating the greatest


                                                                      257

          1   economic expansion this country has ever seen.  They do

          2   more work, move more goods, and help more businesses

          3   and people than ever before.

          4             This proposal to reduction emissions and

          5   require cleaner fuels in new diesel trucks and buses

          6   starting in 2007, marks yet another milestone in the

          7   continuing improvement in diesel technology.  New

          8   diesel engines powered with today's fuels emit less

          9   than one-eighth the emissions of engines built just

         10   over 12 years ago.  If adopted, the proposal currently

         11   under consideration today could result in as much as a

         12   90 percent reduction in emissions beginning in 2007,

         13   and that's on top of improvements already online for

         14   2002 through 2004.

         15             We support the direction of EPA's proposed

         16   rule that will result in lower diesel emissions and

         17   cleaner diesel fuel in 2007.  We're especially pleased

         18   that for the first time EPA has used the systems

         19   approach in setting future fuel and engine standards,

         20   an approach that recognizes that engines and fuels are

         21   both parts of an integrated diesel power system.

         22             A systems approach is more important than

         23   ever since for the first time engine manufacturers,

         24   companies that manufacture exhaust after-treatment

         25   equipment, and fuel refiners all have important roles


                                                                      258

          1   to play to achieve the significant reductions in

          2   emissions that the EPA is proposing.

          3             Whatever the outcome of the debate over how

          4   much sulphur should be allowed in diesel fuel, I think

          5   everyone agrees that lowering sulphur content coupled

          6   with advances in diesel technology, will improve air

          7   quality.  And while this hearing is focused on future

          8   reductions in air pollution, we should not lose sight

          9   of the tremendous progress that's been made in the past

         10   in New York State, in the entire Northeast, and indeed

         11   throughout the nation.

         12             For example, in New York air quality has

         13   improved dramatically over the last 10 years, from 33

         14   exceedances in 1988 to only 3 in 1998.  That's a

         15   76 percent reduction in the days of poor air quality.

         16   Both Rochester and Buffalo are two areas that have had

         17   the most dramatic improvements of all.  Both Rochester

         18   and Buffalo had no ozone exceedances days from 1994

         19   through 1999.

         20             What is most encouraging is that on a

         21   national basis, overall criteria pollutant emissions

         22   have declined 34 percent from 1970 to 1997.  This

         23   reduction has taken place at the same that the US

         24   population has increased 31 percent, and the economy

         25   has more than doubled in size.  Over that period of


                                                                      259

          1   time the gross domestic product has increased

          2   114 percent.

          3             How does pollution decline at the same time

          4   that we've seen massive increases in manufacturing,

          5   construction, transportation, agriculture, and all the

          6   other activities that constitute economic growth?

          7             The answer is that these activities have

          8   become cleaner at the same time that Americans have

          9   demanded more of them.  We see the future of diesel

         10   power systems in both these trends.  Diesel power

         11   systems have become much cleaner, and through

         12   continuous improvement, they will become cleaner

         13   still.  And as diesel technology becomes cleaner, it

         14   will continue to do more work, powering more trucks to

         15   deliver more goods than ever before.

         16             Diesel power systems are an essential part of

         17   the quality of life that we enjoy today, providing the

         18   most efficient, economical and reliable power for

         19   whatever the need.  It is technology that is defined by

         20   innovation and continuous improvement, meeting the ever

         21   increasing needs of the consumer whatever the

         22   application and whatever the need.

         23             Make no mistake about it, this proposal

         24   represents a significant challenge for engine

         25   manufacturers, exhaust treatment suppliers, and fuel


                                                                      260

          1   refiners that are the members of the Diesel Technology

          2   Forum.  But we are confident that together we can build

          3   on our past progress and produce the cleanest, most

          4   economical, reliable diesel power systems ever.

          5             While this proposal deals with new technology

          6   going forward, there are many opportunities to address

          7   some important issues in the existing fleet.

          8             We congratulate Governor Pataki and others

          9   here in New York, who were involved recently in

         10   developing a comprehensive program to inspect and

         11   repair diesel trucks and buses found to be emitting

         12   excessive smoke.  When properly maintained, diesel

         13   engines do not smoke.  And frankly, we wonder why only

         14   13 states have such inspection programs today.

         15             The Northeastern states have been leaders in

         16   the development of these programs, and we challenge

         17   other states around the country to consider the

         18   adoption of smoke testing programs.  We have the tools

         19   and the resources available to assist that effort.

         20             This March, the EPA issued a challenge to

         21   retrofit 10,000 engines in the next two years.  The

         22   Forum is pleased to be working alongside the EPA in

         23   that effort.  We're bringing together resources to

         24   identify engines of all types in a wide variety of

         25   applications to determine the feasibility of lowering


                                                                      261

          1   emissions by adding exhaust after-treatment systems,

          2   modifying engine emissions controls and/or using

          3   cleaner diesel fuel.  We are encouraged by the

          4   possibilities for success with this program, which will

          5   include engines in a full range of applications from

          6   marine vessels to highway trucks.

          7             In conclusion, members of the Diesel

          8   Technology Forum support EPA's systems approach to

          9   reducing emissions from diesel engines by enhancing

         10   fuel quality.

         11             Members of the Diesel Technology Forum, while

         12   not taking a position on specific fuel sulfur levels or

         13   other issues under debate today, support the EPA's

         14   decision to take a systems approach to reducing diesel

         15   emissions.  However the specifics of this debate are

         16   resolved, diesel power systems are poised to deliver

         17   even more the efficient, reliable, and economical power

         18   demanded by the American people.

         19             As leaders in technology and innovation,

         20   members of the Forum are committed to working with the

         21   EPA, with state governments, and with other interested

         22   parties to continue future improvements in diesel

         23   emissions, and to take meaningful steps now to address

         24   concerns in the existing fleet.  Thank you, and I would

         25   be happy to answer any questions.


                                                                      262

          1             MR. RALPH BOMBADIERE:  Thank you for giving

          2   me the opportunity to testify of EPA's proposed rule to

          3   reduce highway sulfur in diesel to 15 ppm beginning in

          4   2006.  I am Ralph Bombadiere, the Executive Director of

          5   the New York State Association of Service Stations &

          6   Repair shops.

          7             I am here today representing a membership

          8   that is struggling in a highly competitive and volatile

          9   market.  We are on the frontline, so to speak, when our

         10   customers pull into our stations and face ever higher

         11   fuel prices brought about by the impact of global

         12   market forces and environmental regulations.

         13             Of course, our customers don't understand

         14   pump prices in those terms, which makes it all the more

         15   difficult for us on the street.  However, my members

         16   are aware of these influences on price as part and

         17   parcel of their business.  Daily they confront the very

         18   real impact that governmental regulations have on their

         19   livelihood.

         20             That is why I join in today with the

         21   opposition of other with other stakeholders relative to

         22   the costly impact this reduced sulfur proposal will

         23   have on my members.

         24             To begin with, from my very practical

         25   experience, consumers are only willing to go so far to


                                                                      263

          1   absorb higher fuel costs for environmental benefits.  I

          2   know what's popularly accepted -- that the Americans

          3   are willing to pay more for clean air.  But that's not

          4   the reality.  Otherwise, why is there such sensitivity

          5   to even the most modest price increases at the pump?  I

          6   can predict that if this proposal goes through and it

          7   affects supplies and increased costs upward of from

          8   4 cents a gallon to 13 cents a gallon, as the analysts

          9   estimate, we will all hear -- not just from the dealer

         10   on the street -- the outrage loud and clear.  It will

         11   make the truckers' protests from the past winter look

         12   like a tea party.

         13             As I understand it from other industry

         14   experts, under this 15 ppm proposal, diesel

         15   manufacturing costs would increase about 12 cents per

         16   gallon.  These costs don't even include higher costs

         17   for distribution since moving the ultra-low sulfur

         18   through the pipeline with other products is

         19   problematic.  You have to ensure that the low sulphur

         20   fuel doesn't become contaminated.  Furthermore, if the

         21   low sulfur requirements requirement are phased-in, it

         22   would require suppliers, distributors, and retailers to

         23   segregate two different diesel fuels.  My members will

         24   then obviously have to decide, under a phase-in, which

         25   diesel fuel to sell since most would not have the


                                                                      264

          1   ability to add another diesel tank.  From a broader

          2   view, we already know that storage capacity on the East

          3   Coast is minimal.  So, how the major distributors would

          4   add capacity is a mystery to me.

          5             Obviously, cleaner air comes at a price and

          6   we realize this.  To a certain extent, I suppose the

          7   customer does, too.  However, I am told that the

          8   stringent proposal of 15 ppm will reap only a very

          9   minor clean air benefit in contrast to the industry's

         10   50 ppm proposal, which yields a 90 percent reduction in

         11   sulfur levels.  The industry proposal, it is estimated,

         12   would increase the per gallon cost about 6 cents.

         13   Frankly, I'm not sure that that's even going to go over

         14   well with our customers, but it's certainly better than

         15   13 cents.

         16             Additionally, my members have serious

         17   concerns about the availability of supply of this fuel.

         18   Just the hint that supplies might be tight sounds an

         19   alarm in the market.  We can see it happening right now

         20   to retail prices with the threat of the Unocal patent

         21   decision hanging over our heads.  These kinds of market

         22   influences don't need much pushing to translate into

         23   higher prices.  All this is to say, that while analysts

         24   on both sides of this issue predict increases of

         25   anywhere from 3 and 4 cents 13 cents a gallon to


                                                                      265

          1   13 cents a gallon, this proposal might have an even

          2   greater impact.

          3             I'm a realist.  I've seen it before in this

          4   business.  And I don't need to go back to ancient

          5   history.  In April, the DOE/EIA's short term energy

          6   outlook for the upcoming summer season (April-

          7   September) estimated average retail gasoline prices at

          8   regular grade of $1.46 per gallon.  A 25 percent

          9   increase over last summer.  As you know, that average

         10   has already been drastically exceeded, and the peak

         11   driving season has just got underway.  So much for

         12   predictions and "outlooks."

         13             In conclusion, let me say this:  Our members

         14   and their families enjoy the benefits that pollution

         15   reductions have brought over the last 25 years, just

         16   like everyone else has.  What's more, my members

         17   probably understand better than anyone what those

         18   benefits have cost.  What they don't understand is why

         19   the reasonable industry proposal can't be adopted when

         20   the clean air benefits would realized would be about

         21   the same as with the agency's proposal.

         22             We believe it's time for the agency and all

         23   other environmental regulators to consider the cost of

         24   their proposals and factor this into the decision

         25   making process before charging ahead.  We would all


                                                                      266

          1   would like to wear a white hat.  And frankly, in

          2   bearing the brunt of most of the clean air act

          3   regulations, I think our industry has the right to wear

          4   the white hat as well.  We're not necessarily your

          5   adversaries in this quest for a cleaner environment,

          6   we're merely the implementers of the regulations who

          7   must juggle their obligations to comply with the law

          8   and make a living at the same time.  As we see it, this

          9   proposal will just make this already difficult juggling

         10   act plain impossible.  Thank you.

         11             MS. MARTIN:  Thank you very much.  Now, if we

         12   could have Clark (inaudible).

         13             MR. CLARK WITSA:  (Phonetic)  My name is

         14   Clark Witsa, I'm here to testify on behalf of State

         15   Senator Eric Schneiderman.  His district includes the

         16   neighborhoods of Chelsea, Clinton, the Upper West Side,

         17   Washington Heights, Inwood, Riverdale, Kingsbridge and

         18   Norwood in the Bronx.

         19             I am here today to urge the Environmental

         20   Protection Agency to adopt the strictest possible

         21   standards to reduce diesel pollution from heavy-duty

         22   vehicles.  The guidelines you have proposed in May were

         23   a brave step in fighting the diesel pollution that

         24   poisons our communities.  Please do not back away in

         25   your commitment to ridding our environment of harmful


                                                                      267

          1   diesel fumes.

          2             Diesel emissions remain one of the most

          3   serious public health threats in the United States

          4   today.  Although only 2 percent of all vehicles run on

          5   diesel, this fuel causes 27 percent of the smog-forming

          6   pollution, and 66 percent of the soot produced by all

          7   of the nation's motor vehicles.  Every year, smog

          8   causes over 6 million asthma attacks and 150,000

          9   emergency room visits.  And every year, more than

         10   40,000 die prematurely from breathing soot and fine

         11   particle pollution.

         12             The deadliness does not stop with smog and

         13   soot.  Diesel emissions contain more than 40 known

         14   hazardous air pollutants, including arsenic, benzene,

         15   and formaldehyde.  Many major studies have found a link

         16   between diesel exhaust and lung cancer.  One study has

         17   linked diesel exhaust to 125,000 cancer cases in the

         18   US.

         19             Furthermore, diesel trucks and buses are

         20   speeding up the process of global warming.  These large

         21   vehicles are responsible for more than 15 percent of

         22   the transportation emissions of carbon dioxide, the

         23   leading contributor of global warming.

         24             To put a stop to this destruction of our

         25   communities, I urge the Environmental Protection Agency


                                                                      268

          1   to mandate a 90 percent clean-up of emissions by 2007.

          2   In order to do that, sulphur in diesel fuel must be cut

          3   by no less than 97 percent.  There can be no middle

          4   ground on diesel fuel.

          5             I also urge you to get rid of the phase-in

          6   period for the new standards, which will not take

          7   effect for seven years.  That's plenty of time for

          8   engine manufacturers to make the change in technology.

          9             Finally, we must begin investing in new

         10   technology to develop alternatives to diesel that can

         11   serve the same role without harming the environment and

         12   our health.

         13             I thank you very much for letting me

         14   testify.  If you have any questions, please direct them

         15   to me as so appropriate.

         16             MS. ELECTRA BROWN:  Thank you for the chance

         17   to speak here today.  My name is Electra Brown of the

         18   West Houston Street Block Association, downtown

         19   Manhattan.  We have a particular problem on West

         20   Houston involving a federal law passed in 1986, which

         21   senator Tom Duane has referred to, of a one-way

         22   westbound toll on the Verrazano Bridge.  This has had

         23   the unfortunate and dangerous effect of encouraging

         24   large truck traffic to find other means of getting

         25   across New York City when headed westbound to avoid a


                                                                      269

          1   double toll.  This adds to traffic from Brooklyn

          2   through Manhattan through the Holland Tunnel.  Since

          3   this so-called "experiment," huge trucks have been

          4   plighting our streets in downtown Manhattan.

          5             Downtown Manhattan always has diesel soot on

          6   our windowsill.  You can see it, it isn't just in the

          7   air.  We need more testing in our air to see how

          8   seriously the toxic emissions are affecting the air

          9   downtown. (Inaudible.)

         10             To fully clean up smog, we urge you to

         11   increase the use of diesel alternatives.  And we also

         12   urge you to ensure that big trucks are meeting

         13   emissions standards on the roads, not just during the

         14   engine tests.  These measures (inaudible) of my

         15   neighborhood, as well as environmental and public

         16   health.  Thank you.

         17             MS. MARTIN:  Thank you very much.  And

         18   finally we have Ms. Roth.

         19             MS. DEBBIE ROTH:  Thank you for giving me the

         20   opportunity to present testimony today on behalf of

         21   State Assemblymember Deborah Glick, 66th District, New

         22   York County, which falls in lower Manhattan which

         23   you've already heard quite a bit about.

         24             I'm here today to applaud you for your

         25   proposal to eliminate sulfur from diesel fuel and to


                                                                      270

          1   set tougher emission standards for big trucks and

          2   buses.

          3             Manhattan has the highest level of

          4   particulate matter emissions in the eastern half of the

          5   country, and over half of these emissions come from

          6   diesels.  We are well aware of the harmful impacts that

          7   this pollution has on our health and the environment.

