[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE UNDERLYING SCIENCE
AND IMPACTS OF GLIDER TRUCK REGULATIONS
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT &
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 13, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-73
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
32-514 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BILL POSEY, Florida AMI BERA, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana JERRY McNERNEY, California
GARY PALMER, Alabama ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida PAUL TONKO, New York
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona BILL FOSTER, Illinois
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas MARK TAKANO, California
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Environment
HON. ANDY BIGGS, Arizona, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon, Ranking
BILL POSEY, Florida Member
MO BROOKS, Alabama COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
BRIAN BABIN, Texas CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
GARY PALMER, Alabama EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Oversight
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana, Chair
BILL POSEY, Florida DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia,
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky Ranking Member
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas JERRY McNERNEY, California
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
September 13, 2018
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Andy Biggs, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 4
Written Statement............................................ 6
Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamic, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Ralph Lee Abraham, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Statement by Representative Donald S. Beyer, Jr., Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 19
Written Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 21
Witnesses:
Ms. Linda Tsang, Legislative Attorney, Congressional Research
Service
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 26
Mr. Collin Long, Director of Government Affairs, Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association
Oral Statement............................................... 36
Written Statement............................................ 38
Dr. Paul J. Miller, Deputy Director & Chief Scientist, Northeast
States for Coordinated Air Use Management
Oral Statement............................................... 44
Written Statement............................................ 46
Dr. Richard B. Belzer, Independent Consultant in Regulation,
Risk, Economics & Information Quality
Oral Statement............................................... 58
Written Statement............................................ 60
Discussion....................................................... 73
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Paul J. Miller, Deputy Director & Chief Scientist, Northeast
States for Coordinated Air Use Management...................... 148
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Document submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 152
EXAMINING THE UNDERLYING SCIENCE
AND IMPACTS OF GLIDER TRUCK REGULATIONS
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment and
Subcommittee on Oversight,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Andy Biggs
[Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Biggs. Good morning. Welcome to today's joint
subcommittee hearing titled ``Examining the Underlying Science
and Impact of Glider Truck Regulations.'' Today, we will learn
about glider trucks and the lack of sound science underlying
the regulations in this industry.
For those who may not be familiar, a glider truck is a
vehicle comprised of a newly constructed chassis, frame, and
cab combined with a remanufactured engine and transmission
system from an older vehicle, broadly speaking. In October
2016, Obama's EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration issued a rule requiring glider vehicles to meet
the emissions standards for the year in which the vehicle is
assembled, rather than the year in which the engine was
manufactured.
Recognizing that this rule, which was slated to take full
effect in January 2018, would have devastated the emerging
glider kit industry, the Trump Administration wisely pursued
corrective action. In August of 2017, then EPA Administrator
Pruitt stated an intention to repeal the 2016 glider rule,
which EPA officially proposed on November 16, 2017.
Four days later, on November 20, 2017, the National Vehicle
and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) quietly published a study
on gliders without notifying EPA leadership. It turns out that
Volvo, which had previously supported efforts to increase
glider regulations, began secretly working with the NVFEL in
September of 2017 to conduct this study. This study itself
surprised me that it was a very small-end study in that there
were only two vehicles studied.
In July of this year, Members of this Committee sent a
letter to Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler asking for
documents relating to this study. Materials obtained by the
Committee clearly show that Volvo, a regulated entity,
initiated conversations with EPA employees in the NVFEL in an
apparent effort to shape the outcome of the study by specifying
test articles to use and laying out the schedule on which the
test program should be conducted.
The NVFEL only consulted with Volvo and failed to reach out
to glider manufacturers for the study. Furthermore, the NVFEL
based its results on a small and inadequate sample size, only
testing two glider trucks that were provided indeed by Volvo.
These facts call into question the integrity of the study.
The other disturbing fact about the NVFEL study is the
timing and manner in which it was performed. Completing this
study in November 2017, more than a year after the original
rule became final and just two weeks before the public hearing
on the proposed repeal of that 2016 rule, is highly suspect.
Not informing anybody in EPA leadership about the study before,
during, or after it was completed is also concerning. These
circumstances demonstrate that there was no scientific
foundation for the 2016 rule in the first place and indicates a
clear intent to undermine the current Administration's policy.
Accordingly, it is clear that the 2016 glider rule was
politically driven. It makes no sense to require that gliders
comply with standards of the year these trucks are assembled.
It only serves to hurt small business and help large truck
manufacturers.
It also discourages the development of innovative
technology that help small businesses compete. Gliders salvage
older-model engines to create a truck that is affordable,
reliable, and safe. Instead of throwing out older vehicle parts
and creating more industrial waste, gliders allow old parts to
be updated, recycled, and reused. To disregard the benefits of
such innovation is an affront to hardworking Americans who rely
on these trucks to make a living.
Now is not the time to prevent creativity that could help
sustain the trucking industry and our economy. Gliders allow
for such innovation. Gliders reduce maintenance expenses, have
better fuel efficiency, and cost about 25 percent less than a
new truck. These benefits and cost savings allow small
companies to allocate funds elsewhere, such as increasing
salaries and hiring more drivers.
The science that underlies our regulations and policy
should be unbiased and should consider all applicable
parameters. This means doing the research and hearing from
those who understand the industry the best. If the 2016 rule is
not repealed, then we are setting a precedent for issuing
harmful regulations without any proper scientific foundation.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today to learn
more about this important issue.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Biggs follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Biggs. And I now recognize the Ranking Member of
the Environment Subcommittee, Ms. Bonamici, for an opening
statement.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to our witnesses.
The negative effects of air pollution on respiratory health
are well-documented. Exposure to criteria pollutants such as
particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, or NOx, can lead to the
exacerbation of respiratory diseases, including asthma, that
can have devastating effects, especially on children and the
elderly.
The Environmental Protection Agency has found that more
than half of the NOx emissions inventory in the United States
are from the transportation sector, which is why standards
limiting criteria pollutant emissions from heavy-duty trucks is
key to fulfilling the EPA's mission of protecting public health
and the environment. Commonsense regulations like the phase 2
rule for greenhouse gas emissions standards for heavy-duty
vehicles exemplify what happens when the Federal Government
works collaboratively with regulated industries to create
standards that are economically achievable, technically
feasible, and protective of public health, something that some
members of the Majority seem to suggest is impossible.
I expect that some of today's witnesses will argue that
glider manufacturers have the right to petition the EPA to
reopen the phase 2 rule provisions relating to gliders, which
they do, but it should be noted that no glider manufacturer
brought challenges in court following the publication of the
final phase 2 rule in 2016. Instead, they waited to lobby an
industry-friendly Administration to repeal the glider
provisions to benefit their bottom line at the cost of public
health.
Some glider manufacturers claim that using a rebuilt engine
and a glider vehicle can save on the greenhouse emissions
produced in the steelmaking process, but make no mistake, these
one-time emissions savings are insignificant compared with the
total lifetime emissions from glider engines without emission
controls.
The EPA has estimated that restricting the use of high-
polluting engines in 10,000 glider vehicles over the lifetime
of those vehicles would prevent the emission of up to 400,000
tons of NOx and 6,800 tons of particulate matter and prevent up
to 1,600 premature deaths. The fact that so much pollution and
so many premature deaths can be traced directly to the
manufacture and sale of glider trucks without modern-day
emission controls is revealing. Allowing this level of
unchecked pollution on our roadways undercuts the progress made
in cleaning up diesel engines in the past and is quite frankly
irresponsible, especially when we have a solution available to
us: using engines that meet current emissions stand standards
in glider trucks.
Also, we are nearly two years into this Administration and
once again we find ourselves at a hearing that's attacking an
existing EPA rule and study without a witness from the EPA to
explain and defend it, but I submit that there is no reason to
doubt the glider emissions study from the EPA's National
Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
The Majority only seeks to highlight it because the results are
at odds with the glider emissions studies--study from Tennessee
Tech University that was used to justify the proposed repeal of
the glider rule.
It is very important to note that the Tennessee Tech study
is currently undergoing an internal research misconduct
investigation. In fact, the Principal Investigator of the
Tennessee Tech study has not only removed his name from the
study but also returned his portion of the funding he received
from Fitzgerald Glider Kits to conduct it. It is unclear why
the Majority has shown no interest in this study, although it
may be because they know that they may not like what they find.
Colleagues, this hearing should not distract us from the
main issue at hand. Repealing glider truck provisions based on
one questionable industry-funded study would have severe
consequences for public health. It is also important to note
that the effects of repealing these provisions go beyond public
health with many members of the trucking industry standing
alongside environmental and public health groups in opposition
to the proposed repeal.
There are many opportunities for legitimate oversight
within the jurisdiction of this committee, yet my colleagues
across the aisle seem determined to prop up special interest
groups most often at the expense of public health. Today's
hearing on glider truck regulations is another example. Even
though Chairman Smith and some of his colleagues have made
accusations of collusion between the EPA and Volvo, no
representatives from either the EPA or Volvo were invited as
witnesses today.
I also want to note that, when preparing for this hearing,
Minority staff reached out to the EPA to receive a briefing on
the agency's glider emissions study under discussion today. The
EPA told the staff that the request would not be granted. We
are being throttled from conducting legitimate oversight not
only by the Majority but also by this Administration.
I look forward to hearing the testimony from Dr. Paul
Miller, who can address legitimate concerns surrounding the
proposed repeal of these glider provisions and describe the
real-world consequences for States and the public if the
production and sale of glider trucks without modern emissions
controls are allowed to proliferate unchecked.
And with that, I yield back the balance of my time. Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Biggs. Thank you.
I now recognize the Chair of the Oversight Subcommittee,
Dr. Abraham, for an opening statement.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And good morning, and
welcome to today's hearing. The Chairman's already defined what
a glider kit is, and it does cost 25 percent than a brand new
rig.
So really the purpose of today's hearing is twofold. We
will examine the economic effects of the Obama Administration's
greenhouse gas emissions regulation which, among other things,
proposed a cap production of glider trucks. We will also
address the integrity of a study on glider truck emissions
conducted by the EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions
Laboratory (NVFEL) in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Documents provided
through FOIA and committee requests raise serious questions
about the impartiality of the 2017 EPA study.
