1 1 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 2 3 4 RE: PROPOSED TIER 2 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS 5 STANDARDS AND GASOLINE SULFUR CONTROL 6 REQUIREMENTS, NOTICE OF PROPOSED 7 RULEMAKING AND PUBLIC HEARING 8 9 - - - - 10 11 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS HAD IN 12 THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED MATTER, AT THE 13 HOLIDAY INN, 111 LAKESIDE AVENUE, 14 CLEVELAND, OHIO, ON THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 15 1999, COMMENCING AT 10:00 A.M. 16 17 - - - - 18 MEHLER & HAGESTROM 19 Court Reporters 1750 Midland Building 20 Cleveland, Ohio 44115 216.621.4984 21 FAX 621.0050 800.822.0650 22 23 24 25 2 1 PANEL MEMBERS: 2 Margo Oge Karl Simon 3 Dawn Martin Chet France 4 Michael Horowitz Mary Manners 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 MS. OGE: Good morning. On 2 behalf of the Environmental Protection 3 Agency I want to thank you for coming 4 here and welcome all of you to today's 5 hearing. Today we're holding the 6 fourth and last public hearing on the 7 Tier 2 proposal. 8 Today we're looking forward to 9 hearing your views on a program that we 10 believe will be very critical to the 11 future of air quality in this country. 12 My name is Margo Oge. I'm the 13 director of the office of mobile 14 sources with the Environmental 15 Protection Agency and I will be your 16 presiding officer for this hearing 17 today. 18 The proposed regulation that we 19 are going to be discussing at this 20 public hearing was announced by 21 President Clinton on May 1st, 1999 and 22 it was published in the Federal 23 Register on May 13th, 1999. This is a 24 historic proposal. This program will 25 achieve dramatic reductions in air 4 1 pollution for the 21st century and we 2 will do it in the most cost-effective, 3 flexible way. We estimate emissions 4 reductions of almost 2.2 million 5 nitrogen oxide per year by 2020. These 6 reductions are equivalent in removing 7 something close to 107 million cars 8 from the road. 9 When we designed this proposal, 10 we followed a set of principles that I 11 would like to share with you. We 12 wanted to design a program that meet 13 the air quality needs of states and the 14 nation as a whole. We wanted to treat 15 autos and fuel as one system. We 16 wanted to bring sport utility vehicles, 17 minivans, pickup trucks to the same 18 emissions standard as passenger 19 vehicles. We wanted to have a program 20 that is fuel neutral, that is 21 regardless the fuel used in the car, 22 the same standards will be applied. We 23 wanted to make sure that we are not 24 going to constrain consumer choices for 25 driving styles either due to costs or 5 1 due to technological factors. And, 2 finally, we wanted to provide 3 flexibility to the affected industries 4 in how they achieve the standards. 5 The same time we published the 6 Tier 2 proposal we also released an 7 advanced notice of proposal making 8 concerning diesel fuel quality. Today 9 we are not seeking comments on the 10 specific proposal. We have established 11 a separate docket, A-99-06, for 12 comments on this proposal. 13 Now, many of you are probably 14 aware of the two recent Court of 15 Appeals decisions regarding EPA's air 16 programs. The first decision founded 17 the Clean Air Act as applied in setting 18 new public health air quality standards 19 for ozone and particulate matter is 20 unconstitutional and it's 21 unconstitutional as an improper 22 delegation of legislative authority to 23 EPA. Despite the constitutional 24 ruling, however, the court did not 25 question the science on which EPA 6 1 relied to develop the health standards 2 and the court did not criticize the 3 process that EPA used to make those 4 decisions. EPA disagrees with the 5 court decision. We have recommended to 6 the Department of Justice that they 7 take all necessary judicial steps to 8 overturn the decision. 9 The second decision state the 10 submittal of state plans under the NOx 11 SIP call. These were plans that were 12 scheduled to come to the agency this 13 fall. We closely reviewed both of the 14 sections and concluded that they do not 15 impact the Tier 2 rulemaking. The Tier 16 2 proposal remains on solid scientific 17 grounds in terms of need, technological 18 feasibility, cost and 19 cost-effectiveness. The agency will 20 move forward to finalize this proposal 21 by the end of this year. We believe 22 the Tier 2 standards as proposed are 23 needed to attain and maintain the 24 one-hour air quality standards. 25 Also we believe that today over 7 1 70 million Americans are breathing 2 unhealthy air in this country and we 3 believe that this trend will continue 4 unless we take action today. We 5 believe this proposal is 6 technologically feasible and it is 7 cost-effective. The projected costs of 8 meeting this proposal are about a 9 hundred dollars per car, $200 for SUVs 10 and light-duty trucks and between 1 and 11 2 cents per gallon of gasoline. 12 Even though our cars and trucks 13 run cleaner than ever before, they 14 still contribute a large part of our 15 air pollution. We Americans love to 16 drive and we are driving more every 17 year. If we don't act today, the 18 emissions from our cars and light-duty 19 trucks combined with the current levels 20 of sulfur in gasoline threaten to erode 21 many of the air quality gains that we 22 have made in recent years. Motor 23 vehicles, for example, are almost, are 24 responsible for almost one quarter of 25 the smoke forming air pollution here in 8 1 Cleveland. 2 The proposal contains two 3 primary elements. First, EPA proposes 4 more protective emissions standards for 5 all light-duty vehicles and light-duty 6 trucks. The proposed Tier 2 standards 7 would require all vehicles and trucks 8 weighing up to 8,500 pounds to meet a 9 corporate average nitrogen oxide 10 standard of 0.07 grams per mile. This 11 new standard will result in cars that 12 are 77 percent cleaner and SUVs, 13 minivans and pickup trucks that are as 14 smart as 95 percent cleaner than 15 today's vehicles. 16 The standards will be phased in 17 from 2004 to 2007 for light-duty 18 vehicles and light-duty trucks weighing 19 up to 6,000 pounds. Beginning in 2004 20 heavy light-duty trucks or those 21 between 6,000 pounds and 8,500 pounds 22 will have to meet a more stringent 23 interim standard that will reduce 24 emissions from those vehicles up to 80 25 percent. Beginning 2008 through 2009 9 1 these heavier trucks will have to meet 2 the same standard as vehicles, the 0.07 3 grams per mile. 4 The second element of the Tier 5 2 proposal is a nationwide control of 6 sulfur in gasoline. For the first time 7 with this proposal we will treat 8 gasoline and engines as a system. We 9 are proposing to reduce sulfur across 10 the board because sulfur poisons 11 antipollution control systems. Our 12 proposal will reduce sulfur by 90 13 percent. With cleaner fuels not only 14 the Tier 2 vehicles benefit, but also 15 the cars that we are driving today will 16 benefit. 17 Refiners and importers of 18 gasoline would be required to meet a 19 new sulfur limit of 30 parts per 20 million on an average beginning 2004. 21 With the banking and trading program 22 that we have proposed, cleaner fuels 23 could be introduced in the marketplace 24 as early as 2000 time frame and the 25 compliance could be extended to 2006 10 1 time frame. Also the Tier 2 proposal 2 has included provisions that are 3 designed to provide more flexibility to 4 small refiners. 5 Before getting started with 6 today's testimony, I'll take a few 7 minutes to introduce the panel and 8 describe how we are going to conduct 9 this meeting. With me today on my 10 right is Dawn Martin who is the chief 11 of staff in the office of air and 12 radiation with EPA. Next to Dawn is 13 Mr. Karl Simon and he's in my office, 14 an important person. Next to me on my 15 left is Chet France. He's the director 16 of the engine programs and compliance. 17 And at my left is also Mr. Michael 18 Horowitz and he's with our office of 19 general counsel. 20 We have received an 21 overwhelming number of requests to 22 testify today and we will do our best 23 to accommodate everyone who wishes to 24 speak. Therefore, we will ask 25 witnesses to limit their testimony to 11 1 no more than ten minutes. The lady 2 that is sitting in the front, Miss Mary 3 Manners, is going to keep us all honest 4 with the time. So she's going to let 5 you know when you are running out of 6 time. Please listen to her. 7 We are conducting this hearing 8 in accordance with Section 307(d)5 of 9 the Clean Air Act which requires EPA to 10 provide interested persons with an 11 opportunity for oral and written 12 presentations of data. Also we are 13 going to allow this, the comment 14 period, the public comment period for 15 this proposal to be open until August 16 2nd of 1999 for any additional written 17 submissions. 18 The hearing will be conducted 19 informally and formal rules of evidence 20 will not apply. The presiding officer 21 is authorized, however, to strike from 22 the record statements which are deemed 23 irrelevant to this hearing. Also I 24 will try to enforce reasonable limits 25 for the duration of the statement of 12 1 any witness. 