          8   Cancer, heart disease, and asthma.  New York City has

          9   the unfortunate distinction to boast one of the highest

         10   rates of asthma in the country.  As asthma levels

         11   continue to rise, especially in communities where

         12   diesel depots are located, we must act with the great

         13   urgency to reduce the emissions of these heavy-duty

         14   trucks and buses.

         15             A year ago, I stood before the Metropolitan

         16   Transportation Authority asking them to fulfill their

         17   commitment to convert their diesel bus fleet to cleaner

         18   fuel vehicles.  I introduced state legislation that

         19   would oblige the MTA to promulgate a plan to phase out

         20   diesel buses.  As we at the state level continue to

         21   seek out ways to clean our air it is vital that you

         22   adopt the toughest possible national standards.

         23             Running through this district is one of the

         24   busiest thoroughfares in the New York Metropolitan

         25   area, which to no one's surprise is also an air quality


                                                                      271

          1   non-attainment zone.  The corridor to the Holland

          2   Tunnel serves vehicles traveling inter-borough and

          3   state-to-state.  Heavy-duty trucks and buses sit idling

          4   on our streets, all the while spewing diesel exhaust

          5   into our air.  Efforts to clean up the state's public

          6   transportation system will only bring about a fraction

          7   of the relief that we need in hot spots such as this.

          8   We need a commitment at the national level to eliminate

          9   soot and smog pollution, letting clean air be what sets

         10   the standard and evidence that compliance is ongoing.

         11   Enforcements of these federal standards must be backed

         12   by the threat of financial sanction for those states

         13   that are non-compliant.

         14             As I understand it, your proposal will clean

         15   up diesel fuel and curb diesel exhaust emissions.  I

         16   want to express strong support for even more stringent

         17   emission standards, resulting in particulate matter and

         18   oxides of nitrogen emission levels that are 90 percent

         19   and 95 percent below current standard levels.  And to

         20   that end, I support a national sulphur cap of no more

         21   than 15 parts per million for our diesel fuel supply.

         22             Any effort to weaken this proposal is an

         23   attempt to sacrifice our public health solely for the

         24   protection and gain of the oil industry.  I urge you to

         25   put public health first.  Let's reduce diesel emissions


                                                                      272

          1   from big trucks and buses by 2007 -- no extended time

          2   lines -- no excuses.  Once implemented, this proposal

          3   will be a victory for our health and the environmental

          4   quality of this state and of the country.  Thank you.

          5             MS. MARTIN:  Great, thank you very much.  We

          6   would like to ask for the next panel.  Thank you for

          7   coming and being patient.  We will start with you,

          8   please.

          9             MR. CURTIS SEYFRIED:  Thank you.  My name is

         10   Curtis Seyfried, I am Project Manager for Nos Quedamos,

         11   which is a community development corporation in the

         12   South Bronx.

         13             Our neighborhood is situated between a

         14   triangle of three of the major interstates or

         15   parkways.  In the Bronx, you have the Bruckner

         16   Expressway on your east, you have the Major Deegan on

         17   the west, and the Cross Bronx Expressway to the north.

         18   It's also next to Hunts Point, which is the home of 24

         19   waste transfer stations which get garbage trucks going

         20   in and out on a constant basis all day.

         21             We're also in the same neighborhood where the

         22   AMR, American Marine Railway, wanted to place another

         23   transfer station.  This would be supposedly taking

         24   waste out by rail, unfortunately Harlem River yards

         25   (inaudible) to take out the trash that they want, so


                                                                      273

          1   most likely if this had (inaudible) it would have ended

          2   up going out by truck, now that's shot down.  We find

          3   out that the deregulation of the power infrastructure,

          4   that there is a power company who wants to put a power

          5   plant there, in fact, DEC (inaudible) all in

          6   communities of color.

          7             I don't really want to quote figures and

          8   things like that, what I want to talk about in

          9   particular is what we're really here for today, because

         10   what we're really here about is the children.  I grew

         11   up as a teenager in the sixties and the EPA was put

         12   together in the early seventies, after passage by

         13   Congress of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act

         14   because of atrocious things like the burning of the

         15   Ohio River.  I don't know if you around when the rivers

         16   in the United States used to catch on fire they were so

         17   polluted.  That was what the industry did.

         18             What the EPA was put together for was to

         19   protect the public from a polluting and dangerous

         20   industry, and this has not changed.  Industry still

         21   pollutes.  They do anything they can.

         22             The oil industry has been here all day,

         23   you've heard from many different refineries.  And if

         24   you walk down the hall, you see what they do with some

         25   of those profits.  They have a nice fancy luncheon down


                                                                      274

          1   there with mescaline salad and fancy forks and the

          2   plates and spoons and cloth napkins, all to lure you

          3   into doing what they want.  All to make you believe

          4   that the $11 billion dollars in profits that they make

          5   isn't enough money.  It isn't enough money to protect

          6   the citizens of this country from their pollution.

          7   Their taking 1 or 2 percent of that money away to take

          8   sulphur out of fuel is too much to ask out of their $11

          9   billion in profits.  And I think that's absurd.  In

         10   fact, I think it's more than absurd, I think it's

         11   criminal.

         12             I would like to paraphrase something and it

         13   won't be exactly, because I don't remember the words

         14   exactly as they are written.  But there is a document

         15   that was written about 200 years ago in the formation

         16   of this country, and part of it is that:

         17             We the people of the United States America do

         18   hold that all people -- I changed the word "men" to

         19   "people" all of us, men, women, white, all people --

         20   are created equal and endowed with the basic rights of

         21   life -- and I stress that most importantly-- liberty,

         22   and the pursuit of happiness.

         23             I have heard refiners talk about how they

         24   might be put out of business.  Well, I've had a

         25   business, I got put out of business.  But I'm still


                                                                      275

          1   here, I'm alive, I can walk around.  I can create

          2   another business, I can get another job.  I'm not

          3   dead.  I'm not buried six feet underground, dead

          4   forever, permanently.  We don't have some business

          5   where you die.  When a child or an adult dies of asthma

          6   in the hospital, that's it.  They don't get another

          7   chance.

          8             And in actuality, if you look at a lot of the

          9   statistics in hospitals, the deaths are not even

         10   attributed to asthma -- they are attributed to cardiac

         11   arrest, because that's what happens.  That's the end

         12   result.  (Inaudible) has been trying to get hospitals

         13   in the South Bronx to record not just the actual cause

         14   of death as cardiac arrest, but what caused the cardiac

         15   arrest.  (Inaudible) to get these statistics done

         16   accurately, so the people can really see.

         17             You know, we walk around and you meet more

         18   people with inhalers, more people wheezing.  You have

         19   people that can't exercise because they have asthma and

         20   they cannot exert themselves that much, not because

         21   they are lazy, because if they exercise they could

         22   die.  They could have asthma attacks and die.

         23             You know, sometimes I feel like I really

         24   should have brought a violin in here because listening

         25   to the oil industry whine and cry, and how much money


                                                                      276

          1   it will cost -- while they have a fancy lunch, while

          2   they have left 100 fancy brochures with information

          3   that they just left.  They left them here.  That's

          4   money, that's paper that should get recycled.  But this

          5   is what the extra money goes to.  It doesn't go into

          6   the hands of the retailer.  He hurts a lot.  He doesn't

          7   get a lot of that money, it goes to the big oil

          8   companies.

          9             The small refiners I have sympathy for.  They

         10   should get some sort of exemption or assistance.  They

         11   should get a some sort of a low-interest loan system.

         12             But when you look at the history of this

         13   country, when America wants to go to war we don't say

         14   we wish, we don't have enough time to get ready, hold

         15   this war until we get the technology ready -- we go to

         16   war.  We get the technology.  We put up the money.  And

         17   whatever else.  That's what it's all about.  We find

         18   the money to fight a war.

         19             Well, what we need is a war on smog, a war on

         20   air pollution, a war on asthma that is killing our

         21   children, killing our seniors, and killing basically

         22   everybody.

         23             I used to live one block from the

         24   Williamsburg Bridge, and when I left my windows open

         25   and they would be filled with soot.  You would wipe it


                                                                      277

          1   up, and in two days you would find another layer of

          2   black soot.  And that's what I was breathing.  I have

          3   air-conditioning now.  But as someone pointed out, that

          4   is a privilege.

          5             And what you hear in the media about how

          6   supposedly the American public is crying about the

          7   increase of gas prices -- it's not the American public

          8   that's crying out, it's the media making a scene.  When

          9   the American public goes out and buys big SUV that if

         10   they were really so concerned about paying that extra

         11   price at the pump, they would be buying Honda Civics or

         12   a Honda Insight, which is a hybrid.

         13             So I don't know if the American public is

         14   really that concerned.  Compared to the rest of the

         15   world, America and Americans are privileged.  Because

         16   in most of the rest of world, the price is $3-5 a

         17   gallon and they drive less and they have better mass

         18   transportation.  In most parts of Europe you have real

         19   mass transit, and people can safely bicycle on the

         20   roads.

         21             MS. OGE:  Thank you very much for your

         22   testimony.  I agree with you what this is all about is

         23   protecting the health of the public, and more

         24   important, to protect the children.  All our children.

         25   Thank you very, very much.  Ms. Vanessa Plasencia.


                                                                      278

          1             MS. VANESSA PLASENCIA:  We are United

          2   Community Center, which is a community-based

          3   organization and we're very pleased to be here.

          4             Our community organization promotes activism

          5   for our children, and so this is an opportunity for our

          6   children to come out and actively take a role in their

          7   future.  We have a big problem with asthma.  We have

          8   one of the highest rates of asthma in the city, so our

          9   (inaudible) wanted to take a role in this.  And they

         10   wrote a letter to the MTA, and I think it represents

         11   basically what we want for our community so -- and

         12   we're a little nervous here -- so we'll begin with

         13   Anthony.

         14             ANTHONY GEREZ:  Hi, my name is Anthony and I

         15   would like to read a letter.

         16             We are writing to you because of our

         17   displeasure in your plans to purchase more diesel buses

         18   and bus depots near the Brooklyn-Queens border.  As

         19   young people who attended United School Center at the

         20   school which is located in East New York, we have

         21   learned that our community has the highest rate of

         22   hospitalization for asthma in the city.  We have also

         23   learned that particulate or dust can trigger an

         24   increase of asthma, bronchitis, lung cancer, and a

         25   variety of other respiratory ailments.  We are aware


                                                                      279

          1   that the MTA is assuming responsibility for it and

          2   begun to convert to compressed natural gas.  We aware

          3   that almost no dust --

          4             STEVEN:  Hi, I'm Steven.  We are asking that

          5   the MTA respect our community by stopping the purchase

          6   of diesel buses and not placing a diesel bus depot in

          7   our neighborhood, and converting to CNG as you are

          8   doing in Long Island.  Please let our voices be heard

          9   so that we can grow up to be healthy and empowered

         10   adults.  Thank you.

         11             THE CHILDREN:  I'm Anthony, age 11.  Justin,

         12   age 10.  Kenneth, age 10.  Monique, age 11.  Donna,

         13   age 11.  I'm Charles, age 12.  (Inaudible), age 11.

         14   Darnel, age 11.  Julio, age 10.  Donessa, age 11.

         15   Tristan, age 13.  Devin, age 12.  Steven, age 12.

         16   Steven, age 12.  Julian, age 11.  Johan; age 13.

         17   Jacob, age 11.  Randy, age 11.  Amy, age 12.  Sergio,

         18   age 11.

         19             MS. PLASENCIA:  So as you can hear, we have

         20   quite a group here.  And we have an environmental class

         21   and we learned about the particulate matter and how it

         22   gets deep in the lungs and can cause asthma.  We're

         23   asking MTA, we're asking you, please stop these

         24   purchase of diesel buses.  This is our future

         25   (Inaudible).  We want them to be healthy and also to


                                                                      280

          1   have healthy and empowered families.

          2             MS. OGE:  Thank you, Ms. Plasencia, for

          3   bringing the children forward.  And we are truly

          4   honored to have them here and testify on this important

          5   issue.  Now we'd like to hear from (inaudible.)

          6             UNIDENTIFIED:  Good afternoon, my name is

          7   (inaudible), and I live in the Bronx and I attend high

          8   school in Harlem.  The reason why I'm here today is to

          9   let EPA know why clean air is so important to me.

         10             The first reason is because of my mother.  My

         11   mother is asthmatic.  On certain days I go to school,

         12   and while I'm sitting there in the classroom I worry

         13   sometimes that my mother might have an asthma attack

         14   and I would not be there to help her in any way, shape,

         15   or form.  And that worries me a lot.

         16             The second reason is, and I don't remember

         17   his name, a fellow came up here and he said that diesel

         18   fuel is not only linked to asthma attacks, it's also

         19   linked to other diseases such as lung cancer.  And I

         20   see for myself that liking to go lay outside in the

         21   park, and then a bus, a diesel bus passing by almost 20

         22   to 45 minutes around the clock every day.  I could

         23   develop later on lung cancer.  And I fear that I will

         24   not have a normal childhood.  I worry that all of these

         25   things can happen so much.  Things that can happen to a


                                                                      281

          1   child these days and age, and it's something that

          2   really worries me.

          3             I feel that the idea of lowering sulfur in

          4   diesel fuel is a great idea and I think we should

          5   continue with that idea, try to implement it earlier

          6   instead of 2007.  Try to do it as soon as possible.  No

          7   waiting, because you will never know what will happen

          8   next.  Things are taking turns in different ways.

          9             It's like it's very emotional certain times

         10   to lose somebody to cancer, to lose somebody from

         11   asthma.  Somebody that you love, somebody that was

         12   there for you when you were younger.  Somebody who

         13   raised you, who taught you what's good and what's

         14   wrong, taught you respect and how to respect other

         15   people, how to respect yourself and others.

         16             Worrying about all these things really gets

         17   in the way of my education and I think that it is a

         18   good plan that you're doing.  It let's me concentrate

         19   more on my education and try to be what I want to be

         20   later on.  Thank you for letting me speak.

         21             MS. OGE:  Thank you for coming.  On behalf of

         22   the EPA panel, I want to thank all of you for taking

         23   your time from your daily activities, and especially

         24   the young children, to come and to honor us with your

         25   attendance.  We will take a short recess to give the


                                                                      282

          1   court reporter a break.

          2             (Recess.)

          3             MR. FRANCE:  Let's get started.  Marge Oge

          4   and Dawn Martin had to leave for Chicago.  My name is

          5   Chet France, and I'll be wrapping up the hearing along

          6   with Carl Simon, who has joined us.

          7             Okay, let's start with the next panel.  Arron

          8   Mair, Sarah Massey, Marina Cardona, Marie Valentine,

          9   Bill Menz, Marion Feinberg, Barbara Warren, and Leon

         10   Tulton.

         11             MR. ARRON MAIR:  Good evening, I would like

         12   to thank the EPA for hosting this hearing.  My name is

         13   Arron Mair.  I am Board President of Marvin Hill

         14   Environmental Justice.  Our organization is in the

         15   capital, Albany, and I live in Albany, New York.

         16             Our organization is also a member of the

         17   Northeast Environmental Justice Network, which consists

         18   of members from the state of New York, New Jersey,

         19   Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,

         20   Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Maryland, Delaware,

         21   Washington, D.C., and Michigan.

         22             Unlike the title and all of the affiliations,

         23   I want to point out first and foremost I'm a father, a

         24   taxpayer, and a homeowner.  In fact, I had to leave to

         25   drive down to testify this evening.


                                                                      283

          1             I am typical of a lot of fathers in most

          2   inner cities who are community advocates and

          3   volunteers -- it takes a toll on the family.  But in

          4   fighting and trying to seek redress, it also costs us

          5   time money and resources that are family, but also time

          6   away from family and children.  In fact, I had to delay

          7   my baseball because tonight is very important.

          8             Let me say we are fully in support of EPA's

          9   regulations and rulemaking that will reduce a highway

         10   diesel fuel sulfur.