Historically, the Science Committee has worked hard to
ensure that when regulations are necessary, they are based on
sound science. Under Chairman Smith, the Committee has also
worked to level the playing field and ensure that the EPA
treats all parties fairly. In the case of glider trucks, there
are red flags surrounding the NVFEL study.
The Committee obtained emails showing that one particular
manufacturer had an inside track to EPA and, in fact, provided
the glider trucks--trucks they did not manufacture--to EPA for
testing. And I'll get into the details of the EPA study with my
questions further in the hearing. But from the outset the
conflict of interest raises questions about the study's
credibility.
Relying on a flawed study in this case is particularly
alarming since the proposed regulation will have dire
consequences for the glider truck industry. Thousands of
independent truckers--all smart businesses--across America rely
on glider trucks as an affordable option for their trucking
operation. In my district alone there are 883 independent
truckers, many of whom drive gliders. For me, this is a jobs
issue. We should not allow the heavy hand of the Federal
Government to come down and crush an entire industry,
especially absent a rock-solid scientific reason for doing so,
which appears to be lacking in this case. In addition to the
individual truckers, the manufacturers of glider kits would be
put out of business, killing even more jobs.
At the request of many of my colleagues, the EPA Inspector
General has agreed to review the propriety of the study, and we
look forward to the results of his review. We have joining us
witnesses today that are experts on regulatory law. I look
forward to hearing from that testimony.
And I want to briefly address the regulatory steps EPA has
taken in this instance and assure everyone that, contrary to
the picture painted by the media in the headlines such as,
quote, ``Scott Pruitt Gave Dirty Glider Trucks a Gift on his
Last Day at EPA,'' unquote, or, quote, ``Super Polluting Trucks
Receive Loophole on Pruitt's Last Day,'' unquote, EPA does not
appear to have done anything out of the ordinary in this case.
According to the administration law experts, agencies routinely
take the similar steps EPA took with regard to glider trucks.
Agencies have broad discretion about which regulations to
enforce.
What actually was out of the ordinary was the Obama
Administration's failure to conduct a study on glider truck
emissions prior to proposing the phase 2 greenhouse gas rule.
More work needs to be done to understand the impact of gliders
on the environment. Many experts argue that using
remanufactured parts over the lifetime of the trucks actually
has a positive environmental impact.
I look forward to hearing our witnesses' opinions on the
environmental issue. More work is needed in this area. We
cannot simply rely on EPA's studies in this instance.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Abraham follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Abraham. And I yield my remaining time to Mr. Posey.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In 2016, the Chinese-owned Volvo Trucks and its
affiliates----
Chairman Biggs. Your microphone, please?
Mr. Posey. In 2016, the Chinese-owned Volvo Trucks and its
affiliates lobbied the EPA to secure a cap and prohibition on
glider trucks in the phase 2 rule. The previous
Administration's EPA never tested or studied gliders before
finalizing the rule. This would eliminate the business
operations of several American-owned glider assemblies.
In 2017, the Administration sought to roll back this
burdensome cap and prohibition regulation. After EPA put forth
a notice of intent to revisit phase 2 rule regulated by glider
trucks, Volvo contacted career employees at EPA's National
Vehicle Fuel Emissions Laboratory to propose the idea of
studying gliders.
Incredibly, foreign-owned Volvo told the National Vehicle
Fuel Emissions Laboratory how and when they would like the
testing performed against the American industry. It paid for
and procured the gliders to be tested. They told the laboratory
what was ideal from a testing perspective and wanted to create
an emissions test that would show gliders to be super-
polluting. For example, one of the trucks applied by Volvo had
its engine check light illuminated and the other had an entire
chamber full of oil in the harness.
Furthermore, the agency used a biodiesel fuel instead of
the mandated ultralow sulfur diesel fuel according to the EPA.
Ultra-low sulfur diesel eliminates up to 95 percent of all
emissions. This test was performed unbeknownst to the
Administrator's knowledge.
Gliders serve America's small businesses, transportation
fleets, family farms and ranches, and independent owner
operations. Foreign-owned Volvo has put out a narrative that
gliders are a threat----
Chairman Biggs. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Posey. --to the environment. However, the hypocritical
Volvo operates an entire plant in Sweden that remanufactures
diesel truck engines. They even tout the environmental benefits
of these engines. Volvo cannot have it both ways. They're
either a threat to the environment----
Chairman Biggs. The gentleman's----
Mr. Posey. --or a net benefit.
Chairman Biggs. --time is expired.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Biggs. Sorry. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the distinguished Chairman of the
Oversight Subcommittee--or, excuse me, Ranking Member, sorry,
Ranking Member--let's get that right--of the Oversight
Subcommittee, Mr. Beyer, for an opening statement.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. And thank
you, Chairman Abraham. Thank you, Chairman Biggs.
You know, the Majority may portray this issue as one of big
business versus small business since independent glider
manufacturers constitute the main opposition to these glider
regulations. I am a small-business person myself, so I'm
sympathetic to the challenges that small businesses face.
But for the sake of transparency, Volvo Cars, I have been a
Volvo dealer since 1974. We own three Volvo dealerships. It's a
complete distinct entity from Volvo Group, which sells the
trucks and the construction equipment. They split off in 1999,
so I'm not involved at all.
By the way, Volvo Cars is owned by the Chinese. It was
owned by Ford Motor Company for a number of years, which is why
so many Fords look like Volvo chassis, but they sold Volvo Cars
to the Chinese. The Volvo Trucks, not a Chinese company. It is
a Swedish company. It is foreign-owned, but it's not Chinese.
By the way, they are made in Dublin, Virginia, so one of
the major manufacturers in my State. Very few of them are
imported. They're mostly made here in the United States.
Our clean air, the public health should not be jeopardized
in order to protect any business, large or small. Glider trucks
are new trucks powered by remanufactured heavily polluting
engines that are not up to today's standards. And former EPA
Administrator Pruitt's attempts to repeal the glider
regulations would endanger the public health in significant and
well-documented ways, and that's why the American Lung
Association, the American Medical Association, many other
health associations all oppose the Pruitt EPA attempts to
repeal the glider regulations.
And though companies like Fitzgerald Glider Kits may
describe themselves as a small business, they really have an
outsized influence on this debate. They held a rally for
candidate Donald Trump. They met with former EPA Administrator
Pruitt. They generated multiple Congressional letters.
The Majority's chosen to focus solely on discrediting one
glider emissions study performed at EPA's National Vehicle Fuel
Emissions Laboratory, but as my colleague Ms. Bonamici has
said, the Majority did not invite an EPA witness today, and the
EPA even refused to brief the Minority staff when it was asked.
So EPA's refusal leaves us in the dark about the very issues at
the center of this proposed repeal, including a questionable
Tennessee Tech University study that was funded by Fitzgerald
Glider Kits, which Pruitt EPA relied on in its efforts to
repeal the glider regulations. So you have essentially the fox
guarding the hen house.
In January 2018, the study's Principal Investigator was so
concerned about his integrity that he removed his name, he
returned the $70,000 that Fitzgerald paid. In February 2018,
the President of Tennessee Tech wrote to the EPA informing that
the study was undergoing an internal scientific misconduct
review and requesting that the EPA not use or even reference
the study until the conclusion of that investigation.
In May of 2018, the EPA's Science Advisory Board authorized
a review of the Pruitt glider rule, reporting that the
supporting science lacks transparency regarding the source of
and basis for data and failed to take into account its own
study that demonstrated significantly higher vehicle emissions
from gliders than from trucks. And the Office of Management and
Budget has reportedly told the EPA that Pruitt's proposed
glider repeal rule is incomplete because it lacks a regulatory
impact analysis.
But today, the Majority's likely to focus on the rulemaking
procedures as opposed to public health. Fortunately, we have
Dr. Miller, Deputy Director and Chief Scientist of the
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management is here
today to help us understand the environmental and health
consequences of unregulated glider production.
We hold this hearing as Hurricane Florence is bearing down
on the Carolinas. In the past year we've seen extreme weather
events from huge forest fires in California that we recognized
on the House Floor yesterday, a massive hurricane in Puerto
Rico, and devastated communities nationwide. And evidence shows
overwhelmingly that climate change has intensified these
extreme weather events, leading to evermore destruction, and I
really hope that one day this committee can explore the
scientific evidence behind such events rather than ignoring the
facts.
I'm one of I believe six automobile dealers in the U.S.
House I think. I'm the only certified automobile mechanic in
the U.S. Congress. And as I've come to understand the glider
rule, I wondered what if I took a new Volvo body or Subaru body
or Mazda body and put an old pre-engine control engine into it?
It would be a lot cheaper. It would be a lot more affordable
for a lot of people, but the impact--what if every new car
dealer and manufacturer just simply retrofit old pre-emissions
controlled engines into the new bodies they had today? That's
exactly what we're dealing with with the glider issue. It's a
way of completely undercutting all the progress we've made in
clean air from automobile emissions, and I hope that we will
resist it.
Thank you, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beyer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[The prepared statement of Ranking Member Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Beyer.
I want to recognize we have a new Member of this Committee,
and so I welcome Representative Troy Balderson. He's not sure
whether to say thank you or not. He's kind of--I don't blame
you.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you,
everyone.
Chairman Biggs. We're glad to have you as a member of the
Science Committee. Representative Balderson represents Ohio's
12th District and was sworn into the House last week. He's a
former farmer and businessman. Representative Balderson also
served as a member of the Ohio State Senate and the State House
of Representatives before joining us here in the House of
Representatives. And I hope all of you will join me in
welcoming Troy. We look forward to working with you.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you very much, Chairman.
[Applause.]
Chairman Biggs. Before I introduce our witnesses, I note
that Mr. Todd Spencer, the President of Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association, was scheduled to be on our
panel today but had to withdraw at the last minute to attend to
a family matter in Missouri. Thankfully, Mr. Collin Long from
the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association was able to
be here in his place. Thank you, Mr. Long, for your quick
accommodation. We wish the best to Mr. Spencer.
Now, I'm going to introduce our witnesses. Our first
witness today is Ms. Linda Tsang. She's a Legislative Attorney
for the Congressional Research Service and has been in that
role since 2016. Ms. Tsang previously worked at the EPA as a
Rule Manager Environmental Engineer from 2000 to 2004. She
became the Director of Climate and Air Quality at the American
Forest and Paper Association and was in that position from 2013
to 2016.