2 We request that the witness 3 state their names and affiliations 4 prior to making their statement. When 5 a witness has finished his or her 6 presentation, this EPA panel may have 7 questions concerning issues raised in 8 the testimony. We are reminding the 9 witnesses that any false statement in 10 response to our questions may be a 11 violation of law. 12 If there are any members in the 13 audience that would like to testify and 14 have not signed in, please sign your 15 name with the receptionist outside and 16 we will do our best to accommodate you. 17 We must request that you refrain from 18 bringing food in this meeting room due 19 to the terms of our contract with this 20 facility. 21 And, finally, if you would like 22 a transcript of this proceeding, you 23 should make arrangements directly with 24 the court reporter during one of the 25 breaks. The transcript from this 13 1 hearing will be available, however, in 2 the docket, EPA docket within two 3 weeks. 4 If there are not any questions, 5 we will start with our first group of 6 speakers. 7 Okay. I would like for Mr. 8 Charles Lagges to come forward, Miss 9 Jayne Mardock, Mr. Robert Babik and 10 Miss Amy Simpson. Please print your 11 names on the cards in front of you. 12 Mr. Lagges, good morning. 13 We'll start with you this morning. 14 MR. LAGGES: Good morning and 15 thank you. My name is Charles Lagges 16 and I'm the director of Cook County 17 Environmental Control. It's in 18 Illinois outside Chicago. And I am 19 here this morning representing ALAPCO, 20 the Association of Local Air Pollution 21 Control Officials. I appear here on 22 behalf of ALAPCO, which represents my 23 agency as we well as more than 165 24 other local air pollution agencies, 25 control agencies across the country and 14 1 on behalf of STAPPA, our sister agency, 2 the State and Territorial Air Pollution 3 Program Administrators which represents 4 the air pollution control agencies in 5 55 states and territories. 6 I'm very pleased this morning 7 to have the opportunity to provide the 8 Associations' testimony on the U.S. 9 EPA's recently proposed Tier 2 motor 10 vehicle emissions standards and program 11 to reduce sulfur in gasoline, as well 12 as on the agency's advance notice of 13 proposed rulemaking on diesel fuel. 14 On behalf of STAPPA and ALAPCO, 15 I would like to commend EPA for its 16 leadership, not only in issuing the 17 Tier 2 and gasoline sulfur proposal, 18 but also for developing such a strong 19 and comprehensive package. We further 20 commend EPA for responsibly taking full 21 advantage of the opportunity to 22 efficiently and cost-effectively reduce 23 a wide variety of emissions, for 24 pursuing a systems approach that 25 addresses both fuels and tailpipe 15 1 emissions and for engaging in such a 2 thorough and inclusive process to craft 3 this proposal. 4 We are especially pleased that 5 the proposed Tier 2 and gasoline sulfur 6 programs directly reflect almost every 7 key recommendation made by STAPPA and 8 ALAPCO over the past two years. These 9 programs, which will define our ability 10 to control emissions from cars and 11 light-duty trucks for the next 15 years 12 or so, are of vital importance to our 13 memberships, as we work toward ensuring 14 clean air for our cities, counties and 15 states. For this reason, in October 16 '97 and again in April '98, our 17 associations adopted, with 18 overwhelmingly support, resolutions 19 calling for stringent low-sulfur 20 gasoline and Tier 2 programs; copies of 21 these resolutions are with my written 22 statement. We have placed the highest 23 priority on participating in the rule 24 development process and we are very 25 pleased that EPA has concluded that the 16 1 most appropriate programs so closely 2 mirror those for which we have 3 advocated. 4 As the officials with primary 5 responsibility for achieving and 6 maintaining clean, healthful air across 7 the country, state and local air 8 agencies are keenly aware of the need 9 to aggressively pursue emissions 10 reductions from all sectors that 11 contribute to our nation's air quality 12 problems. We believe the potential air 13 quality benefits to result from cutting 14 emissions from light-duty vehicles and 15 light-duty trucks and reducing sulfur 16 in gasoline, as the agency has 17 proposed, are tremendous. These 18 proposed programs will give us 19 substantial and much-needed emissions 20 reductions and allow us to make 21 significant strides in our efforts to 22 deliver and sustain clean air across 23 the country. These emissions 24 reductions will play a pivotal role in 25 addressing an array of air quality 17 1 problems that continue to pose health 2 and welfare risks nationwide. 3 While much of the debate 4 surrounding the air quality need for 5 Tier 2 and low-sulfur gasoline seems to 6 have gravitated toward ozone, it is 7 imperative that we not overlook the 8 many other important air quality 9 benefits of this proposal, to be 10 realized by both nonattainment and 11 attainment areas both east and west. 12 While this proposal will, indeed, 13 decrease the emissions of hydrocarbons 14 and NOx, which, in turn, will lead to 15 reduced levels of ambient ozone, it 16 will also decrease particulate matter, 17 carbon monoxide emissions, improve 18 visibility, address acid rain problems 19 and reduce greenhouse gases and toxic 20 air pollution. In addition, the 21 substantial reductions to occur from 22 this proposal will further the 23 objectives of pollution prevention. 24 Additionally, the proposed programs 25 will achieve these air quality 18 1 improvements in an extremely 2 cost-effective manner. At 3 approximately $2,000 per ton of NOx and 4 VOC removed, as estimated by the EPA, 5 these programs are at least as 6 cost-effective as, if not more 7 cost-effective than, most other control 8 measures available to us, and the 9 dividends are huge. 10 There are some components of 11 the proposal with which we have 12 concerns. We will offer 13 recommendations to address these. 14 Nonetheless, STAPPA and ALAPCO 15 congratulate EPA for issuing a proposal 16 that we believe provides sound 17 framework for environmentally and 18 economically responsible Tier 2 and 19 gasoline sulfur programs. 20 With regards to the proposed 21 Tier 2 vehicle emissions standards, we 22 strongly support what we believe are 23 the cornerstones of the proposed Tier 2 24 program. Specifically we, are pleased 25 that the program cost-effectively 19 1 achieves real-word emissions reductions 2 from the new light-duty vehicles and 3 light-duty trucks, that it reflects new 4 and emerging vehicle emissions control 5 technologies currently available and 6 expected to be available in the year 7 2004 and beyond, that it applies to 8 light-duty vehicles and light-duty 9 trucks up to 8,500 pounds, including 10 SUVs, pickup trucks and vans beginning 11 in 2004. We are pleased that it 12 subjects light-duty trucks up to 8,500 13 pounds to the same emissions standards 14 as cars and lighter trucks and includes 15 a corporate average NOx standard for 16 all affected vehicles. It establishes 17 fuel neutral standards. It includes a 18 more stringent evaporative emissions 19 standard. And, finally, extends the 20 useful life to 120,000 miles. These 21 programs are right on target for a 22 truly effective national motor vehicle 23 control program. 24 We are, however, concerned that 25 several provisions including in the 20 1 proposal or raised for public comment 2 could significantly undercut the 3 program. Among these concerns are the 4 later compliance deadline 2009, versus 5 2007, for the larger SUVs, vans and 6 trucks and the notion of a formal 7 technology review of the Tier 2 8 standards prior to the time the 9 standards for heavier light-duty trucks 10 take effect. In addition, while we 11 certainly agree with EPA that there 12 should be some measure of flexibility 13 included in the Tier 2 program and find 14 some of the approaches provided to be 15 entirely appropriate, we are quite 16 concerned with various aspects of some 17 of the proposed provisions, such as the 18 amount of time allowed for 19 manufacturers to make up for credit 20 shortfall under the Averaging Banking 21 and Trading program and the leniency of 22 some of the emissions standard BINS. 23 Finally, given the continuing trend 24 toward heavier light-duty trucks, we 25 encourage EPA to consider applying the 21 1 Tier 2 standards to those SUVs, pickup 2 trucks and full-size vans weighing up 3 to 10,000 pounds which are used 4 predominantly for personal 5 transportation. We will fully 6 articulate all of these concerns in our 7 forthcoming written comments. 8 With regards to the gasoline 9 sulfur control requirements, same as 10 with the Tier 2 program, STAPPA and 11 ALAPCO also believe that EPA has done a 12 fine job in establishing the key 13 parameters of the proposed low-sulfur 14 gasoline program. EPA's proposal very 15 appropriately and necessarily 16 establishes uniform, national, 17 year-round standards to sharply reduce 18 sulfur in gasoline, sets a gasoline 19 sulfur standard of 30 parts per million 20 on average, to take effect 2004, and 21 includes a sulfur cap of 80 parts per 22 million, includes flexibilities to 23 minimize the cost to and compliance 24 burden on affected parties, and 25 provides incentives for refiners to 22 1 reduce sulfur levels in gasoline prior 2 to the 2004 effective date. 3 Last spring, STAPPA and ALAPCO 4 conducted an analysis concluding that a 5 national low-sulfur gasoline program of 6 this scope will achieve overnight 7 emissions reductions that are 8 equivalent to taking 54 million 9 vehicles off the road. Further, 10 throughout the debate surrounding 11 gasoline sulfur, the issue of a 12 national versus regional program has 13 been paramount. We are gratified the 14 EPA has proposed that the low-sulfur 15 gasoline standards apply uniformly 16 nationwide. This approach will 17 forestall the very real and detrimental 18 impacts of irreversible catalyst 19 poisoning and will do so in a way that 20 is both inexpensive and cost-effective. 