         11             But let me also add a little bit of

         12   perspective as a father and a family member, and also a

         13   little bit about my community.  In most urban

         14   communities, they happen to be in some of the most

         15   industrial areas of a particular region.  In our case,

         16   it's on the Hudson River.  And equally important, it is

         17   an area that is often under-represented.  When it comes

         18   to things like zoning and influence on zoning boards,

         19   they often are at a disadvantage.  Our community is no

         20   different.

         21             Our community has a disproportionate share of

         22   business.  We have an inordinate number of truck

         23   stops.  The highway arterials are rutted throughout our

         24   community.

         25             Our children, in order to get to a park, for


                                                                      284

          1   example, two weeks ago we had an event down at the

          2   Hudson River, they had to dodge heavy traffic.  It's

          3   the 787 arterial, about eight lanes of traffic, no

          4   sidewalk.  It's a hazardous situation.

          5             But equally important, it's one of the few

          6   places to recreate, albeit it's not a clean place where

          7   children recreate.  My daughter a year ago had an

          8   asthma attack.  My daughter is typical of a lot of

          9   children.

         10             Albany is also kind of odd, because if you

         11   want to go north -- we have dead lakes there from the

         12   sulphur dioxide.  And also the Hudson River, which is

         13   contaminated with PCB.

         14             So our children have very few options.  They

         15   happen to be near heavy industrial and truck congested

         16   areas.  So whenever we have an opportunity to improve

         17   the quality of the environment for our children, we

         18   want to applaud and encourage you, because it's very

         19   important.  Many of the children of the communities who

         20   use the park -- which is adjacent to a truck stop,

         21   idling diesel trucks -- often have to take bronchial

         22   dilators with them.  It's a very sad state of affairs

         23   when children at a park of recreation have to take

         24   bronchial dilators or steroids.  Stopping the attack is

         25   just not enough, we have to worry also about long-term


                                                                      285

          1   use of the medications and side effects.

          2             And when we talk about the disproportionate

          3   impact, we also look at the fact that our children,

          4   more so than other children, have to look at a dirty

          5   environment, and we have to start to raise questions as

          6   to why.

          7             Granted this does not by any means cure the

          8   overall inequities, but it starts to deal with them.

          9   (inaudible), if there is a cleaner fuel, if there is a

         10   cleaner (inaudible) to the fixture in that field and

         11   that, by nature, starts to reduce the particulates,

         12   then it's a good thing.

         13             It's a given that these trucks, these diesels

         14   are right near our community.  I don't want to be like,

         15   you know, as they say the proverbial (inaudible), it's

         16   thrust upon us.  We have no choice, this is the

         17   community that we live in.

         18             But also, my daughters' grandma is in the

         19   South Bronx, I can't tell you that we can't send our

         20   daughters there.  In fact, six years ago my daughter

         21   had to be hospitalized.  And, again, when children

         22   can't recreate, can't visit grandma, because of the

         23   high particulates due to diesel exhaust and other

         24   sources, it's a sad state of affairs.

         25             Let me say our children, our community, is


                                                                      286

          1   disproportionately affected.  Even so, while it is not

          2   a permanent solution, it's a step.  It's a step in

          3   eliminating environmental inequity.

          4             But it's a (inaudible) of poor public policy

          5   and poor decision making which -- basically, I want my

          6   daughter to be able to spend summer at grandma's.  You

          7   know, she's going to be graduating in two years.  Just

          8   think, she has choices, but hopefully, you know,

          9   something will happen when she starts to bring her

         10   children -- not right now, because obviously she'll

         11   probably be at college and thinking about starting a

         12   career -- but hopefully if she does have a child in the

         13   future, it can play with its cousins in the South

         14   Bronx.

         15             I cannot say enough about what needs to be

         16   done to improve environmental quality.  And I cannot

         17   underscore -- as you've heard earlier -- cannot

         18   underscore the benefits.

         19             Granted they say it will cost, but let me say

         20   this:  One of the things that I have been monitoring is

         21   all of the current rise in gas prices, even the

         22   government is at a loss to explain why oil prices are

         23   going through the roof.  So it's a little bit more.  I

         24   say that this is going to jack prices up.

         25             I think that this is not -- I think oil is


                                                                      287

          1   overpriced, and I would submit (inaudible) as educated,

          2   perhaps, as the guy that runs the business down there,

          3   the real squeeze is the corporate level.  You should

          4   not be pitting human health, environmental protection,

          5   my daughter's health, against the fact that the guy has

          6   to make a buck.  It's not acceptable.

          7             It's not an acceptable loss, especially when

          8   through phoney zoning practices -- and they do

          9   gerrymander -- the bus depots, the rail stops,

         10   (inaudible), and they are putting it in black people's

         11   backyard or brown people's backyard.

         12             Thank you for your time.

         13             MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very much.  The next

         14   testifiers are Sarah Massey and Marina Cardona.

         15             MS. SARAH MASSEY:  Good evening.  My name is

         16   Sarah Massey, I am Communications Director of West

         17   Harlem Environmental Action.

         18             I thank you for the opportunity to testify in

         19   favor of the new stringent emission standards.

         20             As you have heard from our Executive

         21   Director, Peggy Shepard, and others from the

         22   environmental community, there is a direct correlation

         23   between diesel particulate pollution and health

         24   problems such as asthma and cancer.

         25             The community we work with is the unfortunate


                                                                      288

          1   asthma capital of the United States, with the highest

          2   asthma hospitalization rates.  My colleagues from the

          3   environmental community have already discussed the

          4   proposals for cutting diesel emissions and they've

          5   discussed the different parts of your rules.

          6             I will not repeat their discussions, but say

          7   that we wholeheartedly support their arguments.  I

          8   would like to talk about and read to you a statement

          9   prepared by (inaudible) an area resident.

         10             She wrote:  I'm a resident of Washington

         11   Heights.  As a member of a volunteer organization that

         12   operates a playground and community garden, I'm very

         13   attentive to air quality.  On overcast days, diesel

         14   particulates buildup and are trapped under low-lying

         15   clouds.  People have to stay inside and avoid outdoor

         16   activity.  Days when we New Yorkers are prisoners.

         17             The term "diesel soot particles" is

         18   (inaudible) to me.  I call it "New York grit."  You can

         19   touch it.  All you have to do, with the heavy bus and

         20   truck traffic, is to look under your fingers.  Cross

         21   the window sill, it's covered with an accumulation of

         22   dark gritty soot.  That's diesel soot particulates.

         23             Imagine breathing that stuff all day.  People

         24   who have asthma or respiratory disease are breathing in

         25   that stuff.  Picture them fighting for breath, staying


                                                                      289

          1   home from school, losing education days, losing days

          2   from work.

          3             I plead, I ask the EPA to move as rapidly as

          4   possible.  Don't be persuaded to reduce the standards.

          5   Think of the millions of people whose lives will be

          6   better when the air quality is better.  Who take strong

          7   vigorous action on behalf to reduce diesel fuel.

          8             I think Mrs. (inaudible) clearly stated the

          9   problem of air pollution in Manhattan.  She gives us a

         10   visual of dark soot, and the same soot that clogs our

         11   lungs, triggers asthma, and causes cancer.

         12             Today we have already heard from the oil

         13   industry that the standards are too extensive.  And

         14   we've heard from others who have questioned the need to

         15   implement the emissions standards.

         16             I ask that oil industry and those

         17   distractors, those detractors from the EPA regulations,

         18   to consider the price of caring for a person while ill

         19   from asthma.  And I ask how long do people have to wait

         20   for relief from diesel air pollution?

         21             I now want to talk to you about bit my

         22   personal story.  I am an urban planner and worked as a

         23   public transportation advocate.  A couple of years ago

         24   I read in the New York Times on 116th Street

         25   (inaudible).


                                                                      290

          1             Not only was I aghast because New York

          2   City -- the place I love and call home -- could be so

          3   polluted, but also aghast, because my best friend lived

          4   in that area, on 116th Street between First and Second

          5   Avenues.  I called her and I said we've got to talk

          6   about you moving.  I've read about this again and again

          7   in the newspaper, and today in the New York Times

          8   (inaudible).  And I said well, we're going to have to

          9   move quickly.

         10             We were lucky I was working as an urban

         11   planner.  And as someone with this experience in this

         12   area, I was able to understand what high the

         13   hospitalization rates meant, and I was able to

         14   understand what her living in that neighborhood meant.

         15             We were also lucky because we had the means

         16   to move.  I have been working in Harlem for only a few

         17   months now, and I am shocked and moved to tears when I

         18   hear the stories about people living with asthma.  I

         19   feel like it's almost every person that I meet in the

         20   neighborhood has a story.

         21             I think the EPA is making great strides

         22   forward with these regulations.  And I would like to

         23   ask that you do implement these stringent diesel rules

         24   as soon as possible.  Do not hesitate.  Thank you.

         25             MS. MARINA CARDONA:  Hi, my name is Marina


                                                                      291

          1   Cardona.  What I'm going say, I'm going to say in

          2   Spanish, then I will write to you and say what I want

          3   to say.  (Proceeding in Spanish.)

          4             MS. MASSEY:  In summary, she's saying in 1996

          5   she did not understand a lot about asthma, but she was

          6   very affected by it because the apartment in which she

          7   was living was located directly above a garbage

          8   compressor.  And at that time, she went for assistance

          9   to West Harlem Environmental Action and began to

         10   understand more about the situation.

         11             It's very important for her to be here today,

         12   because she's beginning to understand just how many,

         13   many people in Washington Heights are being affected by

         14   asthma.

         15             MS. CARDONA:  (In Spanish.)

         16             MS. MASSEY:  She said in upper Manhattan has

         17   six out of eight bus depots.  They have over a thousand

         18   diesel buses.  They spew dirt and smut into the air.

         19   That triggers asthma attacks in the area that are home

         20   to the highest asthma rates in the country.

         21             MS. CARDONA:  (In Spanish.)

         22             MS. MASSEY:  She said while the oil industry

         23   claims it's too expensive, but the small cost of

         24   cleaner fuel is much less than the enormous cost of

         25   asthma in a community.  And she's petitioning the EPA


                                                                      292

          1   to regulate or to legislate cleaner fuel.

          2             MS. CARDONA:  Thank you.

          3             MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very much.  Marie

          4   Valentine.

          5             MS. MARIE VALENTINE:  Good evening.  My name

          6   is Marie Valentine, and I'm here to speak on behalf of

          7   DaimlerChrysler on the subject of EPA's proposal to

          8   modify heavy-duty vehicle emission control regulations

          9   and on-highway diesel fuel requirements.

         10             DaimlerChrysler is a vehicle manufacturer of

         11   light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles that operate on

         12   gasoline and diesel fuels.  DaimlerChrysler is a

         13   demonstrated leader in the development of

         14   environmentally sound vehicle technologies.  This is

         15   evidenced by our commitment to support the pursuit of

         16   tough emission performance goals.

         17             Reducing heavy-duty emissions will aid in

         18   achieving the nation's air quality goals, and we stand

         19   ready to do our part.  This is a logical follow-up to

         20   the Tier 2 light-duty vehicle emission regulation

         21   adopted last December.  We agree that EPA needs to look

         22   at you all pollution sources when determining a

         23   comprehensive emission reduction plan.

         24             In our opinion, the combination of a

         25   low-sulfur on-highway diesel fuel program with feasible


                                                                      293

          1   stringent new emission standards for heavy-duty engines

          2   and vehicles will assist in improving air quality

          3   nationwide.  We congratulate EPA for continuing to link

          4   vehicles and fuels, as was recently done in the Tier 2

          5   regulations.  This system approach is the only way to

          6   achieve the emission reductions envisioned.

          7             We commend the EPA's initiative to propose a

          8   15 ppm sulfur cap for the on-highway diesel fuel.  This

          9   critical first step will enable the continued

         10   development and advancement of diesel emission control

         11   technology that is necessary if the heavy-duty industry

         12   is to meet the new proposed standards which reflect a

         13   90 percent reduction in NOx and PM.

         14             Sulfur is a poison that blocks the use of

         15   after-treatment technology by rendering the hardware

         16   inoperable at today's 500 ppm level.  The developers of

         17   the after-treatment technologies have indicated that a

         18   very low level of sulfur in diesel fuel is critical for

         19   the future development of these devices.  The lower

         20   level will permit catalyst-based control strategies to

         21   be optimized for maximum emission reduction

         22   efficiencies.

         23             Recent data indicates that sulfur free diesel

         24   fuel is the enabling requirement for the use of NOx

         25   adsorbers, Continuously Regenerating Technology (CRT)


                                                                      294

          1   systems, and Selective Reduction Catalysts (SCR) due to

          2   their sensitivity to sulphur.  Further information on

          3   this will be included in our written comments.

          4             The world's engine manufacturers have defined

          5   "sulfur free" diesel fuel, as specified by the

          6   World-Wide Fuel charter, as the correct fuel to enable

          7   the use of NOx and after-treatment technologies where

          8   stringent emission standards are required.  Therefore,

          9   the sulfur level in diesel fuel must be reduced to

         10   allow the use of after-treatment technology as an

         11   emission control strategy for diesel vehicles as has

         12   been so successfully done for gasoline vehicles.

         13             Let me emphasize that the proposed sulfur cap

         14   is only the first step needed for diesel fuel.  A

         15   sulfur free diesel fuel with a minimum cetane of 55 and

         16   a maximum of 15 percent aromatic limit is ultimately

         17   necessary.  This fuel composition would support the use

         18   of diesel fuel in the light-duty vehicle market, and

         19   provide the benefits of reduced emissions and increased

         20   fuel economy -- another goal of the current

         21   administration, while also maintaining customer

         22   satisfaction.

         23             A diesel powertrain is an important option

         24   for passenger vehicles.  Diesel vehicles could have a

         25   significant role in the reduction of fuel consumption


                                                                      295

          1   by offering a 40 percent advantage over the gasoline

          2   vehicles on a per mile basis.  The sophisticated diesel

          3   vehicles currently in the European market have higher

          4   endurance, reliability, and torque, which is a

          5   desirable performance attribute.

          6             On the emission side, diesel vehicles have

          7   inherently low hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide

          8   emissions, no evaporative emissions, and have long-term

          9   stability of emissions, which will further be reduced

         10   with after-treatment, but the enabling fuel is

         11   necessary.

         12             We applaud the initiatives by some oil

         13   companies to deliver clean diesel fuel to some

         14   localized markets in advance of the regulations.  The

         15   lesson learned is that cleaner fuel can be available

         16   and is being done at an affordable price.

         17             Should a phase-in of clean on-highway diesel

         18   fuel be found necessary, we encourage EPA to have it

         19   start in 2004.  The oil industry has previously

         20   challenged EPA to make all known changes in one step,

         21   not two separate steps, so capital investment

         22   strategies can be optimized.  Therefore, the 2004

         23   suggested start date would link diesel with the

         24   gasoline sulfur control required by Tier 2, and allow

         25   light-duty clean diesel as a viable powertrain.


                                                                      296

          1             In conclusion, let me restate the key points

          2   of our message:

          3             First, the EPA's proposal of reduced sulfur

          4   diesel fuel for on-highway is great first step.

          5             Second, clean fuel packaged with feasible

          6   emission standards is the correct path to enable

          7   further reduction in emissions.

          8             DaimlerChrysler believes that the diesel

          9   fuel, as specified in the World-Wide Fuel Charter is

         10   necessary to enable low emissions and fuel-efficient

         11   technologies.

         12             DaimlerChrysler is continuing to review the

         13   proposal, and plans to submit written comments

         14   addressing other issues in the NPRM, and further expand

         15   on our diesel fuel position.

         16             Thank you for the opportunity to speak to

         17   you.

         18             MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Bill Menz.

         19             MR. MENZ:  My name is William F. Menz, Jr. I

         20   represent the Connecticut Department of Environmental

         21   Protection.  Connecticut DEP congratulates EPA on the

         22   progress made in air pollution control of mobile

         23   sources, notably through the Tier 2 motor vehicle

         24   standards and low-sulfur gasoline requirements.