She holds a bachelor's degree from Massachusetts Institute
of Technology in environmental engineering and a juris doctor
from the Vermont Law School. Thank you for joining us today.
Our second witness is Mr. Collin Long, Director of
Government Affairs at the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association. Mr. Long previously worked for Congressman Charles
Dent in a variety of roles from 2005 to 2012 and went to work
for the Portland Cement Association from 2012 to 2016. His
bachelor's degree is from Syracuse University.
Our next witness is Dr. Paul J. Miller, Deputy Director and
Chief Scientist at the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management. He previously worked at NESCAUM from 1995 to 1999
as a Senior Science and Policy Advisor. Dr. Miller then went to
the Commission on Environment Cooperation as an Air Quality
Program Coordinator from 1999 to 2005.
Dr. Miller holds a bachelor's degree in chemistry from
Purdue University, a doctorate in chemical physics from Yale,
and a J.D. from Stanford University. Glad to have you with us,
Dr. Miller.
Our final witness is Dr. Richard Belzer, an independent
consultant in the regulation, risk, economics, and information
quality sector. Dr. Belzer worked as a staff economist at the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the U.S.
Office of Management and Budget from 1988 to 1998. He was also
a visiting professor of public policy at Washington University
in St. Louis before consulting.
He received a master's degree in agricultural economics
from UC Davis in 1980. Dr. Belzer also received a master's in
public policy from the Harvard Kennedy School in 1982 and his
doctorate in public policy from Harvard University in 1989.
I now recognize Ms. Tsang for five minutes to present her
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MS. LINDA TSANG,
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY,
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
Ms. Tsang. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Biggs,
Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Bonamici, Ranking Member
Beyer, and Members of the Subcommittees. My name is Linda
Tsang. I'm a Legislative Attorney in the American Law Division
of the Congressional Research Service. Thank you for inviting
me this morning to testify on behalf of CRS. I will be
addressing the rulemaking process EPA used to adopt the
emissions standards for glider vehicles, engines, and kits and
the process EPA is using to repeal them.
While there may be a number of legal, policy, and science
questions related to these rulemakings, my testimony this
morning focuses on the legal requirements related to the
rulemaking process. While the Administrative Procedure Act
generally governs agency rulemaking, Congress established
procedures in section 307(d) of the Clean Air Act that apply to
the regulation of new motor vehicle emissions. These procedures
require EPA, among other things, to provide public notice and
comment on the proposed rule. EPA must also describe the basis
and purpose of the rule, factual data, legal interpretations,
policy considerations, and other supporting information. The
final rule must also respond to significant comments and
identify any changes to the rule since the proposal.
Operating under these specific rulemaking requirements, in
2016, EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, known commonly as NHTSA, jointly published the
second phase of greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency
standards for medium and heavy-duty trucks and engines. In
addition to setting greenhouse gas emissions standards in the
phase 2 rule, EPA finalized requirements for glider kits,
engines, and vehicles. EPA defines a glider kit as a chassis
for tractor-trailer with a frame, front axle, interior and
exterior cab, and brakes. It becomes a glider vehicle when an
engine, transmission, and rear axle are added.
Beyond the Clean Air Act rulemaking requirements, EPA must
comply with various statutes and executive orders on
rulemaking. For example, to comply with Executive Order 12866,
which addresses the Administration's review of agency
regulations, EPA and NHTSA developed a regulatory impact
analysis and submitted proposed and final versions of the rule
to the White House's Office of Management and Budget for
review. EPA also submitted its proposed repeal of the glider
provisions to OMB and has not yet submitted the final rule for
review.
In addition, EPA and NHTSA reviewed impacts of the phase 2
rule to small businesses to comply with the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. In the final phase 2 rule,
the agencies implemented some of the Small Business Advocacy
Review Panel's recommendations to reduce the regulatory burdens
on small businesses, including glider vehicle assemblers. For
the proposed repeal of the glider provisions, the EPA
Administrator certified the repeal would not have a significant
economic impact on small entities because it is a deregulatory
action.
EPA must also provide a notice of its proposed rules to its
Science Advisory Board. Congress directed EPA to establish the
SAB to provide scientific advice to the agency and to certain
congressional committees, including this one. For the phase 2
rule, the SAB concluded that the underlying science for the
rule did not merit further review. For the proposed repeal of
the glider provisions, the SAB decided this past July to review
the science supporting the proposed repeal, including review of
the emission rates related to glider vehicles.
To conclude, the Clean Air Act provides detailed procedures
that apply to both the phase 2 rule and EPA's proposed repeal
of the glider provisions in that rule. In addition, EPA must
also comply with the various statutes and executive orders
related to rulemaking.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'll be happy
to answer any questions at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tsang follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Biggs. Thank you so much.
And now I recognize Mr. Long for five minutes to present
his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. COLLIN LONG,
DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS,
OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Long. Chairman Biggs and Abraham, Ranking Member
Bonamici and Beyer, and Members of the Committee, thank you for
providing me the opportunity to testify today. As you heard, my
name is Collin Long. I'm the Director of Government affairs for
the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, which you
may have heard is called OOIDA. OOIDA represents more than
160,000 small-business truckers across the United States. That
comprises about 96 percent of the trucking industry.
OOIDA members have experienced firsthand how federal policy
changes can dramatically reshape our industry. Unfortunately,
these policies always place the heaviest burden on the men and
women who own small businesses and rarely benefit their
operations in terms of safety or economics. Too often,
Washington pursues regulations with little regard for the
practical implications or understanding of how they will affect
our members. The current discussion surrounding glider kits
perfectly encapsulates this problem.
Since 2002, federal emission reduction standards have
increased the cost of new trucks 50 and $70,000. As a result,
purchasing a new vehicle has become prohibitively expensive for
small-business owners. One of the ways our members can manage
their costs while operating at a high level of efficiency is
through the purchase of glider kits, which, as you've heard,
are about 25 percent less expensive.
A driver's livelihood depends upon a reliable vehicle that
rarely breaks down and can handle the demands of long-haul
trucking. Unfortunately, our members who have purchased new
trucks with the latest emission reduction technology have found
them to be incredibly unreliable. If a truck becomes a
liability by routinely being inoperable, the owner must absorb
the cost of lost productivity while also paying for the
necessary repairs.
Because of emissions requirements, today's new trucks also
utilize complicated and expensive technology, which requires
the expertise of specialized technicians with proprietary
machinery who are only found at authorized dealerships. Before
repairs even begin, owner-operators typically have to pay
hundreds of dollars just to have the problem diagnosed. For
some, the task of even finding an authorized dealer can be
challenging and expensive. Drivers typically purchase glider
kits with remanufactured engines because it allows them to
diagnose and repair mechanical issues without the need for a
technician or specialized equipment.
A glider kit's reliability extends beyond routine
maintenance, though, as fuel efficiency is either closely
matched or in some cases exceeds a new truck's. This is because
gliders are specifically designed to achieve the best per-
miles--excuse me the best miles-per-gallon performance
possible. The average long-haul trucker will drive anywhere
between 100 and 120,000 miles a year, meaning any improvement
to a vehicle's performance can have a significant impact on
overall fuel consumption. On average, each of our members
purchase over 19,000 gallons of fuel per year. An increase in
fuel efficiency by just one mile per gallon would save almost
3,000 gallons of diesel per truck.
While others will debate the environmental impacts
associated with emission reductions, we think it's important to
consider how the use of glider kits affects our industry's
consumption of fossil fuels. A substantial increase in glider
kit appeal has developed among OOIDA members in recent years.
In a 2018 survey of owner-operators, 14 percent of respondents
who plan to purchase a commercial motor vehicle in the next
several years favor glider kits, while only 12 percent
indicated they would buy an entirely new truck. These figures
illustrate a dramatic growth in the glider kit market, as in
2003, just three percent of our members indicated a preference
for gliders.
Chairman Biggs and Chairman Abraham, thank you again for
the opportunity to testify today. I hope I've been able to give
you a new perspective on why glider kits are so important to
small-business truckers. In my written testimony, I've included
the story of an OOIDA member who made the decision to purchase
glider kits as a means to save his business. These stories are
common among our members but are too often lost in this debate
or disregarded as anecdotal.
OOIDA appreciates the opportunity to explain why our
members support the EPA's proposal to reconsider the emission
requirement for glider kits. Exempting these vehicles from
phase 2 regulations will continue to provide small-business
truckers with affordable, reliable, and efficient options when
purchasing new or used trucks.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Long follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Biggs. Thank you.
I now recognize Dr. Miller for five minutes for his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. PAUL J. MILLER,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR & CHIEF SCIENTIST,
NORTHEAST STATES FOR COORDINATED AIR USE MANAGEMENT
Dr. Miller. Good morning. I thank the Chairs and the
Ranking Members and all the Members of these Subcommittees for
providing NESCAUM with the opportunity today to offer the
following comments on the science and impacts of glider kits on
air quality.
NESCAUM, by way of introduction, the Northeast States for
Coordinated Air Use Management, is a nonprofit regional
association of State air pollution control agencies in
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. And we provide at NESCAUM
policy and technical support to our State members for their air
quality and climate programs.
Our member State agencies have the primary responsibility
for developing strategies that will attain and maintain air
quality that is protective of public health and the environment
for their citizens and those living downwind in out-of-state
areas. NESCAUM and our member States strongly oppose a repeal
of emission requirements for glider kit trucks because of the
very serious harm to air quality and public health that will
occur if this loophole is reopened.
At its core, absolving new glider vehicles from complying
with current engine standards is inconsistent with the Clean
Air Act's primary purpose to protect and enhance the quality of
the Nation's air resources so as to promote public health and
welfare.
With over 42 million people in the Northeast, the New York
City metro region, and beyond, we still continue to have
episodes of poor air quality both for ground-level ozone, which
nitrogen oxides or NOx are primary contributors, and
particulate matter. And during severe events, the extent of
this can extend over 200,000 square miles across the Eastern
United States. Local and regional sources contribute to this
problem.