21 It is absolutely essential that EPA 22 preserve these provisions, as well as 23 the proposed effective day of 2004. 24 As we indicated regarding the 25 Tier 2 standards, while we are 23 1 extremely pleased with the framework 2 and key elements of the gasoline and 3 sulfur proposal, there are some 4 provisions that are of considerable 5 concern to us. For example, we 6 strongly support the 80 parts per 7 million cap on sulfur, but we believe 8 the agency's proposal to phase in this 9 cap is excessive. Further, state and 10 local air agencies recognize that the 11 current NSR program is in need of 12 streamlining and are working with EPA 13 and other stakeholders to reform NSR. 14 However, we find some of the potential 15 NSR streamlining options identified in 16 this proposal to be problematic. 17 Again, we will discuss these concerns 18 in detail in our forthcoming written 19 comments. 20 And before I conclude, I would 21 like to congratulate EPA for 22 recognizing the need to reduce sulfur 23 in diesel fuel and for issuing the 24 advance -- and its consideration of 25 improvements in diesel fuel quality and 24 1 seeking comments on the merits of that. 2 We wholeheartedly agree that 3 this is an imperative issue. Our 4 commitment is summarized in a 5 resolution that was passed this year 6 and is in the written comments that I 7 have. 8 So in conclusion, STAPPA and 9 ALAPCO applaud you for seizing the 10 opportunity to take this huge step 11 forward in achieving much cleaner air. 12 We commend your thorough process and we 13 most of all consider your leadership in 14 providing fundamentally strong programs 15 that are technologically feasable, 16 cost-effective and environmentally 17 responsible. On behalf of our 18 associations, I offer you our continued 19 cooperation and our partnership as you 20 move ahead. 21 MS. OGE: Thank you. 22 Ms. Mardock, good morning. 23 MS. MARDOCK: Hi. My name is 24 Jayne Mardock, and I am the director of 25 the Clean Air Network, and before I 25 1 start my formal comments about the Tier 2 2 regulations, I would just like to 3 report what I heard yesterday at a 4 press conference in Washington, that 5 Ohio is now leading the country for 6 ozone violations. They had 181 7 violations of the standard since the 8 beginning of the ozone season and have 9 had 12 days of unhealthy air and it's 10 very -- just to put into context why we 11 need, why we need cleaner cars is 12 because we still have a serious dirty 13 air problem. 14 And, in fact, there have been a 15 number of counties that have even 16 violated the one-hour standard. 17 Delaware County had a 154 reading of 18 the one-hour standard on June the 10th. 19 In addition, Butler, Lucas, Miami, 20 Lake, Montgomery and Stark Counties 21 have also had violations of the 22 one-hour standard. In fact, they have 23 had more violations of the one-hour 24 standard than many of the areas that 25 currently are out of attainment of the 26 1 one-hour standard. So certainly there 2 is a reason to continue to go forward. 3 I am here today to deliver 4 testimony on behalf of 20 organizations 5 that could not be present today but 6 would like to elicit their support and 7 also raise concerns about the Tier 2 8 proposal. The Network will be 9 submitting more detailed comments at 10 the end of the docket comment period, 11 but would like to take this opportunity 12 to highlight several key issues. 13 First, we would like to applaud 14 EPA for issuing such a strong proposal. 15 We are pleased that several elements 16 were included in the proposal and call 17 on EPA to retain these elements in 18 their final rule. 19 Number one, we applaud EPA for 20 taking an integrated approach to 21 tailpipe and fuel impacts on emissions. 22 By looking at the whole system involved 23 in passenger vehicle emissions 24 including fuels, the proposal was able 25 to take advantage of additional 27 1 technology to make tailpipe emissions 2 even cleaner. The U.S. leads the world 3 in stringent tailpipe standards, yet is 4 lagging behind most of the 5 industrialized world in cleaning up the 6 fuels that are burned in passenger 7 vehicles. Dirty fuel prevents the use 8 of the most advanced catalysts and 9 could block the use of other advanced 10 systems, such as fuel cells and 11 hybrids. Low-sulfur fuel will also 12 have an immediate positive effect on 13 air quality with the existing cars on 14 the road, achieving clean air quality 15 improvements in the near term. 16 We are pleased that all 17 passenger cars and trucks will 18 eventually be integrated into one 19 system. In 1998, light-duty truck 20 sales, including sport utility 21 vehicles, minivans and pickup trucks, 22 exceeded new passenger car sales for 23 the first time. While exemptions for 24 large trucks may have been more 25 justified in the past because they were 28 1 used for heavy hauling and they were 2 also fairly limited in use, these 3 vehicles have become the mainstay of 4 most families as passenger vehicles, 5 and they should be treated as such in 6 the future. The American public wants 7 consistent standards. A recent poll by 8 the American Lung Association found 9 that 91 percent of the public agreed 10 that SUVs and minivans should be 11 required to meet the same standards as 12 passenger cars. Even minivan and SUV 13 owners agreed with this. We are 14 pleased that EPA is moving forward to 15 make all passenger vehicles, regardless 16 of size and weight, meet the same 17 standards. 18 We are pleased that the fuel 19 neutral standards allow the cleanest 20 fuels to get the extra credit. EPA has 21 proposed a system that will allow fuels 22 that are significantly cleaner than 23 gasoline to get the credit for being 24 cleaner by setting certification BINS 25 that are well below the fleet average. 29 1 This will provide incentive for more 2 hybrid and cleaner fueled cars to come 3 to market. While we are concerned that 4 the highest BINS may allow for 5 increased diesel vehicles, we are 6 pleased that EPA did not set a separate 7 standard for diesel fueled cars and 8 passenger trucks. 9 Overall, we feel that this rule 10 will significantly reduce auto 11 pollution while remaining 12 cost-effective. EPA estimates that the 13 Tier 2 proposal, combined with the low 14 sulfur fuel requirements, will have an 15 emissions effect of taking 166 million 16 cars off the road when the proposal is 17 fully implemented. This is quite 18 significant considering that there are 19 only about 207 million cars on the road 20 today, only being quite an 21 understatement. But EPA's cost 22 estimates are also reasonable. 23 Increasing the cost of a new vehicle 24 from 100 to $200 with an incremental 25 fuel cost over the life of the car of 30 1 $100 makes it possible for consumers to 2 pay for these improvements. In 3 addition, there are significant 4 benefits to our health and environment 5 from this proposal that far outweigh 6 the costs. 7 We do, however, have concerns 8 about the proposal and think that they 9 can be followed -- can be strengthened 10 in the following ways. 11 Number one, we think that there 12 is too much lead time for the biggest 13 and dirtiest trucks. While we 14 understand that the fleet of vehicles 15 between 6,000 and 8,500 pounds are 16 fairly small, it is also one of the 17 fastest growing segments of new vehicle 18 sales. In the past ten years SUVs have 19 grown, the sale of SUVs has grown 20 tenfold and emit three to five times 21 what a passenger car emits today 22 according to a report by the U.S. 23 Public Interest Research Group. While 24 we acknowledge it will be a challenge 25 to reduce emissions from these 31 1 vehicles, waiting ten years from today 2 for them to, for them to become 3 integrated into the system is just too 4 long. These vehicles are the biggest 5 and the dirtiest and they should be 6 fully integrated into the Tier 2 7 program by at least 2007. 