THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Statutes and Legislatii^e History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
3E
LU
-------
-------
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Statutes and Legislative History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
tf eo
\
JANUARY 1973
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS
Administrator
-------
ENVlRf. -.-
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D. C. 20402-Price 117.80 Per Set of Five Vols. (Sold in Sets Only)
Stock Number 5500-0064
-------
FOREWORD
It has been said that America is like a gigantic boiler in that once
the fire is lighted, there are no limits to the power it can generate.
Environmentally, the fire has been lit!
With a mandate from the President and an aroused public concern-
ing the environment, we are experiencing a new American Revolution,
a revolution in our way of life. The era which began with the industrial
revolution is over and things will never be quite the same again. We
are moving slowly, perhaps even grudgingly at times, but inexorably
into an age when social, spiritual and aesthetic values will be prized
more than production and consumption. We have reached a point
where we must balance civilization and nature through our technology.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, formed by Reorganiza-
tion Plan No. 3 of 1970, was a major commitment to this new ethic.
It exists and acts in the public's name to ensure that due regard is
given to the environmental consequences of actions by public and
private institutions.
In a large measure, this is a regulatory role, one that encompasses
basic, applied, and effects research; setting and enforcing standards;
monitoring; and making delicate risks-benefit decisions aimed at
creating the kind of world the public desires.
The Agency was not created to harass industry or to act as a shield
behind which man could wreak havoc on nature. The greatest disser-
vice the Environmental Protection Agency could do to American
industry is to be a poor regulator. The environment would suffer,
public trust would diminish, and instead of free enterprise, environ-
mental anarchy would result.
It was once sufficient that the regulatory process produce wise and
well-founded courses of action. The public, largely indifferent to regu-
latory activities, accepted agency actions as being for the "public
convenience and necessity." Credibility gaps and cynicism make it
essential not only that today's decisions be wise and well-founded but
that the public know this to be true. Certitude, not faith, is de rigueur.
In order to participate intelligently in regulatory proceedings, the
citizen should have access to the information available to the agency.
EPA's policy is to make the fullest possible disclosure of information,
without unjustifiable expense or delay, to any interested party. With
iii
-------
iv FOREWORD
this in mind, the EPA Compilation of Legal Authority was produced
not only for internal operations of EPA, but as a service to the public,
as we strive together to lead the way, through the law, to preserving
the earth as a place both habitable by and hospitable to man.
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
PREFACE
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 transferred 15 governmental
units with their functions and legal authority to create the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Since only the major laws were
cited in the Plan, the Administrator, William D. Ruckelshaus, re-
quested that a compilation of EPA legal authority be researched and
published.
The publication has the primary function of providing a working
document for the Agency itself. Secondarily, it will serve as a research
tool for the public.
A permanent office in the Office of Legislation has been established
to keep the publication updated by supplements.
It is the hope of EPA that this set will assist in the awesome task
of developing a better environment.
LANE WARD GENTRY, J.D.
Assistant Director for Field Operations
Office of Legislation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The idea of producing a compilation of the legal authority of EPA
was conceived and commissioned by William D. Ruckelshaus, Ad-
ministrator of EPA. The production of this compilation involved the
cooperation and effort of numerous sources, both within and outside
the Agency. The departmental libraries at Justice and Interior were
used extensively; therefore we express our appreciation to Marvin
P. Hogan, Librarian, Department of Justice; Arley E. Long, Land &
Natural Resources Division Librarian, Department of Justice;
Frederic E. Murray, Assistant Director, Library Services, Department
of the Interior.
For exceptional assistance and cooperation, my gratitude to:
Gary Baise, formerly Assistant to the Administrator, currently Direc-
tor, Office of Legislation, who first began with me on this project;
A. James Barnes, Assistant to the Administrator; K. Kirke Harper, Jr.,
Special Assistant for Executive Communications; John Dezzutti,
Administrative Assistant, Office of Executive Communications;
Roland 0. Sorensen, Chief, Printing Management Branch, and
Jacqueline Gouge and Thomas Green, Printing Management Staff;
Ruth Simpkins, Janis Collier, Wm. Lee Rawls, Peter J. McKenna,
James G. Chandler, Jeffrey D. Light, Randy Mott, Thomas H. Rawls,
John D. WMttaker, Linda L. Payne, John M. Himmelberg, and
Dana W. Smith, a beautiful staff who gave unlimited effort; and to
many others behind the scenes who rendered varied assistance.
LANE WARD GENTRY, J.D.
Assistant Director for Field Operations
Office of Legislation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
VI
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
The goal of this text is to create a useful compilation of the legal
authority under which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
operates. These documents are for the general use of personnel of the
EPA in assisting them in attaining the purposes set out by the Presi-
dent in creating the Agency. This work is not intended and should
not be used for legal citations or any use other than as reference of a
general nature. The author disclaims all responsibility for liabilities
growing out of the use of these materials contrary to their intended
purpose. Moreover, it should be noted that portions of the Con-
gressional Record from the 92nd Congress were extracted from the
"unofficial" daily version and are subject to subsequent modification.
EPA Legal Compilation consists of the Statutes with their legisla-
tive history, Executive Orders, Regulations, Guidelines and Reports.
To facilitate the usefulness of this composite, the Legal Compilation
is divided into the eight following chapters:
A. General E. Pesticides
B. Air F. Radiation
C. Water G. Noise
D. Solid Waste H. International
AIR
The chapter labeled "Air," and color coded light blue, contains the
legal authority of the Agency directly related to air pollution. Several
documents under this title are applicable to other areas of pollution,
and when this occurs, a reference is made back to "General" where
the full text appears. This method is used in order that the documents
are not needlessly reproduced in each chapter.
SUBCHAPTERS
Statutes and Legislative History
For convenience, the Statutes are listed throughout the Compilation
by a one-point system, i.e., 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc., and Legislative History
begins wherever a letter follows the one-point system. Thusly, any
l.la, Lib, 1.2a, etc., denotes the public laws comprising the 1.1,
vii
-------
viii INSTRUCTIONS
1.2 statute. Each public law is followed by its legislative history.
The legislative history in each case consists of the House Report,
Senate Report, Conference Report (where applicable), the Congres-
sional Record beginning with the time the bill was reported from
committee.
Example:
1.1 Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1857 et seq. (1970).
l.la Air Pollution Act of July 14, 1955, P.L. 84-159, 69 Stat. 322.
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 389, 84th Cong.,
1st Sess. (1955).
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, H.R. REP.
No. 968, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955).
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 101 (1955):
(a) May 31: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 7248-7250;
(b) July 5: Amended and passed House, pp. 9923-9925;
(c) July 6: Senate concurs in House amendment, pp. 9984-9985.
This example not only demonstrates the pattern followed for legislative
history, but indicates the procedure where only one section of a public
law appears. You will note that the Congressional Record cited pages
are only those pages dealing with the discussion and/or action taken
pertinent to the section of law applicable to EPA. In the event there
is no discussion of the pertinent section, only action or passage, then
the asterisk (*) is used to so indicate, and no text is reprinted in the
Compilation. In regard to the situation where only one section of a
public law is applicable, then only the parts of the report dealing with
same are printed in the Compilation.
Secondary Statutes
Many statutes make reference to other laws and rather than have
this manual serve only for major statutes, these secondary statutes
have been included where practical. These secondary statutes are
indicated in the table of contents to each chapter by a bracketed cite
to the particular section of the major act which made the reference.
Citations
The United States Code, being the official citation, is used through-
out the Statute section of the compilation.
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
TABLE OF STATUTORY SOURCE
IX
Statute
Source
1.1 The Clean Air Act, as amended,
42 U.S.C. §1857 et seq. (1970).
1.2 Public Contracts, Advertisements
for Proposals for Purchases and
Contracts for Supplies or Services
for Government Departments;
Application to Government Sales
and Contracts to Sell and to
Government Corporations, as
amended, 41 U.S.C. §5 (1958).
1.3 Advances of Public Moneys,
Prohibition Against, as revised,
31 U.S.C. §529 (1946).
1.4 Contracts: Acquisition, Construc-
tion or Furnishing of Test Facilities
and Equipment, as amended, 10
U.S.C. §2353 (1956).
1.5 Record on Review and Enforcement
of Agency Orders, as amended,
28 U.S.C. §2112 (1966).
1.6 Disclosure of Confidential Informa-
tion Generally, as amended, 18
U.S.C. §1905
1.7 Per Diem, Travel and Transporta-
tion Expenses; Experts and Con-
sultants; Individuals Serving With-
out Pay, as amended, 5 U.S.C.
§5703 (1969).
1.8 Highway Safety Act of 1966, as
amended, 23 U.S.C. §402 (1970).
1.9 Federal Salary Act, as amended,
5 U.S.C. §§5305, 5332 (1970).
1.10 The Federal Aviation Act of 1958,
as amended, 49 U.S.C. §1301 et seq.
(1970).
1.11 Department of Transportation Act,
as amended, 49 U.S.C. §1651
et seq. (1968).
1.12 The National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(c)
(1970).
1.13 The Public Health Service Act,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§241, 243,
246 (1970).
1.14 The Davis-Bacon Act, as amended,
40 U.S.C. §§276a-276a-5 (1964).
1.15 Reorganization Plan No. 14 of
1950, 64 Stat. 1267 (1950).
Directly transferred to EPA in Reorg.
Plan No. 3 of 1970.
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§1857b-l(a)(2)(D).
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§1857b-l(a)(2)(D).
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
|1867b-(a)(2)(D).
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§§1857c-5(f)(2)(B), 1857f-5(b)(2)(B)(ii).
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§§1857c-9(c), 1857d(j)(l), 1857f-6(b),
1857h-5(a)(l).
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§§1857d(i), 1857e(e), 1857f-6e(b)(2).
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§1857f-6b(2).
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§1857f-6e(b)(3)(A).
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§§1857f-10(a), (b), 1857f-12.
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§1857f-10(b).
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§1857h-7(a).
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§1857i(b).
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§1857j-3.
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§1857j-3.
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1.16 Regulations Governing Contractors
and Subcontractors, as amended,
40 U.S.C. §276c (1958).
1.17 Federal Aid Highway Act, as
amended, 23 U.S.C. §109(h), (j)
(1970).
1.18 Airport and Airway Development
Act, as amended, 49 U.S.C.
§§1712(f), 1716(c)(4), (e)(1970).
1.19 Amortization of Pollution Control
Facilities, as amended, 26 U.S.C.
§169(d)(l)(B), (3) (1969).
1.20 Interest on Certain Government
Obligations, as amended, 26 U.S.C.
§103 (1969).
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§1857j-3.
Direct reference in Act to EPA and air
pollution at §109(h), (i), (j).
Direct reference in Act to air pollution
at §§1712(f), 1716(e)(l).
§169d(l)(B) makes direct reference to
the Clean Air Act.
At §103 (c) (4) (F) industrial development
bonds are exempt from taxes on air
pollution control facilities.
Executive Orbers
The Executive Orders are listed by a two-point system (2.1, 2.2,
etc.). Executive Orders found in General are ones applying to more
than one area of the pollution chapters.
Regulations
The Regulations are noted by a three-point system (3.1, 3.2, etc.).
Included in the Regulations are those not only promulgated by the
Environmental Protection Agency, but those under which the Agency
has direct contact.
Guidelines and Reports
This subchapter is noted by a four-point system (4.1, 4.2, etc.). In
this subchapter is found the statutorily required reports of EPA,
published guidelines of EPA, selected reports other than EPA's and
inter-departmental agreements of note.
UPDATING
Periodically, a supplement will be sent to the interagency dis-
tribution and made available through the U.S. Government Printing
Office in order to provide an accurate working set of EPA Legal
Compilation.
-------
CONTENTS
B. Air
VOLUME I
Page
1. STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1.1 Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1857 et seq. (1970) 1
l.la Air Pollution Act of July 14, 1955, P.L. 84-159, 69 Stat.
322 81
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
389, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955) 83
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 968, 84th Cong., 1st Sess.
(1955) 93
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 101 (1955):
(a) May 31: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
7248-7250 104
(b) July 5: Amended and passed House, pp. 9923-
9925 106
(c) July 6: Senate concurs in House amendment,
pp. 9984-9985 110
l.lb Extension of §5-a of Air Pollution Act of July 14, 1955,
September 22, 1959, P.L. 86-365, 73 Stat. 646 114
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 960, 86th Cong., 1st Sess.
(1959) 115
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
182, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959) 123
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1187,
86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959) 136
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 105 (1959):
(a) Sept. 1: Passed House, pp. 17584-17586 140
(b) Sept. 9: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
18733-18734 144
(c) Sept. 10, 11: House and Senate ask for con-
ference, pp. 18997, 19046 146
(d) Sept. 14: House and Senate agree to conference
report, pp. 19704-19705, 19434-19435 146
l.lc Motor Vehicle Exhaust Study Act of June 8, 1960,
P.L. 86-493, 74 Stat. 1625 153
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 814, 86th Cong., 1st Sess.
(1959) 154
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 1410, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960) 171
XI
-------
xii CONTENTS
Page
(3) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 105 (1959), Aug. 17: Passed House, pp.
16074-16080 176
(b) Vol. 106 (1960), May 26: Passed Senate, p.
11209 191
l.ld Amendment of Act of July 14, 1955, October 9, 1962,
P.L. 87-761, 76 Stat. 760 192
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
1083, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961) 193
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 2265, 87th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1962) 199
(3) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 107 (1961), Sept. 20: Passed Senate, pp.
20417-20418 220
(b) Vol. 108 (1962), Sept. 17: Amended and passed
House, pp. 19658-19661 223
(c) Vol. 108 (1962), Sept. 26: Senate concurs in
House amendments, pp. 20802-20803 232
l.le The Clean Air Act, December 17, 1963, P.L. 88-206,
77 Stat. 392 235
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 508, 88th Cong., 1st Sess.
(1963) 247
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
638, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963) 277
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1003,
88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963) 295
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 109 (1963):
(a) July 24: Considered and passed House, pp.
13273-13281; 13283-13285 305
(b) Nov. 19: Considered and passed Senate,
amended, pp. 22321-22326; 22329-22331 328
(c) Dec. 10: House and Senate agree to conference
report, pp. 23954; 23959-23966; 21083-21085.. 344
l.lf Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act, and Solid
Waste Disposal Act, October 20, 1955, P.L. 89-272,
79 Stat. 992 364
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
192, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965) 377
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 899, 89th Cong., 1st Sess.