Diesel exhaust is a major source of particulate matter,
nitrogen oxides contribute to this, and it is responsible tens
of thousands of premature deaths, hospital admissions, and lost
work and school days in the United States annually. Diesel
particulate matter in exhaust has been linked to increased
cancer and noncancer health risks. Based on the science EPA
considers diesel exhaust a likely human carcinogen when
inhaled. The California Air Resources Board lists it as a known
carcinogen, as does the International Agency for Research on
Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization. Peer-reviewed
studies continue to strengthen the case that exposure to
particular matter at levels below current health standards is
damaging of public health.
In its 2016 phase 2 rulemaking, EPA correctly recognized
that while glider kits can have legitimate uses as powertrain--
sources of powertrain engines, salvaged from wrecked vehicles,
they have increasingly been marketed as so-called pre-emission
engines, in other words, engines that don't meet current
standards. We agree with EPA's original analysis and its more
recent 2017 glider kit emissions testing showing the
distinction between glider kits using 2002 and earlier engines
versus engines meeting current emissions standards.
EPA estimates for glider vehicles to meet the same NOx and
P.M. emission limits with current engine standards would reduce
190,000 tons per year of NOx and 5,000 tons per year of P.M.
emissions in 2025. That would grow to 319,000 tons per year of
NOx and 8,500 tons per year of particulate matter in 2040. The
reason this is important to our states is because of NOx
emissions, we continue to violate the ozone standards. NOx
emissions are the primary precursor pollutant to ozone. Ozone
is not directly emitted. And on-road highway diesel vehicles
are about 25 percent of our NOx emissions inventory causing our
ozone problem.
We cannot address our ozone problem without addressing
glider kits. Five thousand glider kits are the equivalent NOx
emissions of about 200,000 new vehicles meeting current engine
standards, so a relatively small portion of those engines,
those kits contribute disproportionately to our problems.
With regards to the testing, we believe that EPA's approach
is consistent with our own State approaches. They used an
accredited testing lab. They followed a standard regulatory
drive cycle. They provided data sets with transparent analysis.
They maintained rigorous quality assurance and quality control,
and they did the test in triplicate.
Comparing this--and working, by the way, with industry on
these testing programs is standard procedure with our States.
It's something that I think should be encouraged, and we
certainly don't see a problem with that. So this is not at odds
with what Assistant Administrator William Wehrum described in
the letter to this committee.
Contrast to Tennessee Tech, an uncredited facility owned by
a glider manufacturer, did not use a regulatory cycle--test
cycle, did not repeat test runs, did not report the actual
data, so it's a subjective analysis. It's a visual inspection
of a probe that's used by mechanics, not by our States in using
the comparative certification, and no NOx emissions data were
presented, so we have no idea actually of what the true results
were.
So with that, I conclude my statement, and I am happy to
take questions at the appropriate time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Miller follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Biggs. Thanks, Dr. Miller.
I now recognize Dr. Belzer for five minutes to present his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. RICHARD B. BELZER,
INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT IN REGULATION,
RISK, ECONOMICS & INFORMATION QUALITY
Dr. Belzer. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify concerning work I
conducted in May for Fitzgerald Glider Kits. This is a strawman
regulatory impact analysis for EPA's regulation rescinding the
glider provisions in what is being called the phase 2
greenhouse gas rule.
That work is my own work product. I performed it from start
to finish in about two weeks. Fitzgerald did not have the right
to approve it, and it is published as a working paper on my
website.
And I had to perform this because, normally, when we look
to the regulatory impact analysis for the phase 2 rule to find
the benefits and costs of rescinding a provision, one cannot do
that, however, because the phase 2 rule regulatory impact
analysis is significantly incomplete.
So I have four key points to make, and you'll see it on the
next slide there.
[Slide.]
Dr. Belzer. There are significant errors in EPA's analysis.
They came up with $238 billion in present value net social
benefits. They committed several errors, two I will mention.
First, they assume that companies that buy trucks are unable to
rationally account for fuel economy in their purchase
decisions. This is an astounding claim. Fuel is the largest
cost of operating a heavy-duty truck.
Second, EPA estimated that the phase 2 rule would send $66
billion in U.S. wealth to other countries, and they counted
these wealth transfers as benefits to Americans. This is an
elementary violation of accepted practice in benefit-cost
analysis. When you take these two errors out alone, you end up
with $26 billion in net present value costs for the phase 2
rule. This is shown on that slide in front of you.
EPA also did not analyze incremental benefits and costs of
banning gliders. Go on to the next slide, please.
[Slide.]
Dr. Belzer. The regulatory impact analysis is 1,100 pages
long. That's more than two reams of paper. In that, there is no
analysis of the benefits and costs of essentially banning
gliders from the heavy-duty truck market.
So what do you do? Well, you go to the preamble to the 2016
rule, and there you will see that EPA reports an estimate for
the benefits of it. The preamble is almost 800 pages long. This
part, surrounded by yellow highlighter, is the total sum of
their analysis of the benefits of regulating gliders.
So they didn't show their work, and since they didn't show
their work, nobody outside of EPA can actually replicate it. To
obtain their estimate, though, they also seem to have assumed
that every glider removed from the market is a new truck sold.
That makes no sense. Those who would purchase gliders can buy a
new truck. They could buy a used truck from a secondary market,
or they could retain an existing truck in service longer than
its planned lifetime.
Let's assume that new trucks have fewer emissions, lower
emissions than gliders. But it's likely that used trucks and
old trucks retained in service have higher emissions, so the
question is what is the net change in emissions? And the net
change in emissions from banning gliders could well be positive
and not the $6-14 billion that the EPA claims.
Now, my analysis shows how to estimate the environmental
benefits and costs. Go to the next slide, please.
[Slide.]
Dr. Belzer. And I don't have any data to estimate these net
benefits or costs because EPA didn't collect the data prior to
regulating gliders. But I can tell you what the condition would
be, and that's how you would go about it. What you're looking
for are emissions for all four types of vehicles, and you
weight them by their environmental impacts, and from that, you
try to estimate what proportion of gliders would be replaced by
new trucks. Policymakers can look at that and decide is that
reasonable or is that not?
It requires good data, objective data. Obtaining good
emissions data is challenging because it's really easy to get
bad data. You can tweak the emissions test or you can even more
easily, select trucks likely to test the way you want them to.
But it's important to have a sample that's large enough to
extrapolate to the market, and I don't know how large that
sample would have to be, but I do know that two is not the
optimal sample size.
I do know that it could be done better, and I think the
right way to go about this is actually to collaborate on a test
protocol, do the test together so that everybody is in
agreement that the tests are performed correctly and honestly.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Belzer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Biggs. Thank you. I thank all the witnesses for
their testimony today and again for being with us, and now it's
time for questions and I recognize myself for five minutes.
And I just want to clarify some points made by the minority
I disagree with about the Tennessee Tech study. This hearing is
not relying on the Tennessee Tech study quite frankly, and
you'll notice that none of us mentioned that except for on the
other side. We're not here to discuss that study or offer it as
proof of gliders being environmentally friendly. We're here to
examine the EPA study for which we have documents showing undue
influence from Volvo.
Furthermore, when then-Administrator Pruitt relied upon
Tennessee Tech study, it was the only glider study in existence
because EPA had not completed its study yet, let alone informed
the EPA leadership that a study was in progress. The mere fact
that there are two studies now at odds with one another, in
addition to questionable practices that indicate bias,
illustrates the need for more in-depth examination of this
issue, and that's what I think we are trying to get at today,
the need for more in-depth analysis.
I want to go to Mr. Long first. Can you please elaborate on
some of the issues facing the trucking industry today as far as
workforce shortage, business expenses--as far as those are
concerned?
Mr. Long. Sure, I'd love to. We contend there is no
shortage of drivers, but you've all been hearing there is.
There's a turnover problem because a lot of folks are unable to
remain in the business. And this is a typical reason why. Right
now, as I mentioned, our testimony includes a story of a
gentleman who owns a small business that's been in his family
since the 1960s, and he was faced with the problem of whether
or not to purchase new glider kits to remain in business or to
exit the trucking industry altogether, and that was because he
had purchased some new trucks with all the environmental
technology included, and they were so unreliable that they were
costing them tens of thousands of dollars a year and not only
in repairs, in lost productivity because they spent so much
time in the shop getting worked on. So he came up with the
decision to purchase gliders as an alternative because they
were much more reliable, and he was capable of maintaining the
better on his own.
So I would say regulation as a whole is driving a lot of
our members out of the industry. In this case, it's costs
driving them out of the industry. Certainly every regulation
comes with a cost, but in this one, it's taking away a reliable
alternative option for them to purchase a new truck.
Chairman Biggs. Thank you. Now, Dr. Belzer, I want to get
to your brief but very informative testimony. What--I mean,
you've suggested that there be more collaboration on the study.
I was surprised that it was what I would call an extreme small-
end study. What could have been done differently to produce
more transparency and eliminate what I view as bias? I mean,
every time you have a study, if you're conducting the
scientific method the way I was taught, you want to eliminate
bias as much as possible. How would we do that here?
Dr. Belzer. Well, I should first say I'm not an engineer,
so I would hesitate to attempt to devise the protocol, but what
needs to be done is a protocol needs to be agreed upon by EPA
and the various different stakeholders in industry. There
should be a way of agreeing on how to do this properly, and
that would include all the different elements of the test, and
it doesn't sound like there's a great deal of controversy about
what those should be. It would also include a sample size and a
procedure for selecting trucks for the sampling. Remember what
you're doing is you're extrapolating to an entire industry from
a very small sample. The opportunity for error, never mind
bias, but opportunity for error is just very great, and a
sample of two doesn't do it, no matter how well the two were
collected or assembled. A sample of a dozen may not be enough.
I'm not an expert in sampling theory and how to good about
that.
But I think that if they collaborate on the technology for
the test, they collaborate on doing the test, they look over
each other's shoulders, that's the way to get it done and make
sure everybody's happy with it. Then you can go forward with it
and use it for policy purposes.