8 We feel that there is too much 9 flexibility in the fleet average, 10 especially the ability to carry over a 11 deficit fleet average. While we 12 support the concept of a fleet average 13 and understand that banking and trading 14 may be necessary to meet the average, 15 we believe that there is sufficient 16 flexibility in the program to prohibit 17 auto makers to carry a deficit into the 18 next model year. EPA has provided 19 ample flexibility by providing seven 20 certification BINS to average the 21 fleet, banking of early credits and 22 trading among auto manufacturers. The 23 auto makers can either evaluate their 24 fleets to reduce emissions or can buy 25 credits from another manufacturer that 32 1 have cleaned up beyond their 2 obligations. EPA should prohibit an 3 auto maker from carrying a deficit of 4 its fleet average into the following 5 model year so that we are assured clean 6 air benefits from year to year. 7 We believe that the phase-in 8 program, phase-in period for low-sulfur 9 fuel is too long. EPA, auto 10 manufacturers, state agencies and 11 environmental groups have been united 12 in the fact that low-sulfur fuel is 13 needed and that it will allow, it will 14 promote advanced technology in addition 15 to achieving immediate air quality 16 benefits with the existing fleet of 17 cars on the road. For this reason, we 18 are very concerned that EPA is taking 19 too long to phase in the low-sulfur 20 gasoline program, and we remain very 21 concerned with the banking and trading 22 program that allows a per gallon level 23 of sulfur to be as high as 300 parts 24 per million in the early years of the 25 program. Sulfur can permanently damage 33 1 the catalyst, especially the most 2 sensitive new technology. If auto 3 makers begin using these technologies 4 in 2004, consumers must be able to 5 protect their investment by knowing 6 that the fuel that they use in their 7 car will not damage it. While small 8 refiners may need additional help to 9 reach low-sulfur targets, we are 10 concerned about the very long lead-time 11 that would allow for the continued sale 12 of dirty fuel. 13 Finally, we believe that the 14 top BIN allowed by EPA allows too much 15 pollution. We are concerned that the 16 top BIN has been developed to allow 17 auto makers to manufacturer more 18 diesel-powered vehicles and the biggest 19 and dirtiest sport utility vehicles and 20 trucks. While we understand that there 21 may be positive consequences through 22 the fleet average requirement in the 23 form of more cleaner vehicles, we 24 remain very concerned about the health 25 and environmental impacts associated 34 1 with diesel. EPA is concluding a study 2 finding that diesel exhaust is 200 3 times more toxic than previously 4 believed and it's also a major concern 5 outlined in EPA's urban air toxic 6 strategy. The top BIN is almost three 7 times dirtier than the NOx average and 8 it should be either eliminated or it 9 should be tightened. 10 In conclusion, these 20 11 organizations want to thank EPA for the 12 opportunity to express our support for 13 the Tier 2 proposal and suggest ways it 14 can be strengthened to make it more 15 equitable and increase the health and 16 environmental benefits of the program. 17 On the whole, this proposal is a 18 significant step forward in cleaning up 19 auto pollution, and we give great 20 credit for proposing, to EPA for 21 proposing a program that will leave a 22 cleaner legacy for our children. 23 Once again thank you for 24 letting me share this testimony on 25 behalf of the following 35 1 representatives: In California, the 2 Environmental Defense Center, the 3 Desert Citizens Against Pollution, 4 California Communities Against Toxics; 5 in Illinois, the American Lung 6 Association of Metropolitan Chicago; in 7 Indiana, Valley Watch, Hoosier 8 Environmental Council; and in Kentucky, 9 the Kentucky Resources Council; in 10 Minnesota, the Clean Water Action 11 Alliance; in New Hampshire, the 12 Appalachian Mountain Club; in New 13 Jersey, the New Jersey Environmental 14 Lobby; in New York, the Clean Air Task 15 Force; in North Carolina, Appalachian 16 Voices; in Maine, the Natural Resources 17 Council of Maine; in Ohio and Oregon, 18 the Sierra Club; in Pennsylvania, the 19 Clean Air Council and the Sierra Club 20 Allegheny Group; in Utah, the Wasatch 21 County Clean Air Coalition; in 22 Washington, the Coalition for Clean Air 23 in Washington; in Washington, D.C., the 24 Campaign on Auto Pollution and 20/20 25 Vision. 36 1 MS. OGE: Thank you. 2 Mr. Babik, good morning. 3 MR. BABIK: Good morning. 4 Thank you. I am Robert Babik, director 5 of environmental programs at the 6 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, 7 Coalition of Light Car/Truck Makers, 8 which include BMW, Daimler Chrysler, 9 Fiat, Ford, General Motors, Mazda, 10 Nissan, Toyota, Volkswagon and Volvo, 11 more than 642,000 employees in the 12 United States, 255 manufacturing 13 facilities in 33 states, Alliance 14 members represent more than 90 percent 15 of U.S. vehicle sales. 16 The automobile manufacturing 17 industry has done more than any other 18 industry in reducing emissions and we 19 are proud of our record. Our 20 commitment is evident in our voluntary 21 initiative in national low-emissions 22 vehicle programs where we are already 23 producing vehicles sooner than EPA can 24 require by law. 25 The auto makers are stepping up 37 1 to the plate to accomplish the Tier 2 2 rules; however, auto makers cannot do 3 it by ourselves. Much cleaner fuels 4 are needed to make this program work. 5 EPA has an opportunity to clear the 6 path for future advanced technology 7 vehicles and the ultra clean fuels 8 needed to power them. 9 The Alliance fully supports the 10 air quality goals of the rulemakers. 11 In fact, the Alliance has put forth a 12 proposal that can achieve even greater 13 emissions reductions than the EPA's 14 proposal. We are very close on most 15 issues. Our proposal will propel us 16 into the next century with the cleanest 17 fleet of vehicles in the world further 18 reducing emissions of both passenger 19 cars and light-duty trucks to near 20 negligible levels. 21 Like the EPA, the Alliance 22 proposal goes beyond proven technology 23 and breaks new ground by requiring that 24 cars and light trucks meet the same 25 average NOx level and assures a 38 1 significant reduction of NOx emissions 2 more than would be achieved from the 3 EPA proposal. This is not a proposal 4 that says it can't be done or looks for 5 a free ride. It is a robust proposal 6 that recognizes our industry's 7 important role in helping the United 8 States reach the clean air goals. We 9 don't know yet how we will reach the 10 goals that we have set for ourselves in 11 our own proposal, but we are prepared 12 to take on the challenge. Can do is 13 our attitude. 14 I want to stress key elements 15 of our proposal today, elements that 16 must not get lost in the shuffle of 17 this remaining process, elements 18 necessary for Tier 2 to be a successful 19 role. 20 Element number one, first, we 21 need improved fuels including near zero 22 sulfur which will be needed to reach 23 the clean air goals. Fuels and autos 24 operate as one system. Near zero 25 sulfur fuels are needed to enable the 39 1 introduction of technology required to 2 meet the tough new standards. It makes 3 little sense to mandate the production 4 of world-class vehicles and then run 5 them on second-class fuels. 6 We applaud EPA's proposed 7 reduction in fuel sulfur levels to an 8 average of 30 parts per million as a 9 good first step toward the fuel quality 10 we need to reach our clean air goals. 11 This is the sulfur level that 12 California EPA has required since 1996. 13 Clearly the expansion of low-sulfur 14 fuel from a California-only program to 15 a nationwide program is long overdue, 16 along with California style volatility 17 control. 18 However, it is not enough to 19 stop there at 30 parts per million. On 20 the vehicle side the Tier 2 rule is a 21 very aggressive new program with 22 technology forcing standards comparable 23 to those that California had just 24 adopted late in 1998. Before this year 25 is out, it appears California will take 40 1 another major step toward near zero 2 sulfur fuel to accompany its aggressive 3 vehicle standards. We need to take 4 this critical second step at the 5 federal level as well recognizing that 6 30 part per million is not an end 7 point, but rather a stepping stone on 8 the way to near zero sulfur fuel. 9 Removing sulfur is both 10 feasible and affordable. The 11 technology for sulfur removal is 12 readily available and is in widespread 13 use in California, Japan, Europe and 14 other areas of the world. Recent 15 announcements show that members of the 16 refining industries are moving toward 17 low-sulfur fuels voluntarily. We need 18 to get the sulfur out nationwide. 19 Simply put, sulfur is the lead 20 of the '90s because of the way it 21 poisons the catalyst. Auto oil studies 22 have shown that catalysts subjected to 23 high sulfur experience a loss of 24 effectiveness that cannot be recovered 25 even after extended operation on 41 1 low-sulfur fuel. In other words, the 2 emissions benefits get cancelled out. 3 This is why a so-called regional fuel 4 program is unworkable because vehicles 5 traveling from a low-sulfur region to a 6 high-sulfur region will experience an 7 unavoidable degradation in the 8 performance of their emissions control 9 systems. 10 Sulfur removal is an essential 11 enabler for new emissions control 12 hardware in new power train systems. 13 Emissions technology such as NOx traps 14 may enable advanced technology vehicles 15 to achieve significant improvements in 16 fuel economy. 17 Fuel cell vehicles may attain 18 the as yet elusive goals of zero 19 emissions vehicles that may appeal to a 20 wide market. These and other promising 21 technologies are known to require near 22 zero sulfur fuels. We can either put 23 our heads in the sand and ignore this 24 fact or we can adopt regulations now to 25 ensure that the necessary fuel is in 42 1 place to allow technologies to begin to 2 appear in the marketplace. 