(1965) 410
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. Ill (1965):
(a) May 18: Considered and passed Senate, pp.
10779; 10782-10783 431
(b) Sept. 23: Considered in House, pp. 24941-
24943 434
(c) Sept. 24: Considered and passed House,
amended, pp. 25049-25059; 25061-25065;
25072 436
-------
CONTENTS xiii
Page
(d) Oct. 1: Senate concurred in House amendments,
pp. 25847; 25850-25851 471
l.lg Clean Air Amendments of 1966, October 15, 1966, P.L.
89-675, SOStat. 954 473
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
1361, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) 475
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 2170, 89th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1966) 493
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2256,
89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) 514
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 112 (1966):
(a) July 11: Considered in Senate, p. 15169 517
(b) July 12: Considered and passed Senate, pp.
15248-15262 518
(c) Oct. 3: Considered and passed House, amended,
pp. 24853-24855 549
(d) Oct. 13: House agreed to conference report, p.
26596 555
(e) Oct. 14: Senate agreed to conference report,
p. 26808-26809 557
l.lh Air Quality Act of 1967, November 21, 1967, P.L.
90-148, 81 Stat.485 560
VOLUME II
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
403, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967) 593
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 728, 90th Cong., 1st Sess.
(1967) 703
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 916,
90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967) 834
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 113 (1967):
(a) July 18: Considered and passed Senate, pp.
19164, 19171-19186 839
(b) Nov. 2: Considered and passed House, amended,
pp. 30939-30963; 30975-30981; 30988-30989;
30999 872
(c) Nov. 9: Senate rejected House amendments,
pp. 32072-32073; 32079 965
(d) Nov. 13: House insisted on amendments and
agreed to conference, p. 32213 965
(e) Nov. 14: Senate and House adopted conference
report, pp. 32475-32479 966
l.li Authorization for Fuel and Vehicle Research, 1969,
December 5, 1969, P.L. 91-137, 83 Stat. 283 973
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
91-286, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969) 973
-------
xiv CONTENTS
Page
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 91-349, 91st Cong., 1st Sess.
(1969) 990
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-690,
91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969) 997
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 115 (1969):
(a) July 8: Considered and passed Senate, pp.
18540-18541; 18544 1000
(b) Sept. 3, 4: Considered and passed House,
amended, pp. 24005-24006; 24356-24372;
24374-24378 1003
(c) Nov. 25: House and Senate agreed to conference
report, pp. 35640; 35805-35807 1050
l.lj Extension of Clean Air Act, July 10, 1970, P.L. 91-316,
84 Stat. 416 1054
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
91-941, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 1054
(2) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970):
(a) June 25: Considered and passed Senate, pp.
21363-21364 1056
(b) June 30: Considered and passed House, p.
22095 1056
l.lk Clean Air Amendments of 1970, December 31, 1970,
P.L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1676 1057
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 91-1146, 91st Cong., 2d Sess.
(1970) 1115
VOLUME III
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
91-1196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 1189
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-1783,
91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 1367
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970):
(a) June 10: Considered and passed House, pp.
19200-19244 1391
(b) Sept. 21, 22: Considered and passed Senate,
amended, pp. 32837; 32900-32928; 33072-
33121 1493
(c) Dec. 18: Senate and House agreed to conference
report, pp. 42381^2395; 42519-42524 1672
(5) The President's Remarks Upon Signing the Bill into
Law, Dec. 31, 1970, Weekly Compilation of Presi-
dential Documents, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 4, 1971
(p. 11) 1717
1.11 Technical Amendments to the Clean Air Act, November
18, 1971, P.L. 92-157, §302, 85 Stat. 464 1719
-------
CONTENTS xv
Page
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 92-258, 92d Cong., 1st Sess.
(1971) 1720
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 92-251, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971) 1720
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 92-578,
92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971) 1720
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 117 (1971):
(a) July 1: Considered and passed House; * 1721
(b) July 14: Considered and passed Senate, amended
in lieu of S. 934; * 1721
(c) Oct. 19: Senate agreed to conference report; *__ 1721
(d) Nov. 9: House agreed to conference report. *__ 1721
1.2 Public Contracts, Advertisements for Proposals for Purchases
and Contracts for Supplies or Supplies for Government Depart-
ments; Application to Government Sales and Contracts to Sell
and to Government Corporations, as amended, 41 U.S.C. §5
(1958). [Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857b-l(a)(2)(D)]. (See,
"General 1.14" for legislative history). 1721
1.3 Advances of Public Moneys, Prohibition Against, as revised,
31 U.S.C. §529 (1946). [Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857b-
l(a)(2)(D) 1722
1.3a Advances of Public Moneys; Prohibition Against, August
2, 1946, R.S. §3648, §11, 60 Stat. 809 1722
1.3b E.G. 10410, Specification of Laws From Which the
Escapee Program Administered by the Department of
State Shall be Exempt, November 14, 1952, 17 Fed.
Reg. 10495 1723
1.3c E.O. 11223, Relating to the Performance of Functions
Authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
May 12, 1965, 30 Fed. Reg. 6635 1723
1.4 Contracts: Acquisition, Construction or Furnishing of Test
Facilities and Equipment, as amended, 10 U.S.C. §2353 (1956).
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857b-l(a)(2)(D)] 1726
1.4a Act of July 16, 1952, P.L. 82-557, 66 Stat. 725 1726
(1) House Committee on Armed Services, H.R. REP.
No. 548, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. (1951) 1730
(2) Senate Committee on Armed Services, S. REP. No.
936, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. (1951) 1743
(3) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 97 (1951), Oct. 19: Objected to in Senate,
p. 13530 1755
(b) Vol. 98 (1952), July 3: Passed Senate, pp.
9053-9054 1756
(c) Vol. 98 (1952), July 4: Passed House, pp.
9374-9375 1757
1.4b An Act to Revise, Codify and Enact Into Law Title X
of the United States Code, August 10, 1956, §2353,
70A Stat. 149 1759
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
970, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955) 1760
-------
xvi CONTENTS
Pages
(2) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP. No.
2484, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. (1956) 1761
(3) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 101 (1955), Aug. 1: Amended and passed
House, p. 12719 1762
(b) Vol. 102 (1956), July 23: Amended and passed
Senate, p. 13953 1762
(c) Vol. 102 (1956), July 25: House concurs in
Senate amendment, p. 14455 1762
1.5 Record on Review and Enforcement of Agency Orders, as
amended, 28 U.S.C. §2112 (1966). [Referred to in 42 U.S.C.
§§1857c-5(f)(2)(B), 1857f-5(b)(2)(B)(ii)] 1763
1.5a Record on Review and Enforcement of Agency Orders,
August 28, 1958, P.L. 85-791, §2, 72 Stat. 941 1765
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
842, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. (1957) 1768
VOLUME IV
(2) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP. No.
2129, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958) 1777
(3) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 103 (1957), Aug. 5: Amended and passed
House, pp. 13617-13618 1802
(b) Vol. 104 (1958), Aug. 14: Passed Senate, p.
17537 1804
1.5b Rules of Civil Procedure, November 6, 1966, P.L.
89-773, §5(a), (b), 80 Stat. 1323 1804
(1) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP. No.
1406, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) 1805
(2) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
2153, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) 1814
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 112 (1966):
(a) July 27: Passed Senate, p. 17306 1824
(b) Oct. 20: Passed House, p. 28141 1825
1.6 Disclosure of Confidential Information Generally, as amended,
18 U.S.C. §1905 (1948). [Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §§1857c-9(c),
1857d(j)(l), 1857f-6(b), 1857h-5(a)(l)]. (See, "General 1.16a-
1.16a(3)(d)" for legislative history) 1828
1.7 Per Diem, Travel, and Transportation Expenses; Experts and
Consultants; Individuals Serving Without Pay, as amended,
5 U.S.C. §5703 (1969). [Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §§1857(d)(i),
1857e(e), 1857f-6e(b)(2)]. (See, "General 1.15a-1.15b(3)(c)"
for legislative history). 1828
1.8 Highway Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 23 U.S.C. §402
(1970). [Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857f-6b(2)] 1829
1.8a Highway Safety Act of 1966, September 9, 1966, P.L.
89-564, Title I, §101, 80 Stat. 731 1832
-------
CONTENTS xvii
Page
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
1302, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) 1838
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP.
No. 1700, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) 1861
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1920,
89th Cong., 2d Sees. (1966) 1885
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 112 (1966):
(a) June 27: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
14936-14938 1898
(b) Aug. 18: Amended and passed House, pp.
19926-19939; 19940-19944 1898
(c) Aug. 31: House agrees to conference report, pp.
21355-21358 1937
(d) Sept. 1: Senate agrees to conference report, p.
21595-21596 1944
1.8b Highway Safety Program, August 23, 1968, P.L. 90-495,
§13, 82 Stat. 822 1946
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
1340, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968) 1946
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
1584, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968) 1950
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1799,
90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968) 1952
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 114 (1968):
(a) July 1: Amended and passed Senate, p. 19552. _. 1952
(b) July 3: Amended and passed House, p. 19950__ 1952
(c) July 26: House agrees to conference report, p.
23713 1952
(d) July 29: Senate agrees to conference report,
p. 24038 1952
1.8c Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970, December 31, 1970,
P.L. 91-605, Title II, §§202(c)-(e), 84 Stat. 1740, 1741__ 1953
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP.
No. 91-1554, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 1954
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
91-1254, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 1962
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-1780,
91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 1970
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970):
(a) Dec. 7: Considered and passed House, p. 40096__ 1971
(b) Dec. 7: Amended and passed Senate, p. 40095__ 1971
(c) Dec. 18: House agrees to conference report,
pp. 42514-42523 1972
(d) Dec. 19: Senate agrees to conference report,
pp. 42714-42723 1979
1.9 Federal Salary Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §§5305, 5332 (1970).
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857f-6e(b)(3)(A)] 2002
1.9a General Schedule, September 6, 1966, P.L. 89-554,
80 Stat. 467 2007
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
901, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965) 2008
526-702 O - 73 -- 2
-------
xviii CONTENTS
Page
(2) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP. No.
1380, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) 2010
(3) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. Ill (1965), Sept. 7: Passed House, p.
22954 2012
(b) Vol. 112 (1966), July 25, 27: Amended and
passed Senate, pp. 17010 2012
(c) Vol. 112 (1966), Sept. 11: House concurred in
Senate amendments, p. 19077 2014
1.9b Registers, Individuals Receiving Compensation,
September 11, 1967, P.L. 90-83, §1(18), 81 Stat. 199 2014
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
124, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967) 2015
(2) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP. No.
482, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967) 2015
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 113 (1967):
(a) April 3: Amended and passed House, p. 8109.. 2015
(b) Aug. 4: Amended and passed Senate, p. 21414 2016
(c) Aug. 24: House concurs in Senate amendments,
pp. 23904-23905 2016
1.9c Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act of 1967, Decem-
ber 16, 1967, P.L. 90-206, Title II, §202(a), 81 Stat. 624, 2016
(1) House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
H.R. REP. No. 722, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967) 2016
(2) Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
S. REP. No. 801, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967) 2025
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1013,
90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967) 2027
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 113 (1967):
(a) Oct. 10, 11: Amended and passed House, pp.
28410, 28412, 28648-28649, 28655 2030
(b) Nov. 28, 29: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
33975, 34013-34014, 34227-34228, 34261 2037
(c) Dec. 11: House recedes from its disagreement to
the Senate amendment, and concurs therein,
with an amendment, p. 35842 2044
(d) Dec. 12: Senate concurs in House amendment to
Senate amendment, pp. 36104 2044
1.9d E.G. 11413, Adjustment of Pay Rates Effective July 1,
1969, June 11, 1968, 33 Fed. Reg. 8641 2047
1.9e E.O. 11474, Adjustment of Pay Rates Effective July 1,
1969, June 16, 1969, 34 Fed. Reg. 9605 2050
1.9f E.O. 11524, Adjustment of Pay Rates Effective First Pay
Period on or After December 27, 1969, April 15, 1970,
35 Fed. Reg. 6247 2053
1.9g E.O. 11576, Adjustment of Pay Rates Effective January
1, 1971, January 8, 1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 347 2056
1.9h E.O. 11587, Federal Executive Salary Schedule, March
15, 1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 4973 2059
1.10 The Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, 49 U.S.C.
§1301 et seq. (1970). [Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §§1857f-10(a),
(b), 1857f-12] 2060
-------
CONTENTS xix
Page
l.lOa The Federal Aviation Act of 1958, August 23, 1958,
P.L. 85-726, §§101-701, 72 Stat. 731 2132
(1) Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, S. REP. No. 1811, 85th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1958) 2153
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 2360, 85th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1958) 2161
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2556,
85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958) 2163
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 104 (1958):
(a) July 14: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
13621-13636, 13645-13650 2164
(b) Aug. 4: Amended and passed House, p. 16088__ 2179
(c) Aug. 11: Senate agrees to conference report,
p. 16887 2179
(d) Aug. 13: House agrees to conference report,
p. 17457 2179
l.lOb Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, December
29, 1970, P.L. 91-596, §31, 84 Stat. 1619 2179
(1) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 91-1282, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970).__ 2180
(2) House Committee on Education and Labor, H.R.
REP. No. 91-1291, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 2181
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-1765,
91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 2182
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970):
(a) Nov. 17: Amended and passed Senate, p.
37632 2183
(b) Nov. 24: Amended and passed House, p.
H10711 2183
(c) Dec. 16: Senate agrees to conference report, p.
41764 2183
(d) Dec. 17: House agrees to conference report, p.
42209 2183
l.lOc Clean Air Amendments of 1970, December 31, 1970,
P.L. 91-604, §ll(b)(l), 84 Stat. 1705 2183
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 91-1146, 91st Cong., 2d Sess.
(1970) 2184
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
91-1196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 2186
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-1783,
91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 2190
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970):
(a) June 10: Considered and passed House, p. 19228_ 2192
(b) Sept. 22: Considered and passed Senate,
amended, p. 33105 2192
(c) Dec. 18: Senate agrees to conference report,
p. 42391 2192
(d) Dec. 18: House agrees to conference report,
p. 42519 2193
-------
xx CONTENTS
Page
l.lOd Amendments to the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956,
November 18,1971, P.L. 92-159, §2a, 85 Stat. 481 2193
(1) House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fish-
eries, H.R. REP. No. 92-202, 92d Cong., 1st Sess.
