[Senate Hearing 115-127]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-127
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 1857, S. 203,
S. 839, AND S. 1934
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR
AND NUCLEAR SAFETY
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 14, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
27-895 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
JERRY MORAN, Kansas KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
JONI ERNST, Iowa EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama KAMALA HARRIS, California
Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
Gabrielle Batkin, Minority Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
JERRY MORAN, Kansas KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
JONI ERNST, Iowa EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming (ex officio) THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
NOVEMBER 14, 2017
OPENING STATEMENTS
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
Virginia....................................................... 1
Sullivan, Hon. Dan, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska,
prepared statement............................................. 2
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 4
Burr, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator from the State of North Carolina 5
Shelby, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama..... 8
WITNESSES
Henry, Davis, President, Henry Brick Company..................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Kersting, Christopher J., President and CEO, Specialty Equipment
Market Association............................................. 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Responses to additional questions from Senator Whitehouse.... 23
Williams, Paul, Vice President, Business Intelligence, United
States Stove Company........................................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Hammond, Emily, Glen Earl Weston Research Professor of Law,
George Washington University Law School........................ 50
Prepared statement........................................... 52
Walke, John, Clean Air Director, Natural Resources Defense
Council........................................................ 61
Prepared statement........................................... 63
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Legislation:
S. 1857, To establish a compliance deadline of May 15, 2023,
for Step 2 emissions standards for new residential wood
heaters, new residential hydronic heaters, and forced-air
furnaces................................................... 104
S. 203, To reaffirm that the Environmental Protection Agency
may not regulate vehicles used solely for competition, and
for other purposes......................................... 106
S. 839, To allow for judicial review of any final rule
addressing national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants for brick and structural clay products or for
clay ceramics manufacturing before requiring compliance
with such rule............................................. 109
S. 1934, To prevent catastrophic failure or shutdown of
remote diesel power engines due to emission control
devices, and for other purposes............................ 112
Letters:
To the EPA Office of Policy Regulatory Reform from the Alaska
Energy Authority, May 15, 2017............................. 114
To Senators Capito and Whitehouse from the American
Motorcyclist Association et al., November 13, 2017......... 116
To Whomever It May Concern from OMNI-Test Laboratories,
November 14, 2017.......................................... 118
To Senators Barrasso, Capito, Carper, and Whitehouse from the
Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association, November 28, 2017.... 120
To Senator Sullivan from the Tanana Chiefs Conference,
undated.................................................... 130
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 1857, S. 203,
S. 839, AND S. 1934
----------
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Shelley Moore Capito
(Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Capito, Inhofe, Boozman, Wicker, Fischer,
Ernst, Shelby, Whitehouse, Gillibrand, and Carper.
Senator Capito. I want to thank everybody for being here
today.
This hearing of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
Subcommittee is called to order.
I will begin by recognizing myself for a brief opening
statement before turning over the floor to Ranking Member
Whitehouse for 5 minutes. We will then hear from our first
panel, which consists of Senator Burr, who just arrived to
introduce his legislation, the RPM Act.
Thank you, Senator Burr, for being here.
Our second panel of expert witnesses will then take their
seats. Senator Shelby will then be recognized to introduce two
witnesses from his home State of Alabama before we proceed.
I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. I don't think anyone can argue that the
volume of Federal regulation has grown over the decades. The
last decade, in particular, saw an explosion in red tape. The
Code of Federal Regulations has grown from 71,224 pages in 1975
to 185,053 pages at the end of last year.
The Federal Register mirrors this regulatory expansion.
Last year 95,894 shattered the record of the most pages entered
in a single year. Of the 10 highest annual Federal Register
page counts, 7 of these occurred during the last
Administration.
The results of all that regulation have been predictable--
the slowest economic recovery from any recession since World
War II; an increase in litigation instead of investment; meager
job creation; wage growth and more businesses dying than being
opened; and a transfer of power--I would argue the legislative
authority itself--from Congress to the executive branch that
would confound, I believe, our framers of the Constitution.
Politicians, bureaucrats, and the media have been fixated
on the biggest, most headlining, grabbing regulations of the
past few years, Obamacare implementation, Dodd-Frank, and the
EPA's Clean Power Plan, to name a few. While these are massive
regulatory expansions touching huge sectors of the economy, and
rightfully deserve public and political scrutiny, there are
many more regulations being imposed outside the spotlight
largely unnoticed.
That is the subject of today's hearing. This will
demonstrate that they have not gone unnoticed by the
businesses, families, and communities suffering from the
impacts of all this red tape. The four bills being considered
by the Committee today are narrowly targeted to simply and
easily provide regulatory relief and certainty for industries
that will unnecessarily suffer outsized cost from EPA rules and
actions. As we will hear, the companies affected are not huge
multinationals, but American family businesses across the
country, their workers, and their customers.
My bipartisan bill, S. 1857, introduced with Senators
Shelby, McCaskill, and Manchin, would extend the deadline for 3
years for the wood heater industry to meet new emissions
standards. That extension is vital for them to develop,
engineer, test, manufacture, and distribute to retailers models
that are compliant with the new standards. It also makes common
sense when the EPA has not even certified the new test
procedure for these wood stoves and hydronic heaters. It is
hard for anyone to study for a test when you don't know what
will be on it.
Senator Wicker's S. 839, the BRICK Act, of which I am a co-
sponsor, will similarly extend the compliance deadline on rules
relating to emissions from brick manufacturing until that
litigation issue is complete.
Senator Burr's S. 203, the RPM Act, which I have also co-
sponsored, would clarify that vehicles used solely for
competition are not to be treated like the cars that drive on
our nation's roads. Congress never intended for cars that have
been modified from street use to use only on race tracks to be
regulated. Race cars cannot and should not be held to the same
standards as passenger vehicles. The EPA tried to circumvent
the language of the Clean Air Act by creating a regulatory
regime that would hurt not only the motor sports industry, but
Americans all over the country who enjoy the hobby of tracking
modified vehicles.
Senator Sullivan's S. 1934, the Alaska Remote Generator
Reliability and Protection Act, will ensure that remote
communities will have access to reliable power. The diesel
generators upon which communities rely in remote Alaska cannot
be required to install emission controls if that would put the
health and welfare of Alaskans at risk. I have visited
Oscarville, so I have been to a remote village.
I would also ask unanimous consent to insert Senator
Sullivan's statement for the record.
Senator Whitehouse. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Sullivan follows:]
Statement of Hon. Dan Sullivan,
U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska
Chairwoman Capito, I submit the following testimony regarding S.
1934, the Alaska Remote Generator Reliability and Protection Act, which
I introduced in October with Senator Murkowski. This bill is narrowly
focused to provide a minor exemption from New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) for compression ignition internal combustion engines
used to power and heat remote Alaska villages. I appreciate the
Committee adding this bill to the agenda today and for being willing to
consider an issue that while of limited impact to the lower 48, has
potentially large ramification for my constituents.
existing regulations may raise costs and reliability concerns to remote
alaska villages
Rural Alaskans and Alaska natives face environmental, energy, and
survival challenges that are unique in the United States. Alaska is the
only State with large amounts of land above the Arctic Circle. Further
at 1/5 the land mass of the lower 48, but with a population below
750,000 people, Alaskans in remote villages off the highway system are
far removed from traditional modes of supply, transportation, and power
transmission. Because of this, remote Alaska villages rely heavily on
diesel generators to provide for electricity and heat. In the winter
these necessities become even more vital as parts of the State can
plunge to 40+ below. If the power fails and can't be restored quickly,
it can become not just a question of comfort but health and safety--
even life and death.
EPA recognized these unique challenges when it first issued its New
Source Performance Standards for compression ignition internal
combustion engines. In that 2006 rule EPA created a process for Alaska
to work with EPA to form a different implementation plan for rural
areas not on the Federal Aid Highway System (FAHS) in Alaska. \1\ EPA
later promulgated special standards for these engines in rural Alaska.
In setting these special standards EPA recognized that ``these villages
are scattered over long distances in remote areas and are not connected
to population centers by road or power grid. The villages are located
in the most severe arctic environments in the United States and they
rely on stationary diesel engines and fuel for electricity and heating,
and these engines need to be in working condition, particularly in the
winter.'' \2\ EPA also expanded the definition of remote areas in
Alaska in its newest special rules to include certain small and
isolated engines on the marine highway system or road system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition
Internal Combustion Engines, 80 FR 68808, 68811 (EPA Nov. 6, 2015).
