CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1630, CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1990 

(House of Representatives - October 26, 1990)

[Page: H12848]

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 535 I 

call up the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 1630) to amend the Clean Air 

Act to provide for attainment and maintenance of health protective national 

ambient air quality standards, and for other purposes. 

The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill. 

[TIME: 1610]

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). Pursuant to House Resolution 535, 

the conference report is considered as read. 

(For conference report and statement see prior proceedings of the House of today, 

Friday, October 26, 1990.) 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 535, the gentleman 

from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] will be recognized for 50 minutes, the gentleman 

from New York [Mr. Lent] will be recognized for 50 minutes, and the gentleman 

from California [Mr. Dannemeyer] will be recognized for 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. 

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending certain Members who have worked 

very hard on this. The gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], he chairman of 

the health subcommittee, has worked long and hard on this matter. My very dear 

friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lent], the ranking minority member, 

provided such valuable leadership and was such a close and valued friend in 

working out the very great difficulties associated with this measure. I also want to 

recognize the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Sharp], chairman of the energy 

subcommittee, as well as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Madigan], the 

gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead], and the gentleman from Louisiana 

[Mr. Tauzin], as well as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Eckart], and the 

gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift], all of whom provided valuable leadership 

in the course of the conference. Other Members, whose names I will mention 

later, were also enormously helpful in bringing this matter to the point where we 

see it today. 

I also want to acknowledge the contributions of Senator Max Baucus, who 

chaired the conference and helped bring it to a successful conclusion, and Senator 

John Chafee, the ranking Republican of the Committee on Environment and 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 1 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Public Works. In addition, special recognition is owed to the distinguished Senate 

majority leader, George Mitchell, whose dream of a new clean air bill is about to 

be realized. 

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the conference report 

on S. 1630, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and to offer it to this body for 

approval. 

It has been my privilege as a Member of Congress to participate in the writing of 

every clean air bill ever passed. None of those previous measures remotely 

approaches the complexity or comprehensiveness of the bill we are considering 

today. The clean air laws on the books right now essentially comprise just two of 

the titles in this year's legislation. In fact, this year's bill is really five or six 

separate bills rolled into one. 

With this legislation, we are addressing the full range of air quality issues. We are 

establishing a tough and effective program for controlling urban smog, one that 

will force State and local governments to come to grips with their problems. We 

are reducing motor vehicle emissions by another 40 to 60 percent, to bring us to 

the point at which, as compared to 1970, 98 to 99 percent of the emissions from 

our cars will have been eliminated. We are going to reduce hazardous emissions of 

some 189 substances by as much as 90 percent. We are going to cut sulfur 

dioxide emissions thought to cause acid rain by 10 million tons annually. We will 

take the first steps toward protecting the stratospheric ozone layer. 

This bill's impact will be felt in virtually every aspect of human endeavor and 

nearly every economic activity. Its costs will be significant, but reasonable in light 

of what we are attempting to achieve. This bill is the product of sometimes tense 

and always time-consuming negotiations. It represents thousands and thousands 

of hours of work, and at least that many compromises great and small. We have 

had to resolve scores of differences between industries, between regions, and 

between Members. In the end, we have produced a bill better than those passed 

by either the House or the Senate earlier this year, and better than the 

administration's initial proposal. 

Mr. Speaker, America already has the toughest air quality laws in the world. With 

this act, we will be raising our standards even higher. We will also be fulfilling our 

responsibility to the American people who have told us that they are willing to 

make some sacrifices in pursuit of a cleaner environment. 

For the first time, this legislation recognizes the need to control emissions not only 

from large industries and sources, but from small sources as well. At the same 

time we have included provisions aimed at helping small businesses cope with 

many requirements of this legislation. 

Similarly, this bill establishes a reformulated gasoline program for nine ozone 

nonattainment cities, and an oxygenated gasoline program for carbon monoxide 

nonattainment cities. Both programs will bring significant health benefits to the 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 2 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
large populations in these areas and open new markets to farmers, at modest cost 

to motorist and with minimal disruptions in the supply of this critical fuel. 

The legislation significantly strengthens current law as it applies to new nonroad 

vehicles and engines. EPA is directed by the legislation to undertake an analysis of 

this issue and, on the basis of that study, move forward with regulation of 

emissions from several of these sources. States are preempted from regulating 

only two categories of new nonroad vehicles and engines--first, small farm and 

construction equipment, and second, new locomotives and new engines used in 

locomotives. With regard to this latter category, we balanced the need to control 

emissions from new locomotives against our belief that State efforts to regulate 

locomotive emissions or operations would impose an unconstitutional burden on 

interstate commerce. As a result, we require the EPA to regulate new locomotive 

emissions within 5 years, without first subjecting such emissions to the study I 

previously mentioned. 

I will not predict that with the passage of this bill, we will succeed in our efforts to 

control air pollution. I believe that too many such predicting were made in 1977 

and they proved erroneous. I believe that what we have done in this legislation is 

to try to learn from our past mistakes and to devise a comprehensive program 

that seeks to address all the problem areas. 

At this juncture, I think it is important to recognize that EPA will have many new 

responsibilities under this legislation. At one point, we counted more than 400 

regulations that would be required, many in a short period of time. I am very 

concerned that EPA will not do an adequate and fair job in this regard in 

implementing this legislation, including the needed rulemakings. 

Likewise, the realization of the benefits of the reformulated and oxygenated gas 

programs will depend on the proper implementation of this program by EPA. 

In these and other areas, it is my intention to conduct vigorous oversight of the 

EPA to ensure that the law is properly and fairly implemented. 

The credit for our success in this endeavor goes to a great number of people, first 

and foremost the Energy and Commerce Committee's Ranking Republican, my 

good friend from New York, Congressman Norm Lent. Our committee has always 

benefited from extremely capable minority leadership, and Norm Lent's wisdom, 

counsel, and guidance have brought us to this successful conclusion. 

I also want to express my appreciation to Chairman Waxman, who has long led 

the fight for a clean air bill, and Chairman Sharp, who engineered the resolution 

of regionally divisive acid rain legislation. 

Others include Chairman Tom Luken, who we will miss; Congressman Gerry 

Sikorski, who finally realized the fruits of his labors for acid rain legislation; and 

subcommittee ranking minority members Madigan and Moorhead who for their 

valuable leadership. I also want to mention Dennis Eckart, Al Swift, Jack 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 3 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Fields, Ralph Hall, Tom Bliley, Mike Synar, Howard Nielson, Roy Rowland,

Mike Bilirakis, Tom Manton, Mike Oxley, Jim Slattery, Ron Wyden, Tom 

Tauke, Rick Boucher, Bob Whittaker, Billy Tauzin, and many more. 

I also want to give special attention to Chairmans Roe, Rostenkowski,

Anderson, Udall, Jones, and Hawkins for their patience and good will in helping 

us to resolve these matters. 

I want to specially commend Congressman Wise, the Committee Education and 

Labor, and the Committee and Ways and Means for the resolution for the so-called 

Wise amendment, that amendment is an extraordinary addition to this 

environmental legislation. We have long known that while environmental laws 

create jobs, they can also cost jobs, and those hurt are not the same people who 

benefit from the new jobs. The coal miner and the auto worker do not suddenly 

become experts in technology for controlling air pollution. They do not get a 

replacement job merely because we pass a clean air law. The Wise amenment 

recognizes this problem and attempts to deal with it as effectively as possible. I 

am proud to say this landmark provision is included in this bill. 

Last, but certainly not least, I want to thank the staff who worked tirelessly on this 

bill, too often at the expense of their lives outside this body, and at the expense of 

their good health. 

Conferees Staff: Kevin Sheekey, Midori Okazaki, Ruth Fleisher, Ellen Hollis, Ken 

Rosenbaum, Grace Warren, Anne Forristall, Sara Franko, Roger Claussen, Ellen 

Doneski, Renee Eastman, Karen Mogan, Steve Vest, Mike Scrivner, Mark Dungan, 

Dave Joergenson, Michael Frank, Rob Mooney, J.D. Dergerian, Gail Giblin, Beverly 

Marshall, Jayne Anne Rex, Dennis Limbach, and Bob Meyer. 

Health and Environment Subcommittee: Phil Schiliro, Greg Wetstone, and Phil 

Barnett. 

Energy and Power Subcommittee: Shelley Filder, Judi Greenwald, Tom Runge, 

Rick Counihan, and Sue Sheridan. 

Transportation and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee: John Arlington and Cheryl 

DeSiena. 

Legislative Counsel: Pope Barrow and Renate Stehr. 

Full Committee Minority Staff: Margaret Durbin, Chuck Knauss, John Shelk, 

Jessica Laverty, Keith Cole, Charles Ingebretson, and Darlene McMullen. 

Full Committee Majority Staff: Dave Finnegan, John Orlando, Jack Clough, Alan 

Roth, Dick Frandsen, Mike Woo, Lisa Kountoupes, Will Kenworthy, Carla Van't 

Hoff, Linda Good, Charlotte Watkins, Barboura Flues, Candy Butler, Anne Butler, 

Melody Pickett, Michelle Mundt, and Sharon Davis. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 4 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Mr. Speaker, this is a tough bill, a costly bill, but most importantly, a fair bill. It is 

also an historic bill, and I am proud to present it to you this afternoon. I believe 

you will find it worthy of your support, and I urge you to approve the conference 

report on S. 1630 today. 

[Page: H12849]

[TIME: 1620]

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall consume. 

(Mr. LENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on S. 1630, the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 

President Bush, in a Rose Garden Ceremony on July 21, 1989, transmitted to the 

Congress a proposed bill to strengthen the Clean Air Act in three major areas: acid 

rain, urban air pollution, and toxic air emissions. The President said, and I quote, 

`It's time to break the gridlock on this issue. It is time to cooperate for clean air 

by passing a new Clean Air Act this year.' 

While the President's goal of completing action on a bill in 1989 proved overly 

ambitious, we are here today with a landmark piece of legislation on clean air. 

President Bush broke a decade-long legislative logjam with the proposal he 

announced in July 1989. Above all others, the President deserves the credit for 

providing the necessary leadership on this issue. I was pleased to have been 

asked by the President to be the primary Republican sponsor in the House of the 

President's original Clean Air Bill. Along with Chairman Dingell. This conference 

report builds upon the President's bold clean air initiatives. It achieves the goals 

he set for us. 

This legislation is probably the most far-reaching of any bill to be considered in the 

entire 101st Congress. It is the product of thousands of hours of hard work by 

Members and staff on both sides of the aisle. The legislative details reflect literally 

hundreds of compromises among the dozens of competing regional and 

philosophical interests affected by the bill. It also represents an extraordinary 

effort among the other committees with interest in this legislation. 

When President Bush called us together in the Rose Garden a little over 15 

months ago, he said: 

The Clean Air Act that I'm sending to Congress today has been made possible 

thanks to the outstanding efforts and the bipartisan support of Republicans and 

Democrats alike. Protecting the world's shared natural heritage must be a global, 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 5 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
universal priority. Just as environmental probelms respect no borders, our 

solutions must transcend political boundaries. 

Mr. Speaker, we have lived up to the President's words on this score. We have 

worked well together to deliver this conference report for the consideration of the 

House. We had the benefit of bipartisan support when the bill passed the House in 

May of this year. I urge similar bipartisan support for this historic conference 

report. 

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few personal observations. This 

conference report is not only about clean air, and jobs, and energy security, it is 

also people: Members and staff who came together and spent dozens of days and 

nights, away from home, in around the clock sessions over many months, all in 

the name of good public policy on these issues. 

Mr. Speaker, I want to just take a moment and especially thank Chairman John 

Dingell, and subcommittee chairmen Henry Waxman and Phil Sharp for their 

help. I was aided on this side of the aisle by my good friends, and the ranking 

subcommittee Republicans, Ed Madigan of Illinois and Carlos Moorhead of 

California. Also on the conference report were Bill Dannemeyer of California, 

Bob Whittaker of Kansas, the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Tauke, The gentleman 

from Virginia, Mr. Bliley, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fields, the gentleman 

from Ohio, Mr. Oxley, the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Nielson, and the gentleman 

from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, and all of the other House conferees as well. On their 

behalf, I commend the staff of the committee for their work. 

Thanks go to Margaret Durbin, minority staff director, to Chuck Knauss, our chief 

clean air counsel, and to the rest of our clean air staff of Jessica Laverty, John 

Shelk, Keith Cole, and Charles Ingebretson. 

Mr. Speaker, I urge that this conference report be adopted. 

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. 

[Page: H12850]

Mr. DANNEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman 

from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. 

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 

time. 

Mr. Speaker, we have a penchant in this body for voting for things that sound 

good, but we find out later were not quite so good. A perfect example was a 

couple of years ago we voted for the catastrophic health care bill, and then 

afterwards we found out that it was really a bad bill, and we had to come back 

here and repeal it, and a lot of us had egg all over our face. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 6 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
In the last few years we have passed a lot of pieces of legislation that raised taxes 

and cost American consumers more money. We are really doing that in spades 

this year. 

The reconciliation bill we are going to be looking at is going to raise taxes 

unbelievably. The Americans With Disabilities Act passed earlier is going to saddle 

American business with additional regulation and additional costs. In any event, 

we have a lot of legislation that passes here that costs the American consumers 

and taxpayers and businesses a lot of money, and we find out later that it was not 

quite so good, and this a bill that fits that description exactly, in my view. 

We are all for clean air. We are all for cleaning up the environment. We are all for 

clean water. But we want to do it in such a way that we do not destroy the 

American economy in the process. 

Let me tell Members just a few things that are in this bill that America needs to 

know about. 

First of all, in order to combat acid rain which affects less than 2 percent of the 

lake areas in the Northeast we are going to have an additional cost of $4 to $8 

billion because of this bill. 

To combat acid rain, electricity rates in the Midwest will increase a least 15 

percent, and many believe as high as 30 percent per year on the average 

homeowner. 

To combat acid rain, we are going to see at least 40,000 to 50,000 persons in the 

Midwest lose their jobs. 

To combat vehicle pollutants, new automobiles must have a new tailpipe, an 

additional tailpipe that is going to cost $600 per car. 

In addition to this new cost, the American consumer will also bear the brunt of 

higher gas taxes, Middle East market instability and the higher cost of 

reformulated gasoline. 

Under the mobile sources provision of the bill, gasoline must be reformulated to 

clean the final 4 percent. We already get 96 percent of the pollutants out with 

current systems, but we have to get the last 4 percent and we are going to try to 

add additional requirements, and we are not even sure we have the technology to 

do that. 

What about the permitting? What will come as a result of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments? First of all, there is a 2-to-1 cost/benefit ratio. For every $2 we 

spend, we are going to get $1 in benefits. 

Furthermore, 134,000 small businesses will be required to go through Federal 

point source pollution permitting processes, and it is going to cost each one of 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 7 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
these businesses $8,000 to $22,000 per year per business, and that is going to be 

passed on to the cosumer in higher prices. 

Of course, there is going to have to be additional governmental personnel out 

there to police these requirements, and that is going to cost the taxpayers billions 

of dollars in additional money that we do not have at this time when we have 

huge deficits, and they are trying to load the American taxpayer down with 

additional taxes on the backs of the American taxpayer. 

This bill is going to cost $50 billion more per year than we are already spending, 

and we are already spending $32 billion a year to clean up the air. And it is going 

to cost nationwide at least 600,000 to 700,000 jobs, and in my State alone it is 

going to have an adverse impact on at least 200,000 jobs. 

Mr. Speaker, this legislation sounds good, but it is bad for America, and it is bad 

for the economy. Let us junk this bill and come back with a clean air bill that will 

not hurt the economy but still clean up the environment. 

[TIME: 1630]

Mr. DANNEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 

gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Henry]. 

(Mr. HENRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. HENRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. 

•

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for passage of the conference report on the Clean Air 

Act Amendments. I also want to point out that I voted for the original Wise 

amendment in the House bill, and as one of the House conferees on this 

provision, I support its inclusion in the final bill.

•

As a member of the Education and Labor Committee, I was also a conferee 

on section 303 of the Senate bill and section 302 of the House bill, which 

specifically require the Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, to issue a chemical process safety standard within 12 months 

of passage of the act. Although OSHA has already issued a proposed rule, I 

support that language in the bill, to insure that OSHA does in fact follow 

through and adopt a standard after years of inaction on such a standard.

•

The problem, and the reason I chose not to sign the conference report on the 

Education and Labor sections, is that the bill also contains other provisions, 

related to these OSHA provisions but unfortunately not jointly discussed by 

our two committees, that will create new and expensive duplication of 

programs, of regulations, and investigations related to handling of chemicals.

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 8 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Not only will OSHA now issue regulations regarding the handling of hazardous 

chemicals in the workplace, so also will the Environmental Protection Agency. 

EPA's will in fact cover many of the very same things as OSHA's: prevention, 

mitigation and emergency response to accidental releases.

•

This duplication is supposed to be all somehow mitigated by the requirement 

that the President review the authorities of the various Federal agencies in 

this area and `clarify and coordinate agency responsibilities to assure the 

most effective and efficient implementation.' But even that authority is 

specifically limited by denying the President authority to modify or reassign 

the specific regulatory functions given to the respective agencies. Vague 

director to the executive and regulatory agencies to coordinate their efforts 

may insure that telephone calls are made, but it does not prevent the cost to 

creating duplicative programs which add to the unnecessary cost of 

Government.

•

In addition to that, however, the Clean Air Act Amendments will establish a 

new, independent Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, charged 

with doing what OSHA, EPA, and numerous State and local safety officials are 

already charged with doing, that is, investigating releases of hazardous 

chemicals which endanger worker or public health and safety. The Board is 

also supposed to do research and make recommendations for safe handling 

of chemicals to EPA and to OSHA.

•

I obviously have nothing against regulation of handling of hazardous 

chemicals, not against thorough investigation of the causes of significant 

releases. The issue, it seems to me is how to regulate in the most costeffective way, both to the Government and to the private sector. Simply 

piling up agencies is not the way to do so.

•

Furthermore, this bill marks a major incursion of EPA into regulating the 

workplace, and thus further confuses the roles of EPA and OSHA. I am not 

trying to defend the entire 20-year history of OSHA, just as I suspect that 

there are others who would not wish to defend the entire history of EPA. But 

I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that if we are going to make this change and give 

EPA this role, that it should be done as a deliberate policy decision in 

consideration of the respective roles, strengths and weaknesses of the two 

agencies, and I don't believe that has happened in this case.

•

Mr. DANNEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 

gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay]. 

(Mr. DeLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. 

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 9 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Mr. Speaker, what good is a bill designed to clean the air when it 

simultaneously suffocates the economy?

•

If we're really looking to clean the air, Mr. Speaker, maybe we should start 

by cleaning the air with the American people. Let's tell them what this bill 

costs. And then let's tell them what they get for that cost.

•

The acid rain section of this bill alone will cost between $5 and $8 billion per 

year with some States absorbing 15 to 30 percent increases in electricity 

rates. The acid rain section alone will cost between 40,000 and 50,000 jobs.

•

The entire bill will cost between $38 to $75 billion, and force between a half 

million to 1 1/2 million American workers to lose their jobs.

•

So, Mr. Speaker, you can see that we're talking about a pretty high price tag. 

The Clean Air Act is the most expensive piece of environmental legislation in 

history.

•

I think if we continue to clean the air with the American people we have to 

tell them what they're getting for it.

•

Well, as far as acid rain goes, we will be achieving a 10 million ton reduction 

in sulfur dioxides in the air by 1999. It's important to note that according to 

the NAPAP study, a $600 million study billed to the taxpayers, we could 

achieve the same 10 million ton reduction in sulfur dioxides by the year 2010 

for no additional costs to consumers, without one job loss and without 

electricity rate increases.

•

So what are the American people paying for? Not the reduction in sulfur 

dioxides but having that reduction occur 10 years earlier. I must point out, 

however, that the NAPAP study found that the widespread allegations of 

some environmental extremists that acid rain was leading to devastation of 

the environment is not supported by scientific evidence. Thus, for a cost of 

somewhere between $5 and $8 billion to consumers, politicians will be able to 

say we hope to realize a 50 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions. 

What they will not be able to say is that we will have any real improvement in 

our environment. Can this possibly be worth it?

•

Here's something else the American people are paying for with this bill. The 

ozone section mandates that oxygenated gasoline, made of alternative fuels, 

be used in automobiles in nine cities, including my district in Houston. The 

problem is Mr. Speaker, studies show that ethanol actually contributes to 

smog formation. We Americans will end up paying $600 more per auto and 

get dirtier air!

•

This brings to mind the fact that this bill mandates the spending of $45 billion 

in the name of reducing the health risks caused by pollution. It is well known 

that the total likely risk of deaths covered by the entire clean air bill is no 

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 10 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
greater than 1,000 and is probably much lower. I must wonder then if the 

American people know what they're getting for their money. The budget of 

the National Institutes of Health for Research on Cancer, AIDS and Heart 

Disease is $7.6 billion per year. Under the clean air bill, we are spending 

seven times as much for 200 to 1,000 deaths at risk while the NIH budget 

covers over 900,000 premature deaths at risk annually.

It is quite evident, Mr. Speaker, that the health benefits issue was raised 

because the aquatic effects and forest damage from pollution, studied for 10 

years by the top scientists, were shown to be practically nonexistent. Their 

study showed that no forests have been damaged by acid rain except about 

one-tenth of 1 percent of red spruces at high altitudes; only one-tenth of 1 

percent of all forests have been damaged by SO2; no damage has been 

evident to crops; the ph balance of lakes and streams in the Northeast are 

down and the acidity of these lakes is slightly less today than it was 150 

years ago.

•

So you see, Mr. Speaker, the Clean Air Act purports to produce significant 

improvements in our environment, in our forests, in our lakes and in the air 

we breathe. However, many of the most costly provisions are not based on 

sound science. Politicians have completely ignored the facts and studies that 

indicate that we do not need this bill. The scandal is that our economy, the 

competitiveness of our business and our standard of living will pay severely 

for the imaginary benefits we are supposed to receive.

•

When all indicators show us slipping into a recession, when we are on the 

brink of raising taxes to historic highs, when we are on the verge of war that 

highlights the imprudence of dependence on foreign oil, is this monstrosity of 

a clean air bill worth the sledge-hammer blow it will deal to our economy, to 

inflation, to unemployment and the sharp increase it will force in U.S. energy 

consumption?

•

Is it worth the killing burdens it will stack on the shoulders of American 

companies struggling to compete? We already spend over $80 billion per year 

on pollution control in this country. This translates into a total loss of $142 

billion of GNP through this year and if you take into account the loss of this 

money circulating in the economy, total costs in GNP losses are a staggering 

$221 billion. The Clean Air Act will increase the diversion of desperately 

needed capital investment into expensive pollution abatement with 

questionable benefits. The costly effects will ring throughout the economy in 

reduced productivity, higher prices, higher interest rates and reduced 

purchasing power and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. This is 

hardly worth it.

•

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a political document full of hot air. This bill doesn't 

smell like clean air to me. It smells of stale cigar smoke and the sweat of 

political wheeling and dealing.

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 11 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
• Mr. Speaker, the clean air bill stinks!

[Page: H12851]

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 

Waxman], chairman of the subcommittee. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, this is a historic day, Mr. Speaker, and I am delighted 

to rise in support of the conference agreement on S. 1630, the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990. 

In passing this bill, Congress is adopting the most effective and comprehensive air 

pollution control program in the world. Today we are putting the United States 

back where it once was and where it should always be: leading all countries in 

promoting policies that protect the health of our citizens and the future of our 

planet. 

We lost that place during the 1980's. The Reagan administration started the 

decade by pledging to eviscerate the Clean Air Act. They proposed doubling the 

amount of pollution from cars, weakening the air quality protections for our 

national parks, and diluting the act's standards. They urged us to fight ozone 

depletion with sunglasses, sunscreen, and sunhats. They told us that acid rain 

always needed another study, and that we had no toxic air pollution problem. 

That decade of neglect is over. We are changing it today. This bill, crafted through 

months of intense negotiations by the conferees, manages to clean the air without 

damaging our economy. Good environmental policy is reconciled with sound 

economics. 

This legislation will clean the air in our Nation's dirtiest cities. Smog, which 

plagues over 150 million Americans, will be only a memory in most cities by the 

year 2000. That means parents won't have to worry when their children play 

outdoors. It also means the healthiest, as well as the most vulnerable, of our 

neighbors can breath easy when they walk to work or sit in a park. 

We'll accomplish this goal by tightening down on all sources of air pollution. We 

start with cars and trucks. This bill cuts tailpipe standards dramatically, imposes 

additional requirements on new vehicles, and demands that pollution control 

equipment last longer. It also mandates new types of vehicles: clean fuel cars and 

trucks. 

These low-polluting vehicles are our best hope for clean air in the new century. As 

more and more cars crowd our roads, it is essential that we begin the transition 

away from gasoline-powered cars to solar, electric, natural gas, and hydrogen 

vehicles. That is the next challenge, and we start to face it with this bill. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 12 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
We are asking the automakers to do a lot in this legislation, perhaps more than 

any other industry. I am confident they will meet this challenge and, in doing so, 

produce a new generation of clean cars that can be exported to the entire world. 

For the first time, we also ask the oil companies to pitch in against air pollution. 

Reformulated gas is the single most effective emission reduction tool available. 

Gasoline will become cleaner as a result of this bill, and that means older cars will 

pollute less and our cities will become cleaner faster. 

We also require other sources of urban air pollution to do their fair share. 

Factories will have to be cleaner, consumer products will have to meet new 

standards, and sources currently not covered--like offshore drilling rigs--will have 

to cut emissions. Instead of setting unrealistic and unattainable goals, we have 

crafted a tough program designed to succeed. The progress will be gradual, but it 

will come, and our children will be grateful. 

Yet smog is only one of the important pollution problems addressed in this bill. 

Another is toxic air pollution. 

For 20 years we have waited for the EPA to control hazardous air pollutants. These 

are substances so dangerous Congress created a special control program for them 

in 1970. But EPA has ignored the law and regulated only a handful of toxics. Over 

2 billion pounds of toxics flow into communities around our country, causing 

incredible cancer risks. 

This bill will help those communities. We are listing 189 substances as toxic air 

pollutants, thus bringing a definitive end to EPA indecision. A new control regime--

one that targets big and small sources, as well 

as cars and trucks--is established. We provide for protection of the Great Lakes 

and coastal waters, and at last establish a program to prevent accidental and 

catastrophic releases of dangerous air pollutants, like the accident that killed 

thousands of unsuspecting residents while they slept in Bhopal, India, a few years 

ago. 

This bill also takes a giant step toward protecting our planet's ozone layer. We 

build on the Montreal protocol and establish the most comprehensive program any 

country has proposed. We will dramatically cut ozone-depleting substances, and 

provide for recycling, servicing, and safe disposal guidelines. 

Last, since 1981 many of my colleagues have tried to enact acid rain legislation. 

We were blocked by calls for endless studies and delaying tactic after delaying 

tactic. This legislation ensures we will wait no more. By the end of the century we 

will cut SO2 emissions by 10 million tons, and then will cap those levels so 

emissions don't gradually increase again. 

President Bush deserves great credit for breaking this stalemate. When he 

introduced his bill last year, he ended, once and for all, all debate over whether 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 13 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
acid rain was a serious problem. I may have disagreed with many of the 

President's policy calls, but he clearly moved the process forward. 

I am proud of this conference report and the exemplary dedication and hard work 

of so many who brought us to this point. Ten years in the making, there are 

literally hundreds of people who influenced this legislation. Most especially, those 

in the environmental and public interest community, as well as state and local 

government groups, have received little recognition. But at each step they have 

made this legislation better. 

My colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee have done extraordinary 

work, and not just this year. Early in the 1980's colleagues--like Jim Florio, Tim 

Wirth, and Mickey Leland--laid the groundwork for the bill we are considering 

today. We cannot pass this bill without remembering their efforts. 

Similarly, my current colleagues on the committee have worked tirelessly for a 

strong and sensible bill. Norm Lent and Ed Madigan have provided invaluable 

leadership, and others, like Gerry Sikorski, fought the tough fight without 

publicity or showmanship. Gerry is content to just make a difference. There are, 

of course, many others. But to name only a few will slight others who have 

worked just as hard; I will simply say that they have all served this House 

extraordinarily well. 

There are also many members off the committee who can take special satisfaction 

in this legislation. We all know the enormous contributions that Jerry Lewis, 

Silvio Conte, Bruce Vento, Bill Green, Sherry Boehlert, and many others 

have made. This bill is much better because of their efforts. 

There are also many in the other body who have played critical roles in shaping 

this bill. The Senate conferees, of course, deserve enormous credit for the quality 

of this conference report. They were ably led by Max Baucus, John Chafee, and 

Dave Durenberger. Special recognition must also go to the Senate majority 

leader, George Mitchell. He, more than any other member of either body, is 

responsible for this legislation. 

I also want to mention the great former Senator from Vermont, Bob Stafford. In 

the early to mid-1980's, he tenaciously resisted any weakening of the law. 

Because he fought so well and succeeded, we are able to pass this bill today. 

Now it is no secret that I have spent most of the 1980's battling with John 

Dingell over this issue. And I think we both learned that neither of us could really 

accomplish much without the other's help. He is the toughest opponent anyone 

could have, and the best ally anyone could want. As we bridged our differences 

this year and found agreement, my already considerable respect for him has 

continued to grow. Without him, no legislation would have been possible. 

Mr. Speaker, I also want to mention the critical role countless staff people have 

played through the years in bringing us to this moment. Many have left the Hill, 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 14 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
but they and their contributions are remembered. Nor can we pass this bill without 

acknowledging the efforts of Dave Finnegan, Chuck Knauss, Pope Barrow, Mike 

Shields, Kate Kimball, Bob Hurley, Jimmie Powell, Steve Shimberg, Kathy Cudlipp, 

Steve Roady, Joe Goffman, and many others. 

Last, Mr. Speaker, I want to note my special pride and appreciation for my two 

subcommittee staff members, Greg Wetstone and Phil Barnett. Since the 

beginning of this Congress they have done everyting possible to bring sound 

legislation to this floor. I can only say they have been remarkable, and the quality 

of this bill reflects their commitment and talent. 

Mr. Speaker, I hope all my colleagues will join me in enacting this landmark bill. It 

puts us on the right track to face the new challenges of the year ahead. 

[Page: H12852]

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 

from Illinois [Mrs. Martin]. 

(Mrs. MARTIN of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 

remarks.) 

Mrs. MARTIN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill with 

congratulations to the committee. 

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 

Moorhead], the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power. 

Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on S. 

1630. 

Due to the superb efforts of a large number of Members and staffers, we have a 

clean air bill which I believe is sound and workable. The bill is imperfect, to be 

sure; it will cost money to implement. But it will also move the Nation strongly 

closer toward a cleaner and more healthy environment. 

I also think it will push technology which will help the Nation develop clean 

burning fuels. It will push the development of cleaner vehicles. It will aid with the 

development of energy sources, and it will promote the development of emissioncontrol devices for engines of all types. 

Mr. Speaker, I see in my home State of California the beginnings of an 

environmental industry, which is in part, a response to our actions here in 

Congress. I think the Nation can, and will, begin to export environmental expertise 

and technology. 

[TIME: 1640]

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 15 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
It will help our Nation in a number of ways, and it helps the nations of the world 

meet and solve their very serious pollution problems. 

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have played a role in the formation of this 

legislation. The Markey-Moorhead amendment to the acid rain section of the bill 

promotes the conservation and the use of renewable energy sources by the 

Nation's utilities. In light of the problems in the Middle East, Markey-Moorhead is 

timely and apt. 

I am also pleased that California will be able to continue its pioneering work in 

controlling emission from some of the nonroad engines and vehicles. This section 

of the bill is very important to California, and it will eventually be important to the 

Nation in its quest for clearner air. 

I apreciate the help we received from other States with low sulfur emissions on 

the issue of cost-sharing and I think its correct that the bill contains an 

amendment which retains the traditional rights of local governments in land-use 

decision. 

Under this legislation, we can meet clean air goals as efficiently and cost 

effectively, and as rapidly as possible. 

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa, a member 

of the committee [Mr. Tauke]. 

(Mr. TAUKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. TAUKE. Mr. Speaker, the history of the Clean Air Act and the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce chronicles my own membership on this distinguished 

panel. 

I want to take this opportunity to say to the Members of this body that it has been 

a real honor for me to serve on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and on 

the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment. The battle over the Clean Air 

Act was fought with strong leadership on all sides. I want to take this moment to 

pay tribute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lent] who is the ranking 

Republican on the `Committee on Energy and Commerce, as well as the 

gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Madigan], the senior Republican on the 

Subcommittee on Health and Environment for the outstanding 

leadership that they have provided on our side of the aisle on this issue. 

I also want to pay tribute to an outstanding chairman of the committee, the 

gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], a great chairman of the subcommittee, 

the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], again, providing strong leadership, 

fighting for ideals and fighting for principles. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 16 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
On the Committee on Energy and Commerce, in the course of this battle, there 

were many Members who were very active. What distinguishes this committee, I 

think, is that the members were active policymakers, working hard for the views 

and the values they thought were important in this legislation. There was vigorous 

debate that resulted in compromise. It was hard work by staff that advised 

Members, and as a result, I think we see Congress operating at its best. This is a 

product of Congress at its best. I have been proud to be a part of it. 

For the Nation, this is a triple winner. It means first, we have a cleaner 

environment. Second, it means that I believe we will have a boost to our 

economy. Why people always say, `It will cost a lot of money.' Yes, it will cost 

money. However, I think it will mean a stronger economy for our Nation because 

we will be developing new industries such as ethanol in my own State, as well as 

industries that will provide expertise for other nations around the world who will 

follow the United States in the battle for clean air. 

Finally, in the long term, it will mean reduced dependence on foreign oil. So, this, 

Members, is a piece of work we can all be proud of, and it is a piece of work that 

should enjoy strong support in the Congress. 

[Page: H12853]

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 

California, [Mr. Anderson], chairman of the Committee on Public Works and 

Transportation. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990. 

We as a nation face a mounting array of challenges to our health and safety from 

worsening environmental conditions. On the Public Works and Transportation 

Committee, we know how important alternative transportation and clean air can 

be--and we know how closely linked they are. Unless an adequate transportation 

infrastructure is provided, and changes are made in the way we travel, the next 

decade will only bring us increasing gridlock and traffic congestion, declining air 

quality and increasing dependence and reliance on foreign oil. 

The Public Works and Transportation Committee has traditionally met the 

transportation and public works needs of this Nation. We are proud of our 

accomplishments: our interstate highways, our public transit systems, inland 

waterways, flood control projects, public buildings, transportation safety and our 

aviation program. They are all testimony to the committee's effort in improving 

the quality of life for all Americans. 

Of no lesser importance, is the role we play in protecting human health and the 

environment. The committee is no stranger to the needs of protecting our 

irreplaceable natural resources. We believe they are a cornerstone in the building 

of a better and safer America. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 17 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
However, we also believe that infrastructure and its beneficial impact on economic 

development can coexist with the goal of a cleaner environment. We can improve 

our air quality, as well as have an efficient and easily accessible transportation 

system. Through careful planning, we can reduce the emissions that pollute our 

air, while meeting the vital transportation needs of our Nation. 

Clean air and freedom of movement can mutually coexist. That is why the Public 

Works Committee considered several provisions in the Clean Air Act amendments 

that directly affect our national transportation system. These issues include the 

use of highway funding sanctions, and the conformity of transportation plans, 

programs, and projects with an air quality implementation plan approved by the 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

The bill expands the application of highway sanctions as a means of enforcing the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act amendments. At the same time, it provides the 

Secretary of Transportation the authority to exempt certain types of projects from 

the highway sanction provisions. Included among these are safety projects which 

will result in a significant reduction, or avoidance of, accidents; and projects which 

encourage an increase in vehicle 

occupancy rates. These exemption provisions are vital to the safety of the 

traveling public and to the operational efficency of our Nation's transportation 

system. 

The conformity provisions significantly increase the emphasis on air quality 

considerations during the transportation planning and programming process by 

ensuring that such plans and programs, when taken as a whole, meet the 

conformity test included in the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. This process 

also ensures that every project is not individually assessed for regional air quality 

impacts, where the case could falsely be made that any new highway project 

could worsen air quality. 

These provisions also require the Administrator, with the concurrence of the 

Secretary of Transportation, to promulgate new conformity criteria and procedures 

for transportation plans, programs and projects within 1 year of enactment of this 

bill. By having EPA, the expert on air quality, and DOT, the expert on 

transportation, working together to reach agreement before promulgation, more 

effective conformity criteria and procedures will result. 

The conferees also adopted the Senate version of section 108(f), with some 

modifications. Among the modifications, the reference to road charges, tolls, 

parking surcharge and other pricing mechanisms was deleted from (1)(A)(vii). 

These economic strategies were deleted from this clause of section 108(f) in order 

to avoid the implication that such strategies were available only in downtown 

areas, or other areas of emission concentration, or during periods of peak use. 

Section 172(c) of the bill establishes the general requirements for implementation 

plans in non-attainment areas. The general plan provisions include the use of 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 18 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emission 

rights, as may be necessary to provide for attainment of standards. This broad 

authority to adopt economic strategies in the general provisions for nonattainment 

plans includes strategies such as road charges, tolls, parking surcharges, and 

other pricing mechanisms. 

The limited context for the use of such strategies suggested by section 108(f)(1)

(A)(vii) was potentially inconsistent with the general provision of the bill and was 

therefore removed. 

Another provision of section 108(f) removed by the conference was the 

requirement for the conversion of fleet vehicles to cleaner engines or fuels [(1)(A)

(xiii)]. This provision was deleted because it was potentially inconsistent with the 

mandatory deadline for the adoption of clean fuel programs for fleets contained in 

title II of the bill. However, deletion of this provision from section 108(f) should 

not be construed to foreclose States from developing clean fuel programs for 

fleets sooner than the deadline for mandatory programs, if they choose to do so. 

Attached in an analysis of the highway sanction and conformity review 

transportation provisions. This analysis reflects the intent of the Public Works 

Committee, and is intended to provide guidance to the Administrator and the 

Secretary on how these provisions should be implemented. Congressmen 

Hammerschmidt, Mineta, and Shuster join me in submitting this for the 

Record.

These transportation and air quality issues are important to the Congress, the 

vitality of the transportation program, clean air and the Nation. I urge adoption of 

the conference agreement. 

Section-By-Section Analysis of Title I--Provisions 

for Attainment and Maintenance of National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards

HIGHWAY SANCTIONS

Section 101(c): Section 101(c) of the House bill, which was incorporated into the 

Conference Agreement, adds a new section 110(m) to the Clean Air Act. The 

Environmental Protection Agency is empowered by this section, under certain 

circumstances, to apply sanctions to any portion of a state that the Administrator 

determines reasonable and appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that the 

requirements of the Conference Agreement are met. However, this section 

prohibits the Administrator from applying sanctions on a statewide basis during 

the 24-month period following a finding of a state implementation plan (SIP) 

deficiency, when one or more political subdivisions covered by the applicable 

implementation plan is principally responsible for such deficiency. Statewide 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 19 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
sanctions may be imposed following the 24-month period if the deficiency is not 

yet corrected. This provision will ensure that the available sanctions are initially 

applied to the geographical areas under the control of the government agency 

principally responsible for the failure to comply with the Clean Air Act and with 

authority to remedy the deficiency. The past failure of state legislatures to 

approve inspection and maintenance programs required by a SIP can be cited as 

an appropriate circumstance where sanctions beyond the immediate nonattainment area may be appropriate. 

Section 102(g): This section of the Conference Agreement requires the EPA 

Administrator to impose sanctions for any of the following if not corrected within 

18 months: failure to submit a plan or plan element meeting the minimum criteria 

of section 110(k); EPA disapproval of a state plan in whole or in part; failure to 

make any required submission satisfying the minimum criteria of section 110(k); 

and failure to implement any requirement of an approved plan. Only one of the 

available sanctions is to be imposed initially, unless the Administrator finds a lack 

of good faith. If the deficiency is not corrected within 6 months after the first 

sanction is imposed, the Administrator must impose the second sanction. The 

range of sanctions available is the same as in the House bill: a two-for-one 

emissions offset for new or modified stationary sources, and the withholding of 

approval for Federal-aid highway projects. As a general principle, it is the intent of 

this legislation that highway funding sanctions should only be used as a means for 

enforcing compliance with the requirements of the legislation as a result of a 

failure to submit, receive approval for, or to implement the transportation 

provisions required by the Act for controlling mobile source pollutants. 

The Conference Agreement provides the Secretary of Transportation with the 

authority to exempt certain classifications of projects from the highway sanction if 

it is imposed. Under the safety exemption to highway sanctions, the principal 

purpose of the project must be to improve highway safety, but the project may 

also have other important benefits. It is the intent of the Committee that this 

means that the project can have other significant purposes besides safety 

improvement. For example, it is essential to allow safety-related projects such as 

resurfacing, restoring, or rehabilitating projects to proceed. Such projects are 

critical to correct rutted pavements and prevent the deterioration of pavements 

and bridges to conditions which threaten safety. Capital programs for public 

transit which can be funded under title 23 can also be exempt by the Secretary. 

Such programs can include projects that incorporate high occupancy vehicle 

(HOV) lanes, exclusive HOV lanes, carpool/vanpool programs, and other programs 

or projects which increase the vehicle occupancy rates as defined by DOT. The 

Secretary of Transportation is responsible for the determination of which projects 

meet the safety and other exemption categories included in the bill, except that 

the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary, determines which projects 

will improve air quality and would not encourage single occupancy vehicle 

capacity. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 20 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Language in the Senate bill, which would have permitted title 23 funds that were 

made available to the state to be diverted to a non-attainment area and to be 

used to fund projects whether or not the projects were authorized under title 23, 

was deleted. Thus, the exemptions to highway sanctions only permit the funding 

or projects otherwise eligible under title 23. In addition, it is the intent of this 

Committee that highway sanctions are not applicable to transportation projects 

funded under the Urban Mass Transportation Act. 

The Committee understands that tolls have long been recognized control 

measures which discourage automobile travel demand. The introduction of toll 

facilities which also incorporate strong financial incentives or physical facilities for 

high occupancy vehicles or other transit modes into local and regional 

transportation plans would represent a major departure from the predominance of 

the `single occupant vehicle/freeway' travel mode. Experience on toll facilities 

indicates that financial incentives on a tolled facility greatly increase the average 

vehicle ridership figures for the facility. It would be expected that over the life of 

the toll facility, toll revenues would be used to construct HOV or other transit 

facilities in the medican or adjacent to the toll road. It has also long been 

recognized that toll facilities often have extremely low fatality rates due to the fact 

that they are well 

constructed, well maintained and well patrolled. Therefore, these types of facilities 

could be justified on both safety and public transit grounds. 

[Page: H12854]

CONFORMITY

Section 101(f): This section of the Conference Agreement amends section 176(c) 

of the Clean Air Act to further define the conformity provision for all federal plans 

and programs. Additional provisions are developed pursuant to the comprehensive 

planning process under section 134 of title 23 of the United States Code, or the 

Urban Mass Transportation Act, and for projects which are included in such plans 

and programs. This provision significantly increases the emphasis on air quality 

considerations during the transportation planning and programming process by 

ensuring that such plans and programs, when taken as a whole, meet the 

conformity tests included in the Conference Agreement. In addition, the 

transportation program must also provide for the timely implementation of those 

transportation control measures for which transporation agencies are responsbile 

consistent with schedules included in the applicable implementation plan. The 

`applicable implementation plan' refers to the air quality implementation plan 

approved or promulgated under section 110. Finally, the Conference Agreement 

indicates that emissions associated with such plans and programs must be 

consistent with necessary emissions reductions contained in the applicable 

implementation plan. 

This process recognizes that transportation-related air quality issues must be 

analyzed on a system-wide basis and be controlled through regional strategies in 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 21 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
order to be effective. Consequently, individual projects contained in transportation 

plans and programs should be analyzed in the aggregate, rather than individually 

where assessments of regional impacts cannot be measured with any degree of 

accuracy. This process would not require that each individual project in the 

transportation plans and programs be analyzed individually to meet the conformity 

provisions contained in the bill; rather, it requires the transportation plans and 

programs when taken as a whole to conform to the SIP. This in turn necessitates 

greater coordination and cooperation between transportation and air quality 

officials during the development of both the transportation plans and programs, 

and the state implementation plans to ensure that sufficient control measures are 

included in the implementation plans to achieve timely attainment of the 

standards and required emission reductions. 

The success of transportation control measures is dependent on their financial 

feasibility. Therefore, it is the Committee's intent that, until a metropolitan 

planning organization determines that adequate funding for measures dependent 

on the receipt of transportation funds (including Federal-aid Highway and Urban 

Mass Transportation funds) can reasonably be assumed to be available, air quality 

agencies should not schedule them in an implementation plan. 

This provision also recognizes that mobile source emissions are best analyzed 

during the planning process where: (1) the impacts of population growth, land use 

changes, travel demand, modal choice, mobile source emissions, and increases in 

cost, trips, and vehicle miles traveled can best be evaluated and understood; (2) 

trade-offs can be made regarding investments in freeways, transit, and high 

occupancy vehicles strategies; (3) trade-offs can be made between stationary, 

areawide, and mobile source controls; and (4) specific control measures can be 

developed and included in the implementation plan. This process allows greater 

flexibility to state and local transportation and air quality officials to develop the 

appropriate mix of control measures for expeditiously attaining the standards. 

The provision ensures that only those projects that come from a conforming plan 

and program, and whose design concept and scope have not changed significantly 

from those contained in such plans and programs, can proceed without additional 

analysis. A project whose design concept or scope (e.g., number of lanes, degree 

of access control, etc.) has changed significantly, or a project not derived from a 

conforming plan or program, would have to be analyzed in the aggregate with 

other projects in the conforming transportation plan and progam to determine if 

the project would cause such transportation plans and programs to exceed their 

emission reduction projections and schedules in the non-attainment areas. If it 

does, then state and local transportation officials have the choice of either not 

advancing the project; modifying the project to offset the emissions; or 

committing to other changes in their transportation plans and programs, or to 

measures which are enforceable through the implementation plan, that offset such 

emissions. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 22 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
The Conference Agreement incorporates interim conformity procedures which will 

be in effect until such time as the EPA approves the state's SIP revisions that 

include revised conformity procedures. It is the intent of this provision that current 

conformity determinations for transportation plans and programs, that were in 

effect prior to enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, remain in 

effect for a period of 12 moths or until such time as the plans and programs are 

revised, whichever is shorter. Transportation projects that come from a 

transportation program that was found to conform within 3 years prior to the date 

of enactment of the Act may proceed for a 12-month period. After 12 

months the projects must come from a conforming transportation plan and 

program that meet the requirements of the interim provisions. These provisions 

are intended to provide for the continued orderly development and 

implementation of Federal-aid transportation plans and programs. 

The interim conformity procedures require that transportation plans and programs 

contribute to annual emission reductions consistent with sections 182(b)(1) and 

187(g)(7) in ozone and carbon monoxide non-attainment areas, respectively. The 

intent of this provision is that transportation plans and programs result in a 

reduction in mobile source emissions in the non-attainment area. This section 

does not require transportation plans and programs to achieve specific emission 

reduction targets during the interim timeframe, since a state implementation plan 

must first be developed and approved before such emission reductions can be 

assigned to mobile, stationary and areawide sources. 

The interim procedures indicate that transportation projects in carbon monoxide 

non-attainment areas, among other things, conform if they eliminate or reduce 

the severity and number of violations of the carbon monoxide standards in the 

area substantially affected by the project. These provisions provide the flexibility 

to make this determination as part of the conformity determination for the 

transportation program or for the individual project taken as a whole during the 

environmental review phase of project development. In some cases, where the 

roadway alignment is set, such as for lane addition projects and intersection 

improvements, it may be desirable to complete this analysis during the system 

planning process. In other cases, especially where the alignment is not set, it may 

be necessary to complete this analysis during the environmental review phase of 

project development. 

In any case, the requirements of this provision will be met if the project taken as a 

whole reduces the severity and number of violations of the carbon monoxide 

standards. Thus, for example, a project that eliminates four carbon monoxide `hot 

spot' violations but in so doing creates another, will have met this test, since the 

project overall reduces the number of carbon monoxide violations and contributes 

to an improvement in air quality. 

The Conference Agreement requires the EPA Administrator to promulgate criteria 

and procedures for determining conformity. In the case of transportation plans, 

programs and projects, the Administrator, with the concurrence of the Secretary 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 23 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
of Transportation, is required to issue criteria and procedures for determining 

conformity. It is the intent of this provision that EPA and DOT work together and 

reach agreement on the transportation conformity procedures before they are 

issued by EPA. This will result in 1) greater coordination between Federal, state 

and local 

transportation and air quality officials; 2) sounder and more effective decisions 

because it will integrate the expertise of the respective agencies in both air quality 

and transportation planning and programming; and 3) result in a stronger Clean 

Air Act. 

The Committee notes that while conformity applies to transportation plans, 

programs and projects, the approaches for making conformity determinations for 

such plans, programs and projects may be different. Transportation plans, which 

are long-range planning documents, often include statements of transportation 

policies, strategies and objectives, and not well defined projects. Transportation 

programs, on the other hand, include a multi-year program of specific projects. It 

is, therefore, the Committee's intent that the different approaches for making 

conformity determinations for transportation plans and programs be covered in 

the conformity procedures that are required to be promulgated. With regard to 

project conformity determinations, the Committee would expect the Administrator 

to promulgate carbon monoxide criteria and procedures, similar to those included 

in the interim procedures discussed above, during the rulemaking process. 

The Conference Ageeement permits a suit to be brought against the Administrator 

and the Secretary of Transportation to ensure timely promulgation of the 

conformity criteria and procedures. It is the Committee's intent that the 

promulgation of these criteria and procedures be given top priority within the 

Administration, and that a mechanism be developed to quickly resolve differences 

that develop on policy and technical issues between EPA and DOT. 

States are required to submit SIP revisions, which include conformity procedures, 

to the Administrator and the Secretary of Transportation within 24 months of 

enactment. It is the intent of this provision that the Secretary will review and 

provide comments to the Administrator before the Administrator approves the SIP 

revisions. 

[Page: H12855]

VMT FORECASTING PROCEDURES

Section 104: This section of the Conference Agreement requires that 

implementation plans for carbon monoxide areas with a design value above 12.7 

ppm include forecasts of vehicle miles traveled in the non-attainment area for 

each year prior to attainment of the standards. The Conference Agreement 

requires that these forecasts be based on guidance issued by the Administrator, in 

consultation with the Secretary of Transportation. It is the intent of this provision 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 24 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
that the EPA seek the active participation of the DOT in the development of this 

guidance, in order to utilize its expertise in traffic forecasting procedures. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 

Indiana [Mr. Sharp], chairman of our Subcommittee on Energy and Power. 

(Mr. SHARP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. SHARP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support and celebration of one of the most 

important achievements of this Congress. I join with the rest of my colleagues to 

welcome passage today of the Clean Air Amendments of 1990 and I congratulate 

those who have worked so tirelessly toward this day. 

I thank the distinguished gentleman Mr. [Dingell], for yielding. I want to offer 

him my thanks. I appreciate his extraordinary efforts in steering this legislation 

through, in recognizing the concerns of us in the Midwest on the acid rain. His 

valuable work has produced something that I think will help us have not only a 

better bill for the health of Americans, but also with the least possible cost to the 

country. I also want to thank our distinguished colleague from New York [Mr. 

