[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 87 (Friday, June 20, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1286-E1287]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


       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

[[Page E1287]]

     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.