\2\ Id. at 68812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under existing regulations, EPA set specific standards for diesel
generators in ``remote Alaska.'' All new generator sets installed in
remote areas of Alaska must install diesel particulate filters (DPFs)
on their new engines. Unfortunately, DPFs decrease the reliability of
these engines, as well as their fuel efficiency, increasing maintenance
requirements and nearly doubling the cost of a new engine. Additional
cost of maintaining a DPF can affect both the economic and public
health of remote areas. If anything goes wrong with the DPF, and the
generator shuts down, only a factory trained service technician with
the proper codes can fix the problem. \3\ In remote Alaska, these
technicians are at least 1-2 days away from a village and can be
extremely expensive for small communities without significant access to
cash economies. \4\ ``It is not uncommon, especially in the fall and
winter, for villages to be without flights due to weather or extreme
cold for multiple days or weeks. If a failure in the powerhouse occurs
during one of these times, the village could suffer significant damage
to its infrastructure and potentially loss of life.'' \5\ The marine
industry was able to avoid the restrictions specifically because DPF
systems are expensive and unreliable. Rural Alaska however did not
receive this same type of exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Letter from Dave Messier, Rural Energy Coordinator, Tanana
Chiefs Conference, 1 (2017) (on file with author).
\4\ Id.
\5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One story that I have heard from my constituents that highlights
these problems recently took place in Dutch Harbor on Amaknak Island in
the Aleutians. Dutch Harbor is one of the top fishing ports in the
world, and a key part of Alaska's economy. \6\ Recently Dutch Harbor's
powerhouse had a malfunction which required a technician from
Anchorage, 2 hours away, at a cost of approximately $1,000 for the
flights. \7\ Once in Dutch Harbor the technician was able to repair the
DPF and return to Anchorage without additional work. \8\ While the
technician was able to return quickly, if the weather had turned bad--
as is not uncommon in remote parts of Alaska--it could easily have
stranded technicians for 2 or more days costing upwards of $130 per
hour. \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id.
\7\ Id. at 1-2
\8\ Id.
\9\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
s. 1934 summary
To address the cost, maintenance, reliability, and flexibility
concerns with the existing Alaska specific standards, Senator Murkowski
and I introduced S. 1934, the Alaska Remote Generator Reliability and
Protection Act. S. 1934 directs the Administrator of EPA to revise,
within 1 year, 40 CFR 60.4216(c) which sets specific standards for
stationary compression ignition internal combustion engines (CI ICE)
like diesel generators in ``remote Alaska.'' The revision to these
regulations may only require certain emission control devices after the
Department of Energy and EPA determine that required controls will not
negatively affect electricity and energy reliability in remote areas of
Alaska.
Senator Capito. I look forward to discussing how these
narrow, straightforward relief bills will benefit American
workers, consumers, and families because the cost to all of our
constituents is real.
I will now recognize Ranking Member Whitehouse for his
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. I would like to join Chairman Capito in
thanking our witnesses for being here today to discuss four
bills that my Republican colleagues argue will aid specific
industries stifled by burdensome, costly regulations. Their
claim is that each bill is a simple fix for a narrowly tailored
regulation, but the devil is always in the details.
Industry has asked for a free pass in this Administration,
and the majority seems happy to oblige. These bills seek to
delay and defang environmental standards pushing compliance
dates for regulations or stripping authority from the Clean Air
Act.
In May the Subcommittee had a similar hearing on a pair of
ozone bills that would delay compliance of air quality
requirements for ozone and other pollutants. Ozone causes bad
air days in a State like mine located downwind from industry
facilities to our west. Bad air days keep infants, the elderly,
and folks with breathing difficulties indoors. The harms to
them deserve to be counted, too. I have grown weary of this
Congress and the Trump administration simply following industry
orders.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is the poster child for this
mess. In the 4 months since his appointment, he has moved to
undo, delay, or otherwise block more than 30 environmental
rules. There has been no visible enforcement of anything.
Science denial is rife.
The regulatory rollback--larger in scope than any over so
short a time in the agency's near half-century history--is a
direct boon to the fossil fuel industry. Polluters never want
to reduce their pollution.
Fossil fuel producers regularly attack the Clean Air Act.
They inflate their costs and ignore the other side of the
ledger like those infants, elderly folks, and folks with
breathing difficulties who have to stay indoors. These public
health benefits of reducing pollution deserve to be counted.
Pruitt just pulled tricks to under-count the public health
side in his justification for repealing the Clean Power Plan, a
rule which many utilities and States actually supported. He has
cooked the books to make the climate and health benefits of the
plan appear almost negligible compared to the compliance costs.
This is, again, no change in the harm to individuals. It is
simple accounting trickery from EPA.
Clean Air Act regulations have been working for decades,
and our country has prospered. Between 1970 until 2011
cumulative emissions of air pollutions dropped by two-thirds
while U.S. GDP grew by more than 200 percent. The work force
grew by 88 percent over this period.
According to a 2011 EPA assessment, the benefits of the
Clean Air Act will outweigh its cost by a ratio of 30 to 1, $30
of value in our economy and the lives of regular Americans for
every single dollar the polluters have to pay in cleanup costs.
We only seem to care about the latter. Thirty to one is a
good deal for America, and as a downwind State, it is a
particularly good deal for Rhode Island. In the Northeast, we
are showing how we can reduce pollution and grow our economy.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI, is a cooperative
effort among the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island,
Vermont, and shortly I expect again, New Jersey.
Since 2009 power sector emissions in our region have
dropped 37 percent. Meanwhile, electricity prices have fallen
by 3.4 percent, and bills have gone down as efficiency measures
save on use. RGGI estimates it has helped create 30,000 new
jobs and added $2.9 billion in regional economic growth. Just
recently the bipartisan Governors involved in RGGI agreed to
strengthen the program by an additional 30 percent reduction in
power sector emissions. RGGI proves Republicans and Democrats
can work together to fight pollution, protect the climate, and
power the economy forward.
I urge my colleagues to reach across the aisle to work with
us. There is common ground to be found on a variety of
environmental issues. We shouldn't just deliver an industry
wish list like the Murray Coal three-page plan we have not been
allowed to see. Delaying air quality standards has real life
consequences, and they hit home in Rhode Island.
I look forward to today's discussion.
Thank you, Chairman Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator.
I will now recognize our first panel and panelist, our
colleague, Senator Burr, from the great State of North Carolina
to introduce his legislation, S. 203, the RPM Act.
Welcome.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Senator Burr. Thank you, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member
Whitehouse, and any other members of the Subcommittee who might
be here.
I want to thank you for allowing me to come and speak in
favor of a bill I introduced this year, S. 203, the Recognizing
the Protection of Motorsports Act, the RPM Act. Let me say from
the beginning that this is a bipartisan, common sense approach
to something that shouldn't have been a problem.
Since the first motor vehicle rolled across the assembly
line, amateur mechanics and drivers have used hard work and
ingenuity to transform their vehicles into race cars. These
early pioneers established a framework for today's thriving
American motor sports industry from the largest race tracks in
Daytona, Florida; Dover, Delaware; Watkins Glen, New York; to
the local tracks like Devil's Bowl Speedway in Vermont and the
Summit Point Motor Sports Park in West Virginia.
The National Association of Stock Car Auto Racing was
founded in 1948. It was initially based on the notion that
racers purchased cars from dealer stock and modified them to
race. NASCAR has come a long way from its roots in the
foothills of North Carolina where moonshiners modified their
vehicles to elude local law enforcement.
Today the area around Charlotte hosts multi-million dollar
facilities where professional race teams manufacture and
fabricate their race cars. Each week these teams travel around
the United States racing in front of millions of fans. However,
for thousands of amateur mechanics and drivers all across the
country, the tradition of modifying a street car in order to
race at their local track each weekend still lives on.
A rule proposed in 2015 by the EPA raised doubts as to
whether amateur racing would continue. The EPA rule would have
made it illegal to convert an automobile into a race car if the
engine, exhaust, or any other part of the emissions system was
altered from its stock configuration. Thankfully, the
rulemaking was withdrawn as it would have directly attacked the
very idea American motor sports was built on, and which
hundreds of thousands of Americans still participate in as
competitors and spectators every single weekend.
The bill I introduced is very straightforward. It reaffirms
that the vehicles used solely for competition--including
vehicles modified to be used exclusively for racing--will not
sit in the garage because of an overly broad Washington rule.
This was never Congress' intent which has, for years, expressly
exempted these vehicles. The legislation would ensure that the
original congressional intent is maintained into the future. I
have been pleased with the bipartisan support this legislation
has garnered with a total of 38 co-sponsors, including 9 of my
Democrat colleagues. I hope this broad support highlights the
importance of the legislation across the country.
For those who illegally modify their personal vehicles for
use on our roads, this bill offers no relief. For example, in
North Carolina, most passenger vehicles are required to pass
emissions testing every year. In the State of Maryland, it is
every 2 years.
Following passage of this legislation, States will still be
able to establish a testing regime that meets their needs for
all vehicles that operate on public streets and highways. The
RPM Act is narrowly tailored to ensure Americans who want to
purchase a modified vehicle and take it to the race track--and
only the race track--will continue to be able to do so.
