On the recordOctober 6, 2011
We all have great respect for the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and you could make some very good arguments for his amendment. Basically, he said the amendment would set a 3-year compliance date and allow a case-by-case extension for up to 2 years if the administrator of the EPA determined that there was a compelling need, and that's reasonable. But one of the problems that we continue to run into on these Boiler MACT rules, and all the hearings have pointed this out: the fact that lawsuits are always being filed and litigation is continually going on at EPA and consent decrees are being entered into, and it's an ever- changing situation over there on the exact rule. {time} 1330 The one argument that we hear continually from the affected groups is that they need certainty, and even on a case-to-case basis, if the administrator determines a compelling need, we don't have that 100 percent certainty that we really want. And so our legislation does say that within 15 months, they have to come back with the promulgation of a new rule, and it does say that the administrator shall establish a date for compliance no earlier than 5 years after the effective date of the regulation, and it does say that the EPA administrator may provide additional time if he or she chooses to do so. Just looking at the track record of EPA, I don't suspect that they would be doing that a lot, but they might. But they do have to set a compliance date.…
