Volume 143, No. 87 covering the 1st Session of the 105th Congress (1997 - 1998) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“MORATORIUM ON THE EPA'S PROPOSED NEW AIR QUALITY STANDARDS” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E1286-E1287 on June 20, 1997.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
MORATORIUM ON THE EPA'S PROPOSED NEW AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
______
HON. FRED UPTON
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Friday, June 20, 1997
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues Ron Klink and Rick Boucher in introducing legislation that will place a 4-year moratorium on the Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency's
[EPA] authority to promulgate new or revised ambient air quality standards for ozone or fine particulate matter. We are introducing this legislation because the Administrator of the EPA appears determined to finalize the highly controversial new standards she proposed in November--in spite of widespread disagreement within the scientific community that they will produce any measurable improvement in human health and widespread certainty among State and local government officials across the Nation and even within other agencies of the Federal Government that the proposed new standard will wreak economic and social havoc.
Consider, for example, these excerpts from an November 20, 1996, letter from the Assistant Secretary of Transportation to Sally Katzen, Director of the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] office responsible for reviewing and signing off on the EPA's regulatory impact analysis of the proposed new standards. The letter calls into question not only the EPA's estimate of the cost of these new standards, but also its determination of the standards' positive impact on public health and the environment:
The social and economic disruption that the proposed changes will cause are not understood. The costs associated with the standards changes, both in terms of cost of compliance as well as economic impacts, will likely be large.
. . . [It] is critical that the Administration understand the implications associated with such costs up front.
The impacts of the Clean Air Act sanctions on highway funding, as well as on stationary sources, could affect much larger areas, going well beyond those envisioned when the 1990 Amendments were passed. The enforcement consequences of these mandates would thus likely be profound. Better estimates of the impacts on transportation programs and the economy in general are necessary before the Administration commits to far more stringent standards.
There are substantial uncertainties and numerous subjective judgments required about the health effects and levels and form of the proposed standards . . .
Control measures needed to meet the standards could have significant economic impacts on industry, including previously unregulated businesses, and require lifestyle changes by a significant part of the U.S. population.
Or consider these excerpts from an November 18, 1996 letter from the Small Business Administration to the Administrator of the EPA;
[Regarding the EPA's conclusion that the proposed rules will not have a significant economic impact on small entities] Considering the large economic impacts suggested by the EPA's own analysis that will unquestionably fall on tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of small businesses, this would be a startling proposition to the small business community.
. . . EPA's own draft November 3 analysis (admittedly very approximate) reveals shockingly high impacts . . . Furthermore, these costs are in addition to the costs required by the current standards. Thus, this regulation is certainly one of the most expensive regulations, if not the most expensive regulation faced by small business in ten or more years. (emphasis in original)
The grave concerns these and other Federal agencies, offices, and advisory councils--such as the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Defense, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the Council of Economic Advisors--have expressed about the proposed new standards underscore the concerns felt by communities across my district, my State, and this Nation. For example, Michigan currently has six ozone nonattainment counties. According to information provided by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, under the EPA's proposal, an additional 11 counties would violate the standard, based on data from the 1994-96 ozone monitoring seasons. When all associated urbanized areas and adjacent counties are included, most of lower Michigan would be thrust into nonattainment status, seriously undermining and perhaps reversing the progress we have made in recent years to diversify and develop our economy and produce good jobs.
The proposed new standard pose a particular problem for western Michigan, which is overwhelmingly affected by transient ozone from Gary, Chicago, and Milwaukee. No matter how many costly restrictions and regulations might be imposed on many western Michigan communities to reduce local emissions, they would still not meet the proposed new standards. Take Muskegon County, for example. We could close down every factory, turn off every car, douse every backyard grill, and remove every occupant and the county would still fail to meet the standards because of transient ozone from the other side of Lake Michigan. The proposed regulations do not appear to provide any regulatory relief for such areas victimized by transient ozone, in spite of the fact that the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments gave the Administrator the authority to take such situations into account in promulgating regulations.
Instead of imposing stringent new air quality standards that will thrust many communities now in attainment back into nonattainment and that will be impossible for areas impacted by transient air pollution from heavily polluted cities to meet, no matter how stringent their pollution reduction restrictions, the EPA ought to be focusing its efforts on the nearly 50 percent of cities that have not yet come into compliance with the current standards for ozone and particulate matter. That is only common sense.
I am also concerned that imposing new standards when many areas have yet to come into compliance with the current standards could actually slow progress toward cleaner air. The promulgation of new standards will require the development and implementation of new State implementation plans and will reset the compliance clock.
The Administrator of the EPA is rushing to judgment, imposing new standards which will wreak havoc on economic growth, jobs, and even personal lifestyles without solid evidence that these sacrifices will be worth it in improved health. That is why the legislation my colleagues and I are introducing today is vital to the future of my State and the nation. I encourage you to join us in cosponsoring this bill.
Alerts Sign-up