3 Another important point is that 4 the auto makers need enough flexibility 5 in the time line to allow for the 6 invention of technologies necessary to 7 make EPA standards a reality. The 8 Alliance proposal agrees with EPA on 9 the end point of .07 grams per mile NOx 10 fleet emissions averages for both 11 passenger cars and light-duty trucks. 12 Getting there will take time and 13 require us to clear a number of 14 technological hurdles. 15 The introduction of the two 16 Tier 2 standards should be accomplished 17 in a two-phase approach set forth in 18 the Alliance proposal, one round of the 19 emissions reductions starting 2004, and 20 an even more aggressive reduction 21 starting in 2008 when hopefully near 22 zero sulfur fuels will be in place. 23 A third key point, independent 24 third party capability studies in 2004 25 is needed to make sure that we are 43 1 headed in the right direction and we 2 can achieve the goals set by EPA. The 3 study should be conducted by mutually 4 agreed upon experts to establish the 5 feasibility of a second wave of 6 emissions standards based on the 7 following four items: Five ppm max 8 sulfur fuels for both gas and diesel, 9 standards feasible for leading market 10 technologies for both gas and diesel, 11 standards that pose no anticompetitive 12 impact, and standards that are 13 cost-effective and affordable. 14 There is no downside for 15 planning for this sort of independent 16 review. None of us, not the EPA, and 17 certainly not the auto industry, can 18 foretell the future and know what 19 problems may develop, but such a 20 far-reaching technology course and 21 regulation if development is on track 22 to meet the Tier 2 standards, the 23 review process will just confirm this 24 fact and things will proceed as 25 planned. On the other hand, if major 44 1 unexpected problems are encountered 2 along the way, the review process will 3 give EPA an opportunity to make 4 mid-course directions. 5 Lastly, we want to make sure 6 that the final 2 Tier rule continues to 7 foster and not freeze out the 8 development and utilization of advanced 9 technology vehicles. The government 10 industry Partnership for New Generation 11 Vehicles, otherwise known as PNGV, has 12 determined that four stroke direct 13 injection is the most promising 14 near-term technology for meeting 15 dramatically increased fuel economy 16 goals within the next ten years. EPA 17 has concurred with this selection. 18 These lean-burn technologies, however, 19 do not achieve the level of NOx 20 controls needed to meet the very tight 21 standards, and the fleet average 22 requirement could actually restrict the 23 number of units that can be sold. The 24 catalyst for these technologies are 25 extremely sensitive to sulfur and their 45 1 efficiency degrades quickly without 2 near zero sulfur fuels. 3 EPA's proposal could 4 effectively prevent the fruits of the 5 PNGV program from being realized in the 6 U.S. The EPA rules should foster, not 7 freeze, advance fuel efficient 8 technologies out of the U.S. market. 9 And EPA can enhance the Tier 2 10 flexibility without incurring any loss 11 whatsoever of clean air benefits by 12 expanding the number of certification 13 BINS and encourage the advanced 14 technology vehicles with no down side 15 for the environment. 16 In conclusion, the Alliance 17 fully supports EPA's clean air rules. 18 We are in agreement on many fronts. 19 Yes, we feel some changes are needed to 20 make the rule workable, but we are 21 confident by working together with the 22 EPA and other interested parties that 23 these issues can be worked out. 24 However, we cannot do this alone. As 25 our industry steps up to the plate with 46 1 cleaner and cleaner vehicles, we need 2 our colleagues in the oil industries to 3 do their part by providing cleaner and 4 cleaner fuels. Only by combining 5 world-class vehicles with world-class 6 fuels can we realize our full potential 7 and ensure that future generations will 8 not only have the cleanest possible 9 air, but also a robust transportation 10 and energy industry trying compete in 11 the 21st century. 12 I would like to take this 13 opportunity also to thank EPA for their 14 efforts regarding the hearings. They 15 have taken the daunting task of 16 coordinating a tremendous amount of 17 speakers over the past four hearings 18 and they've done it well and we just 19 want to let them know their efforts are 20 appreciated. And that concludes my 21 prepared statement. 22 Thank you. 23 MS. OGE: Thank you. We are 24 not going to have a fifth hearing. 25 Thank you. 47 1 Ms. Simpson, good morning. 2 MS. SIMPSON: Good morning. My 3 name is Amy Simpson. I'm the state 4 director of the Ohio Public Interest 5 Research Group or Ohio PIRG. Ohio PIRG 6 is a statewide consumer and 7 environmental advocacy group, about 8 10,000 members across the state, and I 9 greatly appreciate the opportunity to 10 speak to you today on this important 11 and timely issue. 12 Over the past two weeks 13 Cleveland has had a record number of 14 what we call ozone action days. Day 15 after day we were warned to stay 16 indoors if possible, asked to avoid 17 driving, mowing our lawns and using our 18 barbecues. Over and over these 19 activities were blamed for the smog 20 which hung around the city like a noose 21 causing healthy people to choke and 22 cough as we tried to cope in the 23 suffocating heat. It was much worse 24 for the thousands of people who suffer 25 from asthma. These people became 48 1 virtual prisoners in their 2 air-conditioned homes. This is no way 3 to live. 4 But this is just the beginning. 5 If this summer is like the summer of 6 1998, we can expect frequent and 7 widespread violations of the federal 8 health standard for smog, not just in 9 Cleveland, but throughout the country. 10 Last year the standards were violated 11 5200 times in 40 states, and Ohio is 12 423 times. What this means for people 13 living in these areas is that they 14 could experience declining lung 15 function as a result of breathing air 16 in their, breathing the air in their 17 communities. For normal, healthy 18 adults it can mean not working or not 19 exercising outdoors and over time lung 20 tissue damage that can be irreversible. 21 For children, the elderly and those 22 with asthma, high smog days means 23 missing work or school, not playing 24 outdoors with friends, hospital 25 emergency room visits for asthma 49 1 attacks, increased susceptibility to 2 infections and also serious 3 exacerbation of preexisting heart and 4 respiratory disease. 5 Therefore, new standards 6 requiring clean cars and clean gasoline 7 are not just a good idea, but they are 8 absolutely essential for protection of 9 public health. Automobiles are the 10 single largest source of smog-forming 11 pollution creating nearly a third of 12 the nitrogen oxide that causes smog 13 formation. While today's cars are 14 cleaner than those of two decades ago, 15 Americans drive more miles per year 16 than ever before. In 1998, we drove in 17 excess of 2.2 trillion, that's trillion 18 miles, more than double the miles we 19 drove in 1970. In addition, Americans 20 are driving bigger and more polluting 21 vehicles than ever before with nearly 22 half of the new cars sold being what we 23 call light trucks, these of which can 24 pollute up to three times more than a 25 car. 50 1 Together the proposed Tier 2 2 standards and gasoline sulfur standards 3 comprise a strong integrated approach 4 to reducing pollution from automobiles. 5 There are many aspects of this program 6 which we applaud, and I'll describe 7 some of those below. I'll also 8 describe several important ways in 9 which we believe the Tier 2 program 10 should be strengthened to prevent 11 unnecessary delays or complication in 12 implementation and to avoid 13 exacerbating existing loopholes for 14 bigger and dirtier automobiles. 15 First, we applaud the overall 16 significant reductions in pollution 17 from the average automobile that will 18 be realized through the Tier 2 program. 19 The .07 grams per mile average standard 20 for nitrogen oxide based on 122000 mile 21 useful life is approximately 89 percent 22 cleaner than the Tier 1 standard of .06 23 per mile based on 100,000 mile useful 24 life. It's clear that while the 25 standard is aggressive, the technology 51 1 to meet this standard is available. 2 Additionally, this program will also 3 harmonize federal clean air standards 4 with those adopted in California. 5 Second, we agree with the U.S. 6 EPA that the popular sport utility 7 vehicles must be treated no differently 8 for pollution purposes than cars. 9 There is no longer an expectation that 10 SUVs will be work trucks. We all know 11 this. On the contrary, they are widely 12 acknowledged to be the station wagon of 13 the '90s rarely used for any purpose 14 more taxing than taking the family to 15 the grocery store or to soccer 16 practice. The justification for 17 allowing SUVs to pollute more is an 18 artifact and new standards should 19 simply reflect the new role SUVs play 20 in our society. 