I believe after careful consideration and examination,
members of this Committee will come to the same conclusion that
this is a simple, yet important, piece of legislation that will
provide certainty to amateur racing enthusiasts in each of our
States.
Again, I want to thank the Subcommittee for consideration
of this legislation.
[The prepared statement of Senator Burr follows:]
Statement of Hon. Richard Burr,
U.S. Senator from the State of North Carolina
Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, members of the
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, thank you for
allowing me to come here today and speak in favor of the bill I
introduced earlier this year, S. 203, the Recognizing the
Protection of Motorsports Act of 2017, or RPM Act.
Since the first motor vehicle rolled across the assembly
line, amateur mechanics and drivers have used hard work and
ingenuity to transform their vehicles into race cars. These
early pioneers established the framework for today's thriving
American motorsports industry, from the largest race tracks in
Daytona Beach; Dover, Delaware; and Watkins Glen, New York, to
local tracks like Devil's Bowl Speedway in Vermont and the
Summit Point Motorsports Park in West Virginia. The National
Association for Stock Car Auto Racing was founded in 1948, and
was initially based on the notion that racers purchase cars
from dealers' stock and modify them to race.
NASCAR has come a long way from its roots in the foothills
of North Carolina, where moonshiners modified their vehicles to
elude local law enforcement. Today the area around Charlotte
hosts multi-million dollar facilities where professional race
teams manufacture and fabricate their race cars, and each week
these teams travel around the United States racing in front of
millions of fans; however, for thousands of amateur mechanics
and drivers all across the country the tradition of modifying a
street car in order to race at their local track each weekend
still lives on.
A rule proposed in 2015 by the Environmental Protection
Agency raised doubt as to whether amateur racing would
continue. The EPA rule would have made it illegal to convert an
automobile into a race car if the engine, exhaust, or any other
part of the emission system was altered from its stock
configuration. Thankfully the rulemaking was withdrawn, as it
would have directly attacked the very idea American motorsports
was built on, and for which hundreds of thousands of Americans
still participate in as competitors and spectators every
weekend.
The bill I introduced is very straightforward. It reaffirms
that vehicles used solely for competition--including vehicles
modified to be used exclusively for racing--will not sit in the
garage because of an overly broad Washington rule. This was
never Congress' intent, which has for years expressly exempted
these vehicles. The legislation would ensure that the original
congressional intent is maintained in the future.
I have been pleased by the bipartisan support this
legislation has garnered, with a total of 38 co-sponsors,
including 9 of my Democratic colleagues. I hope this broad
support highlights the importance of the legislation across the
country.
For those who illegally modify their personal vehicle for
use on our roads, this bill provides no relief. For example in
North Carolina, most passenger vehicles are required to pass
emissions testing every year; in the State of Maryland it is
every 2 years. Following the passage of this legislation States
will still be able to establish a testing regime that meets
their needs for all vehicles that operate on public streets and
highways. The RPM Act is narrowly tailored to ensure Americans
who want to purchase a vehicle, modify it, and take it to the
race track--and only to the race track--will continue to be
able to do so.
I believe after careful consideration and examination the
members of this Committee will come to the same conclusion that
this is a simple, yet important piece of legislation that will
provide certainty to the amateur racing enthusiasts in each of
our States.
I again want to thank the Committee for allowing me to
speak today.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that.
You can head off to your business, and I will call the
second panel. Thank you.
I would like to thank the second panel for joining us.
I want to now recognize Senator Shelby to introduce two of
our witnesses from the great State of Alabama.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD SHELBY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to
thank you for calling this hearing. I know I just got here, but
I welcome the opportunity to introduce two of our witnesses,
Mr. Davis Henry of Selma, Alabama, and Paul Williams of
Bridgeport, Alabama.
Mr. Davis Henry currently serves as President of Henry
Brick Company, a family owned, small business that has
manufactured clay bricks in Selma, Alabama, for more than 70
years. He represents a third generation, and the Henrys operate
the plant which employs 58 Alabamians.
Mr. Williams is the Vice President, Business Intelligence
for the U.S. Stove Company, where he has worked for more than
20 years. U.S. Stove Company's manufacturing facility is
located in Bridgeport, Alabama, not very far from Chattanooga,
Tennessee, where they employ more than 150 people.
These two privately owned, small businesses represent many
of the industries and employers in Alabama that are being
adversely impacted by overly proscriptive and burdensome EPA
rules and regulations.
When agencies disregard the interests and needs of small
manufacturers and businesses, the results are policies that do
more economic harm than environmental good and places undue
hardships on both the producers and the consumers.
I want to thank you for your work, Madam Chair, in working
to reduce regulatory burdens on small manufacturers and job
creators. I look forward to hearing from our panelists today on
how the bills before us will do just that.
Thank you.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator.
I will move forward with the rest of the introductions. Mr.
Christopher J. Kersting is the President and CEO of the
Specialty Equipment Market Association, representing the
aftermarket automobile parts and service industry. Mr. John
Walke is the Director of the Clean Air and Climate Program at
the Natural Resources Defense Council here in Washington. Ms.
Emily Hammond is the Glen Earl Weston Research Professor of Law
at the George Washington University Law School focused on
energy, environmental and administrative law. Welcome.
Mr. Henry, I will start with you. You will be recognized
for 5 minutes. Your full statement will be submitted for the
record.
STATEMENT OF DAVIS HENRY, PRESIDENT,
HENRY BRICK COMPANY
Mr. Henry. Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse, and
distinguished members of the Subcommittee, good morning, and
thank you for inviting me to testify on this important issue.
As Senator Shelby said, my name is Davis Henry. I am the
President of Henry Brick Company located in Selma, Alabama, a
company that my grandfather founded in 1945. I represent the
third generation of Henry's to operate this plant. I also
currently serve as the Vice Chairman of the Brick Industry
Association. I am here today to speak on behalf of both my
company and my industry.
We currently employ 58 people. If we have both plants
running, that number is about 95. We have not run Plant 2 too
much since 2008. The economy took a downturn then. As you can
imagine, the last 9 years has been a very trying time for our
company, as well as the rest of the brick industry. We are
committed to doing our share to protect our environment, but
with a finite amount of resources, we need to be sure we know
what is required of us and that the target will not change once
those resources are committed.
I am here today because we were directly impacted by a
previous moving regulatory target. I want to ensure that my
company and all remaining brick companies are not victimized
again.
In 2003 the first maximum achievable control technology,
MACT, standard was promulgated for our industry. This rule
applied only to major sources of hazardous air pollutants, HAP,
and only to the larger kilns in our industry. For our industry,
with only two pollutants emitted in any large amount, the
definition of major source that really applies is a facility
that has the potential to emit 10 tons or more of any single
HAP.
Henry Brick was a major source of HAP in 2003 and had two
kilns considered to be large by the EPA. We had until 2006 to
install and begin operating control devices to meet the limits,
which we did at a total cost of about $1.5 million.
In 2007, almost a full year after our industry achieved
compliance with the 2003 Brick MACT, it was vacated by the
courts. Unfortunately, most of us, including Henry Brick, were
unable to turn off our control devices because our existing air
permits would not allow us to stop operating the controls.
During the compliance time for the 2003 Brick MACT, the
number of controlled kilns in our industry soared from just
over 20 to more than 100 kilns. In 2008 the EPA began
developing the replacement MACT that eventually became the 2015
Brick MACT. To develop the standard, the EPA looked at the best
performing kilns, including those new control devices that were
the result of the 2003 MACT to establish the limits.
Unfortunately, like many who installed DLAs, our kilns cannot
meet these new, more stringent limits.
We recently conducted a stack test at our facilities that
confirmed our inability to meet the limits for two of three HAP
categories with numeric limits. We cannot meet the mercury
limit nor the PM/non-mercury metals limit. To comply with the
2015 Brick MACT, we believe we would need to rip out the DLAs
and install a new lime based system called a DIFF. The EPA
believes this could cost as much as $3.8 million per kiln.
There is also an alternate solution the EPA has proposed
that would only cost $1.65 million per kiln, but that is an
untested control scenario, and no one knows whether it will
actually work.
There is a way to avoid MACT compliance. In fact, the EPA's
first listed option for complying with the rule is to avoid the
rule altogether by becoming a synthetic miner or synthetic area
source. To become a synthetic area source, a facility accepts
federally enforceable limits that ensures that they never emit
more than the 10 tons per year that makes you a major source.
If you are like Henry Brick and have both of your kilns
controlled with air pollution control devices, EPA assumes that
you can become a synthetic area source at little or no cost.
Unfortunately, our most recent tests also demonstrate that
we cannot become a synthetic area source with our current
control devices without greatly reducing capacity. EPA's
determination was based on faulty data. It appears that there
was some kind of error in the test that made it appear we could
reach the limit. We are still investigating our data.