Lent]. 

Mr. Speaker, a good deal of comment has been made about the important work of 

many members. One who should be mentioned is our distinguished colleague from 

the State of Washington, Mr. Swift, who led a group called the Group of Nine, to 

try to bring together people who had contending points of view on this issue 

before the Energy Committee was fully into markup on the issue. 

I primarily want to thank our colleagues from the Midwest who banded together 

on a bipartisan basis to try to do what we could, and I think we were successful in 

reducing the cost of compliance to our electric rate payers and in reducing the 

burden on our folks who work in the coal mines throughout Appalachia and the 

Midwest. 

I thank Mr. Madigan, Mr. Eckart, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Luken, and Mr. Bruce, and we 

particularly appreciated the work of Mr. Sikorski who not only was willing to join 

in with us at a critical point to make this happen, but led the fight for acid rain 

legislation for years. 

Mr. Speaker, I think thanks clearly must go to many members of the staffs of 

various members and subcommittees of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

Mr. Finnegan and Mr. Knauss have been rightfully and prominently mentioned for 

their considerable work. Mr. Woo of the Committee on Energy and Commerce also 

deserves mention. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Ms. Shelley Fidler, and Ms. 

Judi Greenwald, who worked tirelessly, efficiently, and effectively to try to improve 

this legislation. 

Truly, this bill is one which will change this country and all our lives and keep the 

promise of clean air, healthy air, for all Americans. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 25 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Contained in almost one thousand pages are provisions that will protect us from 

harmful gasoline vapors when we fuel our cars; cut the pollution that contributes 

to acid rain; by half--in just one decade--rid us of the black smoke from urban 

buses that chokes city dwellers; boost the development of whole new industries to 

produce clean alternative fuels and the cars and trucks to use those fuels; and 

develop technologies for industry to stop toxic, cancer-causing pollution from 

hurting thoses living and working near industrial facilities. 

The legislation, while extremely important, is expensive. Many of its authors 

worked hard to keep its costs as low as possible while not sacrificing the 

environmental goals. 

Mr. Speaker, these Clean Air Act Amendments are technical, complex and 

extremely far-reaching in their impact. 

This legislation took months to complete. We are up against the deadline of 

adjournment without the traditional opportunity to consult fully with our 

colleagues and others to be certain we have done everything we could to clarify, 

refine, modify and hone this legislation. In some areas we are charting a new 

course in environmental regulation. Undoubtedly, there will be problems. But it 

should be clear to all that the authors of these amendments--compromises all--

were united in the goal of cleaner air at the most reasonable possible cost. 

I am going to use my time, Mr. Speaker, to explain more fully some of the areas 

in the legislation in which I was most involved. 

First, let me start with acid rain. We in the Midwest were asked to make more 

than our fair share of reductions when this bill was first submitted. we were able 

to win significant concessions that allow us to enthusiastically support the bill and 

that will ease the pain for our electric ratepayers. 

Briefly, Mr. Speaker, the acid rain title is a dramatic departure from the command 

and control strategies of past environmental laws. It uses a system of pollution 

allowances to supplant traditional emissions limitation regimes. Using allowances, 

those subject to the reduction requirements of the legislation will have flexibility in 

their compliance options, will have the potential of lower cost compliance and, for 

those who have the ability to over-control, or reduce more than required in the 

statute, the ability to sell allowances to others to help offset the costs of 

compliance. 

It was certainly my goal, shared with the other authors of this legislation, to get 

government out of the way of this system of allowances as much as possible--

letting allowances flow freely and creating a market in allowances. Where there 

are tensions between this new system and the past, we must treat the old ways 

as a backstop rather than the preeminent regulatory regime. 

I have been especially concerned with workability issues. The acid rain bill 

imposes new, enormously complicated requirements upon individual utilities, and 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 26 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
superimposes an allowance trading system that should significantly reduce the 

costs of complying with those requirements. 

I am particularly concerned that utilities have adequate leadtime to comply 

through whatever means they choose, including the buying and selling of 

allowances. Thus the bill requires EPA to move quickly to produce a final list of the 

allowances to be allocated to each and every affected utility unit in the country. 

The allowance list is to be proposed by December 31, 1991, and a 

final list is to be promulgated by December 31, 1992. 

Utilities who are allowed to make choices as to how their allowances are to be 

calculated must make such choices expeditiously--by March 31, 1991. If utilities 

do not make their choices on time, EPA will make the choice for them, based on 

EPA's determination of which choice would be most advantageous for the utility. 

Any Governors of qualified States who wish to utilize the alternative allowance 

allocation under section 406, must inform the Administrator of that decision by 

June 30, 1991. Again, if the Governors do not make their elections in a timely 

fashion, EPA will make the decision for them. 

The conferees believe this schedule is necessary, appropriate, feasible, and critical 

to the success of the program. The Energy Information Administration and the 

Environmental Protection Agency worked long and hard over the summer to 

develop the draft national allowance database version 1 [NADB], which the 

conferees expect to be used for purposes of allocating allowances. This effort 

involved filling in the blanks for an enormous amount of missing data on fuel use, 

actual emission rates, and allowable emission rates in the NURF and EIA 

databases referred to in the acid rain title. Because of this recent major effort, we 

expect the NADB to be finalized promptly, with a minimal number of changes. 

The conferees expect EPA to address data issues and to allocate allowances 

accurately and fairly. EPA must always keep in mind that because of the cap, 

special treatment for one utility could disadvantage over utilities, and delays in the 

process for purposes of addressing one utility's concern could hurt all other 

utilities. In addition, while the data may not be perfect, the National Allowance 

Database is extremely carefully done and based on publicly available data sources. 

The conference agreement also incorporates a fleshing out of the concept of 

compliance plans in the context of the acid rain title. The basic implementation 

tool of this title is: First, every affected source must have a continuous emission 

monitor; second, allowances are allocated to sources by the Administrator and 

traded among sources; third, at the end of every year (after an appropriate truing 

up period) actual annual emissions must match actual annual allowances, and 

fourth, owners or operators must pay an excess emission penalty of $2,000 per 

ton for any annual emissions in excess of annual allowances and these excess 

emissions must be offset in the following year. While this implementation tool is 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 27 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
innovative, the conferees believe it is at least as rigorous as the more traditional 

command and control approaches to environmental regulation. 

Thus, in general, unlike under other parts of the amendments, the means of 

compliance is not particularly important. In general, for this title, EPA should not 

be concerned with the method of compliance a unit chooses. 

There are some specific exceptions to this general rule. In order to meet other 

national objectives, the acid rain title provides incentives to use certain 

compliance strategies. In the following circumstances--and only in those 

circumstances--compliance plans serve a necessary function to ensure that 

utilities actually follow through on utilizing these specific strategies: 

For purposes of receiving 2-year extensions and bonus allowances during phase I 

if they employ efficient pollution control equipment, either for a single unit or for a 

bubble with two or more units. 

For purposes of receiving 4 year extension of the phase II deadline for repowering 

with a clean coal technology. Utilities receive bonus allowances for early energy 

conservation and renewable energy technology. 

For purposes of emission averaging or alternative emission rates under certain 

circumstances, in lieu of complying with the basic unit-by-unit basic nitrogen 

oxides [NOx] control program. 

For purposes of, during phase 1 (1995-99) substituting unaffected units for 

affected units. 

In all other cases, a simple statement that the utility's allowances will match its 

emissions by the applicable deadline is all that is required. 

Title IV contains a default system of unit-by-unit emission limitations, which go 

into effect if the allowance system does not work. I do not expect the emission 

limitation system to ever be operative. Once the allowances and allowance 

regulations are issued and the tracking system is in place, the emission limitations 

written into the bill shall be null and void. The only operative requirement is that 

allowances match emissions. 

Section 416 of the conference agreement reflects a merger of the House and 

Senate auction and direct sale provisions. The Administrator shall tap 2.8 percent 

of the annual allowances. This works out to be 150,000 allowances for each year 

of phase I (2.8% of 5.3 million allowances) and 250,000 for each year of phase II 

(2.8% of 8.9 million allowances). The charts in section 416 lay out the schedule 

for sale of these allowances: 

For purposes of the auction, allowances are to be allocated and sold on the basis 

of bid price. The Administrator is required to sell the tapped allowances to bidders, 

starting with the highest bid and continuing until all the allowances are sold or all 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 28 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
the bidders are accommodated, whichever comes first. For the tapped allowances, 

sellers may not set minimum prices; bidders are required to submit bid schedules 

which specified prices for the quantity of allowances they wish to purchase. Any 

revenues from the auction are returned pro rata to the owners or operators from 

whom they were tapped. Once all of the tapped allowances have been sold, 

owners or operators wishing to offer additional (i.e., more than the 2.8 percent 

tap) allowances for sale at any auction may do so. Such allowances may be 

offered in advance or on a `spot' basis, and at a minimum price, and the revenues 

from any such sale are returned in full to such owner or operator. For purposes of 

selling additional allowances, the Administrator shall match the highest bids to the 

lowest minimum prices. 

The auction system is intended to be part of the market, not to be the entire 

market. I expect that the majority of allowances will be bought and sold outside of 

the auction and direct sale system. 

Once the auction has been in place long enough, the Administrator is given a fair 

amount of latitude to modify the size of the auction, but not the pricing or upfront 

payment mechanism. 

It is not expected that many allowances will be needed at the $1,500/ton direct 

sale reserve established under section 416. Independent power producers may 

apply to the Administrator to be guaranteed to be first in line to buy these 

allowances. 

Mr. Speaker, I also want to say a word about the legislation and its new standards 

and programs affecting the heavy duty truck industry. 

These amendments will present a challenge to our domestic industry. Current 

emissions standards will create a clean and smokeless diesel engine by 1994. NOx 

emissions will be reduced by 69 percent and particulates--that horrible black 

smoke--by 90 percent. It is against this new 1994 baseline, then, that we will ask 

this industry to make even further advances in the latter half of the decade. 

The most important achievement of the Clean Air Act Amendments, perhaps, as 

regards this segment of the domestic transportation industry, is that we 

maintained lead time and stability for this industry in complying with all existing 

and new requirements of the Clean Air Act. This is an industry that has and must 

continue to meet the challenge of cleaner and more advanced engines and fuels. 

To do so, the authors of this bill felt strongly that we needed to allow the industry 

to focus limited funds and technical resources in a way likely to achieve the 

desired results at the lowest cost and with the highest likelihood of success. 

This means allowing adequate lead time to meet new standards and stability of 

those standards before beginning a new round of technical challenges. I am 

personally very pleased with the results of this approach in the past. I participated 

during the last Clean Air Act Amendments in getting this concept into the law. It 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 29 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
gets the job done. And restating it in this version of the amendments should end 

the argument about whether or not 

Congress really means it. We do! 

There were those who wanted to use these amendments and their new alternative 

fuels program to create a market niche for one new fuel or another. I think it is 

significant that Congress will not tilt the playing field. Reformulated diesel or 

gasoline, natural gas, methanol, electricity--maybe even fuels I can't name--all 

can play under this legislation if they meet the ambitious clean air goals we have 

set. Health, energy, financial and environmental benefits will determine which new 

fuels will be the fuels of the future. And that is the way it ought to be. 

There is a complex and far reaching new program to allow California to lead the 

Nation in putting these new alternative fuels and cars on the highways. We allow 

other States to adopt the California program. But it was important to the authors 

of the legislation that the opt-in as it is called also be accompanied by strict 

adherence to the California testing and enforcement regimes. This is crucial 

because utilizing the entire program will protect manufacturers from having to 

produce engines and vehicles that are different for different States. 

Mr. Speaker, an important part of title II of the legislation is the dramatic, new 

reformulated gasoline proposal for nine ozone nonattainment cities, and an 

oxygenated gasoline program for carbon monoxide nonattainment cities. The 

former program begins on January 1, 1995. The latter begins in the winter of 

1992, unless waived by EPA. 

Both programs can bring significant health benefits to the large populations in 

these areas and open new markets to farmers--which I strongly support--at 

modest cost to motorists and with minimal disruptions in the supply of this critical 

fuel. But to achieve this balance, the Administrator must adhere to the following 

important interpretations of and qualifications to the legislative language. 

Mr. Speaker, I feel a special responsibility for this provision of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments because I chair the Energy and Power Subcommittee of the House 

Energy and Commerce Committee. This provision presents challenges and 

problems that can affect this country's energy future. I felt it an obligation to 

review carefully the reformulated provisions and to lay out my views of the way 

this program should proceed. 

Cost and energy requirements: The Administrator must, in shaping the 

reformulated gas program, consider in new 211(k)(1) the overall `cost' of the 

program's emission reductions and its effects on the Nation's `energy 

requirements.' In particular: 

The Administrator has claimed this program will only cost motorists about 4 to 6 

cents per gallon extra, and the conferees have relied upon this prediction. In 

addition, one of the Nation's major energy requirements is an adequate supply of 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 30 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
energy at a reasonable cost. Reformulated gasoline thus is not an at any cost 

program, and is not to be administered in a way that results in pump price 

increases that are significantly in excess of this estimate. 

Furthermore, cost is not limited simply to the financial cost of new refinery 

investments and oxygenate producing and handling facilities, presumably spread 

smoothly over all gallons of the new gas that is produced and sold over a long 

period of time. Such a total original cost approach might be appropriate for a 

regulated utility industry, but it is not true for gasoline. Instead, the Administrator 

must recognize that gasoline is `inelastic' and is traded in a deregulated 

commodity market where supply and demand set retail prices. 

Crude oil and fuel markets have repeatedly experienced very large price increases 

and declines because of very small shortages or gluts. For example, 2 percent or 3 

percent crude oil shortages in the two major disruptions of the 1970's doubled and 

tripled world oil prices. Today's worldwide crude shortage is reportedly only about 

1 percent, yet prices have doubled. Similar large, rapid, up-and-down price 

movements occurred in January and February of this year, due to very modest 

weather-related shortages and gluts of heating oil, diesel fuel, and propane. In 

sum, modest physical shortages can easily double consumer fuel prices; worse 

increases would result from larger shortages. 

Gasoline prices in and out of the affected areas are an obvious, unmistakable 

index of this program's `cost.' In contrast, estimates of possible future supply or 

even current physical supply are often uncertain or disputed, and may or may not 

be correct. Accordingly, this program shall not be carried out in a manner that 

permits even modest physical shortages of 

refining and oxygenate capacity, or modest disruptions in deliveries to the nine 

large ozone areas, if those shortages or disruptions result in unacceptable price 

hikes to ultimate consumers at the retail pump. This applies to all cost 

considerations in new 211 (k) and (m). 

It is critical for the Administrator to expedite the process of defining acceptable 

parameters for the new fuel, testing it, and permitting the construction of new 

refinery capacity to produce it well before the January 1, 1995 deadline. Both the 

development and the enforcement of this program must recognize that lengthy or 

repeated refinery reconfigurations or shutdowns can spell unacceptable shortages 

of both conventional and reformulated gasoline, especially in view of the current 

record lack of spare refining capacity. 

Mobile toxics: The provisions of section 206, requiring EPA rules barring hazardous 

air pollutants from motor vehicle fuels effective in May 1995, are not intended to 

create a second reformulated gasoline that is different from or meets more 

stringent standards than the gasoline required under 211(k). Nor may such rules 

conflict with, change, or nullify the antidumping rules under 211(k)(8). 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 31 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Baseline vehicles: New 211(k)(2)(A) and other provisions on VOC's, air toxics, and 

antidumping, require the use of `baseline vehicles' to fairly compare the emissions 

of different fuels. In all four provisions, the baseline vehicles are intended to be 

the same: representative model year 1990 vehicles. 

Three variables will influence the comparisons: The different fuels; the test cars 

that burn these fuels; and the varying (and in fact declining) emissions 

performance of each test car over time. 

The intent is that the latter two of these variables always be held constant by EPA, 

so that for each required comparison, only the two compared fuels vary. This 

prevents an improper comparison of apples and oranges. 

For example, a VOC emissions test may occur in 1991, using 1-year-old 1990 

vehicles. This may show the required reductions have been achieved, and be the 

basis for huge investments in new refineries to produce the new gasoline. But 

years later, in 1994, for example, when the 1990 cars are older and dirtier 

emitters, the new gasoline may fail the test it passed 3 years earlier: Even though 

it is chemically identical to its successful predecessor, the aging 1990 cars may 

have changed in unexpected ways and show only a failing 13 percent reduction in 

VOC emissions, compared to a successful 16 percent reduction that occurred 3 

years earlier in the younger 1990 cars. 

Accordingly, the baseline vehicle provisions shall be read together with new 211

(k)(4)(C) as follows: 

[Page: H12858]

Comparing results derived in one year from young baseline vehicles with those 

derived in later years from old baseline cars is unfair. EPA cannot do this. 

Each refiner, blender, and importer shall be allowed to `lock in' on tests 

successfully performed at one point in time with the baseline vehicles, and cannot 

thereafter have their investments imperiled by different and worse results 

apparently owing to an aging baseline vehicle fleet. 

Chemical identity within reasonable tolerances to a successfully tested fuel is the 

key; continuing successful tests on an aging and increasingly unpredictable fleet 

are not. 

Representative 1990 MY vehicles are chosen so that EPA need not assemble and 

maintain, through the 1990s, a much larger fleet of cars somehow representative 

of all cars (of all model years and makes) on the highways in 1990. 

Technically infeasible: As used in the nitrogen oxide `cap' provision in new 211(k)

(2)(A) and elsewhere, this phrase shall be interpreted in a commonsense fashion 

that considers all aspects of this complex new program. For example, a certain 

chemical process to limit NOx may in principle be available; but if it costs $10 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 32 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
billion, or if it requires physical conditions like those on the surface of the sun, it is 

not `technically feasible' within the meaning of new 211(k). 

Similarly, a cost-effective chemical process may exist on a laboratory or pilot plant 

scale, but there may not be enough time to scale it up to the full, industrial-scale 

level that will supply all the needs of the affected cities within a shortage. Or 

scientific data may be lacking, and may require years to compile. Again, in such a 

case, compliance would be `technically infeasible.' 

An appropriate adjustment to the NOx cap under new 211(k)(2)(A) does not allow 

the costlier of two different alternatives, because that would not accord with the 

cost consideration requirement of 211(k)(1). Nor does this adjustment authority 

allow EPA to in effect `rewrite' the formula in 211(k)(3)(A) by, for example, an 

adjustment that completely prohibits any benzene or aromatics. Adjust as used in 

subparagraph (k)(2)(A) means instead a partial waiver. 

Thus, there are several ways to prevent any breach of the NOx cap, which EPA 

and refiners may use separately or in combination: 

An adjustment, i.e., a partial waiver under (k)(2)(A); 

An `entire waiver' under (k)(2)(A); 

A waiver under (k)(2)(B), if there is interference with a NAAQ standard; or 

a waiver under new 211(m)(3)(A), if the area in question is an `overlap' area that 

is subject to both the reformulated and the oxygenated gasoline programs. 

Other NOx cap issues: The NOx cap in 211(k)(2)(A) does not require reductions of 

NOx. 

NOx cap results on baseline cars may be averaged by EPA. For example, if there 

are five baseline cars, and three show slight reductions, one shows no change, 

and one shows a slight increase, EPA may find 211(k)(2)(A) is satisfied. Requiring 

no increase from any of the vehicles under all operating conditions is a perfect 

example of how EPA, by extremely demanding test protocols, could in effect 

convert the NOx cap into a NOx reduction requirement. This is not intended. 

No rewriting of the minimum performance standards in (3)(B), in any way that 

makes them more stringent, is allowed under the aegis of NOx cap adjustments. 

Only the specified elements of the (3)(A) formula are within EPA's purview here. 

Large VOC reductions gained through an oxygen content that also `breaks' the 

NOx cap, cannot subsequently be used as the marker that must be equaled or 

exceeded under the more stringent of test in 211(k)(3). 

Aggregation: A reformulated gasoline may still qualify under (3)(B) even if it has 

some VOCs and some toxics that increase, compared to baseline gasoline. 

Aggregate decreases on a mass basis of all toxics and all VOC's are the standard; 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 33 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
so a small decline or even a rise in one or two is not disqualifying, if other declines 

offset them and yield a sufficiently large aggregate decline in emissions. 

Aromatics: EPA can not take advantage of significant variations in physical and 

chemical properties of the many different kinds of aromatics, to `rig' a formula 

gasoline under (3)(A) containing an unrepresentative selection of aromatics of 

unusually low volatility or toxicity. 

Multiple categories: Many compounds or types of chemicals noted in new 211(k) 

are subsets of each other. For example, benzene is an aromatic hydrocarbon, so 

reductions in benzene--to satisfy the benzene cap--will also count toward required 

reductions in aromatics and toxics as appropriate. 

Benzene is also a VOC and a toxic air pollutant, so benzene reductions in the new 

gasoline should, for example, to some degree yield lower toxics in evaporative, 

running, and refueling emissions from baseline cars. Like tailpipe emission 

reductions, any of these three types of emission reductions (from lower benzene) 

would all count toward the percentage reductions for VOC's and toxics set by new 

211(k)(3)(B). 

Heavy metals: Reformulated gasoline may not include a heavy metal additive such 

as, for example, manganese. 

However, under 211(k)(2)(D), the Administrator may waive this prohibition if he 

determines that a reformulated market-grade gasoline containing the heavy metal 

additive will not have (when tested on a basis consistent with that originally 

applied to the certification of reformulated fuel not containing the metal) total 

emissions of toxic air pollutants, on an aggregate mass or cancer risk basis above 

those which would be emitted from a reformulated market-grade gasoline of 

equivalent octane which did not contain the heavy metal additive. 

The 211(k)(2)(D) ban is aimed against achieving a new reformulated gasoline by 

the addition in the refining and blending process of new heavy metal additives. 

The goal is to eliminate existing toxic components of gas, and not replace them 

with new ones. This focus, and EPA's establishment of reasonable testing 

tolerances, do not set up a new ban against mere trace amounts of metals at or 

below levels now in baseline 1990 gasoline, and which originated in the crude oil. 

Certification: EPA must act on a petition for approval of reformulated gasoline 

within 180 days, in order that large investments in new facilities are not delayed 

by uncertainty over the proposed fuel's legality. If EPA does not act in that period, 

the fuel or slate of fuels is deemed certified. 

`Slate of fuels' refers to a combination of the (typically) three grades or octanes 

of gasolines--premium, midgrade, and regular--and perhaps some specified 

proportion or relative volumes of them. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 34 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Procedures comparable to those under existing 211(f)(4) will apply to 

certifications under 211(k)(4). Any automatic approval, as a technical matter, can 

subsequently be nullified by an actual EPA disapproval of the petition. 

Such a subsequent reversal could jeopardize large investments that were 

presumptively legal when made, and could create severe fuel shortages and 

economic hardships in affected covered areas. Accordingly, such reversals should 

be rare or non-existent, and based only on extraordinarily compelling reasons. 

With regard to enforcement, any such disapproval can operate only prospectively. 

A reasonable time period for new compliance measures--new permits, new 

investment, new construction--must be granted by EPA. Nor can civil penalties 

under section 211 be assessed in such cases, for sales after the automatic 

approval and before the new compliance date set after the disapproval. 

Enforcement: The intent of new 211(k)(5) is to penalize 

only the refiner, blender, importer, or marketer who knew or reasonably should 

have known that: 

[Page: H12859]

Its conventional gasoline has been wrongfully represented as reformulated 

gasoline, and is illegally being sold or will be illegally sold for ultimate 

consumption in a covered ozone non-attainment zone, or 

Its reformulated gasoline which, after appropriate crediting or pooling 

adjustments, does not meet certification standards, is being wrongfully 

represented as certified reformulated gasoline and is being sold for ultimate 

consumption in a covered ozone non-attainment zone. 

No penalties are intended for any gasoline refiner, blender, importer, or marketer 

under section 211(d), providing $25,000 per day civil penalties, if the wrongful 

conduct is taken by another entity beyond their control, or if the conduct at issue 

involves only wholesales of conventional gasoline intended for ultimate 

consumption outside of covered areas. 

Credits in general: Three different crediting programs (also referred to as 

`pooling' or `trading' programs) are established under new subsections 211(k) 

and (m): 

One for oxygen, aromatics, and benzene in reformulated gasoline, under 211(k) 

(7); 

One for anti-dumping rules covering non-reformulated gasoline, under 211(k) (8); 

One for oxygen in oxygenated gasoline, in 211(m) (5). 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 35 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
The first and the third crediting programs operate only within a specific ozone or 

carbon monoxide nonattainment area. The second one applies outside of those 

areas and covers all of a given company's output nationwide. To the maximum 

practicable extent, the Administrator should operate them in a similar fashion to 

minimize complexities and costs. 

The overall goal, as with other trading programs in the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990, it to permit an aggregate `least-cost' solution that, for example, allows 

the cheapest oxygen suppliers or the cheapest aromatics reducers to overachieve 

and handle a disproportionate share of the total burden. Less efficient competitors 

can buy credits and thus contract out some of the work to their more efficient 

brethren. Lower consumer prices result. 

Similarly, low octane grades of one refiner's gasoline may overachieve on 

aromatics reductions, to offset excesses from other grades; or one of a company's 

three refineries may overachieve with respect to benzene or oxygen. In each case, 

pooling is allowed. 

Averaging over time: In each of the three crediting/pooling programs, EPA must 

set a reasonable time period over which average specifications can be met. It 

could be the winter season in the oxygenated program, or a three-month quaterly 

period in the reformulated program. It should not be so short (i.e., a single day, 

hour, or minute) that averaging over time becomes impossible for mechanical or 

measuring reasons, or that unreasonable limits on supply flexibility and cost 

savings are forced on refiners, blenders, or importers. 

Averaging within a company, or `pooling': In view of the chemical differences 

among different grades and octanes of gasoline, from premium to regular, EPA is 

also directed to give refiners, blenders, and importers maximum reasonable 

flexibility to pool under 211(k)(7) on an intra-company basis. It would be 

impermissible for EPA to deny pooling rights to a refiner in the following case: 

Refiner A has a premium reformulated with 2.0 percent benzene, a mid-grade with 

0.6 percent benzene, and a regular with 0.4 percent benzene. Each grade made 

up one-third of A's volume of sales in the same period last year, and is projected 

to do the same again in the coming year. Pooled together, A's gasoline meets 211

(k)'s requirements. But if sales of premium turn out to be larger than expected, 

EPA can require greater offsetting reductions in the immediately following period. 

To ease enforcement burdens, EPA could insist on checking credited volumes and 

weights for each company at the refinery gate, the point of importation, or the 

point of blending. 

Continuous, universal physical testing by EPA to determine that pooling complies 

with 211 (k) or (m) is not contemplated. Instead, refiners, blenders, and 

importers are expected to conduct appropriate compliance tests periodically, and 

maintain records suitable for EPA to fully enforce compliance. And EPA may of 

course go behind these records, and engage in fuller audits if it chooses. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 36 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Intracompany pooling procedures established under the certification process--for 

example, to allow high aromatic levels for premium with lower offsetting levels for 

regular--would supercede any more formal crediting procedures set up by EPA. 

Many refiners may properly prefer the more informal, intra-company pooling 

approach; in part, this results from the obstacles that may hamper larger, EPAregulated inter-company credit programs, which may well entail greater 

bureaucratic and logistic difficulties. That is why the credit programs are not 

mandatory, and cannot be imposed on unwilling companies. In contrast, 

intracompany pooling shall be allowed by EPA to any comany affirmatively seeking 

it. 

Credit standard: The phrase `that would occur in the absence of such credits' as 

used in the three clauses of 211(k)(7)(C), refers to the aromatic, oxygen, or 

benzene content specified for a non-attainment under 211(k). It means the use of 

pooling or credits is not allowed to change the aggregate levels of these three 

components of gasoline in a given area, from what they would be in that area if 

each single gallon exactly met 211(k)'s requirements. It does not require or allow 

EPA to guess what each company might do if no pooling or crediting were allowed. 

Antidumping credits and rules: By nature, this program is company specific. 

Averaging over a certain time (quarterly, for example) and within a given 

company (among a single comany's three different refineries, for example) is 

allowed. 

The purpose of new 211(k)(8) is to prevent a specific company's actual post-1994 

conventional gasoline from having greater emissions than that same company's 

actual 1990 gasoline (or the equivalent, subject to reasonable test tolerances). 

Each refiner, blender, and importer is allowed to collect and compile data 

regarding its 1990 gasoline, and commercial data used by each such company in 

the ordinary course of business, and showing the identity of its suppliers, the 

grades of products purchased or sold, and related volumes and dates, would 

satisfy this provision. 

This provision does not require (or provide authority for EPA to require) the 

reformulation of any gasoline sold outside of covered areas, and 211(k)(8)(C) is 

not to be construed in a way that would require such a reformulation. 

Summertime baseline gasoline is as specified in (10)(B)(i). This does not indicate 

precisely which of the many diffferent aromatics, olefins, and saturates are to be 

included in the baseline. But EPA should not `rig' or `game' the resulting baseline 

gasoline by selecting unrepresentative sets of these different compounds that are 

of unusually low volatility or toxicity. 

Harmonization: Title 2 does not contemplate a proliferation of new reformulated 

gasolines in the same state or nonattainment zone. Thus, if California, under 

section 249(c)(2), prescribes a ore stringent or different reformulated gasoline, 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 37 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
and requires it to be produced, distributed, and made available in California, then 

that prescription and requirement shall apply in California instead of the 211(k) 

program. 

In opt-in States, the intent is that EPA shall by rule ensure that any control or 

prohibition respecting reformulated gasoline shall be consistent with the 211(k) 

requirements, the section 246 requirements respecting fleet programs, and the 

section 249 requirements respecting the California pilot program. 

Such regulations shall ensure that no more than one prohibition or requirement 

respecting reformulated gasoline will apply in any area, and shall provide 

maximum air quality benefit consistent with technical feasibility, cost, and 

domestic supply and distribution capacity. 

Oxygenated gasoline--covered areas: Approximately 40 areas are covered by new 

211(m)(1), ranging from Los Angeles and Denver with 1988-89 carbon monoxide 

design values of 23.4 and 16.2, down to the relatively cleaner but still covered 

areas with 1988-89 design values of 9.5 p.p.m. or more. Waivers under 211(m) 

may however reduce this total number of areas. 

Enforcement: Like 211(k)(5), and new 211(m)(2) does not ban perfectly lawful 

and routine wholesales of unoxygenated gasoline--where the selling refiner, the 

sale, or the buyer are within a covered area--so long as that gasoline is intended 

for and does move to areas outside of the covered area, where retail sales of 

unoxygenated gasoline are routine and perfectly legal. 

Broader literal readings of the word `any' in the phrase `any gasoline sold,' or the 

word `indirectly' in the phrase `sold or dispensed directly or indirectly' are 

impermissible. 

Such a reading would only cut off the wholesale fuels trade in major American port 

cities such as Houston, New York, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia, since many fuel 

dealers in these cities will supply both these cities and many other areas farther 

inland. A ban on any handling of unoxygenated fuel by these dealers would, by 

reason of their status as dual suppliers to both types of areas, impose a de facto 

embargo on fuel shipments to uncovered inland areas where unoxygenated 

gasoline remains perfectly legal after late 1992. No such result is allowed. 

Overlaps, types of oxygenates: The winter oxygenate requirement of 2.7 percent 

in 211(m) (2) overrides the lower 2.0 percent requirement under 211(k), in those 

cities which are subject to overlapping reformulated and oxygenated programs. 

But in such overlaps, all oxygen waivers under 211(k) remain available and 

effective, since the oxygenated gasoline in these cities is technically reformulated 

gasoline. 

The level of 2.7 percent was chosen in part to provide more even opportunities for 

competition between the two major oxygenates, methyl tertiary butyl ether (or 

MTBE), and ethyul alcohol (or ethanol). 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 38 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
The Administrator may not discriminate among these different oxygenates, and 

should encourage fair competition among them. As long as the percentage of 

weight requirement is met, and other requirements of new 211 (k) and (m) are 

satisfied, any oxygenate should be allowed to satisfy new United States needs. 

However, EPA must consider the different handling and transportation needs of 

different oxygenates, and the problems that can result if they are commingled, 

because these factors will bear on the adequacy of distribution capacity to, and 

supply in end user markets. 

Improper commingling of MTBE gasoline with `oxygenless' gasoline intended to be 

blended with ethanol can for example create excessive levels of oxygen, if and 

when ethanol is erroneously added to the already oxygen-rich MTBE gas, and 

produce a fuel that may violate specifications. Or ethanol, which unlike gasoline 

has an affinity for water, may be introduced erroneously into gasoline pipelines or 

storage tanks containing some water at the bottom; such tanks and pipes are 

adequate for MTBE blended gasoline, but may need dewatering before they can 

hold gasohol or ethanol. 

These potential problems may require segregation of these two oxygenates and 

the gasolines containing them, but of course do not disqualify either oxygenate. 

Waivers for lack of distribution or supply capacity: EPA shall consider all relevant 

factors, including current and projected gasoline prices within and without covered 

CO areas in granting waivers under 211(m)(3)(C). 

Though this provision refers to inadequate supply or capacity, estimating the 

logistics and thus the ultimate capacity of a complex and interconnected system of 

oxygenate plants, refineries, railroad tank cars for ethanol and ethers, pipelines 

for blended gasolines, storage tanks, and blending facilities may be difficult. 

Moreover, a given capacity may be adequate in a period of low demand, but 

inadequate during higher demand. 

To illustrate, there is disagreement today on the fundamental question of whether 

there is any shortage of crude oil worldwide at present, with some observers 

inexplicably contending there is no shortage even though crude oil prices have 

doubled in 2 months. The fungibility of oil, an inability to trace movement of 

specific shipments through the distribution system, lack of real-time data on all 

levels of storage, and the constant influence of prices on volumes supplied, all 

complicate this process. 

Moreover, as noted earlier in 1, a tiny error of overestimation by EPA can result in 

very large price increases. 

Accordingly, EPA should make its best advance estimate on this issue; but it 

should also carefully watch cash and futures oxygenated gasoline prices, and be 

ready to reverse an earlier estimate of adequate capacity that proves, in the real 

world of market prices, to be inaccurate. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 39 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
As a technical matter, there is never a shortage in a decontrolled commodity 

market. EPA is directed to disregard this technical reality, and focus instead on a 

real world meaning that includes fuel shortages and high prices. 

Comprehensive EPA approach: When considering waiver petitions under 211(m)

(3)(C), EPA should-- 

a. Determine the demand for exygenates in each covered area; 

b. Determine the expected domestic production capacity for oxygenates likely to 

be available at least three months prior to the effective date of this provision: 

c. Determine the necessary logistics to supply oxygenates to and within the 

covered areas; 

d. Determine the minimum time requirements for the necessary supply and 

distribution infrastructure to be made available for each covered area; 

e. Evaluate the demand for oxygenates outside of the covered area, and 

determine the effects requiring oxygen in the covered areas will have on areas 

currently served by oxygenates (seeking to avoid reallocation of existing supplies 

of oxygenate to the greatest possible extent); 

f. Evaluate competition among covered and noncovered areas for available 

supplies of oxygenates, and competition's likely effect on the availability and cost 

of oxygenates in these areas, 

g. Provide for a reasonable margin of safety in its estimates of supply to minimize 

the chances of supply shortages in covered areas, 

h. Evaluate and seek to prevent any economically wasteful or irrational actions 

which may be associated with an early effective date in any covered area, such as 

for example, the construction of oxygenate storage tanks that will be used only in 

their first year because rising future oxygenate production could satisfy area 

demands without any storage, 

i. Consider how much savings could be effected by delaying the early effective 

date in the case of such waste, 

j. Establish a list of priority covered areas based upon their severity of 

nonattainment and the role of motor vehicles in contributing to the area's 

nonattainment status, 

k. Publish a list of areas to be covered each year in sufficient time to assure the 

availablity of necessary infrastructure by the effective date, and 

l. Provide for reconsideration on an areawide basis if supply shortages or 

infrastructure delays prevent or are likely to 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 40 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
prevent compliance by the effective date. 

No partial waivers: Too many logistic and refinery reconfiguration problems may 

arise if partial waivers allowing weaker oxygen concentrations, partial geographic 

areas, or shorter periods are granted. 211(m)(3)(C)(ii) bans such partial waivers 

to retain a balance between workability and advance certainty for suppliers. 

In particular, new 211 (k) and (m) already create several new kinds of gasoline, 

and different oxygen concentrations may already exist under the various NOx cap 

provisions of these two subsections. Further balkanizing of the gasoline industry--

with different 02 concentrations in different East Coast cities, for example--

potentially risks further disruptions and more individualized precision from 

refiners, which may not be possible. Segregating a great many individually 

tailored blends will also be more difficult for the pipeline and terminal segments of 

the industry. The Colonial Pipeline, which services 6 of the 40 areas, would be 

more prone to bottlenecks, for any given shipment might be legal in only some or 

one of those cities. 

EPA is not bound to continue a mis-estimate of adequate capacity by this clause: 

If, for example, a price spike in mid-winter indicates a shortage, a waiver under 

clause (i) can then be granted; such a waiver is not an impermissible partial delay 

or lesser waiver under clause (ii). 

Other O2 waivers: Analogously, EPA should also avoid a proliferation of too many 

different 02 levels when it grants partial oxygen content waivers, to solve NOx cap 

or NAAQS problems under other provisions of 211 (k) and (m). 

`Distribution capacity,' as used in 211(m)(3)(C), includes everything needed to 

get to the final pump; for example, interstate transportation, local distribution, 

storage, trucks, blending facilities, and so on. 

Other exemptions: Neither 211(k) nor 211(m) allows EPA to grant waivers or 

exemptions to only a specified subset or class of refiner, blender, importer, or 

marketer. Rules or orders of general or particular applicability that in effect return 

to a scheme of preferential regulatory status for small or large refiners, for 

example, are not allowed. 

No return to oil price and allocation controls: EPA must not, in administering the 

oxygenated and reformulated gasoline programs, reinvent oil price and allocation 

controls like those administered by the Department of Energy in the 1970s. 

By its decisions on permits for MTBE plants and new refinery units and related 

offsets, capacity waivers, technical feasibility determinations, enforcement 

interpretations, and so on, EPA may force costly, lengthy compliance efforts on all 

segments of the gasoline refining and marketing industry. 

Ill-considered regulatory decisions can create delays, and in turn, restrict supplies 

of certified reformulated and certified oxygenated gasoline. Delays for any reason 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 41 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
could thus give EPA restrictive control over gasoline supplies to many of the 

largest American markets. 

Control over supply means control over price. EPA must be sensitive to this 

danger: New 211 (k) and (m) do not intend to resurrect a 1970's DOE type 

scheme of detailed government intervention in U.S. gasoline markets. An 

approach of this sort would be especially unacceptable, in view of the fact that 

DOE's restrictions artificially lowered prices, whereas EPA restrictions on supply 

would artificially raise them. 

Imports: New 211(m)(3) refers to domestic supply because imports may be 

unavailable, unreliable, or highly priced. While world supplies are growing, so is 

world demand; foreign suppliers may not wish to disrupt existing contract 

relationships with foreign buyers by making spot sales to the United States; and 

higher world prices may boost domestic prices, as routinely happens with crude 

oil. 

In any event, reliance on imported oxygenates or reformulated gasoline may 

simply trade one type of fuel import dependency for another. New 211 (k) and 

(m) do not prohibit such imports or raise their price; but EPA, in making planning 

and waiver decisions, must not count on imports to fill apparent domestic gaps. 

Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to emphasize my pleasure, and relief, that we 

have the end in sight--that this Nation will have a renewed and vibrant Clean Air 

Act to move us toward fulfilling the promise of clean, healthy air for all Americans. 

I would also like to note, Mr. Speaker that both the House bill and the Senate bill 

contained provisions addressing EPA's recent WEPCo interpretations. Those 

interpretations could prevent utilities from undertaking needed equipment changes 

(including even projects to reduce emissions) at their power plants without first 

meeting expensive and time-consuming new source review requirements. 

The House and Senate bills only addressed part of the problem--WEPCo's impact 

on pollution control projects--even through WEPCo threatens many other 

legitimate power plant activities. After passage of the bills, the administration 

stated that WEPCo could be resolved in a comprehensive fashion administratively 

without any change in the law. With the understanding that no amendments were 

needed to resolve the entire WEPCo problem, the Conferees decided to drop the 

limited WEPCo amendments in the bills. 

We expect and urge the Administration to promptly reconsider EPA's WEPCo 

interpretations. The Administration has ample authority to do this and should 

quickly move to resolve WEPCo in a responsible manner that will promote costeffective pollution control decisions, encourage energy efficiency projects, and 

assure that electric reliability will be maintained. 

[Page: H12861]

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 42 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Mr. DANNEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri 

[Mr. Hancock]. 

(Mr. HANCOCK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 

remarks.) 

Mr. HANCOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report. Because 

I oppose this legislation I have been labeled as being against clean air. That is just 

not true. As much as anyone, I want to clean the air and work to maintain a safe 

and unpolluted environment. 

Since we began debating this issue, I have asked hundreds of my constituents if 

they are in favor of clean air, 100 percent said `yes.' But when I asked how many 

of them were ready to see their utility rates rise between 15 and 30 percent and 

face a likely job loss of between 40,000 and 60,000 nationwide, their response 

was less than enthusiastic. 

And when I told them that the goal of the acid rain title of the bill, which will cost 

between $5 and $8 billion a year to reduce 10 million tons of SO2 emissions by 

1999, could be achieved by the year 2010 for no job loss or rate increase, they 

got down-right mad. 

So Mr. Speaker, I cannot support legislation which places such a huge financial 

burden on rate payers when the same desired results can be reached at less cost 

and in a reasonable timeframe. 

Much of what Congress has done over the last few weeks has helped steer our 

country toward a recession. And this legislation will keep driving us in that 

direction. Just last week, three Nobel Prize winning economists warned our 

President that, quote, `The Clean Air Act's unduly stringent and extremely costly 

provisions could seriously threaten this Nation's economic expansion.' 

One thing's for sure--to repeat a popular phrase--this bill may result in the 

cleanest depression in history. 

Before I came to Washington, Mr. Speaker, I was a small businessman. For some 

reason, too many Members in Congress think that if you own a business, you are 

rich. Well, I want you to know that for the overwhelming majority of small 

businesses in this country, that is just not the case. And on top of all the 

mandates we place on businesses as it is, this bill will place an additional onerous 

burden on 143,000 small businesses. For the first time, small businesses must go 

through Federal point-source pollution-permitting processes, with estimated costs 

of between $8,000 and $22,000 dollars per small plant annually, or $1 to $3 

billion per year nationally. 

Can we afford the same type of governmental industrial planning that the Soviet 

Union is in the process of eliminating? 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 43 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
It is no surprise that this conference report is coming up just 11 days before the 

election. To vote against this could be political suicide. And a Presidential veto 

would be a kiss of death for Republicans. I'm not surprised we are considering this 

today. All throughout the process, this legislation has been molded by 

environmental special interests--and of course politics, but not sound public 

policy. 

I urge my colleagues to join me and oppose this bill. There are alternatives to 

clean the air that are not as costly or burdensome as this proposal. They received 

little consideration. With the current fiscal problems of our government, and the 

impending recession facing our nation, let's defeat this conference report and try 

next year to develop a clean air policy which helps our environment, but does not 

overburden our economy. 

[Page: H12862]

[TIME: 1650]

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. 

Hammerschmidt], the ranking member of the Committee on Public Works and 

Transportation. 

(Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 

remarks.) 

•

Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my support for the 

transportation provisions of the conference agreement and to concur with the 

statement of Chairman Anderson in that regard. In particular, by preserving 

the key concepts from the House bill on the issues of sanctions and 

conformity review, I believe that we have adopted a workable program in the 

transportation area that will advance the goals of cleaner air and of mobility.

•

I would like to extend special thanks to Chairman Dingell, Mr. Lent, and Mr. 

Waxman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce for the cooperative 

manner in which they have worked with the Committee on Public Works and 

Transportaiton to craft these provisions.

•

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 

[Mr. Conte]. 

(Mr. CONTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. CONTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this conference report, 

and I am pleased--no, overjoyed--to be a part of this truly historic occasion. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 44 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Enactment of this major revision of the Clean Air Act, with provisions to reduce 

the hideous threat of acid rain, is the most important environmental legislation 

considered and passed by the Congress in the past decade. 

For 10 years now, I have had the distinct pleasure to work with my good friend 

John Dingell, chairman of the full committee and my colleague on the Migratory 

Bird Commission; with Henry Waxman and Gerry Sikorski; my good friend 

Norm Lent, the ranking member and many many other members who have 

assisted me in my pursuit of acid rain control legislation. 

I probably sound like a broken record to many Members when I recount for them 

the horror stories of uncontrolled acid rain. 

The streams and lakes in my district and throughout New England have been 

devastated by this silent killer. 

The rain of death has severely damaged forests and vegetation across the 

Northeast, and aquatic life is threatened to the point where periodic fish kills are 

not uncommon. 

Witnessing this damage first hand, and realizing as a sportsman and 

environmentalist that our natural resources could be damaged beyond repair, I 

undertood a decade long effort to control acid rain causing pollutants. 

Consideration of this conference report today is the culmination of that effort. 

In 1983, I introduced legislation, supported and endorsed by the New England 

congressional delegation, which contained the strongest controls on acid rain 

emissions ever proposed to that point. 

And, 2 years later, I introduced, with Congressmen Sikorski and Waxman, what 

was again the most broad based, comprehensive acid rain bill on record. 

The bill was cosponsored by over 150 House Members from all regions of the 

country and representing positions across the political spectrum. 

Although neither of these measures were enacted into law, the broad-based 

support and the approach taken in these bills helped form the base of the 

bipartisan effort that emerged earlier in this Congress when President Bush 

endorsed the idea of strong and effective acid rain controls and Clean Air Act 

reforms. 

Although I strongly support the effort embodied in this conference report, I am 

disapointed that one important provision was not included in the final agreement. 

During House consideration of this bill, Congressman Wyden and I offered an 

amendment to increase environmental protection for our national parks. This 

amendment would have ensured air quality standards for our national parks and 

wilderness areas. Although I strongly supported inclusion of the provision in the 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 45 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
final agreement, I understand the art of compromise, and I hope the committee 

pursues this issue in the future as the opportunity presents. 

Mr. Speaker, enactment of this legislation puts a shining star on the record of the 

101st Congress. Over the past several months, the record around here for tending 

to the people's business has been less than perfect. 

Today, we have an opportunity to enhance and improve that record. These 

revisions to the Clean Air Act will leave a lasting legacy to future generations of 

Americans--to our children and grandchildren who will enjoy the fruits of our work 

for decades to come. 

Because of this legislation, the air will be clean. Our fish and wildlife resources will 

be protected. And the environment will be safer. 

This a monumental piece of legislation, a testament to how bipartisan approaches 

to national problems can make the difference, and where Presidential leadership 

has saved the day. 

Mr. Speaker, I proudly urge my colleagues to support these amendments to the 

Clean Air Act, amendments made to reduce the silent killer of acid rain. 

Mr. DYMALLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 

Hubbard]. 

(Mr. HUBBARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. HUBBARD. Mr. Speaker, surely all Americans are supportive of the concept of 

clean air. And, yes, sincere congratulations to the Members of Congress and the 

staff who continue to work to ensure that health standards in this country remain 

high. 

The costs of this legislation will be very high to the Federal Government, to small 

and large businesses and to each American household. Each family could spend an 

additional $300 to $400 annually in increased utility bills because of this 

legislation. 

Our economy is currently in a fragile and vulnerable condition. 

This, added to the current crisis in the Middle East, just simply increases the 

prospects that Americans could face some extremely difficult economic times 

ahead. 

This Clean Air Act's unduly stringent and extremely costly provisions could 

seriously threaten our Nation's economic expansion. 

It's very understandable that a majority of our Members today find a clean air bill 

irresistible. It's not easy to oppose a clean air bill. Most likely, if I represented 

Vermont or Oregon or Massachusetts or Florida, I could go along with this bill. I 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 46 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
could be a hero to Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. But I represent nine counties 

in western Kentucky which produce high-sulfur coal. 

This legislation, unfortunately, works to the detriment of my congressional district. 

Clean air--the words are magic. For the high-sulfur coalfields of my district, this 

bill means lost jobs. 

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 

Bliley], a member of the conference committee. 

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. 

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lent], the 

gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the gentleman from California [Mr. 

Waxman], the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Illinois 

[Mr. Madigan], the ranking member of the subcommittee. 

Mr. Speaker, for 10 long years we have labored through countless hours of 

hearings, through endless markups, to arrive at this day. 

Is this a perfect bill? No, it is not a perfect bill. No bill as complex as this could be. 

It represents truly a bipartisan compromise. Of all the many contentious issues 

that have been before our subcommittee and committee, this is probably the 

most. 

During consideration of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 on May 23 of this 

year, I made a number of observations about various aspects of title III--

hazardous air pollutants. Those remarks may be found on pages H2844-45 of the 

Congressional Record of that day. 

The specific issues I addressed were as follows: Coordination with the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act; requirements for municipal waste incineration; discretionary listing 

authority; categorization or subcategorization; and categories of pollutants 

without a CAS number. 

I shall speak to and scorecard each of those matters in sequence, and also touch 

on two other title III matters--coke oven emissions and the mandatory substances 

on the initial list for sudden and accidental release requirements. I also shall 

discuss briefly the regulation of fuels under title II. 

Last May I stated that one of my paramount interests with respect to the Clean Air 

Amendments of 1990 was to try to encourage utilization of the principle of costeffectiveness in this legislation. That has not always been easy or politically 

possible. However, if done in consonance with an appropriate level of protection 

for health and environment, the public will be better served by this ambitious bill 

(S. 1630). On the other hand, to the extent that S. 1630 departs from that 

principle, it justifiably can be accused of wasting precious resources without a 

commensurate benefit being bestowed upon society. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 47 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Title III of S. 1630, relating as it does to hazardous air pollutants, is a portion of 

the bill where the potential for control overkill is particularly great because the 

public values to be protected are expecially fragile and sensitive, both in 

perception and reality. Nevertheless, proceeding with caution, with health and 

environmental protection being the objective, the principle of cost effectiveness 

can be employed here as well. 

[Page: H12863]

COORDINATION WITH THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT

Last May, I was able to get some language placed in title III in the set of 

committee amendments successfully offered en bloc to H.R. 3030. The text of that 

language was as follows: 

(u) In the case of any category or subcategory of sources the air emissions of 

which are regulated under subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the 

Administrator shall take into account any regulations of such emissions which are 

promulgated under such subtitle and shall, to the maximum 

the ambitious schedule for regulation under title III and the strain it will place on 

EPA resources and those of the regulated community. 

EPA is currently will along in the process of promulgating stringent air emissions 

for several specific types of facilities for the same pollutants that are listed under 

title III of H.R. 3030, as reported. For industrial boilers and furnaces that burn 

hazardous waste fuel, EPA has proposed both technology-based and health-based 

emissions limitations on potentially hazardous air pollutants that may be emitted 

by such sources. See 54 FR 43718, October 26, 1989; 52 FR 16982, May 6, 1987. 

These regulations, which are more stringent than the stringent requirements that 

currently apply to hazardous waste incinerators, are being promulgated pursuant 

to RCRA, not the Clean Air Act, and are expected to be issued in final form within 

a year. 

