[Senate Hearing 116-10]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-10
HEARING TO EXAMINE S.747, DIESEL
EMISSIONS REDUCTION ACT OF 2019
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 13, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-161 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, -
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia Ranking Member
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MIKE BRAUN, Indiana BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JONI ERNST, Iowa TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
Mary Frances Repko, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARCH 13, 2019
OPENING STATEMENTS
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 1
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 2
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 7
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 8
WITNESSES
Krapf, Dale N., Chairman, Krapf Group Incorporated............... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Barrasso......................................... 15
Senator Carper........................................... 17
Nagle, Kurt J., President, American Association Of Port
Authorities.................................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Barrasso......................................... 42
Senator Carper........................................... 44
Johnson, Timothy V., Consultant, Corning Incorporated, Former
Director Of Emerging Regulations and Technologies at Corning
Environmental Technologies..................................... 47
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........ 51
HEARING TO EXAMINE S.747, DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION ACT OF 2019
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Braun, Rounds,
Ernst, Cardin, Whitehouse, and Van Hollen.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Good morning. I call this hearing to
order.
Today we are here to discuss the Diesel Emissions Reduction
Act of 2019, which would extend the program.
Since Congress first created the program in 2005, the
program has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. We owe it to our
dear friend, the late Senator George Voinovich, from Ohio, and
Ranking Member Carper, for working together across the aisle to
push for the creation of this program.
The legislation we are discussing today would reauthorize
the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act through Fiscal Year 2024, so
I want to thank the Ranking Member and his entire staff for
their leadership on this legislation over the years. I am
pleased to chair the second bipartisan legislative hearing on
reducing emissions to address climate change in this Committee
in the last 2 weeks.
Like the USEIT Act, the focus of our last hearing, this
legislation supports innovation-led solutions to environmental
protection. Diesel engine emissions of particulate matter and
nitrogen oxides are well known. We have all driven behind an
older bus or tractor and experienced the exhaust. This program
has gone a long way to reducing those emissions.
States, localities, and private companies can use funds
from this program to replace or upgrade diesel engines. These
projects could reduce emissions or those pollutants by more
than 90 percent. It is astonishing, more than 90 percent.
From 2008 to 2016, these funded projects have reduced
emissions of nitrogen oxides by more than 472,000 tons, and the
program has reduced particulate matter by over 15,000 tons.
These are big numbers. These reductions help improve the air
quality for local communities.
The State of Wyoming has used these funds over the last few
years to replace old diesel school buses. In fact, school buses
have been a major focus of the funding of this project in this
legislation. One of our witnesses today, Mr. Dale Krapf, has
brought a state-of-the-art school bus to the EPA headquarters
just last year. I understand you have been working with Senator
Inhofe for, you said, several decades.
Senator Inhofe. That is right.
Senator Barrasso. Go back a long time.
He also was invited by then Acting Administration Wheeler
for an event during Children's Health Month. So I am pleased
Mr. Krapf is able to join us today to talk about the positive
impact that this legislation is having on children's health in
Wyoming and all across the Country.
One of the other benefits of this program is it reduces
emissions of greenhouse gases. Upgrading diesel engines reduces
greenhouse gas emissions on both black carbon and carbon
dioxide. Black carbon has a global warming potential that is
thousands of times higher than carbon dioxide over a 20-year
timeframe. Through this program, we have reduced black carbon
emissions by more than 11,000 tons and carbon dioxide by more
than 5 million tons.
This program is going after the gases that contribute to
climate change. I emphasize this point because of a false
narrative out there that Republicans haven't put forth
solutions to climate change. That is simply not true. This
program is a great example of bipartisan policy that has
reduced emissions now for over 10 years.
Our USEIT Act is another. That bill would support the
buildout of both carbon capture and direct air capture
projects. Importantly, it would support the infrastructure we
need to move carbon dioxide from where it is captured to where
it can be used for commercial purposes. That might mean
injecting it into oil wells or using it in making building
materials or feeding it into greenhouses.
In addition to those pending bills, I would also remind my
colleagues abut the FUTURE Act. The Clean Air Task Force called
that bill, which passed a year ago, one of the most important
bills for reducing global warming pollution in the last two
decades. I would also note the successful bipartisan work this
Committee has done to promote advanced nuclear energy.
I and many of my colleagues on this Committee support these
initiatives and this Committee will continue to lead on this
important issue. When we work together, we can solve and we can
show that we can promote American leadership, grow our economy,
and lower our emissions.
I would now like to turn to Ranking Member Carper for his
opening comments.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I have been looking
forward to this day all year and am thrilled to be alive. It is
a beautiful day outside, sunshine, blue skies, and we have a
great bipartisan coalition supporting the legacy of George
Voinovich, one of my all-time favorite Governors. We served as
Governor together for 6 years and then here in the U.S. Senate,
in this room, on this Committee.
George's wife is still alive. I get to talk with Janet on
her birthday every year; call her on her birthday in Cleveland.
She sends her love.
Some of you may recall George was not just a U.S. Senator
from Ohio, he was not just a Governor from Ohio, he was not
just lieutenant Governor of Ohio, he was not just mayor of
Cleveland, a lot of people said he saved Cleveland, and he was,
I think, county auditor before that. He did it all. And he
served here sort of like the conscience of the Senate, and was
just a great role model for all of us as Democrats and
Republicans on how we can work together and get things done.
One day he said to me, I forget what year it was, but I had
been here a couple years as a Senator, I came in 2001, and he
said to me, Tom, how would you like to be my lead Democrat on
legislation that, as our Chairman has said, will actually
reduce soot, reduce particulate matter, NOx, black carbon, and
CO2? How would you like to be my lead Democrat? I said, I am
not interested. Actually, I said I would be very interested.