Henry Brick simply cannot afford to try to hit another
moving target for Brick MACT compliance. We acted in good faith
to comply with the 2003 Brick MACT and now face some of the
steepest costs in the industry because we may need to rip out
our DLAs and replace them with DIFFs.
We need the BRICK Act to ensure that we are not required to
invest again until we know that the standard is and that it is
not going to change. This is not a hypothetical issue for our
industry. It is real. It happened to us at Henry Brick. Please
don't let it happen again.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Henry follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Mr. Kersting, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER J. KERSTING, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
SPECIALTY EQUIPMENT MARKET ASSOCIATION
Mr. Kersting. Chairwoman Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse,
and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity
to speak today in support of the Recognizing the Protection of
Motorsports Act, RPM. We applaud Senator Burr for introducing
S. 203, along with 38 other bipartisan co-sponsors, including
EPW Chairman Barrasso, Chairwoman Capito, and Subcommittee
members Inhofe, Boozman, Fischer, Moran, and Ernst.
My name is Chris Kersting, and I am the President and CEO
of the Specialty Equipment Market Association. SEMA is a trade
association that represents more than 6,900 companies that
manufacture, sell, and install a variety of specialty auto
parts, including motorsports equipment.
The RPM Act solves a problem that did not exist before
2015. It clarifies that it has always been legal to make
emissions related changes to a street vehicle that has been
converted into a race car. It also confirms that it is legal to
produce, market, and install racing equipment.
In July 2015 the EPA issued a proposed regulation declaring
that the Clean Air Act prohibits converting a motor vehicle
into a race car. Manufacturing, selling, and installing racing
parts for the converted vehicle would also be a violation.
Although the EPA did not finalize the proposed rule, the agency
stands by that interpretation. SEMA contends the interpretation
contradicts over 47 years of previous EPA practice, and it
renders illegal the majority of current and future race cars
and motorcycles.
Congress never intended for the EPA to regulate race cars.
Under the Act, a regulated motor vehicle is one that operates
on the roadways. When enacted in 1970 Congress clarified in the
conference committee report that the term motor vehicle did not
include vehicles manufactured or modified for racing.
Then in 1990 Congress provided authority to the EPA to
regulate non-road vehicles. It specifically excluded vehicles
used solely for competition from the definition of a non-road
vehicle.
Despite this past clear congressional intent, the EPA's
2015 regulatory language reads, in part, ``Certified motor
vehicles and their emission control devices must remain in
their certified configuration even if they are used solely for
competition; anyone modifying a certified motor vehicle for any
reason is subject to the tampering and defeat device
prohibitions.''
The EPA interpretation is a reversal from a 45 year status
quo and is the sole issue of the RPM Act. For nearly five
decades modification of street vehicles for racing has never
been questioned under the Act.
The motor sports industry and the racing enthusiasts
reasonably rely that racing activity is legal. The RPM Act is
now necessary to restore certainty under the law.
There are about 1,300 race tracks across the country. Most
cater to thousands of organized amateur racing events which
involve converted vehicles. These drivers, the race teams, and
the spectators all help drive local economies, fill motel rooms
and restaurants, and they shop at local stores. All these
activities translate into tens of thousands of jobs and
billions of dollars in economic activity, including annual
sales of racing equipment.
The EPA interpretation puts this direct and related
economic activity at risk as illegal under the law. In the
State of California, which has its own very strict emissions
laws, they provide an express exemption for race cars and
modification equipment in both statute and regulation.
A racing vehicle is defined as a competition vehicle not
used on public highways. This law establishes an approach that
is consistent with the RPM Act and consistent with nearly five
decades of interpretation under the Clean Air Act.
In conclusion, the RPM Act is narrow in scope. It would
restore nearly 50 years of consistent interpretation under the
law. The American motor sports tradition, the many small
businesses, the jobs and tax revenue associated with it are all
in jeopardy.
The EPA's position results in these businesses currently
operating illegally. The RPM Act will make clear Congress
renders this activity legal.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak in support of
the RPM Act. I would be willing to answer any questions you may
have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kersting follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Mr. Williams, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF PAUL WILLIAMS, VICE PRESIDENT, BUSINESS
INTELLIGENCE, UNITED STATES STOVE COMPANY
Mr. Williams. Chairwoman Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse,
and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding this
hearing today on S. 1857.
My name is Paul Williams, and I am the Vice President of
the United States Stove Company. We are a privately owned
business employing 150 people in Alabama and Tennessee.
We make a full range of wood heating appliances covered by
these regulations. The company is almost 150 years old and
would like to be in business for another 150 years, but we are
worried.
Today I represent all wood stove and heater manufacturers
and retailers that make or sell appliances impacted by EPA
emission standards. I will refer to this regulation as the New
Source Performance Standard, NSPS.
I want to be clear that the United States Stove Company and
the industry support these Federal regulations. Standards
provide uniform regulations and predictability which lowers
costs for consumers through manufacturing efficiencies. All we
are asking in this bill is for a 3 year extension to meet Step
2 of the NSPS standards.
Here is the situation. The EPA finalized this rule in 2015,
and there are two steps. Manufacturers have already met Step 1
standards, in most cases, by reducing product emissions by 70
percent or more. Step 2 standards are even more stringent and
must be met by May 2020. Products not meeting Step 2 cannot be
made or sold after May 2020.
For some products, we had to redesign them from the ground
up to meet Step 1. It takes a large capital investment ranging
from $250,000 to $500,000 per product and an additional 9 to 15
months to bring a single product from concept to market.
Meeting the Step 1 deadline had consumed a great deal of our
time and resources. Now we must start this process all over to
meet the 2020 standards. Since wood burning products are
seasonal, there is a specific window of time for selling them
that will make or break a company.
Retailers will make decisions in October 2018, less than a
year from now, on products they will sell in the 2019-2020
heating season. That means we must invent the technology, test
it for durability and safety, send it to an EPA approved lab
for testing, and then have it certified by the EPA, all by the
early fall of 2018 to have product in stores by 2020.
Each of these steps takes several months and has
significant cost. Even if we do our part, we are concerned
about the EPA's capacity to certify products in time.
Let us talk about the real life impacts. United States
Stove offers 46 products. If the current timeline stands, we
will be lucky to have 17 products ready for sale in May 2020.
Two-thirds of our product line will not be ready. Since
retailers don't want to get stuck with Step 1 products they are
not allowed to sell, the closer we get to 2020, they will cut
purchases to keep inventory low.
Fewer sales means less production, fewer manufacturing
jobs, and less capital to develop Step 2 products. We have
already seen this in Step 1. With fewer products at higher
prices, retailers will lose sales.
For one hardware distributor in Prichard, West Virginia,
whom I have worked with for more than two decades, Step 1
changed and dramatically affected his forced air furnace sales.
Product prices doubled from $1,000 to $2,000. In 2015 he sold
42 warm air furnaces. In 2016, after the price doubled, his
number dropped to 11, and this year it is down to 8. This will
only get worse as the number of products declines and prices
continue to rise. Retailer income and jobs will be cut.
Rural consumers in States like Iowa, Oklahoma, and Illinois
who rely on our products will be hard hit. First, consumer
choices will be cut. Second, prices will rise, and finally,
consumers will not get cleaner air. With limited products and
higher prices, consumers will hold on to their older, dirtier
products longer, many of which have uncontrolled emissions.
In a rush to improve air quality, we are creating incentive
to hold on to older products longer. This will actually slow
air quality improvements.
Three years does not sound like much, but it will give us
time to accumulate the capital and do the work to try to
properly design and test wood burning products that are safe
and reliable while meeting the required emission limits. We may
be able to get the prices down to where more families can
afford them.
Keep in mind, people and families trust our products to
have a live fire in their home. We take that seriously. All we
are asking for is time so that we can accomplish the task at
hand.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Ms. Hammond.
STATEMENT OF EMILY HAMMOND, GLEN EARL WESTON RESEARCH PROFESSOR
OF LAW, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
Ms. Hammond. Chairwoman Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse,
and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify today.
I will begin by discussing the Clean Air Act and the
economic benefits clean air provides. Next, I will put the
bills you are considering today into context by sounding an
alarm. The very air we breathe and the climate we depend are
under assault.
In the executive branch, the Environmental Protection
Agency is abdicating its responsibilities under the Act.
Several features of the bills under consideration today would
further undermine our clean air protections.
The Clean Air Act is foundational to protecting human
health and the environment and ensuring a thriving economy. As
a result of its protections, between 1970 and 2011 air
pollution dropped 68 percent while the gross domestic product
increased 212 percent. Private sector jobs increased by 88
percent during that same time period.