Compliance with these regulations will require many facilities to install expensive 

new control technology and to go through an elaborate and costly permitting 

process. To require EPA to impose an additional layer of extent practicable and 

consistent with the provisions of this section, ensure that the requirements of such 

subtitle and this section are consistent. 

That language survived without change in the conference report on S. 1630. 

Accordingly, the relevant legislative history on the amendment, contained in my 

May floor statement, implicitly was ratified by the action of the conferees. The 

discussion last spring, therefore, is worth repeating today for convenience, as 

follows: 

The purpose of my amendment language is to allow EPA to avoid imposing 

additional emission limitations on a source category or subcategory when such 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 48 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
limitations would be unneccessary and duplicative. The amendment would not 

automatically exclude source categories that are subject to controls under another 

program, but would simply require the Administrator, to the maximum extent 

practicable and consistent with the provisions of section 301, to ensure the 

consistency of subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act [SWDA] and this section. 

After all, the purpose of the legislation is to place an appropriate level of control 

and is not to enshrine control for control's sake. This is particularly important in 

light of 

regulation on sources that EPA may determine will be appropriately controlled by 

another regulatory program would yield no environmental benefits, but it could 

impose a large burden on both the regulated facilities and Federal and State 

permit writers. Even if the level of emissions control required under different 

regulations is essentially the same, the costs of subjecting facilities to detailed 

monitoring and operating requirements that have been separately promulgated 

pursuant to different statutory authority, or by different offices within EPA and 

different State agencies, are likely to be high. 

In my view, my language tries to rationalize the appropriate level of control under 

this legislation with that in companion environmental statute. Indeed, section 

1006(b) of the SWDA requires integration with the Clean Air Act of all provisions 

of SWDA for purposes of administration and enforcement and avoidance of 

duplication to the maximum extent practicable. To me this is nothing more than 

the exercise of common sense. 

REQUIREMENTS FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE INCINERATION

Last May I observed that H.R. 3030 did not have a specific provision regulating 

municipal waste incineration. However, absent such a specific provision it could 

happen that such incinerators might find themselves regulated in an inappropriate 

way under generic provisions of title III. The bill that passed the other body had a 

specific set of regulations applicable to municipal waste incinerators which largely 

built upon the ongoing rulemaking for those sources. In May, I stated that: 

On December 20, 1989, EPA proposed stringent emissions limitations and 

compliance schedules for existing municipal waste combustors--see 54 FR 52209--

and for new, modified of reconstructed municipal waste combustors, see 54 FR 

52251. Hearings on those regulations, which have long been in the developmental 

stage and have been the subject of extensive comments, commenced in January 

1990, and further comments for the record were filed by March 1, 1990. 

Though somewhat modified to engraft some of the concepts of general title III 

regulation, the other body's provision relating to emissions was largely adopted. 

The regulation of ash under subtitle C of RCRA was not allowed, without prejudice, 

for 2 years--thus allowing the possible resolution of that matter in the upcoming 

RCRA reauthorization during the next Congress. I 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 49 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
was quite pleased that the conference report provisions, in the main, allow the 

rulemaking which has long been in the regulatory pipeline to proceed, with some 

adjustments and modifications. I was glad that the conferees deleted the illogical 

specific reference to source separation and recycling which, though part of the 

ongoing clean air rulemaking, currently have a very shaky statutory basis and, 

unsurprisingly, were challenged by a number of commentators on the rulemaking. 

DISCRETIONARY LISTING AUTHORITY

Last May I observed that: 

Another example comes to mind with respect to the appropriate level of regulation 

of those substances which are on both the 301 list and the initial list of substances 

under those other provisions of title III regulating sudden and accidental releases. 

It is clear that, unless there is a commitment to avoid inconsistency, duplication, 

and inappropriate control, some of the sources of those chemicals will find 

themselves subjected to regulatory overkill. It is important that this matter be 

clarified. Proposed section 112(c)(4) provides discretionary authority to the 

Administrator to list categories or subcategories under section 112(c) that had 

been regulated under section 112 prior to enactment. No health benefit would flow 

from requiring EPA to promulgate new section 112 standards for sources that are 

meeting standards that provide an ample margin of safety under existing 

NESHAPS. Accordingly, because of this, section 112(c)(4) authority should be 

utilized only if the applicable standards needs to be revised. Of course, in some 

instances, the existence of new sudden and accidental requirements may make 

the lack of need for any additional title III regulation even more compelling. 

I was pleased that the House provision was adopted by the conferees, thereby 

preserving an additional degree of flexibility in the bill. 

CATEGORIZATION OF SUBCATEGORIZATION

It is apparent that if the title III MACT requirements are to work sensibly, it is 

important that the appropriate control measure be employed in light of the nature 

of the facility to be regulated. Some industries have processes which are central to 

appropriate subcategories of the industry. Thus it is vital to utilize 

subcategorization to prevent the cost-ineffective application of a MACT which is 

inappropriate to the kind of process which is integral to a source. Given the 

dramatic increase in the presumed cost of this bill, use of this flexibility becomes 

even more essential. Pages 170-171 of Senate Report 101-228 states the 

following: `The Administrator may consider the type of process employed in 

making decisions on subcategories and standards.' As I pointed out last May, 

there is nothing in the language of the House bill to prevent such an 

interpretation. Proposed section 112(d)(1), as adopted by the conferees, gave EPA 

the discretion to distinquish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a 

category or subcategory. Furthermore, there was additional flexibility build into 

proposed section 112(d)(3) in the conference report respecting the degree of 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 50 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
reduction achievable for similar sources in category of subcategory. As stated in 

the House Report 101-490, part 1, on pages 328-329: 

[Page: H12864]

Thus, in either case, as EPA searches to determine the best controlled `similar 

sources' in a category or subcategory these factors must play a role in 

determining the degree of stringency and the similar sources. The word, according 

to a dictionary definition, `similar' means `showing some resemblance; * * * alike 

though not identical.' This requires EPA to ascertain if the sources in a category or 

subcategory are similar to the `best controlled' existing or new source. There may 

be important differences or characteristics. The physical characteristics and type 

of operation of the facility may, in fact, distinguish the sources and demonstrate 

that, in fact, they are not or are similar. In addition, EPA has to consider the 

above statutory factors, including costs, in determining stringency and similarity. 

The MACT provision in the bill gives the Administrator discretion in categorizing 

and subcategorizing facilities for regulation under subsection (d). 

By way of illustration, for aluminum reduction plants, appropriate subcategories 

would be vertical stud Soderberg, horizontal stud Soderberg, and prebake anode. 

In the chloralkali industry, except for chlorine, the potential for emissions from the 

processes relates to quite different materials and product characteristics. Thus an 

appropriate subcategorization would be asbestos diaphragm cell, mercury cell, and 

membrane cell. 

The inherent flexibility of the adopted provision will allow use of the appropriately 

targeted technology. It would be a pity if EPA did not properly avail itself of the 

rational regulatory tool of subcategorization. 

CATEGORIES OF POLLUTANT WITHOUT A CAS NUMBER

In May I addressed the important regulatory flexibility to be sought in allowing 

recognition of the fact that differences existed in substances within a compound 

category, as follows: 

Lastly, the bill designates on the list of regulated hazardous air pollutants 17 

broad categories of pollutants without a CAS number. To ensure that substances 

are not unnecessarily regulated by emission standards based on the health risks 

posed by a very different toxic pollutants within the same broad pollutant 

category, the bill allows EPA to delete from regulation those unique chemical 

substances that do not meet the criteria for adding a pollutant to the list of toxic 

air pollutants. Also, to ensure that unique chemical substances that are only mildly 

toxic and noncarcinogenic are regulated on the basis of the specific risks posed by 

the unique chemical substances and not on the basis of risks posed by a known 

human carcinogen or a severely toxic unique chemical substance in the same 

pollutant category, the Administrator should establish emission standards with 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 51 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
respect to the health and environmental effects of the substances actually emitted 

by a source. 

I am pleased to report that the provisions of the House passed bill were improved 

by adoption of language in the Senate version permitting the Administrator to take 

cognizance of the different toxic risks represented by unique chemical substances 

within broad categories. 

SUDDEN AND ACCIDENTAL SUBSTANCE LIST

In its initial list of the prevention of sudden, accidental releases, the Senate bill 

included four industrial solvents--toluene, methyl alcohol, acetone, and methyl 

ethyl ketone--that are not on the original EPCRA section 302 list. The House 

version did not. 

OSHA has fixed the short term exposure limit [STEL] of these four chemicals at 

over 150 parts per million (ppm), and as high as 1,000 ppm--for acetone. The 

STEL's are a measure of the acute health effects for the chemicals. The STEL's of 

the chemicals on the EPCRA section 302 list are generally in the 1 to 50 ppm 

range. This makes the four above named chamicals clearly less hazardous. 

Inclusion of those chemicals would result in additional unnecessary expense for 

sophisticated air dispersion modeling techniques for these companies who use the 

four chemicals in question because a sudden release of the above four chemicals 

would certainly not pose the same acute risks as would a release of the EPCRA 

section 302 chemicals. Also, the preparation of a Hazard Assessment would pose 

an unnecessarily heavy manpower/paperwork burden. 

Because of the relatively low acute toxicity of these four chemicals and the 

unnecessary additional burden that such inappropriate inclusion would impose, I 

was glad to see the conferees drop those four chemicals from the mandatory 

substances on the list. To avoid trivializing the list, the Administrator in the 

execrise of his discretion should not include them on the list. The conferees 

recognized that their inclusion was inappropriate. 

COKE OVEN EMISSIONS

In 1981 the steel industry successfully pushed for passage of H.R. 3520--the socalled steel stretchout legislation--to give itself time and conditions, not available 

to other industries, to comply with certain Clean Air Act requirements. That 

measure passed on the floor of the House under suspension of the rules with only 

three dissenting votes on May 28, 1981, and the version sent to President passed 

the House on June 26, 1981 with only four dissenting votes. In both instances I 

was one of the dissenters. Now in S. 1630 the steel industry is getting a 17-year 

extension from the date they would otherwise have to meet stringent healthbased standards. It is true that in order to qualify for the extension to the year 

2020, coke ovens would have to meet interim standards of increasing stringency. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 52 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
However, once again, the steel industry has secured an arrangement not available 

to others, despite the risk posed by many of such ovens and despite the 

availability of appropriate clean coke oven technology. 

FUELS

No other provisions in the conference report on S. 1630 have as much potential 

for chaos, and are so fraught with interpretative difficulties as those relating to 

fuels. This is so, in part, because disparate provisions were crafted without 

sufficient coordinative attention to the technicalities and implications of other 

sections. Also, the new proscriptions were insufficiently sensitive to the enormous 

complexities of the petroleum refining, marketing, and distribution industry in this 

country. Furthermore, the considerable expense, capital planning, permitting, and 

construction demands of this legislation add to the daunting task of 

implementation of these provisions. Given the fragility of our energy situation and 

rising consumer disquietude with prices, this radical program is not unlike a leap 

in the dark. The program offers real dangers of market balkanization, coupled with 

potential harmonization and enforcement difficulties which bring unpleasant 

memories of the emergency petroleum allocation program. As only one example, 

consider the fact that reformulated gasoline under California's clean fuel program 

in part c of title II will use the definitional term nonmethane organic gas [NMOG] 

adjusted for reactivity, whereas reformulated gasoline in part b of title II used the 

term VOC's and is measured on a mass basis. Some of the pitfalls were ably 

addressed by Senator Johnston on page S15541 of the Congressional Record of 

October 17, 1990. 

It is absolutely essential that EPA utilize regulatory flexibility to harmonize the 

requirements under parts b and c, as well as to mitigate any potential disruption 

caused by part B. Proposed section 211(k)(1) sets forth the bedrock regulatory 

foundation for the reformulated gasoline program to require the greatest reduction 

in emissions of ozone forming VOC's and toxics achievable, taking a variety of 

factors into consideration. It is vital that section 211(k)(1) be viewed as residual 

authority to modify the more specific requirements throughout proposed section 

211(k), if implementation of them would run afoul of the factors in section 211(k)

(1). In short, notwithstanding the apparent mandatory style of the other 

requirements, they may be adjudged to be merely required targets--the dates and 

specifics of which may be adjusted to comport with reality and the basic 

foundational demands of section 211(k)(1). 

[Page: H12865]

EXPLANATION OF HEAVY METALS PROVISION

Under the conference agreement, a reformulated fuel cannot include a heavy 

metal unless the EPA Administrator determines that the reformulated fuel 

containing the heavy metal will not increase, on an aggregate mass or cancer-risk 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 53 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
basis, total emissions of toxic air pollutants. For purposes of this section, the term 

`toxic air pollutants' means benzene, butadiene, formaldehyde, polycyclic organic 

material [POM], and acetaldehyde. 

The conference agreement specifically mentions lead and manganese as two 

examples of heavy metals. These two metals were mentioned because they are 

the two now controlled by the existing section 211 of the Clean Air Act. This new 

provision regarding heavy metals builds upon these existing requirements. 

The certification required concerning aggregate mass or cancer-risk is in addition 

to other tests in current law. In particular, the existing provisions of section 211 of 

the Clean Air Act which require EPA to find that a fuel or fuel additive will not 

cause or contribute to a failure of any emissions control device or system will 

continue to be applicable to fuels and fuel additives, including fuel additives and 

fuels containing heavy metals. The conference agreement allows the EPA to look 

at aggregate mass or cancer risk of the emissions of the five toxic air pollutants. A 

fuel is not required to meet both tests. It is assumed that unless the reformulated 

fuel containing the heavy metal significantly increases on a net basis emissions of 

carcinogens among the five air toxic pollutants, when compared with a 

comparable market grade reformulated fuel not containing the heavy metal, EPA 

will utilize the aggregate mass test for determining whether the reformulated fuel 

containing the heavy metal can be certified. 

In testing reformulated fuels for the emissions impact of heavy metals, the 

Administrator shall compare the emissions characteristics of a reformulated 

market-grade fuel containing the heavy metal with those of a market-grade fuel 

not containing the metal. This comparison shall be conducted on a basis consistent 

with that originally applied to the certification of a reformulated fuel of equivalent 

octane not containing the heavy metal. For example, where the performance 

characteristics of a fuel are changed by the addition of a heavy metal, EPA should 

compare market-grade fuels of equivalent performance characteristics. Simply 

`splash-blending' a heavy metal into a reformulated fuel, when the octane level or 

other performance characteristics of such a fuel would be changed, would not be a 

proper way of conducting such a comparison. 

The automatic certification procedures under the reformulated fuels section are 

applicable to all reformulated fuels, including those containing heavy metals. Thus, 

as long as a reformulated fuel containing a heavy metal meets the performance 

standards, it can be automatically certified as well as any other reformulated fuel. 

In no way is this provision intended to affect heavy metals which originated in the 

crude oil and are contained in gasoline in trace amounts, or which are contained in 

baseline 1990 gasoline. 

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues which the Clean Air Act of 1990 address is the 

control of emissions of gasoline vapors which escape from motor vehicles during 

refueling. I have been deeply involved in the debate over this issue during 

consideration of clean air legislation over the past several years. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 54 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
I have long advocated the use of onboard vapor recovery systems to control these 

gasoline vapor emissions for several reasons. First, onboard systems have been 

determined by the Environmental Protection Agency to be the most cost-effective 

means of controlling these emissions. The cost of equipping a vehicle with an 

onboard system is estimated to be less than $100. The alternative stage II 

controls are estimated to be between $40,000 and $60,000 per fuel retail outlet 

with eight nozzles or more. Maintenance slots for stage II are estimated to be 

approximately $6,000 to $9,000 per year. Gasoline marketers already face 

substantial costs in complying with underground storage tank and other 

environmental regulations. Obtaining financing for the stage II controls may be 

difficult, potentially forcing fuel retailers out of business, and making access to 

motor fuel difficult. 

I am proud that this bill makes the wise choice in requiring vehicles to be 

equipped with onboard canisters. Because the issue of controlling refueling vapors 

has been controversial over the years, I want to make sure that we understand 

what the bill requires. 

Those amendments revises section 202(A)(6). The bill requires Administrator of 

the EPA within one year of enactment of this paragraph to promulgate standards 

requiring that all new light-duty vehicles manufactured in the fourth model year 

after the model year in which the standards are promulgated, and in all 

subsequent model years, be equipped with onboard systems for the control of 

emissions during refueling. 

Before promulgating such standards, the Administrator is to consult with the 

Secretary of Transportation regarding the safety of such vehicle onboard systems. 

It is not the intent of this provision to limit or impede the performance by the 

Administrator for the Administrator's nondiscretionary duty to promulgate 

standards requiring onboard vapor recovery systems. EPA must issue these 

standards. 

Further, to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of capital for the installation of 

stationary stage II vapor recovery equipment in nonattainment areas where such 

regulations requiring stage II must or may be waived because of the issuance of 

standards requiring vehicle onboard vapor recovery systems, the requirements 

under title I relating to the installation of stage II shall not take effect before the 

promulgation by the Administrator of standard requiring onboard vapor recovery 

systems under title II. 

I also want to note my concern about the potential use of stage II to control air 

toxics. Stage II should be a control measure of last resort. EPA should first seek 

alternatives such as the onboard vapor recovery systems or reduced emissions of 

aromatics and benzene from gasoline. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 55 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
I am also proud to be a part of this historic agreement on acid rain control 

legislation. This is an important day for this committee and an important day for 

the country. 

This legislation is the strongest acid rain control measure to ever come before this 

body. The bill cuts the precursors of acid rain in half and it keeps the emission at 

these new low levels. This bill will greatly reduce the threat to Virginia's lakes, 

streams, and forest posed by acid rain. 

Just as importantly, this measure retains the innovative least-cost principles of the 

President's bill. This bill keeps much of the flexibility that allows States and 

localities to make the most efficient decision for their particular situation. The bill 

also keeps intact the emission allowance system that will provide an 

environmentally sound market approach to our future energy needs. 

I am pleased that this refined proposal includes variations of themes that I 

advanced with my amendment in the Subcommittee on Health and Environment. 

First of all, this bill recognizes the need to distribute allowances to those clean 

units already under the 1.2 lb/MBU standard. It eastablishes an equitable 

distribution formula that takes into account projections for future growth. The bill 

also includes an early auction of allowances as I proposed to prevent the hording 

of these allowances. This mechanism will ensure the proper operation of the 

emission allowance trading system. 

I want to commend all of my colleagues for their participation in this hard-fought, 

fair agreement. 

[TIME: 1700]

Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 

Thomas A. Luken. 

(Mr. THOMAS A LUKEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 

remarks.) 

[Page: H12866]

Mr. THOMAS A. LUKEN. Mr. Speaker, this is truly a historic occasion. After almost 

a decade, we have finally passed a clean air bill that promises to be strong but 

fair. 

The commitment, dedication and time put into this project by the Members, staff, 

and other interested parties, is reflected in the final product before us today. 

Many of the issues that we have had to come to terms with in this legislation were 

highly contentious, as local interests and needs produced deep splits among the 

conferees along regional lines. Perhaps no issue was more regionally divisive than 

the regulation of pollutants which are precursors to acid rain. The acid rain issue 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 56 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
pitted the so-called clean States against the Midwest in a battle that threatened to 

kill the ensire bill. 

There will be losses of jobs in one area and gains in others, significant shifts. That 

means sacrifice and suffering. 

There was serious danger that Members would lose sight of our ultimate goal to 

produce a strong but equitable bill. But I am happy to say that in the end, through 

the efforts and support of people directly affected such as Phil Sharp and Mike 

Oxley and even of those whose interests were not similar to the Midwest's, the 

conferees were able to produce an acid rain title that is, on balance, more fair and 

workable. 

I must say that upon reflection of some of the statements made against states like 

Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, during the acid rain debate, I was struck by the failure 

of some to recognize the interdependency of each State in this Union and of the 

intricacy of our common environment. I hope that Members will come to recognize 

these interrelationships and accept responsibility for addressing other pressing 

environmental problems like our growing solid waste crisis and the long distance 

interstate transportation of solid waste. 

As a conferee on this legislation I am pleased to see that a number of matters in 

the proposal that are not in the area of acid rain, such toxics, enforcement, mobile 

sources, permits and other sources, In the area of mobile sources, the bill 

establishes a number of new tailpipe standards and other standards applicable to 

the motor vehicles industry, All of these ae quite stringent. They will require over 

the next decade the use of engineers and other sources to bring about 

compliance, 

Nevertheless, I am pleased to see that included in the propoals is an intention of 

Congress that EPA not further tighten down on these standards through regulatory 

actions, As a conferee I believe that is wise policy, In short, it provides that 

Congress intends that EPA not take further action over the next decade to 

increase stringency of these standards and requirements. Congress is stating that 

there should be stability in that industry in that where there are new requirements 

EPA not in fact increase the stringency of the regulations. In my view that is a 

sound approach. 

Let me also express my views on other mobile source matters: 

In the case of onboard controls, intent of Congress is that EPA resolve safety 

concerns before manadating onboard controls. The consultation with DOT must be 

meaningful, with EPA satisfactorly addressing any NHTSA concers, Onboard 

controls should be required only if they are safe. 

As the text of the conference report states, the onboard vapor recovery 

requirements is limited to light-duty vehicles, which means passenger cars. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 57 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Congress made this choice because it was clear that applying onboard to trucks 

would be infeasible and inappropriate, due in part to their larger fuel tanks. 

Manufacturers are to specify which engine families are to be covered by the new 

standards, which must be projected to meet the necessary percentages for each 

model year. As in California, manufacturers may use, and EPA would be expected 

to accept, projected sales information in determining compliance with the 

percentage phase-in requirements. 

California has also recently issued regulations regarding emision control diagnostic 

systems that monitor a wide range of emission control functions. 

Congress expects EPA to conform its implementation requirements and procedures 

to those of California. Here as elsewhere, California's program in this area is 

sufficiently rigorous for the Nation as a whole. 

It is heartening to see the clean air feud finally come to an end, as the Members 

of both Houses and the industrial community and environmental groups have 

come together at last to produce this package. 

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and applaud the fine efforts of my colleagues, 

especially Chairman John Dingell, Phil Sharp, and Henry Waxman. 

Congratulations. 

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 

Fields], a member of the committee. 

(Mr. FIELDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. FIELDS. Mr. Speaker, this is an important day for all Americans. Finally--after 

13 years of legislative deadlock--we have clean air legislation before us today. 

No other single bill considered in the 101st Congress will have more lasting impact 

on our Nation and its people than will the Clean Air Act of 1990. No other 

legislation considered by this Congress will be more important in determining what 

kind of Nation our children, and our children's children, will inherit. 

I want to thank my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee--

particularly Chairman Dingell and the ranking Republican, Norman Lent as well 

as the committee staff and individual members' staff for their diligent efforts to 

fashion a clean air bill. Countless hours were spent by staff and committee 

members to reach agreement on this bill, which contains some of the most 

contentious issues imaginable. Also, I'd like to acknowledge the efforts of 

President Bush, who began this debate by introducing his own clean air plan more 

than a year ago. 

The Clean Air Act of 1990 is a strong bill that will make cleaner air a reality for all 

Americans. It will sharply reduce urban smog; cut 90 percent of carcinogenic and 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 58 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
toxic emissions by industry; force the development of new and cleaner blends of 

gasoline and cleaner cars, trucks, and buses; and at long last begin the process of 

halting the environmental toll of acid rain. 

Like any bill, this one is a compromise--which means that the final product is far 

from perfect. Indeed, if I were drafting the bill, it would look vastly different. We 

all agree on the need to revamp our Nation's clean air law; where we disagree is 

on whether or not to consider this bill in a vacuum--without regard to its effects 

on the economy and on the jobs of working Americans. I believe that it is essential 

that we strike a balance between two competing considerations: stronger 

environmental protection and a strong economy with jobs for all Americans. While 

the provisons in the bill place new restrictions and demands on industry, much of 

the cost of those restrictions will be passed on to consumers in the form of more 

expensive cars and gasoline, increased utility rates and higher prices on a broad 

range of goods and services. 

Americans are already spending $32 billion a year to clean our Nation's air. There 

no doubt that more needs to be done. But it concerns me greatly that the cost of 

this bill has increased so dramatically. While the Administration estimates that this 

bill represents an additional yearly cost of $25 billion, industry groups have 

projected the figure to be between $50 billion and $100 billion. And if history is 

any guide, the actual cost of complying with the clean air reforms will be far 

greater than our wildest expectations. Whatever the final cost of the bill, one thing 

is certan--it will be an expensive drain on our constituents' pocketbooks and on 

our Nation's economy. 

Mr. Speaker, the Clean Air Act of 1990 is easily one of the greatest 

accomplishments of the 101st Congress. It is an historic compromise that will 

affect not only this generation of Americans, but future generations as well. I've 

expressed my lingering concerns about the cost of the legislation and the fact that 

we're placing additional demands on industry which may not be technologically 

feasible. If this bill is not workable, Congress will be forced to revist this issue at 

some future point. But for now, for today, passage of this legislation is extremely 

welcome. The time is right for Congress to make good on its promise to deliver 

legislation to the President which will achieve the goal of cleaner air for all 

Americans. 

•

[Page: H12867]

TITLE II: ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr. Speaker, although this program may overreach, it is founded on a very 

important principle--namely that environmental performance not fuel content 

specifications should be the cornerstone for reformulated gasoline 

requirements. Even where certain fuel content requirements are set, such as 

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 59 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
those for benzene and oxygen, the program provides flexibility by avoiding a 

per gallon requirement and instead through a credits program allows 

averaging over a refiners' pool of fuel sold in each covered nonattainment 

area.

With regard to aromatics, we have provided even more flexibility by allowing 

not only averaging but also by permitting equivalency to be demonstrated. In 

other words, if a fuel with a different amount of aromatics meets the VOC 

and air toxics performance standards, it shall be certified as complying with 

the program's requirements.

•

EPA must test a fuel meeting the content specifications to compare its VOC 

and air toxic reductions to the performance standards set in this bill. If this 

fuel formula achieves greater reductions, the performance standards will be 

adjusted accordingly.

•

EPA must test a fuel meeting the content specifications to compare its VOC 

and air toxic reductions to the performance standards set in this bill. If this 

fuel formula achieves greater reductions, the performance standards will be 

adjusted accordingly.

•

To provide as much leadtime as possible, EPA shall promulgate regulations 

concerning the required emission reductions with 1 year of enactment. These 

regulations shall be based on a consideration of the cost of achieving those 

reductions; their air quality, health and environmental impacts; and their 

energy impacts. Should EPA miss this regulatory deadline, we must recognize 

that we may need to reconsider and extend the effective date for this 

program.

•

There are other important regulatory deadlines that EPA must meet if there is 

any hope of implementing this program in 1995--namely, the issuance of 

regulations pertaining to fuel certification procedures and antidumping 

requirements as well as harmonization of this program with other fuel 

requirements contained in this bill.

•

The certification process is one area where we may have created an 

unworkable situation. Fuel manufacturers must petition EPA to certify their 

fuel or slate of fuels. EPA is supposed to act on these petitions within 180 

days. If EPA does not act within this time period, the fuel is deemed certified. 

However, the door is left open to later EPA action even after refiners may 

have made considerable investments in refinery modifications which could 

then be rendered obsolete. I intend to monitor this process closely and offer 

possible amendments to improve it in the future should that prove necessary.

•

Meanwhile, EPA should act as expeditiously as possible on such petitions. No 

fuel manufacturer should be liable for any type of retroactive penalty for 

selling a fuel that was deemed approved but later disapproved. And, if EPA 

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 60 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
does subsequently disapprove a fuel, a reasonable period must be provided 

for a fuel manufacturer to come into compliance.

Regarding the antidumping provisions, EPA shall issue regulations within 1 

year of enactment to ensure that the quality of gasoline is maintained in 

areas not included in the reformulated gasoline program. These regulations 

shall require that each refiner, blender or importer annually certify that 

emissions of carbon monoxide, VOC's, NOx and air toxics do not in the 

aggregate exceed the average for his 1990 fuel from representative vehicles. 

Again, these regulations must be issued promptly to allow fuel manufacturers 

to plan accordingly.

•

Conflicts could arise from overlapping requirements under the fleet program; 

the reformulated gasoline provisions; the oxygenated fuels provisions; opt 

ins to the reformulated gasoline program; the California pilot program; and 

states that opt into the California program through section 177. Clearly, the 

potential for conflict great and it was not our intent to create requirements 

for several different types of reformulated fuel within any covered 

nonattainment area.

•

•

If we think that the timeframe for meeting the reformulated gasoline 

requirements is tight, one has only to look at the oxygenated fuel provisions 

to realize how overly ambitious we in Congress have been. The oxygenated 

fuel program will begin in all carbon monoxide nonattainment areas in less 

than 2 years, despite the fact that numerous studies, including work by the 

Congressional Research Service, have clearly demonstrated that domestic 

supply and distribution capacity will simpy not be adequate to meet the 

demands of the program. And, we have compounded this error by requiring 

oxygen in reformulated gasoline year-round despite the additional cost to 

consumers and the lack of demonstrated environmental benefits.

•

Fortunately, at least in the case of the oxygenated fuel program, we 

recognized our limitations and provided for a waiver if such domestic capacity 

is insufficient. However, this waiver is to be administered through a petition 

process at EPA and prompt EPA action will be necessary. EPA will have to 

consolidate such petitions to take a broad national view of availability and 

must consider the cost of such fuel to consumers. Priority should be given to 

areas with the most severe problems or to those there the expected benefits 

of this program are expected to be the greatest.

•

In closing, it is clear that we have designed a very ambitious and challenging 

program for both reformulated gasoline and oxygenated fuels--a program 

that may later prove to be infeasible and need further adjustment. It relies 

on prompt and expeditious action by EPA in promulgating and 

implementating regulations. Should EPA be unable to meet its regulatory 

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 61 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
deadlines, we may be forced as part of a technical corrections package to 

adjust the effective date of the program accordingly.

It is essential that EPA, in developing this regulatory program, make no 

distinctions among classes of refiners, blenders, importers or marketers and 

provide no exemptions. EPA must carefully consider the implications of any 

expansion of the reformulated gasoline program through opt-ins and evaluate 

the impact on fuel supplies and cost. EPA must make every effort to act 

within the 180 days provided to certify a refiner's fuel or slate of fuels to 

provide the type of certainty necessary to proceed with major refinery 

modifications. EPA must, where possible, streamline the permitting process 

to allow these modifications to be made. And, EPA must develop and apply 

appropriate testing tolerances to all aspects of this program.

•

Mr. Speaker, in this legislation we have also required the State of California, 

where some of the Nations worst air pollution problems exist, to implement a 

pilot program of clean-fuel vehicles and clean alternative fuels. For several 

years California has been developing just such a fuels program, and the 

Federal requirements are intended to be installed only if California fails to 

adopt a clean fuel program.

•

The Federal requirements should provide an important test of clean fuels. 

Although valuable experience and data will be gained from such a program 

relative to both relative to both fuels and vehicles, the most important lesson 

learned will be the acceptability of such clean fuels to consumers. We, as 

legislators, must recognize that while we can establish goals and 

requirements for States, individuals, and companies, the utlimate test of our 

work will rest with the consumer. The California program will test this maxim.

•

Fuel suppliers are required to produce, distribute, and make fuel available at 

sufficient geographic locations, and in relation to the number of vehicles on 

the road, so that consumers will find it convenient to use clean fuels. But the 

marketplace will determine the demand for clean fuels and the ultimate 

success of this program.

•

Both EPA and the refining industry are faced with a formidable task in 

implementing this program. I intend to watch this process closely and 

suggest whatever adjustments may prove necessary to ensure that high 

quality fuel continues to be available to American consumers at a reasonable 

price.

•

•

Finally, the conferees have adopted the concept of pool averaging for 

refiners, blenders, importers and marketers with regard to the specifications 

for aromatics, oxygen and benzene, in order to provide flexibility in meeting 

the stringent new requirements of this section. To implement averaging, the 

principle of marketable credits, as recommended by the President, has been 

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 62 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
utilized. The conferees anticipate that this system of pool averaging and 

marketable credits will be critical to the workability of the reformulated 

gasoline requirements, and expect EPA to ensure that the program set up 

under the regulations both operates efficiently and can be enforced 

effectively.

Title I (Nonattainment) and the Impact on Construction and Modification 

Projects Required by Other Titles of the Legislation

•

Mr. Speaker, the title I provisions address the failure of our nonattainment 

areas to achieve the ambient air quality deadlines in existing law. We have 

placed what we hope are more realistic deadlines in this new law. We have 

not, however, simply continued to tell the states to do a plan to clean their 

air. That did not work. We have imposed some very stringent requirements 

on nonattainment ares which will in turn have to impose such requirements 

on industry in those areas. These new title I provisions include increased 

offset requirements, limited netting and restrictions on preconstruction 

permitting.

•

These preconstruction requirements will have a major impact on construction 

and modification projects required within discrete timeframes by other titles 

of the legislation. It is crucial that EPA interpret title I appropriately, or it will 

be impossible to meet many of these stringent new provisions.

•

Examples of some of these new requirements found in other titles, which 

effect almost every sector of industrial America, including the following:

•

Projects to modify chemical plants to incorporate the new Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology requirements [MACT] for air toxics under title 

III;

•

Projects to modify motor vehicle plants to make clean fuel vehicles under title 

II;

•

Projects to modify electric utility generating plants to reduce sulfur oxides 

under title V;

•

Projects to modify general manufacturing plants to reduce NOx emissions; 

and

•

•

Modifications to refineries needed to make clean alternative fuels and 

reformulated gasoline for conventional vehicles under title II.

•

I would like to focus briefly on this last requirement. This legislation orders 

the petroleum industry to produce a significantly cleaner burning gasoline by 

January 1, 1995. This new fuel would be the only gasoline allowed to be sold 

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 63 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
in nine of our biggest cities--volumes which represent 25 percent of the total 

gasoline sold in this country.

There is no data that indicates the stringent specifications for this 

reformulated fuel can be met. But, we do know that if it can be made, major 

reconstruction and retooling of oil refineries will be necessary. Such 

construction projects generally take up to 5 years, but in this case we are not 

even giving the industry that long. Furthermore, no construction can 

commence until EPA publishes regulations on how to certify this fuel as in 

compliance, and then all of the new preconstruction requirements of title I 

must be met. If the fuel cannot be produced by January 1, 1995, no gasoline 

can be sold in these nine cities--there is no provision in the legislation for an 

extension of time.

•

It is crucial that EPA not allow these new title I provisions to prevent or 

interfere with these types of projects required elsewhere in the bill, and we 

must make it clear that it is Congress' intent that they not do so.

•

EPA and the States should exercise maximum discretion to expedite such 

projects and minimize the adverse effects of the new title I provisions on 

such projects. Without in any way limiting the possibilities, here are a few 

examples of how EPA and the States could help:

•

Tailor the boundaries of nonattainment areas under section 107(d) as closely 

as possible to the actual areas where exceedences are measured by the EPAapproved monitoring network. This will help assure that the new title I 

nonattainment requirements are focused on areas where they are needed 

most and prevent them from interfering with beneficial projects located in 

areas which do not experience monitored exceedances.

•

Subdivide nonattainment areas under sections 107(d), 181(a) 186(a) and 

188(a) so that the severity of their designations match the severity of their 

nonattainment problem as measured by the EPA-approved monitoring 

network. This will also help assure that the new title I nonattainment 

requirements are focused on areas where they are needed most.

•

Move quickly to remove construction moratoria in certain areas under section 

110(n) (`Savings Clause').

•

Interpret the permit requirements themselves to enable the rapid approval of 

such projects to the maximum extent possible. For example, EPA and the 

States should fully credit all emissions reductions made to enable compliance 

with the requirements of the act.

•

Adopt RACT, CTG's and other technology controls under section 182, 183 and 

190 for such projects which enable them to be conducted in as cost effective 

a manner as possible, considering all relevant environmental impacts.

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 64 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
• Provide full credit towards attainment under section 182 for such projects.

Provide that the special rules for modifications in section 182(c) (7) and (8), 

which are triggered by de minimus increases under section 182(c)(6) are 

applied to promote the construction of discreet operations, units or other 

pollutant-emitting activities at those sources which enable plants to more 

readily comply with the Act.

•

• Adopt NOx controls only if necessary for such projects under section 182(f).

Include such projects specifically in the expanded NOx study under section 

185(b).

•

Title I establishes tough new preconstruction policies such as increased offset 

requirements, limited netting and restrictions on permitting. Although the 

potential is clearly there, it is not Congress' intent that these new 

requirements prevent or interfere with an industry's ability to meet the other 

requirements of the bill such as the production of reformulated gasoline, 

within the required timeframes. EPA and the States must streamline the 

process and demonstrate flexibility to insure that this legislation, taken in it 

entirety, works in concert not at cross purposes.

•

•

[Page: H12868]

TITLE I: OTHER PROVISIONS

The regulations adopted pursuant to Section 712 shall not establish 

requirements for OCS facilities that are more stringent than those 

requirements for onshore facilities. OCS facilities should carry their fair-share 

burden for assisting in cleaning the Nation's air; however, it is expected that 

onshore districts will not adopt emission control or offset requirements which 

would, in effect, prohibit OCS development.

•

In addition, the marine vapor recovery control requirements in title I 

represent a very important means by which port areas can address their 

ozone nonattainment problem. Clearly, these new requirements are intended 

only as nonattainment measures, although state and local authorities could 

extend the requirements to other areas if they choose.

•

TITLE III: OIL AND GAS WELLS AND 112(D)

Section 301, paragraph (p) instructs the Administrator to determine if oil and 

gas wells and associated equipment located in SMSA/CMSA areas greater 

than 1 million people present greater than a negligible risk. If the 

Administrator determines that such wells present such a risk, he shall 

promulgate standards applicable to such wells. Oil and gas wells, and 

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 65 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
associated equipment and gas processing, have generally very low emissions 

of air toxics. Furthermore, these operations are typically located in remote 

areas, with wells and equipment widely dispersed geographically, rather than 

concentrated in a single area. For these reasons, it is very unlikely that oil 

and gas sources would present a significant risk to human health and it is not 

expected that this source category would need to be a listed category 

designated for regulation. However, if any oil and gas wells are located in a 

SMSA/CMSA greater than 1 million people, the Administrator is instructed to 

determine if any of the wells (or associated equipment) present greater than 

a negligible risk. Since oil and gas wells (and assoicated equipment) can vary 

in terms of size, thruput, distance from residential areas, etc., it is critical 

that the exploration and production source category be divided into several 

subcategories. The negligible risk determination should then be made for 

each source subcategory. If a well (or pice of associated equipment) does 

present greater than a negligible risk, the Administrator shall promulgate 

standards that are applicable to only those wells (and associated equipment) 

and/or subcategory that exceeds the specified risk level.

One additional point, the conference agreement alters the definition of MACT 

in section 112(d) with respect to the MACT floor. The bill narrows the 

exclusion for LAER sources as compared to the original House provision. 

However, it is important to emphasize that, even with the revised MACT floor 

provision, the bill still specifies that cost and cost-effectiveness considerations 

are key criteria in determining MACT. The definition of MACT does not 

contemplate a mechanical approach, such as the so-called top down 

approach, where cost effectiveness concerns are relegated to secondary 

considerations.

•

•

TITLE V: UNITS IN PROGRESS

Under title V, acid deposition control, section 405(g) addresses those utility 

units in progress and for which second phase allowances are issued in 

amounts as designated under the available options.

•

Permanent allowances will be issued starting with the second phase for units 

listed as eligible units in progress unless the unit exercises other option 

provisions to receive allowances. The permanent allowances issued under any 

provision of section 405(g) shall be treated as are any other allowances for 

purposes under the act including holding, using, purchasing, trading, pooling, 

selling, auctioning, transferring, banking, and other uses. These allowances 

shall not be subject to the reallocation, reduction, or redistribution 

mechanisms in this title. Units issued allowances under this subsection shall 

not exceed that annual sulfur dioxide tonnage emission limitation unless the 

owner or operator holds for use additional allowances equal to the amount of 

emissions over the initial allocation.

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 66 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
MODIFICATIONS GENERALLY

One of the major differences between the provisions in title III in the House 

and Senate bill is the treatment of modifications to existing sources. The 

House bill included modified existing major sources in its definition of new 

source, while the Senate bill had limited the new source definition to new and 

reconstructed sources.

•

Because of the preconstruction approval requirements for new sources, there 

was concern that the House definition would have delayed and impeded 

manufacturers from making the changes necessary to improve processes and 

introduce new products and processes. To avoid such delays and burdens, 

the conferees crafted an alternative provision on modifications.

•

Under the conference report, modifications are not included in the definition 

of new source and hence will not be subject to the same preconstruction 

approval requirements as new sources. Instead, modifications are treated 

separately. Moreover, requirements for modifications do not apply to a source 

until there is an approved permit program in that State. This should insure 

that there is a permit program in place that is designed to expeditiously deal 

with modifications.

•

A modification is defined as a physical change in, or change in the method of 

operation of, a major source which results in a greater than de minimis 

increase in actual emissions of a hazardous air pollutant. However, a source 

which offsets the increase with an equal or greater decrease in other more 

hazardous emissions will not be considered as having made a modification. 

The source simply needs to submit a showing to the permitting authority of 

such offset to avoid being considered as having made a modification. EPA is 

required to publish guidance which should help facilitate such showings by 

identifying the relative hazards of emissions of the hazardous air pollutants. 

The conferees imposed one limitation on the offset; that is if the source will 

be increasing emissions of a carcinogen, then the emissions which are 

decreased must also be of a carcinogen.

•

With the exception of the allowance for a de minimis increase in emissions, 

the definition is identical to the definition of modifications in section 111 of 

existing law. Under this provision, EPA has issued regulations specifying 

certain kinds of activities which would not constitute a modification. Clearly 

the conferees intend that such kind of activities would also be excluded from 

triggering the modification definition in new section 112.

•

•

A major source which does make a modification without any offset must 

obtain a determination from its permitting authority that the existing source 

MACT standard applicable to the modification will be met. In instances where 

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 67 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
there is no applicable MACT standard, this determination is to be made on a 

case-by-case basis. Obviously in either case, if the source has satisfied the 

requirements of subsection (i) regarding alternative emission limitations and 

has a permit reflecting the alternative limitation, this would serve as the 

basis for the requirements relating to the modification.

The bill requires the permitting authority to establish reasonable procedures 

to assure that the requirements for modifications are reflected in the permit. 

This is one of the most important elements of the conference agreement on 

this issue. It was included to assure that sources making modifications are 

not caught in the delays that can frequently occur with permitting authority 

to establish procedures that allow sources to anticipate and provide for 

modifications in their permit, and to the extent such modifications are not 

anticipated, to quickly notify the permitting authority so that changes can be 

appended to the permit. As long as the permit provides that the existing 

source MACT standard will be complied with in the event of a modification, 

the objectives of the modification provision in the law will have been 

satisified. If there is no existing source MACT standard, then the conferees 

expect an expeditious determination of what emission limitations the 

modification must meet.

•

Again let me stress that the objective of the provision on modification is to 

assure that any such modifications are made in conformance with existing 

source MACT standard. At the same time, the conferees did not want to see 

modification requirements impose delays on batch processing operations or 

delays for manufacturers who want to change or improve manufacturing 

processes or who want to initiate the manufacture of new products. The 

competitive posture of the country cannot afford such delays. And equally 

important, we can satisfy the our environmental objectives without such 

preapproval delay.

•

Another issue of concern relating to modifications is the so-called WEPCo 

issue. Most of the attention on that issue has focused on utilities. But EPA's 

WEPCo approach poses many of the same problems for industrial sources as 

for utilities. For example, many industries, such as the petroleum and 

automobile industries, will have to make modifications to their facilities in 

order to meet the act's pollution control objectives--for example, changes at 

refineries to allow production of reformulated gasoline or changes at auto 

plants to produce different vehicles or to meet new pollution control 

standards. It is of critical importance, if this legislation is to work effectively, 

that these facilities not be caught in a cascade of new review requirements 

because of modifications undertaken to comply with this legislation. EPA 

needs to address these industrial issues when it reconsiders its WEPCo 

approach.

•

This legislaion takes as one of its core principles that the control 

requirements for non-attainment areas should be differentiated depending on 

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 68 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
the severity of the non-attainment problem in the area. California, 

accordingly, will fact the strictest controls in the bill. This is true both for 

direct control requirements and for related requirements, such as new source 

review provisions. For new source review, the bill's provisions for extreme 

areas preclude any use of the de minimis netting concept of section 182(c)(6) 

and also lower the threshold for major source review to 10 tons per year.

The demand for natural gas will increase because of this legislation. It is 

important that, at the same time that the bill increases the attractiveness of 

natural gas as a fuel, it not frustrate the ability of the pipeline companies to 

deliver new supplies of natural gas to areas such as New England. This is one 

of the major reasons why the final bill revised the provisions of section 182(f) 

relating to NOx controls to provide flexibility in addressing NOx emissions and 

offset requirements. This will help ensure that new compressor stations can 

be located in non-attainment areas. Section 182(f) does not, of course, 

address attainment areas in the Northeast Transport region or elsewhere; in 

those areas the rules for new source review of NOx emissions remain 

unchanged.

•

[Page: H12869]

Mr. DANNEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from 

Illinois [Mr. Crane]. 

(Mr. CRANE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the legislation before us this 

afternoon. There is no question that all of us in this body want a safe, healthy, 

and attractive environment in which to live. There is, however, a question as to 

how far we can afford to go in pursuit of this goal. Therefore, before we make a 

decision on the Clean Air Act amendments, this Congress must first answer the 

following: `Do the proposed reductions in emissions result in a significant 

reduction in health risk, and is the reduction in health risk, whatever it may be, 

worth the cost associated with the reduction?' The facts convince me to reply with 

a resounding `no.' 

In 1987, the Environmental Protection Agency published a study titled, 

`Unfinished Business.' The study, among other things, examined the number of 

cancers thought to be caused by environmental exposures of all kinds. It 

concluded that hazardous air pollutants are responsible for only 0.3 percent of all 

cancers. In 1988, the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program issued its 

preliminary report on acid rain in North America. That study, which by the way 

cost the taxpayers $600 million, determined that a mere 2 percent of our lakes 

are critically acidic, and of those, 90 percent were acidic before the industrial 

revolution. The report went on to state that some acid lakes are created in the 

absence of acid rain. For example, even though rain in Florida is only one-sixth as 

acidic as rain in the Adirondacks, 12 percent of Florida's lakes are acidic as 

compared with 10 percent of the lakes in the northeast. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 69 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Findings such as these cause me to wonder whether Americans will get what they 

pay for with this clean air package. The latest estimates report that the Clean Air 

Act amendments will cost Americans $36 billion annually but only yield $14 billion 

in benefits. Each American household is expected to incur extra expenses of $300 

to $400 a year as a result of this legislation. Where do these costs come from you 

ask? They are the costs passed on by the utility companies, car manufacturers, 

and dry cleaners who will be charged $25 a ton for operating permits and will 

spend up to $200,000 apiece on new equipment. These costs might be bearable if 

they had equivalent benefits accompanying them, but they do not. It has been 

estimated that a 50-percent reduction in emissions caused by these sources would 

yield only a 3-percent decrease in the number of acid lakes in the Northeast. 

Mr. Speaker, until I find conclusive evidence to justify a multibillion-dollar piece of 

legislation that could cost our economy hundreds of thousands of jobs, I cannot in 

good conscience support it. I urge my colleagues to vote `no' on the clean air 

conference report. 

[TIME: 1710]

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley]. 

(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

[Page: H12870]

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, after more than a year of debate which culminates over a 

decade of work, we are about to cast the final vote on a major rewrite of the 

Clean Air Act. In 1977 when the Clean Air Act was last amended, it was assumed 

that Congress would amend this measure on a regular basis. However, for over 10 

years, we could not narrow our differences, find middle ground, and pass a 

comprehensive clean air bill. 

Last July, President Bush helped break the stalemate when he introduced the bill 

before us which includes provisions addressing industrial and automobile 

emissions, air toxics, and acid rain. Few environmental bills have been this 

complex or have the potential for disruption to our economy as this one. It pitted 

the environment against the economy, the East against the West, and one 

industry against another. To reconcile these issues, the conference committee had 

to make many difficult decisions. 

I have been among the most skeptical about this bill because I wanted to ensure 

fairness to my home State of Ohio, particularly regarding the need for further acid 

rain controls and the benefits of those controls. Further, I wanted to provide 

clarity with the American people as to the costs of the bill. Conservative estimates 

indicate Americans will pay between $25 and $50 billion a year for cleaner air. To 

achieve this goal of improved health and welfare for our constituents, we will be 

asking them to pay the price through job losses, higher consumer product prices, 

high utility rates; in other words through changed life styles. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 70 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
While this final bill is far from perfect, I believe we have come a long way toward 

the President's goal of balance and reasonableness. Underlying President Bush's 

clean air legislation was the desire to not only protect human health but to 

improve the quality of life of all Americans. It is my belief that this landmark 

legislation represents our best effort to negotiate a balance between the multitude 

of interests we represent and ensure that as a result, Americans will be better off, 

not worse off. 

I am particularly pleased that we could blunt the impact on Ohio by including in 

the final agreement a provision which gives 200,000 additional allowances to 

Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois in phase I, and 50,000 new allowances to nine 

Midwestern States in phase II. We were also able to provide some assistance for 

two unique problems in my home State, the Zimmer plant, currently under 

construction, and Ohio Edison's small units which are the most costly and difficult 

to retrofit with scrubbers. 

One of the key components of President Bush's bill was the concept of allowing the 

market to encourage reductions in pollution. This provision also caused divisions 

between the Midwest and the other States, to eliminate the argument that the 

Midwest would hoard allowances, and not give access to utilities in other States, I 

am happy to say that my proposal for auctioning allowances which was a part of 

the acid rain compromise adopted during consideration by the Energy and 

Commerce Committee has been retained by the conference. This mechanism will 

provide money to Midwest utilities faster and will also help to ensure that 

allowances are available to utilities across the Nation when needed for economic 

growth. 

Mr. Speaker, throughout the development of this legislation, we have worked to 

ensure that environmental progress does not jeopardize economic growth. We 

have added new environmental control requirements, but we have also tried to 

maintain flexibility in the permitting and review provisions of the bill, so that 

needed industrial modernization projects do not languish through months or years 

of permitting delay. 

Of necessity, many of these issues have been left to EPA's discretion in 

implementing the legislation. This is true for such significant issues as the 

modification/de minimus provisions of section 182(c) (6)-(8) in title I; 

modification permit procedure provisions section 112(G)(3); in the so-called 

`WEPCo' issue in the acid rain title; and the permit flexibility provision of section 

502. We fully anticipate that in addressing these issues after enactment, EPA will 

recognize the need for flexibility. This is not only a matter of economic 

importance; it serves important environmental purposes. We have presented 

industry with a tremendous challenge; we cannot take away from them the tools 

in terms of modernization and process changes, that will allow them to meet that 

challenge. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 71 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
We have been careful to provide this flexibility in each of the titles relating to 

stationary sources: 

In title I, we have left the current netting and bubbling provisions unaffected in all 

but serious, severe and extreme areas. And even in those areas, while we have 

lowered the de minimus threshold to 25 tons, we have tied the de minimum 

provisions of section 182(c)(6) to the modification provisions of section 182(c) (7) 

and (8). 

In title III, we have included modifications as a separate category for review as a 

separate category for review purposes, thus ensuring that existing sources can 

modify without triggering new source MACT. Just as importantly, we have 

structured the modification provisions so that sources need not await lengthy 

permit revisions or modifications before undertaking plant modifications. 

