Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, we've been debating this bill, H.R. 2250, for several months now in the Energy and Commerce Committee. And as we've heard from the bill's supporters, the bill is intended to address the Boiler MACT rule that was proposed by EPA in April of 2010 and finalized in February of 2011.
Many of us here know that when the Boiler MACT regulation was finalized, EPA asked for 15 months to issue a reproposal. The courts rejected that request and, thus, EPA was forced to issue the rule on time in February of 2011. However, EPA immediately instituted an administrative stay on several major rules within the regulation, saying that they would begin reconsideration with new information that had been made available.
In the last few months, I've met with many industries and companies that expressed concern with the provisions in this final rule. I've listened and even helped foster ongoing conversations between those industries and EPA as they worked toward a reproposal of the Boiler MACT rule.
Then we were offered this bill, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act. We were told that this bill would simply give EPA the time that they had already asked for to work on the rule and repropose a new final rule. After the conversations I had had with companies in my district, I thought this would be a good solution.
The problem is, when you dig a little deeper, I've said for a long time, this EPA Boiler MACT rule is far from perfect. But the trouble is the bill we have before us today is even further from perfect because it doesn't just give EPA time to reconsider the rule; it tells EPA they can't issue a new rule for at least 15 months. But there's no deadline for final action. Further, it practically rewrites sections 112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act by eliminating the need for numeric emission limits for MACT standards.
But perhaps the most egregious to me was section 3 of the bill. It once again rewrites the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act provides for 3 years for compliance with MACT standards with the possibility of a 4th. Section 3 of this bill tells us to throw that out. It tells us that for the Boiler MACT rule, compliance cannot be required for at least 5 years. However, it then says to the EPA administrator, it gives the administrator the ability to establish compliance dates. So depending on who the administrator is at the time these rules are finalized, compliance could be required in 5 years, in 10 years, in 50 years, in 105 years. That's just unacceptable, and that's why I'm offering this amendment today.
I support many of the things in this bill and I recognize the need for a reproposal of this rule, but I don't support 5 years to infinity for compliance. And so this amendment will simply require that we go back to the established compliance time lines in the Clean Air Act. It even gives the possibility for an additional year of compliance if a compelling reason is found.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and make this a bill that we can all support when it comes for final passage.
I yield back the balance of my time.