Regulations promulgated under the Clean Air Act saved over
164,000 lives in 2010 alone and are projected to save 237,000
lives in 2020. By contrast, S. 1857 would roll back protections
and impose on our society 300 to 800 premature deaths per year.
Of course when people are sick, they are not working. When
children are sick, they are not attending school. Clean Air Act
rules save millions of days of lost work and missed school each
year.
Even this brief snapshot shows the economic benefits of
clean air protections. However, the bills under consideration
today roll back those protections, which were developed after
rigorous expert analysis, public and industry input, and cost
justification, all in the name of catering to special interests
at the expense of our most vulnerable populations.
These bills must be considered in further context. The
Trump administration is failing to carry out Congress' mandate
to ensure clean air. For example, it is considering revoking
protections from air toxics, just as another of the bills
before you today would do, and it has illegally attempted to
delay the compliance deadlines for environmental protections
already in effect.
Alarming as these efforts are, even worse is the
Administration's utter failure to exercise leadership on
climate change. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA must regulate air
pollutants that it finds endanger public health and welfare.
The term air pollutants includes greenhouse gases. EPA has
made a detailed, science backed finding that greenhouse gases
do endanger public health and welfare.
Given its mandate to regulate in the face of such a
finding, EPA has undertaken several efforts to reduce the
United States' contribution to the global problem. These
efforts used the social cost of carbon in their cost-benefit
analyses which was developed by an interagency working group,
subjected to peer review, and upheld in Federal court.
Notwithstanding the scientific consensus and the
unthinkable cost of climate change, the Trump administration
has taken the destructive, absurd approach of pretending that
it does not exist. This utter abdication of responsibility
demands this institution's oversight.
A step in the right direction and within the Subcommittee's
jurisdiction would be to call EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to
task for falling down on the job. Notably, Administrator Pruitt
has not attempted to revoke the endangerment finding. Doing so
would be arbitrary and capricious given the overwhelming
scientific record.
Yet despite the Clean Air Act's clear direction to regulate
such emissions, EPA is now attempting to do exactly the
opposite and with a watered down, outcome driven concept of the
cost of carbon. Several of the bills before you today would add
to these harms.
For example, S. 1857 would increase black carbon and
greenhouse gas emissions as well as premature deaths due to
particulate matter exposure. S. 839 would increase emissions of
hazardous air pollutants like mercury and dioxins.
Years of experience with the Clean Air Act and EPA's
implementing regulations demonstrates that clean air is an
economic good, but clean air protections and our global climate
are at risk. I urge you to consider this bigger picture as you
take up the bills before you today. We cannot afford
complacency.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hammond follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Mr. Walke.
STATEMENT OF JOHN WALKE, CLEAN AIR DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES
DEFENSE COUNCIL
Mr. Walke. Thank you, Chairwoman Capito, Ranking Member
Whitehouse, and distinguished members.
My name is John Walke. I am Clean Air Director and a senior
attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. I am
testifying over concerns that these four bills will increase
harmful air pollution. My statement will focus on two of the
more harmful bills before you, S. 203, the RPM Act; and S. 836,
a bill to delay protections from hazardous air pollution.
The most troubling bill before you is one that should not
be particularly controversial. The RPM Act appears to be a well
intentioned effort to clarify that vehicles used solely for
organized motorized racing events do not have to meet pollution
control requirements applied to on-road vehicles.
Unfortunately, the current language of the bill opens a
hugely damaging loophole in the Clean Air Act. I believe the
resulting increases in air pollution would dwarf the harmful
air pollution and health impacts of the recent Volkswagen
cheating scandal.
The current bill makes it effectively impossible for the
Federal Government to stop or enforce after the fact the sale
of vehicle pollution control defeat devices as long as a
company claims that they intend the device to be used for
racing. Companies may simply claim under the bill that on-road,
non-competition use of defeat devices was not their purpose
when selling the devices, even if they knew, even if they
should have known, or even if they acted in willful disregard
of whether those defeat devices were being used on roads and
highways.
We don't grant toy manufacturers amnesty from liability if
they sell toys that are choking hazards for toddlers that they
should have known the toys would be used and swallowed by
toddlers or if they acted in willful disregard of that
certainty. The Clean Air Act should not grant amnesty to
manufacturers that sell pollution control devices to vehicles
registered for roads and highways that the manufacturers should
have known would be used for ordinary on-road driving or if
they act in willful disregard of that certainty.
The bill's purpose language is the problem, but I believe
it is one that can be fixed. Illegal pollution control defeat
devices are a significant air pollution and health concern in
this country.
In just one Justice Department settlement, illegal defeat
devices allowed an additional 71,000 tons of smog forming air
pollution. That is equal to one and a half times all motor
vehicle smog emissions in the State of West Virginia for a full
year, including from every car, truck, bus, motorcycle,
tractor, bulldozer, and all other construction and recreational
vehicles.
The bill, however, reflects welcome agreements among us
here today. S. 203 supporters do not want harmful emissions due
to defeat devices on vehicles driven on roads and highways. S.
203 critics do not want racing cars used solely for competition
to be covered by the Clean Air Act. There is a legislative
drafting fix that can meet the reasonable goals of both groups.
I ask you to fix the bill. In the meantime, I ask you not
to pass the bill as written.
Turning to the hazardous air pollution delay bill, S. 839,
Joan Hardy and her husband live on a farm outside Elgin, Texas,
where they raise chickens and turkeys and grow vegetables.
Their home and farm are surrounded by three brick plants
covered by EPA's rule. S. 839 would delay that rule
indefinitely.
The Hardys' soil, drinking water, vegetable garden, and
animals are exposed to hazardous pollutants from these brick
plants, including mercury, heavy metals, dioxins, furans, and
acid gases. The Hardys are concerned about increased health
problems for them and their grandchildren who play outside and
help them tend the vegetables and chickens.
S. 839 represents an effort to indefinitely delay
regulation of hazardous air pollution from these facilities
after these standards have already been delayed 17 years past
the time that Congress promised the Hardys and all Americans
that dangerous toxins would be regulated.
S. 839 seeks even more delay after the industry trade
association has worked not once but twice to avoid these
standards. The first time resulted in a Federal court striking
them down. Let me emphasize that 106 out of 147 kilns have no
air pollution controls due to this earlier unlawful standard
that the brick industry supported.
Finally, let me give brief remarks on the wood stove
compliance delay bill, S. 1857. There are already significant
numbers of stoves complying with the Step 2 standards and the
2020 compliance date; 73 percent of wood pellet wood stoves and
41 percent of central heaters, for example.
Those companies are complying, and we should not delay the
bill for those that are not. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walke follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Walke.
I will begin questioning. I appreciate the testimony of you
all.
Mr. Williams, I wanted to talk with you about S. 1857. I am
interested in the comment that Mr. Walke just made that 73
percent of the wood pellet stoves are already in compliance
with Step 2.
I understand from your testimony there has not been
developed by EPA a sufficient testing compliance standard or
testing regime. Can you clarify that difference?
Mr. Williams. I think some of the confusion is that when
you look at the October listing of the EPA certified
appliances, there are over 500 appliances that currently meet
Step 1. Of that, roughly less than 10 percent actually
qualifies for the Step 2 emission standards.
Senator Capito. Of the Step 1, only 10 percent qualify for
the Step 2?
Mr. Williams. Yes, I think the latest number was something
like 20 and 26 or something that actually qualify. They have
not all gone through the test yet.
The pellet stove test standard, we think will be a low
hanging fruit and qualify. They qualified under the Step 1
standard, but Step 2 will require that they all be re-tested.
That test will require significant cost of another $5,000 per.
On the wood stove front, while there is an approved
consensus based test method for everything, it is a crib based
method. One of the avenues people in the EPA want to explore
and really want to go to is a cord wood, real world test
method, how people actually burn their cord wood, their real
wood stoves. That test method has not been approved yet. That
is something still in the works.
Senator Capito. It would be hard to be compliant if you
don't have a test to know whether you are compliant.
Mr. Williams. That is a challenge that we have. As I
stated, we have been forced by the retailers to whom we sell
that they will not start stocking products as early as next
year if they are not 2020. They do not want to be burdened with
product they cannot sell in 2020. Any leftover inventory, they
will not take.
Senator Capito. Let me clarify, too, that this bill simply
asks for a 3 year extension. You are not asking to not comply
with Step 2?
Mr. Williams. That is correct. We are small businesses in
rural communities. We welcome the Clean Air Act. We helped
develop the data that crafted the NSPS. All we are asking for
is a little bit of time so that we don't jeopardize the
manufacturers, the employees, the retailers, and the end
consumer.
Senator Capito. It seems to me as well that if you do not
have the correct protocol in place, you could run the risk from
the consumer standpoint of running their old stoves, keeping
something that may have gone through its shelf life, you cannot
afford a new one and maybe have worse environmental
circumstances than if you got it right the first time and had
the Step 2 compliance correct. Am I assuming that correctly?