In title IV, we have deleted all general provisions relating to the WEPCo 

modification issue. We did so in the contemplation that EPA will develop 

reasonable, revised WEPCo regulations that will allow plants to add pollution 

control equipment, switch to cleaner fuels, and refurbish old facilities without 

running afoul of NSPS or PSD modification issues. 

In title V, we have explicitly provided permitting authorities with broad discretion 

to allow plant revisions without requiring permit modifications or revisions. 

Finally, both the House bill and the Senate bill contained provisions addressing 

EPA's recent WEPCo interpretations. Those interpretations could prevent utilities 

from undertaking needed equipment changes--including even projects to reduce 

emission--at their powerplants without first meeting expensive and timeconsuming new source review requirements. 

The House and Senate bills only addressed part of the problem--WEPCo's impact 

on pollution control projects--even though WEPCo threatens many other legitimate 

powerplant activities. After passage of the bills, the administration stated that 

WEPCo could be resolved in a comprehensive fashion administratively without any 

change in the law. With the understanding that no amendments were needed to 

resolve the entire WEPCo problem, the conferees decided to drop the limited 

WEPCo amendments in the bills. 

We expect and urge the administration to promptly reconsider EPA's WEPCo 

interpretations. The administration has ample authority to do this and should 

quickly move to resolve WEPCo in a responsible manner that will promote costeffect pollution control decisions, encourage energy efficiency projects, and assure 

that electric reliability will be maintained. 

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 

Nielson]. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 72 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Mr. NIELSON of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join many of my colleagues in 

support of S. 1630, The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. 

This landmark legislation is the result of many, many days of work in bringing 

together the House and Senate versions of the Clean Air Act amendments. The 

spirit of compromise that was present during house negotiations earlier this year 

was also present during the conference. Without it we would not have had a bill 

this year. 

During consideration there were many obstacles to overcome. Concerns were 

raised over costs, impacts to the environment, industry and consumers, regional 

differences, et cetera. It was difficult to reconcile these issues into economically 

and environmentally sound legislation. 

I would like to commend the chairman of the House Caucus, Mr. Dingell and the 

chairman of the conference, Senator Baucus, for their leadership during this 

process. I would like to also recognize all the conferees for their efforts to resolve 

the differences and come to closure on this very important piece of legislation. It 

was not always easy but overall the feelings of comity and nonpartisanship did 

prevail. 

This comprehensive legislation addresses a number of pollution problems. I feel 

we have made some valuable improvements in the nonattainment title. The 

programs outlined here will hopefully provide for attainment of the national 

ambient air quality standards by many cities that currently violate the standards. 

The final bill includes very stringent requirements for the control of PM10. PM10, 

or fine particulate matter, is a serious problem for many western cities. Its 

sources include major industrial polluters such as steel plants and oil refineries, 

small area sources such as woodburning stoves, as well as fugitive dust from 

unpaved roads, heavy construction equipment and agricultural dust. This fine dust 

can cause serious health problems for many individuals living in nonattainment 

areas. 

With this legislation, PM10 will, for the first time, be specifically identified as a 

pollutant covered under the Clean Air Act. Up until this point, PM10 has been 

controlled only through EPA regulation. My district in central Utah has a serious 

PM10 nonattainment problem. Therefore, including stringent requirements for the 

control of PM10 because a major focus of mine as the legislation moved through 

the Energy and Commerce Committee and through the conference. I had the 

opportunity to offer strengthening amendments and to ensure the success of 

these very important provisions. 

The control requirements mandated by this legislation will be very difficult for 

many areas to implement since control strategies for many sources are simply not 

known or, as in the case of woodburning stoves, will require individual lifestyle 

changes. My own State, I am proud to say, has been ahead of most other States 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 73 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
in developing strategies to control PM10 and the major PM10 contributor in Utah 

county has already begun the process of installing pollution control equipment. 

I regret that the finall bill does not include a provision from the Senate bill 

concerning fugitive dust from hard rock, noncoal and surface coal mines. This 

provision would have allowed Governors in States with approved PSD programs to 

elect not to apply PM10 PSD increments to fugitive dust from hardrock, noncoal, 

and surface coal mines, except in class I areas. 

Fugitive dust emissions from mining can cause exceedance of PM10 increments 

even after best available control technology is installed as required. If fugitive 

emissions must be considered in determining compliance with the increments, it 

becomes more difficult to permit new or 

expanded mines, which generally are located in sparsely populated areas. In light 

of our failure to adopt the Senate provision on fugituve dust, I hope that EPA will 

commit itself to work with my State and other States in the west to ensure the 

continued growth of the hard rock mining industry. 

The mobile sources title was one of the more contentious we dealt with during the 

conference. It was very difficult to find a balance between all the competing 

interests and philosophies represented by the conferees. I do think the final draft 

will push all the industries involved toward cleaner fuels and vehicles. An 

important move in order to combat the problems caused by the increasing number 

of vehicles and miles travelled. 

One particular section of the title 1 would like to address is the oxygenated fuels 

program in carbon monoxide nonattainment areas. This is very critical to one of 

the urban areas in my district. Provo/Orem is one of the top worst cities out of 

attainment for the CO standard. The State of Utah is very interested in 

participating in the oxygenated fuels program to address the problem, but they 

are concerned with their ability to meet the deadline. I am pleased that there are 

waiver provisions in the legislation for problems with either distribution capacity or 

doestic supply or oxygenates. 

There is no existing infrastructure for distribution of oxygenated fuels in the 

Provo/Orem area. They also have a problem with a considerable percentage of 

cars being driven into the city from outlying areas that would not fall under the 

program. The State has informed me that they want to meet the 1992 deadline 

but due to the problems mentioned above, they may not be able to. I do not think 

this is a concern unique to Provo, there will be many cities in the same situation. I 

am pleased that the administrator must consider domestic supply of oxygenates 

separately from distribution capacity of oxygenated fuel as a basis for a waiver 

from the deadline. This means that if there is adequate domestic supply but Provo 

has a problem with inadequate distribution capacity, the administrator could waive 

the requirements of the progam for 1 year with an addition year possible if 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 74 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
needed. This is a fair and reasonable approach for all the cities who will be trying 

to meet the program requirements. 

Good work was also done on Title 3, the hazarous air pollutants portion of the bill. 

It is past time to deal with the problems addressed in the title. Hopefully the 

requirements set out here will assist EPA in regulating the pollutants that have not 

had standards set for them. I would like to emphasize that EPA's highest priority 

should be to set standards for the unregulated pollutants. My understanding is 

that the statement of managers states that reviewing standards now in effect 

should be a lower priority than adopting standards for unregulated pollutants 

unless delaying the review would result in risks to public health or the 

environment. I hope that EPA will follow that mandate and set standards as soon 

as possible. 

The acid rain title was also one that was very contentious. The issue caused 

regional splits among conferees that lead to considerable debate. The midwest is 

the area that has to make the most sulfur dioxide reductions and they are 

understandably concerned with the cost of this. Those of us from States that have 

already paid to reduce the emissions at great cost, are understandably unwilling to 

pay twice. 

This bill we have before us today has preserved the polluter pay principle by and 

large. It provides the polluters with some different ways to clean up, some 

incentives and other things to soften the blows, but it is definitely a polluter pay 

provision, which I think is important. 

This title contains a provision that not only will further reduce emissions of sulfur 

dioxide, but also will help ensure that refining capacity in the United States is 

maintained. This provision would allow small diesel fuel fefiners to earn sulfur 

dioxide allowances for manufacturing 

low sulfur diesel fuel for both on- and off-highway use. 

Recently finalized EPA regulations and this bill require that diesel fuel produced for 

on-highway use meet a sulfur content of no greater than 0.05 percent by weight. 

While the bill mandates this level beginning October 1, 1993, the EPA regulations 

would provide a 2-year extension for the requirement for small refiners. However, 

small refiners would have to meet an interim content level in 1993. While a 

compliance extension may sound favorable, it fails to address the real problem 

confronting small refiners: a limited ability to raise capital to purchase and install 

the required equipment. 

In the interest of providing meaninful compliance assistance and assuring more 

immediate and greater sulfur dioxide reductions, the conference agreement allows 

small refiners to gain marketable allowances to help recoup some of the capital 

investment cost--but only if the small refiner goes beyond the desulfurization 

mandate to include off-highway diesel fuel, as well as on-highway. EPA 

conservatively estimates that the provision would further reduce sulfur dioxide 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 75 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
emissions by as much as 15,000 tons per year by the year 2000. This is a 

laudable provision and I am pleased that it now will be part of the Clean Air Act. 

I am also pleased that the title provides allowances for those units that are 

already clean, provides for national allowance trading and has no Governor's veto 

provision. However, I do think the incentives for use of scrubber technology 

unfairly disadvantage low sulfur coal. I also have reservations about the dates of 

compliance in the NOx program and the deletion of the NOx-SOx trading 

provisions that were in the House version. 

The final comment I would like to make on the acid rain title deals with the 

National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, or NAPAP, study. After spending 

over a half a billion taxpayer dollars, Congress has ignored the findings of this 

study. It shows we have cleaned up more than we have taken credit for it in the 

bill. It also shows that there is a negligible difference between a 10 million ton and 

an 8 million ton reduction environmentally, but a considerable cost differential. 

During committee and floor consideration I tried to include an amendment that 

would have EPA review the NAPAP study to get the scientific facts on acid rain 

before us. I was not allowed to offer the amendment either time. I know that 

some have expressed questions with the NAPAP study results, but it is the best 

scientific data we have to date. Congress is going to impose a very costly program 

on the Nation, particularly the midwest, that may have been mitigated if we had 

paid more attention to science than politics. 

Overall I think we have a very good package, one which I can support. I am proud 

that I was part of the process that provides the American people with programs 

that will address the air pollution problems of our country and will lead us toward 

cleaner air. 

In conclusion, I would like to recognize the work of President Bush and the 

administration in providing Congress with the initial framework of a 

comprehensive clean air bill. Without the support of the administration and the 

dedication of many Members of Congress, this bill would have received the same 

fate of the many other throughout the last decade, it would have failed in 

committee. 

Mr. Speaker, I hope we can pass S. 1630 today and send it on to the President for 

his signature. 

•

In receding to the House provision on utility emissions, the Senate acted in 

part to recede from its conference proposal that would have created the 

discretionary authority to require scrubbing of utility emissions. The Senate 

recognized that the House provision includes the directive that EPA examine 

alternative control strategies. This provision contains the appropriate 

flexibility so that, in the event EPA finds it appropriate to regulate certain 

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 76 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
utility emissions, EPA could avoid any scrubbing requirement. In receding, 

the Senate is consistent with the intent of the Senate-passed subparagraph 

(e)(5)(E) that prohibited imposition of utility scrubber requirements. It is the 

sense of the conferees that EPA's ultimate decision avoid any conflict with 

title IV implementation, including the compliance flexibility and costeffectiveness goals which are central to the acid rain program.

It is my understanding that no provision in this title or subsection of this title 

will in any way limit a utility's flexibility of choice in complying with the 

requirements of this act.

•

[Page: H12872]

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 

Bilirakis].

•

(Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 

remarks.)

•

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in support of the 

conference report on this landmark legislation, to urge its adoption by the House, 

and also to add my commendation to Chairman Dingell, Vice Chairman Lent, 

Chairmen Sharp and Waxman, my fellow conferees, and particularly to all the 

staff. I am especially pleased that the Senate accepted for inclusion in this 

conference report legislative language that was offered by myself and several 

other House Members regarding offshore oil drilling and air toxics. I consider these 

provisions to be especially important to the preservation of the environment, 

particularly in my State of Florida. 

These new offshore provisions will require the Environmental Protection Agency to 

regulate air emissions from drilling activities. EPA will set standards equivalent to 

onshore regulations and will be required to adopt State and local air quality 

standards. In addition, the new legislation will require EPA to study and regulate 

air toxics that build up in the marine environment. 

I also want to say that acid rain standards included in this legislation are major 

achievements of the first magnitude. The acid rain provisions will require the 

removal of 12.5 million tons of sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide from utility 

sources. 

We have been talking about acid rain for years and not acting; in fact I 

cosponsored subcommittee chairman Waxman's acid rain legislation 4 years ago. 

Now we finally are taking the necessary steps to curtail the acidification of our 

Nation's lakes and streams and the corresponding destruction of forest areas and 

crop yields. 

During Energy and Commerce Committee action, I noted that we were groping our 

way as if through a mist, that we understood the general outline and mass of this 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 77 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
enormous rewrite of our Nation's air quality laws, but that perhaps we did not fully 

comprehend its intricate structure, the daunting complexity of its details nor its 

complete impact on our daily lives. 

Today, having wandered long through a conference that sometimes seemed to 

stretch endlessly before us, I have to tell you, and I doubt that anyone here will 

refute me, that we still may not fully comprehend these things. How this 

legislation is interpreted and applied in several of its key provisions--particularly in 

the acid rain title--will determine its full impact on all of us. I believe that the 

allowance system instituted under this title is innovative and interesting. I only 

still hold concerns that it works as advertised in its implementation. 

As to allowances, I do wish to clarify one issue; that is, the allowances that are 

allocated to clean utility companies. After extensive hearings, the House allocated 

allowances to these units based on their allowable emission rate. It was my 

understanding that allowable emission rate means that rate which is contained in 

their federally enforceable permit. I understood, and still understand, that the 

Senate agrees with the House position. 

The term allowable was specifically used to allow these clean units the allowances 

needed to ensure they could operate safely and efficiently. I am concerned about 

this issue due to the fact that DOE and EPA may have misinterpreted the language 

in 402(r) to mean less than allowable. 

This is very important issue to my State. When this issue was dissussed in 

committee the term allowable emission rate meant, in fact, the allowable emission 

rate. That is the intent of the drafters, the Congress, and I trust that the 

implimenters, DOE and EPA, shall abide by that intent. 

I also want to say that throughout the long process that has led us here today, we 

have maintained our sights on our primary purpose: To substantially improve the 

quality of the air we breathe and to do so in a responsible and effective manner. 

The report that we, who have served on the conference committee, deliver to the 

House today represents a good faith effort on all of our parts to secure this longawaited goal. We have come a long way from the what-now-seems-simple request 

first presented to the Nation by the President 2 years ago. I believe we bring to 

you legislation that will advance us far into the future as we seek to preserve and 

protect our air, our environment and our quality of life. I urge its adoption. 

[TIME: 1720]

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman for 

New Jersey [Mr. Roe], chairman of the Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology. 

(Mr. ROE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 78 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Mr. ROE. Mr. Speaker, I think this legislation is the highlight of this Congress. 

Clean air is life itself. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the conference report on S. 1630, 

the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. I would like to applaud the leadership 

diligence and hard work of the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee 

Mr. Dingell of Michigan and the ranking Republican member of the Energy and 

Commerce Committee, Mr. Lent of New York, as well as the Health and 

Environment Subcommittee chairman, Mr. Waxman of California, and the ranking 

Republican member, Mr. Madigan of Illinois. 

I would like to commend Mr. Scheuer of New York and Ms. Schneider of Rhode 

Island, the chairman and ranking Republican member of the Natural Resources 

Subcommittee of the Science Space and Technology Committee for their diligence 

in guiding forward the research and development provisions of this legislation. I 

would also like to recognize the important contribution of Mr. Smith of New 

Hampshire to the acid rain research provision and the strong support of the 

Science Committee's ranking Republican member, Mr. Walker of Pennsylvania. 

I would particularly like to thank all of the staff. I would say to the gentleman 

from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] I think one thing that is predominant in the effort 

here is the outstanding work that was put in by all of the staff members from all of 

the committees. It was a great achievement, and I want to applaud them. 

[Page: H12873]

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I would like to commend 

him and his staff for the fine way in which we worked together. 

Mr. ROE. Mr. Speaker, our committee is proud of its participation in the clean air 

conference. Both the House and Senate bills, and now the conference agreement, 

recognize the critical role of research and development. Research and 

Development is essential in the characterization of the adverse effects of air 

pollution, the development and evaluation of control technologies, and the 

generation of cost effective solutions. We believe that a firm base of scientific 

knowledge provides the foundation for sound and effective policy decisions. We 

see research as a tool for intelligent action; not as an excuse for inaction. 

Although the Clean Air Act has been amended several times over the past two 

decades, the research and development provisions of the bill have remained 

essentially untouched. 

When one contemplates the overwhelming changes that have transpired during 

those 20 years, we're left wondering why such an essential part of the Clean Air 

Act has been virtually ignored over the years. 

Since passage of the original Clean Air Act, the nature of environmental air 

problems has changed dramatically. When we first set up an air pollution research 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 79 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
program at the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], we were mostly 

concerned with dirty, visible smokestack emissions. 

Today, that problem has largely diminished. Instead, we are facing a multitude of 

new, complex air pollution problems, such as air toxics, ozone and carbon 

monoxide nonattainment, indoor air pollution, acid rain, and global atmospheric 

changes. Yet EPA's research mandate has not changed. 

When the Environmental Protection Agency was established in 1970, its single 

most important mandate was to approach the environment as a complex, 

interrelated whole. Research was envisioned as a critical part of that strategy. 

While EPA's regulatory responsibilities have been increasing, the agency's budget 

for environmental research has been shrinking. In real dollars the budget has 

decreased 20 percent in just the last 10 years. As a result EPA's emphasis on the 

basic research and development has suffered. 

We can no longer and will not accept the status quo when it comes to air pollution 

problems. 

A research and development program driven by today's basic knowledge will be 

incapable of anticipating the future. 

This title reauthorizes sections 103 and 104 of the Clean Air Act, provisions which 

direct EPA to carry out research, development, and demonstration programs in 

support of the Clean Air Act. 

Under the existing Clean Air Act, EPA has broad authority to conduct research. In 

practice, however, most of EPA's research up to now has been narrowly focused 

on efforts to support specific regulatory requirements, not on understanding the 

broad effects of air pollution. 

The research and development provision of the Clean Air Act will reinvigorate 

EPA's long-term air pollution research while maintaining the technical support that 

is necessary to carry our regulatory responsibilities. 

It will enable EPA to evaluate the control technologies that we are adopting today 

and to generate tomorrow's solutions to complex air pollution problems. 

This legislation will provide direction and emphasis on monitoring and modeling of 

pollutants, health and ecological effects, pollution prevention and control 

technologies, and alternative fuels. 

Research directed in these areas will enhance EPA's ability to predict the need for 

future action. 

We have learned over the last 20 years that air pollution problems are complex 

and that easy answers are not readily forthcoming. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 80 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
We know that we face a daunting challenge to provide clean air for future 

generations of Americans. We also face formidable challenges to protect the 

Earth's atmosphere. 

This legislation is premised on the belief that without a sound scientific foundation, 

even our most well intentioned efforts to improve air quality are doomed to 

failure. 

The time has come to recognize that air pollution research is just as important as 

regulations in fighting and preventing air pollution. 

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 

from Pennsylvania [Mr. Schulze]. 

(Mr. SCHULZE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

•

Mr. SCHULZE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1630, the conference 

report on the Clean Air Act. I applaud the work of Chairman Dingell, Vice 

Chairman Norman Lent, and all Energy and Commerce Conference 

Committee members for bringing this landmark legislative to the floor.

•

This legislation goes a long way toward correcting the air quality problems 

facing the country today. We in Congress have battled for the past 13 years 

trying to reach an agreement on clean air legislation. I am gratified that we 

finally have this opportunity to pass a bill which will improve the health and 

environment of all Americans.

•

The conference report before us strikes a necessary balance between 

economic and environmental concerns. While this report was not arrived at 

without sacrifices being made, it will substantially reduce air pollution without 

crippling economic activity.

•

I am particularly pleased with the air toxic provisions. The air toxic provisions 

establishes a list of 189 toxic chemicals. Under the agreement, the 

Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] will establish a standard for toxic air 

emissions which requires installation of the maximum achievable control 

technology, taking cost into account. After 8 years EPA must determine 

whether air toxic emissions cause a significant health risk.

•

In addition, EPA must set residual risk standards which may cause cancer 

wherever the risk is greater than 1-in-1 million to a person in the general 

population.

•

The conference report will also go a long way in cleaning up the smog 

problem facing our Nation, from Los Angeles to the Fifth Congressional 

District of Pennsylvania. The bill tightens emissions standards for 

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 81 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
conventional gasoline-fueled vehicles and establishes a program for 

alternative or clean fuel vehicles.

The acid rain provisions establish a two-phase plan to reduce sulfur dioxide 

emissions by 10 million tons per year by the year 2000. Coming from 

Pennsylvania, which suffers from the worst acid rain in the Nation, I strongly 

support this provision. The agreement also preserves the bonus allowance 

program for high-emitting plants that use emission control technology in 

phase I, and a comparable bonus allowance pool for plants in clean and 

growth States during phase II.

•

The last provision I would like to address is the enforcement section. I 

support the strengthening of the civil and criminal penalties for violations of 

the Clean Air Act. I also support the provisions in the conference report which 

would not hold a person criminally liable for a good faith attempt to comply 

with the recordkeeping requirements or for information discovered in the 

course of a voluntary environmental audit of a plant or business.

•

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this landmark 

environmental legislation. The bill will go a long way in improving the health 

and environmental quality for our children and grandchildren, without causing 

undue economic hardships on America's business and industry.

•

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 

Rinaldo], a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

(Mr. RINALDO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

[Page: H12874]

Mr. RINALDO. Mr. Speaker, over 8 years ago, I made reforming the Clean Air Act 

one of my chief legislative priorities. Since then, I have worked to clean up our 

atmosphere and to end acid rain. As a part of that effort, I am proud to have 

sponsored the first comprehensive approach to ending acid rain. That legislation 

and bills introduced by several of my colleagues have evolved into the first 

complete revision of our efforts to clean up the atmosphere since 1977. Today's 

passage of the conference report to S. 1630, the Clean Air Act amendments 

means that the people of New Jersey will eventually get the healthier, cleaner air 

that we have worked toward for so long. 

Air pollution imposes a very real and increasing cost on our society. We have 

known for many years that air pollution causes many respiratory problems, but 

modern research reveals that the threat to our health goes well beyond just our 

lungs. It is also responsible for increased incidents of cancer, birth defects, and 

other diseases. Air pollution and acid rain kill fish and wildlife, while also 

destroying forests and fields. It reduced agricultural yields and forest productivity. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 82 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Since the original Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, a great deal of progress has 

been made in eliminating some types of atmospheric pollution. Unfortunatley, 

neither the 1970 bill nor its 1977 rewrite anticipated some of the problems that 

we face today. 

Economic growth has greatly increased the amount of pollution that is emitted into 

the air. Some chemicals that we used to regard as harmless have been revealed 

to be highly toxic, and industrial smoke and exhaust that we once thought 

contained only a few dangerous compounds have been found to include many 

hazardous substances. As a result, between added pollution and newly discovered 

dangers, over 121 million Americans live in areas where air pollution exceeds 

Federal health standards. 

Today, the House of Representatives gives its final approval to a tough, but fair 

bill that will sharply reduce the pollution that people in New Jersey have had to 

breathe every day. My colleagues on the conference committee have labored long 

and hard to come up with compromise legislation that deals with the many 

different types of air pollution. For the most part, this is due to the leadership of 

Chairman John Dingell and ranking minority member Norman Lent.

There are many parts of this bill that I would like to have seen strengthened. In 

particular, I am disappointed that the visibility standards that would have 

protected our national parks were diluted to the extent that they are. On the other 

hand, I am very pleased that the Senate provisions that would have classified the 

ash and waste from incinerators as nontoxic have been dropped. On balance, this 

is a good bill, and I am proud to give it my support. 

Today's vote means that in time, acid rain will no longer be a threat to our forests 

and lakes. In addition, S. 1630 represents a major step toward fighting global 

warming and protecting our ozone layer. It also deals with smog, toxic air 

emissions, pollution from cars and trucks, and a number of other problems. 

The controls contained in S. 1630 are strong, but realistic. While large plants will 

be subject to strict emissions standards, this bill also addresses the small sources 

that together cause most air pollution. 

It would have been simple to slap restrictions on small businesses, and to leave it 

up to them to figure out how to comply. However, the permits and enforcement 

sections take a balanced approach that makes it very clear that emissions must be 

controlled, but also provides for technical assistance and eased permitting 

procedures for small businesses. I am especially pleased that in title V, the EPA 

Administrator is given the discretion to exempt one or more area source 

categories from all or any part of the permitting requirements. 

Pollution from cars, trucks, and buses is a severe problem for New Jersey, and it 

was essential that this legislation included a truly realistic approach to cleaner cars 

and cleaner fuels. I am delighted that this bill will require auto manufacturers and 

fuel companies to meet strict new emissions standards. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 83 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
At the time, this House passed H.R. 3030 last May, none of us realized that the 

Iraqi invasion of Kuwait would plunge this Nation into a new energy crisis. Now, 

we are all too aware of our reliance on imported oil, and we are equally aware of 

the effect of increased gasoline prices on our economy. 

As a result, I am pleased that in addition to reducing pollution from conventional 

automobiles, we are also mandating an alternate fuels program. This provision 

was originally intended as a way to reduce pollution, but now it is even more 

important as a way to reduce this country's dependence on gasoline. Although S. 

1630 does not require centrally fueled fleets to begin to purchase clean fuel 

vehicles until the 1998 model year, I hope that the auto industry will not wait until 

then to market these vehicles. Today's situation in the Middle East shows that we 

do not have the luxury of waiting until the last moment. 

The new fuel and vehicle standards will force advances in technology that are 

badly needed. We cannot simply sit back and let clean cars and fuels develop 

slowly and haphazardly. At the same time, there is no way that Congress can 

legislate chemistry or engineering. Today we are doing neither, but we are letting 

producers know that while we appreciate their efforts up until now, much more is 

needed, and quickly. 

Since New Jersey leads the Nation in chemical production, it is also very important 

to our citizens that S. 1630 includes strong language on toxix air pollutants. While 

our companies have an excellent safety record, we have simply not known the 

effects of many pollutants or how to effectively control them. 

S. 1630 includes a list of 189 hazardous pollutants, and directs EPA to identify the 

major sources of their emissions, and to require the maximum achievable 

reduction in the danger that they pose. This Congress made a similar effort in 

1970, but in 20 years, only seven pollutants have been controlled. This time, we 

make it very clear that the EPA is to control these toxics without any further 

delays or excuses. 

The bill also sets up special procedures for handling potentially dangerous 

accidental releases of toxic gases. For the first time, safety standards and 

emergency programs will be established to help to prevent these accidents, and to 

deal with them if they do occur. 

Smog is a very real problem for New Jersey. This legislation establishes strong 

new standards that will require States and localities to develop smog control 

programs, and to implement them. Noble statements and nicely written plans will 

no longer be enough. Interim goals will have to be established and met to ensure 

that real progress is being made. 

For those of us in New Jersey, it is equally important that this bill addresses the 

air pollution that comes into our State from other areas. It sets up regional 

councils to ensure that a State with strict air quality controls does not suffer 

because its neighbors have looser standards. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 84 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
This is a major problem for New Jersey, since it is surrounded by industrial areas 

in other States. I have seen studies that show that even if every plant and 

business in New Jersey totally stopped operations, and every car, trucks, and bus 

in the State was idle, New Jersey would still be out of compliance because of the 

pollution blown in from other States. 

The acid rain section is especially important to me. It does more than just reduce 

sulfur dioxide emissions by 10 million tons a year and nitrogen oxide emissions by 

2.5 million tons annually. It places an absolute cap on the total amount of these 

pollutants that can be emitted in the future. We will not face a situation in 2020, 

where pollution has again crept up to critical levels. For every new ton of these 

emissions, one will have to be reduced from another source. 

The mechanism to achieve this will be a system of allowances that can be bought 

and sold as they are needed. The compromise between the House version and the 

Senate plan fairly distributes these allowances among the various areas of the 

country, and allows for future growth. There was a great potential for sectional 

conflicts in dividing these allowances, but through the efforts of the conferees, 

these problems wer avoided. 

Finally, we have informed the world that this country will take the leadership in 

eliminating the CFC's and HCFC's that are destroying the ozone layer and causing 

global warming. As the world's leading industrial nation, we can do no less, and 

we invite them to follow our lead. 

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal about the cost that this bill will impose 

on the economy. I have seen a great variety of numbers thrown about. However, 

we are not, as some have charged, heaping more costs upon an already weakened 

economy; we are taking steps to strengthen our future. 

I am confident that this bill will increase the efficiency of our economy and 

stimulate the development of new technology. Our economic future will depend on 

the most effective and efficient use of our resources, and S. 1630 will encourage 

our economy to move in this direction. 

This is a good bill. It is not a perfect bill, but it is much better than most of us on 

the Energy and Commerce Committee expected when we began to work on it over 

1 year ago. I am proud to support S. 1630 today, because in the relatively near 

future, the people of New Jersey will again breathe the pure air that enabled us to 

be known as the Garden State. 

[Page: H12875]

Mr. DANNEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 

[Mr. Applegate]. 

(Mr. APPLEGATE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 

remarks.) 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 85 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Mr. APPLEGATE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, I would go along with some of the accolades to a degree of the 

conferees for the work they have done on this. They have done yeoman's work. I 

thank the conferees also for the provisions that they have offered and placed in 

this bill to help two aluminum plants, one in Ohio and one in West Virginia. 

Nevertheless, I must oppose the bill in its present form, particularly with regard to 

title III and title V. 

I do not have any illusions that we are going to change anyone's mind, because it 

is going to pass overwhelmingly. There was only 21 Members that voted against it 

before. 

While there were some allowances made for Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, the bill still 

leaves the Midwest vulnerable to economic devastation in the high-sulfur coal 

fields. It is likely to cost some 6,000 jobs in those areas. Six thousand jobs, 

remember that. 

It is going to cost $25 to $50 billion a year to implement this. Much of this will be 

in the utility rates that people are going to have to pay when they turn on their 

toaster, lights, furnace, or whatever. 

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 

Schaefer], a member of the committee. 

(Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 

remarks.) 

Some of it will be in the steel industry, even though they got some help in this bill. 

There are going to be billions of dollars that will have to be spent, which will help 

to cause us to lose some of the competitive edge that we have over foreign steel. 

They took out a governor's authority to be able to determine the legislation's 

effect in a particular State, and then they say in the case of Ohio that if there is an 

economic effect by this, that they would have to use high sulfur coal. Of course, 

they would still have to meet the emissions standards. But they took that out. 

That will help. 

There is no time for clean coal technology, because phase I, 1995, will knock that 

out. There will be no money left in order to use clean-coal technology, which is the 

best approach to all of this. 

Very importantly, which was pointed out too, was at the conclusion of the NAPAP 

study, the National Acid Prescipitation Assessment Program, it was not used. The 

cost to the taxpayers of this country was $550 million, and it took 10 years. The 

conclusions are not going to be considered in this. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 86 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Why is this? The environmentalists supported it in 1980. Why do they not support 

it now? They do not support it now because it is not saying what they wanted it to 

say. 

I checked the records on some of these, and the gentleman from California, who 

has been a very avid supporter of all of this, was one of the voters who supported 

it at that time. All that was to be done was to determine the cause and effect of 

acid rain, and to tell people in the country and in the Congress what direction we 

should take to do something about the problem. 

It concluded, for one thing, that in 30 years, regardless of anything that we did, 

that the level of emissions was going to be the same, whether we spent a dime or 

not. 

I am not saying we should not spend any more money. All of this is still going to 

cost hundreds of billions of dollars when this thing is fully implemented. 

Just reducing it from 10 million tons to 8 million tons, the extra 2 million tons is 

going to cost twice as much as the first 8 million tons. It is like trying to take a 

glass of water, emptying the water out, and getting the last drop out. 

What I am saying is this looks good for now, but take a look down the road in the 

future. It is not good policy. I know it is going to pass. I would like to see a better 

bill, because I would like to be able to vote for a good clean air bill. 

[TIME: 1730]

Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. 

Mr. Speaker, over the course of the last couple of months, this institution and the 

congressional process have received what some believe the harshest of criticism. 

At times it has been deserved. But today, that same Congress and much maligned 

process have brought to the floor landmark legislation to protect and improve the 

Nation's air quality. For the American people and this prestigious body, it could not 

have come at a better time. 

S. 1630 has proven, in a slow deliberate fashion, that the system still does work. 

After literally years of often contentious negotiations, we have brought to the 

verge of passage arguably the most far-reaching piece of environmental 

legislation in memory. It is as meaningful as it is responsible. 

Needless to say, this clean air package is not everything that everyone hoped for. 

It is unquestionably a compromise. But for my constituents in the Denver metro 

area, passage of this bill means attainment of the elusive health-based standard 

for carbon monodixe. More importantly, it means we can likely maintain that 

standard for years to come. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 87 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
That Denver and other Colorado cities are likely to stay in attainment can largely 

be attributed to several provisions of this conference report. Consider that up to 

90 percent of a city's carbon monoxide is caused by motor vehicles. Given 

projected increases in vehicle miles travelled, significant reductions in tailpipe 

emissions are essential. Tighter tailpipe standards for vehicles, cold weather 

emissions requirements and alternative fuels programs promise to provide the 

reductions in cabron monoxide necessary to meet the challenges of future growth. 

I note that provisions of title II provide that the specified numerical emissions 

standards set forth in this bill shall not be modified by the administrator after 

enactment for any model year before model year 2004. It is also provided for 

elsewhere in title II that EPA review and revise as necessary the current 

certification test procedures for new motor vehicles. Understand that if EPA 

decides to pursue a rulemaking to modify the test procedures to make necessary 

appropriate changes, that such changes shall not have the effect of making the 

specified new numerical standards more stringent. 

As a member of the committee which began this process more than 3 years ago, I 

have witnessed the many obstacles which this bill has overcome. Without the 

leadership of many, particularly Chairmen Dingell and Waxman and 

Congressman Lent, we never would have reached this point. All of us, particularly 

those representing nonattainment areas, owe them a sincere debt of gratitude. I 

would also like to thank David Eck on my staff, who worked long and hard on this 

issue. 

Mr. Speaker, this is truly historic legislation and I am pleased to have been a part 

of the process. And although the 101st Congress has had moments we might like 

to forget, in this one we can all take pride. 

[Page: H12876]

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 

West Virginia [Mr. Wise], the author of a major amendment. 

(Mr. WISE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. 

Mr. Speaker, the first thanks I want to give, because I would not be here tonight 

without his support, is to Chairman Dingell, and those men and women who are 

going to lose their jobs or are in fear of losing their jobs owe you a strong vote of 

thanks, Mr. Chairman, because of your immovable support, as only you can be 

immovable, in the conference, which means we are here, and we are able to have 

this amendment considered tonight. 

I also wish to thank very much Chairman Ford of the Education and Labor 

Committee for his support, and Chairman Downey of the Ways and Means 

Subcommittee, and Norm Lent, who opposed my amendment on the floor but 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 88 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
stood up for the House position, and of course, Congressman Ridge, who 

sponsored this amendment on the House floor. 

This bill passed by a large bipartisan majority in the House, and this amendment 

comes back with exactly the same results as it left, with the recognition that jobs 

will be lost inevitably under this legislation, but that the people of this country 

have a right to know that if they lose their jobs due to direct Federal action, that 

the Federal Government will assist them in making a reasonable transition to new 

employment. 

I am happy to report that because of the conscious efforts of the conferees, the 

original amount of dollars, $250 million, is still intact over a 5-year period or $50 

million a year. It is now all under title 3 of the Job Training Partnership Act. 

Who can apply for grants? Indeed, if there is job loss; local government units, 

public agencies, private industrial councils, employers, employee groups and trade 

unions will be eligible to apply for the training money. The applicants for the first 

time, and I say this is the first time this requirement has been in the Job Training 

Partnership Act, must give assurances in their grant application that these 

displaced workers who qualify will receive weekly cash benefits in addition to the 

training. This act also requires that the workers must be in training to receive their 

benefits. 

It says that eligible displaced workers will qualify for weekly benefits if their 

current total family income is less than the lower living standard. That is greater 

than the poverty level. In my State it is $18,500 a year, and it is a significant 

change from the original amendment which would have limited the cash benefits 

to only 26 additional weeks. This provides that if somebody is eligible their 

benefits can continue as long as they are training, which in some cases could be 

as long as 2 years. 

To those who are concerned about this legislation, let me say it does not provide 

welfare. If avoids it. 

Let me say it is not just a bill for high-sulfur coal miners, but for all workers. It is 

not unlimited spending, but it is capped, and indeed, any expansion of this 

program requires a Presidential signature. 

This bill is an insurance policy. I hope and pray that not one job is lost as a result 

of this legislation, but if it is, and to the extent that there are job losses, this bill is 

here as their insurance policy. 

So it says, and it is a bold step for this Congress, that preserving the economy 

and the environment can go hand-in-hand, and that as we have an obligation to 

preserve the environment, so must we safeguard individual economic situations. 

Mr. DANNEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 

[Mr. Armey]. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 89 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
(Mr. ARMEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. 

Mr. Speaker, is this country slipping into a congressionally induced recession? I 

fear the answer may be yes. 

The budget agreement, inspired by the ludicrous idea that we can prevent an 

economic slowdown by heaping $140 billion in new taxes on the economy, is 

exhibit A. This bill, a return to the stifling regulation of the Carter years, is exhibit 

B. 

Certainly it is the Government's necessary role to protect the quality of our 

environment. But there is a difference between taking prudent, cost-effective 

steps to achieve this goal and killing economic growth with this extreme 

overreaction. 

The laws already on the books have worked. According to the EPA statistics for the 

10-year period from 1978 to 1987, emissions of sulfur dioxide have been reduced 

by 17 percent, suspended particulates dropped by 23 percent, and carbon 

monoxide by 25 percent. The air today is far cleaner than it was 20 years ago. 

There is little reason to believe that this new measure will produce marginal 

benefits proportional to its marginal costs. 

Let us look at those costs. Michael Boskin, chairman of the Council of Economic 

Advisers, estimates the costs of this bill will range from $25 billion to $30 billion 

annually. The Clean Air Working Group estimates a cost double that. 

What that means is higher consumer prices, industry failures, and the loss of 

hundreds of thousands of jobs. In my State of Texas alone, 65,000 jobs may be 

lost. 

As three Nobel Prize winning economists wrote in a letter to President Bush last 

week: `The Clean Air Act's unduly stringent and extremely costly provisions could 

seriously threaten this Nation's economic expansion.' 

If, as we all fear, this Nation lapses once again into a recession, the American 

people will have only their Congress to blame. I have no doubt they will do exactly 

that. 

Vote no on this conference report. Keep us out of a recession. 

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 

from Ohio [Mr. McEwen]. 

(Mr. McEWEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 90 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have this opportunity to clarify 

provisions in the Clean Air Act amendments with regard to the definition of 

vehicle fleets. The clean air legislation identifies a number of requirements for 

fleet operators. However, the issue of exactly what is considered a vehicle 

fleet, and therefore, what vehicles are subject to the requirements, is left 

open for interpretation by the Environmental Protection Agency.

•

It is my understanding that the fleet requirements are applicable to vehicles 

primarily operating in nonattainment areas and are not intended to apply to 

vehicles which may be operating temporarily in a nonattainment area, such 

as at a construction site.

•

Thus, if a construction company is based in a nonattainment area and 

primarily operating out of a nonattainment area, it would not be required to 

buy a fleet of clean fuel vehicles in order to bid on and carry out a job in a 

nonattainment area. Such a company would not be considered as primarily 

operating in the nonattainment area for that period.

•

Furthermore, vehicles which are fueled during a construction job at a 

temporary fueling station at the construction site should not be regarded as 

centrally fueled vehicles.

•

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your time and for allowing me to clarify what had 

the potential to significantly reduce the ability of the construction industry to 

provide service and competitive prices over a wide market area.

•

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 

Barton]. 

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 

remarks.) 

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. 

I would like to enter into a colloquy. 

In consideration of a power unit's baseline, and the 1985 emission rate used for 

calculating the allowance allocation, the bill does not specifically allow for alternate 

years for units such as TMPA's Gibbons Creek Stream Electric Station which, 

because of the energy crisis, built and operated a powerplant to utilize a lowgrade fuel resource not previously considered economical to burn due to 

difficulties of burning this low-grade fuel, TMPA had a significantly longer startup 

and test period than would be considered normal for fossil-fired steam electric 

stations. In situations like this, does the bill allow the administrator, EPA to 

consider a different period of time that reflects the plant's actual operating 

conditions to determine its allowance allocations? 

[Page: H12877]

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 91 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New York. 

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman's question, the bill does not 

specifically address a situation that is unique to TMPA. The bill does, however, 

provide for a plant like TMPA, which had a prolonged outage during the baseline 

period, to disregard that outage in calculating its allowances. 

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for his response. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report to S. 1630, Clean Air Act 

amendments. If you asked me at the beginning of the session if we would be here 

today ratifying the final touches on the most comprehensive environmental 

legislation ever introduced and that I could support it, I would have said most 

assuredly--no. But through the visionary leadership of President Bush and diligent 

job of shepherding by Chairman Dingell and Vice Chairman Lent, we are here 

today to pass and send back to the President a bill that sets in place the most 

stringent environmental regulations ever. I want to also commend the personal 

staff and committee counsels for their hard work and the tireless effort exerted in 

negotiating, sometimes around the clock, every line and word of S. 1630. 

I think a fair balance was achieved in melding concern for the environment while 

not stifling economic growth. In the long run, the only truly successful 

environmental policies are ones based on flexible free-market principles. It will be 

seen if an economy can remain healthy while cleaning up the environment. I 

believe this can be done. The engine of economic growth will simply be run on 

clean burning natural gas from Texas. 

After participating actively in the committee process as a member of the Energy 

and Commerce Committee and having seen how each title was put together, I 

have only four words on the prospects of the law: I hope it works. The 

Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] has a Herculean task ahead of them in the 

next 2 years. It has been estimated that S. 1630 will require the EPA to 

promulgate more rules and regulations in the next 2 years than it has in the past 

13 years, since enactment of the last Clean Air Act amendments. I hope they are 

up to the task, and we are not back here next successive years considering the 

Clean Air Act technical corrections bill. 

Specifically, in the bill I am happy the conference committee retained a provision I 

added in the Energy and Commerce Committee to require the cities with the worst 

smog problems to incorporate a system of onroad emissions testing into their 

enhanced inspection and maintenance program. These cities would be required to 

using an innovative onroad remote sensing device to measure smog technology 

developed by Dr. Donald Stedman of the University of Denver. No one argues that 

10 percent of the cars on the road contribute 50 percent of the pollution emitted. 

This technique effectively measures and identifies the gross polluting vehicles that 

emit over half the pollution. Contrary to some studies, not all gross polluters are 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 92 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
old cars. With onroad emission testing, localities can notify the owners of older 

cars and have their cars tuned up at a much lesser cost than phasing out all old 

cars. 

Dr. Stedman's studies have indicated that the traditional annual stationary method 

of testing and inspection auto emissions is ineffective. It is analogous to giving all 

drivers a breathalyzer test once a year to combat drunk driving. With the extreme 

and in some cases even draconian sanctions facing cities and regions that do not 

attain certain percentage reductions contained in the bill, I am confident that 

requiring the implementation of a system of onroad testing will allow our Nation's 

dirtiest cities to realistically achieve the smog reductions required by S. 1630 and 

avoid these harsh penalties. 

I am also pleased the conference accepted an amendment I offered with Mr. 

Bilirakis in the committee to initiate a fuel cell powered vehicle 

research and demonstration program. Fuel cell powered vehicles use carbon-free 

hydrogen to produce electricity. A fuel cell electric vehicle uses nonpolluting 

technology. Texas A&M, located in my district, has one of the premier hydrogen 

research centers in the world. We must invest in this type of nonpolluting 

technology to help ensure a cleaner, safer environment in the future. 

Also during committee consideration of the Clean Air bill, I worked with 

Congressmen Slattery and Richardson, to improve the accidental release section 

of the air toxic title. It appears as though the section was improved upon in 

conference with the Senate provisions. 

The amendment specifically addressed the prevention and containment of 

catastrophic accidental releases of hazardous chemicals. It will require all 

manufacturers and businesses that use hazardous chemicals to establish a risk 

management plan. This plan will assess the potential for an accidental release 

caused in the transportation, storage, or burning of hazardous materials. The plan 

will also include a prevention program that implements safety precautions and 

employee training to deal with an accidental release. Finally, the plan requires a 

response program that coordinates local agencies, emergency health facilities, and 

information services when responding to an unanticipated accidental release. The 

amendment also creates an accidental release investigation board to investigate 

the causes of all accidental releases. This board is similar to the existing National 

Transportation Safety Board that investigates airplane accidents. 

I realize almost all of my colleagues are going to join me in supporting the 

conference report to S. 1630. However, I would urge my colleagues to study the 

provisions contained in this bill closely when Congress adjourns and specifically its 

economic impact on virtually every American citizen and business. Every member 

should keep in mind that cleaning up the environment is not free and will cost 

every American family about $300 to $400 a year. 

[TIME: 1740]

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 93 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 

New York [Mr. Scheuer]. 

(Mr. SCHEUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference agreement 

on the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 

I would like to comment and congratulate Mr. Dingell, Mr. Waxman, and Mr.

Lent for their hard work, diligence, and creativity in bringing this monumental 

agreement to the floor. Each member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

and our dedicated staff deserve our accolades for a job well done. I would also like 

to recognize the contribution of Mr. Sikorski on the acid rain title and the 

chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Mr. Roe, for his work 

on the research and development title. 

This critical legislation will reduce significantly urban smog; it will decrease acid 

rain by reducing airborne pollutants by 10 million tons; and it will launch a new 

generation of vehicles powered by alternative fuels. Its impacts on our 

environment will be both positive and long lasting. 

It has been 13 years since the Clean Air Act was last amended and in that time 

the complexity of air pollution problems has increased exponentially. This 

legislation will aid EPA in dealing with those complexities and allow us to move 

forward in the protection of the air we breathe and thus the public health of our 

citizens. 

I am especially proud of the research and development title of this legislation as it 

is based on H.R. 4197, a bill introduced by myself and Mr. Smith of New 

Hampshire, with the strong support of Chairman Bob Roe of the Science 

Committee and Claudine Schneider, the ranking Republican on the Natural 

Resources Subcommittee. This legislation was introduced in response to the 

recommendations of EPA's Independent Science Advisory Board. The board 

recommended that EPA's research program be expanded and redirected to 

broaden our base of scientific knowledge. 

Ronald Reagan claimed that we didn't possess adequate knowledge to enact 

stronger environmental regulations. Yet, with unrepentant cynicism, he refused to 

fund research; thus he intended to doom us to eternal ignorance. George Bush 

has told us that he is the `Environmental President,' yet his clean air bill also 

ignored research needs. I believe that his Office of Management and Budget will 

not give up the fight. They will attempt instead to undermine the will of Congress 

by refusing to fund adequately this researh. 

We should no longer accept this hypocritical status quo. In the future, if we are to 

ask the right questions and generate the answers to tomorrow's problems, we 

must find research today. Every single successful corporation in America 

appreciates this basic truth. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 94 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
We must all be vigilant and watch to ensure that the soul of the Bush 

administration is not dominated by the shortsighted views of OMB. 

Research and development is the basis for intelligent and cost effective 

regulations. We must put an end to the cynicism of the Reagan years and move 

toward the realization that research costs are returned many times over by the 

cost-effectiveness of high quality policy decisions. 

[Page: H12878]

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 

from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]. 

(Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend 

his remarks.) 

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990. 

•

Finally, after 13 years, the Clean Air Act has been appropriately updated, 

reformed, and strengthened to address and respond to numerous pressing 

environmental needs.

•

Mr. Speaker, I truly believe this to be one of the most important 

environmental achievements of the decade. The threat acid rain poses to 

lakes, rivers, forests, and the animals that inhabit these ecosystems can no 

longer be ignored. The legislation before us requires substantial reductions in 

sulfur dioxide [SO2] emissions which cause acid rain.

•

I am also pleased to note that this conference agreement deals with the 

growing problem of urban smog by creating a new schedule for cities to meet 

established air quality standards. Furthermore, the bill includes language 

regarding toxic emissions. Nearly 250 categories of toxic polluters and 187 

hazardous substances are listed in the legislation for control and regulation.

•

While this measure has had a long and arduous journey through the 

legislative process, it reflects the goals and aims of the House, Senate, 

President Bush, and above all, the American public. Members may recall that 

legislative efforts to reduce air pollution first began in 1963 with the 

enactment of the Clean Air Act. A 1970 rewrite of this law was followed by a 

set of amendments passed in 1974 and again in 1977. Thirteen years later, 

we are again rewriting the law and making it tougher. Much of the credit, Mr. 

Speaker, must go to President Bush for designating the 1990's as the Decade 

of Clean Air. Without the President's determination and support, we would 

not be here today with a bill that will shortly become law.

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 95 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Mr. Speaker let me focus for a moment on the bill's provisions for dealing 

with urban smog. After much debate, a realistic schedule for controlling this 

problem has, fortunately, been established by the conferees. Nationwide, 

cities would be classified according to the severity of their air quality 

problem. The five categories for ozone-nonattainment would be: marginal, 

moderate, serious, severe, and extreme. Cities would be expected to meet 

attainment within 3, 6, 9, 15, and 20 years, according to their category. 

Furthermore, new restructions have been placed on the release of volatile 

organic compounds which would also be established according to a graduated 

scale of severity.

•

Mobile sources of air pollution, such as cars and trucks, would likewise be 

subjected to new controls. Buses, which utilize diesel fuel, would be expected 

to meet new standards and be powered by cleaner diesel fuels. By model 

year 1998, fleet vehicles, whether taxis or trucks, would have to meet 

emissions standards 80 percent cleaner than today's. Tailpipe emissions for 

cars and light-duty trucks will generally follow the House-passed language. 

Nitrogen oxide will be reduced from the current 1 gram to 0.6 gram per mile 

and the

•

•

hydrocarbon standard will be 0.25 gram per mile as opposed to the current 

0.41 gram per mile.

•

Mr. Speaker, alternative fuels, which are not addressed in our current clean 

air laws, will get a major boost through the passage of this bill. Reformulated 

gasoline will have to be sold in the nine cities in the Nation with the worst 

smog problem beginning in 1995. The new gasoline sold must reduce toxic 

emissions by 15 percent for approval.

•

Major sources of toxic emissions must install the maximum achievable control 

technology [MACT] between 1994 and 2003. Upon their installation, the 

Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] will issue health-based standards 

which address the health risks and cancer dangers of persons exposed to the 

emissions from these sources.

•

Turning again to acid rain control, Mr. Speaker, electric utility plants would be 

required to reduce SO2 emissions by 10 million tons annually by the year 

2000. This would be accomplished through a two-part process whereby the 

utilities would meet certain standards by 1995 and 2000. A market-based 

allowance system would ensure compliance. Each year, a limited number of 

allowances would be provided to fossil fuel utilities. If necessary, the plant 

could release one ton of SO2 in a calendar year if the allowance was not used 

in the specified year. If the plant surpassed the standards, it would be 

permitted to sell or transfer the allowance to other utilities.

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 96 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
This conference agreement, Mr. Speaker, is a sound piece of legislation, 

which deserves the support of the Members. I yield back the balance of my 

time.

•

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 

Madigan], a member of the conference and the ranking member of the Health 

Subcommittee. 

(Mr. MADIGAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. MADIGAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the conference report on 

S. 1630 and to compliment the chairman of the Energy and Commerce 

Committee, Mr. Dingell, and the ranking member, Norm Lent, for their tireless 

efforts in negotiating this piece of legislation through the committee, the House, 

and the conference committee. They did a masterful job. Mr. Waxman and Mr. 

