Volume 141, No. 190 covering the 1st Session of the 104th Congress (1995 - 1996) 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.
“CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 440, NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION ACT OF 1995” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E2274 on Nov. 30, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 440, NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION ACT OF
1995
______
speech of
HON. THOMAS J. BLILEY, JR.
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Saturday, November 18, 1995
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and specifically the provision within this legislation addressing the Environmental Protection Agency's [EPA] implementation of the enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program [I&M] under sections 182, 184, and 187 of the Clean Air Act.
The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments required certain ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas--as well as certain areas within ozone transport regions--to adopt enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance programs. The act was intended to afford States maximum flexibility in designing their I&M programs. However, in several hearings conducted by the Commerce Committee's Oversight Subcommittee it has become apparent that EPA has taken the enhanced I&M program and attempted to force States into a one-size-fits-all approach. That approach, a centralized or test-only program that favors testing with IM240 equipment, has been resisted, and in some cases rejected, by States and by our constituents as too costly and too inconvenient. In addition, many States and outside experts question whether EPA's centralized approach is indeed more effective than a decentralized approach.
The amendments to the Clean Air Act contained in this bill are designed to require EPA to allow for more flexibility in the implementation of the enhanced I&M program. First, the provision prevents EPA from automatically assuming that decentralized or test-
and-repair programs are approximately 50 percent less effective than centralized or test-only programs. Second, it would allow States an 18-
month period in which States could configure their own I&M program, experimenting with various network and equipment types. Because it will be difficult to determine a priori exact emissions reductions achieved by such a program, requirements that States propose credits in good faith should be construed loosely. EPA would then be required to base emission reduction credits on the actual data from the I&M program, rather than basing credits on assumptions within a computer model. In developing this credit, the burden should be upon EPA to demonstrate that provisional credits proposed by the States are inappropriate. EPA is then required to adjust credits as appropriate as demonstrated by the program data, which could include actual emission tests results, remote sensing, or other relevant data.
The message of this legislation to EPA regarding the enhanced inspection and maintenance program is clear. Congress is not happy with the present course EPA has taken. This legislation should be viewed as a response to EPA's statements that it will continue to discount decentralized or test-and-repair I&M programs up to 50 percent based on model assumptions. Such statements run counter to the statutory language and intent of this provision which are to allow States, such as Virginia, an opportunity to demonstrate to EPA what credits for decentralized programs should be from actual program data.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up