         25             The Connecticut DEP strongly supports EPA's


                                                                      297

          1   proposal on May 17, 2000 of additional requirements for

          2   heavy-duty engines and vehicles, and highway diesel

          3   fuel sulfur control.  It's a crucial additional

          4   component of the nation's and Connecticut's mobile

          5   source emission control programs.  In order for the

          6   nation to receive the substantial environmental and

          7   health benefits, Connecticut DEP encourages EPA to

          8   implement the proposed rule without delay or

          9   weakening.

         10             In particular, Connecticut DEP notes that

         11   implementation of EPA's proposed rule is projected to

         12   result in particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen

         13   emission levels that are 90 percent and 95 percent

         14   below current levels respectively.

         15             In order to meet these more stringent

         16   standards for diesel engines, the proposal rule calls

         17   for a 97 percent reduction in the sulfur content of

         18   diesel fuel.  Thus, clean diesel fuel will be available

         19   in time for implementation of the light-duty Tier 2

         20   standards.  As a result, the nation will receive

         21   immediate PM and NOx reduction benefits for both the

         22   heavy-duty fleet and diesel vehicles regulated through

         23   EPA's Tier 2 program.

         24             Among the proposed rule's requirements, the

         25   Connecticut DEP particularly supports the fuel sulphur,


                                                                      298

          1   ozone precursor, and PM requirements.  The standard for

          2   diesel fuel sole to consumers for use in highway

          3   vehicles caps the sulfur content of 15 parts per

          4   million, beginning June 1st, 2006.  We believe this is

          5   an essential component for the proposal and stress the

          6   need for a cap of no higher than 15 ppm to take full

          7   effect nationwide by mid-2006.

          8             The Connecticut DEP also endorses the

          9   appropriately stringent emission standards in the

         10   proposal.  The written comments I have submitted spell

         11   out the proposed NOx, PM, standards, I'm not going to

         12   read that now.

         13             Connecticut DEP recommends one change to the

         14   proposed rule when promulgated:  Elimination of the

         15   four year NOx phase-in so that the proposed vehicle and

         16   NOx standards take full effect in 2007, rather than on

         17   a percent of sales basis between 2007 and 2010.  Not

         18   only would the full implementation of the NOx standards

         19   in 2007 better address the general national need to

         20   counter the upward trend in heavy-duty emissions from

         21   projected increased vehicle miles traveled per year,

         22   but full NOx implementation by 2007 is especially

         23   important to Connecticut's plans to attain and maintain

         24   the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone.

         25             While the US efforts to implement new NOx


                                                                      299

          1   vehicle exhaust controls have been limited in the

          2   absence of low-sulfur diesel fuel availability and

          3   standards requiring NOx exhaust control on heavy-duty

          4   diesel engines, such necessary control technologies are

          5   proven effective through a history of use in other

          6   countries.  For example, several European countries

          7   have made rapid progress to develop and implement such

          8   technologies, given the 2005 effective date for the

          9   Euro IV emissions standards and corresponding

         10   low-sulfur fuel requirements.

         11             Today, the DEP stresses the importance of

         12   additional ozone precursor reductions to Connecticut,

         13   given the severe ozone NAAQS non-attainment status of

         14   the New York/New Jersey/Long air quality region, of

         15   which southwestern Connecticut is a portion.  In 1999

         16   the one-hour ozone standard was exceeded in Connecticut

         17   on 11 days, eight-hour standard on 33 days.  In 2000,

         18   the one-hour standard has been exceeded on 3 days, and

         19   eight-hour standard has been exceeded on seven days so

         20   far this summer, as of June 14.

         21             Connecticut's one-hour ozone NAAQS attainment

         22   demonstration as submitted to EPA relies on a suite of

         23   local, regional, and national emission control

         24   strategies to achieve the attainment of the one-hour

         25   ozone NAAQS by 2007.  The Tier 2 requirements were


                                                                      300

          1   identified as an important part of the weight of

          2   evidence to demonstrate attainment.

          3             With respect to Connecticut's State

          4   Implementation Plan, EPA has identified that additional

          5   emission reductions are required to achieve the

          6   one-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard in

          7   southwestern Connecticut.  Both the vehicle and fuel

          8   standards of the proposed rule will assist Connecticut

          9   to achieve the necessary reductions to attain the

         10   one-hour ozone standards.

         11             In addition, the NOx engine standards of the

         12   proposed rule will provide needed additional reductions

         13   essential to maintain ozone attainment in light of the

         14   expected continued growth in vehicle miles traveled up

         15   to and beyond 2007.

         16             Thank you for the opportunity to state

         17   Connecticut's strong commendation to EPA for all of its

         18   mobile source efforts, of which the proposed

         19   requirements are a crucial addition.  In conclusion,

         20   the Connecticut DEP encourages EPA to move forward with

         21   expeditious promulgation of this rule as proposed, with

         22   consideration to strengthening the NOx engine and

         23   vehicle requirements by eliminating the proposed four

         24   year phase-in.  Thank you.

         25             MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very much.  The next


                                                                      301

          1   testimony is Marian Feinberg.

          2             MS. MARIAN FEINBERG:  Thank you for this

          3   opportunity to speak to you today.  My name is Marian

          4   Feinberg, I'm the Health Coordinator of the South Bronx

          5   Clean Air Coalition.  And former chairperson of the

          6   Community Advisory Board Environmental (inaudible).

          7             After World War II, the United States

          8   Congress and various state legislators, including our

          9   own, in their dubious wisdom chose to invest billions

         10   of our tax dollars in a national highway system, and

         11   dis-invested in the rail freight and public

         12   transportation.

         13             We are today reaping the fruit of this

         14   indulgence to the petroleum and oil industry in the

         15   form of unprecedented increased pollution and an

         16   incredibly frightening rise in the level of respiratory

         17   illness in the United States and, most particularly, in

         18   many of our communities.

         19             Nowhere is this more true than here in New

         20   York City, which is not connected to the freightway

         21   system, and therefore has tremendously increased the

         22   amount of truck traffic through our city streets and

         23   through our city road system.  And it is within New

         24   York City, precisely in the most industrialized areas,

         25   all of them are low income, primarily communities of


                                                                      302

          1   color, communities that bear this burden of this truck

          2   traffic.

          3             For example, of the 12 community board

          4   districts in the Bronx, (inaudible) 16 percent of the

          5   children hospitalized for asthma in New York City.

          6   This figure is astounding.  One out of every six

          7   children hospitalized in New York City comes from a

          8   small area in the South Bronx.

          9             And it is this area precisely which is the

         10   highest volume of truck traffic.  (Inaudible).  The

         11   high volume of truck traffic (inaudible), other more

         12   stationery air pollution sources in the community, so

         13   the people are bearing a double burden.

         14             In the Monthaven area of the South Bronx,

         15   which has the highest asthma rate in the Bronx, for

         16   example, is where we have one of the largest

         17   concentrations of high-rise public housing in the

         18   entire United States.  And these units of public

         19   houses, not coincidentally, face this whole major truck

         20   transportation hub with highways and bridges all joined

         21   together.

         22             It's a housing that -- if you go to those

         23   buildings, you see that the color of the brick on the

         24   side that is facing the highway is a completely

         25   different color brick than the side that's facing the


                                                                      303

          1   city street.  And if the brick has changed color,

          2   imagine what color the lungs of the people are who live

          3   in those buildings.

          4             There are also a number of public schools

          5   which face and literally sit on those highways.  A

          6   number of schools in our area in the South Bronx have a

          7   third of their students with asthma.  And if you talked

          8   to principals in these schools, you will find that they

          9   are trying to grapple with, you know, an absenteeism

         10   rate due to asthma, which is really affecting the

         11   quality of education.

         12             It's even also affecting their education

         13   funding, because the funding formula is based on the

         14   number of students present on a given day.  So they are

         15   further penalized, because it lowers the funding rate

         16   to our schools, which we're in dire need of as well.

         17             So all these effects multiply.  We and you,

         18   and our environmental representatives here today, have

         19   a really unprecedented opportunity with this new rule

         20   to begin to address a situation which didn't fall from

         21   the sky, but was created by a series of political and

         22   funding decisions several decades ago which have

         23   brought us to this point.

         24             You know, we're not talking about an

         25   infectious disease which sprang of how (inaudible),


                                                                      304

          1   this sprang out of human decisions and we can help it

          2   be redressed by human decisions.

          3             We also really want to mention -- because we

          4   understand that industry representatives are talking

          5   about how much these changes are going to cost.

          6             We can tell you by some of things that we've

          7   mentioned here today by many other stories, we can tell

          8   you, I can tell you personally, because I grew up in a

          9   household with a sibling and a parent who had asthma,

         10   and I saw the children hospitalized there, and the

         11   parents who had to stay off work, neglect their other

         12   children at home, to stay by the bedside of a

         13   hospitalized child --

         14             But of what would it have cost the family,

         15   what does it cost in loss of work productivity of

         16   either an affected adult or adult caretaker of a sick

         17   child, of what the psychic cost is to the siblings?

         18             A very articulate man talked about being in

         19   school, and he said some words about his mom and if he

         20   is not home to take care of her.  Now this was -- you

         21   can tell by his presentation, he is an extremely

         22   intelligent boy.  If that boy's attention is spent on

         23   being worried about his mom, his creative potential is

         24   being lowered by the fact that his attention is

         25   someplace else.


                                                                      305

          1             That's an incredible loss to him to our

          2   communities, and to the society as a whole.  Not to

          3   mention the incredible cost to every single person of

          4   the rising costs of health care, and the rising

          5   percentage of health care dollars spent on illnesses

          6   which are affected by diesel emissions.  And I don't

          7   want to go into the specifics of what sulfur does and

          8   whatnot, because people ahead of me have done that

          9   perfectly adequately.

         10             I just really want to urge you to implement

         11   these new regulations as soon as possible.  If they can

         12   have an accelerated phase-in, we would really like to

         13   see that.  Because we're talking about a large toll on

         14   human life, on social life, on community life, and on

         15   the educational life of our nation.  Thank you very

         16   much.

         17             MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  The next speaker is

         18   Barbara Warren.

         19             MS. BARBARA WARREN:  My name is Barbara

         20   Warren, (inaudible) Consumer Policy Institute, New

         21   York.  We appreciate the fact that the EPA is holding a

         22   hearing in New York, given the significant air quality

         23   problems in this metropolitan area.  And we hope to

         24   hear that you will be scheduling more hearings in New

         25   York in the future.


                                                                      306

          1             There is no question that a stringent

          2   heavy-duty diesel (inaudible), and will have an

          3   enormous impact.  They applaud EPA for their efforts on

          4   the current proposal.

          5             But while talking about the health effects of

          6   diesel and the nationwide benefits of this rule, it

          7   falls short in addressing the particular populations

          8   that will continue to be impacted:  Children, persons

          9   with respiratory or cardiac disease, communities living

         10   on top of and breathing diesel exhaust, and certain

         11   entire large metropolitan areas like New York.

         12             While EPA's rule clearly is beneficial, it

         13   fails to consider the unique situations in large

         14   metropolitan areas.  When NESCAUM looked at this issue,

         15   it was very clear the extent to which New York State

         16   and the New York metropolitan area within New York

         17   State dominated the diesel contributions.

         18             What this means is that even under the most

         19   stringent version and the earliest implementation,

         20   there will still be these inequities and unacceptable

         21   health risks.  This should be addressed up front with

         22   the proper promulgation of this rule.  Regulating

         23   non-road diesel engines and their fuel make a

         24   significant contribution, particularly in urban areas.

         25             In fact, there are very good reasons to make


                                                                      307

          1   sure that all diesel fuel meets the sulfur limitations

          2   so there is no opportunity for high sulphur fuel; and,

          3   number two, make sure that there are regular in-use

          4   emissions testing for all diesel engines road and

          5   non-road.

          6             We would like to mention that such in-use

          7   testing -- we're already concerned about the concept of

          8   compliance flexibility for refiners.  If EPA is to

          9   provide compliance flexibility, to address the

         10   unacceptable health risks in certain large metropolitan

         11   areas we urge EPA, therefore, that if it decides to

         12   provide this flexibility, to insist that the fuel in

         13   large metropolitan areas meet the most stringent

         14   standards at the earliest date.

         15             We believe industry changes must be balanced

         16   by sufficient health-based information about the

         17   (inaudible) and unacceptable health risks that will

         18   likely remain even after implementation, and we urge

         19   EPA to prepare that kind of information right now.

         20   Thank you very much for your attention.

         21             MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  And the last

         22   speaker, Leon Tulton.

         23             MR. LEON TULTON:  Hi, I'm Leon Tulton.  I'm a

         24   research assistant at Mount Sinai School of Medicine

         25   and I'm here on behalf of Dr. Phillip (inaudible).


                                                                      308

          1   Unfortunately he couldn't make it today, so I'm going

          2   to read a letter on his behalf.  The panel has a copy

          3   of the letter and a copy of the report.

          4             He writes:  I am writing to express my strong

          5   support for the proposed emission standards recommended

          6   by the US Environmental Protection Agency.  As a

          7   pediatrician who treats children with asthma, I have

          8   witnessed the effects of fine particulate matter on the

          9   respiratory health of New York City children.  Asthma

         10   is a major problem in our community, especially

         11   (inaudible) is the leading cause of hospital admissions

         12   and major cause (inaudible).

         13             In a study coauthored (inaudible) last year,

         14   we examined the asthma hospitalization rate.  We found

         15   communities that had the highest asthma hospitalization

         16   rate and high (inaudible).  Are the most vulnerable.

         17   One reason for their great vulnerability is that

         18   children in these communities are disproportionately

         19   (inaudible) especially components of diesel exhaust.

         20   As a physician and health advocate, I proudly extend

         21   (inaudible).  Sincerely, Phillip J. (inaudible) MD.

         22   Thank you very much for your time.

         23             MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very much.  Next

         24   panel.  If we could first start off with Dave Evans and

         25   Tanya Lena.


                                                                      309

          1             MR. DAVID EVANS:  Thank you very much.  My

          2   name is David Evans, and I'm an Associate Professor at

          3   Columbia University in the School of Public Health in

          4   the Department of Pediatrics.

          5             I'm testifying here today in support of the

          6   proposed rule for both personal and professional

          7   reasons.

          8             My job is developing health education

          9   programs for kids with asthma.  My open air (inaudible)

         10   program that is used now in many schools, and

         11   (inaudible) how to take care of asthma.

         12             There are many things that can I tell them to

         13   do about taking medicines and modifying the

         14   environment, but one of my biggest frustrations -- and

         15   when air pollution is a major contributor -- it's not

         16   that easy to do something about that.

         17             I think this is going to make a huge

         18   difference for people with asthma.  The cap of 15 parts

         19   per million and reducing nitrous oxide by 95 percent

         20   and particulates by 90 percent will have a major health

         21   benefit.  And I think it's very important to implement

         22   this rule early, because further delay is really going

         23   to prolong the effect of diesel emissions.

         24             The added costs to truck manufacturers seem

         25   to be small.  Estimates I've read are around


                                                                      310

          1   1 percent.  And although the added cost on fuel are

          2   slightly larger, I think they're well worth the

          3   benefits in health.

          4             It seems to me it's (inaudible).  It's kind

          5   of difficult sometimes to estimate the exact cost of

          6   the health benefits due to something like this.  Just

          7   as it's difficult to estimate how much less (inaudible)

          8   people who have to pay in repainting their homes.

          9             There are many subtle health benefits, but

         10   health ones are not so subtle and they are very

         11   important to measure.  I think the direct costs for

         12   asthma care now are about $12 million a year, and they

         13   don't cover many of the indirect losses such as in

         14   terms of loss of productivity.

         15             I think taking these (inaudible) is of great

         16   importance, because diesel emissions, such as nitrogen

         17   oxide and particles that are harmful to the lungs,

         18   particularly of the elderly.  These pollutants reduce

         19   lung function.  Your airways actually contract and make

         20   it more difficult to breathe.