Sharp also deserve to be complimented along with many other members of the 

committee and the staff for their equally tireless effort and willingness to work 

with other Members to put this legislation together. 

Mr. Speaker, this bill will result in cleaner air. Complying with its requirements will 

challenge industry and individuals to find ways to work and live in a more 

environmentally benign and beneficial manner. Manufacturing, transportation and 

life styles will change. Because of the scope and complexity of its provisions it will 

be years before we know the true costs and benefits associated with this bill. 

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill and urge my colleagues to support it. 

With respect to the mobile sources provisions in the bill, Congress has recongnized 

the importance of assigning a share of the responsibility for reducing auto 

emissions to the source of those emissions--gasoline. The bill establishes 

performance standards for fuel quality which will minimize emissions of 

hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogens, and hazardous air pollutants 

for in-use vehicles. The program will maximize environmental benefit, minimize 

cost, and increase the role of alternative fuels by requiring the sale of cleanerburning gasolines in the worst ozone nonattainment areas. 

Specifically, the bill establishes a cap on the emission of oxides of nitrogen, 

requires a minimum of 2 percent oxygen by weight, limits benzene to no more 

than 1 percent by volume, and prohibits heavy metals, including lead and 

manganese, from all gasolines sold in the nine worst ozone-polluted areas 

beginning January 1, 1995. It is important to note, however, that these are 

minimum standards--that as EPA promulgates regulations, the Administrator has 

the flexibility to make these requirements more stringent if it is determined that 

tighter standards are necessary to achieve the greatest reductions in VOC's and 

toxics. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 97 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
For example, if EPA determines that it is possible to limit benezene to less than 1 

percent, to 0.8 percent as in the original House bill, or less if technically and 

economically feasible, then EPA has the flexibility to do so. 

I am particicularly concerned that benzene levels be reduced as much as is 

technically and economically feasible. Benezene is a known carcinogen. Yet it is 

widely used an octane enhancer in today's gasolines--averaging 1.5 to 2.5 percent 

in most octane grades but as much as 5 percent in some premium grades. Rising 

benzene levels is one reason a recent EPA report concluded that exposure to 

gasoline emissions is the cause of more than 50 percent of all toxic-related cancer 

deaths each year. Certainly, if EPA concludes that additional reductions in this 

dangerous compound are possible, the provisions of this legislation allow the 

Administrator make the appropriate adjustments. 

Similarly, if the Administrator determines that requiring more than 2 percent 

oxygen will result in greater reductions of VOC's or toxics, the legislation provides 

the flexibility to increase the oxygen content accordingly. 

The objective of the reformulated gasoline provision is to clean up gasoline. The 

minimum levels required in section 219 are not intended to constrain EPA from 

enacting more stringent regulations where it is possible to achieve greater 

reductions in VOC's and toxics. 

The bill requires the greatest reduction in emissions of ozone forming volatile 

organic compounds and emissions of hazardous air pollutants achievable through 

the use of reformulated gasoline. In order to reach those reductions, the bill 

requires the Administrator to determine the more stringent of either a formula 

stipulated in the legislation or specific performance standards for VOC's and 

toxics. The formula establishes criteria for benzene, aromatics, heavy metals, 

detergents, and oxygen content. The performance standards require reductions in 

each VOC's and toxics of 15 percent in 1995, and 25 percent in 2000--if 

technically feasible, but not less than 20 percent. 

Again, the Administrator has the authority to make the formula more stringent. 

Contrary to some advertisements that we have created `Government gas' setting 

a specific formula for EPA to follow, the legislation only sets minimum standards 

for the formula fuel in broad categories for gasoline components. 

Specifically, the legislation states that the benzene level in the formula fuel `shall 

not exceed 1 percent by volume,' but EPA can require further reductions. The bill 

states that aromatic hydrocarbon content `shall not exceed 25 percent by 

volume,' but EPA could determine that further reductions in aromatics are 

possible. ARCO, for example, is now marketing a reformulated gasoline which has 

just 20 percent aromatic content. This could well become the standard for the 

formula fuel and all reformulated gasoline. Finally, the formula referred to in the 

legislation states that the oxygen content `shall equal or exceed 2 percent by 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 98 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
weight,' EPA could require additional oxgen content if it determines that more 

oxygen will effect greater reductions in ozone forming VOC's and toxics. 

The objective of the formula is to establish environmentally sound standards for 

the most critical components of gasoline. If EAP determines that a more stringent 

fuel formula will yield additional environmnetal benefits, the Administrator must, 

under this provision, adjsut the formula accordingly. 

With the passage of this bill, Congress has concluded that replacing highly toxic 

and reactive octane boosters in gasoline with oxygenates will provide much 

cleaner, safer gasoline and tremendous reductions in ozone. First, the dramatic 

CO reductions, which is a catalyst in the formation of urban ozone, achieved 

through the use of oxygenates will have a beneficial impact on ozone. Moreover, 

researchers have concluded that exposure to carbon monoxide is a serious public 

health concern. Even low levels of CO exacerbate cardiovasucular diseases, 

impairs aerobic capacity, visual perception, manual dexterity, and learning ability, 

thus CO emission reduction will reduce public health risks associated with 

gasoline. 

Second, oxygenates reduce exhaust VOC emissions. As gasoline in reformulated to 

reduce more reactive octane boosers, the beneficial impact of oxygenates will be 

realized. In fact, 

oxygenates are the least reactive octane enhancers currently available. One 

recent study demonstrated that if oxygenates are used to replace petroleum 

based octane such as xylene, VOC emissions are reduced more than 10 percent. 

Finally, EPA has reported that 50 percent of all toxic related cancer deaths are 

caused by gasoline emissions. The reason for this is the increasing levels of toxics 

used to boost octane in today's gasoline. As a result, the legislation requires that 

toxic levels be reduced year round. As oxygenates provide octane without the 

public health consequences associated with petrochemically derived octane 

boosters such as benzene, the legislation similarly requires that oxygenates be 

used year round to assure that the public health objectives of the bill are realized. 

In addition to these environmental reasons for the requirement to use oxygen in 

reformulated gasolines, the energy security value of replacing petrochemically 

derived octane with alternative fuels is a critical concern. EPA has concluded that 

the oxygen requirements of the clean air legislation will displace more than 

500,000 barrels of oil a day in the near term, and as much as 3 million barrels a 

day when fully implemented. In the absence of a specific oxygen requirement, 

however, these benefits would not be realized, and in fact, oil utilization could 

increase as alkylation further reduces the output of gasoline from each barrel of 

crude oil. 

Because of the serious public health consequences of benzene, the legislation also 

contains a specific requirement to dramatically reduce benzene levels in gasoline. 

Benzene, a known carcinogen, is used by oil refiners to increase octane levels in 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 99 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
gasoline. The average gallon of gasoline sold today contains 2 to 3 percent 

benzene. Some high octane grades of gasoline, however, can contain as much as 

5 percent benzene. However, many refineries today produce gasolines with less 

than 1 percent benzene, and all refineries can meet the standard with only minor 

changes to the refinery operations. 

Over the past several years, in response to the lead-phasedown mandated by EPA 

and in order to maximize gasoline octane, the major oil refineries have 

dramatically increased the levels of aromatic compounds--known collectively as 

BTX. Aromatics are highly toxic, particularly benzene, a known carcinogen. Other 

aromatics, such as xylene, are also highly reactive which exacerbates ozone 

pollution. As a result, in the prescribed formula for reformulated gasoline which 

EPA will use to measure relative pollution benefits of various fuel formulations, the 

legislation has specifically capped aromatic levels at 25 percent. 

According to recent EPA estimates, almost 19 million metric tons of VOC's are 

emitted into the atmosphere each year in this country, and more than one-third of 

them, 6.5 million metric tons, are attributable to highly photo-reactive aromatics 

such as xylene in today's gasoline. A 25-percent cap on aromatics would result in 

approximately 4 billion gallons less aromatic production annually. But even if the 

formula is not utilized, if gasoline marketers can satisfy the requirements of the 

legislation by meeting the other performance standards, it is clear that aromatic 

content will have to be reduced. And this will have an immediate positive impact 

on our Nation's health and environment. 

As reformulated gasolines will provide the most cost-effective and environmentally 

responsible pollution reductions strategy available to ozone nonattainment areas, 

the bill allows all other ozone nonattainment areas to opt-in to the program 

beginning January 1, 1995, provided EPA is satisfied that sufficient supplies of 

reformulated gasolines could be made available. By encouraging other areas to 

opt-in to the program, the legislation will dramatically improve fuel quality 

nationwide. 

The legislation protects against the transfer of toxic, ozone forming components in 

gasoline from nonattainment areas to attainment areas by establishing procedures 

for the Administrator to determine a baseline chemical composition for gasoline 

sold or introduced into commerce by a refiner, blended, or importer in 1990. The 

regulations provide that fuel sold by such refiner, blender, or importer not 

increase emissions of VOC's, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, or toxic air 

pollutants except that increases in emissions of oxides of nitrogen attributable to 

the addition of oxygenates can be offset by resulting reductions in VOC's, carbon 

monoxide, or toxic air pollutants. 

In short, the reformulated gasoline requirements will provide security--

environmental security by reducing CO, VOC's and toxics, and energy security by 

extending each barrel of crude oil and increasing our use of domestically produced 

alternative fuels. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 100 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
`Oxygenated' fuels produce a reduction in CO emissions directly related to the 

leaning effect they have on a vehicle's engine. This linear relationship between 

oxygen and CO reductions means that the percentage of oxygen by weight in the 

automobile's final fuel determines the amount of CO emissions reduction. In order 

to achieve the greatest level of CO reduction, without disrupting current 

oxygenate markets, the legislation prohibits the sale of gasoline in carbon 

monoxide nonattainment areas that do not contain at least 2.7 percent oxygen 

beginning in 1992. 

Cold ambient temperatures and atmospheric temperature inversions are critical 

factors in carbon monoxide pollution formation. As a result, virtually all carbon 

monoxide exceedences are observed during the months between October and 

April when climatic changes occur. Under the legislation, the 

Administrator is given some flexibility in determining the actual portion of the year 

in which the area is prone the high ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide to 

determine the length of the oxygenated fuels program. The Administrator should 

err on the side of environmental certainty, and should avoid setting widely 

differing program periods for each CO nonattainment area which will create a 

patchwork of gasoline regulatory requirements. Such a situation would be a 

impractical, unnecessary, and confusing for both consumers and gasoline 

marketers alike. In any event, the legislation stipulates that the timeframe for the 

program is not to be less than 4 months. 

In order to provide gasoline marketers with maximum flexibility, the legislation 

instructs the Administrator to promulgate regulations `allowing the use of 

marketable oxygen credits from fuels with higher oxygen content than required to 

offset the sale or use of fuels with a lower oxygen content than required.' 

However, credits may be traded only while the program is in effect, and only 

within each nonattainment area, not between nonattainment areas. 

The legislation includes a requirement to label oxygenated fuels at retail. The goal 

of the labeling provision is to encourage consumers to purchase these fuels and to 

educate them as to the environmental benefits of their use. For years, many 

States have required pump labeling of only ethanol blends. In addition to creating 

an antiethanol bias, State labeling laws serve as a platform for oil companies to 

conduct antiethanol advertising. The presence of `No Alcohol' signs in conjunction 

with ethanol labels only serves to fuel consumer misperception that ethanol blends 

should be avoided. The simple, uniform pump label for all oxygenates required by 

this legislation will eliminate the current confusion created by the existing 

patchwork of State labeling provisions which are both misleading and deleterious 

to the national goal of encouraging the use of oxygenated fuels. 

The net effect of these provisions is to create a tremendous new market 

opportunity for ethanol and ETBE-blended gasolines. Industry has estimated that 

the near-term impact of the CO program will result in an additional 500 to 600 

million gallons of ethanol demand annually, utilizing between 200 and 240 million 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 101 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
bushels of corn. Moreover, the reformulated gasoline requirements effective in 

1995 will provide an additional market opportunity for ethanol manufactured into 

ETBE--ethyl tertiary butyl ether. Because of its lower volatility and superior 

blending characteristics, ETBE may prove to be a more valuable octane/oxygenate 

fuel additive than MTBE, the petroleum derived oxygenate manufactured today by 

several major oil companies. 

Most importantly, however, is the fact that Americans across the country will 

enjoy cleaner, safer air while actually reducing our growing dependence on 

imported oil. In fact, as a direct result of the oxygen standard established in this 

legislation, CO nonattainment areas will realize a net reduction of more than 2.5 

billion tons of carbon monoxide emissions--approximately 14 percent of the total 

CO emissions in those areas. The oxygenated fuel performance standard alone, 

will yield enough CO reduction to bring all CO nonattainment areas into 

compliance. At the same time, ozone nonattainment areas into compliance. At the 

same time, ozone nonttainment areas will reduce the toxic, ozone-forming 

aromatics by more than 4 billion gallons annually--providing a dramatic step 

forward for our Nation's health and environment. 

With regard to energy security, a recent analysis completed by the U.S. EPA 

determined that the oxygenated fuels and reformulated gasoline provisions of the 

Clean Air Act would displace more than twice the amount of oil that we have been 

importing from Iraq and Kuwait. The study concluded that between 800,000 and 

1.5 billion barrels of oil per day would be replaced by the increased use of 

alternative fuels such as ethanol upon passage of this important legislation. 

Finding the proper balance between establishing sound environmental standards 

for gasoline while providing appropriate industry flexibility in meeting those 

standards was a particularly difficult assignment. But I believe this agreement has 

achieved those diverse objectives, and I urge my colleagues to support it. 

Finally, Mr. Speaker, with respect to subsection 183(e), I want to observe that the 

term `consumer and commercial products' for purposes of this subsection is 

extremely broad. Except for certain specific items listed at the end of the 

definition, such products include any substance, product, or article the use, 

consumption, storage, disposal, destruction, or decomposition of which results in 

the release of VOC's. The specification of some products in the definition; that is, 

`including paints, coatings, and solvents * * * any container or packaging,' is not 

intended to exclude other products or detract from the breadth of this definition. 

Indeed, according to OTA's `Catching Our Breath' report, industrial solvent use 

accounts for the largest percentage of total solvent use in nonattainment areas. 

Thus, for example, substances and products used in industrial applications are 

obviously an important area for study and regulation under this subsection. 

[Page: H12880]

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 

California [Mr. Waxman], for purposes of a colloquy. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 102 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permisison to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify two points regarding the consumer 

products provision in title I. 

Section 183(e)(9) requires consultation with EPA when a State plans to regulate 

VOC emissions from consumer or commercial products. The provision is intended 

to create a clearinghouse of information to encourage national uniformity. It is not 

intended to preempt or otherwise limit the authority of States to propose or adopt 

regulations affecting such products, either before or after EPA adopts regulations. 

Is this correct? 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WAXMAN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Michigan. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the distinguished gentleman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, section 183(e)(3) limits EPA regulation to product 

categories which account for at least 80 percent of the VOC emissions, on a 

reactivity-adjusted basis, in ozone nonattainment areas. Credit toward the 80 

percent threshold should be given to emission reductions from any consumer or 

commercial products made after enactment of this bill, not solely from products 

that would otherwise be regulated. 

Is this correct? 

[Page: H12881]

Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman will yield further, I agree with the gentleman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma 

[Mr. Synar]. 

(Mr. SYNAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. SYNAR. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me join in the congratulations of our 

chairman, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the gentleman from 

California [Mr. Waxman], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lent], and all of 

those Members who have worked so hard to get us to this day. 

Let me take this opportunity to also thank the members of the staff in both the 

majority and the minority, both House and the Senate for the excellent job they 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 103 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
have done, I want to particularly thank Ruth Fleischer on my staff who worked so 

hard, as well as Rick Young, Bob Roach, Jeff Clark, and David Berrick. 

As our Nation begins its journey through the decade of the 1990's, it is clear that 

protecting the environment of our country and of this planet has become a 

foremost goal. 

I am particularly proud of the postive impact that this clean air bill will have on my 

own home State of Oklahoma. Finally, the city of Tulsa will attain the status of a 

clean air city which it has long deserved. 

The alternative fuels and reformulated gas provisions will allow us to ensure that 

the State of Oklahoma's natural gas industry, propane industry, and reformulated 

gas industry will have a role in our Nation's future energy mix. 

Oklahoma ratepayers will be happy to know that they will not see skyrocketing 

rates because of this legislation. 

These provisions and others will guarantee a cleaner Oklahoma, a healthier 

Oklahoma, and a more economically viable Oklahoma. 

This clean air bill will be the benchmark of this Nation's commitment to its 

environment. This clean air bill set the standard by which we will judge all future 

environmental legislation in the decade of the 1990's, and this clean air bill will be 

an announcement to the rest of the world of our Nation's intent to keep our 

promise to preserve this planet. 

•

Mr. Speaker, this is an historic day for the Congress. We are acting on the 

conference report on the Clean Air Act reauthorization, the single most 

sweeping piece of environmental legislation we have ever passed. When the 

Energy and Commerce Committee began its work on the bill almost 2 years 

ago, not one of us was certain that all the extremely contentious issues that 

were raised could be resolved. But the Nation is lucky. Not only were these 

issues dealt with, but the results are superior.

•

In addition to updating our current program for controlling ozone emissions, 

the new law deals with subjects never before regulated by the Federal 

Government. These include entirely new schemes for regulating toxic air 

pollutants, combating acid rain, and producing new, much cleaner vehicle 

fuels.

•

These innovations should produce significantly more healthful air and give 

rise to new or revitalized industries. While the costs of the bill are extensive, 

they will be phased in over a 15-year period. Conferees took care to make 

the bill's requirements as cost-effective and efficient as possible. The new 

emissions trading provisions of the acid rain title are an example of this 

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 104 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
approach and should provide a model for future environmental problems such 

as global warming.

The bill provides a significant boost for the Oklahoma natural gas industry 

which provides great clean air benefits, both as a vehicle fuel in a new 

generation of clean cars and trucks, and as a substitute for coal in utility and 

industrial boilers in order to combat acid rain.

•

Fortunately, the city of Tulsa will be off the ozone nonattainment list before 

the Clean Air Act of 1990 is enacted. This means that Tulsa, having come into 

compliance with the 1977 act and for as long as it remains in compliance, will 

escape the new requirements of the new ozone title. However, the bill 

contains language establishing a transitional category for cities like Oklahoma 

City which are currently close to attaining clean air standards.

•

The fuels section contains new requirements for the reformulation of gasoline 

to reduce its pollution. The two-pronged program covers both ozone and 

carbon monoxide nonattainment areas with varying requirements phasing in 

beginning in 1992 for carbon monoxide and 1995 for ozone. The conferees 

wisely chose to include language requiring the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency to determine if supplies of oxygenates are 

sufficient to meet the requirements of this title and not cause disruptions in 

the supply of gasoline. While I strongly support the goals of the reformulated 

gasoline title, I urge the EPA Adminstrator to exercise caution in applying its 

requirements in order to avoid this drawback.

•

I am pleased that the conferees included several provisions in the bill which I 

advocated that will have a great impact on important Oklahoma industries. 

These are: exemptions for stripper well emissions for well located in marginal 

and moderate ozone nonattainment areas and all but the most populous 

ones; new requirements for

•

•

alternative fuels which allow clean compressed natural gas and propane to 

participate in both the car and truck programs; flexible provisions, including 

the use of equivalent formulae, for meeting the reformulated gasoline 

requirements; new studies prior to the regulation of hydrofluoric acid, an 

important component of reformulated gasoline; language to prevent the 

aggregation of oil or gas wells located in the same field that might otherwise 

have triggered the provisions of the toxics title; use of allowable and not 

actual emissions for computation of acid rain allowances to avoid penalizing 

States like Oklahoma whose economies were depressed in the base years; 

and, finally, efforts along with other clean State members, to insure we got 

our fair share of acid rain allowances and could grow in the future.

•

Two further issues were especially vital to me and reflected the work of the 

Government Operations' Subcommittee on Environment, Energy and Natural 

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 105 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Resources which I chair. The first relates to national park and wilderness 

visibility. The original amendment which I offered with Congressman Wyden

grew out of hearings held before the subcommittee last March. Unfortunately, 

the conferees chose to accept the weaker and more limited Senate version 

which fails to deal with the prevention of significant deterioration issue raised 

in our hearing and in a GAO report prepared for our subcommittee. I hope 

the Congress can revisit the issue in the near future to insure clean air for 

our Nation's most treasured areas.

The second issue deals with radionuclides, which are radioactive air pollutants 

regulated by the EPA. I am pleased that the conferees agreed to limit 

changes proposed by the Senate which would have undermined EPA's 

authority to regulate these pollutants.

•

The conferees agreed to require the EPA Administrator to determine, through 

rulemaking, whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulations for 

radioactive air pollutants meet the Clean Air Act's test of protecting public 

health. Nuclear medical research and treatment facilities will have up to 2 

years to make their case to EPA to exempt them, by this rulemaking, from 

Clean Air Act regulation.

•

The conferees agreed that Department of Energy facilities, which I have 

examined in many hearings over the last 3 years, must comply fully with the 

new amendments and gave EPA discretion to apply the new amendments to 

coal-fired boilers, underground and surface uranium mines, and mill tailings 

piles.

•

In short, while this bill is not without new economic costs, it also presents 

many new economic opportunities which the people of Oklahoma and the 

Nation must be bold enough to seize. And it promises a clean healthy 

environment for all of us.

•

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SYNAR. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota. 

(Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman for his statement and 

I concur in it. 

•

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990.

•

The passage of this long overdue bill will have a profound effect on the health 

and quality of life of the people of this Nation. By breaking the decade of 

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 106 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
deadlock on clean air, we are making great progress toward fulfilling the 

promise made to the American people of clean, healthy air.

The bill before us is a strong and comprehensive rewrite of our outdated 

clean air laws. The bill is not perfect, and its passage will not automatically 

guarantee clean air. Some of the provisions in the final conference report are 

stronger than the House-passed bill, some are weaker. The lack of protection 

for national parks and wilderness area is a serious omission in the conference 

report. On balance, however, the bill is a vast improvement of our clean air 

laws.

•

Even with the passage of this bill today, we will face a significant task in 

fulfilling the promise of healthy air for the American people. We cannot rest 

our clean air laurels on a single law. The assault on our environment is 

dynamic and ever-changing and we must defend the quality of our air with 

constant vigilance. We must be vigorous in overseeing the implementation of 

the new law. The Environmental Protection Agency's enforcement of the 

Clean Air Act has been at its best spotty and at its worst, dismal.

•

•

Many people have contributed to the historic legislation we are considering 

today. In particular, I commend the chairman and ranking member of the 

Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell and Mr. Lent, for their 

patience and dedication to achieving passage of a new clean air act. The 

chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, Mr. 

Waxman, has done an outstanding job and has been a real hero for 

environmental concerns relative to this clean air measure. These and other 

members and their staffs have labored for thousands of hours on what has 

been called the most complex piece of environmental legislation ever passed. 

If politics is the art of compromise, this bill is the Mona Lisa of environmental 

law. Mr. Speaker, I commend and congratulate our Minnesota colleague 

Gerry Sikorski for the success he has achieved in a special role as a 

member of the conference and principal sponsor of the acid deposition 

provisions of this measure before us today.

•

Mr. Speaker, I have had a longstanding interest in improving air quality. I 

come from a State which proudly places a premium on natural resource 

values. Minnesotans have a strong conservation and environmental ethic. 

Minnesotans do not take clean air and clean water for granted. They expect 

and demand sound State and National law and policy to achieve and maintain 

clean air. Naturally we are concerned about acid rain in the fragile lakes in 

northern Minnesota, or about health advisories for fish caught in Lake 

Superior because of airborne toxic contamination. Minnesota has strong 

environmental laws, including one of the few State acid rain control laws in 

the country, but air quality doesn't began and end within the confines of a 

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 107 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
State or the boundary of our Nation. Clearly this issue of air quality must be 

addressed nationally and internationally.

I have attempted to take an active role in congressional efforts to overhaul 

the Clean Air Act. In 1980 our first success was with building the foundation 

of information with a new data base provision which focused on both acid 

deposition and carbon dioxide. I was pleased to sponsor and vote for this 

building block. In 1982, Jerry Lewis and I introduced the Commitment to 

the Clean Air Act Resolution, a proposal which garnered the bipartisan 

support of over 100 Members of Congress. In 1985, my Subcommittee on 

National Parks and Recreation investigated the impacts of air pollution on

•

•

national park units which reflect the adverse impacts of air pollution from 

visibility to physical ozone problems. These hearings documented the 

deterioration of cultural resources and the impaired visibility occurring at our 

Nation's crown jewels, the national parks. I have long worked on and 

cosponsored legislation to control acid deposition and pay for it in an 

equitable fashion. At one point introducing my own legislation on the topic.

•

In 1987, my colleague Bill Green and I sent out a letter calling on the 

Energy and Commerce Committee to report out strong and comprehensive 

legislation to reauthorize our Nation's clean air laws. The Vento-Green letter 

identified the serious air quality problems facing our Nation at the time--

smog, acid rain, ozone depletion, and global warming, airborne toxics and air 

pollution in pristine areas. The letter suggested broad goals for pollution 

reduction as well as specific targets and means of meeting those targets. Two 

hundred and thirty Members--a bipartisan majority--signed our letter. The 

letter served as a strong message for this Congress, that a majority wanted 

and would support a strong new clean air act and that those who delayed or 

frustrated action could not hide or deny the House its will to enact a new, 

good, clean air law.

•

Although no clean air legislation was passed in the 100th Congress, the Vento

-Green letter was a strong and clear demonstration of the significant support 

that existed in the House for a timely and tough clean air act. It reflected the 

deep feelings of the American people about the importance of clean air. The 

American people were tired of breathing dirty air and they wanted their 

Government to act. Another Vento-Green letter was sent last year urging 

President Bush to submit strong and comprehensive clean air legislation to 

the House. This letter again received strong bipartisan support. The 

submission of a bill by President Bush was a welcome change from the 

negative environmental leadership exhibited by the Reagan administration. 

The 1989 President's bill finally set the stage for House and Senate action on 

this complex issue. A final Vento-Green letter was sent last November

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 108 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
•

urging the Energy and Commerce Committee to complete its consideration of 

the clean air bill in a timely fashion. Again garnering good support, I'm 

certain that my collegues have signed many letters for Vento/Green, but 

today we can testify to the positive results from our effort.

•

Mr. Speaker, the length and complexity of this bill prohibit me from 

explaining the many important changes contained in it which will clean our 

nation's air. The bill sets in place new requirements for the control of 

emissions from mobile sources, which cause 50 percent of urban ozone 

pollution. Tighter tailpipe emissions standards for cars and trucks would be 

phased in between 1994 and 1998. The California pilot program and a new 

fleet program will promote the development of clean fueled vehicles. 

Reformulated gasoline will be required in the nine smoggiest cities. New 

actions would be required for carbon monxide nonattainment areas such as 

my district of St. Paul, MN.

•

The acid rain program was carefully developed to achieve the reductions in 

emissions needed to protect public health while being fair to States which will 

have to bear the disproportionate share of the burden for reducing acid rain. 

The program will achieve a 10 million ton reduction in sulfur dioxide and a 

large reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions. I'm glad that the incentive 

program for utilities to use energy conservation and renewable energy to 

achieve emissions reductions has been expanded. This bill also establishes a 

program to regulate 189 toxic substances which are responsible for 

thousands of cancer cases annually. Smaller sources of toxic pollution such 

as printers, bakers, dry cleaners, and gas stations would also be regulated. 

Under the bill, these small businesses have the right to seek help from State 

environmental agencies in understanding what they must do to comply with 

the new law.

•

•

Although I am going to support this bill, I find it necessary to point out the 

dramatic and serious changes that have been made to the national parks and 

wilderness area provisions that were included in the House-passed version of 

the bill. I want to make it clear to my colleagues that the conference 

committee report absolutely eviscerates the clean air protection provisions 

for parks and wilderness areas.

•

As chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, I have 

on many occasions received the testimony of Federal land managers and 

public witnesses and have seen first hand the evidence of the degradation of 

our national parks and wilderness areas resulting from current air quality 

standards. In fact, National Park Service surveys have cited poor air quality 

as the most frequent threat to the physical resources of the National Park 

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 109 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
System. Whether it is the adverse effects of visibility at Grand Canyon and 

Shenandoah National Parks or the physical damage to trees and other plant 

life at Acadia, Glacier, and Mt. Rainier National Parks, problems associated 

with the degradation of air quality in America's special places are found from 

sea to sea.

The bill we have before us no longer holds the bright promise of protecting 

the air quality of our national parks and wilderness areas. The protection so 

painfully crafted by the House for these areas is no longer in the bill. The bill 

no longer provides new protection to class I and II areas that are at risk. 

And, for class I areas, the bill abandons raising the visibility protection 

standard to the same level as the air quality standard. These changes are 

extremely ill advised and will lead to continued deterioration of some of the 

resources Americans hold most dear.

•

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to ensure 

improve air quality for all Americans. The benefits of this landmark legislation 

will be felt in our lungs, pocketbooks and our natural environment well into 

the 21st century.

•

[Page: H12882]

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 

from Oregon [Mr. Wyden]. 

(Mr. WYDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

[Page: H12883]

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation as a conferee. 

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here to see 10 years work in the Commerce 

Committee about to bear fruit. 

When Congress passed the Clean Air Acts of 1970 and 1977, it had a simple goal: 

clean, healthy air for everyone. Over the years, the Clean Air Act has reduced 

pollution. But it's never done the whole job. 

Nearly 150 million Americans live in areas that haven't met the basic standards for 

two common pollutants: ozone, a component of smog, and carbon monoxide. My 

home district's air still exceeds those standards 1 or 2 days each year. And 

Oregon has some serious problems associated with smoke from woodstoves and 

field burning. 

Another disappointment has been EPA's failure to deal with a broad range of toxic 

chemicals in the air. In Oregon alone, over 20 million pounds of industrial toxics 

were reported discharged into the air in 1987. Nationwide, these discharges, along 

with toxics from car and truck exhausts, are blamed for causing 1,600 to 3,000 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 110 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
cancers a year. Yet, of the hundreds of potential toxic chemicals in air pollution, 

EPA has regulated only seven since 1970. 

EPA has also failed miserably to implement the visibility protection provisions we 

wrote in 1977. In 13 years, not one polluter has had to cut back under those laws. 

Also, we are grappling now with problems few had heard of when the act was first 

written: acid rain and destruction of the ozone layer. 

The act we lay before the House today is our response to those problems. We've 

written tough standards to clean up city air. We have a list of 189 toxics that EPA 

will have to regulate. And we have a truly ground-breaking program to reduce the 

pollution causing acid rain. 

I'd like to take a few moments to discuss in more detail some of the provisions I 

gave special attention to during conference deliberations. 

As the sponsor of the park protection amendments in the House bill, I was active 

in representing the House in negotiations with 

the Senate on these and related PSD issues. That included negotiation on the 

amendments to the visibility protection program and the amendment to the 

definition of best available control technology [BACT]. 

The House agreed to accept the Senate language on both these provisions. The 

House was concerned that the change in the definition of BACT might be 

construed to allow relatively low-sulfur coal to be used as a substitute for control 

technology in regions of the country that currently require new sources to use 

both low-sulfur fuel and controls. However, the Senate assured us that this 

change was not intended to allow States to relax the level of performance now 

required of new plants. 

The Senate explanation seems to square with the Environmental Protection 

Agency's view of this provision, as described by Assistant Administrator Rosenberg 

in an October 17 letter to myself and Mr. Waxman. We asked the agency what 

the impact of the Senate's language might be on emissions from new plants. Mr. 

Rosenberg replied as follows: 

In analyzing the impact of the Senate bill on the electric utility sector, EPA 

assumed that the additional language would have no real impact on BACT 

determinations. In determining what BACT should be for a particular facility, the 

permitting authority would take into account the inherent `cleanliness' of a fuel 

(i.e. a naturally low sulfur content) just as the permitting authority currently takes 

into account the `cleanliness' of a fuel achieved through fuel cleaning or treatment 

in making BACT determinations. EPA views this amendment as merely codifying 

its present practice, which holds that clean fuels are an available means of 

reducing emissions to be considered along with other approaches in identifying 

BACT level controls. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 111 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
With the assurance of both the Senate and EPA that this would not allow lowsulfur coal alone to qualify as BACT in regions where both low-sulfur coal and 

technical controls have been required, we accepted the Senate language. 

On the issue of visibility protection, as the floor debate in each body indicates, 

both House and Senate agreed strongly on the need to address this problem. 

EPA's record on implementation of the visibility provisions of the 1977 clean air 

amendments has been disappointing. 

Neither the original House language nor the Senate language adopted in 

conference repealed or lessened EPA's obligations under the 1977 law, and I 

encourage EPA to implement that law fully as soon as possible. In fact, the 

amendments to section 304 in the enforcement title of these amendments should 

make EPA's failure to complete regulations after the 13 years actionable as 

unreasonable delay. If missing a 2-year deadline by 11 years is not unreasonable, 

I'm not sure what is. 

The conference language on visibility requires EPA to establish a research 

program. Under this program, EPA with other agencies can 

continue to gather baseline data needed to measure reasonable progress toward 

the 1977 visibility goals. EPA can also accelerate study of individual sources to 

determine whether existing plume blight regulations apply. 

The conference language sets up a regional commission mechanism that will 

encourage EPA to tailor make regulations to address specific regional problems. 

This language contemplates EPA establishing clean air corridors and requiring 

offsets, alternative siting analysis, and other part D style measures of sources 

locating in such corridors. The current Clean Air Act section 169A(a)(4) empowers 

EPA to adopt such measures to assure reasonable progress. 

Clean air corridors are airsheds with few sources of visibility-impairing pollutants. 

Air moving in from these corridors provides the clearest viewing days in class I 

areas. The corridors are not buffer zones referred to in section 169A(e). 

Finally, the language provides for better notice to Federal land managers of new 

pollution sources that might affect public lands. It also directs Federal land 

managers to actively identify those air-quality related values of their lands that 

are vulnerable to air pollution. Knowing the sensitivities of their lands will, we 

hope, make the land managers more alert to potential threats. This language does 

not prevent a land manager from identifying a new value at risk in response to a 

new permit application and acting to protect that value in a permit proceeding. 

I was also active, with Mr. Boucher, in negotiations over the small business 

provisions in title V. The point of these provisions is to ensure that the thousands 

of small businesses regulated under this act will not be tossed into the same 

bureaucratic ocean as the multibillion-dollar industrial giants. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 112 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
The provision requires States to establish small business stationary source 

technical and environmental compliance assistance programs. These programs will 

be set up in advance of the State permit programs to help small businesses begin 

to comply early, and to help them have a greater say in the design of the general 

State permit programs and other parts of the State regulatory system. 

These programs will help small businesses get information both about the 

technical side of pollution control and the procedural side. Together, this 

information should improve compliance with the act. 

The provision should also help State regulators get more input from small sources 

and make the regulators more sensitive to the abilities and needs of small 

business. The conference language encourages flexibility in applying the act to 

small sources, though no weakening of the act's standards should be implied. 

EPA is directed to help the States implement this program. Though the conference 

language does not expressly require EPA to maintain a national clearinghouse on 

small source compliance technology directly available to small sources, this would 

be a 

logical and helpful step for the agency to take under section 507(b). 

The eligibility provisions were painstakingly crafted to capture those small sources 

most in need of assistance. The States and EPA have the flexibility to adjust 

eligibility to the program. And of course, nothing in the language prohibits a State 

from granting technical or compliance advice to any other sources, as the State 

sees fit. 

The Compliance Assistance Panel called for in subsection (e) is an essential 

component of any State assistance program--without a panel to provide guidance 

and feedback, it would be difficult to ensure that a program would adequately 

address the needs of small business stationary sources. EPA should only approve 

State implementation plans that include compliance assistance panels. 

Finally, I note that the provision on fees allows reductions for small sources where 

appropriate. The State has some flexibility, under the general permit fee 

provisions, to adjust fee levels for any source so long as the average fee charged 

meets the statutory minimum. 

While on the subject of permit fees, I would like to make a general observation on 

State authority here. The House insisted that State fees be limited to an amount 

necessary to cover the direct and indirect costs of the permit program. We did not 

wish the fee provision to be any more than a user fee to cover expenses. 

But this should not be read as an attempt to limit a State's inherent powers to 

levy taxes should a State so choose. I doubt that we could constitutionally 

interfere with that. If a State wished to levy a pollution tax independent of its 

States implementation plan, nothing in this bill would prevent it. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 113 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
I was also active in negotiations in the toxics title, especially concerning regulation 

of radionuclides. The Senate was concerned about dual regulation of radionuclides 

by EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I would observe that even when 

pursuing apparently the same standard of protecting the public health, EPA has 

tended to set better, more protective standards and has had better enforcement 

efforts and mechanisms than NRC. I would encourage the Administrator to not 

abdicate the agency's regulatory role here lightly. 

I am particularly pleased that we managed to convince the Senate not to 

grandfather the Department of Energy's activities under the old toxics laws. The 

Department is, in effect, a multibillion dollar industry handling some of the most 

toxic materials known to man. It's safety record has been deplorable, both with 

radioactive materials and with conventional toxics, such as beryllium. I encourage 

EPA to regulate these facilities promptly under the new law. 

I wish to touch briefly on the provision of the acid rain title defining `baseline,' 

where an explanation of the conferees' 

deliberations might provide some guidance to the Administrator. 

The Senate-passed language gave the Administrator broad discretion to adjust 

baselines of plants experiencing long outages. The House language required 

adjustments for plants down more than 4 months. 

The conferees agreed that the Administrator should give full allowances to baseload plants but should not give windfall allowances to peaking plants designed to 

have outages. As we could not agree on precise legislative language on the point, 

we agreed to give the Administrator discretion and to provide the best guidance 

we could in the statement of managers. 

I would hope the Administrator is sensitive to the conferees' intent and provides 

reasonable allowances to plants like the Boardman plant in my home State, which 

was designed as a base-load plant but was down for extended periods in the 

baseline years. 

Mr. Speaker, as I noted before, this is a ground-breaking public health bill. 

Change won't come overnight. It will take years for all cities to meet the basic 

urban smog standards. The toxic regulations for all those chemicals will take 

almost a decade to put in place. And under the most optimistic projections, we 

won't have full acid rain control until after the turn of the century. But this new act 

will renew the promise Congress made in 1970: healthy air for all Americans. 

[Page: H12884]

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 

from Maryland [Mr. McMillen]. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 114 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
(Mr. McMILLEN of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend 

his remarks.) 

Mr. McMILLEN of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 

report. 

•

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990. After 20 years of intense, sometime fierce debate, the 

Congress of the United States has risen to the challenge and agreed to 

sweeping changes to the air quality laws of the United States. I salute the 

efforts of the conferees--most notably Mr. Dingell from the House contingent 

to the conference. Your task was not an easy one, and I tip my hat to you for 

your extraordinary accomplishment.

•

As a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I am pleased 

to see that much of the work of the House committee remained through 

conference. Along with Representative Sikorski of Minnesota, I authored am 

amendment to H.R. 3030 that required the EPA to study and regulate 

airborne toxics that `bioaccumulate' in fish and marine life. This provision in 

the clean air bill, helps us to preserve delicate ecosystems such as the 

Chesapeake Bay, an important part of my congressional district.

•

I am pleased that the conferees moved ahead so productively in the area of 

auto emissions. Important provisions were added to the final conference 

report that mandated clean fuels and clean cars. Comprehensive and 

progressive fleet provisions were put into place as part of the House-Senate 

compromise. While any successful clean air package is dependent on the 

mandatory participation of automobile fleets, we must not lose sight of the 

fact that car and truck fleets already--at this moment--contribute to cleaner 

air quality. Typically fleets are composed of late-model cars that are wellmaintained; certainly better maintained than the average family car. For 

these reasons, fleet autos are less likely to pollute the air than any 

representative sample of autos traveling American roadways. Further, fleets 

are composed of almost eclusively domestic cars--an added bonus when one 

considers our trade imbalance situation.

•

So, in the final analysis, we need to consider the many advantages of car and 

truck fleets before considering further regulations.

•

Again, I commend my colleagues for their monumental achievement in 

reaching an agreement, and I look forward to the speedy passage of this 

landmark bill.

•

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 

[Mr. McMillan], a member of the committee. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 115 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Mr. McMILLAN of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank and 

congratulate the chairman, ranking member, members of commitee and House 

conferees and their staff for the tremendous effort they put into this legislation. I 

know they spent endless hours defending the House provisions. As a result, we 

have the best--a bill that the House can support. 

I am proud to serve on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which hammered 

out a tough, but practical bill, H.R. 3030. My colleagues on the conference 

committee were able to hold the line in preserving its workability. 

Each one of us represents different parts of the Nation, with varying 

environmental problems and economies. Congress should not dilute our duty to be 

environmentally responsible and economically sound at the same time. I believe 

that tough standards can be achieved with flexibility built into the means. In fact, 

part of our challenge is to stimulate alternative and competitive means of meeting 

these standards. For the most part, the conference report embodies this 

philosophy. 

In closing, I would like to remind everyone of our individual responsibility in the 

challenge to clean up our environment. Government can do much, but prevention 

rests essentially in the people's hands--preventing it and paying for it. We are on 

the threshold of adopting and enforcing the toughest clean air standards in the 

world. I hope the public is prepared to pay the price. I urge my colleagues to 

support the conference report on S. 1630. 

Mr. DANNEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 

Miller]. 

(Mr. MILLER of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 

remarks.) 

Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on 

Clean Air Amendments of 1990. While no one questions the good intentions of this 

bill, it nevertheless will have a very adverse impact on the economy of this 

country and especially for those consumers in the Midwest in the form of much 

higher utility bills and it will especially pinch the wallets of those on limited 

incomes. 

Additionally, this bill further exacerbates an already bleak job picture for 

Appalachia miners. This bill also concerns me because it virtually ignores the 

results of the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program [NAPAP], a 10-year, 

$600 million study which the hardworking taxpayers of this country paid for and 

the bill may inadvertently kill an innovative and environmentally sound technology 

known as clean coal technology; a technology in which the hardworking taxpayer 

has already invested $1.3 billion, a technology which if allowed to fully develop, 

could provide cleaner air, cleaner soil, cleaner water, and at the same time offer 

efficiency increases of up to 150 percent over conventional technology, all at far 

less cost. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 116 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Mr. Speaker, now is not the time to be hampering technologies which would allow 

us to burn all of our domestic coal and develop energy independence. 

Innovative clean coal technology provides us with a responsible and lasting way to 

improve our environment while ensuring an abundant, secure, and cost effective 

source of energy. Not only could this technology make us a winner at home but it 

could make the United States a winner in the global market. Developing nations 

are dependent upon coal to meet their energy needs and the U.S. leadership in 

developing environmentally and economically effective technologies for the use of 

coal could help solve a major world resource issue. 

While I wish to thank the conferees for those provisions inserted which will ease 

the affects of this bill on the Midwest, I feel that we are rushing ahead of 

ourselves and ignoring the science behind this measure. Costly judgment are 

being made which in the long run could be ineffective and in the short run close 

down coal mines and put people out of work. For this reason I am compelled to 

vote no on this bill in support of my coal miners in Appalachia. 

[Page: H12885]

[TIME: 1750]

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mazzoli). The Chair would advise that the 

gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] has 19 minutes remaining, the gentleman 

from New York [Mr. Lent] has 18 1/2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 

California [Mr. Dannemeyer] has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. 

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 

Callahan], a member of the committee. 

(Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 

remarks.) 

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, there have been many skeptics that predicted we 

would not enact a clean air bill this year, but they have been proven wrong. They 

have been proven wrong because of the tenacity of the chairman of the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] 

and the ranking member of our committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 

Lent]. 

I commend them and commend all the other members of the conference 

committee who put in unbelievable hours in finalizing this bill. I especially 

commend the staff of our committee, who have spent untold hours, and who I 

hope will be able to get some badly needed sleep which will probably be on their 

agenda tonight. 

However, it has been a lengthy process in reaching this compromise, and no 

Member was totally successful in promoting his or her total interest, and I remain 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 117 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
concerned about the overall cost of the amendments that may be entailed for 

consumers. However, I believe this package represents the best efforts of a great 

many people. It deserves our support. It has had more hours of deliberations than 

any other measure that has come before this Congress probably in the past 

decade. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the conference report. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 

Washington [Mr. Swift]. 

(Mr. SWIFT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Speaker, we have heard some people on the floor who have 

indicated that they would like to have environmental protection at no cost at all. I 

wish that were true. I wish that I was rich and handsome and 35 again. I wish 

there was no poverty or hunger in this world. I wish Saddam Hussein would 

withdraw, and our troops could come home. I wish that people who think we can 

have environmental protection as a free lunch would understand how silly that is. 

A group of Members worked very hard on title I, the nonattainment sections, and 

one of the things we were concerned about was making this as cost effective as 

we could while meeting the goal. We succeeded in that, and what we proposed is 

largely what is contained in the legislation. 

It was the EPA who said that that particular proposal was successful in reducing 

urban smog, as the most environmentally stringent bill introduced in the last 

Congress, and also at the least cost to the economy. It can be done, and it has 

been done time and time again in this legislation. But why can it not be free? 

Because we are trying to address some standards. What are the standards? They 

are absolute standards. They are not cost-benefit standards. They are absolute 

standards. What are the standards? That the air that Americans breathe must be 

healthy. 

I have talked to a lot of people who are going to pay a lot of money to make this 

possible. The automobile industry, the utility industry, and others in this city over 

the last 2 or 3 years. I have said, if they want to go to the American public with a 

cost-benefit ratio that says that if it costs too much, we will not have the air 

people breathe be healthy, but if they wish to go with that policy, they will at least 

be consistent. Then they can come and talk about it costing too much. However, 

unless they are willing to do that, and incidentally, I never had a single taker, then 

we are stuck with a standard that says the air must be, by medical definition, 

healthy to breathe. It is going to cost something. It is worth it. 

•

Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago in the closing days of the 100th Congress eight of 

my colleagues from the Energy and Commerce Committee and I introduced a 

clean air bill. Dubbed the `Group of Nine,' we spent close to a year learning 

the substance of the complex issue of urban smog in an effort to put together 

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 118 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
a proposal which might help bridge the gap separating those entrenched on 

opposite sides of the highly politicized decade-old clean air battle. Armed with 

substance, we developed what I believe was a reasonable approach that 

would achieve two goals: cleaner air and an efficient method of getting 

cleaner air. It was not our intention to introduce our proposal as legislation. 

Rather, we had hoped that the proposal might provide a vehicle for 

negotiations leading to a compromise bill. When it became clear that there 

was not to be a clean air bill in the 100th Congress, we officially introduced 

our legislation.

At that time we were frustrated by what we saw as the intransigence of 

extremists on both sides--industry and environmental--yet again preventing 

the passage of clean air legislation which was not wholly to their liking. The 

extremists included those who concerned themselves only with the cost of 

clean air, without regard for the cost having to breathe dirty air, as well as 

those who would sacrifice any progress toward cleaner air for perfection. 

These extremists outside of Congress had created a polarized political climate 

which made it virtually impossible for many Members of Congress to 

compromise. We were particularly frustrated because in the course of 

drafting our proposal we had met with reasonable voices from both camps 

who stood strongly for their positions yet sought to find new ways of 

achieving their goals.

•

But while the extremists may have won the battle in the 100th Congress, 

today's passage of the Clean Air Act amendments clearly demonstrates that 

they have lost the war. After over a decade of deadlock, we now have 

agreement on sweeping changes which strengthen our Nation's clean air law. 

The agreement is not only a victory for the American people, who will have 

cleaner air, but also for Congress as an institution. We have overcome vast 

political and regional differences to reach a compromise which balances the 

need for environmental protection against economic considerations and 

recognizes the disparate impact the bill will have on various regions of the 

country.

•

Crafting this complex piece of legislation has not been easy. Nor will 

everyone be pleased with the entire package. Industry and environmental 

groups both express displeasure with certain provisions of the bill. Indeed, 

there are provisions I would like to change. However, I believe the bill is 

environmentally strong, and represents a reasonable approach to achieving 

cleaner air.

•

This comprehensive legislation will reduce more air pollution caused by more 

substances from more sources, using bold new approaches, than ever before 

and will improve the quality of the air we breathe from coast to coast and do 

it in the most efficient and effective manner.

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 119 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
I am pleased that the final package includes in large measure the House 

provisions to title I. The provisions were drawn in large part from the 

proposal which the Group of Nine developed last Congress. These provisions 

were found by an EPA study to be as successful in reducing urban smog as 

the most environmentally stringent bill introduced last Congress, but did so 

at the least cost to the economy.

•

I am also pleased that the final package includes a version of the Wise 

amendment. Clearly there are costs associated with achieving clean air and it 

is irresponsible of us not to consider them. The Wise amendment recognizes 

that if the Government requires action to protect the environment, we have 

the responsibility to help families and communities that are adversely 

affected by that action. I hope that the concern that is being expressed in 

this context will be extended to the timber families and communities of the 

Pacific Northwest.

•

[Page: H12886]

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 

Pursell]. 

Mr. PURSELL. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990, I rise on behalf of Mr. Upton and myself in strong support 

of this conference report, and appreciate a colloquy with the gentleman from New 

York [Mr. Lent]. 

Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek clarification of two crucial provisions of the legislation 

that directly affects a publicly owned electric system in my district. The Michigan 

South Central Power Agency operates a 55-megawatt coal-fired generating plant 

that is a classic `little clean' under both versions of the legislation. Because of 

unavoidable technical problems with the plant's state-of-the-art pollution control 

equipment, the plant experienced abnormally low capacity factors in the baseline 

years 1985-87. As a result, under the standard formula contained in the bills, the 

plant would receive too few allowances to operate at efficient capacity. 

The legislation before us today would moderate the standard formula to reward 

public citizen efforts to clean up the air like those taken by the municipal system 

in my district. I would appreciate it if the gentleman would confirm my 

understanding that under sections 405(d)(4) and 402(r) of the legislation, 

allowances will be allocated to units which commenced commercial operation on or 

after January 1, 1981, and before December 31, 1985, on the basis of the 

qualifying plant's 1985 permitted, or allowable, emissions rate multiplied times a 

65-percent capacity factor, as opposed to the plant's acutal emissions rate in the 

baseline years. 

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. PURSELL. I yield to the gentleman from New York. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 120 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Mr. LENT. The gentleman from Michigan is correct. The legislation allocates 

allowances on the basis of such plant's federally enforceable 1985 permitted 

emissions rate and not the actual performance of the plant in the past. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 

Ohio [Mr. Eckart], who has been invaluable in helping to handle this legislation. 

(Mr. ECKART asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. ECKART. Mr. Speaker, `Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.' 

Mr. Speaker, a lot of people said it could not be done. Others said it would not be 

done. And a handful of naysayers, whispering behind their hands, said it should 

not be done. But we did it anyway. 

Today's action has been a long time coming, too long, but it is an action that was 

worth waiting for. The conference report on the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990 is an agreement of historic proportions--a measure that in a straightforward 

manner deals not only with complex and technical problems, but with legitimate 

and competing regional issues as well as divergent approaches and philosophies. 

Perhaps the regional differences were the most difficult. 