Mr. Williams. Yes. I think we are already seeing that from
the example in Prichard, West Virginia.
Senator Capito. Right.
Mr. Williams. With 742 furnaces. Now if people do not have
an affordable option, they are going to hold onto their older,
dirtier stoves.
Senator Capito. Mr. Kersting, on S. 203, West Virginia
University was very, very instrumental in detecting the
emissions defeat devices. We are very proud of that in our
State. I think we are comparing two major issues here with what
is actually going on in a narrow slice of life in terms of
racing cars.
Could you make a distinction, if you can, on cheating on
emissions on a broad scale, like we saw, and what your sports
enthusiasts are really doing?
Mr. Kersting. The VW instance is a case where vehicle
manufacturers are required to certify vehicles before they go
out on the road. Those vehicles then have systems in them that
will help maintain that vehicle and certify compliance.
VW, like many manufacturers, put millions of vehicles on
the road. VW had an intentional program to hide a defeat device
in the system for vehicles being sold new where no one would
see or know that defeat device was there.
In the case of the racing industry converting a vehicle,
those products are marketed and are known. In the case of
products that end up on the street as illegal tampering, again,
those products are marketed. EPA has access to see those
products, and that is why enforcement action does take place
under the Act in the cases of street tampering.
The situation here is that EPA has proposed a ban against
all activity that would convert a certified vehicle for any
purpose, including racing. That makes enforcement for EPA, with
regard to street tampering, a pretty simple matter. It throws
the baby out with the bath water.
Senator Capito. Let me ask a quick question. You mentioned
the 1,300 race tracks. I know this is kind of a tough question.
How many vehicles would there be?
Mr. Kersting. I actually don't have a specific number of
vehicles. We could round that up.
Senator Capito. I would be interested in seeing that.
Mr. Kersting. There are thousands and thousands of race
vehicles out there, and more every day.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Mr. Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. As long as we are on the subject of the
motor sports bill, let me ask unanimous consent to enter in the
record technical assistance received from the Trump
administration EPA making suggestions to improve this bill so
that it is clear that it does, in fact, deal with race
vehicles.
Senator Capito. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. The testimony from Senator Burr was
intended to focus on vehicles; to quote him, ``used exclusively
for racing and used only on the race track.'' If that is true,
then I think we have language from Trump's own EPA that could
resolve that issue. Then perhaps we can move forward.
If this is designed to create a back door for street
registered vehicles to violate the Clean Air Act, then we are
going to have a problem. I think that as long as we are
focusing only on those vehicles that are track vehicles, then
we can find a solution.
More generally, I observe yet again that in this hearing,
it is customarily only one side of the ledger that gets
attention. Whenever pollution is being cleaned up, there is
almost inevitably a cost to the polluters to clean up their
pollution, but there is also often a benefit to the public from
not having to breathe in the polluted air.
Over and over again, instead of this Committee looking at
both sides of the ledger, we hear only about one side of the
ledger. In fact, I think we could provide a wonderful market
for one-eyed accountants who can only see one side of the
ledger here in this Committee.
Let me ask, with respect to the wood heaters, if Ms.
Hammond or Mr. Walke have any idea what has been established as
the cost-benefit ratio for those regulations.
Mr. Walke. Senator, I do not have that at my disposal. I
can provide it to you after the fact. The agency has found that
standards such as these save lives and avoid asthma attacks.
The agency responsibly assigns a high value to those and has
consistently found those benefits outweigh the compliance
costs.
Senator Whitehouse. For what it is worth, I have
information that the EPA has estimated the benefits of this
requirement for new residential wood heaters at $3.4 billion to
$7.6 billion annually. That is billion with a B, whereas the
cost of compliance was estimated at $46 million annually, $46
million with an M. The net benefit is $74 to $165 in benefits
for every $1 spent to comply.
In most places, when you spend a dollar and get $74 to $165
in benefits, that is considered a pretty good deal. However, it
does require you looking at both sides of the ledger and to
have public health benefits actually count for something, which
over and over again, this Committee seems unable to bring
itself to do.
One of the things I want to question about the Brick Kiln
Act is that it would indefinitely postpone this new rule, as I
understand it, while pending litigation continues. I would ask
Ms. Hammond or Mr. Walke what this means in terms of the
industry's ability to manipulate the deadline by simply keeping
litigation alive for the sake of pushing out the end point of
the rule.
Mr. Walke. Senator Whitehouse, let me give two answers to
that. First of all, the bill is written in such a way that not
just the pending litigation over the rules from 2015 but future
litigation over future rules would also continue to delay those
standards protecting Americans.
Senator Whitehouse. The industry could truly litigate this
into the indefinite future, for time immemorial. Our great
grandchildren could still have no rule because the litigation
never stopped?
Mr. Walke. If the rules keep getting relitigated, it is
just like that.
The other thing I should note is that just last week, the
Trump administration agreed to put the industry lawsuits on
ice, not to dismiss them, but to ensure they would continue,
therefore fueling this bill's delay even more. Federal judges
were quite angry at that move and indicated they may just go
ahead and resolve the lawsuits in the next 2 to 3 months.
We could have the end of the litigation and therefore, the
end of any uncertainty period, and Americans could be given the
protections promised by the Clean Air Act.
Senator Whitehouse. Get used to it because, in my view,
this EPA is going to regularly work with industry to create
artificial delay and defeat the courts because, in effect, the
industry is on both sides of the litigation when it is industry
versus Trump EPA.
Senator Capito. Senator Wicker.
Senator Wicker. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Henry, for your testimony. In your written
testimony, you mentioned a constituent of mine, Mr. Puckett.
You mentioned that basically he had to sell a generations-old
business because he just couldn't make the compliance costs.
Would you explain that to the members of the Subcommittee?
Mr. Henry. Certainly. The brick industry news travels
pretty fast. A few weeks ago, it came out that Columbus Brick
had decided to sell to General Shale, a large, multi-national
conglomerate.
Al and I spoke about it. Al said one of the mitigating
factors was continually increasing costs to comply with new
regulations. He said, with his age and where his family
business was, they could not commit the $4 million to $6
million he felt it was going to cost him to comply in the
future with not only this rule but other rules being considered
for our industry.
He felt his only choice--based on that and some other
factors--was to sell.
Senator Wicker. When we weigh the pluses and minuses of any
of these things, we need to weigh the cost of the loss of jobs
against the benefit. I am sure everyone would agree with that
also.
You are also a small business, Mr. Henry. You employ 58
people. You would like to get back to 95 people, but that would
require bringing Plant 2 back online. You are just not willing
to do that with the compliance cost, is that correct?
Mr. Henry. Well, that is part of it. A lot of it is economy
driven, also. The building sector has been through a horrible 9
to 10 years. It has been no fun. Certainly, one of the
considerations in the soft market is things you would possibly
have to do to bring that in line.
One of the frustrating things for us as a company, I think,
is we currently, and have been since 2005, have been capturing
95 percent of our HAPs. We capture 95 percent of our
pollutants. This new rule is dealing with 3 to 4 percent.
To spend that kind of money on a 3 to 4 percent more
capture rate and not know if the final rule is going to stay as
it is, it is kind of scary.
Senator Wicker. Let's make sure we understand. There was a
rule that went into place in 2003, correct?
Mr. Henry. Yes.
Senator Wicker. You got about the business of complying
with that rule?
Mr. Henry. Yes.
Senator Wicker. Many of your colleagues around the industry
did so. In the meantime, there a lawsuit which took until 2007
to be resolved, and it turns out the court ruled that the EPA
was wrong and the rule could not go into effect. Am I correct
so far?
Mr. Henry. That is correct.
Senator Wicker. Now, in 2015, that you have 95 percent of
your emissions controlled, EPA comes up with another regulation
that says you have to do better, and there is a lawsuit about
that?
Mr. Henry. Yes.
Senator Wicker. That is the moving target you are talking
about?
Mr. Henry. Exactly.
Senator Wicker. I see. I hope there is some way we can do
the balancing act that Mr. Whitehouse talked about. We always
have to balance the cost versus the benefit. I am sorry my
colleague has missed the acknowledgment on both sides of the
dais that we need to do that.
Electricity can kill you. There is no question about it,
but we take risks in our society. Without electricity, our
economy would grind to a halt, so we establish a correct
balance of this terrible force called electricity that can kill
you and the benefit to society.
Reducing the speed limit to 30 miles an hour nationwide
would save lives, no question about it, but we have taken the
position, as a society, that would just be too harmful to the
economy, and so we are willing to take that risk and get our
speed limit up to 70 miles an hour on interstates and whatever
the States decide to do on State regulated roads. That is a
balancing act.