(1971) 2194
(2) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No.
92-421, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971) 2195
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 117 (1971):
(a) May 17: Considered and passed House, pp.
H3973-H3977 2196
(b) Nov. 4: Considered and passed Senate, amended,
p. 517630* 2196
(c) Nov. 5: House concurred in Senate amendments,
p. H10550* 2196
l.lOe Airport and Airway Programs, November 27, 1971,
P.L. 92-174, §§5(b), 6, 85 Stat. 492 2197
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 92-459, 92d Cong., 1st Sess.
(1971) 2197
(2) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No.
92-378, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971) 2197
(3) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No.
92-394, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971) 2198
(4) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 92-624,
92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971) 2198
(5) Congressional Record, Vol. 117 (1971):
(a) Sept. 22: Considered and passed House* 2198
(b) Oct. 12: Considered and passed Senate,
amended* 2198
(c) Nov. 8: Senate agreed to conference report* 2198
(d) Nov. 16: House agreed to conference report*._ 2198
l.lOf Noise Control Act of 1972, October 27, 1972, P.L. 92-574,
86 Stat. 1234 2198
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 92-842, 92d Cong., 2d Sess.
(1972) 2202
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
92-1160, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972) 2207
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 118 (1972):
(a) Feb. 29: Considered and passed House, pp.
H1508-H1539 2250
(b) Oct. 12: Considered in Senate, pp. S17743-
S17764, S17774-S17785 2278
(c) Oct. 13: Considered and passed Senate,
amended, pp. S17988-S18014 2305
(d) Oct. 18: House concurred in Senate amendment,
with an amendment, pp. H10261-H10262,
H10287-H10300 2327
(e) Oct. 18: Senate concurred in House amendment,
pp. S18638-S18646 2330
1.11 Department of Transportation Act, as amended, 49 U.S.C.
-------
CONTENTS xxi
Page
§1651 et seq. (1968). [Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857f-10b].
(See, "General 1.5a-1.5c(3)(d)" for legislative history) 2334
1.12 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C.
§4332(2)(c) (1970). [Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857h-7(a)].
(See, "General 1.2a-1.2a(4)(e)" for legislative history) 2334
1.13 Public Health Service Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§241, 243,
246 (1970). [Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857i(b)J. (See, "General
1.12a-1.12ae" for legislative history) 2335
1.14 The Davis-Bacon Act, as amended, 40 U.S.C. §§276a-276a-5
(1964). [Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857j-3]. (See, "General
1.13a-1.13h" for legislative history) 2353
1.15 Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, 64 Stat. 1267 (1950).
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857j-3] 2357
1.16 Regulations Governing Contractors and Subcontractors, as
amended, 40 U.S.C. §276c (1958). [Referred to in 42 U.S.C.
§1857j-3] 2357
1.16a Secretaries of Treasury and Labor Shall Make Regula-
tions for Contractors and Subcontractors, June 13,1934,
P.L. 73-324, §2, 48 Stat. 948 2358
(1) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP. No.
803, 73rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1934) 2358
(2) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
1750, 73rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1934) 2359
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 78 (1934):
(a) April 26: Passed Senate, p. 7401 2360
(b) June 7: Passed House, p. 10759 2360
1.16b Amendments to Act of June 13, 1934, May 24, 1949, P.L.
81-72, §134, 63 Stat. 108 2360
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
352, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. (1949) 2361
(2) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP. No.
303, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. (1949) 2362
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 95 (1949):
(a) April 4: Passed House, p. 3819 2364
(b) May 6: Passed Senate, p. 5827 2365
1.16c Amendment of 1958, August 28, 1958, P.L. 85-800, §12,
72 Stat. 967 2365
(1) Senate Committee on Government Operations, S.
REP. No. 2201, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958) 2365
(2) Congressional Record, Vol. 114 (1958): 2368
(a) Aug. 14: Passed Senate, p. 17539
(b) Aug. 15: Passed House, p. 17909 2368
VOLUME V
1.17 Federal Aid Highway Act, as amended, 23 U.S.C. §109(h), (j)
(1970). (See, "General 1.6a-1.6d(4)(f)" for legislative history). 2369
1.18 Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, as amended,
-------
xxii CONTENTS
Page
49 U.S.C. §§1712(f), 1716(c)(4), (e) (1970). (See, "General
1.7a-1.7a(4)(d)" for legislative history) 2369
1.19 Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities, as amended,
26 U.S.C. §169 (1969). (See, "General 1.4a-1.4a(5)(c)" for
legislative history) 2369
1.20 Interest on Certain Government Obligations, Int. Rev. Code
of 1954, as amended, §103, 26 U.S.C. §103 (1969). (See,
"General 1.9a-1.9d(4)(d)" for legislative history) 2369
1.21 Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C.
§§1961-1964 2369
1.21a Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Saving Act, October
20, 1972, P.L. 92-513, Title III, §301 (b)(2), 302(b)(l),
86 Stat. 960 2372
(1) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 92-
413, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971) 2375
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 92-1033, 92d Cong., 2d Sess.
(1972) 2375
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 92-1476,
92d Cong., 2dSess. (1972) 2375
(4) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 117 (1971), Nov. 3: Considered and passed
Senate, p. S17570-S17575, S17578-S17591* 2376
(b) Vol. 118 (1972), May 22: Considered and passed
House, amended in lieu of H.R. 11627, p.
H4754-H4755, H4774-H4793 * 23 76
(c) Vol. 118 (1972), Oct. 4: House agreed to con-
ference report, p. H9138-H9139* 2376
(d) Vol. 118 (1972), Oct. 6: Senate agreed to con-
ference report, p. S17175-S17176* 2376
2. EXECUTIVE ORDERS
2.1 E.O. 11282, Prevention, Control and Abatement of Air Pollu-
tion by Federal Authorities, May 28, 1966, 31 Fed. Reg.
7663 (1966) 2379
2.2 E.O. 11507, Prevention, Control and Abatement of Air and
Water Pollution at Federal Facilities, February 5,1970, 35 Fed.
Reg. 3573 (1970) 2382
2.3 E.O. 11523, National Industrial Pollution Control Council,
April 9, 1970, 35 Fed. Reg. 5993 (1970) 2388
2.4 E.O. 11587, Placing Certain Positions in Levels IV and V of the
Federal Executive Salary Schedule, March 15, 1971, 35 Fed.
Reg. 475 (1971) 2389
2.5 E.O. 11602, Providing for Administration of the Clean Air Act
with Respect to Federal Contracts, Grants, or Loans, June 29,
1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 12475 (1971) 2390
3. REGULATIONS 2395
3.1 Entry of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines Under
Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act, Bureau of Customs, 19
C.F.R. §12.73 (1972)
3.2 Grants for Air Pollution Control Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 42 C.F.R. §§456.1-456.45 (1971)
-------
CONTENTS xxiii
Page
3.3 National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Stand-
ards Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.P.R. §§50.1-
50.11 (1971)
3.4 Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans, Environmental Protection Agency,
40 C.F.R. §§51.1-51.32 (1971)
3.5 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §52 (1972)
3.6 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, En-
vironmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§60.1-60.85
(1971)
3.7 Prior Notion of Citizen Suits, Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§54.1-54.3 (1971)
3.8 Prevention, Control and Abatement of Air Pollution from
Federal Government Activities: Performance Standards and
Techniques of Measurement, Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§76.1-76.9 (1971)
3.9 Registration of Fuel Additives, Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§79.1-79.31 (1971)
3.10 Air Quality Control Regions, Criteria and Control Techniques,
Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§81.1-81.114
(1971)
3.11 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New
Motor Vehicle Engines, Environmental Protection Agency,
40 C.F.R. §§85.1-85.327 (1972)
4. GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
4.1 Environmental Protection Agency, Reports to Congress as
required by the Clean Air Act 2399
4.la "The Economics of Clean Air," Report to Congress by
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, December 1970 2399
4.1b "Progress in the Prevention and Control of Air Pollu-
tion," Report to Congress by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, January 1971 2561
4.1c "Development of Systems to Attain Established Motor
Vehicle and Engine Emission Standards," Report to
Congress by the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, September 1971 2587
4.Id "Progress in Prevention and Control of Air Pollution,"
Report to Congress by the Administrator of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency, February 1972 2626
4.2 Criteria and Control Techniques Summaries 2640
4.2a Criteria 2640
(1) "Criteria for Carbon Monoxide," National Air
Pollution Control Administration, March 1970 2640
(2) "Criteria for Hydrocarbons," National Air Pollution
Control Administration, March 1970 2651
(3) "Criteria for Particulate Matter," National Air
Pollution Control Administration, January 1969 2658
(4) "Criteria for Photochemical Oxidants," National
-------
xxiv CONTENTS
Page
Air Pollution Control Administration, January
1969 2672
(5) "Criteria for Sulfur Oxides," National Air Pollution
Control Administration, January 1969 2690
(6) "Criteria for Nitrogen Oxides," Environmental
Protection Agency, January 1971 2707
4.2b Control Techniques 2725
(1) "Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide from
Stationary Sources," National Air Pollution Control
Administration, March 1970 2725
(2) "Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide, Nitro-
gen Oxide and Hydrocarbons from Mobile Sources,"
National Air Pollution Control Administration,
March 1970 2727
(3) "Control Techniques for Hydrocarbons and Organic
Solvents from Stationary Sources," National Air
Pollution Control Administration, March 1970 2732
(4) "Control Techniques for Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
from Stationary Sources," National Air Pollution
Control Administration, March 1970 2737
(5) "Control Techniques for Particulates," National Air
Pollution Control Administration, January 1969 2744
(6) "Control Techniques for Sulfur Oxides," National
Air Pollution Control Administration, January
1969 2753
4.3 Selected Reports 2759
4.3a Semiannual Report, Prepared by the Committee on
Motor Vehicle Emissions of the National Academy of
Sciences, January 1, 1972 2759
4.4 Interagency Agreements 2822
4.4a Interagency Agreement Between Environmental Pro-
tection Agency and Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2822
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 593
l.lh(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
S. REP. No. 403, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967)
AIR QUALITY ACT OF 1967—AMENDING THE CLEAN
AIR ACT AS AMENDED
JULY 15, 1967.—Ordered to be printed
(Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of July 13, 1967)
Mr. MUSKIE, from the Committee on Public Works,
submitted the following
REPORT
together with
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 780]
The Committee on Public Works, to which was referred the bill
(S. 780) to amend the Clean Air Act to improve and expand the
authority to conduct or assist research relating to air pollutants,
to assist in the establishment of regional air quality commissions,
to authorize establishment of standards applicable to emissions
from establishments engaged in certain types of industry, to assist
in establishment and maintenance of State programs for annual
inspections of automobile emission control devices, and for other
purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon
with amendments and recommends that the bill as amended do
pass.
[p.l]
-------
594 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
CONTENTS
Page
I. General statement 2
II. Summary of provisions of S. 780 6
III. Need for legislation 8
IV. Legislative history 12
V. Hearings 16
VI. Major provisions of the bill as reported 17
Research 17
Grants for support of air pollution planning and control
program ___ _.. 23
Interstate air quality agencies or commissions _ 24
Air quality control regions, criteria, and control techniques 25
Air quality standards 28
Abatement conference 28
Imminent endangerment 30
President's Air Quality Advisory Board and advisory com-
mittees ^_ 31
State standards (on automotive emissions) 32
Federal assistance in developing vehicle inspection systems 35
Fuel additives 35
National emissions standards study 36
Comprehensive economic cost studies 38
Additional reports to Congress 39
Appropriations 39
VII. Section-by-section analysis of S. 780, as reported 40
VIII. Comparison with existing provisions of the law 51
IX. Pending questions 58
X. Individual views 62
XI. Changes in existing law 63
I. GENERAL STATEMENT
The prime purpose of the proposed legislation is to strengthen
the Clean Air Act, to expedite a national program of air quality
improvement, and to enhance the quality of the atmosphere to
protect the health and welfare of our citizens against long-term
hazards and immediate danger. Considerations of technology and
economic feasibility, while important in helping to develop alter-
native plans and schedules for achieving goals of air quality,
should not be used to mitigate against protection of the public
health and welfare.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 595
The objective of S. 780 as amended is to achieve clean air, and
to do so through the establishment of sound objectives and feasi-
ble timetables. The committee's hearings indicated that those who
contribute to air pollution share with all Americans the objective
of cleaning up the air, and that the differences of opinion ex-
pressed were addressed primarily to how that objective best could
be accomplished. Through a full understanding of the etiology,
the probabilities, and the severity of health and welfare hazards
involved and with the strengthening of the technological and eco-
nomic capabilities for abatement in both the public and private
sector of our economy, the needs of public health and welfare
without serious or excessive economic dislocation can be met.
In recommending this bill the committee has taken into account
the evidence developed in hearings and field studies and, as in the
past, has attempted to expand upon the original draft legislation
to be responsive to requirements in addition to those contained in
S. 780 as introduced.
The American people recognize the threat of air pollution, and
they want action. Responsibility for the delays in developing an
effective attack on the problem rests with industry, government at
all levels, and the legislative process.
This legislation contains imaginative and far-reaching oppor-
tunities for air pollution control and abatement, but the bill is
complex, as are the problems of environmental control. The prob-
lem of air pollution is neither local nor temporary. It is a univer-
sal problem, and, so long as our standard of living continues to
increase, it will be a permanent threat to human well-being.
S. 780, as amended by the committee, will provide a compre-
hensive, broad-based attack on the Nation's air pollution problem
while expanding the potential of control technology and identify-
ing the health and welfare effects of air pollution. Its objective
is the enhancement of air quality and the reduction of harmful
emissions consistent with maximum utilization of an expanding
capacity to deal with them effectively. At the same time, it pro-
vides authority to abate any pollution source which is an imminent
danger to health, by whatever means necessary.
The Air Quality Act of 1967, therefore, serves notice that no
one has the right to use the atmosphere as a garbage dump, and
that there will be no haven for polluters anywhere in the country.
[p. 2]
The committee believes that, to date, public and private efforts,
to accomplish air quality objectives have been inadequate. Re-
-------
596 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
search has been insufficient, with little significant development of
new and improved methods for controlling or eliminating air
pollution. As each day passes there is a greater urgency for closer
cooperation between government and industry in an effort to make
substantial inroads on air pollution control and abatement.