As Members of Congress, we all take an oath of office, in which we swear that our 

first allegiance will be to our Nation. Yet there may sometimes be tension between 

that promise and our promises to our constituencies--all politics is local, but the 

best policy may not always be--we must always strive to find the proper balance. 

I believe we have succeeded. The question of how best to control acid rain, who 

would pay and who would benefit, put us to the test, caused us to examine our 

interrelatedness. The questions were not easily answered, but I am satisfied that 

they were fairly answered. The Acid Rain Control Program adopted by the 

conferees will be tough on my region and my State, but our final agreement will 

help mitigate the adverse economic consequences while still achieving our goal of 

a 10 million ton reduction. 

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly proud that the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

will contain ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment provisions taken wholly 

from the House bill. Those provisions, known as the Swift-Eckart amendment to 

title 1, were the result of many long hours of negotiation that actually began 3 

years ago, with the efforts of nine members of the Energy and Commerce 

Committee who became known as the Group of Nine. 

The Group of Nine came together around one common goal--the fostering of a 

debate on clean air issues that could bring together those two clean air giants, 

Chairman Dingell and Chairman Waxman. We started with ozone and CO 

nonattainment, and we took a fresh approach. Our philosophy was that arbitrary 

deadlines and draconian sanctions cannot by themselves force attainment of the 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 121 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
clean air standards, rather, that improved planning and monitoring, strong and 

reasonable control measures geared to each nonattainment area's peculiar 

problems, and sanctions appropriate to the failure or violation, will meet with 

more success. That approach ultimately earned the approval not only of Mr. 

Dingell and Mr. Waxman, but of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the full 

House, and, finally, the other body. I am proud of the contribution the Group of 

Nine was able to make to the effort that has led us all to this day. 

Mr. Speaker, as a Member from a Great Lakes State, I am particularly pleased 

that, with the enactment of this legislation, we will at long last get an air toxics 

control program that works. We all know that current section 112 has been an 

abysmal failure. So far, under the old law, EPA has regulated only seven toxic air 

pollutants. Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, EPA will regulate 

approximately 200 listed air toxics, and must promulgate technical control 

requirements for sources of all those listed pollutants within 10 years after the 

date of enactment. Importantly, a Great Lakes specific study, monitoring network, 

and regulatory provision has been included in the air toxics agreement. This is 

great news for the Great Lakes, where the major source of pollution now is the air

--not polluted rivers or streams, not Superfund sites or landfills. 

One other provision of the air toxics agreement deserves special mention, Mr. 

Speaker, and that is the steel industry coke oven-specific regulatory program. Due 

to the enormous capital investment that will be required over the next decade of 

the American steel industry in order to clean it up and make it more efficient, the 

conferees felt it appropriate to extend the deadline for compliance with the 

residual risk standard for those coke ovens that would comply with a more 

stringent regulatory regimen in the earlier years. Some characteristics of this 

provision have created the inaccurate impression that the conferees have let the 

steel industry's coke ovens off the regulatory hook. Nothing could be further from 

the truth. Here are the facts: 

Coke ovens seeking the extension will be required to meet the new law's MACT 

standard--maximum achievable control technology--in 1993, fully 2 years earlier 

than any other industry. 

Five years later, in 1998, coke ovens will be required to meet an EPA-promulgated 

LAER standard--lowest achievable emissions rate. The LAER standard is the 

toughest standard in the Clean Air Act regulatory hierarchy, under both the 

current law and these proposed amendments. Thus, by 1998, every coke oven 

battery in the country will be operating at LAER, something that no other 

American industry will be required to do. Importantly, any coke oven that does 

not meet the LAER standard in 1998 must meet the residual risk standard in 2003

--like all other industries--or shut down. 

Only those coke ovens meeting the 1993 early MACT standard and the 1998 LAER 

standard will be granted the residual risk extension in 2020. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 122 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Again, in 2007, EPA will conduct an evaluation to determine whether the 1998 

LAER still represents the actual lowest achievable emission rate. If it does not, EPA 

will promulgate a new LAER standard, which must be met by 2010. 

So, Mr. Speaker, the actual effect of the new coke oven provisions over the next 

30 years will be to continually force technology, until the American steel industry 

operates the cleanest, most efficient coke ovens possible. This is the toughest 

regulatory regimen in the new air toxics program, and yet it will ensure that 

American steel-making capacity does not go down the tubes in the next decade. I 

have a more detailed explanation of this provision, Mr. Speaker, which I will have 

inserted in the Record at this point: 

[Page: H12887]

Explanation of Title III Coke Oven Provisions

Title III of the Conference Agreement contains several provisions specifically 

addressed to coke oven batteries. These include specific MACT-setting provisions, 

an extension of the residual risk standard compliance date, and a control 

technology study. 

The owners and operators of coke even batteries may elect either of two sets of 

provisions. One option requires coke oven batteries to meet MACT requirements 

by December 31, 1995, and residual risk-based emission standards by January 1, 

2003. This is roughly comparable to the schedule which will be required for other 

source categories for which EPA will be promulgating MACT standards within the 

first two years after enactment. 

Coke oven batteries may follow another option, however. A coke oven battery that 

meets a special MACT requirement of 8 percent leaking doors by the date three 

years after enactment, then meets a LAER-level technology-based standard by 

January 1, 1998, will have until January 1, 2020, to meet the residual risk-based 

emission standards under subsection (f). 

EPA is required to promulgate MACT standards for coke oven batteries by 

December 31, 1992. These standards will be based on the definition of MACT in 

subsection (d), with some additional requirements. These MACT standards, to be 

followed by those coke oven batteries not seeking extensions, at a minimum must 

not exceed 8 percent leaking doors (with no exclusion for just-closed doors). In 

addition, EPA must evaluate the effectiveness and suitability of using sodium 

silicate luting compounds to prevent door leaks, taking into account costs and 

reasonable commercial warranties. 

The Agency must also evaluate Jewell design Thompson non-recovery coke oven 

batteries and other non-recovery technologies, as well as other appropriate 

emission control and coke production technologies. These technologies are to be 

considered as a basis for MACT standards for new coke oven batteries. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 123 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
The compliance date for these MACT standards for existing coke oven batteries is 

December 31, 1995. 

EPA is also required to promulgate work practice regulations applicable to all coke 

oven batteries as part of their section 112(d)(8) MACT requirements. These 

regulations will require, as appropriate, the use of sodium silicate luting 

compounds (if EPA determines such luting compounds to be an effective means of 

emissions control and achievable within the meaning of subsection (d)) and door 

and jam cleaning practices. The compliance date for these regulations is three 

years after enactment. 

Coke oven batteries electing to qualify for the residual risk compliance date 

extensions to 2020 must meet a special MACT requirement under subsection (d)

(8)(C), two years earlier, rather than the general MACT for existing coke ovens 

under subparagraph (A). That special MACT requirement is 8 percent leaking 

doors, 1 percent leaking lids, 5 percent leaking offtakes, and 16 seconds visible 

emissions per charge, with no exclusion for just-charged doors. The MACT 

compliance date for coke oven batteries seeking the extension is three years after 

enactment. These batteries would also be required to meet the work practice 

regulations at the same time. 

An extension of the subsection (f) residual risk standard until January 1, 2020, is 

available for coke oven batteries that meet the technology-based standards of 

subsection (d)(8)(C) and subsection (i)(8). By December 31, 1992, EPA is 

required to promulgate emission limitations for coke oven batteries reflecting the 

lowest achievable emission rate (as defined in section 171) for a coke oven 

battery that is rebuilt or a replacement at a coke oven plant for an existing 

battery. This is a LAER-type standard, although it is based on what rebuilt 

batteries might achieve, not greenfield new batteries. It cannot be less stringent 

than 3 percent leaking doors (5 percent for tall batteries), with an exclusion for 

just-charged ovens. This standard must be expressed in terms of mass emissions, 

unless EPA finds a mass emissions standard would not be practicable. The 

compliance date for this LAER standard, for those coke oven batteries seeking the 

extension, is January 1, 1998. 

There is a default provision, providing that in the case EPA does not promulgate a 

LAER standard before January 1, 1998, the emissions limitation will be 3 percent 

leaking doors (5 percent for tall batteries), or the mass emissions equivalent, with 

no exclusion for just-charged ovens. 

By January 1, 2007, EPA is required to review the LAER standard, and revise it as 

necessary to reflect the lowest emission rate that can then be achieved. The 

compliance date for the revised LAER standard, if one is promulgated, will be 

January 1, 2010. Coke oven batteries that have qualified for the extension will be 

required to meet the 2010 standard, but non-compliance does not abrogate the 

residual risk extension to 2020. Any non-compliance would be an enforcement 

matter, and as with post-compliance violations of the 1998 standard, coke oven 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 124 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
batteries out of compliance with any 2010 standard would be subject to penalty 

and abatement, but would not automatically forfeit the extension. 

It may be that in some cases a coke oven battery can meet the residual risk 

standard under subsection (f) as established for that battery by January 1, 2003, 

and will not require the extension. Section 112(i)(8)(D) makes it clear than a coke 

oven battery may elect to meet the residual risk standard on that timetable, 

without having to meet the more stringent technology-based standards of 

subsection (i)(8)(B) or (C). To provide for the timely exercise of this option, if no 

residual risk-based emission limitations have been promulgated for the coke oven 

battery, EPA shall promulgate emission limitations in accordance with subsection 

(f) for such coke oven battery. Although the NAS, Commission, and EPA studies of 

the residual risk provisions may refine those requirements, under current residual 

risk estimation methodology such emission limitations would be derived by using 

the emission factors, local meteorology, and population density for the particular 

coke oven battery, together with the unit risk factor. 

Subsection (i)(8)(F) clarifies that the reconstruction of a coke oven battery with an 

extension to 2020 does not deprive it of that extension. A coke oven battery 

qualifying for an extension will have to meet the residual risk standard in 2020, 

but merely reconstructing or replacing the battery (and perhaps technically 

qualifying as a `new source') does not accelerate that compliance date. For the 

purposes of subsection (i)(8)(F), the term `reconstruction' includes the 

replacement of existing coke oven battery capacity with new coke oven batteries 

of comparable or lower capacity and lower potential emissions. 

In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I am honored to have been associated 

with the historic achievement that will come to be known as the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990. It is a fair bill. It is a comprehensive piece of legislation 

that says to all of us in all sectors of the country that the time has come to stop 

doing business as usual when it comes to polluting our environment. It is a bill 

that is as big and as grand as that which it seeks to protect. Its enactment will say 

to all who watch this country that we do very much care about our precious 

natural resources, and that we honor the memory of the first conservationist, 

Teddy Roosevelt, who admonished us all that we must, indeed, leave the world a 

little better than we found it. 

[TIME: 1800]

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 

Dreier]. 

(Mr. DREIER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 

remarks.) 

Mr. DREIER of California. Mr. Speaker, it has been a long 13 years for the people 

of the Los Angeles basin who have been crying out for a Clean Air Act. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 125 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
I have to say what a gratifying thing it was for me to see the distinguished 

chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] 

standing there agreeing time after time with the statements made by my friend, 

the gentleman from Los Angeles [Mr. Waxman]. We all know that over the 

decade of the 1980's one of the things that was constantly said is that we could 

not get Dingell and Waxman together because Detroit and Los Angeles could not 

get together. Well, it has been done and I congratulate them and, of course, the 

ranking member, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lent], for working so 

diligently to make this happen. 

I also would like to congratulate my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. 

Dannemeyer], who pointed out some very appropriate flaws; but in a moment I 

would like to counter some of the things the gentleman from California [Mr. 

Dannemeyer], said during the debate on the rule. 

My friend, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift], said that we are going to 

have a tremendous cost with this bill. Yes, we know, we have to strike a balance 

between the economic cost and the environmental benefits; but we also have to 

remember that there is going to be a cost benefit to this bill, and it is twofold. No. 

1, a decrease in health care costs for Americans and second, as America's 

technological advances move forward we will see a tremendous opportunity for us 

to export that technology into the Eastern bloc where as Mr. Dannemeyer said 

this pollution exists. It will be U.S. technology developed as a byproduct of this act 

which will address the international pollution problem and create jobs in the 

United States. 

We have to recognize, Mr. Speaker, that there are going to be benefits all the way 

down the line. 

I would like specifically to congratulate the conferees for their dilgence in insuring 

that the Senate language dealing with incinerators was knocked out. There has 

been a very dubious track record on the use of incineration. 

I congratulate the conferees for working on that and I look forward to voting for 

this conference report. 

•

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of provisions, such as the new mandates on 

reformulated gasoline, where the economic costs of the incremental 

environmental benefits appear excessive. However, unlike the deficit 

reduction package, this conference agreement is, as I said, a bipartisan 

compromise and it represents a good faith effort by Congress to clean up our 

Nation's polluted cities.

•

The Senate language I mentioned would have defined municipal incinerator 

ash as nonhazardous. That language did not acknowledge the dubious 

environmental record of incinerators. The EPA expects the number of 

•

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 126 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
incinerators to increase by one-third over in the next 5 years. Since tests 

have shown fly and bottom ash to be highly toxic, we should continue to 

work to keep such ash from being dumped in municipal landfills to prevent 

groundwater contamination and other environmental threats.

In addition, provisions on mobile and stationary emissions, OCS air pollution, 

ozone depleting chemicals, and acid rain provide needed flexibility in 

achieving pollution reduction goals in a cost-effective manner. The legislation 

is structured in such a way that it will allow us to adapt to changing 

environmental conditions. It will utilize the success of America's technologial 

leadership in meeting pollution reduction objectives.

•

Certainly, the legislation isn't costless, and our Nation will have to undertake 

sacrifices. But it is a step toward ensuring a cleaner environment for both 

current and future generations, and I urge adoption of the conference 

reprort.

•

[Page: H12888]

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 

Slattery]. 

(Mr. SLATTERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 

remarks.) 

Mr. SLATTERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on 

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 

This legislation represents a historic environmental victory after 13 years of 

legislative struggle. It demonstrates that the Congress is able to pass tough and 

sensible environmental legislation in the face of enormous special interest 

opposition. We would not be here without the leadership of Chairman Dingell and 

Subcommittee Chairman Waxman.

In my State the air is clean. Kansas City may soon become the first city of 1 

million or more to be in attainment for all six criteria air pollutants. Our electric 

powerplants generate power cleanly through the use of low sulfur coal and 

scrubbers. Among States, Kansas ranks relatively low--30th--in terms of toxic air 

emissions. 

For clean States, like Kansas, this legislation is fair and even though we will reap 

relaively few direct environmental benefits. 

This legislation will dramatically boost the use of clean burning fuels like ethanol 

which is produced from grain. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 127 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
In the Nation's nine smoggiest cities--which consume 22 percent of the gasoline--

ethanol and other oxygenates will be needed to boost the octane rating of gasoline 

once smog-forming and cancer-causing components are removed. 

In 44 cities that fail to meet Federal standards for carbon monoxide pollution, 

adding oxygen to gasoline will dramatically reduce carbon monoxide emissions 

from automobiles, the primary source of carbon monoxide pollution. 

The new Clean Air Act also avoids unnecessary regulation of clean States in some 

key ways. 

All too often, EPA has proposed uniform regulations on a nationwide or regionwide 

basis, even though air quality varies dramatically between States and within 

States. In this respect, the Clean Air Act makes an important distinction by 

requiring that fuel volatility regulations be set separately for attainment and 

nonattainment areas. 

Avoiding unnecessary regulation of fuel volatility will save Kansas consumers $30 

million per year. In the future, I hope that EPA will, wherever possible, avoid 

imposing unnecessary expenses on attainment areas--especially rural America--by 

promulgating regulations that effect only those areas where air quality problems 

exist. 

For agriculture, the Clean Air Act will avoid placing a dual regualtory burden on 

the production, storage, and use of nitrogen fertilizer. Ammonia--the most 

common form of nitrogen fertilizer--will be regulated to prevent large accidental 

releases. Ammonia will not be regulated for low-level, routine emissions which 

pose no risk to human health or the environment. 

Finally, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 establishes an environmentally 

sound and regionally fair Acid Rain Program. 

This bill will not require clean States to help subsidize clean up costs of dirty 

utilities. Kansas utilities, like those in other clean States, have already spent 

hundreds of millions of dollars to control air emissions. Clean utilities are also 

provided ample emissions allowances to expand generation to accommodate 

future economic growth without purchasing pollution offsets from dirty utilities in 

other States. 

Amidst the many complexities of the acid rain title, there is one provision of 

particular importance to clean States--the definition of `allowable 1985 emissions 

rate' found in section 402(r). 

The key point regarding this definition is that `allowable 1985 emissions rate' is 

not to be interpreted to be synonymous with the maximum actual emission rate at 

a specific unit during 1985. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 128 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
The Senate-passed bill contained a definition of allowable 1985 emission 

ratemaking clear that the allowable 1985 emission rate is the federally enforceable 

emission limitation of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides applicable to a particular 

unit in 1985. The allowable emission rate is a key factor in determining the 

allocation of allowances to super clean utility units. 

While the federally enforceable emission limitations are expressed in a variety of 

different ways in State implementation plans, the bottom line is that the allowable 

rate is virtually always higher than the actual emission rate achieved by a utility 

unit. Coal varies in its sulfur content within a given coal seam and even within a 

given fuel shipment. Utilities routinely burn coal that is rated below their allowable 

emissions rate to provide a margin of safety against violating the allowable rate. 

Unfortunately, an Energy Information Administration [EIA] analysis of allowance 

allocations under the Senate bill erroneously assumes that the allowable emission 

rate is synonymous with the maximum actual emission rate achieved at each unit 

during the baseline period. As a result of this error, EIA's analysis understated 

clean unit allowance allocations by 200,000 tons and opened up disagreements 

among House conferees. 

Basing allowance allocations on a unit's actual emission rate, as EIA did, would 

effectively reduce allowable emission rates for the cleanest coal-fired units in the 

country. The utilities that own super clean coal units would be forced to find coal 

that is even lower in sulfur content, to add additional technological controls, or to 

buy emission allowances to maintain generation. This was not the Senate's intent 

and the conferees have clarified this by electing to use the Senate definition of 

allowable emission rate, rather than inserting actual emission rate in the relevant 

subsections of section 405. 

It should now be completely clear to EPA that the conferees intend that the 

definition of allowable 1985 emission rate shall not be interpreted to mean the 

maximum actual emission rate achieved by super clean units during 1985. 

The conference report also exempts all existing utility units of 25 megawatts or 

less. This provisions is vitally important to a number of small municipal utilities in 

Kansas and Elsewhere, and I strongly supported its inclusion in the final bill. At 

the same time, however, I believe it is important to allow these and other units to 

voluntarily `Opt-in' to the Emission Reduction Program, becoming affected units. 

Thus, the bill directs, in section 410, that units 25 megawatts and under, and 

other units that are not `affected units' under the bill, may elect to become 

affected units and to receive allowances. 

Mr. Speaker, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 is landmark legislation and is 

long overdue. I am proud to have served on the conference committee that 

produced this legislation, and I look forward to its implementation in the coming 

decade. 

[Page: H12889]

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 129 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. 

Lagomarsino]. 

(Mr. LAGOMARSINO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 

remarks.) 

Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress who has pushed long 

and hard for tougher air quality legislation, I rise in strong support of the bill, and 

I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for final passage. 

For 13 years the American people have demanded stronger clean air laws, and I 

am proud to have played a leading role in bringing this bill to the floor for final 

consideration. As environmental groups have already stated, the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 is one of the most significant pieces of environmental 

legislation of the decade. 

Through hard work and responsible compromise the House and Senate conference 

committee has been able to report a good bill that addresses the major air 

pollution problems facing our Nation. Tough new standards for urban smog, motor 

vehicle and toxic emissions, acid rain control, and ozone-depleting chemicals are 

all included in this landmark bill. 

I want to join in complementing John Dingell, Norm Lent, Carlos Moorhead, 

Henry Waxman, Jerry Lewis, Sil Conte, Ed Madigan, Phil Sharp, Billy 

Tauzin, many, many others, and of course George Bush for their contributions to 

the process. 

Of particular interest to my district is the clean coasts amendment which I 

introduced with Congressmen Mel Levine, Bill Lowery, and Mike Bilirakis

bringing emission controls to offshore oil facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf. 

The district I represent has one of the most serious ozone problems in the 

country. One reason the counties of my district still exceed the health standards 

set by Federal and State laws is the lack of adequate controls on ozone transport 

from OCS facilities. This amendment, which is a part of the final bill, is designed to 

solve this problem. I think it is a fair solution for both sides. 

Early in the session I joined a number of my colleagues in sending a letter to 

President Bush urging him to reauthorize and strengthen the Clean Air Act, and I 

cosponsored H.R. 3030 when the legislation was first introduced. When the bill ran 

into difficulties in the House and Senate conference, I contacted the conferees on 

numerous occasions to stress upon them the importance of reaching a 

compromise and reporting out an acceptable bill. Because of their efforts, we now 

have the opportunity to vote on final passage. 

Mr. Speaker, we have always known that cleaning our nation's air would require 

sacrifices from every segment of our society. Yet to do nothing would cost us 

much more in the long run. Today we have the opportunity to take a major step 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 130 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
towards cleaning our air. I strongly support H.R. 3030, and urge every member of 

the House to vote in favor of the bill. 

I would also like to submit for the Record an analysis of the Outer Continental 

Shelf provisions by my constituent William Martin, Assistant Director of the Santa 

Barbara Air Pollution Control District. 

Air Pollution From Outer Continental Shelf 

Activities Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

SECTION 712

Summary 

The bill adds a new section to the Act that requires the Administrator within 12 

months of enactment, to promulgate requirements applicable to air pollution from 

all Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) sources, except sources offshore Texas, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. For OCS sources within 25 miles of the 

seaward boundary of a state, these EPA requirements must be the same as would 

be applicable if the sources were located in the corresponding onshore area. The 

requirements take effect with respect to new sources on the date of promulgation 

and for existing sources 24 months later and are enforced as standards 

promulgated under Section 111. States may be delegated the authority to 

implement and enforce the requirements if they submit regulations to the 

Administrator which the Adminstrator finds are adequate. For OCS sources located 

offshore Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, the Secretary of the Interior 

shall complete a study of the impacts of air pollutant emissions on coastal air 

quality. The bill defines the terms `corresponding onshore area' and `OCS 

source'. 

General Discussion 

The construction and operation of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) facilities emit a 

significant amount of air pollution which can adversely impact coastal air quality in 

the United States. Uncontrolled operational emissions from an OCS Platform and 

associated Marine vessels can exceed 500 tons oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and 100 

tons of reactive hydrocarbons annually. Uncontrolled platform construction 

emissions can exceed 350 tons of NOx, while drilling an exploratory OCS well can 

cause emissions in excess of 100 tons of NOx. Existing pollution control 

technology can significantly reduce these pollution levels. Under current federal 

regulation, these major sources of air pollution are not required to be mitigated or 

controlled. Large discrepancies exist in the regulation of air pollution from virtually 

identical onshore and OCS sources. In some areas, EPA requires stringent 

pollution controls onshore and within state waters to improve coastal air quality, 

while the Interior Department allows unmitigated OCS pollution under the 

provisions of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 131 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Of primary concern is the fact that OCS air pollution is causing or contributing to 

the violation of federal and state ambient air quality standards in some coastal 

regions, with the potential that unmitigated OCS pollution will prevent certain 

coastal regions from attaining federal and state clean air standards. In Santa 

Barbara and other coastal regions, unmitigated OCS emissions could entirely 

negate the effect of all onshore emission reductions relied upon to achieve federal 

and state clean air standards. The adoption of more stringent regulations onshore 

to compensate for the effect of these unmitigated OCS emissions could only be 

done, if at all, with great cost to onshore industries and with substantial disruption 

to life-styles of coastal residents. The magnitude of OCS pollution and the fact that 

the prevailing winds bring much of this pollution onshore has lead the 

Environmental Protection Agency to express concern about the onshore air quality 

impacts from OCS development. 

Coastal economic development goals can only be achieved through the permitting 

and regulation of many low-polluting facilities. While keeping within allowable air 

quality 

standards, over ten times as much low-polluting development can be permitted, 

as compared to highly polluting development. Application of the same 

requirements of all offshore and onshore projects will preclude a few `dirty' 

projects from using up an air basin's remaining capacity to absorb pollutant and 

thereby impede future development. 

DISCUSSION OF SUBSECTION (A): REQUIREMNTS FOR 

CERTAIN AREAS

Subsection (a) applies to OCS sources located offshore of the states along the 

Pacific, Arctic and Atlantic Coasts, and along the U.S. Gulf Coast offshore the State 

of Florida eastward of longitude 87«30. This subsection is intended to cover all 

OCSA sources except those located in the Gulf of Mexico west of longitude 87«30. 

For platforms located further than 25 miles from the seaward state boundary, it is 

intended that the EPA administrator analyze the extent of onshore air pollution 

impacts and require an appropriate level of pullution control to protect Federal and 

State ambient air quality standards and prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality. OCS facilities located within 25 miles of the seaward state boundary, will 

be regulated using the same air quality protection requirements as would apply if 

the OCS sources were located within the corresponding onshore area. These 

requirements are intended to include, but not be limited to, emission control 

requirements for new, modified, and existing facilities; offset requirements for 

new and modified facilities; and permitting, monitoring, reporting, enforcement, 

and testing requirements for all facilities. Administrative requirements, including 

the assessment of fees, will be established by the air quality permitting agency. 

These provisions will minimize differences in air pollutant regulation which 

currently exist between OCS sources and sources located in the corresponding 

onshore area. OCS air pollution is to be regulated to protect both Federal and 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 132 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
State ambient air quality standards, and to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality. It is intended that OCS emissions be included in any State Implementation 

Plan (for the corresponding onshore area) required under this Act. 

Marine vessels emissions, including those from crew and supply boats, 

construction barges, tugboats, and tankers, which are associated with an OCS 

activity, will be included as part of the OCS facility emissions for the purposes of 

regulation. Air emissions associated with stationary and in-transit activities of 

these vessels will be included as part of the facility's emissions for vessel activities 

within a radius of 25 miles of the exploration, construction, development or 

production location. This will ensure that the cruising emissions from marine 

vessels are controlled and offset as if they were part of the OCS facility's 

emissions. 

This subsection provides EPA, the federal agency experienced and knowledgeable 

in air quality regulation, up to 12 months to establish regulations to implement 

this subsection. Said regulations shall address administrative procedures 

necessary for EPA to implement this subsection in areas where delegation to a 

state or local agency has not occurred. For all air quality requirements regulating 

OCS facilities within 25 miles of any state, EPA should not write a unique set of 

requirments, but should include the same requirements for emission controls, 

offsets, permitting, monitoring, reporting, and testing, as would apply if the OCS 

source was located in the corresponding onshore area. The regulations should also 

specify the procedures to be followed by the EPA Administrator in determining 

under what circumstances the more stringent requirements of another onshore 

area shall apply, rather than the requirements of the closest onshore area. Said 

procedures shall consider those factors specified in this subsection, and shall apply 

whether or not EPA has delegated authority to a state or local air regulatory 

agency. 

New OCS sources and modifications to existing OCS sources shall comply with the 

requirements of this subsection on the date of rule promulgation. New sourcese 

are defined as per Section 111(a) of the Act to include any source which 

commences construction after promulgation of the rule. Any exploratory well 

which has commenced drilling by the date of rule promulgation shall be considered 

an existing source. 

This subsection transfers the responsibility for OCS air regulation from the Interior 

Department (under OCSLA) to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in 

order to ensure consistent implementation of air quality laws and regulations for 

both onshore and offshore sources. It is also expected that EPA will delegate the 

authority to implement this subsection to the agency which has been delegated 

Clean Air Act authority to regulate air pollution in the corresponding onshore area, 

whether that agency is a state or local air regulatory agency. EPA should delegate 

such authority expeditiously following receipt of a written petition requesting 

delegation from an onshore air regulatory agency. EPA should not withhold such 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 133 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
delegation unless EPA finds that the onshore air regulatory agency's regulations 

are substantially inadequate to meet the requirements of this Act. 

This subsection is intended to supersede section 5(a)(8) of the Outer Continental 

Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) (43 U.S.C. 1334 (a)(8)). This subsection does not repeal 

or modify any other federal, state, or local authorities with respect to air quality, 

such as the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451, et seq.) or other 

laws. It is intended that the requirements of the OCSLA Section 5(a)(8) shall 

remain in effect only for the 12 month period following enactment of this Section. 

This subsection supersedes the requirements under Section 5(a)(8) which have 

been interpreted by the Department of the Interior to require air pollution 

regulation only when the agency has proven that an individual OCS facility will 

cause a significant adverse impact on onshore air quality. 

[Page: H12890]

Discussion of Subsection (b): Provisions Applicable Offshore Texas, Lousiana, 

Mississippi, and Alabama 

Subsection (b) requires the Secretary of the Interior to complete a study of the 

impacts of current and future OCS emission sources located in the western and 

central Gulf of Mexico, west of longitude 87« 30, on air quality within the States of 

Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. It is intended that the Secretary 

consult with the EPA Administrator on the scope and conduct of the study and on 

recommended actions which are found to be necessary based on the results of the 

study. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 

Minnesota [Mr. Sikorski], who has worked hard and long on the acid rain 

provisions. 

Mr. SIKORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I had a simple statement prepared for today: 

`Hallelujah!' 

But this occasion calls for a little more. Indeed, this occasion is many things. 

It's a celebration of fine work by good people: 

President Bush a year and a half ago broke the dam holding back clean air by 

committing this nation to clean air by the 21st century. He was right, his actions 

were good, and praise for him is well deserved. 

Chairman Dingell kept the crucial pressure on and kept clean air moving--even 

when he wasn't wholly happy with its insides. That takes a big man, a fine 

chairman. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 134 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Chairman Waxman, Mr. Clean Air, pushed and pushed and pushed for the best 

possible Clean Air Act and he won it through his persistence, eloquence and talent

--and excellent staff. 

Well, today is a celebration, but this occasion is also historic--this has taken 

almost a decade and a half. Most of the Members in this body, including myself, 

weren't even here the last time we passed clean air. And it is likely we will not 

touch this, in this magnitude, for another decade. 

This occasion is both historic and timely in that it demonstrates--in the midst of 

crisis and torment--that this institution can take within its awkward hands an 

impossibly complex and technical host of interrelated health, environmental and 

economic problems, weigh the options, the costs and benefits, the regional and 

the parochial and political concerns--and produce a law that is hailed by 

environmentalists, industry, everyone as a template of creative and tough action. 

This occasion is much more. It is a mortal acknowledgement of a very primary 

human duty: in the book of Genesis, humankind is given `dominion over the fish 

of the sea, the birds of the air, and over all the Earth.' With that power comes the 

responsibility of stewardship. The Clean Air Act before us, with a mother's touch, 

warmly embraces that stewardship. 

When our America, when our children, look back on this century, the words 

recorded in this Chamber today will be dusty and forgotten, but our action bright 

and alive and life-giving. We kept our promise to the American people--clean air 

for all Americans. 

ACID RAIN

I must say some--soon dusty and forgotten--words about acid rain. 

For over a decade now, I have worked, sweated, swore and pushed, prodded and 

pinched, campaigned and cajoled to end acid rain on this continent in this century. 

Garrison Keillor said on my birthday a few years ago that the first words out of my 

mouth were, `Stop Acid Rain.' Let me explain why: 

The Ojibway word `minnesota' means land of sky blue waters. The land I was 

born and raised and educated in, the land I love, Minnesota, is the land of 10,000 

sky blue lakes. It is the headwaters of three continental watersheds and 90,000 

miles of streams, and caresses the largest body of fresh water in the world. Water 

washes and nourishes and defines my Minnesota--it is our economy, it is our 

environment, it is our culture, our way of life. And the assassin acid rain threatens 

it. 

This act meets the acid test on acid rain: it has strong SOx and NOx provisions, 

good timelines, flexibility and fairness for all regions of our diverse America, and it 

means `the polluter pays.' Vigilantly enforced, it means living lakes and healthy 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 135 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
lungs, protection for America's forests, farmlands, mountains, deserts, hunting, 

and fishing. It means no more pock marks on the face of the Statue of Liberty and 

fewer tax dollars to mend our historic monuments. 

AIR TOXICS

The air toxics title will begin to put an end to the annual, routine legal release of 

over 2.7 billion pounds of toxic chemicals--mutagens and carcinogens, neurotoxins 

and teratogens--into our air. That's 10 pounds for every American man, woman, 

or child. We know this because my community right to know amendment won five 

years ago on this very floor in a knock-down, drag-out fight. It won by one vote--

and spawned a new title on air toxics in clean air law. I supported amendments to 

the air toxics title requiring the best available control technology; the 

establishment of a health-based standard for residual risk; reduction of emissions 

from cars and trucks, the source of over half of all toxic emissions; coverage of 

not just half, but all toxic emitting factories--including incinerators; and the 

establishment of standards for areas like the Great Lakes, where we are at special 

risk. I'm proud to have fostered the Great Lakes coverage in the House markup. 

[Page: H12891]

URBAN AIR POLLUTION

We have attempted to bring the cities of this Nation, in this century, into 

compliance with existing health-based ozone and carbon monoxide standards, by 

requiring adequate reductions from all sources, large and small, the factory 

downtown and the Pontiac next door. And what we can't achieve by the year 

2000, we hope to finish in the first part of the twenty-first century. 

The amendment Bill Green, Representative of New York, and I, offered on this 

floor a few months ago on emission warranty requirements for new automobiles 

provided a fair shake for consumers, small businesses and the environment. The 

Sikorski-Green amendment is intact in this act. 

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

Passage of this clean air bill means healthier Americans and a cleaner America. It 

means the protection of human life, human health, our natural resources and our 

national economy. Our legacy will be more than dirty air, devastated resources 

and damaged lungs; it will be a cleaner environment, a revitalized American 

economy and a better life for our children. 

To paraphrase Dante, we may not have the power to create heaven on Earth, but 

we do have the will and means to restore one portion of the art of God eternal: 

clean skies for our children and our memory--or as the Constitution notes, 

`ourselves and our posterity.' 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 136 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
I think we inch closer to that nobility in this act. 

I'd like to close with a personal note. For close to a decade I have spoken in 

Minnesota, in Washington, across America, and in Canda and in Europe as well--

about acid rain and clean air. At times I was a little strong, at times not strong 

enough. I guess I can dump those notes, but before I do, I'd like to end with a 

quotation that ended most of those speeches. It helps define why we are here in 

this House, committing this important act. From Loren Eisley, in `The Immense 

Journey:' 

If there is magic on the planet, it is contained in water * * * its substance reaches 

everywhere; it touches the past and prepares the future; it moves under the poles 

and wanders thinly in the heights of air. It can assume forms of exquisite 

perfection in a snowflake, or strip the living into a shining bone cast up by the sea. 

Today, we are making a little magic of our own. 

In the beginning of clean air legislation there was Henry Waxman. Henry 

Waxman, champion of the environment and leader in the fight for clean air and 

against the ravages of acid rain. Henry Waxman, giving voice to those speaking 

for the threatened wilderness, for the vulnerable for clean air. And now, at the 

conclusion of the clean air legislation there is Henry Waxman.

Henry Waxman has worked tirelessly and without surcease to focus attention on 

and draft a balanced, national approach to this national problem. Henry Waxman

had a vision of a restored environment, cleaner air and healthier Americans as a 

result. With the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Henry's vision 

will largely become reality. Henry Waxman provided the leadership and the 

guidance that produced a clean air bill that is stronger from an environmental and 

health perspective, as well as an industry perspective, than the legislation the 

President offered and that the House and the Senate passed. Henry is the 

compass that kept clean air legislation on course and deserves the lionshare of the 

credit for the integrity of this historical piece of legislation. And on a very personal 

note, I am deeply indebted to him for allowing me to work shoulder to shoulder 

with him in this fight, and to be able to call him a friend. 

Credit must also go to the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Mr. Foley, and his formidable counterpart, the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, 

Mr. Mitchell. Without their support, we would not be on this floor today heralding 

this prodigious accomplishment. They have shepherded this legislation through 

and provided the kid-glove handling of the political and industrial pressures that 

sought to thwart this bill simply to protect their economic bottomline--their profit 

margins. I am particularly grateful to the Speaker for providing me with the 

opportunity to see my work come to fruition by appointing me to this august 

conference committee. At no small discomfort to him, he stood up for what was 

fair and right. I thank him. And I am personally 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 137 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
indebted to the Senate majority leader for his work in the other body on corollary 

acid rain legislation. 

And certainly, the President who proposed the first-ever administration backed 

acid rain proposal deserves commendation. The President's proposal called for 

acid rain reduction goals identical to the reductions achieved in my legislation and 

included a feature for which I had fought--a cap on emissions to prevent 

deterioration of acid rain reduction in the future. I applaud the President's efforts. 

I am grateful for his stepping into the clean air arena because we needed him to 

weigh in to give the extra punch needed to insure passage of this legislation. 

The chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, John Dingell, and the 

Chairman of the conference committee, Max Baucus, merit recognition. Clean air 

has been a tough political issue for John Dingell, representing Detroit and its 

environs. But the chairman agreed to work with the President and ultimately 

sponsored the administration's proposal, yielding the Dingell/Lent bill. Throughout 

the process he has exhibited his extraordinary legislative talents, protecting the 

House's jurisdictional concerns, and the interests of the House Members as 

articulated in the House-passed bill. And Chairman Baucus has sacrificed much of 

his time and energy over the past year, despite other pressing considerations, to 

pass an environmentally tough clean air bill in the Senate, providing an important 

backstop which made the strengthened final product of this conference possible. 

I also want to commend Mr. Sharp, who worked arduously to insure that the 

Midwest were protected from economic havoc while he worked to protect the 

environment. He fought valiantly to retain regional balance without forfeiting 

environmental protection, and I believe, on balances that he was successful. 

To all my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committees and the 

conference committee, congratulations and thank you for your patience. 

In this Chamber today there has been much jubilation and, appropriately, there 

have been words of commendation for our colleagues. We are all participants in an 

historic event and the accolades for the Speaker, the majority leader of the 

Senate, the President, and the committee chairmen and subcommittee chairmen 

are fitting. But I would like to take a few moments to recognize and honor the 

superhuman efforts of a few of my associates that have toiled in relative 

anonymity, but without whom we would not be here celebrating this extraordinary 

occasion. 

The staff that has labored on this issue has remained undaunted despite the often 

tremendous and harsh personal sacrifices they have had to make to get this 

vaunted clean air bill from subcommittee through full committee to the floor and 

now through the intense conference negotiations. Many times Members have been 

there through rough negotiations, but when the policy decisions are made and the 

Members go home, we leave the staff to draft the language, to reconcile the 

technicals, and finish the job--dotting the i's and crossing the t's. They have been 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 138 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
largely unheralded, but their sacrifices have not been taken for granted. Staff has 

stoically endured gruesome hours, lack of sleep, and has dealt with immensely 

complex technical issues and somehow converted them into legislative language 

that will effectively change industry's current practices. Their efforts will result in 

an enhanced environment. Wedding anniversaries have passed, birthdays of 

participants and their families have passed, the first day of school, religious 

holidays, and an unusually spectacular Washington early autumn have passed. 

These sacrifices that our staffs have made in our pursuit of good public policy do 

not go unnoticed and unappreciated. Nor have the attendant sacrifices of their 

families and loved ones who have had to be supportive and tolerant of the long 

hours and who were, perhaps, unavoidably neglected for the sake of resolving 

clean air legislation before Congress adjourns. They, too, deserve our mention and 

thanks. The staffs' endurance is testimony 

to their commitment to producing a bill that we all can be proud to present to the 

American people and that will achieve, with the least pain possible, cleaner air for 

all Americans by the end of this century. 

And I would like to take a special moment to thank three individuals who I have 

had the honor of working with on this issue over too many years. Together we 

have fought in the trenches, from the inception of acid rain legislation in the 

House--with four separate hybrids of acid deposition and control legislation--H.R. 

3400, H.R. 4567, H.R. 2666, and H.R. 1470--to develop viable legislation that 

would serve to push, prod, pinch, and cajole the nay-sayers. Finally, this year, 

with the added impetus from the administration, the strength of our arguments 

have persuaded the majority of the House and Senate that acid rain legislation is 

needed and needed now. I believe that acid rain legislation is the engine of the 

clean air bill and that these individuals are the spark plugs of the legislation. Phil 

Schiliro, Greg Wetstone and Phil Barnett have given generously to the 

development of my legislation. They have provided wise counsel from their vast 

repositories of technical expertise, from the scientific to the legislative, the 

technical to the practical, and have been an unwavering source of support 

throughout this process. I have relied on them and have never been disappointed. 

Phil, Phil and Greg have been staunch talented defenders of the environment and 

helped to insure that the polluter pays and the environment is protected. All 

Americans should be grateful that their talents have been utilized as tools for the 

public good. Their efforts will directly result in cleaner air, clean air, clear lakes, 

green trees, and quicker salvation of treasured national monuments. 

I am reminded of the television commercials that talk about miraculous scientific 

discoveries that occur in darkened laboratories in the deep of night because of the 

contributions of unknown American heroes who significantly improve the quality of 

life of all Americans. Phil Schiliro, Gregory S. Wetstone, and Philip Barnett are 

such heroes. And their accomplishments are nothing short of miraculous. I am 

deeply grateful for their work, for their assistance, and their friendship. The 

victory of ultimate passage of a strong acid rain and clean air bill is in a very real, 

very personal way theirs stand proud. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 139 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
[Page: H12892]

[TIME: 1810]

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. 

Thomas]. 

Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Clean Air 

Act amendment. There has been a great deal of discussion and concern 

throughout the country about establishing an energy policy for this Nation. I 

believe this Clean Air Act is a giant step in the right direction of a national energy 

policy. The policy direction here is to utilize in an environmentally sound way one 

of the most abundant energy resources of this Nation, coal, more particularly lowsulfur coal. 

If we are to move away from a dependency on foreign oil and improve our 

environment, this is a major move in that direction. 

I congratulate the leaders who put the package together and urge its passage. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 

Rowland] who was very helpful in the conference. 

(Mr. ROWLAND of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend 

his remarks.) 

Mr. ROWLAND of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

represents the best that legislative compromise can achieve. Balancing diverse 

regional and State interests, conflicting industrial concerns, public health and 

environmental concerns, with the risks of such a major regulatory burden in a 

fragile economic situation and arriving at a final bill is really in my opinion a major 

accomplishment. I wish to speak on two major portions of the bill of which I have 

participated and made some contributions: acid rain and toxic air pollutants. 

I believe that the acid rain title represents a major and difficult compromise. 

Allocating a scarce resource and allowances, while trying to allocate equitably the 

impacts of the provisions was difficult and at times almost impossible. Fortunately, 

Georgia survived the process with a fair share of allowances and a fair share of 

the pain. Georgia is currently and will continue to be one of the highest growth 

States in the Union. Economic growth and the associated growth in electricity 

demand is phenomenal. I am gratified that this bill recognizes this unique 

situation and makes some allowance adjustments. 

Another provision which I consider to be of major importance, not only for this bill, 

but for all future environmental laws to protect the public health is the 

establishment of a Risk Assessment and Management Commission. This 

commission will consider the results of a National Academy of Sciences study 

which is directed by this bill. The study by the NAS will investigate and report to 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 140 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
the Congress on the appropriate controls of risks remaining after the application of 

MACT standards, and provide independent scientific analysis and judgement on 

risk-assessment methodologies. 

Mr. Speaker, many have criticized this Congress for not doing well the people's 

business. In the years to come, however, I believe that the Nation will look back 

on the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and note that this Congress has really 

done a great job. 

I want to thank all of the Members and the staff who worked and help me 

participate, espcially the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the gentleman 

from California [Mr. Waxman], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lent], the 

gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Madigan], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Sharp] 

for their hard work, Dave Finnegan, Chuck Kanos, for all the help that they 

provided me and participating in this legislation. 

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. 

McCandless]. 

Mr. McCANDLESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1630, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 

I commend the conferees on this bill for their perseverance and hard work. 

Completing a conference of this magnitude is quite an accomplishment. 

Living in Southern California teaches one to appreciate clean air and to never take 

it for granted. After 8 years as a member of the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District, during which I served 7 years as its first chairman, and also 

as a member of the California Air Resources Board, I commend the intent of this 

bill toward improving the quality of our air. 

I am pleased that the conferees have agreed to language in title I of the Housepassed clean air bill which concerns emission offsets. By allowing the required 

reduction in emission offsets to come from another nonattainment area, which is 

more severely polluted, additional flexibility and greater levels of pollution 

reductions overall, can be achieved. 

In this manner, through emission trading, reasonable growth can occur in a clean 

manner without undue hardship. 

Mr. Speaker, I plan to support the clean air bill before the House today. 

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from New York 

[Mr. Boehlert]. 

(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 

remarks.) 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 141 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
[Page: H12893]

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, it has been said many times by many people that we 

did not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we are borrowing it from our 

children. 

With that thought in mind, we have a special responsibility as trustees for their 

legacy to protect and enhance the quality of the environment. 

You know, it is a popular theory in some quarters these days, to say that Congress 

cannot do anything worthy of note in a timely fashion. 

We are disproving that theory here today. 

The work we are about is of historic consequence, and there are a great many 

people that deserve a great deal of credit: 

The chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell;

the gentleman from California, Chairman Waxman, `Mr. Clean Air;' the 

gentleman from New York [Mr. Lent]; the people who have been mentioned so 

favorably here today who have labored so long and hard, deserve a great deal of 

praise. 

But I will reserve the greatest praise for the American people because this issue 

clearly proves that when they speak, we listen. 

The Congress of the United States is responsive. Ladies and gentleman, the 

people of America are ahead of us on this very sensitive issue of the environment. 

They spoke, we listened, we acted. 

There are a lot of heros today. President Bush has been mentioned in very 

favorable terms, and rightly so, because the big change, the big change that got 

this movement going in the Congress of the United States was leadership from the 

Oval Office. 

I say that as a Republican who, quite frankly, admitted disappointment in the 

previous administration. But George Bush is an environmental President. He put 

this matter at the top of his agenda, and he provided leadership. 

But he did not do it alone. He did it with the Democrats and Republicans. Together 

we have fashioned a proposal that passes the test with flying colors. 

There is another person who deserves mention, another person whose name has 

not been mentioned on this floor today. His name is Brian Mulroney, the Prime 

Minister of Canada. I remember vividly when President Ronald Reagan went to 

Quebec City some years ago for the Shamrock Summit No. 1, well briefed, 

thinking that the prime minister would talk first about trade--that is certainly very 

important--or perhaps about mutual defense--that too is important. But President 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 142 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Reagan was surprised because Prime Minister Mulroney said, `Mr. President, the 

issue of acid rain is critically important to our two nations. 

`We have to do something about it.' 

We have done something about it. I am very proud to have played a small part in 

fashioning this final compromise 

version that we are all so proud of, particularly in the area of acid rain. For the 

first time, we addressed the sensitive issue of ozone depletion, in an amendment 

authored by Jim Bates, of California, and coauthored by me. 

I thank from the bottom of my heart the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], 

the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], the gentleman from New York [Mr. 

Lent], but most of all I thank my colleagues in the House of Representatives who 

had the wisdom to pass this great legislation. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 

from North Carolina [Mr. Price]. 

(Mr. PRICE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report. 

•

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on S. 1630, the 

Clean Air Act amendments. I view this legislation as the greatest 

accomplishment of the 101st Congress, and I salute Chairmen John Dingell

and Henry Waxman, and the many others who helped steer this legislation 

to passage, for their efforts.

•

There is no question that reauthorization and strengthening of the Clean Air 

Act is long overdue. The serious problems of our dirtiest cities--the extreme, 

severe, and serious nonattainment areas--have been thoroughly 

documented. It is time for Congress to act on clean air legislation to help 

control smog in urban areas, tighten restrictions on tailpipe emissions, ensure 

tougher regulation of toxic chemical emissions, and clean up the sources of 

acid rain.

•

Clean air is clearly one of our Nation's most pressing environmental concerns, 

and S. 1630 would provide the comprehensive approach we need to ensure 

that the air is clean for future generations. We have overcome many 

competing industry and regional demands to reach this point, and I urge my 

colleagues to support the conference agreement.

•

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 

distinguished gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Alexander]. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 143 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
(Mr. ALEXANDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 

remarks.) 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Speaker, I wish so much that I could have had time to speak 

in support of this bill, but I have labored for 15 years along with others to see this 

evening. 

I want to congratulate everyone who has had something to do with it. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990. 

There is considerable reference to the cost of this bill. Between 1970-80 our 

Nation spent $1.1 trillion to import foreign oil, and, today we deploy about 

200,000 troops at a cost of about $1 billion per month to protect the oil supply 

from the Persian Gulf. 

And in considering these costs we can afford to install scrubbers on the Nation's 

smoke stacks, provide biofuels from the farm to supply our Nation's energy and 

bring our troops home from Saudi Arabia. 

This bill is good for America. It's good for our skies, good for our national security, 

and good for the health and welfare of our children and grandchildren. It is, 

perhaps, the only way to preserve our natural resources, contain exorbitant 

defense spending, and protect the air we all breathe. 

Our Nation's environmental balance has reached a precarious point. Air pollution 

has dangerous effects on our health, our climate, our agriculture, our forests, 

even our buildings. 

The pollution controls in this bill make tremendous strides toward reversing some 

of these problems. For example, these changes will improve public health--

reducing risk of chronic lung damage, reducing risk of cancer, and lessening 

periods of restricted activities and impaired lung function. It will increase 

agricultural yields by a few billion dollars per year and return acidified lakes and 

streams to a viable state. 

It will clear up the hazy skies so we can see our forests and wilderness areas once 

again. It will stop corrosion of architectural structures due to acidic deposition. 

And it will ensure that we pass along a healthy, life-sustaining ecosystem to future 

generations. 

Mr. Speaker, I want to focus my remarks today on provisions of S.1630 that deal 

with motor vehicle emissions and fuel composition. As one of four congressional 

representatives to the U.S. Alternative Fuels Council, I am particularly excited that 

our efforts over the past decade are finally coming to fruition. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 144 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Approximately half of the ozone-forming emissions and almost 90 percent of the 

carbon monoxide in the atmosphere comes from mobile sources--cars, trucks, and 

buses. 

Any effective controls on ozone and carbon monoxide must deal with mobile 

source pollution. 

The automobile industry has taken some big steps in altering tailpipe design to 

decrease hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions, and this bill tightens up 

standards even more. But with today's technology, there's a limit on how much 

tailpipe standards can reduce polluting emissions. 

Careful transportation planning that includes carpooling, high-occupancy vehicle 

rules, and regulations on driving during certain times of the day can achieve 

additional emission reductions. But again, our ability to restrict vehicle usage is 

limited. 

Especially in rural areas like the district I represent, public transportation and easy 

access to basic services simply isn't available. People have to use their cars to get 

to work, to buy their groceries, or to see the doctor. Stringent transportation 

controls aren't a realistic solution to this problem. 

So how do we reach the necessary emission levels? How do we clean up the air 

without imposing onerous burdens on the American economy and consumers? 

It's becoming clear that alternative grain-based fuels like ethanol are part of the 

answer. 

The fuel requirements in this bill allow our Nation's farmers to help us meet 

emission targets. It encourages us to rely on the grain fields of Middle America, 

instead of the oil fields of the Middle East for our energy. 

It's really the only solution that makes sense. 

Without a coherent national energy policy, U.S. petroleum imports have increased 

over the past decade as our domestic production has dropped. 