         21             In addition, as the next speaker is going to

         22   tell you, we now have evidence that inhaled diesel

         23   emissions (inaudible).  They interact inside the lung

         24   in various biological processes, which make the

         25   allergies worse.  Which is bad news for the 10 percent


                                                                      311

          1   of those who have asthma.  And also for the 25 percent

          2   of the population who have allergies and are allergic

          3   (inaudible).

          4             Children are at particular risk.  And

          5   children run around more, they breathe faster, they are

          6   more active physically.  So they are actually inhaling

          7   more because their bodies need more oxygen.  So I think

          8   it's really important that we take this step towards

          9   securing good health for their sake as well as our

         10   own.  Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

         11             MS. TANYA LENA:  My name is Tanya Lena, I'm a

         12   graduate student at the Columbia School of Public

         13   Health.  My research is currently on community exposure

         14   to particulates, and also the mechanisms of diesel

         15   toxicity.

         16             We have noticed that in New York City in

         17   communities with high asthma rates (inaudible) to

         18   diesel particulates.  And in pilot studies done at the

         19   Columbia School of Public Health, there is a strong

         20   correlation between regional traffic densities and

         21   asthma.  Elemental carbon is a very specific marker for

         22   diesel exhaust particulate exposure.

         23             Even more important, we have shown in Harlem

         24   and in the South Bronx (inaudible) are significantly

         25   higher than EPA published for averages for urban areas


                                                                      312

          1   across the US.  So that (inaudible) communities to the

          2   diesel particulates and they also have serious

          3   respiratory problems.

          4             The physical and chemical properties of

          5   diesel exhaust particulates have been well studied.

          6   It's particularly important (inaudible) most of these

          7   have a diameter of less than 2.5 (inaudible).  In

          8   addition, these diesel particulates (inaudible)

          9   allergens that are in the environment, such as dust.

         10   We sent you the studies.

         11             Epidemiological studies completed in Europe

         12   suggest also that diesel emissions from trucks are

         13   associated in particular with asthma and allergies.

         14   (inaudible) found that children who (inaudible)

         15   constant outside their homes were two times (inaudible)

         16   residential exposure.

         17             These results confirm of a number of studies

         18   in the Netherlands the study of (inaudible) and lung

         19   function in children age 7 to 12.  The studies are

         20   (inaudible) associated with truck traffic and with

         21   automobiles, and were associated with (inaudible).

         22             More important, mechanistic research is now

         23   providing us with some explanations with how diesel may

         24   be associated with (inaudible).  For instance, DS

         25   Sanchez, et al, working in Los Angeles has shown that


                                                                      313

          1   when healthy volunteers are (inaudible) that they're

          2   producing extremely elevated levels of IGE, which is an

          3   immunoglobulin which is indicated (inaudible).  So what

          4   this means is that those that are exposed in

          5   combination are having dramatically enhanced

          6   (inaudible).

          7             These findings are of concern for US inner

          8   city residents, precisely the combination.  And there

          9   are in vitro studies that have been done.  For

         10   instance, (inaudible) found that pH in diesel exhaust

         11   particulates (inaudible).

         12             In conclusion, there is a growing body of

         13   evidence both epidemiologic and mechanistic (inaudible)

         14   may be playing a role in the present (inaudible) of

         15   asthma.

         16             So to paraphrase, the scientific evidence is

         17   in now which supports the testimony you have been

         18   hearing from the residents throughout the day.  And

         19   it's certain that the regulations would help reduce the

         20   asthma prevalence.

         21             For these reasons, we urge the EPA to hold

         22   fast to the target of 97 percent reduction;

         23   furthermore, we urge speedy implementation and proper

         24   enforcement of the regulations.

         25             I would just like to conclude with a personal


                                                                      314

          1   experience.  When I was doing some of these exposure

          2   studies, I developed a wheeze and bronchial

          3   constriction.  And I had never had asthma symptoms

          4   before, and now it has gone away.  So an anecdotal

          5   revelation about the exposure and the connection to the

          6   respiratory system.  And I think it's a very strong

          7   link.  So I think it's an ideal opportunity to act, I

          8   believe, in a preventative manner.

          9             MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very much.  The next

         10   speaker is John Guinan.

         11             MR. JOHN PAUL GUINAN:  Good afternoon and

         12   thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.  My

         13   name is John Paul Guinan, and I am a Staff Attorney and

         14   Clean Air Advocate for New Jersey PIRG, the New Jersey

         15   Public Interest Research Group.

         16             I am here today to urge to you adopt the well

         17   needed emission standards for heavy-duty trucks and

         18   buses.  We are certainly welcoming many of the

         19   comments, but the one thing I would like you to keep in

         20   mind is that we have an air pollution problem.  I know

         21   that you have been sitting in those chairs, I want you

         22   to keep in mind that during every minute you've been in

         23   your chairs thousands of people are suffering from

         24   pollution-related illnesses in New Jersey alone.

         25             That's why I'm here today.  Each New Jersey


                                                                      315

          1   summer, one of every three days it is unhealthy to

          2   breath the air due to high ozone levels.  This is

          3   particularly troublesome for the over 1 million people

          4   that have chronic respiratory illnesses.

          5             Summertime in New Jersey now means that we

          6   see well over a quarter million asthma attacks,

          7   resulting in a 26 percent increase in hospital room

          8   admissions on bad air quality days.  Between 1982 and

          9   1995, the number of people in New Jersey with asthma

         10   went up 58 percent, even more astonishing is the

         11   increase of 90 percent for pediatric asthma.

         12             It's not just asthma, as we've heard from

         13   many people before.  We have studies that link diesel

         14   exhaust to cancer and other problematic diseases.

         15             Although big trucks and buses are among the

         16   largest pollution sources, the oil industry and engine

         17   manufacturers have done little to curb this pollution.

         18   In fact, we've seen that they've cheated on their

         19   emissions tests in the past, which resulted in an extra

         20   1.3 million tons of smog-forming pollution each year.

         21             In order to protect the public health, we

         22   must require drastic reductions in pollution from these

         23   large trucks and buses.  However, because high sulfur

         24   fuel will poison the new diesel clean-up technologies,

         25   we must ensure that all diesel fuel is fully cleaned up


                                                                      316

          1   and readily available before the trucks are required to

          2   clean up.

          3             Therefore, in order to ensure that all

          4   cleaner trucks will have access to the clean fuel

          5   necessary to operate, we urge you to require diesel

          6   sulfur level with a cap of no more than 15 parts per

          7   million nationwide by 2006.

          8             Cleaning up diesel fuel by 97 percent will

          9   allow the EPA to cut smog-forming pollution by

         10   95 percent in 2007, and soot pollution by 90 percent by

         11   2007.  However, the EPA proposing to wait until 2010 to

         12   fully clean up smog-forming pollution from these

         13   vehicles.  This means that Americans will have to wait

         14   another ten years before all new trucks are cleaned up.

         15   We'll have to have another ten years of bad air quality

         16   and another ten years of bad asthma attacks.

         17             In addition, the EPA should take measures to

         18   ensure that big trucks are meeting the emission

         19   standards on the roads, not just during the engine

         20   tests.  Specifically, both in-use and on-board

         21   diagnostic equipment should be required for all

         22   heavy-duty trucks by 2007.

         23             Finally, we should increase the use of

         24   advanced technology vehicles such as electric buses or

         25   fuel cell trucks.  The EPA should include a provision


                                                                      317

          1   in the heavy-duty rule that would provide incentives to

          2   introduce more of these cleaner, efficient diesel

          3   alternatives into the heavy-duty fleet.

          4             These provisions are necessary to protect the

          5   public health.  We ask that you include them in the

          6   final rulemaking.  Thank you.

          7             MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  The next speaker is

          8   Omar Freilla.

          9             MR. OMAR FREILLA:  I planned on coming up

         10   here with this very scary looking white construction

         11   painter outfit and some gas masks, but unfortunately I

         12   got thrown out by the hotel staff.  So imagine that I'm

         13   sitting up here with my friends in a scary looking

         14   outfit and some gas masks and some scary looking

         15   (inaudible) and some banners saying "justice now" and

         16   "people not profits," and, you know, "healthy kids,

         17   not fat cats."  Things like that.  So just imagine

         18   that, all right.

         19             All right, all right, but that's okay,

         20   because I think that the fact that I will be repeating

         21   what everyone has already said means that everyone else

         22   pretty much seems to be in accord.  So let common sense

         23   decide what regulation is going to be drafted.

         24             My name is Omar Freilla, and I am with the

         25   New York City Environmental Justice Alliance.  And am


                                                                      318

          1   speaking on behalf of the Environmental Justice

          2   Alliance.  (inaudible) I am urging you today to adopt

          3   the toughest and strongest standards on diesel that you

          4   can possibly imagine, that you can possibly put to the

          5   (inaudible).

          6             We have already heard from millions of people

          7   who have come out here today that diesel is a threat to

          8   our health.  People have testified that it causes

          9   asthma, is a trigger for asthma attacks.  The World

         10   Health Organization has acknowledged, the American Lung

         11   Association has acknowledged, the Environmental

         12   Protection Agency has acknowledged in the past, and it

         13   seems like a million and one studies.

         14             Over 30 studies (inaudible) diesel exhaust is

         15   actually a carcinogen and can induce cancer.  It's also

         16   been linked to heart disease, and there are many other

         17   studies that show numerous other effects of diesel

         18   fuel.

         19             So in my opinion (inaudible) we already

         20   know -- we already know, that diesel fuel, diesel

         21   exhaust, particulates, all of these, all of these items

         22   lead to reduced health.  It reduces your life-span,

         23   increases mortality, and just makes life a -- life bad

         24   to live at times.

         25             In our communities, in low income communities


                                                                      319

          1   and in communities of color, already we feel the effect

          2   stronger.  It's in our communities where you see

          3   communities of people who are exposed to the greater

          4   amount of toxins, the greater amounts of traffic.

          5             In New York City, 80 percent of diesel of bus

          6   depots are located in communities of color as places

          7   where you have more than 50 percent of people in

          8   color.  Over 80 percent of the bus depots are here.

          9   These are the places where buses drive in, buses have

         10   to go to these facilities.  While the bus line may be

         11   (inaudible) they all converge on certain places.  And

         12   here in New York, Northern Manhattan and Washington

         13   Heights, Harlem, six out of eight depots are here.

         14             And other communities around the city are

         15   also innudated, but they also apply to waste transfer

         16   stations.  Most of the industry facilities here in the

         17   city are in low income communities of color, and these

         18   are the places that are most vulnerable.  These people

         19   are constantly innudated.

         20             Not only do you have a situation where it's

         21   the most vulnerable people who are dealing with having

         22   a facility there that attracts traffic, attracts

         23   trucks, and attracts buses, but in many cases you've

         24   got truckers you've got (inaudible).  So if there is a

         25   truck route that's only supposed to go down a street


                                                                      320

          1   that doesn't have any residences, and truckers taking

          2   illegal routes just because it's the quickest path,

          3   people who are (inaudible) the windows are open in the

          4   summertime -- you need to breathe.

          5             And studies have shown that the air outside

          6   (inaudible) so there's a lot of talk about well, we

          7   need to deal with indoor air pollution (inaudible)

          8   because the air that is outside has the same number of

          9   (inaudible) you will you still find much of the same

         10   things that induce asthma attacks.

         11             Studies have also shown, you know, we talk

         12   about a trucks's life-span.  (Inaudible) the engine

         13   that is used ultimately winds up being in your delivery

         14   man's truck.  So thinking that (inaudible) engine is in

         15   new tractor/trailer.  So we need to think about the

         16   life-span of the vehicle and how that plays into

         17   effect.

         18             So those are the issues, just some of the

         19   issues.  We talk about who's being affected by that.

         20   Because you have communities that are bearing the

         21   brunts and have typically been ignored, and the health

         22   situation has been ignored for a long time.  And it's

         23   about time, and I'm glad that something like this is

         24   happening.  It's really going to impact the lives of

         25   people who have been suffering the most, and who for a


                                                                      321

          1   long time have been really ignored.  And this is really

          2   the first time that it's the (inaudible).

          3             Asthma isn't the only thing, but it certainly

          4   is in epidemic proportions here in New York City.  We

          5   have places where we talk about differences in asthma

          6   rates.  New York City has three times the national

          7   average for asthma hospitalizations.  And the Bronx, as

          8   a whole, it's four times the national average.  In the

          9   South Bronx, it's eight times the national average.

         10             You start to get a feel for the

         11   neighborhoods, the places that are being affected by

         12   this.  There was a study that was done just in the city

         13   and we see places with like (inaudible) times the rate

         14   of asthma hospitalization than in the places like

         15   Staten Island, where you don't have trucks barreling

         16   down your street.  That's the kind of situation that

         17   we're living in.

         18             And we know it's going to affect anyone with

         19   a lung, anyone who breathes air, their lives are going

         20   to be improved.  But I would like for you to recognize

         21   that there are communities in the city and communities

         22   in the country, and in these communities the quality of

         23   life in these communities has been ignored for far too

         24   long.  You get really -- we don't need to do this.  You

         25   need to weight the benefits.


                                                                      322

          1             The oil industry is saying that they

          2   (inaudible).  The American economy will not collapse

          3   versus the health and the quality of life of the

          4   children who are actually bearing the brunts of all of

          5   the diesel fumes, the people who are people affected by

          6   this.

          7             So I'm asking you to cut the sulfur levels

          8   (inaudible).  The oil industry is crying they say that

          9   they can't cut sulfur any less.  And really, 7 percent

         10   or nothing, that's the minimum that is needed in order

         11   to make sure that the equipment that would be able to

         12   actually clean the fuel will not be contaminated.

         13             The EPA should be taking measures to ensure

         14   that big trucks are meeting the specific standards.

         15   There should be in-use and on-board particulate

         16   equipment tests, so we don't have truck companies and

         17   industry manufacturers that are lying about whether or

         18   not their trucks actually meet the tests.

         19             And we need alternatives to diesel.  And I'm

         20   really asking, really put in some wording and make sure

         21   that we have some sort of standard that's before 2007.

         22   But before 2007, there needs to be some sort of push on

         23   agencies to actually push as strong as they can for

         24   cleaner engines and having alternatives to diesel.

         25   Thank you.


                                                                      323

          1             MR. TIMOTHY LOGAN:  My name is Timothy Logan,

          2   and I'm here today representing the Organization of

          3   Waterfront Neighborhoods which is a coalition

          4   representing community groups from all five boroughs of

          5   New York City.  I think it's about 25 community groups

          6   as it stands now.  Most of the work that we do focuses

          7   on solid waste issues, so while I may not look like a

          8   professional athlete, I talk trash for a living.

          9             The one thing that we've been seeing in New

         10   York City and we appreciate, is that the federal

         11   government has been doing a lot -- particularly a lot

         12   more than the state and local governments have on solid

         13   waste issues, but what we've seen is a proliferation of

         14   waste transfer stations and the movement of waste

         15   throughout New York City by diesel trucks, whether they

         16   be (inaudible) trucks, whether collecting, or whether

         17   they (inaudible) -- all trucks, when the city decided

         18   that they wanted to close down the landfill on Staten

         19   Island, rather than coming up with a plan and waiting

         20   until they could fully implement it themselves where

         21   they trucking it, they're trucking it through the

         22   regular corridors where all the other trucks move.

         23             At the same time, EPA and DES put in new air

         24   monitors.  They were switching from PM 10 to PM 2.5

         25   monitors.  A great thing.  The program, you are


                                                                      324

          1   required to have a base line of three years.  All of a

          2   sudden, you have no base line on which to pursue the

          3   regulations, because you haven't had them in place for

          4   three years.  And then you go into court and find

          5   judges who were appointed by less-than-public-friendly

          6   politicians, who are basically fighting against PM 2.5

          7   standards.  So now the only monitors that we have in

          8   place have no base line, and it may not be a worthwhile

          9   standard.