Chairman Biggs. Thank you. I'm going to conclude my time
and recognize the Ranking Member of the Environment
Subcommittee, Ms. Bonamici, for five minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Some of today's witnesses have argued that the EPA's
deregulatory action on gliders should not require a Regulatory
Impact Analysis, and several Members of the Majority actually
made a similar argument in a recent letter to the OMB. But I'd
like to bring to their attention a 2017 White House memorandum
that states, ``Agencies must continue to assess and consider
both the benefits and costs of regulatory actions, including
deregulatory actions.'' So I'd like to request unanimous
consent to enter this memo into the record.
Mr. Abraham. [Presiding.] Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Bonamici. We also must recognize the consequences of
deregulation. In fact in August the Regulatory Impact Analysis
for the Trump Administration's rollback of the Clean Power
Plan, which is also known as the Affordable Clean Energy Rule,
was released to the public with a shocking conclusion. In fact,
a New York Times headline says it all: ``Cost of new EPA coal
rules up to 1,400 more deaths a year.'' These estimates were
from the EPA's own technical analysis. I request unanimous
consent to enter this article into the record.
Mr. Abraham. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The pollutants, including carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides,
and particulate matter, are similar to those that would
increase should glider regulations be rolled back.
Mr. Long, my uncle was a long-haul truck driver and, like
Representative Beyer said, he's a small-business owner. We hear
those concerns. We want to make sure that this committee can
work on addressing those concerns without jeopardizing public
health and the environment.
Also, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Posey suggested that the EPA lab
testing was somehow compromised because a check engine light
was on one of the glider vehicles when it arrived at the
facility. However, the EPA report fully acknowledges this and
details that it was a result of oil in a connector--a connector
of oil temperature sensor, and that was cleaned, reinstalled,
and repaired prior to the testing. The issue did not reappear
for the remainder of the testing, so implications that the
study was compromised because of this are therefore
demonstrably false. And I'd like to enter that EPA report into
the record.
Mr. Abraham. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Miller, thank you for your testimony. What is your
assessment of the claim that Regulatory Impact Analyses are not
necessary for deregulatory actions? And based on your
expertise, what might a Regulatory Impact Analysis demonstrate
for the proposed rollback of glider regulations?
Dr. Miller. I guess you noted OMB guidance--I think OMB
circular A-4 in addition requires that regulatory and
deregulatory actions all go through a regulatory impact
assessment. And I think in this case, based on the number of
excess emissions from glider vehicles with pre-controlled
engines, especially the most popular pre-2002 engines, you're
talking about potential implications of up to 1,600 avoided
premature deaths, and the costs of that is about $11 billion.
When associated with the excess emissions of about 5,000 glider
trucks, if you do the math, that's a foregone health benefit of
about $1.1 million per truck. And that's what a regulatory
impact assessment of rolling back this loophole repeal would
show.
I would also like to state very quickly in this context of
only two trucks, California also did roadside monitoring
entered into the rulemaking docket that's very consistent with
the EPA dynamometer tests in the lab, and so there is backing
for that as well.
And I'd also like to emphasize the physical implausibility
of an engine with no emission controls being as clean as an
engine with modern emission controls. It defies physical
explanation. The comment that sulfate emissions are reduced by
98 percent is technically true but irrelevant. Sulfate
emissions--primary sulfate emissions out of a diesel engine are
only a few percent of total particulate emissions. Most of it
is carbon-based with toxic metals, organics. Sulfate is only a
small part. The reason for lower----
Ms. Bonamici. Dr. Miller, I want to get one more--I don't
want to interrupt, but I want----
Dr. Miller. Sorry.
Ms. Bonamici. --interrupt, but I want to get one more----
Dr. Miller. All right. Sorry.
Ms. Bonamici. --question in the remaining time. I noticed
in your impressive bio that you have not only a science
background but a law degree, so I wanted to ask you, the
proposed EPA rule published in November of 2017 justified a
repeal on restrictions on glider vehicle production by claiming
that glider vehicles and engines do not constitute new motor
vehicles or engines according to the Clean Air Act. What's your
response to that?
Dr. Miller. I think it defies the purpose of the Clean Air
Act. It's going through a legal contortion interpretation to
undermine the general purpose Congress set out in the beginning
of the Clean Air Act that it is to protect the Nation's air
resources and protect public health and environment. You really
have to go through contortions looking at, for example, a 1958
consumer protection information law to try to get around the--
you know, if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck,
it's probably a duck. These are new engines. These are new
vehicles--with old engines, excuse me, installed, and they are
meant to circumvent the post-2010 emission standards. They're
advertised as pre-emissions, and it's the huge portion of our
emissions inventory.
If these emissions are out there, our own local businesses
are going to incur costs at two, maybe three, maybe four, maybe
greater times to compensate for those emissions that we're
going to have to reduce, so those are additional costs we have
to deal with.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I see my time is expired. I yield
back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you. I recognize myself for five
minutes.
I'm a physician by trade, and I was taught very early in
medical school when you review a scientific article to look at
the author, whether there's bias or not, and look at the sample
size. And I think in this particular EPA study there's
certainly a credibility issue as far as size and possible bias.
Dr. Belzer, I'll ask you. In my testimony I've got 800
independent and small-business truckers who, you know, their
business, their livelihood depends on these trucks. What's the
estimated price difference between a glider and a new truck?
That's for you, Dr. Belzer.
Dr. Belzer. It's my understanding that it is 25 to 30
percent. It was a quarter to a third less expensive for a
glider than a new truck, and therefore, a new truck would be
about 40 percent more expensive than a glider.
Mr. Abraham. So if the EPA imposes these regulations that
eliminate the cost-competitive option like these glider kits,
is it safe to assume that the price for new trucks would go up?
Dr. Belzer. I don't know. I think that it might. I think
that it depends on the proportion of sales involved. I suspect
that the number of glider buyers who would go to buy new trucks
is very small and that they would tend toward buying used
trucks or rehabilitating their existing ones. I don't think
that the numbers of gliders is very large compared to the total
number of heavy-duty class eight trucks being sold, so it's
possible that the price could go up, but it's hard to tell how
much that would be. I think the likely effect is elsewhere.
Mr. Abraham. Okay. And the likelihood of a glider owner
having to go buy a new truck or actually buying a new truck is
probably not significant?
Dr. Belzer. Well, that is the key question. I believe that
what EPA did in its paragraph of analysis is it assumed that
that's exactly what they would do and they would do nothing
else. Now to be clear, I can't tell what they did because they
don't disclose their model, but it is consistent with the
estimated emissions, the reported emissions that are being
bandied about, that they've taken the 5,000 or 10,000 gliders
and replaced them with brand-new trucks. That would not happen
in the market.
Mr. Abraham. Okay. Mr. Long, in your testimony you
mentioned the growing popularity of glider trucks and how they
play a great role in keeping the market stable and competitive.
How does that EPA Phase 2 regulations on the glider industry
impact the availability and affordability of truck equipment?
Mr. Long. I'm not sure we've really seen an impact yet, but
it's certainly going to affect how our drivers view decisions
down the road on what to purchase, which they quite frankly
have to face continuously. I mean, a truck can go south pretty
quickly, and they'll be forced to purchase a new vehicle. The
problem is most of our members can no longer afford new
vehicles because of all the equipment that are associated with
emissions reductions, technology that have been placed on them
by the government.
So also touching on what Ranking Member Bonamici had to say
is that a lot of these members are forced to drive their
current trucks into the ground before they even consider
replacing them. These aren't necessarily any cleaner than a
glider kit, which they can at least specify with better
aerodynamics, better fuel efficiency, so it really isn't--the
choice for our members is whether or not they continue with
their current truck and try and get every mile out of it,
whether they buy a new--excuse me, a used truck or whether they
purchase a glider kit because they simply can't afford new
trucks at this point.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you. Ms. Tsang, in the case of glider
trucks, the EPA under the Obama Administration did conduct a
regulatory impact analysis before proposing the phase 2
greenhouse gas rules. However, this RIA lacked any thorough
analysis on the glider provisions. Is it unusual that the EPA
did not engage in a full analysis?
Ms. Tsang. Thank you, Chairman. I can generally speak to
the regulatory impact analysis process that EPA used. There was
some justification in terms of why they were looking at certain
modeling data for the glider kits, but beyond that, I can look
further into that after the hearing.
Mr. Abraham. Okay. Is there any regulatory impact analysis
on all aspects of a regulation required or are agencies
required to follow the analysis?
Ms. Tsang. In terms of wheather there are OMB procedures on
how to conduct the regulatory impact analysis?
Mr. Abraham. Okay. Let's continue that then. In the normal
course, is it fair to say that agencies issuing rules that
affect an entire industry would do such an analysis prior to
proposing the rule?
Ms. Tsang. Under Executive Order 12866, significant
economic regulations are required to go through a cost-benefit
analysis if it significantly affects the economy over $100
million, and there are other criteria as well. So if the agency
considers a regulation a significant regulation, it must go
through this cost-benefit analysis.
Mr. Abraham. Okay. Thank you. I'm out of time.
Mr. Crist, you're recognized.
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
witnesses for being here today.
It seems to me that if the EPA moves forward with a repeal
of glider regulations, that will effectively turn over the
decision to how to treat gliders to the States. As I'm sure you
know, California has already approved glider regulations that
align with the 2016 standards. There also seems to be a lot
more awareness now than there was a few years ago of the health
impact of gliders. Given this, and as a former Governor, I
could see several States following in California's footsteps.
Dr. Miller, I'd be curious. Can you please comment on
whether you think my interpretation of the situation is
accurate? Could States start regulating glider vehicles on
their own if there is no federal standard in place?
Dr. Miller. Thank you. I will speculate. If--which I think
is unlikely--but if it is determined EPA does not have
statutory authority on the Clean Air Act to regulate glider
kits, then States would not be preempted from regulating glider
kits on their own. Based on the air pollution problem we have
in the Northeast and presumably other States have similar
problems elsewhere, I can say our States will look very, very
closely at, at least banning glider kits with pre-2010 engines,
and I would hope the glider kit manufacturers tell potential
buyers that their trucks may not be allowed in those States.
So yeah, I think it's going to have an implication because
we have to deal with these trucks. We have to deal with new
trucks, too, meeting new standards. We don't think they're
going to be clean enough for us, so it's not just glider kits.
It's everything heavy-duty on the road, and we've got to deal
with that or we're not going to achieve our standards in public
health protection.