Now, we're spending billions of dollars on a military operation to protect these 

foreign sources. We're sending American men and women overseas to put their 

lives on the line for our oil supply. 

We're asking Americans to pay the bill for our fiscal woes at the same time the oil 

companies are asking them to pay more and more at the gas pump. 

The bottom line is this: It just isn't sound policymaking to incur these costs for a 

fuel that kills Americans every time they breathe in the air and damages our 

environment every time someone turns a car's ignition key. Especially when we 

have cleaner fuels that make money for American farmers instead of Middle 

Eastern oil sheiks. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 145 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
That's why the clean fuel sections of this bill are so important. 

Let me take a few minutes to explain what I mean. 

The broad goals of the bill outlined in title I of S.1630 revise Clean Air Act 

requirements for areas that have not yet attained health-based air quality 

standards. Specifically, most ozone nonattainment areas must reduce emissions of 

hydrocarbons by 15 percent within 6 years. At that point, areas which are still 

polluted must achieve reductions of 3 percent each following year. Similar 

deadlines exist for attaining carbon monoxide air quality standards. 

About half of ozone and carbon monoxide emissions comes from small sources 

which are difficult to regulate carefully. But the other half of the emissions--from 

motor vehicles--can be substantially lowered through the bill's mandates for 

oxygenated fuels and clean-fueled vehicles. 

Title II requires the use of cleaner, reformulated gas with an oxygen content of 

2.0 percent in the nine cities with the worst ozone pollution beginning in 1995. 

This gasoline must have 15 percent lower emissions of hydrocarbons and toxics by 

1995; this figure ratchets up to a minimum of 20 percent in 2000. 

In the more than 40 cities with high carbon monoxide pollution levels, the bill 

mandates use of gasoline with a minimum oxygen content of 2.7 percent. 

This section of the bill also establishes two programs to promote the development 

and use of clean-fueled vehicles. In about 25 cities with the most severe ozone 

and carbon monoxide pollution, a percentage of new vehicles sold must be clean 

fueled. Additionally, 70 percent of new cars and light-duty trucks and 50 percent 

of heavy-duty trucks that are parts of fleets must be clean fueled. 

What all these requirements mean is a tremendous potential for expanding the 

market for alternative fuels. 

There are a number of fuels that can meet the 2.0-percent and 2.7-percent 

oxygen levels. Right now, ethanol, methanol, and their derivatives are the most 

frequently used additives for increasing oxygen content. But because the ratio of 

oxygen to other atoms is higher in ethanol than methanol, ethanol is more 

effective in reaching higher oxygen levels. 

Today, we consume about 825 million gallons of ethanol each year. With the new 

requirements we are considering today, annual ethanol consumption should triple, 

I am advised. As additional cities look to clean fuels to attain air quality standards, 

this demand will be even higher. 

Right now, almost all ethanol is produced from corn. If we triple ethanol 

consumption, we'll use a total of approximately 1 billion bushels of grain per year 

to meet our energy needs. Using a rule of thumb developed by analysts at the 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 146 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Congressional Research Service, that translates into $1,980 million less in farm 

program costs and $440 million more in farm income each year. 

When given a choice between lowering farm program payments and paying huge 

sums to defend foreign oil sources, how can we afford not to support this bill? 

A substantial portion of our corn harvest is an important food source. As ethanol 

demand increases, we must support investigation into other crops that hold 

promise as biofuel feedstocks. 

Research at Arkansas State University [ASU], in Jonesboro, AR, may provide a key 

to this puzzle. At my request, the Appropriations Committee provided $100,000 to 

ASU in fiscal year 1991 for experimentation on crop substitution and ethanol 

production from nontraditional crop sources. 

With these funds, ASU will explore the potential for making ethanol out of crops 

easily grown in the Mississippi Delta region, like milo and sorghum. 

If such crops prove effective as biofuel feedstocks, our farm program must be 

flexible enough to provide financial security for producing energy crops. An 

amendment I introduced that was incorporated into the 1990 farm bill allows 

farmers to grow feedstocks for ethanol or other biofuels on their flexible crop 

acreage without decreasing base acreage levels. 

Mr. Speaker, we all want to finish up our business here and go home to our 

constituents. Before we do, we have the opportunity right now to make a real 

difference in our environment, our health, our agricultural economy, and the price 

of our military spending. 

I urge all of my colleagues to vote `aye' on this bill. 

[Page: H12894]

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 

New York [Mr. Manton], who has been very interested in and has worked very 

hard on this legislation. 

(Mr. MANTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. MANTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on S. 

1630, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. I want to take this opportunity to 

commend and congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Energy and 

Commerce Committee, my good friend from Michigan, for his remarkable and 

tireless work in bringing this conference report to the floor today. I also want to 

pay tribute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], the gentleman from 

Indiana [Mr. Sharp], and my friend from New York, the ranking minority member 

of the committee, Mr. Lent, for their diligence and tireless efforts in making the 

passage of this landmark clean air legislation a reality. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 147 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
As a new member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I am deeply honored 

to have played a role in the long and arduous process of writing the most 

comprehensive and complex piece of environmental legislation that has ever been 

considered by this Congress. 

Mr. Speaker, Americans deserve clean air. We need dramatic reductions in smog 

and cancer causing toxic pollutants. The majestic forests and lakes of the 

northeast deserve protection from the ravages of acid rain. The conference report 

under consideration today will accomplish these noble goals. 

First, the conference report will require cities that are covered by a blanket of 

smog to take significant new and aggressive steps to limit ozone and carbon 

monoxide pollution. Second, the conference report will require auto makers to 

produce new, cleaner cars and to develop fleets and urban buses that operate on 

clean alternative fuels. Oil companies will be required to develop new, cleaner 

gasoline. Third, our industries will be required to dramatically reduce emissions of 

toxic pollutants. Fourth, the bill will reduce the emission of acid rain causing 

pollutants by 50 percent. Finally, the legislation will phase out the production of 

chemicals that deplete the Earth's protective ozone layer. 

Mr. Speaker, most important, this legislation will create a cleaner environment 

without imposing undue hardships or unbearable costs on any one industry or any 

one segment of our society. This, then, is a proposal every Member of the House 

can be proud of. 

Mr. Speaker, once again I want to applaud chairman Dingell and Chairman 

Waxman for their heroic efforts in crafting this historic measure. This House, and 

indeed, the Nation owe them a special debt of gratitude. I urge my colleagues to 

vote for the conference report. 

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to enter into a brief colloquy with the 

distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. As approved 

by the House, H.R. 3030 amended section 108(f) of the Clean Air Act to require 

States, in considering transportation control measures, to ensure adequate access 

to downtown, other commercial and residential areas and avoid measures that 

increase or relocate emissions and congestion rather than reduce them. 

The House report language on section 108(f), and on the specific provisions to 

offset growth in vehicle miles traveled in severe ozone nonattainment areas, 

makes it clear this is a requirement on the States in revising their State 

implementation plans. 

Although the conference report deletes that sentence from section 108(f), the 

conference report requires States to choose from among and implement 

transportation control measures in a manner that ensures access, and to avoid 

using counterproductive measures which merely relocate emissions and 

congestion. As my chairman knows, this language was added as an amendment to 

section 182(c) of the act for serious ozone, section 182(d) of the act for severe 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 148 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
ozone areas, and section 187(b) for serious carbon monoxide areas by cross 

reference to severe ozone. Is my understanding correct? 

[Page: H12895]

[TIME: 1820]

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. MANTON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Manton] is correct. 

He was the author of that section and understands very well what transpired. 

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 

Ritter]. 

(Mr. RITTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. RITTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 

Lent] for yielding. I want to commend my colleagues for their efforts in quest of a 

responsible Clean Air Act authorization. The American people are demanding 

healthier, cleaner and clearer air, and, with this legislation, we are hoping to 

improve upon the 1973 and 1977 amendments of the original Clean Air Act of 

1970. 

I recognize that the Clean Air Act is not a perfect bill. But, very capable and 

sincere people worked very hard to put this historic legislation before us today. 

I would like to say that some environmental problems pose far more significant 

health and environmental risks than others. I offered an amendment that would 

set out prioirities to evaluate the respective risks and to put them into 

perspective. That way we can tackle the worst environmental hazards first. 

Unfortunately that amendment was not made a part of this final bill, but, 

hopefully, as we go forward, we can focus needed attention on the highest priority 

hazards to health and the environment. 

Some control technologies will prove reliable and cost-effective; others, less 

reliable, more expensive and with potential to substitute one environmental 

problem for another, such as scrubbers. Scrubbers can take an air pollution 

problem and convert it to a solid waste problem, that is, scrubber sludge. I offered 

an amendment to extend the time to be able to apply clean coal technology to a 

greater extent to avoid some of these problems. I think we need to take another 

look at the scrubber versus clean coal technology debate in the course of the 

implementation of the bill. 

With regard to the economics of emission trading, if implemented as intended, 

these provisions can result in savings for electric utility customers while helping 

attain a substantial reduction in the emission of SO2 by utilities. An ideal, 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 149 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
balanced allowance market will result in the total cost of control being minimized 

while SO2 emissions are maintained at the agreed upon level. 

I fought long and hard for a reasonable standard for heavy duty vehicles so that 

truck manufacturers like Mack Truck in my district will be able to meet the 

standards while at the same time meeting the needs for cleaner air. I am glad the 

conferees were able to work out an acceptable compromise. I look forward to the 

onset of the `clean diesel' and innovation beyond that. 

I also would have liked to see Congress apply its own nearly $600 million, 10-

year, National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program [NAPAP] study to the 

debate, and I am sad that that did not occur. The debate would certainly have 

been more informed. 

Finally, the Clean Air Act amendments will cost Americans $20 to $50 billion a 

year for the foreseeable future, and that is why the final compromise contains an 

amendment that I offered requiring accountability for these costs. The 

`accountability' amendment requires reports on the benefits and costs resulting 

from the act. It would lay out health and environmental quality benefits plus 

economic advantages resulting from the act. It would also document the impact 

on American jobs, energy security, and U.S. competitiveness in national and 

international markets. 

Mr. Speaker, I pledge, as a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

and as a member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology to work 

through the years ahead to reach the goals of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990. 

In closing. I'd like to commend two of the truly great legislators in this body, 

Chairman John Dingell and subcommittee Chairman Henry Waxman. My full 

committee ranking Republican member Norm Lent deserves substantial praise. 

He did the utmost to make the bill workable and its goals achievable. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 

Collins]. 

(Mrs. COLLINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 

remarks.) 

Mrs. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the conference report on the 

Clean Air Act amendments, S. 1630 has finally reached final consideration by the 

House. It is as comprehensive a package of reforms as could be and it will make a 

clear, quantifiable improvement in the quality of life in America. To all my 

colleagues involved in this bill, especially to those with whom I serve on the 

Energy and Commerce Committee, I extend a sincere congratulations for having 

worked together, successfully, through so many agonizingly difficult, and 

contentious issues over so may tiresome hours. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 150 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
The reckless dumping of dirty, deadly chemicals, and emissions into our 

atmosphere is injurious to both public health and the environment in which we 

live. It is such a common occurrence that environmental protection has become 

one of the most important issues of this generation. 

Clean air is neither a novelty item nor a luxury, rather, it is the foundation on 

which our entire survival is based. The massive pumping of carbon dioxide has 

drilled a hole in the ozone layer, a significant expansion of which has been known 

to cause health problems and death. Autos, trucks, and buses still account for 45 

percent of the ozone problem. In 1980, ozone standards were exceeded on 28 

days in Illinois; in 1988, they were exceeded on 32 days. The proliferation of air 

toxics is no better. In 1988, 46 million pounds of toxic chemicals were spewed into 

the air by Chicago-area industries, up from 38 million pounds the year before. 

At the other end of the spectrum of consequences, the daily inhalation of 

pollutants which have become commonplace has drastically increased rates of 

cancer and lung disease in residents of Chicago and elsewhere. Of the 46 million 

pounds of toxics pumped into Chicago's air in 1988, 1.4 million pounds were 

cancer-causing carcinogens. 

Today, we are responding forcefully and with total commitment to recapturing our 

future put in jeopardy by careless indifference toward environmental and health 

concerns. Some industries have been protesting that proposals affecting 

automobiles and their fuels, electric utilities, and the use or production of toxics 

will cause them to change their way of doing business. Well, that's precisely the 

point. American business has been too often conducted with little or no regard for 

environmental concerns. 

I am fully confident, however, that the ingenious, creative American 

entrepreneurial spirit will have no trouble developing and adjusting the new 

standards set forth in this legislation. I have already seen many examples of 

environmentally sound methods of profitable production and am aware that many 

others exist. Most importantly, our country's untapped resources for innovation of 

atmospherically safe production and manufacturing alternatives are staggering. 

Motor vehicles provide an excellent example. They are the main contributors to 

Chicago's air quality malaise. American manufacturers have already developed 

many methods of better controlling the emissions from autos, trucks, and buses. 

Yet, those methods have been left in the labs rather than built into the vehicles. S. 

1630 would bring these technologies to the fore. 

I want our automakers to experience continued growth in the United States and 

abroad in the 1990's and the next century. But they won't succeed by saving $50 

or $100 at the cost of environmental irresponsibility. As consumers increasingly 

demand vehicles with the lowest possible emissions, they will turn to whichever 

manufacturer best satisfies that need. To remain competitive, our auto 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 151 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
manufacturers must make a serious commitment to producing vehicles that are 

economically and environmentally viable. 

Consequently, I am very supportive of the conference report's requirements on 

tailpipe emissions as well as the provisions on alternative fuels, superclean fleet 

and other vehicles and reformulated gasoline. I am pleased that the conference 

report also embraces the position which I propounded months ago to ensure not 

only that buses meet stringent standards, but that transit authorities be allowed to 

attain those standards by use of the economical clean diesel technologies. I am 

optimistic that a combination of solutions will lead to a profound improvement in 

air quality, both in Chicago and nationwide. 

Chicago's air pollution problems unfortunately do not end there. Acid rain is 

endemic to the Midwest and other areas, and Chicago is not exempt. It takes a 

daily toll in vital ways. It contaminates and limits the growth of crops, weakens 

our trees, poisons our waters, kills our fish, and even fizzles away the paint on our 

cars. I am convinced that the acid rain title of the bill will drastically reduce this 

problem. I am only disappointed that my provision to protect low-income 

residents from resulting electricity cost increases was dropped from the bill. 

The bottom line is that our Nation's utilities and production facilities must reach 

beyond coal, oil, and fossil fuels. The focus must shift instead toward conservation 

and renewables such as hydropower, solar thermal, photovoltaics, geothermal, 

and wind. These clean sources and energy, available in virtually limitless supply, 

are the way of the future. Although applications of these sources were initially 

developed in the United States, in the past decade, Japan and other countries 

have taken the lead in their development. I would hate to see another American 

industry take a loss in competitiveness by resisting this inevitable trend of the 

future. Consequently, I am very pleased with the inclusion in the acid rain title of 

a provision which I helped develop to encourage utilities to reach their air quality 

goals through greater use of renewable energies and conservation. It allows a 

small pool of the sulfur-dioxide allowances credits to be allocated to utilities that 

clean their emissions through the use of conservation and renewable energies 

during the first years after passage of this bill. 

There are other major ingredients in a balanced, comprehensive and effective 

clean air bill which are addressed. The toxic emissions from stationery sources 

must be sharply curtailed. An amendment which I offered earlier in the process 

ensured that existing sources adhere to a strong standard of maximum achievable 

control technology. We also took a tough stand to prevent accidental releases of 

toxics which can lead to catastrophe. 

The rights of private citizens are also protected. Earlier this year, I developed 

language on citizen suits which was incorporated into the enforcement title of the 

bill. The objective is to ensure the rights the clean air laws, even when the 

authorities have chosen not to pursue violations. If we are taking action for strong 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 152 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
clean air legislation, then we must also ensure that the resulting legislation is fully 

enforceable. Clean citizen suit provisions are the key to that. 

Also in regards to enforcement, I succeeded in amending the bill to ensure that, in 

the case of noncompliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Statistics' limits 

on ozone, sanctions will be applied to the broadest possible areas, known as 

CMSA's and MSA's, rather than to small segments of a city which would yield no 

tangible benefits. 

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that clean air legislation has finally come to fruition. We 

have acted to make our Nation competitive in the long run, while acting on the air 

quality imperatives of coming decades. The businesses worth bolstering are those 

which eagerly embrace the future, not those which fight against it. I look forward 

to long-range improvements in public health as well as the environment as a 

result of this monumentally historic legislation. 

[Page: H12896]

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 

Solomon]. 

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would simply express my strong support for this 

conference on the Clean Air Act and commend the conferees for the excellent job 

they have done, especially the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingel] and the 

gentleman from New York [Mr. Lent]. My congressional district includes a large 

segment of the Catskill and Adirondack Mountains, and over the years I have 

witnessed first hand the terrible destruction acid rain has caused our region of 

New York. I am grateful the conferees accepted meaningful clean coal language 

which will dramatically reduce the emissions which cause this environmental 

damage. 

I would also express my appreciation to the conferees for accepting my 

amendment entitled `Adirondack Destruction Assessment.' This provision of the 

bill allows for the continued research of the effects of acid rain on the ecosystem 

of the hundreds of small lakes and streams in the Adirondack Mountains. 

I would especially like to thank Chairman Roe for the outstanding job he has done 

on this bill, and Chairman Dingell, Norm Lent, the ranking minority member, 

and Congressman Boehlert for his strong support. As an original sponsor of the 

Clean Air Act, I am pleased that, after many years of work, the Congress is giving 

its final approval to the bill. I would also praise President George Bush for without 

his leadership this landmark legislation would not have become a reality. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 

New York [Mr. Bruce] who has had great interest in this matter. 

(Mr. BRUCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 153 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
[Page: H12897]

Mr. BRUCE. Mr. Speaker, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 have taken a 

long time to draft, and it is a tribute to the work of many Members of the House 

and several Members of the other body, that this legislation has been completed. 

It would be difficult to give credit everywhere it is due, but a number of people 

need to be recognized. 

The issue of amendments to the Clean Air Act has been before the Energy and 

Commerce Committee for more than two decades, during which time two men 

represented the deep divisions in this country on environmental policy. Committee 

chairman John Dingell has long been a forceful advocate of protecting the 

Nation's economy from overrestrictive environmental controls which would burden 

the competitive capabilities of our industries. Health and Environment 

Subcommittee Chairman Henry Waxman, spurred by the smog problems in the 

Los Angeles area he represents, has long countered this advocacy with hardfought support for legislation to protect the Nation's citizens from the harmful 

effects of acid rain, airborne toxics, urban smog and, particularly, automobile 

emissions. Throughout the 1980s, these two men disagreed on how best to merge 

environmental and economic policy. Meanwhile, air quality in this Nation, while 

still among the best in the world, deteriorated. 

Because of the difficulties that have developed between Chairmen Dingell and 

Waxman over the years, nine Democratic members of the Energy and Commerce 

Committee came together several years ago, to try to get the process of passing 

clean air legislation moving again. 

Our goal was to build a substantive bridge between the two, where a political 

bridge had failed to be constructed. These nine, who came to be known as the 

`Group of Nine,' became personally involved in pouring through detailed scientific 

and technical data on the sources of air pollution, meeting with environmental and 

industry representatives, and debating solutions to the problems caused by urban 

smog. Hundreds of hours were devoted by each of the nine members to finding 

the substantive bridge that had kept clean air legislation off the President's desk 

for more than a decade. 

After struggling within the group of nine, we introduced legislation in the 100th 

Congress which provided for greater environmental controls at less cost than any 

other smog legislation, which had been introduced to that point. That legislation 

was reintroduced in the 101st Congress as H.R. 99, and became the backbone of 

the President Bush's proposal for controling urban smog. For those who drafted 

H.R. 99--Al Swift, Phil Sharp, Billy Tauzin, Mike Synar, Dennis Eckart, Jim 

Slattery, Jim Cooper, Rick Boucher, and myself--the adoption of the 

conference report on S. 1630, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, will mean 

that our efforts have been successful. Where political bridges had collapsed, 

substantive bridges stood firm. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 154 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
A great deal of credit must also be given to other Members who remained strong 

advocates of environmental controls throughout the less-than-friendly years of the 

Reagan administration. Gerry Sikorski has been a prominent advocate of 

significantly reducing the emissions of acid rain. Today marks a significant 

accomplishment of his tenure. 

Our departed colleague, Mickey Leland, must be credited with his tough stand on 

reducing airborne toxics. Other members of the committee, including Ron Wyden 

and Bill Richardson, have also played prominent roles in pursuing environmental 

quality legislation. And Ralph Hall has worked closely with me and others from 

the oil and gas producing States to involve that industry in this process. 

While the Midwest will certainly suffer some pain from the provisions of the acid 

rain agreement between House and Senate conferees, those of us from the 

heartland owe a great deal of thanks to two men in committee leadership 

positions. Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Phil Sharp has spent 

hundreds of hours pursuing an acid rain agreement which recognizes the 

substantial costs that acid rain controls will impose on our ratepayers and 

industries. His leadership has been crucial to negotiating a better deal for the 

Midwest than was offered in the legislation sent to Congress by President Bush 

and Vice President Dan Quayle. 

Health and Environment Subcommittee ranking member Ed Madigan, whose 

district borders my own, has also worked vigorously to protect ratepayers and 

industries in our region and also deserves a great deal of credit for improving this 

agreement from the versions proposed by the President and approved by the 

Senate. Others who helped to form a Midwest coalition because we were 

significantly outnumbered at every step in the process also deserve accolades. 

Thomas Luken, despite his nearing retirement from this body, has worked hard 

for his State. Dennis Eckart and Mike Oxley have also contributed mightily to 

the uphill battle to win concessions for our region. 

I have worked with dozens of other members both on and off the Energy and 

Commerce Committee, whom I would like to thank, including ranking Republican 

Norm Lent, Roy Rowland, Mike Oxley, Tom Bliley, Michael Bilirakis, Glenn 

Poshard, Dick Durbin, Jerry Costello, Bob Wise, John Murtha, Carlos 

Moorhead, and Jim Slattery. Many more deserve my personal thank you, and 

many others deserve recognition for the roles they have played. 

Most importantly, I would like to thank the many staff people who played essential 

roles in drafting this legislation, including Dave Finnegan and Mike Woo of the full 

committee staff, subcommittee staffers Shelley Fidler, Judi Greenwald, Greg 

Wetstone, Phil Barnett and Phil Schiliro, and minority counsels Chuck Knauss and 

John Shelk. And a personal thank you for a job well done to Mike Bushman of my 

staff, who sat through thousands of hours of discussion and never failed to give us 

good advice, and solid arguments. In addition, dozens of personal staffers had a 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 155 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
tremendous impact on the final version of this legislation and deserve credit for 

moving this legislation forward in a productive manner. 

Chairman Dingell and Chairman Waxman, in particular, have done the most to 

put aside philosophical differences to reach agreements on this legislation. I urge 

the President to sign this conference report into law so that air quality 

improvements, which have been put on hold, may finally be put into action. 

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 is a complicated measure containing many 

provisions of controversy. This is by far the strongest environmental measure 

Congress has passed in more than a decade, and probably the most 

comprehensive environmental legislation Congress has ever passed. I would like 

to now discuss some of the specific provisions of the legislation. 

First, the bill puts the United States into a position of global leadership on 

reducing emissions of chemicals which deplete the ozone layer. Air toxics will be 

reduced by at least 90 percent, and human health will be protected to the lowest 

possible levels--a level most nation's could only dream of attaining. The emissions 

of acid rain precursors are being cut in half, at large cost to the Nation's industrial 

heartland. Urban smog will be dramatically reduced through a comprehensive 

approach which recognizes the role of autos, large factories and small businesses 

in contributing to ozone, and which also recognizes the need to protect human 

lungs. 

As the Environmental Protection Agency undertakes the massive project of 

meeting deadlines set in the Clean Air Act, I hope Congress will be vigorous in its 

oversight. I also hope we will be fair. 

Under title II of this bill, EPA is to promulgate regulations within 12 months that 

will enable manufacturers to determine whether their vehicles perform acceptably 

in various State inspection and maintenance programs. It is understood that these 

new regulations are not intended to be section 202 standards. They are intended 

to improve the correlation between State inspection and maintenance program 

testing and the types of full-scale testing that EPA conducts to determine 

compliance with section 202 standards. 

For much too long, there has been poor correlation between State testing and EPA 

testing, and this section should help address that problem. 

In developing the regulations required by this section, EPA has a difficult job 

ahead. There are many independent State inspection and maintenance programs, 

and they use differing test procedures. By the time EPA publishes the necessary 

regulations, it may be less than 1 year until model year 1993 vehicles enter 

production. For that reason, my understanding is that this title would not require 

emission test data demonstrating compliance with the new regulations. Instead, 

EPA would be given authority to withhold a certificate of conformity if it 

determines that a vehicle or engine for which a certificate has been sought cannot 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 156 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
pass the new regulations. I believe this is an appropriate approach to this 

important section of the bill. 

Second, in addition, it is clear that conferees purposefully adopted the House of 

Representatives' list of air toxics that list does not contain ammonia and hydrogen 

sulfide. The committee does not intend to regulate the use of anhydrous ammonia 

as a nitrogen fertilizer, a decision of great importance to farmers who otherwise 

might have had to use unnecessary, expensive control equipment. But clearly we 

intend that accidental release provisions protect human health. Ammonia has 

been shown not to be a carcinogen, mutagen or teratogen, but clearly in large 

amounts could be hazardous. 

Third, on the issue of off-road engines and vehicles, I believe that the EPA must 

give careful consideration to regulations of emissions from these engines and 

vehicles only if such reductions are needed to help urban areas meet air quality 

standards. While costs, available technology, lead time and other criteria must be 

taken into consideration, the committee does not intend in its preemption 

language to stop emission reductions from vehicles under 175 horsepower. 

Rather, it is the committees belief that one Federal standard must apply to all 

similar vehicles and engines. As the European community moves toward 

standardized requirements, the United States should not move toward separate 

systems of regulation. 

As EPA considers all of the regulations required by this bill, I hope the agency will 

keep in mind the need to be cost-effective. With a bill expected to add $25 billion 

annually in pollution control requirements to the Nation's economy, it is imperative 

that required environmental reductions be real, and that they be achieved in the 

least costly manner possible, while protecting human health. 

Fourth, this legislation, for the first time, extends the Clean Air Act to cover 

currently unregulated sources of emissions from consumer and commercial 

products. As a member of the Committee who helped draft this section, I think 

several features of the House amendment adopted by the conferees merit 

emphasis. 

First, subsection 183(e) requires the Administrator to prepare and submit to 

Congress, within 3 years, a study of emissions of volatile organic compounds 

[VOC] into the ambient air from consumer and commerical products. The study is 

to determine the potential of such products to contribute to ozone levels in areas 

which violate the NAAQS, and to establish criteria for regulating such products or 

classes or categories thereof. This is a new area of regulation for the 

Administrator, which could potentially affect hundreds of thousands of products 

throughout the country. Accordingly, it is expected that the Administrator will 

prepare the study and report with close consultation and comment by interested 

parties, such as State environmental agencies, appropriate Federal agencies, 

affected industries, and the general public. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 157 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Paragraph 183(e)(3) provides that, upon submission of the report, the 

Administrator shall list those categories of consumer or commerical products 

which, based on the study, account for at least 80 percent of the VOC emissions--

on a reactivity-adjusted basis--from such products in areas that violate the NAAQS 

for ozone. At such time, the Administrator is also to divide the list into 4 groups 

and establish priorities for subsequent regulation based upon the criteria set forth 

in paragraph 2. These criteria require the Administrator to consider the following 

attributes of consumer or commercial products: uses, benefits, and commerical 

demand; health or safety functions; VOC reactivity; ease of cost-effective 

controls; and the availability of alternative products which are of comparable 

costs, considering health, safety and environmental benefits. 

Thereafter, the Administrator is to promulgate regulations as to each of the 4 

groups in seriatum priority order every 2 years until 

all four are subject to regulation. The regulations shall require best available 

controls, as defined in this subsection, and may exempt health use products. The 

potential systems of regulation are broad, and include the use of CTG's in lieu of 

regulations, where CTG's would be substantially as effective as regulations in 

reducing emissions of VOC's to the ambient air in areas which violate the NAAQS 

for ozone. 

It is important to note there that regulations/CTG's are to be applied only at the 

level of the manufacturer, processor, wholesale distributor or importer, and are to 

take into account technical and commercial feasibility, costs, lead time, and 

competition. Some States have begun to act with respect to consumer and 

commercial product VOC emissions, and some manufacturers of such products 

have already made, and are making, reductions in the VOC's released to the 

ambient air from their products. These are positive developments for which credit 

is to be accorded by the Administrator in developing regulations/CTG's. Thus, this 

section requires that the Administrator give credit toward the 80 percent 

emissions calculation for emission reductions made after the date of enactment, 

and that, as regulations/CTG's are developed, similar credit will be applied to 

those products which have made reductions. 

While the Administrator must promulgate regulations/CTG's under this subsection, 

the States may develop and submit to the Administrator, procedures under State 

law for implementing and enforcing those regulations/CTG's. If the Administrator 

finds the State procedure adequate, it shall be approved. The Congress is well 

aware that most consumer and commercial products are intended to be marketed 

nationwide in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the legislation reflects the view, 

that uniformity of regulation is an important objective. Thus, this subsection also 

requires the Administrator to establish a clearinghouse of information, studies, 

and regulations proposed and promulgated, and to disseminate such information 

collected as requested by States. Further, any State which proposed regulations 

other than those promulgated by the Administrator, must consult with the 

Administrator regarding whether any other State has promulgated or is 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 158 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
promulgating regulations as to products covered by this subsection, and no State 

regulations regarding the size, shape or labeling of a product may be 

promulgated, unless the Administrator finds that such regulations are useful in 

meeting any NAAQS. 

Regulations promulgated by the Administrator under this subsection as to each of 

the four groups of products, must apply best available controls as defined in 

paragraph 1. This definition is new and specific to this subsection, and requires 

that any controls be technologically feasible, economically feasible, and consider 

health, environmental, and energy implications. Further, consistent with best 

available controls, the regulations under this subsection may include any system 

of regulation as the Administrator deems appropriate, including requirements for 

registration and labeling, self-monitoring and reporting, prohibitions, limitations, 

or reasonable fees, charges, and other economic incentives--including marketable 

permits and 

auctions of emissions rights--concerning the manufacture, processing, distribution, 

use consumption, or disposal of the product. Thus, it may be that the most 

effective technique for regulating VOC emisions from a particular product, would 

be a revision to the directions for time of use of the product. The most effective 

technique for some other product could be feedstock substitution or reformulation 

where that was technologically and economically feasible for that product. The 

ultimate objective is to reduce VOC emissions to the ambient air in nonattainment 

areas from products where those emission reductions are technologically and 

economically feasible for a product consistent with the other criteria mentioned in 

this subsection. 

The term `consumer and commercial products' for purposes of this subsection is 

very broad. Except for some specifically noted items, it includes any substance, 

product or article of use, consumption, storage, disposal, destruction or 

decomposition of which results in the release of VOC's. This is inconsistent with 

OTA's Catching Our Breath study for Congress, which found that industrial solvent 

use accounts for the largest percentage of total solvent use in nonattainment 

areas. Accordingly, the substances and products used in industrial processes are 

to be a high priority for EPA to study and regulate. 

Fifth, I am pleased that the title on ozone depleting substances has been resolved 

to the satisfaction of the Congress, industry, and the environmental organizations 

that are concerned with this global issue. However, it is important to commend 

the U.N. environment programme for the groundbreaking work that resulted in the 

Montreal protocol, an unprecedented environmental treaty that brought the 

nations of the world together to address ozone protection. 

As we embark on passing this CFC and HCFC legislation, we need to understand 

the international process from which this legislation differs; our first efforts should 

always be to work within the protocol process, and we need to understand that 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 159 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
any example we set for the rest of the world must be technically feasible, 

scientifically based, economically justified, and environmentally significant. 

The CFC phaseout presents a significant challenge to U.S. industry and potential 

difficulties for the U.S. economy. The commercialization of CFC substitutes is 

dependent on critical environmental and toxicity testing that is expected to be 

completed within the next 2 to 5 years. In addition, the phaseout of HCFC's by 

2030 could have significant ramifications to the U.S. industries seeking to develop 

and market these substitutes around the world. Congress needs to be prepared to 

analyze the progress of the CFC alternatives, since many critical uses will depend 

on them, such as refrigeration, air conditioning, and medical uses. Many industries 

such as electronics, defense, automobile, and foam will be dependent on 

substitutes. Any disruption in the availability of these substitutes could be critically 

damaging to the environment, U.S. citizens, and the U.S. economy. 

It is important that this section be implemented in a manner that recognizes the 

important role of U.S. industry in developing an effective international solution, 

and the need to avoid duplicative or overburdensome regulatory initiatives of the 

Federal, State, and local levels on this matter. 

Finally, I add my support to the statement of interpretation of title VI offered by 

my colleagues from Ohio and Texas, Mr. Oxley, and Mr. Hall. 

I believe the Energy and Commerce Committee has done its job in protecting 

human health while making required reductions cost-effective. Again, I urge the 

adoption of this conference report. 

[Page: H12899]

Mr. LENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. 

Smith]. 

Mr. SMITH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 

Lent] for yielding, and I rise in support of the Clean Air Act. 

Coming from the State of Vermont, which has been a leader consistently in 

fighting for strong clean air legislation in general and an end to the pollution and 

the devastation caused by acid rain on our highest peaks and in our upland lakes 

more specificially, I, as the sole Member of Congress from Vermont, and I know all 

Vermonters applaud the passage of a clean air bill finally. It is a giant step forward 

across the board in clean air measures and an especially strong measure when it 

comes to fighting acid rain. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 

Hall]. 

(Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 

remarks.) 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 160 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Congress has been swept along on the tide of 

environmental concerns. I too joined many in the American public and in my own 

Fourth Congressional District of Texas who feel our next generation should be able 

to breathe cleaner air. 

The 1977 Clean Air Act was an environmental landmark, and has done much to 

improve the quality of our air--motor vehicles are some 90 percent cleaner than 

ever before--many utilities have installed scrubbers at great expense. Yet in these 

amendments we are asking for more. 

However, my support of this conference report is not without reservations--it 

concerns me in many aspects. Primarily because we tried to develop policy, in 

many instances, around unknown and commercially untried science. Therefore, 

flexibility must be considered if the technology can not be achieved. We have 

made no secret that many provisions were crafted to force technology--which may 

or may not be achievable. 

We are asking our business and industrial community to move in uncharted waters

--and we are asking them to do so in times of economic uncertainty and facing a 

recession this country has not had to address for a number of years. 

The States of California, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, California, 

Connecticut, and Pennsylvania will be the hardest hit. Two Texas counties, Dallas 

and Harris rank in the top 10 for impact by requirements imposed by this 

legislation. 

As a member of the conference committee, I was particularly concerned about the 

new requirements of a reformulated gas. I am not at all comfortable that what we 

have written as a reformulated gas policy will do what we intend. I therefore 

submit the following statements on what we think the program should be and 

intends to do by this statute. 

Section 219 adds new subsections 211 (k) and (m) to establish a reformulated 

gasoline program for nine ozone nonattainment cities, and an oxygenated gasoline 

program for carbon monoxide nonattainment cities at or above 9.5 ppm. 

The former program begins on January 1, 1995. The latter begins in the winter of 

1992, unless waived by EPA. 

Both programs may bring significant health benefits to the large populations in 

these areas and open new markets to farmers, at modest cost to motorists and 

with minimal disruptions in the supply of this critical fuel. But to achieve this 

balance, the Administration must adhere to the following important interpretations 

of and qualifications to the legislative language. 

Many features of these programs were not included in the original House or 

Senate committee-reported versions of the bill, but were added subsequently, 

during floor debate. A clear legislative history for the House- and Senate-passed 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 161 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
versions of these programs is thus not fully available. In addition, the final version 

of these programs set out in the conference report differs in many ways from the 

House- and Senate-passed versions. The following statement explains these 

differences and provides the legislative intent of the final version. 

Cost and energy requirements: The administrator must, in shaping the 

reformulated gas program, consider in new 211(k)(1) the overall cost of the 

program's emission reductions and its effects on the Nation's `energy 

requirements.' In particular: 

The Administrator has claimed this program will only cost motorists about 4 to 6 

cents per gallon extra, and the conferees have relied upon this prediction. In 

addition, one of the Nation's major energy requirements is an adequate supply of 

energy at a reasonable cost. Reformulated gasoline thus is not an `at any cost' 

program, and is not to be administered in a way that results in pump price 

increases that are significantly in excess of this estimate. 

Furthermore, cost is not limited simply to the financial cost of new refinery 

investments and oxygenate producing and handling facilities, presumably spread 

smoothly over all gallons of the new gas that is produced and sold over a long 

period of time. Such a total original cost approach might be appropriate for a 

regulated utility industry, but it is not true for gasoline. Instead, the Administrator 

must recognize that gasoline is inelastic, and is traded in a deregulated 

commodity market where supply and demand set retail prices. 

Crude oil and fuel markets have repeatedly experienced very large price increases 

and declines because of very small shortages or gluts. For example, 2 percent or 3 

percent crude oil shortages in the two major disruptions of the 1970's doubled and 

tripled world oil prices. Today's worldwide crude shortage is reportedly only about 

1 percent, yet prices have doubled. Similar large, rapid, up-and-down price 

movements occurred in January and February of this year, due to very modest 

weather-related shortages and gluts of heating oil, diesel fuel, and propane. In 

sum, modest physical shortages can easily double consumer fuel prices; worse 

increases would result from larger shortages. 

Gasoline prices in and out of the affected areas are an obvious, unmistakable 

index of this program's cost. In contrast, estimates of possible future supply or 

even current physical supply are often uncertain or disputed, and may or may not 

be correct. Accordingly, this program shall not be carried out in a manner that 

permits even modest physical shortages of refining and oxygenate capacity, or 

modest disruptions in deliveries to the nine large ozone areas, if those shortages 

or disruptions result in unacceptable price hikes to ultimate consumers at the 

retail pump. This applies to all cost considerations in new 211 (k) and (m). 

It is critical for the Administrator to expedite the process of defining acceptable 

parameters for the new fuel, testing it, and permitting the construction of new 

refinery capacity to produce it well before the January 1, 1995, deadline. Both the 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 162 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
development and the enforcement of this program must recognize that lengthy or 

repeated refinery reconfigurations or shutdowns can spell unacceptable shortages 

of both conventional and reformulated gasoline, especially in view of the current 

record lack of spare refining capacity. 

Similarly, in moving from the phase I 1995 standards for VOC's and toxic 

pollutants to the phase II 2000 standards, refiners may be compelled to make 

additional major modifications in their manufacturing processes. Typically, such 

modifications require as many as 5 years to complete. In recognition of this timing 

factor, the feasibility test and any consequent adjustment in the performance 

standards under 211(k)(3)(B) should be completed by the Administrator no later 

than January 1, 1995. 

Import dependency is part of the consideration of energy requirements set by 211

(k)(1). This program is premised upon domestic refining capacity. Imported 

reformulated--if it exists at all in 1995 or thereafter--is certainly not banned by 

211(k); but EPA should ensure that reliance upon imports for early 

implementation does not jeopardize the development of adequate domestic 

facilities. 

Mobil toxics: The provisions of section 206, requiring EPA rules barring hazardous 

air pollutants from motor vehicle fuels effective in May 1995, are not intended to 

create a second reformulated gasoline that is different from or meets more 

stringent standards than the gasoline required under 211(k). Nor may such rules 

conflict with, change, or nullify the antidumping rules under 211(k)(8). 

Coverage: The regulations under 211(k)(2) apply to refiners, blenders, importers, 

and marketers. Some of these terms overlap: For example, some refiners also 

market their gasoline, and some marketers splash blend ethanol into gasoline, and 

thus are also blenders. 

Baseline vehicles: New 211(k)(2)(A) and other provisions on VOC's, air toxics, and 

antidumping, require the use of baseline vehicles to fairly compare the emissions 

of different fuels. 

These comparisons will occur at different times and will involve different fuels. For 

example, the VOC comparison may occur early, in 1992 or 1993, and will 

examine: First, VOC emissions from the industry's 1990 baseline gasoline; and 

second, VOC emissions from a specific refiner's proposed reformulated gasoline. 

The antidumping comparison may occur later, in 1994 for example, and will 

examine emissions from a specific refiner's 1990 gasoline, and from that same 

refiner's 1995 conventional gasoline. Enforcement comparisons may occur even 

later, in the late 1990's. 

In all four provisions, the baseline vehicles are intended to be the same: 

representative model year 1990 vehicles. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 163 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Three variables will influence the comparisons: The different fuels; the test cars 

that burn these fuels; and the varying--and in fact declining--emissions 

performance of each test car over time. 

The intent is that the latter two of these variables always be held constant by EPA, 

so that for each required comparison, only the two compared fuels vary. This 

prevents an improper comparison of apples and oranges. 

For example, a VOC emissions test may occur in 1991, using 1-year old 1990 

vehicles. This may show the required reductions have been achieved, and be the 

basis for huge investments in new refineries to produce the new gasoline. But 

years later, in 1994, for example, when the 1990 care are older and dirtier 

emitters, the new gasoline may fail the test it passed 3 years earlier: Even though 

it is chemically identical to its successful predecessor, the aging 1990 cars may 

have changed in unexpected ways--and show only a failing 13 percent reduction 

on VOC emissions, compared to a successful 16 percent reduction that occurred 3 

years earlier in the younger 1990 cars. 

Indeed, the use of a mass basis test that compares the percentage difference 

between emissions from baseline gas and from the proposed reformulated gas, 

may guarantee failure in subsequent tests using older, dirtier cars: Suppose 

baseline gas yields 100 mass units of VOC emissions on the young baseline car in 

1991, and the reformulated yields 85. This 15 percent gain passes the 211(k) 

test. But 3 years later, the same absolute difference at a higher level would fail: 

120 units and 105 units--solely from the dirtier car--are still 15 units apart, and 

the reformulated gas is still better, but it is only about 13 percent better. 

Accordingly, the baseline vehicle provisions shall be read together with new 211

(k)(4)(C) as follows: 

Comparing results derived in 1 year from young baseline vehicles with those 

derived in later years from old baseline cars is unfair. EPA cannot do this. 

Each refiner, blender, and importer shall be allowed to lock in on test successfully 

performed at one point in time with the baseline vehicles, and cannot thereafter 

have their investments imperiled by different and worse results apparently owing 

to an aging baseline vehicle fleet. 

Chemical identity within reasonable tolerances to a successfully tested fuel is the 

key; continuing successful tests on an aging and increasingly unpredictable fleet 

are not. 

Representative 1990 MY vehicles are chosen so that EPA need not assemble and 

maintain, through the 1990's, a much larger fleet of cars somehow representative 

of all cars--of all model years and makes--on the highways in 1990. 

Technically infeasible: As used in the nitrogen oxide cap provision in new 211(k)

(2)(A) and elsewhere, this phrase shall be interpreted in a commonsense fashion 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 164 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
that considers all aspects of this complex new program. For example, a certain 

chemical process to limit NOx may in principle be available; but if it costs $10 

billion, or if it requires physical conditions like those on the surface of the sun, it is 

not technically feasible within the meaning of new 211(k). 

Similarly, a cost-effective chemical process may exist on a laboratory or pilot plant 

scale, but there may not be enough time to scale it up to the full, industrial-scale 

level that will supply all the needs of the affected cities without a shortage. Or 

scientific data may be lacking, and may require years to compile. Again, in such a 

case, compliance would be technically infeasible. 

The phrase `technological feasibility' in 211(k)(3)(B) refers to the same 

commonsense concerns about workability at a reasonable cost and on schedule in 

the real world. 

An appropriate adjustment to the NOx cap under new 211(k)(2)(A) does not allow 

the costlier of two different alternatives, because that would not accord with the 

cost consideration requirement of 211(k)(1). Nor does this adjustment authority 

allow EPA to in effect rewrite the formula in 211(k)(3)(A) by, for example, an 

adjustment that completely prohibits any benzene or aromatics. Adjust as used in 

subparagraph (k)(2)(A) means instead a partial waiver. 

Thus, there are several ways to prevent any breach of the NOx cap, which EPA 

and refiners may use separately or in combination: 

An adjustment, that is, a partial waiver under (k)(2)(A), 

An entire waiver under (k)(2)(A), 

A waiver under (k)(2)(B), if there is interference with a NAAQ standard, or 

A waiver under new 211(m)(3)(A), if the area in question is an 

overlap area that is subject to both the reformulated and the oxygenated gasoline 

programs. 

Other NOx cap issues: 

The NOx cap in 211(k)(2)(A) does not require reductions of NOx. 

NOx cap results on baseline cars may be averaged by EPA. For example, if there 

are five baseline cars, and three show slight reductions, one shows no change, 

and one shows a slight increase, EPA may find 211(k)(2)(A) is satisfied. Requiring 

no increase from any of the vehicles under all operating conditions is a perfect 

example of how EPA, by extremely demanding test protocols, could in effect 

convert the NOx cap into a NOx reduction requirement. This is not intended. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 165 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
No rewriting of the minimum performance standards in (3)(B), in any way that 

makes them more stringent, is allowed under the aegis of NOx cap adjustments. 

Only the specified elements of the (3)(A) formula are within EPA's purview here. 

Large VOC reductions gained through an oxygen content that also breaks the NOx 

cap, cannot subsequently be used as the marker that must be equaled or 

exceeded under the more stringent of test in 211(k)(3). 

A reasonable testing tolerance is expressly provided for oxygen in new 211(k)(2)

(B). Under 211(k)(4)(C), EPA must also establish reasonable testing tolerances for 

all other aspects of this program, to minimize cost and make it workable and 

verifiable in the real world. EPA is specifically expected to promptly establish such 

tolerance limits. Similar reasonable tolerances are also intended for the CO 

program in 211(m). 

No equivalency for benzene or oxygen: New 211(k)(2) sets forth the hard and fast 

features of reformulated gasoline. To be certified under new 211(k)(4)(B), each of 

the NOx, oxygen, benzene, and heavy metal provisions in new paragraph (2) must 

always be satisfied--or waived by their own terms, as in the NOx, oxygen, and 

heavy metal provisions. 

In addition to these latter three waivers, flexibility is also provided by new 

paragraph (3), which gives refiners the choice between a formula, in (3)(A), or a 

performance standard, in (3)(B). The more stringent air toxic provision controls, 

as does the more stringent VOC--volatile organic compound--provision. 

More stringent means the one achieving greater emissions reductions. 

A reformulated gasoline may still qualify under (3)(B) even if it has some VOC's 

and some toxics that increase, compared to baseline gasoline. Aggregate 

decreases on a mass basis of all toxics and all VOC's are the standard; so a small 

decline or even a rise in one or two is not disqualifying, if other declines offset 

them and yield a 

sufficiently large aggregate decline in emissions. 

Equivalency for aromatics: Read together, paragraphs 211(k) (2), (3), and (4) 

leave open the possibility that a reformulated gasoline may have an aromatics 

content exceeding 25 percent by volume. But its composition would have to be 

such, that both its VOC and toxic emissions were equal to or lower than those of a 

gasoline meeting the formula in (3)(A) or the performance standards in (3)(B). 

EPA cannot take advantage of significant variations in physical and chemical 

properties of the many different kinds of aromatics, to `rig' a formula gasoline 

under (3)(A) containing an unrepresentative selection of aromatics of unusually 

low volatility or toxicity. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 166 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Multiple categories: Many compounds or types of chemicals noted in new 211(k) 

are subsets of each other. For example, benzene is an aromatic hydrocarbon, so 

reductions in benzene--to satisfy the benzene cap--will also count toward required 

reductions in aromatics and toxics as appropriate. 

Benzene is also a VOC and a toxic air pollutant, so benzene reductions in the new 

gasoline should, for example, to some degree yield lower toxics in evaporative, 

running, and refueling emissions from baseline cars. Like tailpipe emission 

reductions, any of these three types of emission reductions--from lower benzene--

would all count toward the percentage reductions for VOC's and toxics set by new 

211(k)(3)(B). 

Heavy metals: Reformulated gasoline may not include a heavy metal additive such 

as, for example, manganese. 

However, under 211(k)(2)(D), the Administrator may waive this prohibition if he 

determines that a reformulated market-grade gasoline containing the heavy metal 

additive will not have--when tested on a basis consistent with that originally 

applied to the certification of reformulated fuel not containing the metal--total 

emissions of toxic air pollutants, on an aggregate mass or cancer risk basis above 

those which would be emitted from a reformulated, market-grade gasoline of 

equivalent octane which did not contain the heavy metal additive. 

It would not be proper for EPA, under 211(k)(2)(C), to determine whether a heavy 

metal such as manganese can be granted a waiver by simply taking a 

reformulated gasoline and splash-blending the heavy metal additive into it; and it 

would be erroneous, if the five toxic air pollutant emissions increased in such a 

test, to then conclude that the heavy metal additive must be prohibited. 

Instead, the heavy metal additive is a part of a whole reformulated fuel. It is the 

fuel in its entirety, not the additives, which must meet the performance standards 

set by 211(k). Thus, if the heavy metal additive were also an octane enhancer, 

and backed out aromatics, it might--when added to a regular-grade reformulated 

fuel--make that fuel a midgrade reformulated fuel. Accordingly, the proper course 

for EPA is to compare apples with apples, by comparing emissions from a marketgrade reformulated fuel containing the heavy 

metal additive with a reformulated market grade fuel of equivalent octane that 

does not contain it. 

This provision does not provide a substitute test for approval of fuels or fuel 

additives: The new tests regarding aggregate mass or cancer risk are in addition 

to other tests set by existing law and the new amendments to the Clean Air Act. 

The existing provisions of section 211 of the Clean Air Act which require EPA to 

find that a fuel or a fuel additive will not cause or contribute to a failure of any 

emissions control device or system, will continue to be applicable to fuels and fuel 

additives, including additives containing heavy metals. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 167 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
The 211(k)(2)(D) ban is aimed against achieving a new reformulated gasoline by 

the addition in the refining and blending process of new heavy metal additives. 

The goal is to eliminate existing toxic components of gas, and not replace them 

with new ones. This focus, and EPA's establishment of reasonable testing 

tolerances, do not set up a new ban against mere trace amounts of metals at or 

below levels now in baseline 1990 gasoline, and which originated in the crude oil. 

Performance standards: New 211(k)(3)(B) directs the Administrator, in performing 

the feasibility test, to consider the cost of achieving the prescribed reductions in 

VOC and and toxic pollutant emissions. 

In making this determination, the Administrator should assess whether the tighter 

phase II performance standards are cost effective, compared to alternatives that 

are also available to achieve the needed reductions in emissions if the standards 

are not tightened. Effects of compliance with the tightened phase II standards on 

retail gasoline prices in the covered areas must be taken into account. 

Certification: EPA must act on a petition for approval of reformulated gasoline 

within 180 days, in order that large investments in new facilities are not delayed 

by uncertainty over the proposed fuel's legality. If EPA does not act in that period, 

the fuel or slate of fuels is deemed certified. 

`Slate of fuels' refers to a combination of the typically three grades or octanes of 

gasolines--premium, midgrade, and regular--and perhaps some specified 

proportion or relative volumes of them. 

The conferees expect that procedures comparable to those under existing 211(f)

(4) will apply to certifications under 211(k)(4). Any automatic approval, as a 

technical matter, can subsequently be nullified by an actual EPA disapproval of the 

petition. 