         10             All this is to say that the same communities

         11   are being impacted again, and again, and again.  When

         12   they site industries, whether they be waste transfers

         13   stations, which I work on, or any other type of

         14   industry that is considered to be a bad industry that

         15   you don't want to have in your neighborhood, next door

         16   to you, where do you think that ends up?

         17             It ends up in a low income community, or

         18   communities of color.  It ends up in communities like

         19   South Jamaica, communities like Sunset Park,

         20   Williamsburg, Hunts Point.  You have diesel stations

         21   throughout Northern Manhattan.  This is a problem, and

         22   it doesn't get solved by (inaudible).

         23             We can't wait ten years.  A decade is another

         24   ten year's worth of children who are coming down with

         25   asthma and dying.  And when we talk about dying, it's


                                                                      325

          1   not an abstract, something that nobody knows who's died

          2   from it.  We have a member of our board (inaudible)

          3   died of asthma at 25.  How many 25-year olds do you

          4   know who have heart failure?  It's not from a natural

          5   cause, it was asthma and years of asthma medications

          6   that damaged his heart.

          7             This is the type of thing that is not being

          8   reported on a regular basis.  We now know that over

          9   50 percent of people are being affected.  Well, that

         10   means that most of these truck movements are harming

         11   more than 50 percent of the world population.

         12             So basically it doesn't come down to when you

         13   (inaudible) have happen, or whether you live in that

         14   city or another city, and most people do, that's where

         15   people are living these days (inaudible) a large extent

         16   is based on the way the industry is set up.

         17             And when industry says they can't afford to

         18   do that, why can they not?  Clearly whenever costs are

         19   raised they pass it on to the consumer.

         20             So what's the point in delaying and having so

         21   many more people injured and harmed?  2007 is not soon

         22   enough.  Yesterday is not soon enough.  That's the

         23   issue that all the people have come out here about,

         24   people are having press conferences about before

         25   9 o'clock this morning.  It's now almost 7:30.  People


                                                                      326

          1   continue to talk and they continue to feel in their

          2   hearts and have tears well up in their eyes over what's

          3   going on, because the people who came here, the

          4   community people, whether they are below income, or

          5   whether they (inaudible) to live next door, or they get

          6   caught up somewhere along the way, they know that's

          7   what's going on.  That's what this is all about.

          8             So when we talk about putting these standards

          9   in effect and whether DaimlerChrysler is against

         10   this -- you know, she's getting a big paycheck and

         11   she's going to continue to get a big paycheck.

         12             But how many people are no longer living on

         13   this earth because this did not go into effect as soon

         14   as possible?  There is no reason why we can't put this

         15   into effect.  Why don't we start phasing it in now?  It

         16   takes three years, it doesn't have to wait seven years,

         17   ten years.  That's what's going on.  Thank you very

         18   much.

         19             MS. MARIA BOTTINO:  Let me just add a little

         20   aside that I can't see.  I can't see humidity and

         21   smog.  I can't wear my contacts because my eyes burn,

         22   so I have to wear my glasses and they are not quite as

         23   efficient.

         24             Members of the Environmental Protection

         25   Agency, thank you for the opportunity to testify here


                                                                      327

          1   today.  This hearing marks a historic step in the

          2   regulatory process of the use of diesel fuel in our

          3   country with this first public hearing in the nation.

          4             We hope you craft legislation that will

          5   safeguard our public health, protect our national

          6   environment, and improve the quality of life for years

          7   to come.

          8             As it is currently produced, diesel fuel

          9   contains high levels of sulphur.  Diesel fuel emissions

         10   have been linked to increased rates of asthma, cancer,

         11   heart disease, and other serious diseases.  The

         12   nitrogen emissions released by diesel is a major

         13   contributor to respiratory illness, particularly during

         14   the hot summer months.

         15             We New Yorkers are all too familiar with the

         16   admonitions.  This is particularly dangerous to

         17   individuals with compromised immune systems, the

         18   elderly, and children.  Pollution is also a major

         19   contributing factor to low birth rate babies.

         20             Nitrogen oxide, which produces a third of the

         21   smog along the Northeast United States, is released

         22   into the atmosphere by the fleet of diesel trucks and

         23   buses that move along our streets and thoroughfares.

         24             The (inaudible) of our city continues to

         25   allow its major thoroughfares, such as Canal Street,


                                                                      328

          1   Houston Street, the lower East Side, in Chinatown, and

          2   Broadway, and even our residential streets to be choked

          3   with diesel truck traffic.  While New York is a leader

          4   in finance, technology, and business, in the area of

          5   public transportation, this city has lacked behind

          6   other metropolitan areas in converting to clean burning

          7   fuel.  It's only recently that it will be forcing its

          8   Metropolitan Transportation Authority to replace aging

          9   buses with cleaner burning fuel buses.

         10             As the Congressmember representing the lower

         11   East Side, Chinatown, Williamsburg, and other low

         12   income communities, I represent these communities.

         13   These communities have historically been the dumping

         14   grounds for waste transfer stations, electrical power

         15   plants, industry plants, bus depots, and even oil

         16   spills.  We say enough is enough.

         17             Communities of color, particularly

         18   African/American and Latinos, have among the highest

         19   asthma rates in the city of New York.  (Inaudible)

         20   found that Latino communities in particular are more

         21   susceptible to respiratory ailments than others.  And

         22   Dr. Gene Ford of Harlem Hospital is conducting research

         23   to determine whether Puerto Ricans suffer more severe

         24   effects of asthma than other Latino communities.

         25             On another front, (inaudible) expanded, while


                                                                      329

          1   building a state-of-the-art clean natural gas burner.

          2   If you read the fine print carefully, they retain the

          3   right to convert to burning diesel if the price of

          4   natural gas becomes too high, and it is they who

          5   determine how to define "high."

          6             My office is committed to supporting efforts

          7   to have this criteria eliminated before any future plan

          8   is allowed to go online.  I shortly will unveil a major

          9   policy (inaudible).

         10             Let us sound the first bell hereby affirming

         11   that diesel fuel should be 98 percent sulfur free,

         12   diesel engines should be (inaudible) and that these

         13   regulations should be implemented immediately rather

         14   than be phased-in over three years.  That all New York

         15   City buses and trucks should utilize the cleanest

         16   available fuel.  That all New York City power plants

         17   should utilize the cleanest available fuel.

         18             If we agree on these basic principles, we can

         19   move forward on this critical piece.  With this, we

         20   will have the basis of a more intelligent environment.

         21   Thank you very, very much.

         22             MR. ROCKY CHIN:  My name is Rocky Chin.  I'm

         23   a civil rights attorney, but I'm testifying today as

         24   (inaudible) and also a resident of the lower East

         25   Side.  I live in a six building (inaudible), which


                                                                      330

          1   overlooks the FDR Drive and I work in an agency, a

          2   civil rights agency on the West Side, which overlooks

          3   the West Side Highway.

          4             During the time that I'm not working or

          5   staying at home, I hang around in the area between

          6   which is Chinatown and the lower East Side.  So you

          7   could say that I spend a lot of time around traffic,

          8   around trucks, around a lot of idling.

          9             And I wanted to -- I know a lot of people

         10   have talked about different parts of the city, but I

         11   wanted to underscore how this part of the city has

         12   gotten increasingly congested.  Part of this is because

         13   lower Manhattan squeezes everything together, so the

         14   streets are narrower and the streets are used for cross

         15   transit.  And Canal Street is increasingly utilized for

         16   truck traffic.

         17             This is a very diverse community.  A lot of

         18   businesses, a lot of -- Fulton Fish Market which, as

         19   you know, if you go into that area in the nighttime,

         20   has trucks idling all through the night.  And on the

         21   West Side you have, of course as people already

         22   testified, an incredible amount of traffic.  So you

         23   have idling, idling, a lot of traffic, a lot of

         24   trucks.

         25             Now I'm testify here as someone who has


                                                                      331

          1   generally dealt with civil rights issues, race issues,

          2   issues of discrimination, and I would like to just give

          3   you an anecdote about something that I have experienced

          4   myself that I thought was maybe appropriate for this

          5   hearing.

          6             A couple of years ago I had a chance to

          7   testify and to speak in Japan, and the subject was

          8   human rights in the corporate culture.  And I remember

          9   how I was supposed to speak about human rights in the

         10   corporate culture in Japan and while I was arriving in

         11   the airplane, I happened to run into a bunch of

         12   environmental activists as they were attending the

         13   Kyoto Conference on Global Warming.

         14             And it made me think, after speaking with a

         15   number of these activists, how the issues that we

         16   address are connected.  And that we really need to see

         17   the inter-connectedness, not only about how a lot of

         18   the communities that we grew up in have been impacted,

         19   but also how we, as a society, benefit from cleaner

         20   air, better race relations, all these things really

         21   make for a better society.

         22             So here we have a lot of problems, because

         23   most of the people testifying, I would say probably

         24   90 percent, are for very strong regulations.  But the

         25   challenge is really quite dramatic, because a small


                                                                      332

          1   percentage is opposed to this, and they wield quite a

          2   lot of power through the channels that they use.

          3             So I think I want to underscore applaud for

          4   EPA taking very strong measures, but I want to end with

          5   one of the problems that we have in our community is

          6   trying to figure out what is the incidence of asthma

          7   and so forth.  A number of people have testified about

          8   studies, I just want to talk about the Chinese, which

          9   is a large community in the United States.

         10             The Chinese community does not have a lot of

         11   health clinics and so forth.  (Inaudible) and there

         12   aren't really a lot of studies done, but anecdotal

         13   information is quite available.

         14             For example, a number of people in the

         15   community have said that particularly the children who

         16   to go school, for example, at Intermediate School 131,

         17   this is the largest intermediate school predominately

         18   Chinese, immigrant kids have problems with respiratory

         19   problems, but these haven't necessarily been linked to

         20   trucks.  But 131 sits at the entrance of Manhattan

         21   Bridge, one of the major areas where trucks are coming

         22   in and spewing pollution every day.  And Canal Street,

         23   as has been said before, has an incredible amount of

         24   traffic, and yet we don't really know what the monitors

         25   are producing.  I don't know.  I know there are state


                                                                      333

          1   and city and federal (inaudible) and I think there

          2   needs to be a lot more study as to what's happening

          3   along these corridors, and specifically linking it up

          4   to studies of the incidence of asthma and other kinds

          5   of respiratory illness.

          6             The (inaudible) is finishing an audit of

          7   their own cases, it will be completed at the end of

          8   year.  It's high time that we connected with what the

          9   EPA is doing.  Our communities do not have enough

         10   health resources so that we can research these

         11   problems.

         12             I want to thank you.  I happened to have had

         13   asthma -- some say you never get rid of it.  I happened

         14   to live in Los Angeles, and I thanked God when I came

         15   here, there's no smog.  Little did I realize that I was

         16   going into the one of the most polluted urban areas of

         17   the country.  Thank you very much.

         18             MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Next is Ian Taylor.

         19             MR. IAN TAYLOR:  My name is Ian Taylor,

         20   and I'm a policy analyst for the Clean Air Council

         21   founded in 1967.  The Clean Air Council is a

         22   Pennsylvania-based nonprofit member organization

         23   working through a combination of public education,

         24   community advocacy, and oversight of government

         25   enforcement of environmental laws to ensure that we can


                                                                      334

          1   all live in a healthy environment with clean air.

          2             The Clean Air Council has offices in

          3   Philadelphia and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and

          4   Wilmington, Delaware.  The Council is perhaps best

          5   known for its willingness to sue the Environmental

          6   Protection Agency when they do not properly implement

          7   the Clean Air Act.

          8             Thank you for allowing me to testify today on

          9   this important issue.  On behalf of the Clean Air

         10   Council, I urge you to adopt these proposed

         11   rulemakings.  The quality of America's air is a serious

         12   environmental health issue.  Emissions from diesel

         13   engines continue to pollute the air and endanger the

         14   health of many Americans.

         15             Philadelphia has the fourth worst air quality

         16   in the nation.  According to a recent report by the

         17   EPA, the air in Philadelphia County exceeded the

         18   federal safety level for cancer by 297 times.  Small

         19   steps have been taken to reduce the level of

         20   particulate matter throughout the greater Philadelphia

         21   area.  Unfortunately, even low concentrations of PM

         22   adversely affect human health.  A recent study

         23   estimated that 2,599 premature deaths are caused by

         24   soot particles in Philadelphia annually.

         25             Although the nation as a whole is affected by


                                                                      335

          1   diesel engine emissions, large cities, in particular,

          2   are continuing to experience dangerous levels of air

          3   pollution.  Throughout the country, too many Americans

          4   are being forced to breathe high concentrations of

          5   harmful particulates each and every day.

          6             Less than 2 percent of all vehicles on the

          7   road today use diesel fuel.  Nevertheless, these

          8   vehicles manage to emit more than 50 percent or more of

          9   the dangerous soot particles in urban areas, and nearly

         10   one-third of all smog-forming nitrogen oxide emissions.

         11   Soot particles are extremely dangerous and contain more

         12   than 40 hazardous pollutants, including many potential

         13   or probable carcinogens.  Nitrous oxide reacts with

         14   volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight

         15   to create ground level ozone or smog.  Smog exacerbates

         16   asthma and other respiratory diseases exacerbates

         17   asthma.

         18             PM and NOx cause serious public health

         19   concerns and contribute to soot and smog pollution that

         20   is associated with what I've heard today 40,000 deaths

         21   every year, as well as millions of cases of respiratory

         22   problems each year.

         23             Diesel emissions are also responsible for

         24   some 400,000 asthma attacks nationally every year.

         25   While air pollution may have more of a long-term health


                                                                      336

          1   effect to otherwise healthy adults, to vulnerable

          2   individuals such as children, the elderly, and those

          3   with chronic respiratory and cardiovascular problems,

          4   it can be deadly.

          5             These groups remain disproportionately

          6   susceptible to air pollution, and are the first to feel

          7   the effects of diesel emissions.  Without adequate

          8   regulation, diesel engines will continue to adversely

          9   affect the environment, increase the number of cases

         10   and heart and lung disease, aggravate asthma, and cause

         11   additional public health problems.

         12             Epidemiologists in approximately 70 cities

         13   around the world have consistently found that more

         14   people die and are hospitalized during periods when

         15   particulate pollution levels rise even a moderate

         16   amount.  Rarely has such a clear pattern emerged in

         17   epidemiology, and most environmental health experts are

         18   now convinced that it is not a coincidence.

         19             Despite this overwhelming evidence, opponents

         20   of the proposed rulemaking have still managed to find

         21   fault with the results of epidemiological studies that

         22   link particulate matter with adverse health effects.

         23   One of the main industry criticisms has been that

         24   confounding factors such as temperature, weather,

         25   seasonal factors, or co-occurring pollutants could be


                                                                      337

          1   all contributing to the observed health effects

          2   associated with particulate matter.  Currently, a

          3   number of carefully designed studies have been able to

          4   single out many such factors giving credence to the

          5   fact that PM itself is directly responsible for some of

          6   the health effects.

          7             Recent examinations have been done using

          8   clinical and toxicological studies with personalized

          9   exposure to PM to correlate these epidemiological

         10   results.  Several of these studies were done by

         11   examining hospital patients and nursing home residents,

         12   deriving data on the actual effects of human exposures

         13   to particulate matter; something which had previously

         14   been unavailable.  The latest results from these

         15   correlating personalized studies not only conclude that

         16   PM is a major contributing factor, but also suggests

         17   some reasons why PM causes adverse health effects.