He laid out what it was and it was what turned out to be
the Diesel Emission Reduction Act, where we actually have the
ability to use a relatively modest amount of Federal money to
leverage a whole lot of other money from State and local
sources, from private sources, in order to reduce emissions in
the air and using American technology that I think our folks
from Corning may have actually developed in the beginning.
So here we are, create American jobs, reduce harmful
emissions, with a little bit of Federal money, leverage a whole
lot of other money. I think for every dollar that we have in
the Federal side we leverage about three dollars, as I recall,
from other sources, public and non-public. My staff tells me
that for every dollar we spend in Federal money we get about
$13 worth of value in terms of health benefits and economic
benefits.
What is not to like about this legacy from George? I am
thrilled to find a package that, with George's departure, Jim
Inhofe stepped up. Actually, he was an original cosponsor of
the bill too way back in the beginning, but Jim has been a
great champion of this and we are grateful for his leadership
on this, and his team and his staff.
I just want to say to my staff a special thanks. To our
witnesses, welcome.
I have a statement I want to admit for the record, but as
the Chairman says, this is another good example of how we can
work together and get stuff done. We have been doing it through
DERA for a number of years, but he mentioned the USEIT Act,
which I think has great potential, and the FUTURE Act, which is
another one that we worked on.
There are a number of things that we are working on
together. A lot of people say, oh, you never get anything done
in Congress these days. Well, beneath the radar screen we
actually do. It doesn't make news, but it is good news, and I
am happy to celebrate the good work that has been going on and
will hopefully continue to go on for some time to come.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask unanimous consent that
my full statement be admitted to the record.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Senator Inhofe, would you like to----
Senator Inhofe. Yes, I do. I do. And I would ask the same
unanimous consent.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Everything in my printed statement has been
said, but I will use this time--I was talking to Gabe back
here. Hold your hand up, Gabe.
We go all the way back to when I was on this Committee in
the House. Now, we are talking about 30 years ago. And John
Paul Hammerschmidt, I just mentioned to Senator Barrasso and he
had never heard of him. Of course, that is the way it is with
most of the people, Gabe.
Anyway, the Chairman did talk about all the things we are
doing right now that are really good, and so did the Vice
Chairman. He mentioned the USEIT Act. I think the recognition
that fossil fuels are going to be there and are going to be a
part of our lives for at least the rest of my life, maybe not
yours, but we recognize that.
But I am going to take advantage of this and say to my
friend, Mr. Nagle, to remind people of something nobody knows
about, it is the best kept secret in America today, and that is
that my State of Oklahoma is navigable. We go all the way from
coast to coast. We are out there.
I remember a guy came to me, he was the head of the World
War II Veterans Association back when I was in the State
legislature, and he said to me, he said nobody knows that we
are navigable in Oklahoma; I have a way to do this and we will
pay for it. He said, we'll go ahead and we are going to have
and put together, if you find a submarine for us, we are going
to bring a submarine all the way up the river up to Muskogee,
Oklahoma. And I thought, what a great idea.
I found the USS Batfish in Orange, Texas. It fit the thing
just perfectly. So we went down and we started up there. We had
to artificially bring it down to get under bridges and then
flow it up. We got it all the way up there. And all the time
this is taking place, because I used to be controversial and
all my adversaries were saying we're going to sink Inhofe with
his submarine. We got it all the way up there and it is still
proudly sitting in Muskogee, Oklahoma, a submarine, coming all
the way from Orange, Texas to Oklahoma.
So, anyway, we have that interest, as Kurt Nagle is fully
familiar with, and we want to join everyone else in this cause
that we have believed in for a long period of time, so it is
nice to be with my friends. It shows that when we put our heads
together, we can get things done.
Senator Barrasso. Let the record reflect that the Senator
from Oklahoma used to be controversial, but has mellowed.
[Laughter.]
Senator Barrasso. Senator Whitehouse, thank you for working
on this legislation.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. I cannot match our
Ranking Member's durability on this issue over many, many
years, but I am very pleased to be a supporter of this
legislation and one of its bipartisan cosponsors.
If you look up close at the belching fumes that come out of
these older engines and the particulates and the people
coughing and waving away the exhaust, you see that this type of
legislation can have a real effect in communities, on streets,
and in neighborhoods. And if you dial up a couple thousand feet
into the atmosphere, you see that the black carbon problem that
it ameliorates has a big effect, particularly in northern
States where it falls on snow and it changes the albedo, the
reflectiveness of the snow; and that is one of the feedback
loops that is dangerous with respect to climate change. I think
that is one of the reasons that Senator Collins of Maine has
supported legislation regarding black carbon.
So both up close and from on high this is a piece of
legislation that has very significant and positive effects, and
I am proud to be a part of it. I am equally proud to be one of
the supporters of the USEIT bill and the FUTURE Act and the
nuclear measures that the Chairman was kind enough to
recognize.
I would just offer one hesitation, which is that if you add
up the effects of this bill, the USEIT Act, the FUTURE bill,
and our nuclear reforms, I don't think they get us anywhere
near the climate goals that we need to reach. So as much as I
enjoy and even treasure our bipartisan work on these issues, I
see it as a bipartisanship pilot light burning in the hopes
that soon we will be able to do something bipartisan that
actually addresses the problem in the way that we need.
So, much appreciation to you, Chairman, for your
cooperative spirit on this and others, and much appreciation
also to the newly non-controversial Senator Inhofe for his
leadership in this area. And to my Ranking Member, much
gratitude for his long support.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you.