If a successful national program of air pollution abatement is
to be implemented there are four principal areas in which there
must be accelerated progress—
First, the establishment of criteria of ambient air quality
which describe scientifically the effects on health and welfare
of varying concentrations of a contaminant, or contaminants,
under different atmospheric conditions;
Second, setting of enforceable ambient air quality stand-
ards based upon the air quality criteria;
Third, the development of plans for air regions, to imple-
ment the established ambient air standards giving due con-
sideration of factors of technical and economic feasibility;
and
Fourth, the provision of required stimuli to industry and
government to improve emission control technology to the
degree required to prevent and abate air pollution.
In order to facilitate the objective of a national abatement pro-
gram which will enhance the quality of our Nation's air, these
amendments provide the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare with the following authority:
(1) To request an immediate injunction to abate the emis-
sion of contaminants which present "an imminent and sub-
stantial endangerment to the health of persons," anywhere
in the country;
(2) To designate "air quality control regions" for the pur-
pose of implementing air quality standards, whenever and
wherever he deems it necessary to protect the public health
and welfare.
(3) In the absence of effective State action in accordance
with the provisions of the act, to establish ambient air quality
standards for such regions.
(4) In the absence of effective State action in accordance
with the provisions of the act, to enforce such standards.
(5) In the absence of action by the affected States, to es-
tablish Federal interstate air quality planning commissions.
It should be emphasized that^it is the intent of the committee
to enhance air quality and to reduce harmful pollution emissions
anywhere in the country, and to give the Secretary authority to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 597
implement that objective in the absence of effective State and local
control. It is believed that the Air Quality Act of 1967 carries out
that intent.
The committee recognizes the potential economic impact, and
therefore economic risk, associated with major social legislative
measures of this type. But this risk was assumed when the Con-
gress enacted social security, fair labor standards, and a host of
other legislation designed to protect the public welfare. Such a
risk must again be assumed if the Nation's air resources are to
be conserved, and enhanced to the point that generations yet to
come will be able to breathe without fear of impairment of health.
S. 780 is a logical expansion of the Clean Air Act of 1963 as
amended. In the basic act the Congress provided for development
by the Public Health Service of "air quality criteria" to identify
the effect of
[p. 3]
pollutants on health and welfare. To date, one such set of criteria
relating to oxides of sulfur has been issued and the committee
understands that criteria on several other contaminants including
carbon monoxide, particulates, and oxidants will be released with-
in the next 6 months.
The committee recognizes this activity and has encouraged its
expansion under S. 780. But, while this analysis of the quanti-
tative and qualitative effects of air pollution continues, under
strengthened and refined procedures of evaluations. Two new
areas have been authorized. A first and important step will be
the identification of those areas of the Nation which have signifi-
cant air pollution problems. The designation by the Secretary of
these problem areas will trigger the setting of air quality stand-
ards related to those pollutants for which criteria have been
developed.
In concert with expanded criteria development will be the
compilation of information of methods of pollution control, which
will be a publication of the technological and economically feasible
methods of control of pollutants subject to criteria. This informa-
tion will be designed to assist the States in carrying out their
responsibility to control air pollution within their respective
boundaries.
These steps, designation of air quality control regions, criteria
development, and publication of control technology information,
are both the tools for development of air quality standards and
-------
598 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
an early warning system to those industries and others in problem
areas who will be required to control their emissions.
The committee does not suggest that, with one fell swoop, the
air pollution problems of the Nation will be solved. Development
of the above-mentioned information will require a time equivalent
to that considered in the initial administration proposal for uni-
form national emission standards. And after the information is
available and the States adopt standards, there will be the neces-
sary time to achieve desired emissions control.
But we will have a national program of air quality. The States
will retain the primary responsibility to determine the quality of
air they desire. In no event, however, will the Federal Government
approve any air quality standard or plan for implementation of
that standard which does not provide for protection of the public
health and welfare of all the citizens within the air quality region.
In addition new industries, wherever they locate, will know that
control is inevitable and plan for it. The fact that an area is not
now a problem area will not mean that controls will never be
required. When the air quality of any region deteriorates below
the level required to protect public health and welfare, the Secre-
tary is required to designate that region for the establishment of
air quality standards, enforceable by the Federal Government if
the States fail to act. It should be pointed out in this connection
that the Public Health Service has expressed the view that every
urban area of 50,000 or more population now has an air pollution
problem. There are also population areas under that size which
clearly have problems related to particular pollution sources and
conditions.
Considerable attention was given, in the hearings and also in-
formal conferences and executive sessions, to the concept of na-
tional emission standards. Such standards were urged by the
administration (1) as a means of eliminating the economic dis-
advantage of complying with air pollution controls as a local
requirement and the temptation for
[p. 4]
industry to leave or avoid areas where such controls are presently
necessary; and (2) on the ground that some industries, by their
nature, are a danger to health and welfare wherever they are
located.
In the judgment of the committee, these arguments were offset
by the following considerations:
(1) The administration itself did not propose uniform
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 599
national emission standards but rather minimal national
standards. Clearly, therefore, there would be local variations
which would not eliminate economic disadvantages. Dr. John
T. Middleton, Director, National Center for Air Pollution
Control, HEW, said:
"Our intention is to get minimum national standards
to help insure that no single pollution source would, in
itself, be a threat to public health and welfare. These
standards would be based on scientific criteria of the
effects of air pollutants on man, animals, vegetation, and
the air resource itself. The criteria we would use would
be those which we are authorized to publish under the
provisions of the Clean Air Act" (p. 1153).
He said later:
"The setting of such standards at the Federal level
would not relieve States and communities of the respon-
sibility of insuring that pollution sources located within
their jurisdictions are controlled to the full extent neces-
sary, States could adopt emission standards more strin-
gent than those set at the Federal level" (p. 1155).
(2) Administration witnesses testified that PHS has made
no findings with respect to industries which, in and of them-
selves, constitute a danger to public health and welfare.
(3) Under the bill approved by the committee, the Secre-
tary's authority has been extended so that he can deal effec-
tively with any situation which, by its nature, is a danger to
health and welfare in any location.
(4) National emission standards would eliminate some
control options—relocation of pollution sources, fuel sub-
stitutes, and so forth—which may be essential in serious
problem areas in the absence of effective technology.
(5) Wise use of capital resources dictates that the first
priority for the pollution control dollar is in those areas
where the problem is most critical. National emission stand-
ards would give equal priority to critical areas and areas
where no problem presently exists.
(6) The program authorized in the committee bill will lead
to control of the industries described on a national basis, with
the kind of local variations envisioned by administration
witnesses.
The committee does recognize the need for national action on
sources of pollution which move in interstate commerce. For the
-------
600 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
purpose of further consideration of national emission standards,
for moving and stationary sources, the committee bill directs the
Secretary to undertake a 2-year study of the concept and the full
range of its implications.
Other areas to which the committee gave serious attention were
the questions of incentive assistance to industry and alternatives
to internal combustion. These matters are discussed later in the
report under "Pending Questions."
[p. 5]
II. SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF S. 780
S. 780, as ordered reported, includes the following provisions:
(1) Authority for the Secretary to go immediately to court in
the event that he finds a particular pollution source or combina-
tion of sources, wherever such source or sources may be located,
is presenting an "imminent and substantial endangerment to the
health of persons" to seek an injunction against the emission of
such contaminants as may be necessary to protect public health.
(2) Provision for establishment of the Federal interstate air
quality planning agencies if the States do not request designation
of a planning agency for an interstate air quality control region.
(3) Provision for the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare to set ambient air quality standards in any designated air
quality control region, if the States fail within 15 months after
receiving a criteria and recommended control techniques, to adopt
such standards and an acceptable plan for implementation.
(4) Provision for the Secretary to go to court, after 180 days
notice, to enforce any violation of standards in any designated air
quality control region.
(5) Specific directive to the Secretary to continue to use exist-
ing enforcement procedures as may be necessary to protect public
health or welfare during standards development period; and pro-
vision for participation by interested parties in an abatement
conference.
(6) A three-step approach to development of air quality stand-
ards including (1) designation, by the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare, of air quality control regions based on the
need for pollution control and protection of health and welfare;
(2) expansion of the existing provision for development and issu-
ance of criteria as to the health and welfare effects of pollutants
or combinations of pollutants; and (3) publication of information
on the control technology required to achieve various levels of air
quality.
(7) An expanded research and demonstration program to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 601
advance the technology for controlling pollution from fuels and
vehicles including specific authorization of $375 million for 3
years—through 1970.
(8) Federal preemption of the right to set standards on auto-
mobile exhaust emissions with waiver of application of preemp-
tion to any State (California) which had adopted standards prece-
dent to promulgation of Federal standards.
(9) Expanded State and local program grants provision to
encourage comprehensive planning for intrastate air quality
standards.
(10) Establishment of a statutory President's Air Quality Ad-
visory Board and such other advisory committees as may be
necessary to assist the Secretary in performing the functions
authorized.
(11) A study of the concept of national emission standards
including an analysis of the health benefits to be derived, as well
as the economic impact and costs.
[p. 6]
(12) Federal assistance to the States to develop motor vehicle
emission and device inspection and testing systems.
(13) Federal registration of fuel additives.
(14) Comprehensive cost analyses of the economic effect on the
Nation, industries and communities of air pollution control, and a
report thereon to Congress and the President.
(15) Comprehensive reports to the Congress.
(16) Three-year authorization of $325 million for programs
other than research on control of pollution from fuels and vehicles
—total authorization, including research, $700 million.
[p. 7]
III. NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The committee is concerned about the present status and pro-
jected development of our pollution control and abatement pro-
grams. Until recently, our society has labored under the illusion
that man, through science and technology, had harnessed the
resources of nature. Changes in the biospher, even when they
result from an "increased standard of living" can actually de-
crease the quality of life and have adverse effects on public health.
Improvement of man's environment centers on the enhancement
of the quality of human life. This was appropriately stated by
Dr. William H. Stewart, Surgeon General of the United States:
"* * * thanks to many advances in protecting people against
disease, we are able in the health professions to think about
526-702 O - 73 -- 3
-------
602 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
the positive face of health—the quality of individual living.
The healthy man or woman is not merely free of specific
disability and safe from specific hazard. Being healthy is
not just being unsick. Good health implies, to me, the full
and enthusiastic use by the individual of his powers of self-
fulfillment.
"Therefore in controlling air pollution for the benefit of
health we are working toward an environment that is not
only safe but conducive to good living. I know that you and
the members of this committee share this aspiration."
Concomitant with a technological society and a high standard
of living is a high production of pollutants and an increasing need
for pollution management. This need is readily apparent when
considering atmospheric pollution in the vicinity of urban-indus-
trial complexes throughout our Nation. Quoting from Senator
Muskie's speech to the National Air Pollution Control Conference
on December 13, 1966:
"To date we have set limited goals for ourselves. We have
focused on individual pollutants, their weight, their amount,
and their immediate and observable effect. We have consid-
ered specific emission standards to control individual sources
of contamination. We have passed ordinances to reduce
smoke; we have planned limitations on sulfur content in fuels
used in certain cities; we have taken abatement action against
specific polluters.
"These were necessary first steps, but they are not ade-
quate for an effective campaign to improve the quality of
our air.
"We have developed the experience required to establish
national objectives based upon the long-term view, emphasiz-
ing human goals and values which insure the health and well-
being of our society.
"Now we must go further—we must attempt to describe
the current and projected air pollution levels. We must de-
fine the steps necessary to assure the lessening of current
levels of pollution and to prevent further environmental
[p-8]
deterioration in the future. And recognizing the importance
of the economic-technological-environmental relationship we
must develop the requisite framework to implement the
desired goals."
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 603
When the need for air pollution control and abatement is ap-
proached on the basis of protecting human health there are,
essentially, four types of evidence which link air pollution to
specific health detriment. The first is the positive correlation
between air pollution and excess mortality during what might be
termed air pollution epidemics. The second is the epidemiological
evidence that shows direct correspondence between the incidence
of disease and the levels of air pollution experienced by large
population groups over substantial periods of time. The third
class of evidence is clinical—derived from studies of human indi-
viduals. The fourth class is laboratory evidence based upon animal
studies.
Each of these four types of studies, considered alone, presents
impressive evidence of air pollution damage to health. Taken
together, they add up to a disturbing and convincing portrait of
a major health menace.
The first class of evidence comes from studies of major epi-
demics due to disastrous air pollution conditions during relatively
short time periods. The most widely known of these episodes
occurred in the heavily industrialized Meuse Valley of Belgium
in 1930; in Donora, Pa., in 1948; in New York City in 1953; and
in London in 1952 and 1962. During the London smog of 1952,
4,000 more deaths occurred in that city than would normally have
happened during a similar period of time. In Donora, an indus-
trial town which in 1948 normally recorded about one death every
3 days, 17 people died in a single 24-hour period during a 4-day
smog.
From the standpoint of public health, the information available
concerning the acute air pollution episodes that have occurred
and the laboratory evidence of the effects of exposure to various
pollutants that are in the air puts an exclamation mark by the
word "urgency" in relation to this problem.
In any given instance, there may be several reasons why a
particular situation may result in chronic disease. But there is
no question that the pollutants in the air are contributing factors
to the chronic respiratory diseases, lung cancer, emphysema,
bronchitis, and asthma. When considering mortality in this
country it is this group that is showing a rapid rise as a cause
of death and disability. These subtler, less dramatic long-range
effects of air pollution are of much more serious consequence to
the population as a whole than the occasional major tragedy.
Further research is not needed just to demonstrate a health
effect but more importantly to refine existing knowledge when
-------
604 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
dealing with chronic disease causation. This is quite different
from infectious diseases where it is possible to isolate a specific
cause for each disease. Chronic diseases are assumed to be caused
by multiple insults or injuries over a long period of time to a
human being.
Therefore, in controlling air pollution every effort should be
directed toward establishing an environment that not only pro-
tects public health but is conducive to good living. Further re-
search is required to define the relationship between pollution and
health, but action is required now to take effective steps to control
and abate air pollution.
[p. 9]
Ten years from now, when industrial production and waste
disposal have increased, and the number of automobiles on our
streets and highways will exceed 110 million, the battle for clean
air will have been lost unless efforts are made now to strengthen
our regulatory and research efforts. The Nation's air resources
cannot be looked at as a limitless gift of nature which can be relied
upon for the dilution, dispersion, and degradation of our wastes.