         18             For example in the past year, about a dozen

         19   major scientific studies have turned up heart pattern

         20   changes in animals and elderly people.  One study

         21   indicated that the tiny particles of PM seem to alter

         22   the normal pulsing of the human heart, and that even

         23   the air pollution levels commonly found daily in

         24   Philadelphia and other cities across the country are

         25   enough to disrupt the body's ability to regulate the


                                                                      338

          1   pumping of blood.  Rising particulate counts on a given

          2   day are enough to disrupt the beat-to-beat variations

          3   that are designed to meet the demands of regular

          4   activities ranging from sleep to exercise.

          5             This threat is of particular concern to the

          6   elderly, those suffering with arrythmia, and those with

          7   heart conditions, and lung disease or asthma.  Experts

          8   have estimated that particulate pollution may account

          9   for 1 percent of heart disease fatalities in the United

         10   States, amounting to about 10,000 deaths a year.

         11             The Clean Air Council calls on the

         12   Environmental Protection Agency to adopt the proposed

         13   heavy-duty diesel engine and vehicle standards as

         14   expeditiously as possible.  Adopt highway diesel fuel

         15   sulfur control requirements as expeditiously as

         16   possible to prevent the poisoning of emission control

         17   equipment in trucks and buses.  And also to require the

         18   retrofit of older vehicles with diesel engines to meet

         19   modern emission standards.

         20             Many environmentalists have come here today

         21   to praise EPA's proposal, but the Council comes here

         22   today to say:  What took you so long?

         23             A recent poll determined that roughly nine

         24   out of ten Americans believe that big diesel trucks and

         25   buses should be required to use the best available


                                                                      339

          1   pollution control technology.

          2             Despite all of this information and

          3   knowledge, diesel manufacturers and fuel providers and

          4   the federal government have continued to ignore the

          5   problem.   Current diesel engine and fuel standards

          6   remain insufficient and outdated.  Although heavy

          7   trucks and buses are among the nation's largest

          8   pollution sources, the oil industry and engine

          9   manufacturers have done remarkable little to reduce the

         10   pollution from these sources.  In addition, federal

         11   standards are currently so weak that most diesel

         12   engines are not even required to install readily

         13   available pollution controls.

         14             The Clean Air Act mandates that the EPA set

         15   national ambient air quality standards that will

         16   protect public health.  There is no doubt that present

         17   diesel engine emissions do not reflect this goal.  In

         18   order to protect and improve public health, the EPA

         19   must take the initiative to establish comprehensive

         20   reductions in pollution from vehicles with diesel

         21   engines.

         22             The EPA's proposed rulemakings are a step in

         23   the right direction, and should be approved.  The

         24   proposed rulemakings, however, should be improved.

         25   Reducing sulfur in diesel fuel by 97 percent will cut


                                                                      340

          1   smog-forming pollution by 95 percent in 2007 and soot

          2   pollution by 90 percent by 2007.  Unfortunately, the

          3   proposed rulemakings delay implementation of these

          4   needed air quality improvements far too long.

          5             There is no reason why the EPA cannot shorten

          6   the compliance schedule for vehicles containing diesel

          7   engines.  The standards proposed by the proposed

          8   rulemakings may be stringent enough, but the EPA has

          9   chosen unnecessarily to delay their implementation.

         10             Moreover, because the proposed standards to

         11   not take effect for a number of years, Clean Air

         12   Council would like to request an additional requirement

         13   to the proposed regulation.  By the year 2008, two

         14   years after almost all the sulfur has been removed from

         15   diesel fuel, the Council suggests all heavy-duty trucks

         16   and buses 15 years old and less, must comply with the

         17   new standards or retrofit with a new converter that

         18   would sufficiently reduce their harmful emissions to

         19   appropriate standards.

         20             Opponents of the EPA's proposal cite

         21   increasing costs and a lack of feasible alternatives as

         22   obstacles to the implementation of EPA's proposed

         23   regulation.  In reality, there are a number of options

         24   available today that could significantly reduce

         25   emission from diesel engines.  Natural gas, for


                                                                      341

          1   instance, is an effective replacement for diesel fuel

          2   and appears to be cost effective and environmentally

          3   sound.

          4             Although an extensive cost study has not yet

          5   been completed, the Council, along with other

          6   environmental groups, believes that regulation will

          7   affect the price of diesel only minimally.

          8   Furthermore, the benefits of clean air and improved

          9   health would certainly exceed a small increase in

         10   costs.

         11             If EPA does not move expeditiously with these

         12   proposed rulemakings, the quality of public health

         13   continues to get worse.  Sales of diesel engines are

         14   rapidly increasing.  Approximately 1 million new diesel

         15   engines are put to work in the US every year.  Unless

         16   EPA is willing to aggressively implement the proposed

         17   national low sulfur and diesel engine regulations,

         18   diesel emissions will continue to have a significant

         19   affect on public health.

         20             Clean Air Council believes that diesel fuel

         21   vehicles should have the same, or equivalent, strict

         22   emission standards as gasoline vehicles.  Every vehicle

         23   designed should be forced to meet the same pollution

         24   control standards, regardless of the chosen fuel,

         25   vehicle weight, or engine type.


                                                                      342

          1             Air pollution is a dangerous and serious

          2   threat to all Americans.  Congress intended that the

          3   Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 would force

          4   technological advances in pollution control.  Current

          5   diesel engine and sulfur in fuel regulations are far

          6   too lenient on diesel vehicles and fuels and remain

          7   unacceptable.  It is time for the federal government to

          8   understand this growing health threat and deal with it.

          9   These proposed regulations are a step in the right

         10   direction.

         11             EPA's proposed action is good news for

         12   everyone who wants to breathe healthier air, especially

         13   children, seniors, and people with existing respiratory

         14   problems.  This proposal will ensure that they get it.

         15             Thank you very much for the time and

         16   consideration, and the opportunity to comment on this

         17   crucial public matter.

         18             MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very much and we

         19   really appreciate you sticking it with out us.

         20             Right now the last panel -- unless there are

         21   other folks -- James Cimino, Lisa Schreibman and Nancy

         22   Gibbs.

         23             Is there anyone else in the audience that I

         24   have not called that wants to testify?  Okay, so the

         25   first testifier is James Cimino.


                                                                      343

          1             MR. JAMES CIMINO:  I Will submit a more

          2   extended form of testimony later on, this will just be

          3   very brief.  (inaudible).  It's quite late in the day

          4   and I know we've heard from a variety of interests who

          5   have spoken in favor of your proposal.  As I've sat

          6   here, it's become obvious that the oil industry have no

          7   (inaudible).  Diesel fumes are bad for our hearts and

          8   lungs.  These are facts you have heard today several,

          9   dozens of times in many different ways.

         10             You have also heard (inaudible) assert that

         11   the industry dominates the nation's economic

         12   (inaudible).  When you look at nearly $12 billion

         13   profit of industry just in the first quarter,

         14   (inaudible) ill or die from diesel related lung disease

         15   or other illnesses (inaudible).

         16             I would like to applaud EPA for this

         17   proposal, but I would like to see a shorter phase-in

         18   (inaudible).  These proposed rules are a dinosaur step

         19   in the right direction.

         20             There is no reason to delay.  American

         21   ingenuity has brought us progress faster and more

         22   efficiently during the past 30 years than we realized

         23   could be possible.

         24             This need is underscored by every child who

         25   misses school struggling to breathe, reeling from the


                                                                      344

          1   dirty air produced when buses and delivery truck roll

          2   by.  The technology industry-wide is not even that

          3   (inaudible) it flies in the face of our technological

          4   spirit.  So vehemently they resisted for all their dire

          5   predictions, they are enjoying record profits.  Instead

          6   of embracing modern technology, the oil industry is in

          7   Stone Age.  That is why this proposal is so important

          8   for making use of the technology that will be good for

          9   our health and the environment.

         10             On a personal level, as an asthmatic, I

         11   cannot wait until I can go running without having to

         12   stop between 50 and 100 yards.  Thank you.

         13             MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  The next testifier

         14   is Tim Barner.

         15             MR. TIM BARNER:  I thank you for the

         16   opportunity to speak today.  My name is Tim Barner, I

         17   live in Washington, D.C. and I work for 20/20 Vision.

         18   But I'm speaking today in my personal capacity, because

         19   my boss is going to speak in Atlanta.

         20             When I came to New York, I think it was the

         21   former chair earlier in the day who said you were glad

         22   to get outside of Washington.  I came here in part

         23   (inaudible) and have citizen input, so I'm glad to be

         24   here with you in New York today.

         25             Most of my adult (inaudible).  I'm looking


                                                                      345

          1   forward to giving up those techniques of learning to

          2   run fast when you see a bus, while you try to keep the

          3   black plume away from your head, or frantically rolling

          4   up your window.  When you live here, you just consider

          5   that one of the facts of life.  It's obnoxious, but you

          6   have to learn to deal with it.

          7             The education I've gone through in the last

          8   month working for 20/20 is knowing that while it is

          9   obnoxious, while it is a fact of life, it's not

         10   necessary.   I've been lucky I lived in (inaudible) and

         11   I've been able to move.  But in a way, you do feel

         12   trapped.  When I live my life in a certain (inaudible)

         13   and I realize that there are some options that are

         14   doing damage.

         15             But the (inaudible) for me is for my kids and

         16   grandchildren as well.  I want to add my weight of a

         17   single voice that with many other people, including

         18   those thousands of (inaudible) is that it's the kids

         19   who count.  I have lived most of my life (inaudible)

         20   and I don't want my children to either go without the

         21   knowledge (inaudible).  And when I say "the knowledge"

         22   of something happening negative to them.

         23             I want them to know they (inaudible) the

         24   political impact earlier in life then perhaps I have,

         25   because of the knowledge about what diesel fuel


                                                                      346

          1   emissions mean, and the new technology and what the

          2   technology can now mean.

          3             I have a two-year old grandson who has Down's

          4   Syndrome.  He's been in the hospital several times with

          5   breathing difficulties.  Enough has already been

          6   (inaudible) the contribution of diesel engines to

          7   polluted air.  (Inaudible).

          8             I'm disappointed to learn that EPA has

          9   delayed waiting to 2010 fully clean-up pollution trucks

         10   and buses.

         11             I have a son who teaches chess here in New

         12   York.  I wonder how many days or years (inaudible) by

         13   running daily on the sidewalks of New York, and whether

         14   it's been so (inaudible).

         15             I have another son who works for a landscape

         16   company driving trucks working with off-road diesel

         17   equipment.  (inaudible) but because perhaps the

         18   government and business don't want to get together

         19   enough to control the diesel air pollution that exists

         20   on his job right now.

         21             I would also ask you to ensure all these

         22   vehicles are meeting the emission standards on the

         23   road, and not just during the testing stage.  Drivers

         24   of vans and trucks are logging more miles and driving

         25   hours in the highways and streets (inaudible) know that


                                                                      347

          1   his vehicle is air-conditioned (inaudible) understand

          2   recent studies show that's a pollution tunnel which

          3   (inaudible) even concentrates (inaudible), many of them

          4   being generated by trucks and buses.

          5             Some oil and industry interests are telling

          6   you that (inaudible) is a good compromise, and I have

          7   read (inaudible) if the higher level is permitted, this

          8   kind of political compromise (inaudible) only we're

          9   being fair about (inaudible) this happens and the

         10   emission controls don't work, guess who's going to be

         11   coming right back an additional time.

         12             I watched the dance over the last couple

         13   weeks at the (inaudible).  I watched (inaudible) and a

         14   couple of other senators following up on the actions of

         15   the House (inaudible) standards for trucks -- well,

         16   cost factors, heavier vehicles will mean more safety

         17   factors -- it's these kinds of arguments that seem

         18   utterly ridiculous that seem to carry the day

         19   politically, and I urge you to maintain strong, high,

         20   and fast standards.

         21             I personally live in Capital Hill.  I'm

         22   curious as an economic stakeholder, too, what's going

         23   to happen to the central bus route once the knowledge

         24   of diesel (inaudible) get around that is jeopardizing

         25   people.  And I would urge you to increase the use of


                                                                      348

          1   diesel alternatives in addition to cleaner diesel.

          2             There are centers in Washington that are

          3   really working with our metropolitan transportation

          4   agencies and agencies cities in Europe and Asia for

          5   cleaner air for some years now.  Isn't it time that

          6   (inaudible) globalization we have quality air that

          7   (inaudible) newer, cleaner trucks should be required to

          8   meet the emission standards.  It's happening

          9   elsewhere.  It's a political role as much as

         10   technologic.

         11             Finally, it's a patriotic time of the

         12   summer.  Fourth of parade season, maybe not so much in

         13   the streets of New York, but a lot of places across the

         14   country.  I think of the image of kids sitting for

         15   hours watching great floats crawling by -- you got

         16   diesel engines, diesel trucks floats -- wouldn't it be

         17   nice to know that it's safe for kids to be in places

         18   where trucks, floats, parades, your own school buses

         19   are not jeopardizing their life?  We must do the

         20   politically courageous thing.  I think we can.

         21             I really congratulate you on putting out this

         22   rulemaking, and hope the standards can be put on a much

         23   faster timeline that is laid out right now.

         24             MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very much, and thank

         25   you for sticking around today.  The next speaker is


                                                                      349

          1   Jason Babbie.

          2             MR. JASON BABBIE:  Good evening.  I'm Jason

          3   K. Babbie, Environmental Advocates' Air & Energy

          4   Program director.  Environmental Advocates is a

          5   statewide, broad-based organization that has worked to

          6   defend New York's land, air, water, wildlife and the

          7   public's health for over thirty years.

          8             The final outcome of this rulemaking process

          9   will affect millions of New Yorkers.  So I implore you

         10   to stay strong on the emissions standards for nitrogen

         11   oxides, particulate matter and nonmethane hydrocarbons,

         12   and sulfur standards for diesel fuel.  This stringent,

         13   dual system approach to clean up heavy-duty diesel

         14   vehicles is the right approach.  A cleaner fuel means

         15   fewer emissions, will help us all breath a lot easier.

         16             Diesel emissions negatively impact the

         17   environment and public health in many ways.  Diesel

         18   tailpipes, which largely consist of trucks and buses,

         19   are single largest source of particulate matter at

         20   sidewalk level in Manhattan.  That means millions of

         21   New Yorker are being subject to multiple known and

         22   probable human carcinogens and respiratory irritants

         23   every time diesel truck or bus drives by them.  Diesel

         24   tailpipes are also a major source of nitrogen oxides,

         25   which cause ozone-smog all across the state.


                                                                      350

          1             Children are disproportionately affected by

          2   bad air quality.  Children take in twice as much air

          3   per pound of body weight as adults.  They also spend a

          4   lot more time in outside activities, partake in more

          5   rigorous activities, and are less likely to curtail

          6   their activity when experiencing difficulty breathing.

          7   Asthma is the number one chronic reason for school

          8   absenteeism, which will affect children for years to

          9   come.  In essence, the emissions that cause ozone-smog

         10   are robbing children of their education and comprising

         11   their health.

         12             In addition to children, the negative impacts

         13   of poor air quality disproportionately affect those

         14   with existing respiratory ailments; the elderly,

         15   because they often have existing respiratory problems;

         16   and those living or working near major diesel exhaust

         17   sources like bus depots.

         18             New York is breaking records this year

         19   because of those ozone-smog.  Unfortunately, they are

         20   the wrong markers to be breaking.  Already this year

         21   New York has exceeded the US Environmental Protection

         22   Agency's eight-hour health based standards multiple

         23   times.  Virtually every time the weather conditions

         24   were right, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic

         25   compounds combined with the heat and sunlight to form


                                                                      351

          1   ozone-smog.  We have already had days when almost every

          2   monitor in the state exceeded the 85 parts per billion

          3   standard.  This is alarming to say the least, and is

          4   yet another example of why updated and more stringent

          5   nitrogen oxides emission standards on diesel vehicles

          6   and sulfur standards on diesel fuel are necessary.