We will now hear from our witnesses. I am pleased to
introduce our three witnesses to the panel today: Mr. Dale
Krapf, who is Chairman of Krapf Group Incorporated. Thank you
for being here. Mr. Kurt Nagle, who is President of the
American Association of Port Authorities; and Dr. Timothy
Johnson, Consultant to Corning Inc.
I want to remind the witnesses that your full written
testimony will be part of our official hearing, so if you could
please keep your statements to 5 minutes so that we will have
some time for questions. We all look forward to hearing your
testimony.
Mr. Krapf.
STATEMENT OF DALE N. KRAPF, CHAIRMAN,
KRAPF GROUP INCORPORATED
Mr. Krapf. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member
Carper, Senator Inhofe, and members of the Committee. My name
is Dale Krapf, and I am Chairman of the Board of the Krapf
School Bus Company, headquartered in southeastern Pennsylvania,
a family owned and operated passenger transportation business
established in 1942. We are now the largest privately held
school bus contractor in the Nation, operating in Pennsylvania,
New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Virginia.
I am pleased to support the reauthorization of the Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act, or DERA, one of the most effective
clean air tools in improving air quality concerns at the local
level. I also want to express my appreciation to Senators
Carper and Inhofe, original cosponsors of the 2010 and the
current reauthorization bill.
I am here today on behalf of the National School
Transportation Association, the trade association for private
school bus contractors around the Country. Private companies
provide over one-third of the Nation's public school bus
service. I was proud to serve as president of NSTA from 2003 to
2005, and today my son Blake serves in that same role. Another
son, Brad, also serves on the NSTA Board.
My family business has been successful not just because we
have followed sound business practices, but because our focus
has always been on our communities and, most importantly, our
precious cargo, the children we transport to and from school
every day. We have a saying in our industry, that we bleed
yellow, which signifies our commitment to the safety of the
children we transport.
School transportation is a uniquely American industry and
is part of our Country's commitment to free public education.
Each day, nearly 500,000 school buses transport over 26 million
children to and from school, more than inner city and intercity
bus transportation, rail and aviation combined.
School buses help ease congestion, help save energy, and
reduce pollution by taking an average of 36 cars off the road
for each trip. Taken together, this represents 17 million fewer
cars and a savings of 20 million tons of CO2 each year.
Further, the technology of today's school bus is tremendously
improving, incorporating not only clean engine and emission
reduction technology, but also the most advanced safety
features, all designed to protect the children on and around
the bus and the air they breathe.
According to DOT statistics, the school bus is the safest
form of transportation, bar none. Our commitment to safety and
the children's health is not only focused on preventing
accidents, but also protecting the overall health of the kids
on the bus or waiting for the bus, at the bus stop or at the
school. That is why we have been an early and strong and
consistent supporter of the DERA program, and even before that
the Clean School Bus program. Over the last decade, NSTA,
through our D.C. representatives, has helped lead an informal
coalition of not just school bus interests, but also
representatives of other sectors who support the
reauthorization of the continued funding for the DERA program.
Funding can be used for projects to purchase newer, cleaner
vehicles or equipment, repower older equipment, or retrofit
equipment with the latest after treatment technologies. The
program is technology agnostic, meaning that all types of clean
vehicles and equipment are eligible, including diesel, propane
or natural gas, electric or hybrid, and it supports vehicles
and equipment in all sectors, from tug boats to transit buses,
locomotives to school buses.
Seventy percent of all the funds go to EPA, with 30 percent
going directly to support State programs. EPA administers
grants through the regions on a purely competitive basis, with
a goal of funding the projects that produce the highest
benefits. We are proud of the progress that has been made, and
especially the school bus sector has probably been the single
largest sector to benefit from the program since the program
was established.
Communities around the Country benefit by having new or
retrofitted buses to take children to and from school. We have
worked with EPA to help pioneer access to grant funds to both
public and private entities using the authority in the Act to
fund projects through nonprofit entities working to improve air
quality and transportation safety.
However, because the grants can be a challenge for a small
rural school district or their transportation contractor, we
pushed for language in the last reauthorization bill to help
streamline the process through the use of rebates as a way to
get the funds to where they are needed quickly and efficiently.
The EPA School Bus Rebate program allows local school
districts and companies under contracts to those districts
equal access to funding for taking older buses off the road and
replacing them with newer buses that often can emit at least 95
percent less pollution than the ones being removed. I am
delighted that Krapf School Bus received one of those rebates
in 2017.
Some have questioned why a program that was originally
authorized in 2005 is still needed. The answer is simple: it
still works and it produces benefits well in excess of cost.
Diesel vehicles are the workhorses of our economy and they last
a long time. In our school bus fleet in Pennsylvania, we work
hard to get newer vehicles into service, but we also helped
take over a county system in Virginia where the buses were
considerably older. Some States operate systems where the
average age of the bus may be more than 15 years old. That
means there are many buses in those States older than 15 years
as there are newer buses. DERA helps communities get those
older buses off the road, cleaning the air in the process and
also improving transportation safety.
We believe the program is still extremely valuable and
needed, and we strongly support its reauthorization as provided
in the legislation introduced earlier this week by Senators
Carper, Inhofe, Barrasso, and other members of the Committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today and to speak
in support of the bill before the Committee. I would be happy
to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Krapf follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I just wanted
to interject a word of welcome to Mr. Nagle and thank him for
the American Association of Port Authorities' work on oceans
issues and dealing with sea level rise and the ocean planning
near our ports. It is so important. I think the AAPA has taken
a real leadership role and has been a very constructive
partner, and I just wanted to take the opportunity to express
my appreciation as you made your comments and to welcome you to
the Committee.
Mr. Nagle. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Appreciate that
and we certainly value that partnership.
