[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 11 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1242-S1243]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      LEGISLATION RELATING TO THE CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1990

 Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join as a 
cosponsor of legislation to require that the Environmental Protection 
Agency allow States to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act as 
intended by Congress by pursuing options that best meet their own 
circumstances.
  As a member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works during 
the development of the Clean Air Act in 1990, I can confirm that it was 
recognized that the requirements for an enhanced inspection and 
maintenance program would require some States to modify their current 
emission test and repair programs. It was our full intention, however, 
to allow States to operate a decentralized automobile emissions 
inspection and maintenance program to meet the requirements of the act.
  In developing regulations to implement the enhanced I&M program, EPA 
did not follow the direction of the Congress and provisions of the 
statute. Instead, EPA mandated that States operate a centralized 
testing program by giving States only 50 percent credit toward 
achieving the 15-percent reduction in emissions if they elected to 
sponsor a decentralized program.
  As States have attempted to work with EPA to develop emission 
reduction plans that would comply with the act, it has become clear 
that the Agency is mandating that States implement only one approach. 
This inflexible approach limits the ability of our States to pursue 
programs unique to their circumstances. Mr. President, I believe that 
encouraging States to devise their own programs with assistance from 
the Federal Government is the crucial element in whether any Federal 
program is successful or not. As EPA has consistently demanded a 
centralized testing program which uses the very costly IM-240 
equipment, the program is on the brink of failure. States are 
overwhelmingly rejecting EPA's version of an enhanced I&M program, 
consumers are losing confidence in the benefits of an automobile 
emissions program and valuable resources are being wasted.
  Mr. President, there is more than one way to ensure that we achieve 
the maximum amount of automobile emissions reductions in our fight to 
improve air quality, but EPA is threatening States with the loss of 
critical highway funds unless States do it only their way.
  Mr. President, that is not what the law says and that is not what our 
States should be required to do.
  The Clean Air Act specifically allows for States to demonstrate to 
the satisfaction of the Administrator that a decentralized program will 
be equally effective to a centralized testing program. In the case of 
my State, Virginia has been repeatedly denied the opportunity by EPA to 
show that their revised decentralized test and repair program would be 
as effective as a centralized program in meeting air quality standards.

  Since early last year, Virginia has attempted to work with EPA to 
develop a program that would bring the northern Virginia area into 
compliance with air quality standards. Unfortunately, EPA has been less 
concerned with the results of my State's emissions reduction plan, than 
with the process Virginia chooses to achieve these results.
  In an effort to comply with the Clean Air Act, Virginia has presented 
two plans. The first plan was rejected by EPA because it included a 
decentralized test and repair program with operator certification and 
more enforcement, as opposed to a fully centralized program operated by 
State employees or State-hired contractors. The second plan which 
Virginia has offered has been the subject of extensive discussions, but 
no final resolution. The last meeting occurred on October 20, 1994, 
between EPA and Virginia with EPA pledging to respond to the State's 
proposal. To date, EPA has not responded.
  During this time, Virginia has operated under a regulatory 
determination known as a protective finding for transportation 
conformity. This designation allows transportation projects to go 
forward on the assumption that Virginia will soon have an approved 
emissions reduction plan.
  Time is short, Mr. President, and our protective finding expires this 
month. The EPA has repeatedly stated that, without an approved plan, 
Virginia would be subject to the loss of over $378 million in annual 
highway funds which Virginia drivers have paid into the highway trust 
fund. Also, any new transportation projects proposed for addition to 
our Transportation Improvement Program until Virginia's 15 percent 
emissions reduction plan is approved.
  These are significant penalties because it means that new major 
highway plans or modifications to existing plans cannot go forward. Not 
only would approval for Federal projects be denied, State and local 
approvals for [[Page S1243]] projects on larger roads would be 
prohibited.
  Mr. President, northern Virginia, an area already choking on traffic 
gridlock that paralyzes our lives daily and results in a tremendous 
loss of economic productivity, must not suffer from EPA's bureaucratic 
inflexibility. Should EPA repeal Virginia's protective finding, 138 
million dollar's worth of northern Virginia projects in 1995 alone 
would be impacted.
  Mr. President, these are extremely harsh penalties that bear no 
relationship to the issues at hand. Virginia has committed to improving 
air quality to meet the Federal standards. We only ask that we be 
permitted as provided in the law to select the most cost effective 
options that will achieve these important goals.
  As a member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I look 
forward to working with my colleagues so that we can take prompt action 
on this important legislation.

                          ____________________