          7             In the report "Out of Breath: Health Effects

          8   from Ozone in the Eastern United States" Abt Associates

          9   used epidemiological studies in 1997 air quality data

         10   to determine the health impacts of ozone on a

         11   county-by-county basis.  The report attributed over

         12   510,000 asthma attacks, 12,300 emergency room visits,

         13   and 4,100 hospital admissions to ozone-smog in New York

         14   State during the ozone season in 1997.  What that means

         15   is that too many lives were negatively affected by

         16   ozone-smog.

         17             New York has some of the highest asthma rates

         18   in the country.  Particularly in northern Manhattan and

         19   the south Bronx, where there are a disproportionate

         20   number of diesel bus depots and truck routes, and the

         21   residents have limited access to health care.  Often,

         22   residents in these communities are forced to use the

         23   emergency room to treat asthma, which is the most

         24   costly and least effective form of treatment.

         25             The toxic chemicals that make up particulate


                                                                      352

          1   matter are of particular concern.  According to the US

          2   EPA, the California EPA, and the National Institute of

          3   Occupational Safety and Health, diesel exhaust contains

          4   over forty known and probable human carcinogens.  In

          5   fact, a number of studies show that diesel exhaust

          6   causes cancer.  The chemicals in diesel exhaust also

          7   negatively affect the immune system, hormone function,

          8   and the reproductive system.  They also cause disorders

          9   of the blood and blood forming tissue.

         10             Up until recently, I lived six blocks from a

         11   bus depot in West Harlem and remember the soot that

         12   covered my windowsill, floor, and bed.  I could only

         13   imagine what I was breathing, considering the smaller

         14   invisible particulates are even more dangerous than the

         15   coarse particulates.  Now, I was able to buy an air

         16   filter for my room, but that was not an option for most

         17   of the other residents in my neighborhood.  I should

         18   not have had to spend close to $200 to filter my air to

         19   protect my health, but at least I could.  What about

         20   all the families that cannot afford the same luxury?

         21   My point is that the air should be clean enough to

         22   breath without an air filter.  Hopefully these new

         23   standards will get us a great deal closer to healthy

         24   air for New York City and the nation.

         25             It is imperative that the EPA does not back


                                                                      353

          1   down from the 15 parts per million sulfur standard for

          2   diesel fuel.  A low sulfur level in diesel fuel is

          3   necessary for pollution control technologies to work

          4   effectively.  Sulfur clogs the devices or renders them

          5   useless, which exposes more people to dirty diesel

          6   fumes.

          7             Industry has continually forecasted their

          8   demise or outrageous cost when faced with regulations

          9   or legislation that required them to change procedure

         10   or switch to a new technology.  Their Chicken Little

         11   syndrome is tiresome and insulting.  Time and time

         12   again industries have met the required standards, and

         13   at a fraction of the projected costs.  Besides, the

         14   public's health and environment are worth an additional

         15   3 cents a gallon for diesel fuel.

         16             I applaud the EPA for addressing diesel

         17   emission and diesel fuel standards.  However, I have

         18   two recommendations to improve the proposed

         19   regulations, better protecting public health and the

         20   environment.  One, all components of your program

         21   should be fully implemented by 2007.  Two, more work

         22   should be done to promote the use of alternative fuel

         23   vehicles.

         24             The New York Metropolitan Area has a severe

         25   air quality problem.  As I am sure you are aware, this


                                                                      354

          1   area is classified as a "severe non-attainment area" by

          2   the EPA, and has never met the Clean Air Act's

          3   health-based air quality standards.  Pushing the

          4   nitrogen oxides full implementation out until 2010 does

          5   little to help New York City and the surrounding

          6   suburbs with their ozone-smog problem.  Eliminating or

          7   shortening the phase-in period is necessary for

          8   cleaning up the New York Metropolitan Area's air.

          9             Encouraging the switch to alternative fuel

         10   vehicles will further improve air quality.  Long

         11   Island's bus fleet is scheduled to be diesel free by

         12   2005.  The number of compressed natural gas powered

         13   vehicles in New York City's bus fleet is growing, but

         14   not as quickly as the MTA originally projected.  The

         15   MTA has moved away from purchasing CNG power buses of

         16   favor of hybrid diesel electric buses, which is much

         17   less desirable.  The toxic emissions associated with

         18   diesel makes it an undesirable fuel.  EPA encouraging

         19   the state and local agencies to purchase non-diesel

         20   powered buses and trucks would improve the air quality

         21   even more.

         22             Thank you for this opportunity to testify,

         23   and thank you for addressing diesel vehicle emissions

         24   and diesel fuel.

         25             MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Next is Lisa


                                                                      355

          1   Schreibman.

          2             MS. LISA SCHREIBMAN:  I was trying

          3   desperately to think of anything original, and the only

          4   thing original that I came up with I'm afraid somebody

          5   might have already explained in the four hours or so I

          6   wasn't here.  And now you'll all say, oh, are they

          7   going to make us do make us do it again?

          8             Allow me to sort of explain:  When I was

          9   field organizing a couple of jobs ago, I used to have

         10   to explain the difference between "ozone" and "ozone,"

         11   because after all, this would cause confusion.  Because

         12   on the one hand, everyone's talking about saving the

         13   ozone and on the other hand, they're talking about

         14   getting rid of it.  Actually it's kind of a nice

         15   exercise, but maybe it would have been better about two

         16   hours ago, because the way you explain it is good ozone

         17   (indicating up) and bad ozone is (indicating down) then

         18   making them stand up and do it.  (Demonstrating.)

         19             But I'm afraid somebody might have taught 800

         20   people this routine already.  So I make my --

         21             My name is Lisa Schreibman, I'm the New York

         22   City Coordinator for the Tri-State Transportation

         23   Campaign, a consortium of thirteen of the region's

         24   leading environmental, planning, and transit advocacy

         25   groups that work to achieve sustainable transportation


                                                                      356

          1   by reforming and redirecting transportation investment

          2   patterns, many of whom have testified already today.

          3             We have worked on both truck and bus

          4   pollution issues as they relate to New York, New

          5   Jersey, and Connecticut.  Specifically, we have worked

          6   to ensure that the maximum amount of freight is moved

          7   by train, that the trucks that move freight run on

          8   clean fuels, and that they operate in such a way as

          9   causes the least harm possible to people living near

         10   truck routes.  We have also worked to make sure that

         11   more people use buses, and that the bus emissions are

         12   as low as possible.

         13             Today we are here to thank the EPA for its

         14   proposal to remove sulfur from diesel in order to clean

         15   up the nation's trucks and buses.  This rule, although

         16   not eliminating all of the dangers posed by trucks and

         17   buses, is the air pollution equivalent of taking

         18   13 million diesel trucks off from the roads.  As such,

         19   it is the single most influential fuel policy now up

         20   for debate.

         21             Talking sulfur out of diesel, as many said

         22   before me, is the equivalent of taking lead out of

         23   gasoline.  Pollution control devices cannot work while

         24   sulfur is there, and can work when it is not.  The

         25   EPA's proposed rule will eliminate 97 percent of the


                                                                      357

          1   sulfur in diesel fuel by 2006, 90 percent of soot

          2   particles by 2007, and 95 percent of nitrogen oxides by

          3   the end of the decade.

          4             New York City is a great place for your first

          5   hearing on this proposal.  And, in fact, we think that

          6   the fact you are still here tonight, makes it the

          7   perfect place.  Here, like in other major cities, we

          8   can see the most egregious effects of diesel pollution.

          9   Half the particulate emissions in midtown comes from

         10   diesel tailpipes.  We live in chronically high

         11   summertime smog levels smog levels.  And New York State

         12   is home to more than a million asthmatics, half of whom

         13   are children.  We have some of nation's highest asthma

         14   rates and the communities that have the highest of the

         15   high rates are all along the truck routes, expressways,

         16   and bus depots of our cities.

         17             However, the only rational way to clean up

         18   the air pollution in New York city and other places

         19   polluted by sources that can travel from other states

         20   is with a national rule.  It simply won't do to just

         21   clean up the pollution in polluted areas, it would be

         22   insufficient to require low-sulfur fuel only in

         23   polluted areas, because if a truck was traveling

         24   outside the jurisdiction and was unable to acquire the

         25   proper fuel, its pollution traps would become


                                                                      358

          1   incapacitated by using just a few tanks of regular

          2   diesel fuel.  Thus, even in areas with low levels of

          3   pollution, low-sulfur diesel fuel must be made

          4   available.  That is why implementing a sulfur cap

          5   nationally by mid 2006 makes sense.

          6             The two points poise that the opposition has

          7   tried to make today is that one, they need more time;

          8   and two, the proposed rule is too costly.

          9             As if they haven't made it clear enough, the

         10   environmental and health communities have been

         11   discussing and advocating the problems of pollution

         12   from fuels since the mid-1970s.  The oil industry has,

         13   therefore, had 20 years to voluntarily reduce sulfur in

         14   its fuel, but it hasn't.  It is, thus, up to the

         15   government to require the changes.

         16             We have already heard about this rule being

         17   too costly, using some hocus-pocus math that no one

         18   really understands, and drive up the prices of goods

         19   beyond the prices that we are seeing today.  And yet,

         20   the people who have testified today have pointed out

         21   that the industry earns more profits in a single

         22   quarter than removing sulfur from diesel fuel will cost

         23   in the next ten years.  And that the costs will be

         24   passed on to us, the consumers.

         25             However, it is the hardest hit consumers,


                                                                      359

          1   those who are low income people, who are the hardest

          2   hit by dirty air consistently, those are the ones who

          3   would probably be the most impacted by cost increases

          4   to consumer goods.  And yet, all of the individuals who

          5   came here and told you about what they want, felt that

          6   the 4 cents on the gallon that it's predicted to cost

          7   to clean up the air is a good set of goals.  This is

          8   something that they are willing to pay for.  Today we

          9   have heard from many low-income people that it's worth

         10   the health of their children and communities.

         11             In fact, we are heartend to see every type of

         12   concern represented here today.  From local, state, and

         13   city elected officials, government agency

         14   representatives, industry groups, citizen groups, and

         15   individuals from the entire region are here to show

         16   their support in being able to breathe the air.  We

         17   want to echo their applause for the EPA and for its

         18   proposal, and look forward to the successful

         19   finalization of this proposal by the end of the year.

         20   Thank you.

         21             MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very much.  And the

         22   last speaker is Nancy Gibbs.

         23             MS. NANCY GIBBS:  My name is Nancy Gibbs.  I

         24   didn't even know you were going to have a meeting here

         25   until I got a call from one of your interns.  I don't


                                                                      360

          1   know how she got my name, she said I was on a list.

          2             I live in the South Bronx, I've lived there

          3   for over 30 years.  I'm a grandmother, I'm 74-years

          4   old.  I'm also working as a professional occupational

          5   therapist within part of the medical establishment in

          6   the field of rehabilitation.

          7             I speak to you in favor of your proposal.

          8   The petroleum industry (inaudible) shown concern for

          9   the people in our community.  The use of electric and

         10   (inaudible) buses is certainly a wonderful idea.  I

         11   don't want you to wait until 2010, I hope you don't

         12   have to compromise.  I hope that you will go ahead with

         13   your plans and get this done.  And this gentleman, I

         14   overheard, said 2007.  And so I've been learning just

         15   since I've been in here.

         16             I've tried to do a lot with the young

         17   (inaudible) in their meetings.  They were having a lot

         18   of meetings (inaudible).  I live near 180th Street in

         19   the Bronx, which is a minority community.  I guess I'm

         20   a minority within a minority.  I see people file in our

         21   buses time and time again.

         22             I work another job as well as working in a

         23   nursing home.  I work up in Riverdale, which is a very

         24   (inaudible) community, full of wonderful trees and the

         25   buses are always there, waiting.  And they don't


                                                                      361

          1   scatter the way do on 180th Street, where all of us

          2   poor people wait and get a face full of black smog.

          3   And following the bus, right on the track of the bus,

          4   is a big massive truck.  And that happens almost every

          5   day.

          6             And so, as I say, I live in a poor

          7   neighborhood.  I'm lucky enough to live in a co-op and

          8   it's a nice co-op.  But a lot of people, which when

          9   they ask me where I live, I say well, and I tell them.

         10   And they say just exactly where is this?  And I say

         11   well, literally this the southeast Bronx, but it's

         12   really the South Bronx.  Then it's oh, you don't live

         13   in Riverdale?  No, no, I don't.

         14             So I spoke -- I understand from the phone

         15   call that I got from this lovely attorney, that she

         16   wanted to hear from people that live in the South

         17   Bronx.  I guess she got my name because I have

         18   testified several times (inaudible), and I came across

         19   people who were very much against diesel fuels during

         20   these sessions.

         21             My particular beef was that we would stand

         22   for hours.  I have literally stood for an hour and a

         23   half waiting for the number 36 bus.  I've also seen

         24   big -- and I understand from your attorney that you're

         25   interested in the people from the South Bronx -- I have


                                                                      362

          1   seen four schools go up right across the street from

          2   electrical power plants, and I've wondered why because

          3   there that is contamination.  And that's right along

          4   the 36 bus line right on 190th Street.  So I can't

          5   figure out the thinking of the city people in doing

          6   that.

          7             However, there has been slight improvement in

          8   the 36 bus.  But low and behold, suddenly my landscape

          9   which did have trees, suddenly was obliterated by

         10   tremendous construction going on.  In other words, our

         11   community is getting full of people.  And when I spoke

         12   to a bus driver who picked me up from my job at

         13   Riverdale, I said this bus is empty, why don't you put

         14   more of your buses down in the South Bronx?  He said we

         15   don't have enough bus drivers.  He said don't you know

         16   we're recruiting?  There aren't enough of them for

         17   where you live.  I was flabbergasted, absolutely

         18   flabbergasted.

         19             So I'm speaking to you mostly from a personal

         20   idiom.  I come as an individual.  Although, I did get

         21   5,000 signatures for my little thing about trying to

         22   get the 36 bus (inaudible) I went around (inaudible)

         23   and all of the buses up and down, and I got 5,000

         24   signatures within six months.

         25             So any way, getting back to about the issue


                                                                      363

          1   of contaminants.  I am also not only an occupational

          2   therapist, I'm also an artist.  And I (inaudible) -- I

          3   won't mention its name because I respect it too

          4   highly -- but the area you go in there (inaudible)

          5   artists using all kinds of contaminants, whether it be

          6   sulphur or cobalt.  And I studied at this school for

          7   several years, and suddenly I found out I was getting

          8   thyroid problems and I was seeing my doctor.  So one of

          9   the (inaudible) said about is hormonal problems, I was

         10   a direct recipient of this.  So I started telling my

         11   study mates, please would you cut down the turpentine,

         12   please cut down on some of these.

         13             I also (Inaudible) and one of them, or a

         14   number of them told me if I work with them, if I could

         15   give them exercise.  A senior citizen exercise, which

         16   comprises of stretching.  And most of these people have

         17   pain, arthritic pain.  So a couple of them came up to

         18   me and they told me I suffer this pain and then I go

         19   away to the country, this beautiful camp, and no more

         20   pain.  So that told me a lot about the Bronx, because

         21   they live in the Bronx.  Thank you.

         22             MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Thank you all for

         23   coming and being so patient.  I believe that concludes

         24   all the testifiers.

         25             (The hearing was concluded at 8:35 p.m.)


                                                                      364

          1                C E R T I F I C A T E

          2   

          3        I, PATRICIA A. SANDS, a Shorthand Reporter and

          4   Notary Public of the State of New York and New Jersey,

          5   do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and

          6   accurate transcript of the testimony as taken

          7   stenographically by and before me at the time, place

          8   and on the date hereinbefore set forth.

          9        I do further certify that I am neither of counsel

         10   nor attorney for any party in this action and that I am

         11   not interested in the event nor outcome of this

         12   hearing.

         13   

         14   
                 Notary Public of the State of New York
         15      Certificate No. 4974309
                 New Jersey Certificate No. 2109345
         16   

         17   Dated:

         18   

         19   

         20   

         21   

         22   

         23   

         24   

         25