Senator Barrasso. Please proceed.
Senator Carper. Mr. Nagle, why do people call you Nagle? I
have heard you pronounce your name Nogle.
Mr. Nagle. Well, I was born in Pennsylvania, in the
Pennsylvania Dutch area, so we have stuck with the German
pronunciation of Nogle. But most people say Nagle and I am fine
with either one.
Senator Carper. All right.
Senator Whitehouse. So I don't owe you an apology? Because
if I do, you have one.
Senator Carper. Nagle or Nogle, we welcome you.
STATEMENT OF KURT J. NAGLE, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
PORT AUTHORITIES
Mr. Nagle. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper,
Senator Cardin and Senator Whitehouse, the American Association
of Port Authorities strongly supports reauthorization of EPA's
Diesel Emissions Reduction Act program.
Over the last 10 years, this funding has been key to
incentivizing and expanding port environmental programs to
improve air quality impacted by port operations.
As you know, ports are vital gateways to the global
marketplace for American farmers, manufacturers, and consumers,
and serve as critical infrastructure for the U.S. military.
Port cargo activity supports over 23 million American jobs,
accounts for over a quarter of our national economy, and,
importantly, generates over $320 billion a year in local,
State, and Federal tax revenues.
As public agencies, AAPA member port authorities are
committed to delivering prosperity through environmentally
sustainable business practices. Ports are multi-modal
facilities served by vessels, trucks, and rail and use cargo-
handling equipment, many of which use diesel fuel. Reducing air
emissions continues to be a high priority for ports, and
partnerships like DERA provide great value.
AAPA was an early supporter of the creation of the DERA
program and has advocated for robust funding over the years.
Additionally, AAPA supported the adoption of the North American
Emissions Control Area, which has significantly reduced air
emissions from ocean-going ships. DERA helps address other
contributors such as trucks, locomotives, cargo-handling
equipment, and other marine vessels.
According to EPA, between 2008 and 2018, a total of 150
clean diesel grants have been awarded to port-specific projects
totaling $148 million. An additional $64 million was awarded
through DERA to multisector projects that involve ports. Here
are just a few examples:
Just last month, EPA awarded a DERA grant of $400,000 to
the Alabama State Port Authority to replace a 1982 locomotive
with a Tier IV locomotive engine. When completed, the port will
have converted half of its locomotive fleet from Tier 0 to Tier
IV, yielding significant reductions in the port's emissions
profile. Other ports have used DERA funds for cleaner
locomotives as well.
DERA has been especially helpful in supporting ports' clean
truck programs. This includes clean truck programs in New York-
New Jersey, the Port of Baltimore, Mass Port, Houston, Seattle,
and Georgia. These programs help truckers buy newer, clean
drayage trucks that not only reduce emissions, but also are
more fuel efficient.
The Port Authority of New York-New Jersey has a very
successful clean truck program that has been expanded due to
DERA grants. In February of this year, EPA announced it has
awarded $2 million to the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey
to replace up to 80 model year 2006 and older short-haul trucks
that serve as Port Authority facilities with cleaner, newer
model year trucks.
The Maryland Port Administration has utilized DERA grants
to exchange 181 port drayage trucks, 110 pieces of cargo-
handling equipment, 4 marine diesel engines, and 6 switcher
locomotives. Between 2012 and 2016, due to the availability of
funding programs like DERA, the Port of Baltimore was able to
reduce emissions by 19 percent, while cargo throughput
increased by 10 percent.
A number of ports have also used DERA grants for supporting
repowering or replacing cargo-handling equipment. Mass Port,
for example, received a grant to retrofit five rubber-tired-
gantry cranes with new Tier IV engines, resulting in sizable
emissions reductions.
The Georgia Ports Authority used two DERA grants to assist
in the repowering of 20 rubber-tired-gantry cranes with
variable frequency inverters. GPA was on the forefront of
changing RTG technology with the variable inverters that
provide power when needed, instead of having to run at full
power constantly. This change resulted in immediately cutting
fuel use by 33 percent and the associated emissions.
Other ports have used DERA grants for marine vessels,
including Cleveland, Portland, New York-New Jersey, Puget
Sound, Long Beach, and Connecticut. For example, the Port of
Portland helped leverage a DERA grant to repower the Dredge
Oregon that resulted in diesel particulates reduction of 80
percent and a reduction of greenhouse gases by 25 percent.
The Port of Virginia has also seen significant benefits
from DERA grants related to dredge repowering, as well as a
hybrid shuttle carrier project that is now underway.
In summary, DERA continues to be an incredibly successful
program in helping reduce emissions in and around America's
ports. We appreciate the Committee's leadership on
reauthorization of this important program and we strongly
support its reauthorization.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nagle follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you so much for your
testimony, for being here with us today.
Mr. Johnson.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, CONSULTANT, CORNING
INCORPORATED, FORMER DIRECTOR OF EMERGING REGULATIONS AND
TECHNOLOGIES AT CORNING ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Senator Barrasso and Senator
Carper, Senator Van Hollen, for the invitation to testify today
in favor of the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act.
I have worked for Corning for about 30 years, spending 20
of those years tracking emerging engine efficiency and
emissions. About 7 years ago, after years of investigation, the
International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that
diesel exhaust is a known human carcinogen, their most toxic
designation. We, as a society, should desire that all diesel
exhaust emissions be reduced as much as is practical.
However, there are some problems in doing this with in-use
engines. Namely, the owner of the engine bought a legal engine
and, despite that, this engine will last 20 years; it will
operate with none of the advanced emission control equipment
being installed on new engines today; and the added cost of
upgrading isn't contemplated when the engine was purchased. One
pre-2007 engine emits the same particulate pollution as about
20 of today's clean engines.