21 Third, we agree that a 22 nationwide sulfur standard should be 23 adopted to prevent poisoning of 24 sophisticated new pollution control 25 equipment. The automobile and the fuel 52 1 should be treated as a single system 2 and EPA has appropriately proposed that 3 new car standards should be accompanied 4 by clean gasoline. Moreover, we 5 strongly believe that nationwide, 6 rather than regional, gasoline 7 standards are critical to success of 8 the Tier 2 program. As Americans we 9 enjoy the ability to drive from state 10 to state, and as consumers we would 11 absolutely be outraged to have dirty 12 gasoline damage our cars. 13 More importantly, we had air 14 quality problems across the nation with 15 violation of the health standard for 16 smog in 40 states last year. Contrary 17 to recent testimony from the American 18 Petroleum Institute which suggested 19 that many regions do not have air 20 quality problems so that this standard 21 would provide no benefit to those 22 regions, we strongly believe that there 23 is no region that would not benefit 24 from clean fuels. 25 Oil industry representatives 53 1 have argued stridently for a slower 2 pace and schedule for clean gasoline 3 and increased flexibility for small 4 refiners. We believe U.S. EPA's 5 proposal strikes an appropriate balance 6 between achieving necessary pollution 7 reductions and allowing the industry 8 ample time and flexibility to meet 9 those standards. U.S. EPA allows the 10 industry to use an averaging system to 11 meet the standards and allows the 12 refiners to use credit from early 13 reductions to meet those standards. 14 U.S. EPA also allows less strident caps 15 in the first two years and allows small 16 refiners to meet less stringent 17 standards through the year 2007. More 18 flexibility than this is unwarranted 19 and it would result in an 20 unenforceable, ineffective program. In 21 fact, we believe that U.S. EPA's 22 proposed gasoline sulfur standards 23 allows too much time to pass between 24 significant air pollution benefits that 25 can be expected. 54 1 In 2001 auto makers will begin 2 nationwide marketing of low-emissions 3 vehicles under the national 4 low-emissions vehicle program. The 5 effectiveness of emissions control 6 technology used in these vehicles will 7 be compromised by the sulfur that will 8 remain at high levels until 2004 9 through 2006 under EPA's proposal. 10 Moreover, EPA's proposal will allow 11 gasoline containing sulfur at levels up 12 to 300 parts per million to be sold in 13 2004, the year that the Tier 2 14 standards take effect. Again, the 15 technological advances made in these 16 vehicles will be undermined by the use 17 of high-sulfur fuel in 2004 and 2005. 18 A better approach we believe will be 19 begin phasing in clean gasoline earlier 20 so that most, if not all, gasolines 21 sold in 2004 are clean. 22 Now, while a strong first step, 23 EPA's Tier 2 proposal should be 24 strengthened before it becomes final 25 later this year. And I'll highlight 55 1 three important changes that we believe 2 should be made to avoid complication, 3 delay and the continuation of 4 undesirable loopholes in automobile 5 pollution regulations. 6 First, EPA proposed allowing 7 SUVs weighing between 6,000 and 8,500 8 pounds an extra two years before the 9 Tier 2 car standards apply. There is 10 significant and growing numbers of 11 these larger SUVs on the market, 12 including the ambiguous Ford 13 Expedition, the Dodge Ram and the 14 Lincoln Navigator. EPA's proposal 15 gives these models until 2009, a full 16 decade from now before their exemption 17 to clean air standards expires. The 18 manufacturers of emissions control 19 equipment have already shown that a 20 heavy SUV weighing 6,400 pounds can be 21 designed to meet the Tier 2 standards 22 today. We believe that special 23 standards for larger SUVs should expire 24 immediately. 25 Secondly, U.S. EPA's proposal 56 1 does not address pollution from the 2 largest and dirtiest SUVs of all, those 3 over 8,500 pounds. The number of these 4 super SUVs is rapidly increasing like 5 the Ford Excursion entering the market 6 to compete with the Chevy Suburban. By 7 not including these models in the Tier 8 2 program, EPA is giving auto 9 manufacturers effectively an incentive 10 to aggressively develope even larger 11 SUVs. We believe that the Tier 2 12 standards should apply the same .O7 NOx 13 standards to all classes of passenger 14 vehicles including those over 8,500 15 pounds. 16 Third, U.S. EPA's proposal will 17 allow the proliferation of diesel 18 vehicles, the pollution from which 19 poses very real health threats. A 20 growing body of research shows that 21 diesel exhaust has particularly severe 22 health impacts. Smaller particles in 23 diesel pollution are associated with 24 greater risk of premature death. 25 Moreover, studies repeatedly show a 57 1 link between diesel pollution and 2 cancer causing the State of California 3 to list diesel pollution as a human 4 carcinogen. The highest bend in a 5 proposed averaging scheme is designed 6 specifically to allow for more 7 diesel-powered vehicles which will 8 continue to emit more toxic pollution 9 than gasoline car vehicles. The State 10 of California considered and 11 specifically rejected a similar 12 provision to protect its citizens from 13 the carcinogenic nature of the exhaust. 14 EPA should similarly remove the highest 15 bend in the averaging scheme. 16 In closing, I would like to say 17 that here in Cleveland we are really 18 tired of poor air quality. We are 19 tired of week-long ozone alerts. We 20 are tired of being told to not exercise 21 outdoors. We are tired of being asked 22 to stop mowing our lawns and stop using 23 our barbecues and it's time we stop 24 trifling, we stop gap measures and 25 Band-Aid solutions and started dealing 58 1 with real sources of air pollution in 2 our city, in our state and in our 3 country. These standards are an 4 absolutely critical step in doing so. 5 We deserve better air quality and EPA's 6 proposal will help get us what we 7 deserve, air we can live with. 8 Again, I would like to thank 9 the U.S. EPA for allowing me this 10 opportunity to comment on the proposed 11 Tier 2 gasoline and sulfur standards 12 and especially want to thank the 13 organizers again of this event for 14 their gracious flexibility in dealing 15 with citizen testimony. 16 MS. OGE: Thank you. 17 I would like to thank all of 18 you for taking the time this morning to 19 come and share your views on this very 20 important program. We will take both 21 your written and oral comments into 22 consideration as we are moving forward 23 to finalize the rule by the end of the 24 year. Thank you very much. 25 We are honored this morning to 59 1 have a number of local citizens that 2 have asked to testify, and as I call 3 your names please come forward. Anjali 4 Mather, Cheryl Ray, Miss Mary Hoffman, 5 Dawn Sunday, Chris Trepal, Mr. Adam 6 Zeller. 7 MS. OGE: What we will do is 8 break this group into two panels. 9 Could you please print your 10 names on the paper in front of you. 11 There is a seat there. 12 If you can fold it like that. 13 Great. 14 Miss Mather, we'll start with 15 you. Good morning. 16 MS. MATHER: Good morning. 17 Thank you for giving me this 18 opportunity to be here, and I'm 19 thankful to U.S. EPA for doing this 20 because I strongly believe that a civic 21 engagement is the promise of free life 22 and a division of democracy. 23 I'm Anjali Mather and I'm a 24 resident of Cleveland Heights, and I'm 25 really pleased to see these efforts, 60 1 EPA's efforts towards cleaner fuels and 2 vehicles in the proposed Tier 2 motor 3 vehicle emissions standards and 4 gasoline sulfur control requirements. 5 These efforts should be viewed not as a 6 measure to further an 7 environmentalist's compulsive dream, 8 but as a more visible need for a 9 healthy community. A significant 10 reduction in NOx emissions requiring 11 new cars and light truck to emit 80 12 percent less smog creating pollution 13 and reducing smog to healthy levels in 14 20 percent of the areas at risk can 15 only mean cleaner air for children when 16 25,000 children suffer from asthma in 17 Cuyahoga County. Nationally more than 18 5 million children are affected by 19 asthma today. The number of children 20 with asthma has doubled in the last 15 21 years. There has been a threefold 22 increase in the number of deaths in 23 children from asthma between 1977 and 24 1995. Over 10 million missed school 25 days from asthma are reported every 61 1 year. And more than 25 percent of the 2 nation's children live in areas that do 3 not meet national air quality 4 standards. 5 Also, according to a 1998 6 report of the American Academy of 7 Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, 8 children are more vulnerable because 9 their airways and narrower and they 10 also breathe more rapidly inhaling more 11 pollutant per pound of body weight than 12 adults. 13 American Academy of Pediatrics 14 has also pointed out that damage to the 15 respiratory tract occurs in children 16 upon exposure to ground level ozone and 17 repeated exposures may result in 18 persistent bronchial hyper 19 responsiveness. Increased chronic 20 cough, chest tightness, bronchitis, 21 hospital admissions for various 22 respiratory illnesses and decreased 23 lung function have been correlated with 24 ozone in epidemiological studies. The 25 symptoms were significantly higher in 62 1 children with asthma and wheezing. 