This mistake was made with respect to our land and our water by
looking upon all of our natural resources as a limitless gift of
nature. The effect was to overestimate the capacity of our lands
and our waters to cleanse themselves of man-made wastes, and
man is now faced with the difficult task of restoring the quality
of the lands and waters which he had neglected for so long. The
necessary steps to protect and enhance the quality of our Nation's
air resources must be taken now, before the fact.
Air pollution is not limited to large urban areas where it dam-
ages property and endangers health. It is a problem in many
smaller communities. Its impact is felt in agricultural and recrea-
tional areas where it damages farm crops, timber, and plants of
all kinds. The price of air pollution amounts to several billion
dollars annually, and this does not include the toll exacted by such
respiratory diseases as chronic bronchitis, asthma, emphysema,
and lung cancer, all of which are associated with continuing
exposure to polluted air.
Future air pollution will worsen in direct proportion to the
Nation's economic growth, increases in urban population, demands
for heat and energy, use of motor vehicles, disposal of refuse, and
production and consumption of manufactured goods. Given the
fact that all these latter factors are rapidly increasing, it is rea-
sonable to assume that it will not be long before air pollution
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 605
reaches truly critical proportions in many parts of the country.
To avoid the impending dangers to the Nation's health and wel-
fare both our research efforts and our regulatory activities must
be strengthened. Strong regulatory programs are needed to insure
full application of technological, feasible, and economically rea-
sonable methods of control.
Testimony has shown that at present the Nation is not cur-
rently employing all the economically and technically feasible
methods available for reducing discharges of pollution into the air.
Industry, county, and municipal incineration and other private
and governmental sources of pollution—including automotive,
locomotive, and jet propulsion—must be stimulated to do every-
thing possible with existing capabilities to abate pollution of the
air.
At the same time both governmental and private research must
be accelerated in an effort to find the means to economically con-
trol the emission of gases and particulate matter which pollute
the air.
The oxides of sulfur controversy is indicative of the need more
precisely to define the relationship between pollution and health
and welfare. Because the committee is concerned with both long-
and short-term hazards as well as the need for valid scientific
data to substantiate the correlation between pollution and health
and welfare the Secretary is urged to move forward with diligence
and perseverance in the area of scientific analysis as well as
research into ways feasibly and effectively to control potentially
dangerous emissions.
Research is not intended as a substitute for regulation. Reason-
able regulation, should, however, be based on an accurate measure-
ment of the health and welfare needs, technological feasibility of
abatement
[p- 10]
of pollution and economic factors involved. Where health con-
siderations permit and there are technological obstacles or known
and seriously adverse economic results which would grow out of
precipitous abatement action, the timetable for developments
through research should be synchronized so that the pollution
problem can be solved in an orderly manner.
On the other hand, where there are health hazards, it is expected
that State and local authorities will take the necessary abatement
-------
606 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
action, and if they do not, the Secretary is specifically authorized
to commence abatement action.
[p. 11]
IV. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
The early authority of the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare with respect to air pollution was derived primarily
from Public Law 84-159 (Air Pollution Control Act) as amended.
This act authorized a program of research and technical assistance
to obtain data and to devise and develop methods for the control
and abatement of air pollution by the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare and the Surgeon General of the Public Health
Service. The act recognized the primary responsibilities and rights
of the States and local governments in controlling air pollution,
but authorized Federal grants-in-aid to air pollution control agen-
cies to assist them in the formulation and execution of their
research programs directed toward abatement of air pollution.
This act was amended by Public Law 86-493, which directed
the Surgeon General to conduct a thorough study of motor vehicle
exhaust as it affects human health through the pollution of air.
Subsequently, in 1962, the Air Pollution Control Act was amended
by Public Law 87-761 to make permanent the requirement that
the Surgeon General conduct studies relating to motor vehicle
exhaust.
With the adoption of the Clean Air Act of 1963 (Public Law
88-206), Federal policy in the field of air pollution control under-
went significant evolution. Although there was no change in the
view that responsibility for the control of air pollution rests pri-
marily with State and local governments, the Federal Government
was further directed to equip itself to aid State and local control
programs more effectively and to stimulate them to the increased
level of activity considered necessary. With this act the Congress
provided the Federal Government with the authority to—
(1) Grant consent to interstate agreements or compacts
for the prevention of air pollution.
(2) Authorize a broad program of research, investigations,
and training.
(3) Authorize the compilation and publication of criteria
reflecting accurately the latest scientific knowledge indicating
the type and extent of effects which may be expected from
the presence of air pollutants.
(4) Authorize grants to air pollution control agencies to
develop, establish, and improve programs for the prevention
and control of air pollution.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 607
(5) Authorize grants up to two-thirds of the cost of
developing, establishing, and improving air pollution control
programs to air pollution control agencies, and up to three-
fourths of such costs to intermunicipal or interstate air pollu-
tion control agencies.
(6) Authorize a procedure to carry out abatement actions.
(7) Direct the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare to encourage continued efforts on the part of the auto-
motive and fuel industries to prevent pollutants from being
discharged from the exhaust of automotive vehicles.
[p. 12]
(8) Authorize the establishment of a technical committee
to evaluate progress in the development of automotive pollu-
tion control devices and fuels, and to develop and recom-
mend research programs.
(9) Recognize the need for cooperation by Federal depart-
ments in controlling air pollution from installations under
their jurisdiction.
During January, February, June, and July 1964, following the
enactment of the Clean Air Act, the subcommittee conducted field
and technical hearings to obtain factual data to be used as a basis
for determining whether additional legislative action was re-
quired. Subsequently, a subcommittee report entitled "Steps To-
ward Clean Air" documented the findings of hearings and recom-
mended legislative action.
The committee in reporting the bill believed the legislation
essential to successfully combat the air pollution problems. It was
recognized that automotive exhausts are not the only source of
air pollution, but they are a major problem and they are increas-
ing rapidly.
The committee determined from the automotive industry's own
testimony that it could meet the California standards of 275 parts
per million of hydrocarbons and not more than 1.5 percent by
volume of carbon monoxide. The committee believed that the
standards could be applied and were reasonable, and by applying
them, the Nation would take a major step toward the control and
abatement of air pollution.
It was also evident to the committee that further research was
needed to determine effects of automotive pollutants other than
hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide and to find means of con-
trolling them and to advance the research activities relating to
-------
608 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
reducing the emissions of oxides of sulfur produced by the com-
bustion of sulfur-containing fuels.
The committee was convinced that a Federal Air Pollution Con-
trol Laboratory was needed to provide facilities to carry out re-
search and experimentations in perfecting methods and means of
reducing air pollution.
The committee believed that it was important that the Clean
Air Act be amended so that it not only provided a basis for action
to abate pollution in our country but also adopted a procedure
for cooperation with foreign countries in cases involving en-
dangerment of health or welfare.
With the signing by President Johnson on October 20, 1965, of
Public Law 89-272, the Secretary assumed major new responsi-
bilities for the prevention and control of air pollution, which
included—
(1) Provide for recommended motor vehicle exhaust emis-
sion standards by the Automotive Vehicle and Fuel Pollution
Technical Committee and, by regulations, for the establish-
ment of standards, requirements, or limitations on emissions
from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines and
devices or motor vehicle design not later than September 1,
1967.
(2) Prohibit the distribution in commerce of any new
motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine manufactured
after the effective date of regulation unless it is in con-
formity with such regulations. It is also required that such
vehicle or engines offered for importation must meet pre-
scribed regulations.
[p. 13]
(3) Provide for enforcement procedures for the abatement
of air pollution adversely affecting a foreign country.
(4) Authorize the conduct and acceleration of research
programs relating to means of controlling hydrocarbon emis-
sions resulting from the evaporation of gasoline in carbu-
retors and fuel tanks, and the means of controlling emissions
of oxides of nitrogen and aldehydes from gasoline-powered
or diesel-powered vehicles.
Although important progress had been made in the brief period
since enactment of the Clean Air Act, a sustained and accelerated
effort appeared needed if the promise of that act to prevent and
control air pollution was to be fulfilled.
In enacting the Clean Air Act, the Congress established impor-
tant policy through its findings, as contained in section 101, "that
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 609
the prevention and control of air pollution at its source is the
primary responsibility of States and local government; and * * *
that Federal financial assistance and leadership is essential for
the development of cooperative Federal, State, regional, and local
programs to prevent and control air pollution."
Section 104 of the act authorized grants to air pollution control
agencies in support of the cost of developing, establishing, or
improving programs for the prevention and control of air pollu-
tion. The amounts authorized to be allocated for such grants
were not to exceed 20 percent of the total appropriations for all
purposes under the act. Grants were authorized to be made, under
such terms and conditions as the Secretary finds necessary, in
amounts up to two-thirds of the eligible program costs, except that
in the case of grants to intermunicipal or interstate agencies, the
grants may be up to three-fourths of eligible program costs.
This approach authorized a Federal role limited to providing
an initial stimulation of program improvements and subsequent
withdrawal of support on the assumption or hope that non-Federal
funds will be available to substitute for the Federal share.
Experience under this provision indicated that certain areas,
where strengthened programs where needed, were ineligible for
Federal assistance which would otherwise be warranted, because
very little or no "new" non-Federal funds were made available in
the current fiscal year. Increased local funds and the strengthen-
ing of local programs occurred in prior fiscal years; as a result,
the provisions tended to penalize those areas which acted on their
own initiative to control air pollution prior to the availability of
Federal grant funds. The maintenance and continuation of ex-
panded efforts by State and local air pollution control agencies
required in the future not only stimulatory grant assistance but
sustaining grants as well. Sustaining grants adequately reflected
the strong Federal interest and responsibility in air pollution con-
trol and significantly improved the effectiveness of programs in
giving impetus to greater State and local action.
In 1966, the Congress amended the Clean Air Act by enacting
Public Law 89-675, which—
(1) Consolidates into one section appropriation authoriza-
tions.
(2) Authorizes the Secretary to make grants to air pollu-
tion control agencies in an amount up to one-half of the cost
of maintaining programs for the prevention and control of
air pollution.
(3) Authorizes the Secretary to make grants to intermu-
-------
610 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
nicipal or interstate air pollution control agencies in an
amount up to
[p. 14]
three-fifths of the cost of maintaining regional air pollution
control programs.
(4) Removes the limitation that no more than 20 percent
of the sums appropriated annually under the act may be used
to make grants for support of air pollution control programs.
(5) Provides that in determining eligibility for a program
grant the Secretary shall not consider nonrecurrent expendi-
tures of the participating agency in the preceding year.
(6) Provides that in the case of a grant for a program in
an area crossing State boundaries the Secretary will deter-
mine the portion of such grant that is chargeable to the 121/2-
percent limitation imposed by the act for air pollution control
program grants in any one State.
[p. 15]
V. HEARINGS
On February 8, 1967, the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pol-
lution began hearings on the problems associated with air pollu-
tion. The purposes of the hearings were to consider the present
status of our air pollution control and abatement programs, the
nature of current and prospective dangers from air pollution, and
the need for new legislation. The legislative proposal before the
committee was S. 780, the bill designed to implement the Presi-
dent's recommendations for an accelerated attack on the con-
tamination of our air. During the course of the hearings, testi-
mony was received from witnesses in four major areas:
First, the President's purposed Air Quality Act of 1967 (S. 780)
and Senator Randolph's amendments (Nos. 154, 174, 175, and
181).
Second, the experience to date on (1) the effectiveness of auto-
mobi'e pollution control devices which require that all 1968 auto-
mobiles must meet the automotive emission standards, (2) prog-
ress in the inspection and maintenance of devices and systems
to control automotive emissions and (3) the need for future
Federal standards. For the purpose of receiving testimony, field
hearings were held in Los Angeles, Calif., and Detroit, Mich.,
and included tours of the Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors
research facilities.
Third, experience in the development of the air quality control
regions and the establishment of ambient air quality standards.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 611
For this purpose, field hearings were held in Denve Colo., and
St. Louis, Mo.
Fourth, the current "state-of-the-art" of air pollution control
technology and the research required to insure the successful
abatement of air pollution. Extensive testimony was received on
methods currently under development for the control of sulfur
oxide emission resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels.
During the course of 18 days of hearings—February 8, 13, 14,
20, 21, April 3, 4, 19, May 2-4, 8-10, and 15-18—the Subcom-
mittee on Air and Water Pollution heard from more than 85
witnesses representing every sector of our Nation's economy in-
volved in air pollution control and abatement.
[p. 16]
VI. MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL AS REPORTED
The Clean Air Act marked the beginning of a new and much
more hopeful era in air pollution control. For the first time,
authority was provided for Federal regulatory action to abate
interstate air pollution problems and for the awarding of Federal
funds to encourage the development of regulatory control pro-
grams at the State and local levels.
This bill—S. 780—as reported, reflects a fuller appreciation of
what is really at stake in the fight against air pollution and pro-
vides unprecedented opportunities for effective control action at
all levels of government. It recognizes that control efforts which
were considered acceptable just a few years ago are now clearly
inadequate. It reflects the knowledge that the American public,
to whom Congress is ultimately responsible, will no longer be
content with control efforts which are not equal to the challenges
of the present and the future. Developed in full awareness of the
public's greatly increased support and demand for prompt and
effective control action, the Air Quality Act of 1967 broadens
control programs at all levels of government in an effort to protect
and enhance the quality of the environment.
RESEARCH
While there has been considerable research provided under the
Clean Air Act the committee recommends that the Secretary give
special emphasis to research and development into new and im-
proved methods, having industrywide application, for the pre-
vention and control of air pollution resulting from the combustion
of fuels and that this effort be accelerated by:
-------
612 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
(1) Conduct and accelerate research programs directed
toward development of improved, low-cost techniques for con-
trol on combustion byproducts of fuels, for removal of poten-
tial pollutants from fuels, and for control of emissions from
evaporation of fuels;
(2) Provide for Federal grants or contract with public or
private agencies, institutions, or persons for (A) part of the
cost of acquiring, constructing, or otherwise securing, for
research and development purposes, new or improved devices
or methods having industrywide application of preventing or
controlling discharges into the air of various types of pol-
lutants; and (B) carrying out the other provisions of this
section, without regard to sections 3648 and 3709 of the
Revised Statutes—31 U.S.C. 529, 41 U.S.C. 5;
(3) Determine, by laboratory and pilot plant testing, the
results of air pollution research and studies in order to develop
new or improved processes and plant designs to the point
where they can be demonstrated on a large and practical
scale;
(4) Construct, operate, and maintain, or participate in the
construction, operation, and maintenance of new or improved
[p. 17]
demonstration plants or processes which have promise of
accomplishing the purposes of this act;
(5) Study new or improved methods for the recovery and
marketing of commercially valuable byproducts resulting from
the removal of pollutants; and
(6) Establish technical advisory committees composed of
recognized experts in various aspects of air pollution and its
control to assist in the examination and evaluation of research
progress and of all research proposals and contracts and to
insure the avoidance of duplication of research.