In 2005, DERA started as a very effective public investment
to clean up these in-use emissions. By providing funding,
motivated owners can cleanup these dirty engines without
damaging their business plans, and the engines are motivated as
DERA is oversubscribed. Only about 1 in 35 applicants gets a
rebate under DERA, and only 1 in 7 gets a grant. For each
Federal dollar invested in the program, others invest $3 more.
EPA estimates that this one Federal dollar delivers $5 to $21
in societal health benefits, and the technology is available.
There are upwards of 15 different verified technologies
that have been employed, including clean fuels like advanced
biodiesel, aerodynamic-resistant reductions for trucks, and the
most effective of all, diesel exhaust particulate filters that
reduce the fine particulate emission levels to lower than in
city air. Trucks with diesel particulate filters clean the air;
the more you drive them, the cleaner the air gets.
As such, the DERA investment is an amazing success. It
provides seed money to clean up diesel exhaust using a wide
variety of verified technology without breaking the owner's
wallet, and it delivers up to $21 returned to society for every
Federal dollar invested. The Federal Government has invested an
average of $40 million a year in DERA in the last 7 years.
Obviously, this is a good, practical, and popular way for the
Federal Government to invest in the infrastructure and health
of the Nation, and the program ought to be funded with an
increase.
I want to briefly shift my discussion to updating the
Committee on the latest trends in diesel nitrogen oxide
emission reductions.
The NOx emissions from diesel engines pose a number of
health concerns. Once in the atmosphere, they react with other
compounds to form ozone, the major component in smog. Ozone is
a reactive and corrosive gas that contributes to many
respiratory problems. Ozone, in particular, is harmful to
children and the elderly. To our collective credit, 85 percent
of the regions in the U.S. are meeting the EPA's new maximum
allowable 8-hour ambient ozone standard of 74 parts per
billion. However, there are still 51 areas in the United
States, and the District of Columbia, not meeting the new
standard.
California and the EPA are developing truck tailpipe
emission standards that will drop NOx emissions by another 90
percent. This time around, the Government has the engine
industry support for cost-effective and practical solutions.
The NOx emissions that are mainly targeted are those generated
in urban driving, when the exhaust catalyst is not hot enough
to fully function.
Eliminating these emissions is not an easy task, but the
technology is becoming available and will have a minimum impact
on the operation of the vehicle, and it will be used with
advanced biodiesel, perhaps up to 20 percent formulation, for
greenhouse gas reduction. These new engines will be essentially
non-polluting, and in many cases the NOx level is lower than in
ambient air. With NOx emissions this low, one European truck
will pollute as much as about 20 of these clean U.S. trucks, so
Europe, China, and the rest of the world will ultimately move
in this direction, utilizing U.S.-borne technology.
As battery electric trucks and cars enter the market, the
emissions benchmark for internal combustion engines will get
tighter. The Federal Government can have a major role in
helping current diesel owners cleanup their engines and improve
their image, and in making sure that new diesel engines are as
clean as practical.
It is amazing how far we have come under government
initiatives and private industry innovation to make both legacy
and new diesel engines virtually non-polluting and as clean as
practical.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Can you repeat that? Government
initiative and private innovation, did you say?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Terrific.
Mr. Krapf, over the last couple of years, the State of
Wyoming has leveraged about $900,000 in Federal DERA funds to
purchase new buses across the State. The city of Cheyenne Parks
and Recreation replaced two buses used for student
transportation. We have school districts in Big Horn County,
Campbell County, Lincoln County, Park County, Sheridan County,
Sweetwater County, Uinta County have all used Federal DERA
funding to order 43 replacement school buses.
Can you just talk a little bit about how important DERA
funding is for school districts across the Country that want to
purchase more environmentally friendly buses to provide cleaner
air for our children and our communities?
Mr. Krapf. I think one of the main things here is that the
DERA funding is really just a drop in the bucket to the amount
of money spent for new school buses each year. My company alone
spends about $20 million a year for new school buses. But part
of my professional mantra has been ``lead by example,'' and I
think when the Federal Government and the State governments
have DERA funds available to get to the school districts, and
as well to the private operators, that it sets an example. We
get a lot of press in the industry about the DERA funding and I
think it sets a tone for other people to follow that.
As we said earlier in my testimony, school buses are
already a form of pollution prevention by taking many cars off
the road, 36 cars for each trip, so school buses, I think,
really can be a poster child for the DERA funds.
Senator Barrasso. Dr. Johnson, I said in my opening
comments that the DERA program was first created as a program
to target localized air emissions, but what we now know is that
it has reduced greenhouse gases as well. Clean diesel
technologies effectively reduce carbon dioxide and black
carbon.
Do you agree that DERA is an important policy tool to
address climate change and, if reauthorized, it will actually
continue to reduce emissions over the next 5 years?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, it is a good first step. The in-use
engines are emitting on the order of 20 times more black carbon
than modern diesel engines today and, as you mentioned, black
carbon is one of the most potent greenhouse gases. So, yes, it
is a good first step to cleaning up these emissions.
Senator Barrasso. A question for all of you. Dr. Johnson's
final statement in his prepared remarks talk about the U.S. and
innovation, private innovation. The United States is a world
leader in innovation. The DERA program not only protects the
environment, I think it also helps drive economic activity, to
your point.
Can each of you outline perhaps the ways that clean diesel
projects are of benefit to the economy and, in particular, to
American manufacture?