2 Both experimental and epidemiological 3 data provide grounds for concern about 4 chronic lung damage from repeated 5 exposures to ozone which is the primary 6 constituent of smog. 7 Against this backdrop, while 8 EPA's efforts are a crucial first step 9 in the right direction, I urge EPA to 10 make bigger strides towards cleaner air 11 by setting shorter time lines and 12 allowing less phase-in time for both 13 cleaner cars and fuels. I do not want 14 to see my children reduced to saying I 15 breathe, therefore I am. 16 Thank you. 17 MS. OGE: Thank you. 18 Miss Hoffman, good morning. 19 MS. HOFFMAN: Good morning. My 20 name is Mary Hoffman. I'm here to 21 represent the Blackford Audubon Society 22 which is a chapter of the National 23 Audubon Society. We have 670 members 24 and we are located here in northeast 25 Ohio. Audubon is an organization that 63 1 is interested in birds and preserving 2 wildlife habitat, but our recognition 3 of what that means goes far beyond 4 taking and leading bird walks. What 5 affects wildlife and bird habitat will 6 also affect people. This was well 7 demonstrated years ago when canaries 8 were taken into mines to test the 9 purity. Our measurement techniques and 10 control abilities for air quality are 11 far more sophisticated now, but the 12 concept of relating wildlife and human 13 well-being still mains the same. 14 The U.S. EPA is to be commended 15 for proposing a level of pollution 16 controls on the fuels in cars that are 17 the subject of these hearings. They're 18 a good step and they are also long 19 overdue. 20 It's interesting one response 21 of the automotive industry was reported 22 in the Cleveland Plain Dealer yesterday 23 and that article quoted a Ford Motor 24 Company policy director saying that 25 they will meet the goals that EPA sets. 64 1 And it was interesting to hear Mr. 2 Babik today in representing the 3 Alliance proposing also a very positive 4 approach of the automotive industry to 5 these EPA goals. That attitude is 6 certainly a welcome change. So it's up 7 to us, the general public, to make sure 8 that these final goals remain good, 9 that the needed additions are made, and 10 you've already heard some suggestions 11 on those, that they be timely and that 12 they do not get watered down in the 13 process. 14 Of direct interest to Audubon 15 and our goals of protecting the 16 habitat, both of wildlife and people, 17 are the need to cut emissions that 18 contribute to global warming and to 19 reduce the overall demand and usage of 20 oil products, primarily automotive 21 fuel. We all recognize that global 22 warming is occurring and that it 23 affects our climate. That in turn can 24 affect much in our lives from crop 25 harvest, flooding, to wildlife and bird 65 1 habitat. Emissions from our uses of 2 automotive fuel is a significant 3 component of global warming, and we all 4 know we have the ability to reduce that 5 trend for more stringent application of 6 standards such as those proposed here. 7 We should go further than these 8 proposals, as you have also heard 9 suggested from Amy Simpson. They 10 include all SUVs, especially those very 11 large ones, in these standards. Global 12 warming does not recognize which SUV 13 contributed to pollution. 14 Increased fuel efficiency would 15 also reduce the overall pollution 16 level, plus it would slow down the 17 demand for imported and domestic oil. 18 The engineering efforts to reduce the 19 polluting emissions from cars should 20 include making cars more efficient as 21 well. We import over half of our oil 22 from foreign sources. The oil industry 23 has made consistent demands that we 24 explore and drill for oil in parts of 25 our country that are very susceptible 66 1 to damage from this industrialization. 2 We also have a response from 3 the American Petroleum Industry also 4 reported in that Plain Dealer article 5 yesterday that their response to these 6 EPA goals, and I quote, quote the 7 article, "unnecessarily costly and 8 impose costs on Americans who wouldn't 9 benefit," suggest that this is the same 10 old can't do attitude that has 11 prevented progress in the past. 12 And some of you remember 13 similar comments made several decades 14 ago. Some of you probably were not 15 here at that time, but I certainly 16 remember when fuel efficiency and 17 pollution controls were first being 18 proposed back in the late '60s or late 19 '70s. You can probably put a better 20 date on it than I can. The public 21 wanted then and we still want now to 22 have vehicles that get us to where we 23 need to go and not foul our air while 24 doing it. At that time there were dire 25 predictions that we would all be forced 67 1 into driving small, no frills shells of 2 cars. The industry did not seem to 3 trust themselves at that time to 4 engineer or design cars to meet these 5 essential and inevitable changes, but 6 the foreign competition did as you 7 recall. The Japanese entered the 8 market, supplied the public demand and 9 our American industry is playing 10 catch-up ever since then. The comments 11 reported by the Ford representative, 12 these EPA proposals on pollution are a 13 welcome change and we'll be watching to 14 see the results. 15 The protection of natural 16 resources in this country are a goal of 17 the National Audubon Society. We are 18 especially concerned with those places 19 threatened by oil exploration and 20 production such as the Arctic National 21 Wildlife Refuge. Wholes of the 22 American people say that protection of 23 these places, the wildlife habitat, the 24 wilderness values, the culture of the 25 native people who use them are in the 68 1 national interest. Improving the fuel 2 efficiency of all of our vehicles, 3 especially those increasingly popular 4 SUVs, will help protect these places. 5 It's estimated that a modest increase 6 of fuel economy standards of only 2 7 percent a year would yield oil savings 8 in fair greater amounts than that 9 projected available from the refuge. 10 So I would suggest that the automotive 11 industry and oil industry would do well 12 to realize that they can design and 13 produce the most efficient and cleanest 14 cars in the world and that the buying 15 public would respond to that. 16 So I would thank the U.S. EPA 17 for their ability to put on this 18 hearing. I know it's been a tremendous 19 job in doing so and we appreciate the 20 opportunity. 21 MS. OGE: Thank you. 22 Miss Ray, good morning. 23 MS. RAY: Good morning. My 24 name is Cheryl Ray. As a citizen I 25 really appreciate this opportunity to 69 1 have input at this hearing on this very 2 important issue. 3 I wish to voice my support for 4 cleaner air and for the U.S. EPA 5 decision to cut auto pollution. As a 6 parent, I am very concerned about the 7 health impacts of air pollution on my 8 children. As a minivan owner I was 9 both surprised and disappointed to find 10 out that my family minivan can pollute 11 two to three more times than my 12 passenger car. I hope that in the 13 future there will be cleaner options 14 when it's time to shop for our next 15 family car so that we can stop this 16 excess and extra air pollution. 17 This proposal is a big step in 18 the right direction, but there are 19 three things that need to be improved 20 before the rule becomes final. First 21 of all, all passenger vehicles, 22 including minivans and SUVs, need to 23 meet the same standards at the same 24 time. Larger SUVs should not be given 25 extra time to be clean. 70 1 Secondly, there should be no 2 special breaks for dirty diesel 3 vehicles. 4 And, finally, the EPA should do 5 more to help get advanced technology 6 vehicles on the road. Wouldn't it be 7 great if some day we could buy that 8 type of vehicle right here in 9 Cleveland. We need the strongest 10 regulations possible for, to control 11 auto pollution. 12 Thank you again for your 13 leadership on this issue. 14 MS. OGE: Thank you. 15 Miss Sunday, good morning. 16 MS. SUNDAY: Good morning. My 17 name is Dawn Sunday and I'm a resident 18 of Bedford, Ohio and I thank you for 19 this opportunity today. 20 As a citizen I am very pleased 21 that the EPA is making efforts to bring 22 about a cleaner and healthier 23 environment through Tier 2. Although 24 Tier 2 is a step towards protecting 25 people's health and improving all of 71 1 our quality of life, I have doubts that 2 the regulations set in Tier 2 are 3 sufficient. 4 Since there is a great need to 5 improve the quality of the air; 117 6 million people do not have access to 7 clean air. We can't buy clean air as 8 we can go out and buy water. So I'm 9 here today to ask the EPA to set those 10 standards that can help me, my family 11 and all of us to have clean air. We 12 don't have an option to the air that we 13 breath. 5,500,000 children daily 14 struggle with asthma, and there are 15 over 150,000 hospitalizations yearly, 16 and this is all due to dirty air. Why 17 should we settle for standards that do 18 not bring about the best improvements 19 possible? 20 I want to thank the EPA for 21 their efforts, but I also want to urge 22 the EPA to set the standards for all 23 passenger vehicles. SUVs and light 24 trucks need to have the same emissions 25 standards as cars. Tier 2 also needs 72 1 to set shorter phase-in allowances for 2 all vehicles. 3 Since the means and technology 4 to attain much cleaner air exists, I 5 ask the EPA to set standards that bring 6 about the highest quality attainable. 7 Thanks. 8 MS. OGE: Thank you. 9 I believe Mr., is it Mr. Chris 10 Trepal at the end, or Miss. Good 11 morning. 12 MS. TREPAL: Hi. My name is 13 Chris Trepal, and thank you very much 14 for the opportunity to testify. 