That is all we are asking EPA to do. I am sure that is all
the plaintiffs are doing in this lawsuit. Give us something
that will allow this 40 percent extra number of employees you
would like to put back to work to have a living.
I hope we can work on this legislation and achieve that
sort of sensible balance.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
For Ms. Hammond, while each of the bills we are considering
today addresses a niche industry concern with clean air
regulations that seem minor and relatively noncontroversial, if
we carved out exemptions for every industry that claimed
compliance with clean air regulations was too burdensome, what
would that do to the Clean Air Act?
Ms. Hammond. It would certainly undermine everything this
institution envisioned when it passed the Clean Air Act which
was not just a sector by sector approach at getting us to a
basic level of clean air, but improving our air over time. We
should expect those standards to increase over time as we get
better at what we do.
Senator Gillibrand. What impact would these bills have on
the air quality in States like New York?
Ms. Hammond. In States like New York, for example, if we
look at the residential wood heaters, we would see increases in
particulate emissions and increases in premature deaths. As
Senator Whitehouse noted, the cost-benefit analysis here put
the benefits at about 100 to 1 over cost.
In any State where we have kiln manufacturing and wood
heaters that are emitting that dangerous particulate matter, we
would see significant costs.
Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Walke, if S. 203 were to be
enacted, are there any assurances that EPA would be able to
prevent cars equipped with emissions defeat devices for racing
purposes from driving on the roads and highways?
Mr. Walke. No, and you put your finger on the bill. The
problem with the bill and the purpose standard, which is a
significant and extreme retreat from the standard the Justice
Department has always employed, which is to be able to
prosecute companies that were selling products they should have
known would be used on the roadways.
No one is concerned or troubled by exclusive use for
racing. We are concerned about a significant departure from the
standard the Government has successfully used to prosecute
companies that should have known their products were being
misused. That is where the bill creates a problem that does not
exist today.
The problem is not with racing cars. No one is here arguing
that people shouldn't be able to use cars for racing with these
types of devices.
Senator Gillibrand. Is there any way to tell that a vehicle
is equipped with a defeat device once it has been installed?
Mr. Walke. There would be if we had the Government walking
into garages and looking at individual drivers. I do not think
anyone wants that. That is why the Government has never brought
enforcement cases against individual drivers.
Instead, once these illegal defeat devices are sold and
installed on cars, we cannot, we do not, and I submit this
Senate probably doesn't even want EPA going out there trying to
track down individual drivers to prosecute them for using these
defeat devices.
You have to target the behavior before they are sold or
when they are sold by the manufacturers, which is why
manufacturers should have known their products would be used by
individual drivers. That is where the liability should attach.
Senator Gillibrand. Are there any changes that can be made
to S. 203 that would give you more confidence that the
exemption in this bill could not be exploited by those who
would install defeat devices on vehicles driven on roads and
highways?
Mr. Walke. I would strongly recommend two changes to the
current bill that I think would meet everyone's needs and
goals.
The first is not to allow these defeat devices to be sold
for registered vehicles, vehicles registered on roads and
highways. The second point I think is even more important. That
is to eliminate this purpose standard, this purpose language in
the bill, because that is the language that allows willful
disregard of sales of defeat devices for registered vehicles.
Knowing sales and constructive knowledge is the language that
the bigger problem.
Again, I think those two fixes would meet everyone's
objectives.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
I would like to turn to Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Mr. Henry, thank you for appearing here. I have been to
your business many, many times and know your family.
You have spoken to it and been asked a lot of questions.
What will a little time do for you because you need certainty.
I know this. You have come a long way in dealing with air
pollution in the manufacture of bricks, right, all over the
country?
Mr. Henry. Yes.
Senator Shelby. What would a little time do for you?
Mr. Henry. This is 2017, October, November now. We have to
be in compliance by December 2018, a little over a year from
now. There are a lot of control devices that supposedly work to
control some of these emissions that are not proven
technologies yet.
As I stated earlier, we currently capture 95 percent. To
capture the other 3 to 4 percent, we just want to make sure
that whatever is proposed works and that the rule to capture
the last little bit does not change. That is all the time gives
us.
Senator Shelby. It is also a big expenditure for your
company, is it not?
Mr. Henry. If we went the route of complying with the new
MACT, it could mean our spending $8 million to comply. To
become a synthetic source, as we are right now, would mean we
would have to reduce our production capacity.
Senator Shelby. What do you mean by a synthetic source?
Mr. Henry. The EPA is saying if you can stay under the 10
ton limit, you become a synthetic source, you go off the radar,
and you no longer have to comply with the MACT. We can do that
with the control devices we have if we reduce our capacity of
production.
The unfortunate thing there is we all know in production,
the last bit is where you ``make your profits.'' As you reduce
your capacity, you reduce your ability to make money.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Williams, I know you have been asked
these questions. You have over 100 and some employees there in
Alabama and Tennessee. People have been promoting and saying,
my gosh, we need to burn pellets, we need the self-sustaining
wood and all this. Would some of this put you out of business,
basically?
Mr. Williams. We have been in business for 150 years.
Senator Shelby. I know.
Mr. Williams. We are very proud of that fact. We are in our
fourth generation.
Senator Shelby. You should be.
Mr. Williams. I see the fifth generation running through
the halls occasionally, so we are very excited about that.
There are brand names a lot of you may have grown up with
like Ashley, King, and Wonderwood, and Vogelzang. We have made
stoves that emitted black, billowing smoke that you would know
when your neighbor was burning.
Today, we are very proud of the fact that you cannot tell
when one of our stoves is burning. There are no visible
emissions. Step 1 has made products like warm air furnaces,
that were unregulated before, 70 percent more efficient.
All we are asking for is a little bit of time so that these
70 percent more efficient stoves can remain in the marketplace.
I am afraid if we do not get this extension, it is going to
jeopardize our rural communities and our jobs.
We have already started to see the same thing in Prichard,
West Virginia, a reduction in sales. That is going to affect
retailers, it is going to affect employees, and finally affects
the end user.
Senator Shelby. Ms. Hammond, do you know, of your own
knowledge, whether or not EPA did a cost-benefit analysis
before they came with this rule that is causing trouble for a
lot of people?
Ms. Hammond. The kiln, the MACT rule?
Senator Shelby. A cost-benefit analysis?
Ms. Hammond. Yes, EPA is required to do a cost-benefit
analysis.
Senator Shelby. Have you seen that, and could you furnish a
copy of that for the record?
Ms. Hammond. I could certainly furnish a copy.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Henry, don't you think a cost-benefit
analysis is important before any regulation or law goes into
effect that would affect the economy, jobs, and health,
everything?
Mr. Henry. Oh, certainly but I think that some of the
things we look at that they are proposing from a cost
standpoint are not realistic. I think some of the costs are
undervalued in what is shown from the EPA. To be honest with
you, that is the scary thing. They have shown the cost at the
floor with unproven technologies, and you don't know where the
cost could potentially go.
Senator Shelby. Bricks have been around a long time. I hope
they will be here a long time because they are extensively used
everywhere. To put the brick folks out of business, I don't
think, in the long run, would be smart.
We all want good air, a good environment, and a balance
there. You have never advocated not good environment, have you?
Mr. Henry. No, Senator. I think we all want a good
environment. We all want a healthy place for our children and
for me some day, grandchildren, to live. There has to be a
cost-benefit to it. I am not sure we know that full answer
right now.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
First of all, I support all four of the bills. In fact, I
am a co-sponsor of all four of the bills, including yours,
Madam Chairman.
Mr. Kersting, you may have talked about this before, but we
are competing with the Senate Armed Services Committee right
now. I am concerned about this because we are really a NASCAR
State.
Love's Travel Stops is the largest family owned truck stop
in America. I remember when they first started. They are in
Oklahoma. In fact, they were in my office this last week. They
are the primary sponsor of the NASCAR No. 34 car driven by
Landon Castle.
We know the language the EPA has considered, and it makes
those involved in the racing industry nervous. Opponents of the
RPM bill and the Obama EPA claimed they were going to go after
individuals or NASCAR, and there is nothing to worry about. We
just heard Mr. Walke say essentially the same thing. The EPA's
language makes it possible for them to do so, don't you think?
Mr. Kersting. The current EPA interpretation of the law
renders any conversion activity illegal, whether you are a
business involved in converting that certified vehicle to use
in motor sports or you are an individual involved in that. It
is an activity that is deemed illegal now.
Similar to your constituent, I hear from our SEMA member
companies they are quite concerned. These are small businesses.
They are in a position right now working under a cloud of
illegality. They are hesitant in moving forward and need
resolution to this.
Senator Inhofe. You are familiar with Love's?
Mr. Kersting. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. Your observation is correct because there
are all kinds of things in the Oklahoma media, just because
they are looking for something to write, that they could be on
that border. It is bad for them.