I don't know if you want to start with you, Mr. Johnson. We
can go that way.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sure. Thank you very much for the
question. All of the emission control or emissions initiatives
have been started in the United States. The United States is
the leader in doing this so, therefore, the technologies
initially developed to meet the U.S. requirements. And as the
other nations of the world follow suit, that gives the American
companies, the American technology the advantage to address the
needs of those other markets as well.
On the flip side, the tight regulations here in the United
States also present a, for lack of a better term, a barrier to
foreign companies from coming into the United States and
selling vehicles that won't meet the regulations. We don't see
any Chinese cars here in the United States yet because our
emission control and safety requirements are prohibitive, and
Indian companies have attempted to come into the United States
and have not been able to meet these requirements.
Finally, to illustrate the point, in China they are now
implementing diesel particulate filters on their heavy-duty
trucks, and the bulk of that business is going to American
companies.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Nagle.
Mr. Nagle. Yes. Certainly, with over 90 percent of the
goods movement through our Country being handled by equipment
that utilizes diesel power, it certainly benefits not only the
health benefits, but also our economy. As Mr. Johnson has
indicated, the U.S. is a leader in this clean diesel technology
and 13 States, including Indiana, New York, Maryland, Iowa,
Mississippi, and Alabama, all manufacture heavy-duty clean
diesel engines. This provides good paying American jobs, boosts
our economy, and also, importantly, as Mr. Johnson indicated,
that technology is highly valued by the rest of the world, so
it results in increased U.S. exports, which certainly helps our
trade situations as well.
It also stimulates small businesses. As an example, in and
around ports, with the clean truck programs, the partnerships
with the independent owner-operators not only provides them
benefit, provides health benefits, but also helps them with
their move toward fuel efficiency.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Krapf, any thoughts?
Mr. Krapf. Yes, I will speak specifically to the school bus
industry, because I think the other gentlemen have answered the
other questions. In my testimony, I specifically said that the
school bus industry is an American industry. It started in this
Country and it still is predominantly located only in this
Country.
All school buses that are made are made in the United
States. We already export many, many school buses to other
countries. They use them particularly in South America and
Central America for commercial vehicles because of the cost
versus a large commercial transit bus.
But now there are several countries that are looking into
the U.S. model of school buses, getting their students to and
from school as they have entered a phase where they have gotten
out of the little hamlets to a suburbia type country.
Particularly Australia and New Zealand are looking at school
buses and, as I said, now they are all produced in the United
States.
Senator Inhofe's State of Oklahoma has the largest producer
of school buses with the international plant in Tulsa.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Again, our thanks to each of you for
joining us today and also in the past in some cases.
A followup question if I could, Mr. Johnson. Do you agree
that Federal action to reduce emissions, both financial
incentives like DERA and regulation sections such as heavy-duty
vehicle emission standards, are instrumental in driving
American clean energy investments and innovation?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, indeed.
Senator Carper. Let me just say in particular. Let me
modify that a little bit. In particular, do you believe we
would have the clean diesel technology that we have developed
here today without strong emission standards as well, and has
this carrot and stick approach been beneficial to American
companies and commerce?
Mr. Johnson. The diesel particulate filter is the most
effective diesel emission control technology available, and
this was developed in the United States for heavy-duty
application to meet the 2007 regulation. Those filters have
expanded into Europe that did a similar regulation as the
United States, and now into China, and these are all excellent
examples of how the U.S. regulation incentivized and initiated
the companies like mine to develop this kind of technology. So,
yes, I think being on the forefront of good, sound
environmental regulation is not only good for society, but it
is good for private industry as well.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
To my colleagues, I would just say I remember when Lamar
Alexander and I were working on mercury reductions, emission
mercury reductions from coal-fired utility plants, maybe six,
seven, 8 years ago, and we had a panel kind of like, only had
about four or five folks from the utility industry, and we had
one fellow who was representing a technology association where
they developed air emission technology, including for removing
mercury from emission streams. We had our four or five
witnesses from a utility said--Lamar and I were focused on
reducing mercury emissions by 80 percent, eight zero. Lamar
wanted to go to 90 percent reduction.
Anyway, in the panel we had that day, the folks from
utility companies said, you know, we just don't think we can
get to 80 percent; that is just like a bridge too far. The
fellow from the trade association in the technology camp said,
no, we cannot only get to 80, we can get to 90; and within
literally a few years we were at 90 percent.
To your point, Mr. Johnson, what we did with that
technology, we just didn't use it in this Country, we sold it
around the world. We sold it around the world. And to the
extent we can create great jobs with that technology here and
sell it around the world, that is the holy grail as far as I am
concerned.
There is an old saying, at least for me, I have said this a
million times, if things are worth having, they are worth
paying for. Think about that. If things are worth having, they
are worth paying for. If you look at the budget that we
received from the Administration this past Monday, it actually
dramatically cuts funding, and in some cases eliminates
funding, for research and development, assistance to States and
grant programs like the Diesel Emission Reduction Act, and that
is a fraction of the funding compared with the $87 million that
Congress appropriated for DERA in the Fiscal Year 2019 omnibus.
If implemented, the President's budget would take our
Country, I think, in the wrong direction with respect to our
clean air and climate goals.
My question of really the entire panel is, based on your
experience, is the Administration's funding level for DERA too
low for such a successful program? Your thoughts, please.
Mr. Krapf.
Mr. Krapf. Was your question is the funding level too low?
Senator Carper. Yes, for DERA. Is it too low?
Mr. Krapf. Yes, I think it is.
Senator Carper. He would take it down from 87 million down
to about 10 in that budget. What do you think?
