[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 190 (Thursday, November 30, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2274]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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.

                          ____________________