Mr. Crist. What do you think would be a tipping point for
States to decide to write their own regulations?
Dr. Miller. Well, allowing the unlimited production of pre-
2010 glider kit engines or glider kit vehicles with those
engines, yeah.
Mr. Crist. What challenges might arise if different States
have different policies on glider vehicles?
Dr. Miller. As I mentioned earlier, you're going to have a
problem with interstate trucking trying to go from one place to
another where they may not be allowed to go through a
particular State and have to go around it.
Mr. Crist. Dr. Miller, in your testimony you mentioned that
the older engines typically used higher glider vehicles lack
certain safety features such as electronic stability control
and lane departure warnings. Can you elaborate on what these
safety features are and how a driver and the public may be
affected by the lack of these safety features?
Dr. Miller. Yes, so the most popular glider kit engines,
the pre-2010 engines, do not have the electronic capacity to
run a number of modern electric safety features. That includes
things like electronic stability control to prevent rollover,
the adaptive cruise control to limit excess speed, and lane
departure warnings to prevent collisions. So those are features
that modern engines, current engines have the capacity to
support but the older pre-2002 engines do not.
Mr. Crist. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back
my time.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Crist.
Mr. Posey, you're recognized.
Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
This hearing was called because of a possible complicity
between Volvo and career employees at the National Vehicle Fuel
Emissions Laboratory to create a faulty if not fraudulent
emissions study of gliders to eliminate competition from some
small American manufacturers. Despite the other side's attempt
to make this an issue about whether gliders are good or gliders
are bad or whether they're hurting the environment or whether
they're helping the environment, this hearing is about an
agency's violation of the public trust, and that's what we're
here to try and rein in.
And so, Dr. Miller, the Northeast States for Coordinated
Air Use Management advocacy group, is it affiliated with other
advocacy groups, lobbying associations, trade associations or
think tanks?
Dr. Miller. Affiliated in a legal sense, no.
Mr. Posey. Okay. In a nonlegal sense?
Dr. Miller. We work with other groups that are common
interest with the States--
Mr. Posey. Okay.
Dr. Miller. --and their interest to protect public health,
yes, we do.
Mr. Posey. Have they ever been asked by advocacy groups,
lobbying associations, trade associations, think tanks, or
whatever to offer positions in an attempt to influence
lawmakers or regulators?
Dr. Miller. We have been asked from time to time for those
things, and we check with our States. If they're consistent
with their own State interests--we take all comers. I would
assume if a constituent asked you something, you would look at
it the same way.
Mr. Posey. Okay. Does it ever act in response to your
request to influence lawmakers or regulators on behalf of those
requesting assistance?
Dr. Miller. On behalf of--you mean the entity asking
NESCAUM--
Mr. Posey. Yes. Yes.
Dr. Miller. --on their behalf?
Mr. Posey. Yes.
Dr. Miller. We do not ask on others' behalf. It has to make
sense for our States. We get asked, but we have to run it
through our own States. If it's consistent with our own State
goals, then we own it.
Mr. Posey. Okay. Well, I'd like to introduce an email into
the record from December 8, 2017, from Dr. Miller to Michael
Myers concerning the glider repeal rulemaking. Are you familiar
with this, sir?
Dr. Miller. Yes, I am.
Mr. Posey. Who is Mr. Miller--or Mr. Myers?
Dr. Miller. Mr. Myers is an Assistant Attorney General for
the State of New York.
Mr. Posey. Okay. In this email you write, ``We've been
asked by EDF if NESCAUM could submit a comment deadline
extension request to EPA. EDF thinks a request from a State
organization might be better received at EPA than one from an
environmental group.'' How do you interpret that request?
Dr. Miller. I'm flattered. Here is a national environmental
group that a number of people obviously think have a lot of
influence, and on this particular issue, they think we as a
regional State association and our States might actually have
more influence than they do.
Mr. Posey. Okay. What does EDF stand for?
Dr. Miller. Environmental Defense Fund.
Mr. Posey. Okay. Dr. Belzer, I have an email uncovered
under the Freedom of Information Act that shows possible
collusion between Volvo and the EPA on initiating a glider test
particularly. Have you seen the email before you related to
Steve Berry from Volvo Trucks to Bill Charmley and Angela
Cullen of the EPA?
Dr. Belzer. It's not before me, and I don't believe that
I've seen that.
Mr. Posey. Okay.
Dr. Belzer. Maybe I have, but it's not before me and I
can't tell.
Mr. Posey. Okay. I was going to ask you some real good
questions about that. All right. Well, I'm going to have to
skip those questions.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to include this article for the
record. The article touts Volvo's efforts ``as good as new, and
the process has less impact on the environment'' in
remanufactured engines in Flen, Sweden.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Posey. And now, Dr. Belzer, Volvo trucks is a leading
opponent to glider trucks, and they have said in their public
comments that gliders are unclean and proclaim that the
environmental harm that could result from the repeal of the
phase 2 glider provisions is inexcusable. Can gliders be
environmentally friendly in Sweden but here in the United
States not environmentally friendly?
Dr. Belzer. I would certainly agree that the statements do
appear to be contradictory. I think that the right way to go
about this is simply to recognize that if gliders are no longer
available, there will be alternatives, and the alternatives are
new trucks, used trucks, and retaining existing trucks in
service a longer time. The latter two are probably going to
have higher emissions than gliders, and so we don't know the
net change in emissions from banning gliders, and
unfortunately, the EPA approach to assume away those other ways
of complying--is a problem. Now, EPA had the authority to
regulate all rebuilt engines instead of regulating gliders, but
it chose not to do that.
Mr. Posey. Okay. Thank you, sir. I see my time is up. I
yield back.
Mr. Abraham. Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chairman, and again, I
thank the panelists for testifying this morning.
Some glider proponents have claimed that the Volvo truck
group colluded with EPA's Michigan lab to initiate a study on
glider emissions. They also claim that the EPA lab officials
never notified the EPA's headquarters staff about these tests.
These claims are demonstrably false, and I will show--in fact,
EPA initiated a glider emission study as a response to a House
Appropriations Committee report. And in July 2017 staff at
EPA's lab informed EPA's leadership in Washington that they
would begin scoping a glider test program.
I'd like to enter these emails into the record, the first
of which began on July 27, 2017, before the email that was
submitted by Mr. Posey, showing that the House Appropriations
Committee report urging EPA to conduct the study.
Mr. Abraham. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I also would like to submit for
the record an article showing that the California's Air
Resources Board condemned the EPA's move to allow high-
polluting older trucks on the road. In fact, this report shows
that one old dirty engine with a glider test kit is equal in
emissions to 450 new trucks. I'd like to submit this for the
record.
Mr. Abraham. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. McNerney. Dr. Miller, you've read the EPA's report on
glider emissions. Can you please tell us whether you saw any
red flags in reading that report, and why do you think this
report is important and valuable?
Dr. Miller. Yes, I've read the report, and I also, prior to
this hearing checked with my own states and other states
outside my region on their own practices, and everything in
that report is consistent with State testing practices that our
own membership does and elsewhere, the use of accredited
facilities, the use of standard test cycles.
The protocols exist. We don't need to reinvent them. The
certification protocols exist. They were followed. They were
clearly presented in the report. All the data collected were
clearly presented in the report. They actually did fix that--
the malfunction indicator light before they tested. They
indicated that they did that. They showed the data both with
the light on, testing without the light. It was all
transparent. The analysis is transparent. It's all numerical.
It was done under test cycles that reflect actual real-world
driving conditions including load pulling. This is all standard
stuff. There's nothing in there that I can see that just smacks
of Jerry-rigging the results.
Mr. McNerney. And do you believe that--the CARB's claim
that one dirty truck with the kit is equal to 450 clean trucks
in emissions?
Dr. Miller. I will hedge on that in the sense that it's one
truck. I do agree that, based on their measurement, that one
truck had the emissions of 450 new trucks. Depending on other
trucks they'll be all over the place. I do think, based on the
testing, that in general one can say it's about an order of
magnitude higher. In that case it's two orders of magnitude
higher. I don't know if that's an outlier, but I'm pretty
confident it's at least an order of magnitude across the board.
Mr. McNerney. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. McNerney.
Dr. Marshall?
Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I'll start with Mr. Long and say I'm
grateful. We have I guess 1,300 drivers in my district. Kansas
maybe the second-, third-most number of highway miles in the
country. I represent the largest ag-producing district in the
country. The one thing that my ag producers can do for sure is
get our commodities to market cheaper than any competitors out
there, and your industry is a big, big part of that. So I'm
grateful for the business that they do do. My first job was
loading cattle trucks. I was 15 years of age working at a sale
barn and worked with a lot of your members as well.
In that industry right now, one of the biggest challenges
that they're facing, these small owners, the small companies,
Mr. Long? Yes.
Mr. Long. I would say one of the biggest challenges is
indeed overregulation, and a lot of it is caused by larger
entities kind of forcing their will through the government,
whether it be regulatory or legislative, to require more
mandates and more safety devices that aren't actually improving
safety. There's a laundry list of issues that we're currently
fighting to prevent that would simply increase costs for our
members and burdens for our members rather than promote highway
safety, improve their economics, or improve their efficiency.
So this is just another example we think of smaller members--
or, excuse me, smaller businesses getting lost in the
discussion and just allowing a government entity and a large
corporation to kind of dictate the discussion and ultimately
the outcome when our members are going to bear the largest
burden, whether it be cost or potentially even running them out
of business.
Mr. Marshall. Maybe you talk about electronic logging
devices a second, how they're impacting you, especially the
live animal hauling industry.
Mr. Long. Sure. Only a fraction of our members are involved
in the livestock industry, and we appreciate the relief that
they've been getting from Congress or that they will soon be
getting from Congress. The ELD issue has been another example
of large corporate motor carriers convincing unfortunately you
and your colleagues--maybe not all of you here at the table
today because it did happen back in 2012--that ELDs were a
safety device, and our members contend that they certainly are
not--they just track their hours. They don't promote safety at
all. So that's an example of a $2 billion mandate that has been
kind of forced upon our industry by larger corporate motor
carriers in an effort to diminish our efficiency and increase
our costs.
Mr. Marshall. Okay. Thank you. I'll go to Dr. Belzer.