No matter how successful the development of solutions to the
remaining technical problems of air pollution control through the
combined efforts of industry and government, it is unrealistic to
consider that progress will be rapid enough to cope with the
steadily worsening air pollution problem in the absence of the new
authority contained in the proposed Air Quality Act of 1967.
The proposed research contained in the bill makes provision for
enlarging this research effort by the specific authority to enter
into demonstration contracts with industry. Such contracts are
to prove the technological and economic feasibility of the control
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 613
of pollutants from the combustion of fossil fuel and shorten the
timelag between research, development, and full-scale practice.
In administrating and conducting the research authorized under
this act the Secretary is directed to utilize, to the maximum extent
practicable, the services, facilities, and resources of other Federal
agencies in carrying out his responsibilities under the act. As an
example, one agency whose services, facilities, and resources
should be of particular value in carrying out the clean air program
is the Tennessee Valley Authority. The greater part of TVA's
electric power is generated by steam, and the Authority has for
years conducted basic research in pollution control techniques.
TVA has broad responsibilities relating to the development of the
Tennessee Valley region and extensive research and other facilities
which will be useful in the conduct of the clean air program, and
the committee desires that the Secretary consult with and arrange
for full use of the services, facilities, and resources of TVA and
such similar existing Federal facilities to accrue in connection
with the implementation of the act.
There is without a question need for further research to deline-
ate the effects of low concentrations of exposure of various con-
taminants for extended periods.
The immediate need is to develop methods to control the emis-
sion of sulfur compounds, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide
and carbon dioxide, and other substances which are products of
man's activities.
An area which has not been adequately promoted to date is
assistance to industry in improving the effectiveness and reducing
the cost of control equipment and applying known technology to
new situations. The committee envisions several areas wherein
the Federal Government could be particularly effective, as follows:
1. Joint support and direction with control equipment manu-
facturers to investigate shortcomings in present equipment and
to develop solutions which would be available to all manufacturers.
Federal sponsorship of such programs would be an effective
catalyst in bringing competitive groups together to study common
problems. The plan has the added advantage of keeping such
research "topical," provides the sharing of the direction of efforts
by those who know the problems
[p. 18]
best, and would insure rapid commercial availability of new
developments.
Joint efforts of this type could be carried on with many trade
associations including the various Divisions of the Industrial Gas
-------
614 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Cleaning Institute, for example, in the areas of electrostatic pre-
cipitators, mechanical collectors, fabric collectors and wet collec-
tors. This organization represents the major manufacturers of
control equipment in the United States.
2. Joint support and direction of research and development
with trade associations with unsolved air pollution problems.
Here again the close association between Federal participants
and industry representatives would be most fruitful for keeping
research efforts "on track." Problems which came to mind in this
regard are those connected with the pulp industry, the rendering
industry, foundries, secondary materials reclamation and incin-
eration to name but a few.
Oxides of sulfur
The magnitude of the requirements to develop technologically
reasonable and economically feasible methods of control are easily
visualized when considering the control of oxides of sulfur as an
example.
The principal sources of sulfur oxides as an atmospheric pol-
lutant are metallurgical processes handling sulfur-containing ores,
sulfuric acid plants, and combustion processes which use high-
sulfur coal or fuel oil.
The sulfur concentrations in flue gases from metallurgical oper-
ations are normally relatively high and processes have been devel-
oped and installed which recover many hundreds of tons of sulfur
products per day. Where concentrations are greater than 1 per-
cent, physical means have been developed for the removal of sulfur
oxides, but cannot accomplish essentially complete removal of this
pollutant.
Low concentrations of sulfur oxides exist in flue gases from sul-
furic acid plants and from the combustion of fuels. In both these
cases, because of the low concentrations present, the economic
removal of sulfur from the flue gases is difficult at the present
time. In the cases of low concentrations, chemical means are
under development for the removal of sulfur oxides from flue
gases and they are capable of essentially complete removal of sul-
fur oxides.
The area of interest to the committee includes those cases which
heretofore have involved concentrations less than those economi-
cally reasonable to remove. A number of processes were presented
during the hearings. A brief description of those in advance
stages of development follows.
(1) The alkalized alumina process involves the removal of sul-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 615
fur oxides from the flue gases by their absorption on a hot solid,
followed by regeneration of the absorbent with a reducing gas
and recovery of the sulfur as elemental sulfur. This process is
under the sponsorship of the Public Health Service and a pilot
plant was built at the Pittsburgh Coal Research Center, Bruce-
town, Pa., in 1961 and operated for 3 years. The committee also
is cognizant of and commends the continuing efforts being made
in this field by the Bureau of Mines of the U.S. Department of
Interior.
(2) The catalytic oxidation process is essentially a contact sul-
furic acid plant. In the process flue gases pass through a high
temperature electrostatic precipitator which removes virtually all
the fly ash.
[p. 19]
The fly ash entrained in the flue gases must be reduced to a trace
so that it will not subsequently impair the flow of flue gases
through the catalyst bed. As the gases flow through a fixed
catalyst bed (vanadium pentoxide) sulfur dioxide is chemically
changed to sulfur trioxide and ultimately results in a sulfuric
acid mist. The acid mist is removed by an electrostatic precipita-
tor. A pilot plant has been built by the Pennsylvania Electrical
Co. in cooperation with Monsanto Co. in Seward Station, Pa.
Recently Monsanto acquired the principal interest in the process
development and is considering several modifications.
(3) The dolomite process which utilizes an additive that neu-
tralizes the corrosive combustion products and forms a disposable
compound with the sulfur.
Studies conducted by the Combustion Engineering Research
Department indicated that alkaline earth additives can prevent
high- and low-temperature corrosion in boilers.
The system involves the feeding of an additive (dolomite) into
the furnace and wet scrubbing the flue gas leaving the air heater.
The dolomite fed into the furnace is calcined by the heat of the
furnace producing a more reactive compound; any deposits formed
on high temperature surfaces are noncorrosive; and the calcined
particles react with the sulfur trioxide (S03) in the flue gas thus
preventing low-temperature corrosion.
By the use of a scrubber, the calcium and magnesium oxides are
dissolved in water, and the sulfur dioxide in the flue gas reacts to
-------
616 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
form sulfates and sulfites of calcium and magnesium which, in
turn, are precipitated in the wash water.
The committee also notes that research is underway on proc-
esses for removing sulfur from fuels. Removal from oil as a
result of improved refining processes and removal from coal
through several hopeful procedures are still in the research stage.
Examples include:
(1) The char-oil-energy development project which employs
the use of a fluidized-bed pyrolysis process in which high sulfur
content coal can be converted into sulfur-free synthetic crude oil
and pipeline gas, and a solid fuel char. While the char initially
has the same sulfur content as the coal, through a hydrodesul-
furization step in the process, the sulfur content of the char can
be substantially eliminated and the sulfur recovered as a valuable
byproduct. Thus sulfur-free char is then useful as a boiler fuel,
giving off no sulfur fumes in the combustion process. The com-
mittee has been advised that laboratory work has indicated the
technical and commercial feasibility of this process on numerous
types of coal from various parts of the country and the Office of
Coal Research of the Department of the Interior has a contract
with FMC Corp. for the construction of a pilot plant within the
next year.
(2) The pyritic sulfur reduction process involves separation of
pyritic particles utilizing a system of air classification which is
followed by a fine grinding of the coal at the utility plant. A pilot
project is soon to be constructed at a utility plant located in the
central part of Pennsylvania. Basic research on the project has
been done at the industry-supported Bituminous Coal Research,
Inc., laboratories at Monroeville, Pa.
In addition, the fly ash is simultaneously scrubbed from the flue
gas. Heat added to the stack gases minimizes steam plume forma-
tion.
A summary of funds allocated for sulfur oxides control projects
in fiscal year 1967 follows. Also attached in response to a request
[p. 20]
from the subcommittee staff, is a table showing budget allocations
for in-house research and development on air pollution control
technology by the Public Health Service during the past 10 years
and the amounts furnished the Bureau of Mines of the Depart-
ment of the Interior during the same period.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 617
Summary of funds allocated for S02 control projects, fiscal year 1967
Cost
Fiscal year 1967 regular budget:
Pyrite-coal combustion $489,000
Limestone-based processes 1,118,000
Alkalized alumina 973,000
Molten carbonate 420,000
New control process 400,000
Total 3,400,000
Fiscal year 1967 supplemental:1
New control processes 1,400,000
Systems and economic studies 1,000,000
Control processes—smelters, refineries, etc. 300,000
Total 2,700,000
Grand total 6,100,000
1 Projects and related activities for the areas listed in the supplemental are being developed.
IN-HOUSE BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY, U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SEEVICE AND U.S.
BUREAU OF MINES, FISCAL YEARS 1967-66
[In thousands of dollars]
Sulfur dioxide
control, R S D.
Fiscal year—
1957
1958 ... ..
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963 . .
1964
1965
1966
1967 .. ..
Total
PHS
0
0
0
0
0
50
60
80
150
160
280
780
BM
32
42
42
45
75
113
120
170
265
270
330
1,504
Other stationary &
source control,
R & D.
PHS
30
40
60
100
130
150
180
180
190
110
150
1,320
BM
33
93
87
64
65
50
20
30
46
60
65
613
Vehicle control
PHS
60
80
90
90
110
170
220
240
290
340
440
2,130
BM
60
92
98
124
160
187
310
300
289
325
389
2,334
Total
PHS
90
120
150
190
240
370
460
500
630
610
870
4,230
BM
125
227
227
233
300
350
450
500
600
655
784
4,451
Other research needs
On a very different scale additional research is needed on the
meteorology of cities to determine the effect of the city on airflow.
For every situation which may result in acute exposure to the
population at large there must be devised mathematical models to
describe the dynamics of the urban boundary layers, including
the changes in nature and the amount of pollutants as they inter-
act in the city air.
At the same time we must accelerate the development of meth-
526-702 O - 73 -- 4
-------
618 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
ods to reduce urban pollution concentrations. This means creating
moderation of airflow incorporating surveillance and emission data
and substantiating the results with air pollution observance. On
a very large
[P. 21]
scale we need to establish a measurement program to document
national and global trends in atmospheric contaminants. This
effort will be required to evaluate the effectiveness of our air
pollution control programs on the abatement of air pollution and
the effect of air pollutants on weather modification.
These are but examples from the summary of research which
were appropriately defined by Dr. Louis McCabe in the following
summary:
I. AUTOMOBILE EXHAUST
A. Additives to fuel and their effect on vegetation and man.
B. Production of satisfactory exhaust or substitution of
power elements.
II. SULFUR OXIDES AND OTHER AIR CONTAMINANTS
A. Developments in recovery of sulfur dioxide.
B. Clinical and experimental studies on exposure of man
and animals to air contaminants.
(1) Supplemental current research by private and
public research laboratories.
(2) Further studies on man and animals.
(3) Tolerance levels of animals and man.
(4) Concentrations of sulfur oxides encountered on
inspiration and expiration by cigar, pipe, and cigarette
smokers.
C. Ambient air investigations related to sulfur oxides and
other air contaminants.
(1) Tolerance levels of plants; effects on life and con-
dition of decorative trees and resistant strains of trees
and other vegetation in metropolitan areas. Development
of plants for cities.
(2) Tolerance levels of animals and man.
(3) Survey of levels of pollution (SO2, H2S04, CO,
hydrocarbons, carcinogens, et al.) in living space (for
example, conference rooms, airplanes, et cetera).
D. Instrument development required.
(1) More specific and reliable instruments. (Today
we do not have satisfactory continuous monitoring equip-
ment for particulates and for sulfur dioxides emitted
from power stations or other industrial sources.)
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 619
(2) Measurements responsive to effects of pollutants.
E. Abatement equipment.
1. To handle odors, fumes, and gases.
III. BASIC RESEARCH ON AIR CONTAMINANTS
A. Gross and long-time effects on our environment.
B. Degradation and cycle of pollutants in relation to time.
C. Weather modification and other effects of pollutants on
environment.
D. Interrelationship of air and water pollution.
[p. 22]
GRANTS TOR SUPPORT OF AIR POLLUTION PLANNING AND CONTROL
PROGRAMS
Section 105 of the bill expands the provision for grants for
development and maintenance of State and local pollution pro-
grams to include grants for planning for air quality standards.
As revised, the provision authorizes grants up to two-thirds of
the cost of planning, in addition to developing, establishing, or
improving programs, and grants in an amount up to one-half of
the cost of maintaining pollution control programs and plans of
air pollution control agencies. The revised section also provides
up to three-fourths of the cost of developing, establishing, or im-
proving programs and plans, and up to three-fifths of the cost of
maintaining regional air quality control programs, both interstate
and intrastate. Any grant recipient must be capable of carrying
out certain conditions specified in the bill, including representa-
tion of State and local interests as well as adequate capability to
organize and maintain an effective air quality standards program.
A summary of the grant awards and total program budgets
under the Clean Air Act is shown in tables I and II.
TABLE I.—AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM GRANTS
Authorized Requested Appropriated
Fiscal year —
1965 __ . . _ . (i) $4,400,000 $4,180.000
1966 (') 5,000,000 5,000,000
1967... C) 7,000,000 7,000,000
1968.
1969.
1970.
1971.
1972 _.. (0
20,259,000
23,500,000
28,000,000
31,000,000
32,000,000
L1IL _ __ V V 3£,UUU,UUU -.
1 The Clean Air Act, Public Law 88-206, sec 104 reads in past as follows "(a) From the sums appropriated annually
for the purposes of this act but not to exceed 20 per centum of any such appropriation, the Secretary is authorized to
make grants to air pollution control agencies * * * " This restriction to 20 percent of the total appropriation was removed
by the 1966 amendments to the act, Public Law 80-675
2 From President's budget
3 Projected budget requests
[p. 23]
-------
620 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
TABLE II.—SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM GRANTS BY STATE
FISCAL YEAR 1967
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado ._
Connecticut--
Delaware ,
District of Columbia .,
Florida- .