Such a subsequent reversal could jeopardize large investments that were 

presumptively legal when made, and could create severe fuel shortages and 

economic hardships in affected covered areas. Accordingly, such reversals should 

be rare or nonexistent, and based only on extraordinarily compelling reasons. 

With regard to enforcement, any such disapproval can operate only prospectively. 

A reasonable time period for new compliance measures--new permits, new 

investment, new construction--must be granted by EPA. Nor can civil penalties 

under section 211 be assessed in such cases, for sales after the automatic 

approval and before the new compliance date set after the disapproval. 

Enforcement: The intent of new 211(k)(5) is to penalize only the refiner, blender, 

importer, or marketer who knew or reasonably should have known that: 

Its conventional gasoline has been wrongfully represented as reformulated 

gasoline, and is illegally being sold or will be illegally sold for ultimate 

consumption in a covered ozone nonattainment zone, or 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 168 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Its reformulated gasoline which after appropriate crediting or pooling adjustments, 

does not meet certification standards, is being wrongfully represented as certified 

reformulated gasoline and is being sold for ultimate consumption in a covered 

ozone nonattainment zone. 

No penalties are intended for any gasoline refiner, blender, importer, or marketer 

under section 211(d), providing $25,000 per day civil penalties, if the wrongful 

conduct is taken by another entity beyond their control, or if the conduct at issue 

involves only wholesales of conventional gasoline intended for ultiamte 

consumption outside of covered areas. 

For example, the following conduct is not a violation: 

Refiner A wholesales both conventional and reformulated gasoline to large 

marketer B, who maintains large terminals in Philadelphia, a covered area. Both A 

and B are located in Philadelphia, and the wholesales occur there. The two kinds 

of gas are clearly segregated and separately and accurately marked as `certified 

reformulated' and `uncertified conventional.' B then sells the reformulated gas in 

the Philadelphia area, and resells the conventional gas outside the covered 

Philadelphia area. 

Though A has sold some uncertified gasoline to B in a covered area, no violation 

occurs. 

Assume the same location and wholesales between refiner A and marketer B, and 

the same clear marking and branding of shipments. However, B then changes the 

markings on the uncertified gas, and sells both shipments to jobber C, who B 

knows makes most of his resales in the Philadelphia area. 

Though A was technically covered by earlier versions of 211(k)(5), that language 

has been changed, and he does not violate the final provision. B has in effect 

smuggled conventional gas into Philadelphia, and has violated this provision. C 

has not. But if the markings were amateurish and the switch was obvious, or if C 

failed to make reasonable advance checks of quality specified by EPA, then C may 

also have violated this provision. 

A similar interpretation applies to the enforcement provisions of new 211(m), 

which are to be adapted into SIP's so that enforcement standards similar to 211

(k)(5) apply to the CO program. 

Opt-ins: The basic purpose of new 211(k)(6) is to extend the reformulated gas 

program to additional areas beyond the nine original covered areas, so long as the 

Administrator--prior to the effective date of the program in the opt-in cities--is 

fully assured on three points: 

That new demand from the new areas will not stretch limited domestic capacity 

already dedicated to the 211 (k) and (m) areas, so that those areas experience 

even slight physical shortages and commensurate steep price hikes; 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 169 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
That domestic supplies will also be adequate to fully handle the new demand in 

the opt-in areas; and 

That refiners have adequate advance notice of increased demand created by optin areas, to efficiently plan, finance, gain offsets for, gain permits for, and 

construct the required new capacity. 

Credits in general: Three different crediting programs--also referred to as 

`pooling' or `trading' programs--are established under new subsections 211 (k) 

and (m): 

One for oxygen, aromatics, and benzene in reformulated gasoline, under 211(k)

(7); 

One for antidumping rules covering nonreformulated gasoline, under 211(k)(8); 

and 

One for oxygen in oxygenated gasoline, in 211(m)(5). 

The first and the third crediting programs operate only within a specific ozone or 

carbon monoxide nonattainment area. The second one applies outside of those 

areas and covers all of a given company's output nationwide. 

To the maximum practicable extent, the Administrator should operate them in a 

similar fashion to minimize complexities and costs. 

The overall goal, as with other trading programs in the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990, is to permit an aggregate least-cost solution that, for example, allows the 

cheapest oxygen suppliers or the cheapest aromatics reducers to overachieve and 

handle a disproportionate share of the total burden. Less efficient competitors can 

buy credits and thus contract out some of the work to their more efficient 

brethren. Lower consumer prices are the result. 

Similarly, low octane grades of one refiner's gasoline may 

overachieve on aromatics reductions, to offset excesses from other grades; or one 

of a company's three refineries may overachieve with respect to benzene or 

oxygen. In each case, pooling is allowed. 

Averaging over time: In each of the three crediting/pooling programs, EPA must 

set a reasonable time period over which average specifications can be met. It 

could be the winter season in the oxygenated program, or a 3-month quarterly 

period in the reformulated program. It should not be so short--that is, a single 

day, hour, or minute--that averaging over time becomes impossible for 

mechanical or measuring reasons, or that unreasonable limits on supply flexibility 

and cost savings are forced on refiners, blenders, or importers. 

Averaging within a company, or pooling: In view of the chemical differences 

among different grades and octanes of gasoline, from premium to regular, EPA is 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 170 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
also directed to give refiners, blenders, and importers maximum reasonable 

flexibility to pool under 211(k)(7) on an intercompany basis. It would be 

impermissible for EPA to deny pooling rights to a refiner in the following case: 

Refiner A has a premium reformulated with 2.0 percent benzene, a midgrade with 

0.6 percent benzene, and a regular with 0.4 percent benzene. Each grade made 

up one-third of A's volume of sales in the same period last year, and is projected 

to do the same again in the coming year. Pooled together, A's gasoline meets 211

(k)'s requirement. But if sales of premium turn out to be larger than expected, 

EPA can require greater offsetting reductions in the immediately following period. 

To ease enforcement burdens, EPA could insist on checking credited volumes and 

weights for each company at the refinery gate, the point of importation, or the 

point of blending. 

Continuous, universal physical testing by EPA to determine that pooling complies 

with 211 (k) or (m) is not contemplated. Instead, refiners, blenders, and 

importers are expected to conduct appropriate compliance tests periodically, and 

maintain records suitable for EPA to fully enforce compliance. And EPA may of 

course go behind these records, and engage in fuller audits if it chooses. 

Intracompany pooling procedures established under the certification process--for 

example, to allow high aromatic levels for premium with lower offsetting levels for 

regular--would supercede any more formal crediting procedures set up by EPA. 

Many refiners may properly prefer the more informal, intracompany pooling 

approach; in part, this results from the obstacles that may hamper larger, EPAregulated intercompany credit programs, which may well entail greater 

bureaucratic and logistic difficulties. That is why the credit programs are not 

mandatory, and cannot be imposed on unwilling companies. In contrast, 

intracompany pooling shall be allowed by EPA to any company affirmatively 

seeking it. 

Averaging between or among companies is nevertheless permissible, and could 

allow variations on the following example: Refiners A and B each supply half the 

reformulated gasoline in a covered area. A's weighted average benzene content in 

the second quarter of 1996 is 1.5 percent and B's is 0.5 percent. With trading, 

that area's benzene content meets 211(k)'s requirement. 

However, only a joint certification of both refiner's gasolines together could render 

legal the 1.5 percent benzene content of A's gasoline. In such a case, EPA's 

certification could require guarantees that B continue to supply the same covered 

area as A; and both companies' fuels together would be viewed as the slate of fuel 

certified under 211(k)(5). 

Credit standard: The phrase `that would occur in the absence of such credits' as 

used in the three clauses of 211(k)(7)(C), refers to the aromatic, oxygen, or 

benzene content specified for a nonattainment area under 211(k). It means the 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 171 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
use of pooling or credits is not allowed to change the aggregate levels of these 

three components of gasoline in a given area, from what they would be in that 

area if each single gallon exactly met 211(k)'s requirements. It does not require 

or allow EPA to guess what each company might do if no pooling or crediting were 

allowed. 

Antidumping credits and rules: By nature, this program is company specific. 

Averaging over a certain time--quarterly, for example--and within a given 

company--among a single company's three different refineries, for example--is 

allowed. 

The purpose of new 211(k)(8) is to prevent a specific company's actual post-1994 

conventional gasoline from having greater emissions than that same company's 

actual 1990 gasoline--or the equivalent, subject to reasonable test tolerances. 

Each refiner, blender, and importer is allowed to collect and compile data 

regarding its 1990 gasoline, and commercial data used by each such company in 

the ordinary course of business, and showing the identity of its suppliers, the 

grades of products purchased or sold, and related volumes and dates, would 

satisfy this provision. 

In the event of inadequate and unreliable data, a substitution of baseline gasoline 

for actual 1990 gasoline would occur only for the specific refiner, blender, or 

importer with a data deficiency. 

Fair tests in baseline cars are required. 

This provision does not require--or provide authority for EPA to require--the 

reformulation of any gasoline sold outside of covered areas, and 211(k)(8)(C) is 

not to be construed in a way that would require such a reformulation. 

Summertime baseline gasoline is as specified in (10)(B)(i). This does not indicate 

precisely which of the many different aromatics, olefins, and saturates are to be 

included in the baseline. But EPA should not `rig' or `game' the resulting baseline 

gasoline by 

selecting unrepresentative sets of these different compounds that are of unusually 

low volatility or toxicity. 

Wintertime baseline gasoline means the average 1990 wintertime gasoline. This 

means gasoline sold during the first few months of 1990--in the winter--and 

during the last month or two of 1990--in the winter; but if split up data of this sort 

is unavailable, EPA can use either 1989-90 or 1990-91 data. Expedition favors the 

former. A nationally representative sample is required. 

Harmonization: Title II does not contemplate a proliferation of new reformulated 

gasolines in the same State or nonattainment zone. Thus, if California, under 

section 249(c)(2), prescribes a more stringent or different reformulated gasoline, 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 172 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
and requires it to be produced, distributed, and made available in California, then 

that prescription and requirement shall apply in California instead of the 211(k) 

program. 

In opt-in States, the intent is that EPA shall by rule ensure that any control or 

prohibition respecting reformulated gasoline shall be consistent with the 211(k) 

requirements, the section 246 requirements respecting fleet programs, and the 

section 249 requirements respecting the California pilot program. 

Such regulations shall ensure that no more than one prohibition or requirement 

respecting reformulated gasoline will apply in any area, and shall provide 

maximum air quality benefit consistent with technical feasibility, cost, and 

domestic supply and distribution capacity. 

Oxygenated gasoline--covered areas: Approximately 40 areas are covered by new 

211(m)(1), ranging from Los Angeles and Denver with 1988-89 carbon monoxide 

design values of 23.4 and 16.2, down to the relatively cleaner but still covered 

areas with 1988-89 design values of 9.5 ppm or more. The 1988-89 design values 

should use 1988-89 monitoring data to establish which areas are included in the 

program. 

Waivers under 211(m) may however reduce this total number of areas. 

Enforcement: Like 211(k)(5), new 211(m)(2) does not ban perfectly lawful and 

routine wholesales of unoxygenated gasoline--where the selling refiner, the sale, 

or the buyer are within a covered area--so long as that gasoline is intended for 

and does move to areas outside of the covered area, where retail sales of 

unoxygenated gasoline are routine and perfectly legal. 

Broader literal readings of the word `any' in the phrase `any gasoline sold,' or the 

word `indirectly' in the phrase `sold or dispensed directly or indirectly' are 

impermissible. 

Such a reading would only cut off the wholesale fuels trade in major American port 

cities such as Houston, New York, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia, since many fuel 

dealers in these cities will supply both these cities and many other areas farther 

inland. A ban on any handling of unoxygenated fuel by these deals would, by 

reason of their status as dual suppliers to both types of areas, impose a de facto 

embargo on fuel shipments to uncovered inland areas where unoxygenated 

gasoline remains perfectly legal after late 1992. No such result is allowed. 

Overlaps, types of oxygenates: The winter oxygenate requirement of 2.7 percent 

in 211(m)(2) overrides the lower 2.0 percent requirement under 211(k), in those 

cities which are subject to overlapping reformulated and oxygenated programs. 

But in such overlaps, all oxygen waivers under 211(k) remain available and 

effective, since the oxygenated gasoline in these cities is technically reformulated 

gasoline. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 173 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
The level of 2.7 percent was chosen in part to provide more even opportunities for 

competition between the two major oxygenates, methyl tertiary butyl ether 

[MTBE], and ethyl alcohol [ethanol]. 

Both these oxygenates have been shown to be effective in lowering CO emissions 

from motor vehicles. Precisely how this occurs is complex, but is primarily related 

to the enleanment of the air-to-fuel ratio caused by the oxygen content of the 

fuel. 

Other factors affecting the potential reduction of carbon monoxide involve the 

process by which the oxygenate is added to the finished fuel, which differs for the 

two major oxygenates: 

MTBE is added exclusively at gasoline refining facilities, where the finished fuel 

may be adjusted to accommodate the blending properties of this ether. This 

process may result in a reduction in the finished gasoline of aromatic components 

which are major contributors to incomplete combustion and emissions of CO. If 

this reduction in CO emissions occurs, it is additive to the effects of the addition of 

oxygenate. 

Ethanol is instead usually added to oxygenless gasoline at a gasoline terminal 

facility in the market area, possibly far downstream from the refinery area. The 

addition may occur directly in the tank wagon as gasoline is being loaded. This 

method may not gain the additive benefits of extra CO emission reductions 

achieved when oxygenate is blended in a refinery facility where further 

adjustments are also made to the other components of the gasoline. 

Ethyl tertiary butyl ether, or ETBE, is another oxygenate that may meet the 

requirements of 211 (k) and (m). Others may be developed. 

The Administrator may not discriminate among these different oxygenates, and 

should encourage fair competition among them. As long as the percentage of 

weight requirement is met, and other requirements of new 211 (k) and (m) are 

satisifed, any oxygenate should be allowed to satisfy new U.S. needs. 

However, EPA must consider the different handling and transportation needs of 

different oxygenates, and the problems that can result if they are commingled, 

because these factors will bear on the adequacy 

of distribution capacity to, and supply in, end user markets. 

Commingling of MTBE gasoline with oxygenless gasoline intended to be blended 

with ethanol can for example create excessive levels of oxygen, if and when 

ethanol is erroneously added to the already oxygen-rich MTBE gas, and produce a 

fuel that may violate specifications. Or ethanol, which unlike gasoline has an 

affinity for water, may be introduced erroneously into gasoline pipelines or storage 

tanks containing some water at the bottom; such tanks and pipes are adequate 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 174 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
for MTBE blended gasoline, but may need dewatering before they can hold gasohol 

or ethanol. 

These potential problems may require segregation of these two oxygenates and 

the gaoslines containing them, but of course do not disqualify either oxygenate. 

Duration of winter: The legal effect of three phrases in the language of 211(m)(2)-

-`the portion of the year,' `not less than 4 months,' and `may reduce the period'-

-is to give EPA discretionary authority to set variable winter periods for different 

cities, during which oxygenated gasoline is required. Health hazards from CO, 

weather effects, and CO emissions with and without the required oxygenated 

gasoline all bear on EPA's decision here. 

Stationary source waiver: The word `significantly' was added because mobile 

sources of CO will always contribute to some extent to nonattainment. But if the 

major cause of CO in a given area is stationary sources, the oxygenated gasoline 

program shall be waived. 

Waivers for lack of distribution or supply capacity: EPA shall consider all relevant 

factors, including current and projected gasoline prices within and without covered 

CO areas in granting waivers under 211(m)(3)(C). 

Though this provision refers to inadequate `supply' or `capacity,' estimating the 

logistics and thus the ultimate capacity of a complex and interconnected system of 

oxygenate plants, refineries, railroad tank cars for ethanol and ethers, pipelines 

for blended gasolines, storage tanks, and blending facilities may be difficult. 

Moreover, a given capacity may be adequate in a period of low demand, but 

inadequate during higher demand. 

To illustrate, there is disagreement today between two expert Government 

agencies--the Energy Information Administration and the International Energy 

Agency--on the fundamental question of whether there is any shortage of crude oil 

worldwide at present, with one of the agencies inexplicably contending there is no 

shortage even though crude oil prices have doubled in 2 months. The fungibility of 

oil, an inability to track movement of specific shipments through the distribution 

system, lack of real-time data on all levels of storage, and the constant influence 

of price on volumes supplied, all complicate this process. 

Moreover, as noted earlier in 1, a tiny error of overestimation by EPA can result in 

very large price increases. 

Accordingly, EPA should make its best advance estimate on this issue; but it 

should also carefuly watch cash and futures oxygenated gasoline prices, and be 

ready to reverse an earlier estimate of adequate capacity that proves, in the real 

world of market prices, to be inaccurate. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 175 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
As a technical matter, there is never a shortage in a decontrolled commodity 

market. EPA is directed to disregard this technical reality, and focus instead on a 

real world meaning that includes fuel shortages and high prices. 

Comprehensive EPA approach: When considering waiver petitions under 211(m)

(3)(C), EPA shall-- 

Determine the demand for oxygenates in each covered area, 

Determine the expected domestic production capacity for oxygenates likely to be 

available at least 3 months prior to the effective date of this provision, 

Determine the necessary logistics to supply oxygenates to and within the covered 

areas, 

Determine the minimum time requirements for the necessary supply and 

distribution infrastructure to be made available for each covered area, 

Evaluate the demand for oxygenates outside of the covered area, and determine 

the effects requiring oxygen in the covered areas will have on areas currently 

served by oxygenates--seeking to avoid reallocation of existing supplies of 

oxygenate to the greatest possible extent, 

Evaluate competition among covered and noncovered areas for available supplies 

of oxygenates, and competition's likely effect on the availability and cost of 

oxygenates in these areas, 

Provide for a reasonable margin of safety in its estimates of supply to minimize 

the chances of supply shortages in covered areas, 

Evaluate and seek to prevent any economically wasteful or irrational actions which 

may be associated with an early effective date in any covered area, such as for 

example, the construction of oxygenate storage tanks that will be used only in 

their first year because rising future oxygenate production could satisfy area 

demands without any storage, 

Consider how much savings could be effected by delaying the early effective date 

in the case of such waste, 

Establish a list of priority covered areas based upon their serverity of 

nonattainment and the role of motor vehicles in contributing to the area's 

nonattainment status, 

Publish a list of areas to be covered each year in sufficient time to assure the 

availability of necessary infrastructure by the effective date, and provide for 

reconsideration on an areawide basis if supply shortages or infrastructure delays 

prevent or are likely to prevent compliance by the effective date. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 176 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
No partial waivers: Too many logistic and refinery reconfiguration problems may 

arise if partial waivers allowing weaker oxygen concentrations, partial geographic 

areas, or shorter periods are granted. Section 211(m)(3)(C)(ii) bans such partial 

waivers to retain a balance between workability and advance certainty for 

suppliers. 

In particular, new 211 (k) and (m) already create several new kinds of gasoline, 

and different oxygen concentrations may already exist under the various NOx cap 

provisions of these two subsections. Further balkanizing of the gasoline industry--

with different O2 concentrations in different east coast cities, for example--

potentially risks further disruptions and more individualized precision from 

refiners, which may not be possible. Segregating a great many individuallytailored blends will also be more difficult for the pipeline and terminal segments of 

the industry. The Colonial Pipeline, which serves 6 of the 40 areas, would be more 

prone to bottlenecks, for any given shipment might be legal in only some or one of 

those cities. 

EPA is not bound to continue a mis-estimate of adequate capacity by this clause: 

If, for example, a price spike in midwinter indicates a shortage, a waiver under 

clause (i) can then be granted; such a waiver is not an impermissible partial delay 

or lesser waiver under clause (ii). 

Other O2 waivers: Analogously, EPA should also avoid a proliferation of too many 

different O2 levels when it grants partial oxygen content waivers, to solve NOx 

cap or NAAQS problems under other provisions of 211 (k) and (m). 

`Distribution capacity,' as used in 211(m)(3)(C), includes everything needed to 

get to the final pump, that is, interstate transportation, local distribution, storage, 

trucks, blending facilities, and so on. 

Other exemptions: Neither 211(k) nor 211(m) allows EPA to grant waivers or 

exemptions to only a specified subset or class of refiner, blender, importer, or 

marketer. Rules or orders of general or particular applicability that in effect return 

to a scheme of preferential regulatory status for small or large refiners, for 

example, are not allowed. 

No return to oil price and allocation controls: EPA must not, in administering the 

oxygenated and reformulated gasoline programs, reinvent oil price and allocation 

controls like those administered by the Department of Energy in the 1970's. 

By its decisions on permits for MTBE plants and new refinery units and related 

offsets, capacity waivers, technical feasibility determinations, enforcement 

interpretations, and so on, EPA may force costly, lengthy compliance efforts on all 

segments of the gasoline refining and marketing industry. 

Ill-considered regulatory decisions can create delays, and in turn, restrict supplies 

or certified reformulated and certified oxygenated gasoline. Delays for any reason 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 177 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
could thus give EPA restrictive control over gasoline supplies to many of the 

largest American markets. 

Control over supply means control over price. EPA must be sensitive to this 

danger: New 211 (k) and (m) do not intend to resurrect a 1970's DOE type 

scheme of detailed Government intervention in U.S. gasoline markets. An 

approach of this sort would be especially unacceptable, in view of the fact that 

DOE's restrictions artificially lowered prices, whereas EPA restrictions on supply 

would artificially raise them. 

Imports: New 211(m)(3) refers to `domestic supply' because imports may be 

unavailable, unreliable, or highly priced. While world supplies are growing, so is 

world demand; foreign suppliers may not wish to disrupt existing contract 

relationships with foreign buyers by making spot sales to the United States; and 

higher world prices may boost domestic prices, as routinely happens with crude 

oil. 

In any event, reliance on imported oxygenates or reformulated gasoline may 

simply trade one type of fuel import dependency for another. New 211 (k) an (m) 

do not prohibit such imports or raise their price; but EPA, in making planning and 

waiver decisons, must not count on imports to fill apparent domestic gaps. 

Attainment areas: Under 211(m)(6), EPA has authority to adjust the scope, 

extent, oxygen concentration, duration, and geographic coverage of a 211(m) 

program in a previously covered area that reaches attainment. The phrase `to the 

extent' has been added at the end of paragraph (6) to indicate that attainment 

does not end completely the need for an oxygenated fuels program--since that 

might push the area back into nonattainment. However, attainment may mean 

that the oxygenated fuels program can be eased, or made smaller or shorter in 

some sensible fashion. 

Reports: EPA is to report to Congress well in advance if problems develop in either 

the 211 (k) or (m) programs. 

Just in Texas alone, we are talking about tripling the staff of the Texas Air Quality 

Board just to do the duplicative permitting process alone. The permit fees 

themselves will be $25 per ton and Texas businessmen will pay $40 to $50 milllion 

dollars per year as a result of new permit requirements. Almost 7 percent of our 

work force will be used just to comply with these requirements. 

Because of fierce competition internationally and the additional burden this 

legislation will impose on our businesses to the tune of $30 to $50 million per 

year, the National Association of Manufacturers does not feel they can support this 

conference report. 

In the acid deposition control title, the conference added a provision concerning 

information on carbon dioxide emissions monitoring from utility plants. This will 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 178 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
allow utilities to satisfy the requirements by performing calculations using 

monitoring data from fuel sampling or fuel analyses. 

Under title IV, acid deposition control, section 405(g) addresses those utility units 

in progress and for which second phase allowances are issued in amounts as 

designated under the available options. 

Permanent allowances will be issued starting with the second phase for units listed 

as eligible units in progress unless the unit exercises other option provisions to 

receive allowances. The permanent allowances issued under any provision of 

section 405(g) shall be treated as are any other allowances for purposes under the 

act including holding, using, purchasing, trading, pooling, selling, auctioning, 

transferring, banking, and other uses. These allowances shall not be subject to the 

reallocation, reduction or redistribution mechanisms in this title. Units issued 

allowances under this subsection shall not exceed that annual sulfur dioxide 

tonnage emission limitation unless the owner or operator holds for use additional 

allowances equal to the amount of emissions over the initial allocation. 

This act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to perform a study and to 

report to Congress by January 1, 1994, on the economic and environmental 

consequences of trading sulfur dioxide allowances for nitrogen dioxide allowances. 

However, because of the environmental benefits of nitrogen oxide reductions in 

certain urban areas as well as in rural areas, the Administrator should prepare to 

institute a trading system allowing nitrogen oxide emission reductions to be traded 

for sulfur dioxide allowances. This trading mechanism should be instituted by 

rulemakings as soon as the study shows, as expected, that there is no harm from 

such trades and that encouraging reductions in nitrogen oxides emissions from 

facilities could be beneficial. If the press of other requirements should delay the 

completion of such a report to the Congress, and barring any definitive scientific 

evidence to the contrary, then the Administrator should institute such a trading 

mechanism for nitrogen oxide emission reductions in exchange for sulfur dioxide 

allowances. 

While there is evidence that nitrogen oxide reductions in certain ozone 

nonattainment areas would worsen the ambient air levels of ozone, in other urban 

and rural areas the decrease of nitrogen oxides would be of benefit in decreasing 

the potential for acid rain. In fact, the decrease of nitrogen oxides would be as 

beneficial as a decrease in sulfur dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. The 

flexibility to achieve the least-cost reductions in emissions of acidic pollutants 

should be encouraged and provided for by the Administrator. The nitrogen oxide 

emission reductions in exchange for sulfur dioxide allowances can be accomplished 

by a mechanism which the Administrator can establish in rulemaking, and which 

will benefit not only the environment but also provide an incentive to make these 

reductions. 

Mr. Speaker, the conference committee has worked very hard to devise a tough, 

fair, and workable compromise concerning the further regulation of ozone 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 179 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
depleting compounds and protection of the ozone layer. Nevertheless, I would like 

to stress that industries which rely on these chemicals have already been 

motivated by established incentives to phase out of their use of these chemicals 

on the most rapid timetables possible. 

The Montreal protocol has been recently renegotiated to toughen the phasedown 

and eventual phaseout of these chemicals. Industry, which has been 

overwhelmingly supportive of the Montreal protocol, has been preparing for the 

termination of CFC production by the year 2000 well before this legislation 

addressed a phaseout. 

In addition, CFC recovery and recycling has been motivated by the need to 

prohibit venting, the increased cost of the CFC's, and the need to keep an existing 

supply of CFC's available to service and maintain existing equipment that will rely 

on CFC's beyond a phaseout. Both the automobile and the air conditioning and 

refrigeration industries have made substantial progress on their own to prepare an 

infrastructure and a marketplace for recycled CFC rerigerants. While much 

recovery and recycling is occuring today, these industries are already prepared for 

the requirements in this legislation. 

While we are concerned about ozone depletion, we must be cautious that this 

legislation does not prematurely accelerate the phaseout of substitute compounds 

such as HCFC's, which the legislation addresses. I understand that scientists agree 

that the HCFC compounds may be used well into the next century without 

additional impact on the ozone layer. In fact, I understand that these HCFC's are a 

necessary transitional compound that will make the phaseout of CFC's possible by 

2000. 

I wish to make it clear that while this Congress has spoken in regard to the 

elimination of HCFCs, industry has our assurance that notwithstanding new and 

compelling scientific data proving that their use is far more detrimental to the 

ozone layer than earlier believed, HCFC production will not be frozen before 2015; 

and HCFC production will not be eliminated before 2030. Any acceleration of these 

established dates without scientific justification will disadvantage industries which 

are relying on the timetables we set into law today. 

Investment in HCFC production and technology is crucial if the world is to be 

successful in eliminating CFC use. Passage of this law today sends a clear 

message to industry that HCFC investments are worthwhile and economically 

justified. 

[Page: H12906]

SECTION 701--PART B REPEAL

The conference substitute adopts the Senate proposal to create a new title VI of 

the Clean Air Act to address `Stratospheric Ozone Protection.' 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 180 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
SECTION 702--STRATOSPHERIC OZONE PROTECTION

The conference substitute adopts the Senate approach and, as explained below, 

combines the Senate and House proposals. 

DEFINITIONS--NEW SECTION 601

The conference substitute includes definitions of: appliance (combining the Senate 

and House proposals; baseline year (modeled after the House proposal); class I 

substance and class II substance (modeled after the House proposal); 

Commissioner (from House proposal); consumption (modeled after the Montreal 

Protocol); import (from the Senate bill); medical device (combining the Senate 

and House proposals); ozone-depletion potential (from the House proposal); and 

produce, produced, and production (combining the Senate and House proposals). 

Controlling and ultimately eliminating the production of ozone-depleting 

substances is one of the key features of this new title. Therefore, the definition of 

`production' is extremely important. 

The Senate bill, the House amendment and the conference substitute define 

`production' to exclude the manufacture of a controlled substance that is recycled 

or reused. This provision is designed to avoid the problem of double counting, i.e. 

forcing a producer to use production allowances when the producer is simply 

reprocessing a previously produced and used substance. 

This provision is also designed to allow reprocessing of previously, legally 

produced substances after the ultimate phaseout date for production of such 

substances. This provision does not, however, exclude from the production 

controls and ultimate prohibitions a substance that is produced with the intent to 

eventually reuse or recycle it. All new production falls outside the scope of the 

`reuse/recycle' exclusion. 

The manufacture of substances that are `used and entirely consumed' in the 

manufacture of other chemicals (or the regeneration of chemical catalysts) is also 

excluded from the definition of `production'. This provision is necessary because 

some of the substances covered by this new title are feedstocks for other 

important substances. 

The conference substitute includes a technical correction to this provision of the 

original Senate and House proposals. The requirement that the controlled 

substance be `entirely consumed' is qualified by adding the parenthetical `except 

for trace quantities'. This modification is designed to allow for the fact that, as a 

result of certain chemical and physical properties, nothing is `entirely consumed.' 

The conference substitute does not include a requirement to construe the term 

`production' in a manner consistent with the Protocol because the Protocol has not 

yet approved destruction technologies for purposes of subtracting from the 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 181 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
production allocation. In the course of implementing this Act, however, EPA shall 

consider whether an exclusion will be allowed on a case-by-case basis for the 

manufacture of controlled substances that are (1) not manufactured for 

commercial purposes; (2) coincidental, unavoidable byproducts of a 

manufacturing process; or (3) contained and subsequently destroyed using 

maximum available control technologies. When the Protocol parties have approved 

destruction technologies, the Administrator shall take these into account and 

ensure that adequate safeguards exist to preclude abuse. 

The conference substitute's definition of the `Montreal Protocol' includes a 

reference to `amendments that have entered into force.' This reference includes 

all such amendments, not just those that the United States has ratified. 

LISTING OF CLASS I AND CLASS II SUBSTANCE--NEW SECTION 

602

The substitute adopts the House amendment terminology regarding `class I and 

class II substance' and combines the balance of the two proposals. The minimum 

lists of compounds are expanded to include a number of CFCs and HCFCs that 

were added to the Montreal Protocol after Senate and House consideration of the 

legislation. The substitute also establishes a threshold ozone depletion factor of 

0.2 for compounds to be listed as a class I substance. Compounds below this ODF 

would require the consideration of other factors by the Administrator, such as 

significant volume, before they should be considered for listing as class I 

compounds. 

MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS--NEW 

SECTION 603

On a quarterly basis, or such other basis (not less than annually) as determined 

by the Administrator, each person who produced, imported or exported a class I 

or class II substance during the previous reporting period is required to file a 

report with EPA setting forth the amount that such person produced, imported, or 

exported. EPA is also authorized to use whatever information gathering authority 

is available in order to collect in a timely fashion the initial baseline reports 

necessary for establishing the production and consumption rules required by the 

Act. 

The requirement that EPA's amended regulation shall conform to the requirements 

of this section does not limit EPA's authority to require additional or more detailed 

reporting than that required by this section. EPA's current regulations, as provided 

in new 

section 193 of title I of the Act, as added by this Act, will remain in effect until 

modified. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 182 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
The conference substitue combines the Senate and House proposals for EPA, 

NASA and NOAA monitoring and reporting to Congress requirements, including the 

Senate proposals for a technology status report (to be submitted not later than 

2015 as opposed to the original Senate date of 2010) and an emergency report 

regarding atmospheric chlorine loading that is projected to occur as a result of 

global production, consumption and use of class II substances. The reports by 

EPA, NASA, and NOAA should also take into account the degree to which global 

compliance or non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol is affecting or altering 

the base case scenario. 

PHASEOUT OF PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF CLASS I 

SUBSTANCES--NEW SECTION 604

Effective January 1 of each year starting with 1991, it shall be unlawful for any 

person to produce any class I substance in an annual quantity greater than the 

relevant percentage specified in Table 2. The percentages in Table 2 refer to a 

maximum allowable production as a percentage of the quantity of the substance 

produced by such person in the baseline year (1989 for carbon tetrachloride and 

methyl chloroform, and 1986 for CFCs and halons). 

The schedule set forth in Table 2 of the conference substitute is subject to 

acceleration by the Administrator under new section 606 (Accelerated Schedule). 

The Montreal Protocol subjects `consumption' to the same controls and reduction 

schedule as applies to `production.' The conference substitute includes this aspect 

of the Protocol and directs the Administrator to promulgate regulations to insure 

that the consumption of Class I substances in the United States is controlled and 

eliminated on the same schedule as provided in this title for production and in a 

manner consistent with the term as defined by the Protocol, which is, 

`consumption = production + imports - exports'. 

The substitute prohibits production of all class I substances (other than methyl 

chloroform) as of January 1, 2000, and prohibits production of methyl chloroform 

as of January 1, 2002. The Administrator is authorized on a conditional basis to 

grant specified limited extensions of the termination date for production of limited 

quantities of class I substances, to the extent such action is consistent with the 

Montreal Protocol, for: essential uses of methyl chloroform (between January 1, 

2002 and January 1, 2005); medical devices; fire suppression or explosion 

prevention on the North Slope of Alaska (solely with respect to halons between 

January 1, 2000 and January 1, 2005), and export to developing countries. 

EPA should authorize the limited production of such applications unless it is able to 

determine that safe and effective substitutes are available, taking into account the 

effects of available substitutes on health and safety, the technological adequacy of 

substitutes, and other relevant factors. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 183 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
The methyl chloroform extension is necessary for national security, electronics 

applications, transportation and building safety and other important applications 

where factors such as nonflammability are important (e.g., certain contact bond 

adhesives) and adequate substitutes have not been identified. The Administrator 

is also expected to examine whether safe and effective substitutes for methyl 

chloroform will be available for purposes of airline safety by the year 2005 and to 

report to Congress. 

The granting of any extension under this title must be in accordance and 

consistent with the Montreal Protocol. If the Protocol does not authorize the 

extension being sought, the provision of the Protocol takes precedence and no 

such extension may be granted by the Administrator. 

Any failure of the Administrator to promulgate regulations as required by this title, 

or any court order delaying the effective date of such regulations, shall not alter 

the effective dates of the statutory requirements and prohibitions that are set 

forth in this title. 

It has been suggested that, with respect to the 1991 control period, there is 

insignificant time for EPA to complete a notice and comment rulemaking and that, 

notwithstanding the self-effectuating nature of the statutory requirement to 

reduce production in 1991, regulations are necessary to implement the 

`consumption' controls and would be helpful with respect to the `production' 

controls. It is expected that, solely with respect to the 1991 control period, 

existing EPA regulations will be revised by direct final rule. Such revised 

regulations should add baseline allocations for the chemicals not already regulated 

and require the 15 percent reduction where applicable to class I compounds. This 

will leave the original allocation and trading provisions in place until revised in 

accordance with this Act. 

[Page: H12907]

PHASEOUT OF PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF CLASS II 

SUBSTANCES--NEW SECTION 605

The Senate statement of national policy is modified, restated as `the purpose of 

Congress', and included in new section 603 (Monitoring and Reporting). 

Effective January 1, 2015, production of my class II substance must be frozen at 

baseline levels (to be established by the Administrator) and the use of any such 

substance shall be unlawful unless such substance (1) has been used, recovered 

and recyled, (2) is used and entirely consumed (except for trace quantities) in the 

production of other chemicals, or (3) is used as a refrigerant in appliances 

manufactured prior to January 1, 2020. Effective January 1, 2030, it shall be 

unlawful to produce any quantity of a class II substance. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 184 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
As with class I substances, the Administrator is directed to promulgate regulations 

to control and eliminate `consumption' (consistent with the definition in the 

Protocol) of class II substances and, on a conditional basis, is authorized to grant 

limited exceptions for purposes of use in medical devices and for export to 

developing countries in accordance with the Montreal Protocol. 

ACCELERATED SCHEDULE--NEW SECTION 606

A combination of the Senate and House proposals is included in the conference 

substitute. The control schedules under sections 604 and 605 are subject to 

acceleration under circumstances that are defined. 

EXCHANGE AUTHORITY--NEW SECTION 607

Subsection (a) of this section of the conference substitute requires the 

Administrator to issue allowances for class I and class II substances and 

requirements for transfers of these allowances. It is expected that these rules will 

be promulgated consistent with the production and consumption rules required 

under sections 604 and 605. Also, since there are no regulations required on class 

II compounds, it is not expected that the Administrator will promulgate production 

allowances for class II compounds until such time as would be required under this 

Act, subject to any acceleration of the phaseout of production under section 606. 

The Administrator is also directed to promulgate regulations that will authorize 

interpollutant transfers, as in the Senate bill, and trades with other persons, as in 

the House amendment. 

Interpollutant transfers are limited to transfers among substances listed in the 

same group under new section 602. This precludes, for example, the ability of a 

producer to avoid mandated reductions in the production of methyl chloroform in 

exchange for making greater reductions than is otherwise required in CFC-11 

production. 

The same limitation applies to trades with other persons. 

NATIONAL EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAM--NEW SECTION 

608

Prior to January 1, 1992, EPA must promulgate regulations establishing standards 

and requirements regarding the use and disposal of class I substances during the 

service, repair, or disposal of appliances and industrial process refrigeration. Such 

standards and requirements shall become effective not later than July 1, 1992. 

Within 4 years after enactment, the Administrator must promulgate regulations 

regarding the use and disposal of all class II substances as well as all class I uses 

and disposal practices that are not covered by the earlier regulations. Such 

regulations shall become effective not later than 12 months after promulgation. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 185 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
In promulgating regulations for these uses the Administrator shall take into 

account the extent to which emissions reductions can be achieved, the costs and 

benefits of implementing available controls, and the time before which certain 

uses may no longer rely on the covered substances. Also, the regulations which 

are required to take effect 60 months from the date of enactment may still impose 

deadlines beyond the 60 month timeframe. 

The use and disposal regulations must include standards and requirements that 

satisfy the criteria set forth in the bill, including requirements that reduce the use 

and emission of class I and class II substances to the lowest achievable level and 

requirements that class I and class II substances contained in bulk in appliances 

be removed from such appliances prior to disposal of the appliance or delivery of 

the appliance for recycling. 

The reference to `in bulk' distinguishes this requirement from another 

requirement dealing with products in which a class I or class II substance is 

incorporated so as to constitute an inherent element of the product. An examle of 

the `in bulk' reference is the class I or class II refrigerant in an appliance. An 

example of the `inherent element' reference is the insulation in a building or 

insulation that was made with a class I or class II substance which is now 

incorporated in the walls of the appliance. 

Effective July 1, 1992, it will be unlawful for any person maintaining, servicing, 

repairing or disposing of an appliance or industrial process refrigeration to 

knowingly vent, release, or dispose of any class I or class II substance used as a 

refrigerant in a manner which permits such substance to enter the environment. 

Exceptions to this prohibition are included for certain de minimis releases. 

Effective 5 years after enactment, the prohibition on venting or release shall also 

apply to all substances that are used as refrigerants as substitutes for class I or 

class II refrigerants. The prohibition shall apply to all such substitute substances 

except in cases when the Administrator determines that the venting, release, or 

disposal of a particular substitute substance does not pose a threat to the 

environment. 

SERVICING OF MOTOR VEHICLE AIR CONDITIONERS--NEW 

SECTION 609

Effective January 1, 1992 (or, January 1, 1993 in the case of persons who certify 

by January 1, 1992, that they are repairing or servicing motor vehicles at an 

entity which performed service on fewer than 100 motor vehicle air conditioners 

during 1990), any person who services motor vehicle air conditioning systems for 

consideration (1) must `properly use' extraction and reclamation equipment that 

is certified as meeting the standards set by the equipment that is certified as 

meeting the standards set by the Society of Automotive Engineers, and (2) must 

be `properly trained and certified.' The phrases `properly using' and `properly 

trained and certified' are defined in this section of the conference substitute. This 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 186 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
section includes a certification requirement that is applicable to each person 

performing service on motor vehicle air conditioners for consideration. 

Effective 2 years after enactment, it shall be unlawful to sell or distribute, or offer 

for sale or distribution, to any person (other than professionals who are in 

compliance with the requirement to use extraction and reclamation equipment) 

any class I or class II substance that is suitable for use as a refrigerant in a motor 

vehicle air conditioning system and is in a container which contains less than 20 

pounds of such refrigerant. 

NONESSENTIAL PRODUCTS CONTAINING 

CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS--NEW SECTION 610

The conference substitute includes the House amendment with two modifications 

to the prohibition on the use of class II substances. First, the prohibition on the 

use of class II substances in plastic foam products does not apply to certain foams 

that are used for motor vehicle safety purposes in accordance with Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standards. Second, the Administrator is authorized to grant 

exceptions from the prohibition on pressurized dispensers which contain a class II 

substance when (1) the use of the pressurized dispenser is determined to be 

essential as a result of flammability or worker safety concerns, and (2) the only 

available alternative to the use of a class II substance is the use of a class I 

substance which legally could be substituted for the class II substance. 

The conference substitute also does not prohibit insulating foams made with class 

II compounds (which could include foams that are necessary for energy efficient 

building construction, appliances, or for the insulation of sensitive medical supplies 

and sensitive electronic components.) 

Including authority for the Administrator to grant such exceptions is necessary to 

account for the fact that the aerosol ban which has been in effect in the United 

States since 1978 for certain class I substances is not a complete ban. Assuming 

the use of class I substances in certain pressurized dispensers remains legal after 

1994, it may be counter-productive to prohibit the use of class II substances 

(substances that are generally less potent ozone depleters) in certain `essential' 

applications if the only available substitutes are class I substances which could be 

legally used in place of the class II substance. For this reason, the Administrator is 

authorized to grant limited exceptions. The conference substitute does not 

presume or imply that the existing aerosol uses or other uses not specifically listed 

are non-essential and the Administrator shall consider these uses on a case-bycase basis in accordance with the listed relevant factors. 

LABELING--NEW SECTION 611

Effective 30 months after enactment, containers of a class I or class II substance 

and products containing class I substances must be labeled. Products containing 

or made with (but no longer containing) a class II substance must be similarly 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 187 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
labeled if the Administrator determines that there are substitute products or 

manufacturing processes. The determination invoves a three part test. 

Products made with but no longer containing class I substances must be labeled 

unless the Administrator determines that there are no substitute products or 

manufacturing processes. As with the previously discussed determination, the 

statutory language includes a three part test, including whether the substitutes 

reduce the overall risk to human health and the environment. 

Effective January 1, 2015, the labeling requirements will apply, without exception, 

to all products containing a class II substance and to all products made with a 

process that uses a class I or class II substance. 

[Page: H12908]

SAFE ALTERNATIVES POLICY--NEW SECTION 612

The Administrator is directed to promulgate regulations prohibiting the 

replacement of any class I or class II substance with a substitute which the 

Administrator determines may present adverse effects to human health or the 

environment if an alternative that reduces the overall risk to human health and 

the environment has been identified. The Administrator is required to publish lists 

of the identified safe alternatives within 2 years of enactment. It is important to 

note that the standard applies to substitutes for class II compounds as well as to 

other compounds. It is expected that the Administrator shall not prohibit the use 

of a class II substance in the absence of clear information concerning the 

reduction of overall risk to human health and the environment by the current or 

potential availability of the identified substitutes. Also, the Administrator shall 

base risk estimates on the total environmental risk (toxicity, flammability, 

atmospheric, etc.) that is perceived to exist, not just the risk as it relates to ozone 

depletion. The Administrator shall, with the assistance of the Science Advisory 

Board, update the risk assessment from ozone depletion and take into account the 

global and domestic controls that are scheduled to occur as a result of the 

Montreal Protocol, this Act, and accelerated industry phaseout efforts. 

The Administrator is also directed to require that any person who produces a 

chemical substitute for a class I substance (1) provide the Administrator with such 

person's health and safety studies on such substitute, including unpublished 

studies, and (2) notify the Administrator not less than 90 days before new or 

existing chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new 

uses as class I substitutes. 

FEDERAL PROCUREMENT--NEW SECTION 613

The conference substitute includes a modified version of the House amendment's 

provision on federal procurement. The modification adds a deadline for other 

agencies to revise their regulations and a requirement that each agency certify to 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 188 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
the President that its regulations have been modified in accordance with this 

section. This provision does not prohibit the purchase of equipment or products 

made with or relying on the covered substances, or bulk supplies of covered 

substances necessary to maintain or operate existing equipment, but would 

require the agencies to consider this in their purchasing decisions and to work 

towards the purchase of ozone protecting technologies to the maximum extent 

practicable. 

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS--NEW SECTION 614

The substitute repeals the provision of current law that preempts State and local 

governments in certain circumstances and establishes a narrow, two year 

exception to the principle of non-preemption that is codified in section 116 of the 

Clean Air Act. 

State or local laws would be preempted if they include `servicing' requirements 

that would require the retrofitting or modification of existing equipment, or 

specific product bans that would have the practical effect of requiring new 

equipment designs. Also, laws would be preempted that prohibit the sale of 

appliances that use or contain foam insulation manufactured with covered 

substances. A provision is added to make it clear that this title is a supplement to 

the Montreal Protocol. It does not supplant the Protocol and it does not abrogate 

the responsibilities or obligations of the United States to implement fully the 

provisions of the Montreal Protocol. 

Many of the provisions in this title are more stringent than the provisions of the 

Protocol such as the production phasedown schedule for CFCs, halons, and methyl 

chloroform, and the elimination date for production of methyl chloroform. There 

are also areas in which the Protocol has no similar provisions including the 

controls and elimination of HCFC production, recycling and emissions control 

requirement, and the safe alternatives policy. 

In areas in which the Protocol is more stringent, the provisions of the Protocol are 

controlling. If the Protocol is modified in the future to include new provisions that 

are more stringent than this legislation, such more stringent provisions will be 

controlling. 

In the sections where the Administrator or another government official is 

authorized to grant extensions or exceptions to the 

requirements of this title, the legislation includes an express limitation. The 

Administrator or other official may exercise such authority only to the extent that 

such action is consistent with the Montreal Protocol. The provisions of this Act may 

not be used to justify or authorize any action that is inconsistent with the terms of 

the Protocol. 

To prevent persons subject to United States' jurisdiction from transferring 

technology or investing in facilities to produce controlled substances in countries 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 189 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
that are not parties to the Montreal Protocol, the President is directed to prohibit 

the export of technologies used to produce a class I substance; to prohibit the 

direct or indirect investments in facilities designed to produce class I or class II 

substances in nations that are not parties to the Protocol; and to direct that no 

government agency provide subsidies or assistance for the purpose of producing a 

class I substance. 

AUTHORITY OF THE ADMINISTRATOR--NEW SECTION 615

The Administrator is authorized to prescribe regulations as may be necessary to 

carry out this title. The phrase `to affect the stratosphere' includes, but is not 

limited to, stratospheric ozone depletion. Effects such as anthropogenically 

induced cooling of the stratosphere are included and must be considered, but only 

as it relates to carrying out this title on stratospheric ozone protection. 

TRANSFER AMONG PARTIES TO THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL--

NEW SECTION 616

A new section based on the Montreal Protocol's provisions for `industrial 

rationalization' is included in the conference substitute. For purpose of this 

section, the phrase `production allowance' is used to indicate a portion of United 

States' `calculated level of production', as that phrase is used in the Protocol. The 

authority provided in this section is limited and subject to a number of conditions, 

including the requirement for implementing regulations. The section is not 

intended to require that other nations adopt the same control schedule as adopted 

by the United States, but that another nation reduce its production be achieved 

level in the same manner as provided for in the U.S. when it is transferring 

production rights into the U.S. Unlike Section 607 transfers conducted under this 

section do not require that a `net reduction' be achieved in production in the year 

in which the transfer occurs. 

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION--NEW SECTION 617

The Senate provision regarding international agreements is included in the 

conference substitute. As a result, United States' delegations to future meetings of 

the parties to the Montreal Protocol are expected to seek modifications to the 

Protocol, consistent with the logical framework of the Protocol, that will make the 

requirements of the Protocol at least as stringent as the requirements applicable in 

the United States as a result of this legislation. At a minimum, U.S. delegations 

are expected to seek control schedules for the Protocol that are consistent with 

the U.S. control schedule for the substances covered by this legislation. 

The House provision authorizing funds to assist developing countries is included in 

the conference substitute. At the June 1990 meeting of the parties to the Protocol 

in London, representatives of China and India indicated that their countries intend 

to join as parties to the Protocol. In this event, the expected contribution to the 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 190 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
fund by the United States will increase accordingly. In recognition of this new 

development, the conference substitute includes a provision to increase the 

authorization of appropriations by an additional $30,000,000 if and when China 

and India become parties. In the event that one but not both of the countries 

were to sign the Protocol, it is expected that a corresponding amount would be 

appropriated. 

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS--NEW SECTION 618

A modified version of the House provision is included in the conference substitute. 

This section makes it clear that more stringent state and local government 

requirements for the protection of the stratosphere are not preempted by this Act, 

except as provided for in section 614. 

This section also provides that federal facilities shall be subject to all requirements 

of this title and to all State, interstate, and local requirements, administrative 

authority, and process, and sanctions respecting the protection of the 

stratospheric ozone layer. 

SECTION 701--METHANE STUDIES

[Page: H12909]

A modified version of the Senate provision requiring studies of methane emissions 

and options to reduce methane emissions is included in the conference substitute, 

but this provision does not create any new regulatory authority. 

No doubt, Mr. Speaker, many provisions will have to be visited again in the near 

future out of necessity as the numerous provisions are examined, regulations 

developed, and implementations formulated. Only with the confidence that the 

members of this conference will respond to that need for corrections am I joining 

in support of this major step forward in pushing for strong environmental policy. 

In addition to the investments that have already been made by utility owners and 

investors in the State of Texas alone, which by the way are considered some of 

the cleanest, we are asking them to make an additional capital investment of $1.5 

billion over the next 10 years to comply with the requirements and create offsets 

for growth. That billion dollar price tag will have to be passed on to our ratepayers 

who already have paid more for emission controls than States who will receive the 

lion's share of benefits from this legislation. 

It is with these reservations and statements to make clear my understanding of 

what the conference committee agreed to that I am willing to support this report 

and commend my colleagues for taking a cautious step toward passing the 

strongest, most far-reaching environmental legislation in the history of our 

civilization. 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 191 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013
Find us on Subscribe & Comment Download & Play

END

Stay Connected with the Library All ways to connect »

About | Press | Site Map | Contact | Accessibility | Legal | External Link Disclaimer | USA.gov Speech 

Enabled

RSS & E-Mail Blogs Podcasts Webcasts iTunes U 

Congressional Record - 101st Congress (1989-1990) - THOMAS (Library of Congre... Page 192 of 192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r101:./temp/~r101LcNEHC 6/27/2013