Dr. Belzer, I'm a physician, and as I try to review EPA
research, I really have a hard time following it. And I would
say that if we practice medical research the way the EPA does,
we wouldn't be making some of the great advances that I'm
seeing.
When they did their analysis, an average trucker 100,000
miles a year, about six miles to the gallon, and from what I
understand, these gliders have about a 25 percent better gas
mileage. Is that accurate? And that's about 4,200 gallons a
year of savings of fuel, less fuel being burned, which
certainly would mean less pollution. Did they take that into
account in their calculations? I couldn't follow that.
Dr. Belzer. Well, I certainly couldn't either because I
don't think the analysis is actually there. The regulatory
impact analysis does not have that inside it. It has two or
three paragraphs describing these glider provisions but does
not have the analysis. There is the paragraph in the preamble
to the final rule that contains the sum total of what EPA has
disclosed with regard to its analysis, so I'm afraid that's all
we have to go on. Everything else to me is just hearsay.
Mr. Marshall. Also wanted to mention we had a new EPA
pathway for sorghum oil to be turned into biodiesel. Would that
have any impact on an EPA analysis of this situation if it was
coming from sorghum oil rather than the traditional fuels?
Dr. Belzer. Yes, I have no information or expertise on
that, and I keep out of things in which I don't have expertise.
I do recall, though, that the apparent comparison for gliders
is based on the emissions standards as of roughly 2001, but a
very large EPA rule on mandating ultralow sulfur diesel that
was promulgated after those engines were made, so I would like
to know whether the EPA estimate takes account of the emission
reduction from the ultralow sulfur fuel rule, which had
substantial benefits according to the EPA when they regulated
it. That would be useful to know what the actual emissions are
and to compare them with the fuel that is actually in use.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Dr. Belzer. I yield back.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Dr. Marshall.
Mr. Palmer?
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Continuing on that
theme by Congressman Marshall, Dr. Belzer, in your testimony
you discussed a range of consumer responses to no longer being
able to purchase gliders. Can you elaborate a little bit more
about those potential consumer responses and how the phase 2
rule, even if it was hypothetically based on valid scientific
studies--which I think there's been substantial doubt raised
about that--would be counterproductive to what the regulators
hoped to achieve in the first place?
Dr. Belzer. Well, a common phenomenon with regulations that
make major changes in, let's say, tailpipe emissions standards
is that they do have effects on the market, and so there will
often be what's called a pre-buy. The regulations will go into
effect in a few years, and during that period of time, those
who would be interested in purchasing trucks later will
purchase them sooner in order to get in under the wire and do
that. So we can predict that. I believe in EPA's phase 1
greenhouse gas rule they took that into account. For some
reason they didn't do that this time. But that is a known
phenomenon.
I've seen articles in the press suggesting that there are
long waits now for vehicles, for heavy-duty trucks. Some of
that is driven by the economy, but part of it is a predictable
response to the high cost of the phase 2 standards. You should
expect a lot of truck sales to occur prior to that in order to
beat that. That happens normally. It happens in trucks; it
happens in automobiles as well. It's a normal phenomenon. And
that's why the Clean Air Act has--it has a provision in it
requiring that the effective date for new standards to be
delayed a few years so that manufacturers can catch up and be
prepared to accommodate that.
Mr. Palmer. What I find interesting about a lot of this in
listening to the questions from my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle bringing up these various problems from emissions
is that, since 1980, our economy's expanded by probably close
to 500 percent. Vehicle miles have gone up 98 percent.
Population's up over 30 percent. The energy consumption's up
over 30 percent. Emissions are down by over 50 percent.
And a lot of the discussion here is around like asthma
rates. Asthma rates are at record levels even though the air
quality is substantially improved. So I think that, you know,
the typical scare tactics from the left on these things that
completely misses the real problem, a lot of it has to do with
living conditions, household conditions. But I know that
doesn't matter to a lot of people, the facts don't, so let me
go on and ask Mr. Long a question.
You know, in my district I have over 360 owner-operators.
You made a statement that I'd like for you to elaborate on. You
said there's not a shortage of drivers. That's not been our
experience.
Mr. Long. Sure. If you look at the driver turnover rate
among large motor carriers, it's above 90 percent a year, so
essentially they're almost having two drivers per position in
the course of a year. We think that's the actual problem, that
they're turning through drivers at an exceptional rate. We
think steps can be taken by Congress to ensure that our career
is one that is appealing and one that is sustainable rather
than one where a young driver enters with no hope of making an
actual career out of it because he doesn't make the money, he
works in difficult conditions, and no one's really working to
address either of those.
So we think that rate could certainly come down among
smaller fleets. The turnover rate is typically much lower.
Drivers get paid better. They have more uniform schedules.
They're home with their families more. And those are all steps
that can be taken on a national level to certainly address the
turnover problem.
Mr. Palmer. The turnover problem, though, how does that
impact the individual driver in terms of the more cost that
gets added by regulations and particularly how it impacts with
the glider rule?
Mr. Long. Sure. Well, this is an example of an area where
our members are being priced out of the industry. And let's
keep in mind that our members owner-operators are the safest on
the road by far.
Mr. Palmer. Can you put that in context to the bottom line,
you know, their take-home pay versus expense?
Mr. Long. Yes, a lot of what we've been talking about in
purchasing new trucks is--well, our members can save 25 percent
on glider kits. That's not necessarily the discussion simply
because they can't afford the new trucks. They're not really
saving anything if they can't afford it in the first place. So
for them glider is an affordable option and also improves their
MPGs and it improves their reliability.
So as far as bottom lines are concerned, our members run on
the slimmest of margins, so expecting them to be capable of
purchasing a new truck, it's just not realistic.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chair, my time is expired. I will make a
comment to you, though. You and I have talked about this issue
of air quality and asthma----
Mr. Abraham. Yes.
Mr. Palmer. --and even CDC and others have indicated this
length that has occasionally tried to be--they try to make, for
instance, in a hearing like this is missing the mark, and I
appreciate your indulgence. I yield back.
Mr. Abraham. All right. Mr. McNerney, you have another----
Dr. Miller. Excuse me. Could I clarify--I'm sorry--that
comment on asthma?
Mr. Abraham. Yes, sir.
Dr. Miller. This is a common misperception I hear quite a
bit. Nothing in these comments or my comments or in the--what I
say as the basis of the EPA rules are based on air pollution
causing asthma as a disease. Whatever causes asthma, I don't
know. I'm not the expert. But the problem with the air
pollution--and it is correct, as you're saying, the increase in
asthma rates. The problem with air pollution is that it
exacerbates asthma attacks in people who already have asthma
for whatever reason.
Mr. Palmer. I appreciate the gentleman making that
clarification. I wasn't directing the comment to you. It was a
comment made by one of my colleagues. But the fact of the
matter is is that the problem with asthma has increased
substantially even though air quality has improved remarkably.
And you're right; we don't know the cause of asthma, and that's
one of the conclusions that came out of a CDC report. But I
thank the gentleman for his clarification.
Mr. Abraham. Mr. McNerney?
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you. I appreciate the Chairman
for allowing me another round of questions. It's quite
remarkable that the Majority is questioning the, ``scientific
integrity and validity,'' of the EPA's glider emissions study
that was conducted at a nationally accredited laboratory while
ignoring the study conducted by the Tennessee Tech University
that formed the basis for the EPA's proposed repeal of the
glider rule.
Now, let me review a few facts. The Tennessee Tech study
was funded by Fitzgerald Glider Kits and conducted in an
unaccredited Fitzgerald laboratory. The study concluded that
the remanufactured engines performed better or even on par or
better than conventional engines emitting fewer hazardous
chemicals. According to the Interim Dean of Tennessee Tech's
College of Engineering, no credentialed engineering faculty
members oversaw the testing, verified the data or calculations,
or even wrote or reviewed the final report submitted to
Fitzgerald. The Interim Dean also said the conclusion of the
testing were sent to Representative Diane Black, including a,
``far-fetched scientifically implausible claim that
manufactured truck engines met or exceeded the performance of
modern pollution controlled engines with regard to emissions.''
The Principal Investigator of the study removed his name
from the study, returned his portion of the Fitzgerald funding,
and filed a scientific misconduct claimant with the university.
Aside from the flawed testing, protocols, and unsupported
conclusions, he was disappointed that the study had been used
for political purposes and wrote, ``The misuse of results to
support political opinions is a dangerous precedent that should
worry all university employees.'' No final report has been
issued, and the data from the study has not been publicly
released. The General Counsel at Fitzgerald Glider Kits has
argued that the data in the study are protected from disclosure
by the university.
Finally, the President of the Tennessee Tech wrote to the
EPA, to Representative Black, and Fitzgerald telling them all
that they should not reference the study in any way until the
university's scientific misconduct investigation is complete. I
would like to submit documents supporting my--what I've just
said to the Majority for the record.
Mr. Abraham. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. McNerney. Dr. Miller, I'm not a scientist--or I am a
scientist. I forget sometimes. That's the scientific method.
But would you trust the conclusions of a study like that?
Dr. Miller. Let's just say if I was putting myself in the
shoes of the State in an enforcement case and I had to go to
court with that kind of study as proof, I'd be looking for a
way to get out. You know, I kind of call it like the alien
experiment. They took a probe, they stuck it in a smokestack,
and they looked at it and they said, gosh, it's just as clean
as a modern engine. That just doesn't pass muster.
Mr. McNerney. Well, Dr. Miller, do you have any response to
the fact that this study has been pivotal to the efforts by
Fitzgerald Glider Kits, the glider industry, and the Trump
Administration's EPA in trying to justify the rationale for
repealing the glider provisions that limit productions of
glider vehicles?
Dr. Miller. Well, you know, it certainly made it into EPA's
proposal. They cited it when proposing to reinstate the glider
kit loophole. And it certainly made the press, so, yes, it got
attention. We're talking about it today.
Mr. McNerney. We are. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you. Dr. Babin?
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I
appreciate all you witnesses.
I do have several questions here. I'd like to start with
Mr. Long. In your experience with the trucking industry, how do
you think gliders promote recycling and the smart use of fossil
fuels?