Georgia
Hawaii,
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa _
Kansas. .
Kentucky __
Louisiana...
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan - , .
Minnesota .__ ,
Mississippi - .
Missouri.,.
Montana
Nebraska.,.
Nevada
New Jersey.
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina _
North Dakota
Ohio -..
Oklahoma
Oregon,.
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee.. ,
Texas.. ,
Utah
Virginia
Washington. .
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Total
Number of Total grant Average grant Total program Percent grant
projects value value budgets of total
4
0
2
1
4
5
10
0
1
4
4
1
1
3
7
1
1
1
1
Q
0
4
4
2
0
5
2
0 ..
1
1
. . 2
2
15
9
1
7
3
3
6
0
. . 3
0
3
3
1
0
3
2
2
_ . 1
0
0
1
0
$121,642
85,000
38,680
391,483
342,613
295,461
36,700
188,457
73,777
25,166
17,982
522,500
204,800
10,400
74,214
196,828
63,448
105,020
370,918
93,678
382,000
36,900
32,424
18,680
260,960
62,526
608,715
163,448
10,000
244,338
42,305
103,745
453,086
80,101
41,748
108,892
20,726
31,936
126,690
159,159
12,978
117,156
6,378,179
$30,410
42,500
38,680
97,870
68,522
29,546
36,700
47,114
18,444
25,166
17,982
174,166
29,257
10,400
74,214
196,828
63,448
26,255
92,729
46,829
76,400
18,450
32,424
18,680
130,480
31,263
40,580
18,160
10,000
34,705
14,101
34,881
75,514
26,700
13,916
36,297
20,726
10,645
63,345
79,579
12,978
117,156
2,084,040
$195,991
169,211
58,020
5,317,141
647,700
445,640
77,708
296,185
125,168
75,966
26,982
1,475,876
408,175
26,767
98,952
316,666
103,213
228,574
796,370
155,870
709,147
70,811
46,986
31,160
827,021
97,799
5,466,768
221,945
15,000
611,506
61,364
279,495
1,279,334
122,641
87,830
127,763
39,268
72,064
211,067
273,894
226,651
201,678
22,121,864
62.0
50.2
66.7
.73
52.9
66 4
47.3
63.7
59.0
33.2
66.7
35.5
50.2
38.8
75.0
62.1
61.5
46.0
46.5
60 2
53.9
52.2
69.0
60.0
31.6
68.2
11.2
73.7
66 7
40.0
69.0
37.5
35.5
65.4
47.6
85.3
52.8
44.4
60.0
58.1
57.0
58.0
28.9
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 621
INTERSTATE AIR QUALITY AGENCIES OR COMMISSIONS
Recognizing the administrative and political difficulties inherent
in the establishment of effective interstate air pollution control
planning agencies, section 106 of the bill authorizes the Secretary
to pay up to 100 percent of the air quality planning program
costs of any interstate agency designated by the Governors of the
affected States under section 106 (a) for up to 2 years. The inter-
state agency is to concern itself with recommending to the Gov-
ernors of the participant States standards of ambient air quality
and plans for implementation and enforcement of emission con-
trols required to achieve the recommended standards of air quality.
In the absence of any action by the States involved in an inter-
state air quality control region designated pursuant to section
108(c)(2),
[p. 24]
the Secretary is authorized to designate an air quality planning
commission for the purpose of recommending air quality stand-
ards and a plan for their implementation.
The interstate commission, when established by the Secretary
under section 106 (b), is essentially an arm of the Federal Govern-
ment in that it is designed to assist the Secretary in establishing
standards and plans for implementation. Provision is made, how-
ever, for consultation with the affected States and representation
of appropriate units of government within the area. In this way,
even in the event the States fail to act, the Secretary can utilize
the available information regarding State and local conditions and
maximize the effectiveness of any standards or plans which may
be adopted either at the State or Federal level.
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS, CRITERIA, AND CONTROL
TECHNIQUES
The committee recognizes that there is a critical shortage of
competent manpower in the area of environmental pollution con-
trol and abatement. Many State and local agencies have only
recently begun to staff programs adequate to meet the challenge
ahead. Therefore the Federal Government must provide the lead-
ership, funds, consultation, and technical information which air
pollution control agencies require to promulgate meaningful stand-
ards and plans for their implementation and enforcement.
Atmospheric areas
Section 107 of the bill directs the Secretary to define the existing
-------
622 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
atmospheric areas which affect the interchange and diffusion of
pollutants in the atmosphere.
Air quality control regions
The Secretary is also directed to designate air quality control
regions based on jurisdictional boundaries, urban industrial con-
centrations, and other considerations and factors necessary to
provide adequate implementation of air quality standards.
Air quality control regions shall be designated by the Secretary,
whenever protection of public health and welfare requires estab-
lishing air quality standards.
Air quality control regions would be designated by the Secre-
tary, whenever in his judgment protection of public health and
welfare required establishing air quality standards.
An air quality control region might conceivably be coterminous
with an atmospheric area or it might be part of an atmospheric
area.
The committee feels that lack of definition of atmospheric areas
at this time does not preclude the Secretary from designating air
quality control regions in those areas where immediate measures
are required to effect air pollution control and abatement. The
committee feels that in instances where the Secretary is satisfied
that an air pollution problem exists this authority should be exer-
cised as soon as practicable.
Air quality criteria
Under the Clean Air Act of 1963 the Secretary is authorized to
develop, publish and issue to the States air quality criteria which
identify the health and welfare impact of a contaminant or con-
[p. 25]
taminants, an air pollution agent or combination of agents. The
content of such criteria was brought out on April 19, 1967, when
Dr. Middleton said (p. 2522):
"Air quality criteria are an expression of the scientific
knowledge of the relationship between various concentrations
of pollutants in the air and their adverse effects on man,
animals, vegetation, materials, visibility and so on.
"Air quality criteria can and should be used in developing
air quality standards. Criteria and standards are not synony-
mous. Air quality criteria are descriptive; that is, they de-
scribe the effects that can be expected to occur whenever and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 623
wherever the ambient air level of a pollutant reaches or ex-
ceeds a specific figure for a specific time period."
He also said:
"Air quality standards are prescriptive; they prescribe
pollutant levels that cannot legally be exceeded during a spe-
cific time in a specific geographic area."
An expression of scientific knowledge, the critetria indicate quan-
titatively and qualitatively the lowest known levels of exposure at
which specific deleterious effects have been reported for a given
pollutant or combination of pollutants of inorganic, organic, bac-
teriological, or radioactive nature. This means that the criteria
reflect evidence pertaining not only to so-called normal, healthy
adults but also to those individuals—such as the young, elderly,
and impaired—who may be sensitive to certain effects of air
pollution.
To date the publication of criteria pursuant to the act have
been limited to oxides of sulfur. The Administration said during
the hearings that air quality criteria for several other major
categories of pollutants have been under development for some
time. Among them are criteria for photochemical oxidants, nitro-
gen oxides, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons. Closest to com-
pletion are the criteria for photochemical oxidants which are
expected to be completed October 1967. Criteria for nitrogen
oxides, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide should be completed
early in 1968. Work is also underway on the development of
criteria for particulate pollutants. The initial document on par-
ticulate matter will be focused primarily on the overall mixture
of particulates present in polluted urban air, though some atten-
tion will be given to various components of the mixture. Work on
this document is scheduled for completion by the fall of 1967.
Additional documents dealing in greater depth with the most
important types of substances generally present in particulate
matter are to be prepared afterward.
Other pollutants for which the development of criteria are under
consideration include lead, fluorides, hydrogen sulfide, certain
heavy metals, ethylene, asbestos, organic carcinogens, and alde-
hydes. The development of criteria for odors is also being con-
sidered. The sequence in which these additional criteria will be
developed will depend in large part on an evaluation of the rela-
tive urgency of making such criteria available for the various
categories of pollutants.
Priorities for the development of criteria for various categories
-------
624 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
of pollutants have been, and will continue to be, determined on
the basis of several considerations, including the magnitude and
seriousness of the problems associated with each category of pol-
lutants, the extent and seriousness of their effects on health or
welfare, and the degree
[p. 26]
of the need for such criteria in connection with air pollution pre-
vention and abatement activities. On the basis of such considera-
tions, first priority has been assigned to the development of
criteria for the most widespread and common types of pollutants
including sulfur oxides, photochemical oxidants, carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter.
The committee has included language which requires that all
criteria issued precedent to the enactment of this act must be
reevaluated in accordance with the provisions of the revised cri-
teria section and, if necessary, modified and reissued.
It is expected that those criteria presently nearing completion
will be issued only after careful consideration of the directives
contained in section 107 (b). Early consideration of these direc-
tives, even though this legislation may still be pending, will miti-
gate against unnecessary modification or reissuance of such cri-
teria. Active reconsideration of those criteria already issued,
without awaiting final congressional action, could facilitate the
effectiveness of this legislation.
The committee also strongly urges the Secretary to move as
quickly as practicable to develop information required by section
107 (c). Recommended control techniques are essential to the
establishment of meaningful air quality standards and therefore
should be made available to the States and local government as
soon as possible giving due consideration to the need for develop-
ing the best available information.
The committee has purposely not required a specific order for
release of criteria and control techniques. While requiring that
both be available to a Governor before a standard setting proce-
dure can be triggered it is recognized that these scientific and
technical documents are more than just the tools for a standard
setting procedure.
Criteria and recommended control requirements are advance
warnings to industries or other sources of contamination of what
will be expected of them. On the basis of any criteria issued an
industry can begin to analyze its pollution problem and plan to
meet its responsibility. After receiving the latest and best infor-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 625
nation on control techniques and alternatives an industry can
begin to plan its control program. Both of these activities will
facilitate achievement of ambient air quality standards at such
time as those standards are established.
Recommended control techniques
The committee recognizes that criteria of ambient air quality
which define health and welfare effects of air pollution do not take
into consideration the technological and economic feasibility of
achieving such air quality. They further recognize that existing
control technology may not be adequate; however, control methods
must be implemented as soon as economically feasible and tech-
nologically available. As an aid to air pollution control agencies
in the formulation of plans, including time schedules to imple-
ment emission control standards, the bill directs the Secretary,
after consultation with appropriate advisory committees and
Federal departments or agencies, to issue recommended control
techniques which reflect current technology and the economic
feasibility of achieving various levels of air quality as specified
in the criteria including alternative control techniques and their
economic feasibility. Such recommendations shall include such
data as are available on the latest available technology and eco-
nomic feasibility of alternative methods of prevention and control
of air contamination including cost-effectiveness analyses.
[p. 27]
The Federal role in the development of control technology to
meet these needs should proceed along three lines: (1) Support
to industry to conduct research and development of control tech-
niques in its own facilities; (2) joint support and direction of
research and development as previously discussed; and (3) re-
search and development carried out by the Federal Government
in its facilities or by contract.
The method chosen would depend on the size of the industry
involved and its capabilities to share support or carry out the
required investigations.
It was suggested during the course of the hearings that allow-
ance should be made to use our air resource to the maximum ex-
tent possible without exceeding ambient air quality. The con-
struction of new powerplants outside our urban complexes is an
example of this approach. In addition, the use of such alterna-
tives as tall stacks can be employed to alleviate a particular pollu-
-------
626 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
tion problem pending the development of additional control tech-
nology.
Subsection (c) directs the Secretary to consult with appropriate
advisory committees and Federal departments and agencies, and
then to issue to the States and appropriate air pollution control
agencies, information on pollution control techniques recommend-
ed to achieve the levels of air quality specified in criteria issued
under subsection (b). Such information is to include technical
data relating to the technology and the costs of complying with
pollution control. The Secretary's recommendations are also to
include data concerning available technology and economic feasi-
bility of alternative methods of prevention and control of air con-
tamination including cost effectiveness.
The committee expects that in the development of air quality
criteria under subsection (b) as well as in formulating recom-
mendations indicated by such criteria, the Secretary will utilize
the resources of qualified Federal departments and agencies to
the fullest extent practicable, including those within the Depart-
ment of Commerce. For example, with regard to atmospheric
conditions the Environmental Science Services Administration has
been conducting the basic national program in meteorological
measurements and predictions. The Business and Defense Services
Administration is well qualified to analyze questions of economic
feasibility by virtue of its continuing evaluation of processes,
costs, investment, and financing of industrial production and com-
mercial enterprise, economywide as well as on an industry-by-
industry basis. Moreover it is intended that the resources of the
Department of Commerce be utilized in conducting the comprehen-
sive studies provided for under sections 211 and 305.
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Air quality standards are a way of implementing air quality
criteria as actual requirements for performance by polluters or
potential polluters. Air quality standards are prescriptive; they
prescribe pollutant levels that cannot legally be exceeded during
a specific time in a specific geographic area.
An expression of public policy rather than scientific findings,
their development from air quality criteria will be influenced not
only by a concern for the protection of health or welfare, but also
by economic, social, and technological considerations. The com-
mittee feels that under any circumstances protection of health
should be considered
[p. 28]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 627
a minimum requirement, and wherever possible standards should
be established which enhance the quality of the environment,
The bill directs the Secretary to (1) designate air quality con-
trol regions, (2) issue criteria of ambient air quality, and (3) to
publish control techniques currently available and their relative
costs. At the time the criteria for a given contaminant or con-
taminants and recommended control techniques are issued, the
time begins to run. A Governor is given 90 days to file a letter of
intent to establish State standards consistent with the purposes of
this act for the air quality control regions in his State. The
standards must be set, after public hearings, within 6 months
after he files the letter of intent. The time schedule and plan for
implementing such standards must be filed within 6 months there-
after.
If a State fails to (1) file a letter of intent within 90 days; (2)
to establish standards within 180 days; or (3) file a plan for
implementation and enforcement within 180 days, the Secretary
is authorized to perform these functions for the air quality control
regions within that State. When standards have been set, either
by a State or by the Federal Government, the Federal Govern-
ment will have authority to enforce the standards in the absence
of effective State action. These are the three additional exten-
sions of control and abatement authority that S. 780 gives to the
Secretary.
The Secretary will approve the State standards if he finds (1)
the air quality standards are consistent with the air quality cri-
teria and recommended control techniques which he published;
(2) the plan is consistent with the purposes of the act including
assurances of achieving such standards of air quality within a rea-
sonable time; and (3) a means of enforcement by State action,
including authority comparable to the imminent endangerment
provisions of this bill is provided. If the above conditions are
met, such State standards and plan shall be the air quality stand-
ards applicable to such State.