Mr. Kersting. For certain. A point was raised about this
matter of there being a loophole, a purpose or that the matter
of intent somehow in this bill would create a new enforcement
standard.
I want to make very clear that the language in the RPM Act
is actually drawn and reflects language that is in this section
of the Clean Air Act for other exemptions. The word ``purpose''
is in the law currently. Very importantly, the word ``intent''
is in the prohibition currently.
I think Mr. Walke raised the Casper case in his written
testimony. The Casper case is a great example, and there are
others, where a manufacturer of a product made a claim that the
product is intended, in that case, for off-road use only.
Others might say for race use only.
That use of the words ``intent'' or ``purpose,'' they are
interchangeable here, is not a shield against enforcement. In
fact, EPA has successfully enforced against those who claim my
intention was for this product to be a race use product or an
off-road product.
There is no loophole. Illegality is illegality. If that
product ends up as a street tamper, EPA has the enforcement
authority to go after it, and they do so successfully.
Senator Inhofe. I know that concern is there.
Mr. Henry, I am concerned about the impact of the EPA's
MACT. The rule would have the brick industry in Oklahoma really
concerned. Are you familiar with Oklahoma's brick industry?
Mr. Henry. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. They are all small. We don't have the
giants; they are small businesses, family owned businesses, the
kind we really encourage. We have 1,400 people employed in that
industry. Most of the companies are very small, very similar to
yours.
The issue reminds me of the EPA's mercury rule that the
Supreme Court overturned in 2015 because the agency did not
take the cost of the rule into account. It is required by law
that they do that. I think we are looking at the same thing
here.
The EPA has not been concerned about losing since the
industry had already made the investments to comply with the
illegal rule because the courts did not stay the rule. The
courts are the proper venue for the issue, but as seen with the
EPA's mercury rule, stays do not always happen. Was there a
stay of the rule in the original case against the 2003 rule,
Mr. Henry?
Mr. Henry. Not to my knowledge, no. We had to be in
compliance by 2006. The rule was vacated in 2007. In our case,
we had spent $1.5 million to comply with a rule that vanished.
Senator Inhofe. Just your company?
Mr. Henry. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. Do you have any ideas for the old industry?
Mr. Henry. I can get that number for you. Offhand, I don't
have that.
Senator Inhofe. For the record, let's do that because I
need that for my material.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thanks to all the witnesses.
Mr. Walke, I haven't seen you in almost 48 hours. We are
going to have to start putting you on a retainer if you keep
showing up like this.
Welcome, one and all. We are glad you are here.
I want to follow up on what Senator Inhofe was pursuing.
This would be a question for Mr. Henry and maybe Mr. Walke.
Do you believe the EPA always has the needed industry
information to write technology based standards? The second
half of that question would be could industry do better in
giving EPA a complete picture of their industry before
regulations are written?
Ms. Hammond.
Ms. Hammond. EPA does use technology based standards. For
example, MACT stands for Maximum Achievable Control Technology.
That is a strict, standards based approach because it is for
regulating toxics.
Yes, the industry does provide information to EPA for all
of its rulemakings when it involves regulating industry. It
collects most of its data from the industry and looks to see
what is achievable within that industry.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Mr. Walke.
Mr. Walke. Senator Carper, I have been a Clean Act attorney
for 20 years, including at the EPA. During that time, EPA has
been allowed by the Office of Management and Budget just once
to go out and solicit data and real world information from
industry about what technology they are using to comply with
these air toxic standards.
What we see is industry trade associations run to block
that from happening, so unfortunately we get an incomplete
picture of the full array of technology.
For the brick and kiln rule, for example, by breaking the
law in 2003, we left 106 out of 147 kilns in this country
completely uncontrolled. The brick industry's trade association
pushed a legal standard that was plainly unlawful. The D.C.
Circuit overturned it unanimously and even vacated the rule.
They knew what they were getting into. They wanted a rule
that produced 106 out of 147 units uncontrolled. That is what
they got, and unfortunately, that is why we are here today.
Senator Carper. What role did Bill Wehrum play in the
event? Do you remember? Was he at EPA at that time?
Mr. Walke. Yes, sir, I do remember all too well. I was
involved in that lawsuit. Mr. Wehrum was the senior counsel for
the Air Office and subsequently, the head of the Air Office
when that unlawful standard was issued after four different
court opinions had overturned the almost identical legal
interpretation.
When he left EPA, Mr. Wehrum chose to go to work for the
brick industry trade association to represent them in suing
over the rules EPA was required to issue by the court as a
result of Mr. Wehrum's being overturned. We have a bit of a
door going on here.
Senator Carper. Maybe just a coincidence.
Mr. Walke. I will not speak to that.
Senator Carper. The Diesel Emission Reduction Act, DERA, is
one of my favorite pieces of legislation. Senator Voinovich,
Senator Inhofe, and I worked on this for a number of years.
Mr. Walke, with all of the work we have done on clean
diesel, I know the diesel generators can be replaced and
retrofitted to reduce emissions by, I am told, about 90
percent. I also knew these clean diesel generators are
reliable.
It sounds like Alaska may not only need a little more time
to comply with the Clean Air requirements, but maybe a lot more
DERA funds to help the State quickly transition their diesel
fleet. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Mr. Walke. Yes, sir, Senator. DERA is one of the most
important clean air bills ever introduced in this country. I
hope we would see more widespread use of the funds going to
clean up dirty diesel engines.
The Alaska bill may be a special case. They may just need
some additional funds to make sure those diesel generators are
getting into remote areas. The air quality impact of this bill
is certainly much, much less than others.
It is unclear from the State of Alaska how many of these
generators actually are operating. They are non-emergency
generators, so they are not really going to critical crisis
needs, but I think a DERA solution would be a well tailored
one.
Senator Carper. I have one last question, if I could, Madam
Chair.
This will be for the whole panel. I would like to hear from
each of you briefly, if you could. Could any of these bills
before us be improved upon to ensure we continue to meet the
public health benefits of the original regulation while also
giving industry a little more flexibility to comply than was
maybe initially provided?
Mr. Henry, do you want to lead off just briefly?
Mr. Henry. What is being proposed for us is a timeline to
give us the ability to make sure the technology is there. I
don't think it is an endless ask. I think there have been some
discussions of a 3 year instead of an open ended target.
I think with the 3 year window, we could do a lot of things
to ensure we could comply with the new brick MACT.
Senator Carper. Thanks very much.
Mr. Kersting. I think we have been able to hear there is
consensus. There isn't much objection to the matter of the core
purpose of the RPM Act, which is to allow conversion of street
vehicles to use in racing.
If there are some concerns with the specifics of the
language, good faith concerns, in terms of how the bill is
written or structured, SEMA stands ready to engage in
constructive conversation about that.
In that regard, I think we feel the bill is well tailored.
It is very narrow, and it basically would just restore the
status quo.
Senator Carper. Thanks.
Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. All of our businesses are small businesses in
rural communities. Our customers are rural users. We approve of
the State and the regulations. We helped craft the information
that crafted the NSPS.
All this ruling is going to do for us is allow us a little
extra time so we can meet Step 2. We are already making
products that are 70 percent more efficient. All we are asking
for is those continue on so we don't jeopardize the
manufacturers, the employees, and eventually the end user.
Senator Carper. All right.
Ms. Hammond.
Ms. Hammond. I agree with Mr. Walke's suggestions for the
RPM bill. I think that would be an improvement. Along with
everyone else, I have no disagreement over the purpose of the
bill as written.
I do want to note with the other three that in all of the
underlying EPA rulemakings, that agency set forth a guide path
to ensure that industry did have time to comply. It is my view
that all of those bills would further extend something the
agency already worked with industry to develop which is a
reasonable timeframe for compliance.
Senator Carper. All right.
Mr. Walke, last word.
Mr. Walke. First of all, I appreciate Mr. Kersting's
constructive offer for dialogue to preserve the status quo. I
do think there is a fix here that can be made that would meet
all parties' objectives. I am not hearing real disagreement on
outcomes here. It is just a matter of drafting, and I think
there is a fix that can be done.
On the wood stove bill, I am hearing concerns and valid
concerns about inventory pass through and the extent to which
already manufactured stoves might not be sold into the
marketplace. That is not really a reason to extend emission
limits for the entire industry of stoves.
I think there is actually a compromise and fix that could
address a legitimate concern about inventory rather than
broadly extending the compliance dates for emission limits for
the entire industry, including manufacturers already
manufacturing compliance stoves.
Senator Carper. Thanks so much.
Madam Chair, thank you for being so generous with the time.
Our thanks to each of you for helping us develop consensus,
which is what we need. Thank you.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator.
I want to again thank all the witnesses for participating
in today's hearing.
Committee members will have 2 weeks to submit materials and
questions for the record.
This hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]