Mr. Krapf. Yes, I think it definitely is too low, and I
don't think that in all the years that we have had the DERA
funding, the amount that was requested versus the amount that
was finally authorized was probably I think we have gotten two-
thirds of what we have actually asked for over the years, so I
do think it is too low. And the program, after it was
originally introduced in 2005, I think it was two or 3 years
until it really got started, so we missed a few years there at
the beginning, so, absolutely, we could use more. There are
many, particularly district-owned fleets, in the United States
that have buses in the fleets that are 25 and 30 years old.
Senator Carper. I believe one of our witnesses said, Mr.
Chairman and to my colleagues, that for every dollar we have
available through DERA to go out to grants or rebates, it is
like a $35 request from across the Country to reduce emissions.
Mr. Nagle, is $10 million in the Administration's request
too much, too little?
Mr. Nagle. Definitely too little. We certainly fully
support at least the $87 million that had been provided for
this current year. We believe that the fully authorized level
is more approaching what had been a 100 million level
previously certainly at least what should be provided. As you
said, it can leverage a lot of local public investment, but
also private investment. Again, in and around marine terminals,
a lot of that investment is with private partners, so we think
it should be at least at the 87, toward the $100 million level.
Senator Carper. And very briefly, Mr. Johnson, your
thoughts. Too much, too little, the Administration's proposal?
Mr. Johnson. Well, it is a good investment and good public
policy. I would love to find an investment where I could put $1
in and get up to $21 out, and that is probably over a 15 or 20
year accounting, but still it is a fantastic investment.
The other thing to keep in mind, aside from the leverage of
private moneys and State moneys three to one for every Federal
dollar invested is that the program is oversubscribed. We have
more fleet owners that want to clean up their emissions, but
the money is not available to do this. Keep in mind that they
are operating a legal engine, and there is no other way to get
them motivated to clean up their engines aside from incentives
and help with investment.
Senator Carper. OK.
Mr. Johnson. So, yes, it is underfunded, significantly.
Senator Carper. Thank you so much.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Senator Inhofe. Come on, you guys. You know, it just amazes
me. I don't think in the years that I have been here I have
ever been before a panel where the question was asked wouldn't
you like to have a little more money, and the answerer says no.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. Anyway, don't get your hopes up on that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. You know, I chair a little committee called
the Armed Services Committee, and during the 8 years of Obama,
taking the last 5 years, we went down using constant dollars,
2018 dollars, from, in 2010, $796 million down to $583 million.
Anyway, that was a drop of $200 billion during that period of
time. It had never happened before. There has never been a
bureaucracy before in a 5-year period that has dropped by 20
percent.
Now we find that China and Russia both have passed us up in
areas such as hypersonics and artillery and other areas where
we have never been behind before, and now we are going to--that
is what we are fighting for right now, is to try to get back
where we have been since World War II, and that is a leader in
the free world in terms of funding for our military, so that is
your competition out there.
I think every question I had has already been answered. I
would like to say something about Navistar, Mr. Krapf, because
I can't imagine there is any larger manufacturer of school
buses anywhere in the world than Navistar, but I understand we
are No. 3 or No. 4, so it is a huge thing for us. We supply the
surrounding States. It is a great thing for us.
I would just ask the question would the schools be able to
upgrade their fleets without the help of DERA that we have all
been working on for such a long time now?
Mr. Krapf. I am not sure that I understand the question.
Senator Inhofe. Well, I am just saying that without this
program would we be able to upgrade our fleets?
Mr. Krapf. Well, I think that----
Senator Inhofe. Well, I think the answer is yes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. That made that a lot easier.
Then, Mr. Nagle, the ports do have a variety of projects
that benefit from DERA. I think that is the one thing that
hasn't been addressed during the course of this time. What
other projects receive the benefit from DERA on our ports?
Mr. Nagle. Yes, sir, it is really a variety of both cargo
handling equipment in terms of at the facilities themselves,
whether it is rubber-tired-gantry cranes, various yard
equipment, but also, importantly, the marine vessels, whether
it is tug boats, other assist vessels in and around the harbor,
because those can have engines that last anywhere from 30 up to
50 years.
A recent study has indicated can last up to 50 years, so
programs like DERA can advance significantly moving toward the
more efficient engines. Same with locomotives, the switcher
locomotives moving the cargo in and out of ports. Those have
life spans from 40 up to even 70 years, so programs like DERA
can have very significant impacts in replacing those really
long-standing, older equipment.
Senator Inhofe. And I don't think a lot of people are aware
of that.
Dr. Johnson, you talk about where our leadership is. You
mentioned China twice. Is there anything further you would like
to say that you haven't had a chance to say concerning what our
posture is relative to some of our competitors out there?
Mr. Johnson. Well, I think I have covered it quite well.
Senator Inhofe. I think you have.
Mr. Johnson. I would like to mention one emerging trend
that is happening. I think we have all heard of electric
vehicles, and China has a mandate on electric vehicles. They
are looking at requiring 15 to 20 percent of their new car
sales in 2025 being electric vehicles, and the industry is
generally acknowledging that China is the center of technology
development regarding electric vehicles.
At the Detroit Auto Show last year we saw our first
exhibition booth from a Chinese auto company, and they have
expanded their booth this year and they plan on introducing
electric vehicles into the United States market within a few
short years, so it is an example of the government initiative
in China incentivizing or mandating electric vehicles, and I
think the experts in the transportation industry will
acknowledge that the electric vehicle has a future in many,
many different segments of the transportation.
Senator Inhofe. I would only observe that China is famous
for having government tell people what they want, and this is
an extension of that. I also would observe that that has to
come from, in China, coal powered plants supply electricity, so
there we have it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Just let me followup on that conversion a
little bit, if I can. You mentioned the Detroit Auto Show. I go
almost every year, and have for more than 20 years. Delaware
used to produce more cars, trucks, vans per capita than any
State, and we lost both of our Chrysler plants and our GM
plants about 10 years at the bottom of the great recession, and
we are repurposing the Chrysler plant to be a science
technology and research center for the University of Delaware.