Mr. Long. Sure, thanks. Let me say thank you for your
interest in small-business trucking issues. It's really greatly
appreciated.
Mr. Babin. Yes, sir. Proud to do it.
Mr. Long. Yes, we've seen rates that gliders can recycle
millions of pounds of steel each year. Our members who use them
report that they've saved a mile per gallon, as much as a mile
per gallon on fuel efficiency, which, over the course of a
year, can translate to 3,000 gallons of diesel fuel. These are
all issues that I think have gotten a little bit lost in the
conversation about the overall public health impacts.
But another one that I want to touch on is something that
no one's really addressed at all and that's the taking owner-
operators off the road, pricing them out of the industry is
taking the most experienced and safe drivers off the road.
They're going to be replaced with young, inexperienced drivers
who are certainly not going to be operating as safely, and you
will probably see crash rates go up. So I think that's another
public health consideration people need to take into account
when talking about this. It's a much bigger picture than simply
an EPA study and a Tennessee Tech study.
Mr. Babin. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And then one more. Your
story about Loren Hunt really resonated with me. It's a great
example of innovation and the American dream, and I wanted to
ask you. Is Loren's experience unique or do others in the
trucking business experience similar challenges that he did?
Mr. Long. Loren's story came to us a while ago. Since we
started telling our members that we would be participating in
this event and since we've been getting more engaged in the
glider issue in general, we've been getting more and more
stories like his.
Mr. Babin. Yes.
Mr. Long. We've had members just this week send us their
cost estimates for refurbishing or repairing new trucks with
the new technology and they let us know that it costs tens of
thousands of dollars, but they're also unable to make any money
off that truck because it's been in the garage so long. So
we've been getting a slow stream of stories about this, and I
anticipate because of today we'll probably be getting even
more.
Mr. Babin. Okay. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Long.
Mr. Long. Sure. Thank you.
Mr. Babin. I appreciate it. Now, following that up about
recycling, Dr. Belzer, what type of data or information was
excluded in the EPA's phase 2 regulatory impact analysis that
should have been considered to ensure its reliability when used
to influence policy and regulations?
Dr. Belzer. Well, in this context, EPA has guidance on the
conduct of regulatory impact analyses just like OMB does. EPA's
guidance directs the components of the agency to conduct a
proper analysis of the incremental costs and benefits of every,
you know, material provision of a rule. That's been in EPA's
own guidance for a decade or two. They didn't follow that in
this case, so what you have in the 1,100-page analysis you just
don't have anything there. And I can't tell you why that's
true. It's a provision that's a significant one. If it were not
a significant one, we would not be talking about it. But it
wasn't subjected to analysis that we would normally expect.
If I had been working in the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs in 2016, I would have advised the
Administrator to return the rule because the analysis was
significantly incomplete. They know how to do it correctly.
There's no mystery about that. These are not complicated
analytic questions.
Mr. Babin. Okay. And then lastly, in your strawman RIA you
state that as a result of the phase 2 final rule, the glider
industry would be destroyed and employment losses are highly
plausible. Can you give us an idea of how many American jobs
will be lost as a result of this rule?
Dr. Belzer. Actually, I think that's difficult to do, and
there are problems with counting job losses in a regulatory
impact analysis. That is a complicated matter in economics and
one that--the way to go about this is actually to count them--
try to estimate them separately, not to count them as benefits
and costs or one or the other. It is difficult to do because
you don't know to what extent the people working in the glider
manufacturing business, where they would go. That has to be
estimated to see what happens to them. In a full employment
economy, they would go elsewhere.
Mr. Babin. Right.
Dr. Belzer. In a less-than-full employment economy, we
don't know what's going to happen to them. And many of these
jobs are located in rural areas where the alternatives may not
be as rich as they are, let's say, in New England.
Mr. Babin. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate it. And
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Dr. Babin.
Mr. Weber?
Mr. Weber. And I don't know where to start. Don't start?
Okay. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. At least I'm not a scientist.
I'm just saying.
I have a hypothetical scenario, which I want each of you
all to answer yes or no to. It's a question that's pretty
simple. Let's say a cell phone company wants to test which
phone produces data faster, an Apple iPhone or a Samsung
Galaxy. Samsung reaches out to the phone company and says we
can help you figure out which one's faster. Samsung will supply
you with two iPhones and two Galaxies. We suggest you process
this particular data and complete the test within this time
frame.
The cell phone company, without contacting Apple, okay,
conducts the test in accordance with Samsung's suggestions,
finding, surprise of all surprises, that the Samsung is 10
times faster. The cell phone company then markets to you, the
consumer, that the Samsung Galaxy is hereby declared 10 times
faster than the Apple iPhone according to that study. If you
were made aware of the circumstances of that cell phone study,
would you trust that cell company's marketing statement that
the Samsung was 10 times faster than the iPhone? Ms.--is it
Tsang?
Ms. Tsang. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. Weber. Would you trust that study?
Ms. Tsang. I can only speak to the legal requirements
related to the rulemaking unfortunately.
Mr. Weber. Are you also a scientist?
Ms. Tsang. I am, not.
Mr. Weber. I am just kidding. No. So Mr. Long?
Mr. Long. No.
Mr. Weber. Dr. Miller?
Dr. Miller. On your assumption that that's what EPA did, I
would say no, that would be wrong.
Mr. Weber. All right.
Dr. Miller. EPA did not do that.
Mr. Weber. Do you carry an iPhone or a Samsung?
Dr. Miller. I've done both. Actually, I do have both.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Dr. Belzer?
Dr. Belzer. I tend to distrust all marketing, so I would
treat this claim the same way I'd treat all other claims.
Mr. Weber. You say you can or can't?
Dr. Belzer. I would distrust all of it.
Mr. Weber. All marketing?
Dr. Belzer. All marketing claims----
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Dr. Belzer. --in the same way that I often have a skeptical
regard to preambles of regulation----
Mr. Weber. So that means your wife tells you what to buy.
Dr. Belzer. No, not on technology.
Mr. Weber. No? Okay. I'm just checking. Well, look, it
seems very interesting to me. We've got older--by the way, Mr.
Long, you'd be interested in this. I owned an air-conditioning
company for 35 years, sold it a year ago. We dealt with the EPA
on refrigerant requirements and all kinds of stuff, had trucks
and the whole nine yards. Some friends of mine at church got me
into the hotshot business. I ran a trucking company for a short
time until I ran for the Texas Legislature, and then I couldn't
keep building it. So I've been down those roads. I've been
TxDOT'ed, USDOT'ed, and everything else, so I have trucking
industry experience. Does this set a precedent where no older
engines are able to be used for anything, antique cars? Are we
afraid of that? What do you think, Mr. Long?
Mr. Long. No, because drivers will just continue to use
their current engines or they'll buy used trucks with older
engines as well.
Mr. Weber. Well, sure. Shouldn't we really be reluctant to
change what small-business owners are allowed to do--of which I
was one of--allowed to do without knowing that we for sure have
enough reliable information/studies? Shouldn't we really be
reluctant to change that?
Mr. Long. Absolutely, and I think our members would say
that accounts for all trucking policies, not just this one.
Mr. Weber. Dr. Miller, would you agree that we absolutely
need enough concise concrete evidence before we change this?
Dr. Miller. I think we have it. And to your earlier
question about do you think it affects antique car owners? No,
it doesn't. Those are old cars. There's no question about that.
We're talking about----
Mr. Weber. But they use old engines.
Dr. Miller. Old cars with old engines.
Mr. Weber. And these are old engines that go in new trucks.
And if you read----
Dr. Miller. Right, but those are the first certificates of
ownership, titles transferred for those gliders. You don't have
that with an antique car. It wouldn't be covered.
Mr. Weber. Well, if you read what the EPA was claiming--
and, by the way, I was on the Environmental Reg Committee there
in Texas before I got demoted to Congress, and Gary Palmer was
right. We don't know what causes asthma, but we have reduced
our NOx and greenhouse gases a lot, and we have an increase in
asthma. So are we maybe too worried without that proof I'm
talking about?
So what is it--how many more studies should we go through?
Does that include an economic impact study in your opinion, Dr.
Miller? Should we have an economic impact study? I know you all
talked about it's hard or maybe Dr. Belzer said it's hard to
make that calculation. But before we interrupt that business
practice, shouldn't we have a study in that regard as well?
Dr. Miller. I would assert that we have that information.
We have the cost of essentially post-2010 engine emissions
control, and that's from 2000.
Mr. Weber. Yes.
Dr. Miller. We have that cost, which is essentially what
presumably one could use as a basis for a cost of--to the
glider industry. It's about $670 per engine. People may think
that's low, so double it, triplet, you know, say it's about
$2,000. That's fine because if you're interested in small
businesses, if we allowed that amount of emissions from glider
kits that could be controlled for less than $2,000, in my
region we're already controlling small businesses that start at
$2,000 per ton of----
Mr. Weber. Where's your region?
Dr. Miller. It's the Northeast, so we're talking New York,
New Jersey----
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Dr. Miller. --and apparently the rich folks of New
England--I don't know. So----
Mr. Weber. I notice you're not wearing a bowtie and he is.
Dr. Miller. I'm actually from Texas----
Mr. Weber. I got you.
Dr. Miller. But putting that aside, these are cost savings,
I will say, for folks who are using pre-emission control. I
don't disagree with that. They're simpler engines. They're
dirtier engines, they're simpler engines, they're easier to
maintain, but those cost savings aren't absolute. Those are
cost shifts. They are cost shifts to public health impacts. You
talk about the incidence of asthma going up but pollution going
down. I take that as there are more people with asthma, so it's
more important to address the pollution that's affecting those
people. So I take that as even more of a reason to move
forward.
On the small-business side, we're already controlling or
asking small businesses in our region to control at costs well
above what it looks like it would cost to bring glider kits up
to modern pollution standards. That's going to have impacts on
people's jobs. We have to meet these standards to protect
public health.
Mr. Weber. Well, we're going to disagree about that.
Mr. Chairman, I'm well over my time, so thank you very much
for your indulgence.
Mr. Abraham. You're welcome.
I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimonies and
Members for their questions.
The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
comments and written questions from Members. This hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the Subcommittees were
adjourned.
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Paul J. Miller
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted by Ranking Member Johnson
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]