15 I believe air pollution is a 16 real problem here in northeast Ohio. 17 Dirty air has a huge price tag in 18 health care costs and our quality of 19 life. As was mentioned earlier, last 20 week we had an unprecedented week long 21 of ozone action days. Several of the 22 monitors in our community are already 23 recording average one-hour ozone 24 concentrations of over 100 parts per 25 billion. Warnings were given to stay 73 1 indoors to sensitive populations like 2 our asthmatics, people with respiratory 3 concerns, children and adults who are 4 active outdoors, the elderly and people 5 who are sensitive to ozone. 6 Do we really want to raise our 7 children to seek shelter and protection 8 indoors and to reduce physical 9 activities on summer days, their 10 vacation days? Should we have to train 11 our families to ask the question if the 12 air is safe to breathe and to question 13 even if they should be going outside at 14 all? Is this a good way to enter the 15 new millennium? Scientists have found 16 that about one out of every three 17 people in the U.S. is at higher risk of 18 experiencing ozone-related health 19 effects. A recent edition of the 20 American Journal of Respiratory and 21 Critical Care Medicine cited a study 22 that says long-term exposure air 23 pollution, even at very low levels, is 24 associated with higher prevalences of 25 respiratory symptoms, even something as 74 1 simple as breathlessness when you are 2 outside talking a walk in the summer. 3 Fortunately, there is a 4 solution, and I'm really happy to be 5 here today to support the proposed plan 6 to clean up fuels and vehicles, 7 especially vehicles like sport utility 8 vehicles. I also own a minivan like 9 one of the other folks here today and 10 it distresses me to have to drive it. 11 Vehicles like minivans and SUVs are 12 being used as passenger vehicles and 13 they must do their part along with 14 other automobiles to reduce air 15 pollution. The Tier 2 proposal must 16 adopt the strongest possible 17 regulations for our autos. 18 However, I feel the time line 19 should be expedited. Waiting ten years 20 to clean up SUVs and other passenger 21 vehicles is way too along. All 22 vehicles should be required to meet the 23 standards at the same time. It really 24 makes no sense to allow the heaviest 25 vehicles to receive any kind of special 75 1 treatment. 2 Diesel-powered vehicles should 3 not be allowed to pollute more than 4 their counterparts who use gasoline. 5 All vehicles, regardless of fuel 6 preference, should be required to 7 contribute to clean air. If diesel 8 vehicles are being given special 9 treatment, then, of course, we are 10 going to see more diesel vehicles on 11 the road creating more particulate air 12 pollution and smog-forming nitrogen 13 oxide. 14 Finally, the proposed sulfur 15 reductions in gasoline should be 16 implemented by all refiners as soon as 17 possible. Sulfur actually impedes the 18 effectiveness of our catalytic 19 converters, thereby limiting the very 20 devices that are supposed to reduce 21 tailpipe pollution. And the small 22 increase that is predicted is well 23 worth the clean air benefits. 24 In summary, I applaud the 25 proposal to cut pollution and really to 76 1 safe lives and people's quality of 2 life. People who want to do the right 3 thing by purchasing cleaner vehicles 4 and fuels need to have that choice now. 5 Just like the promotion of 6 energy-efficient appliances, the public 7 needs to know how are vehicles and our 8 fuel choices protect and affect our 9 environment. Our new automobiles and 10 vehicles can and must do our part to 11 keep our kids healthy. 12 Thank you. 13 MS. OGE: I want to thank all 14 of you on behalf of all my colleagues 15 here at EPA and specifically thanks to 16 you for taking time from your schedule 17 and your daily activities to come and 18 share your views with us. Thank you 19 very much. 20 MS. MARTIN: We have another 21 panel. I'll ask them to come up. I'll 22 read the next names and if the 23 following people will come up. I think 24 we can bring another chair behind the 25 table as well. Adam Zeller, Ken Mavek, 77 1 Linda Robinson, Laurel Hopwood, Angie 2 Farleigh, Jane Miller and Pam Mason. 3 If there is not room enough at the 4 table, we'll just try to rotate people 5 in. But if those of you can grab a 6 seat and fill out your name on one of 7 the cards and place it in front of you, 8 that would be terrific. 9 Mr. Zeller, would you please 10 begin. 11 MR. ZELLER: My name is Adam 12 Zeller. I'm from Southington, Ohio. 13 And before I begin, I would like to 14 thank the EPA for the opportunity to 15 come down here and speak. 16 The automobile and oil 17 industries would like us to believe 18 that since they are composed of private 19 businesses they don't need government 20 regulations. They would like us to 21 think that as private corporations that 22 the government should not meddle with 23 their production process. When the 24 government announces new standards for 25 automobiles such as cleaner emissions 78 1 or gas, industry complains about 2 reduced profits, unnecessary expense 3 and reduced competitiveness. 4 But what the industry needs to 5 realize is that it owes these standards 6 to the public. The government has paid 7 over 83 billion dollars to construct 8 over 42,500 miles of interstate 9 highways. It will spend millions this 10 year paving roads, widening lanes and 11 constructing interchanges. Government 12 has subsidized the bulldozing of 13 neighborhoods in both Detroit and 14 Toledo for the construction of Dymler 15 Chrysler and General Motors facilities. 16 Such is the government's commitment to 17 these industries that it sponsored a 18 war to protect them. 19 Without such subsidies, the 20 automobile and oil industry as we know 21 it would not exist. We could have 22 subsidized rail or bus transportation, 23 but instead we chose automobiles. 24 Partially because of this General 25 Motors has posted a 2.1 billion dollar 79 1 profits for this year's first quarter. 2 Ford has posted 1.8 billion dollars. 3 Both companies say that they are 4 committed to protecting the 5 environment. GM has said, "We are 6 fully dedicated to protecting human 7 health, natural resources, and the 8 global environment; reaching beyond 9 compliance with the law to create and 10 implement sound environmental 11 practices." 12 Obviously the relationship 13 between industry, the public and 14 government is a symbiotic one. 15 Industry provides the products, the 16 public purchases it, and the government 17 ensures that it's safe. Any policy 18 which harms any of these groups hurts 19 the other two. Therefore, it is 20 crucial that any new relations benefit 21 not only the industry, but the public 22 as well. The proposed Tier 2 23 regulations will benefit the public. 24 Emissions from mobile sources account 25 for 46 percent of the airborne 80 1 carcinogens in Cuyahoga County. Child 2 asthma rates often associated with 3 airborne pollution has increased 75 4 percent since the early '80s. 5 Ground-level ozone according to the EPA 6 can be the cause of up to 25 percent of 7 emergency room visits during the 8 summer. Certainly then our current air 9 standards are hurting the public and 10 need to be changed as the proposed Tier 11 2 standards say. It is not in the 12 industry's interest to have their 13 customers spending money on hospital 14 visits and asthma inhalers. Of course, 15 this is not in the public's or 16 government's interest either. These 17 standards will benefit everyone, even 18 if the industry doesn't acknowledge 19 that. That needs to be the bottom 20 line. That is what EPA needs to 21 consider. We have supported the 22 automobile and oil industries for 23 decades and now it is time that they 24 support us. The government and the 25 public have allowed industry to make 81 1 billions of dollars over the years. 2 Now we deserve something back. 3 Thank you very much. 4 MS. MARTIN: Thank you. 5 Miss Robinson. 6 MS. ROBINSON: I'm Dr. Linda 7 Robinson. I live in South Euclid, 8 which is a near suburb of the City of 9 Cleveland. I'm a professional 10 sociologist. I am here, however, as an 11 individual. And I want to make some 12 three really simple points and they 13 have to do with people. I have a 14 78-year-old aunt with emphysema who 15 couldn't leave her apartment any day 16 last week. This included rescheduling 17 a dentist appointment which cost other 18 people time and money, and the idea 19 that somebody I know and love is 20 imprisoned in an apartment frequently 21 because of ozone warnings in this 22 county is becoming intolerable. 23 And there is another point. 24 I'm a perfectly healthy person whose 25 only adult problems have been sinus 82 1 infections and arthritis as I age, and 2 for the first time in my life last week 3 having canvassed for ten years door to 4 door for Ohio Citizen Action, Friday 5 came around and I couldn't canvass 6 because I couldn't lift my legs anymore 7 having walked around all week under 8 those ozone warnings in Pepper Pike, 9 which is a far suburb of Cleveland with 10 lots of trees and lots of grass and 11 theoretically the air is as filtered 12 there as it is going to be. And it hit 13 me that it wasn't my arthritis and it 14 wasn't tiredness at the end of the 15 week. It was the fact that the 16 warnings about the ozone leve