It is so exciting to see it come up out of the ground. We mourn
the loss of our Chrysler and GM plant, but it is wonderful to
see thousands of new jobs being created.
When I used to go to the Detroit Auto Show, I remember 11
years ago the car of the year at the Detroit Auto Show was the
Chevrolet Volt, a hybrid. The first 38 miles it went on
electric charge; after that it was on gasoline. That was 11
years ago. A year ago, at the Detroit Auto Show, the car of the
year was the Bolt, Chevrolet Volt, and all electric, 140 miles
on a charge; 140 miles, up from 38. I was at the Detroit Auto
Show 2 months ago. and I suspect you were as well, and I saw a
dozen or more vehicles from U.S. manufacturers and from foreign
manufacturers that get 250 miles on a charge and more.
The Chairman and I and our colleagues are beginning to work
on transportation reauthorization legislation that we hope to
be able to maybe introduce in the middle of this year, the
middle of summer, and part of the infrastructure I think needs
to include charging stations and hydrogen fueling stations.
For those in the room who have never driven electric-
powered vehicles or hydrogen-powered vehicles, they are fun.
Incredible torque, just a lot of tun to drive. The hydrogen
fuel cell vehicles, they produce as their only emission water
so clean you can drink it.
To Jim Inhofe's point about China, they are burning coal to
produce electricity for electric-powered vehicles, so they have
some work still to do, but we are going to be driving vehicles
that consume gasoline and diesel for a long time. My Chrysler
Town & Country minivan I bought 18 years ago, the year I
stepped down as Governor and came here, so it is a 2001. I was
driving home from the train station in Delaware last week, Mr.
Chairman, and I looked at my odometer in my Chrysler minivan
and it went 499,999 miles to 500,000 miles on my way home, so I
have had 18 years. Not many people drive a vehicle for 500,000
miles, but it gets about 25 miles per gallon, which is not
great, but it is better than some, I suppose.
But vehicles like that are going to be on the road for a
while, for quite a while, actually, so we are still going to
use gasoline and diesel into the future, but it would be smart
to make the transition to the other as well.
I have a question on glider trucks I would like to ask and
then I am done. EPA currently is taking action to undo the
clean diesel progress we have made and you mentioned in your
testimony, Mr. Johnson. For example, EPA has proposed to exempt
heavy-duty glider trucks from the Clean Air Act. Glider trucks
are known by several names, including zombie trucks. They have
new shells on the outside, but on the inside they have the old
high polluting diesel engines that lack modern pollution
controls.
EPA's own research indicates that a 2017 glider truck can
emit up to 43 times more nitrogen oxide than a model year 2014
or 2015 truck. Let me say that again. EPA's own research
indicates that a 2017 glider truck with the old diesel engine
can emit up to 43 times more nitrogen oxide than a model year
2014 or 2015 truck. Our current EPA administrator has signed a
proposal to completely exempt these what I think are dangerous
trucks from emission standards and he said that he may finalize
this rule.
My question, Mr. Johnson, is if EPA decides to go forward
with this glider truck rule, would allowing for the sale of
thousands more heavy polluting diesel trucks undermine the
progress we have made to reduce emissions through DERA? How
would it affect the clean diesel industry as a whole?
Mr. Johnson. The exclusion of glider trucks from regulation
is essentially taking advantage of an unintended loophole in
the regulation. The EPA regulations require that when an engine
is rebuilt, it needs to be rebuilt to the original emission
standards under which that engine was manufactured, which is a
reasonable requirement. So, in the case of the glider truck,
they are taking engines or the block of the engine that in many
cases is taken out of service, is no longer suitable for
revenue service, finding these engines, rebuilding them, and
then putting them on a new truck chassis, which is completely
contrary to the purpose of the regulation.
Imagine two trucks pulling up to a stoplight. Both of them
look brand new and one truck has a rebuilt engine from 1995,
1997, 1998 with obsolete or no emission control equipment on
it, polluting 40 times more than the new truck that looks
identical to it pulled up to that stoplight. What does the
fleet owner of that new truck think when they invested and paid
for emission control equipment that this truck next to him does
not have, and polluting the equivalent of 40 of the trucks that
are clean?
Keep in mind that as we move forward with the EPA in
California low NOx initiatives, that one glider truck will no
longer be polluting equal to 40 trucks, the pollution will
equal hundreds of trucks. So it is just entirely inappropriate
and not fair to not close that loophole and prohibit the use of
glider trucks.
Senator Carper. Thank you for that response.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for pulling this together. This is
a joy for a lot of us. I think the rest of the Congress could
do well to look at the way we operate here, Mr. Chairman. We
try to work across the aisle and find common ground. We are
always looking for ways to improve the quality of air, our
water, better public health, and create jobs, and this is a
great example of that. If George Voinovich is looking down at
us today from on high, we will just say, George, you done well.
God bless you. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you, Senator Carper, for your
ongoing leadership for this over the decades, it has been
remarkable. There is so much support for this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent to enter letters that we received
from the DERA Coalition and the Diesel Technology Forum. These
groups strongly support reauthorization of the program.
Without objection, that will be introduced.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. I want to thank our panel for being here,
each of the witnesses. Thank you for your testimony.
We are now going to hold the record open in case some of
the other members have questions, written questions. We will
submit those to you and we would ask that you get those
responses back to us. The record will remain open for 2 weeks.
Thanks so much for being with us.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:11 a.m. the committee was adjourned.]
[all]