[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 729 Introduced in Senate (IS)]







110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 729

Expressing the opposition of the Senate to a proposed regulation by the 
  Environmental Protection Agency, now under review in the Office of 
  Management and Budget, that would undercut air quality protections 
  established by Congress in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 for 
  national parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments, and 
                          national seashores.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 10, 2008

 Mr. Alexander (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Collins, Mr. Carper, Mr. 
   Warner, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Salazar, Mrs. Dole, and Mr. 
 Tester) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
Expressing the opposition of the Senate to a proposed regulation by the 
  Environmental Protection Agency, now under review in the Office of 
  Management and Budget, that would undercut air quality protections 
  established by Congress in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 for 
  national parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments, and 
                          national seashores.

Whereas, in 1977, under part C of title I of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7470 
        et seq.), the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program was 
        established ``to preserve, protect, and enhance the air quality in 
        national parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments, national 
        seashores, and other areas of special national or regional natural, 
        recreational, scenic, or historic value'', which areas are known as 
        class I areas;
Whereas Congress sought to protect air quality in class I areas through, among 
        other things, the establishment of strict limits on additional amounts 
        of air pollution, known as increments, allowed in class I areas over 
        baseline conditions;
Whereas Congress required protection of air quality not just from long-term 
        pollution increases, but also from short-term fluctuations and spikes, 
        and Congress therefore created and required both annual and short-term 
        increments;
Whereas, on June 6, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a 
        rule under the PSD program that would replace the congressionally-
        established short-term pollution increments with less protective annual 
        average emission rates;
Whereas, according to the National Park Service Comments on EPA's Proposed Rule 
        Regarding PSD Increment Modeling Procedures Clarification/Modification 
        (ER No.: DEC-06/0006), ``the protection of short term PSD increments 
        cannot be assured using annual average emission rates'', and the 
        proposed rule ``ignores . . . reality'';
Whereas EPA's proposed rule would make multiple additional changes to the PSD 
        program that conflict with Congress's statutory scheme, set forth in 
        section 160 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7470), ``to preserve, 
        protect, and enhance the air quality in national parks, national 
        wilderness areas, national monuments, national seashores, and other 
        areas of special national or regional natural, recreational, scenic, or 
        historic value'';
Whereas during EPA's initial review of the PSD proposal in 2007, each of EPA's 
        10 regional offices expressed grave concerns that the changes to the PSD 
        program proposed by EPA would undermine protection of air quality in 
        class I areas;
Whereas EPA submitted a proposed PSD rule to the Office of Management and Budget 
        in October 2008 that did not incorporate the concerns expressed by the 
        National Park Service and EPA regional offices;
Whereas half of EPA's 10 regional administrators formally dissented from the 
        draft final rule now under review in the Office of Management and 
        Budget, and 4 other EPA regional administrators criticized the draft 
        final rule in writing; and
Whereas the National Park Service and all 10 EPA regional offices have uniformly 
        concluded that EPA's proposed changes to the PSD program would make it 
        easier for large pollution sources to locate closer to national parks, 
        national wilderness areas, national monuments, and national seashores, 
        leading to more harmful air pollution in these areas: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) recognizes that air pollution levels in class I areas 
        can vary significantly over the course of a year, a month, or 
        even a day, and that short-term pollution spikes are capable of 
        endangering visitors, wildlife, and scenic values in national 
        parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments, national 
        seashores, and other class I areas;
            (2) affirms that the PSD program is intended to preserve, 
        protect, and enhance air quality in class I areas not just over 
        the long term, but also over the shorter time periods 
        delineated in the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.);
            (3) finds that EPA has proposed multiple changes to the PSD 
        program that would conflict with Congress's statutory scheme to 
        preserve, protect, and enhance the air quality in national 
        parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments, national 
        seashores, and other areas of special natural, recreational, 
        scenic, or historic value; and
            (4) expresses its opposition to EPA's proposed rule 
        entitled ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration New Source 
        Review: Refinement of Increment Modeling Procedures'' (72 Fed. 
        Reg. 31372 (June 6, 2007)), and urges the rule be withdrawn.
                                 <all>