Emission controls
The achievement of the established ambient air quality stand-
ards is contingent upon the application of meaningful emission
controls on the various sources of air pollution, within a given air
quality control region.
Such emission control requirements are established for the pur-
pose of achieving specific air quality standards. They may include
such alternative courses of action as process changes, fiue gas
-------
628 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
stack controls, stack height requirements, fuel use limitations, or
plant location rules, but in any event should include the best avail-
able technology required to achieve the desired level of ambient
air quality.
Any emission control should be based on a survey of the emis-
sion inventory within the air quality control region. This survey
should include the amounts and types of pollutants being emitted,
an evaluation of those meteorological factors that will influence
their dispersal and transport, and a consideration of the various
other factors that influence air quality.
Subsequently, these emission inventories will need to be updated
as new sources of pollution are established within the air quality
control region. Consequently, it is desirable that the emission
inventory survey include a projection of increased urbanization,
industrialization, and population trends within the air quality
control region.
[p. 29]
It should be noted that when emission control requirements are
set on the basis of emission inventories for a given air quality
control region, those emission control requirements could con-
ceivably vary from one air quality control region to another even
though their application may result in the same degree of ambient
air quality.
Since emission control requirements are legally enforceable lim-
itations on the amount of pollution that a single source or category
of source may discharge into the atmosphere, they must consider
technology and the economics of control. Current methods of con-
trol that are technologically and economically feasible may not be
as effective as required to achieve the desired ambient air quality.
Therefore, as technology advances, new emission control require-
ments must be implemented on a continually more restrictive basis
until such time as the established ambient air quality standard is
achieved. Such an approach necessitates that the best available
control technology be applied at the time it is developed.
Such emission control should be to the degree required to insure
the ambient air quality for the air quality control region of con-
cern. At the same time it is requisite that emission controls insure
that those individuals in the immediate environs of any given
source be assured of an ambient air quality equivalent to that set
for the entire air quality control region.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 629
ABATEMENT CONFERENCE
In order to provide all parties affected by an abatement action
a greater opportunity to participate in the proceeding of the abate-
ment action, the conference procedure has been revised. Notice
of any abatement conference has been extended from 3 weeks to
30 days. At the time the notice is given a Federal report is to be
made available which defines the matters to be set before the con-
ference, and any data and/or recommendations which the Federal
Government wishes to make.
In this manner the committee expects the Secretary to provide
interested parties who may be affected by any abatement actions
resulting from the conference, an opportunity to present their
views relative to the Federal report and/or recommendations, and
other pertinent information.
It is expected that the Secretary will provide more detailed
regulations for these conferences and other hearings provided for
in the act so that they will be carried out under standardized
procedures. To the extent consistent with orderly and fair ad-
ministrative practices, it is expected that those regulations will
provide that all persons having a substantial interest in a matter
under consideration, and whose participation would not simply
be repetitious or cumulative, will be permitted to participate there-
in and that adequate public notice will be provided to permit
such persons to request the right to participate. This policy will
provide the conferees with the broadest review of the pollution
problems in a given area. It is expected that such regulations will
be in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act require-
ments to the extent consistent with the statutory purposes of the
conferences or hearings involved.
Time will be required for the establishment of air quality
standards and their effective implementation. It is not intended
that the time required to establish such standards interfere with
the protection
[p. 30]
of public health and welfare. The committee recognized this in
two ways: (1) Imminent endangerment to health can be acted on
by the Secretary through injunctive proceedings; and (2) the
committee has directed the Secretary to continue to act to abate
pollution pursuant to existing abatement procedures whenever he
finds the public health or welfare endangered.
Because of the unique nature of the air quality standards set-
-------
630 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
ting process, requiring criteria and control information as a trig-
gering mechanism, many interstate and intrastate regions will
continue to have interim air pollution problems. It is therefore
essential that the Secretary continue to act expeditiously to abate
pollution either on his own motion in interstate situations or at
the request of a Governor in an intrastate situation.
The Secretary should, when appropriate in these situations, take
cognizance of those criteria and recommended control techniques
issued and allow the State opportunity to establish standards for
the subject agents or combination of agents.
IMMINENT ENDANGERMENT
Under this provision the Secretary will have authority to pro-
ceed immediately to court for abatement of any pollution that
creates substantial and imminent public health endangerment
anywhere in the country. The committee feels this far-reaching
authority is necessary during the standards development period,
due to the passage of time which will occur prior to establishment
of enforcible standards. And we cannot allow time to justify a
continued danger to anybody anywhere in the country whether it
is an interstate or intrastate pollution situation.
This provision directs itself to the control of pollution sources
which are contributing to air pollution under conditions resulting
in an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health.
Under this provision the Secretary would have absolute authority
to take the required control steps to avert disaster episodes such
as occurred in the heavily industrialized Meuse Valley of Belgium
in 1930; in Donora, Pa., in 1948; in New York City in 1953; and
in London in 1952 and 1962. Such incidents are obvious, dramatic,
and tragic.
This provision would not preclude the Secretary from enjoining
an individual source of pollution where there is evidence of a
direct effect on public health.
This provision is not intended to circumvent the enforcement
procedures provided under the Clean Air Act. Action against a
single source would be subject to this provision only where public
health is in imminent and substantial endangerment.
PRESIDENT'S AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD AND ADVISORY
COMMITTEES
The committee recognizes the need for participation by all seg-
ments of our national economy if air pollution control and abate-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 631
ment is to be achieved. For this reason there has been provided
in the bill for a 15-member President's Air Quality Advisory
Board to advise and consult with the Secretary on matters of
policy relating to the programs of the Secretary conducted under
the provisions of this act.
[p. 31]
Appointed members are to be selected so as to be representative
of State, interstate, and local governmental agencies and of public
or private interests demonstrating an active interest in the various
aspects of air pollution prevention and control and related prob-
lems, as well as other individuals who are expert in the field of
air pollution.
Additional technical advisory committees are authorized under
this provision. Such advisory committees are to be established
from time to time by the Secretary, in order to obtain assistance
in the development and implementation of air quality criteria,
recommended control techniques, standards, research, and devel-
opment, and to encourage the continued efforts on the part of
industry to improve air quality and to develop economically feasi-
ble methods for the control and abatement of air pollution.
The committee feels that these advisory committees should con-
tain sufficient representation from the various groups concerned
with air pollution, including State and local authorities, medical
and scientific personnel, and industry experts in pollution abate-
ment, to permit and enhance both effective and useful consulta-
tion between the Secretary and his associates and other interested
parties.
TITLE II—NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS ACT
STATE STANDARDS (ON AUTOMOTIVE EMISSIONS)
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1965 enabled us to begin
attacking the problem of motor vehicle pollution, through the
establishment of national standards applicable to new motor
vehicle or new motor vehicle engines. Initial standards, pertain-
ing to crankcase and tailpipe emissions from gasoline-powered
vehicles, will become effective in the 1968 model year.
During the field hearings a good deal of testimony was heard
regarding the problems and progress associated with the auto-
mobile emission control devices which will be required on all 1968
model cars and which were installed on all 1966 model cars sold
in California. Information on those automobile emissions not
-------
632 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
presently covered by standards which have been promulgated
either by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, or the
State of California, led the committee to the conclusion that addi-
tional information is needed to improve existing standards and
develop new standards for—
(a) Hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide in exhaust from
all new vehicles.
(6) Nitrogen oxides emissions in exhausts from all new
vehicles.
(c) Odors from new diesel-powered vehicles.
(d) Particulates from all new vehicles including smoke
and the residues from additives such as lead, barium, and
nickel.
Fuel additives for the reduction of pollution have been little
used—and apparently little studied—in the United States, al-
though they are required by law in several European countries.
Little information on them is available in the open literature.
They are primarily intended to suppress diesel smoke, and the
only American study in print claims to see little effect.
During its field hearings in Los Angeles and Detroit the com-
mittee heard a good deal of testimony relating to the question of
Federal preemption of the right of States to set standards on
emissions from motor vehicles.
[p. 32]
To date only California has actively engaged in this form of
pollution control and, in fact, the initial Federal standard is based
on California's experience. The Federal standard will be appli-
cable to all 1968 model automobiles sold in the United States.
Other States have enacted legislation and regulations governing
crankcase emissions but this control method has been in general
use throughout the United States since 1963.
On the question of preemption, representatives of the State of
California were clearly opposed to displacing that State's right
to set more stringent standards to meet peculiar local conditions.
The auto industry conversely was adamant that the nature of
their manufacturing mechanism required a single national stand-
ard in order to eliminate undue economic strain on the industry.
The committee has taken cognizance of both of these points of
view. Senator Murphy convinced the committee that California's
unique problems and pioneering efforts justified a waiver of the
preemption section to the State of California. As a result, the
committee incorporated in section 202 (b) a waiver amendment
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 633
offered by Senator Murphy. It is true that, in the 15 years that
auto emission standards have been debated and discussed, only
the State of California has demonstrated compelling and extraor-
dinary circumstances sufficiently different from the Nation as
a whole to justify standards on automobile emissions which may,
from time to time, need be more stringent than national standards.
This situation may change. Other regions of the Nation may
develop air pollution situations related to automobile emissions
which will require standards different from those applicable na-
tionally. The committee expects the Secretary to inform the
Congress of any such situation in order that expansion or change
in the existing waiver provision may be considered.
Until such time as additional problems of this type arise it
seemed appropriate that the waiver provision of subsection (b)
should be limited solely to California. This approach can have
several positive values:
1. Most importantly California will be able to continue its
already excellent program to the benefit of the people of that State.
2. The Nation will have the benefit of California's experience
with lower standards which will require new control systems and
design. In fact California will continue to be the testing area for
such lower standards and should those efforts to achieve lower
emission levels be successful it is expected that the Secretary will,
if required to assure protection of the national health and wel-
fare, give serious consideration to strengthening the Federal
standards.
3. In the interim periods, when California and the Federal
Government have differing standards, the general consumer of
the Nation will not be confronted with increased costs associated
with new control systems.
4. The industry, confronted with only one potential variation,
will be able to minimize economic disruption and therefore provide
emission control systems at lower costs to the people of the Nation.
As stated in the act the Secretary is required to waive applica-
tion of preemption to California unless he finds (1) that compel-
ling and extraordinary conditions do not exist; (2) that Califor-
nia's standards are not consistent with the test of economic prac-
ticability and technological feasibility required in section 202(a)
of the act; or (3) that
[p. 33]
the accompanying enforcement procedures are in conflict with the
intent of section 202(a).
526-702 O - 73 -- 5
-------
634 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
It is essential that the Federal Government and State of Cali-
fornia cooperate closely in the development of enforcement pro-
cedures relative to certification of vehicles so that the industry,
when confronted with differing standards, need not be faced with
different methods of obtaining certification.
Implicit in this provision is the right of the Secretary to with-
draw the waiver at any time after notice and an opportunity for
public hearing he finds that the State of California no longer
complies with the conditions of that waiver.
The committee has provided for Federal preemption of the right
to set standards on new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle
engines only. Specific language indicating the committee's position
on the rights of the States to control the movement, operation, and
use of licensed or registered vehicles is included.
This language is of particular importance. While there has
been a great deal of concern expressed regarding control of new
vehicles little attention has been paid to control of used vehicles,
either their emissions or their use. It may be that, in some areas,
certain conditions at certain times will require control of move-
ment of vehicles. Other areas may require alternative methods of
transportation. Unfortunately some of these alternatives have
been ignored and the onus of control has been placed solely on the
automobile manufacturers.
It is clear that, if a pollution-free (or at least minimized) rapid
transit system reduced commuter traffic there would be a cor-
responding decrease in automobile-related air pollution. And any
significant advance in control of used vehicles would result in a
corresponding reduction in air pollution. These are areas in
which the States and local government can be most effective.
This is not to suggest that the industry cannot do more. The
committee learned during its field hearings that there could be
and should be more attention paid to quality control by the manu-
facturer. This is extremely important at the present time and
will be essential when uniform enforcement procedures are devel-
oped and emission standards are applied to individual cars.
Also, the industry must push forward much more rapidly with
its research efforts and, in so doing, take advantage of technology
developed outside of Detroit. The recently announced agreements
between major automobile manufacturers and oil companies are
gratifying in this regard.
And the fuel industry has a particular responsibility. Too little
is being done by that industry to develop gasolines which con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 635
tribute less to pollution. This area needs renewed emphasis both
by the industry and by the Federal Government.
The committee considered it essential that the Department of
Commerce be represented on the Board. As indicated in our
explanation of subsection 107 (c), it is intended that this Depart-
ment be given many responsibilities in providing technical and
economic advice under this act. Also it is believed that the par-
ticipation of the Department of Commerce in the ultimate estab-
lishment of air quality standards will provide a basis for achiev-
ing the objective of air pollution abatement, with the minimum
economic disruption to the various industries affected.
[p- 34]
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN DEVELOPING VEHICLE INSPECTION
SYSTEMS
From the testimony it was readily apparent there is not now
available the technology which would permit examination of
exhaust emissions for a given automobile. The current standards
that have been set by the Federal Government do not insure that
each and every automobile will meet the standards.
The committee believes the establishment of emission standards
for individual motor vehicles is contingent on the development of
standard test procedures, and the testing of control systems to
establish their effectiveness. The first need is to develop repro-
ducible methods for evaluation of smoke and odor and to develop
standard test methods. The second is the development of standard
methods for measurement of air pollutants.
Federal responsibility under this provision would be to insure
the development of appropriate test procedures and, in general,
to provide technical assistance.
States responsibility would be to assume responsibility for in-
spection of pollution control systems as an integral part of safety
inspection programs, which some States now have and others are
developing.
FUEL ADDITIVES
The bill would provide new authority pertaining to fuel addi-
tives, in the form of a requirement that the fuel manufacturer
register such additives with the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare before they are introduced into interstate commerce.
This is intended to provide an opportunity for full assessment of
the effects of such additives on the environment and on public
-------
636 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
health. It is clearly in the best interests of both the public and
industry to evaluate the effects of additives already in widespread
use and to provide a mechanism for advance evaluation of pro-
posed new additives before they reach the environment.
The second provision of the bill calls for the registration of the
physical and chemical characteristics of additive by the addi-
tive manufacturer.
The prime purpose of this proposal is to insure full access to
the technical information needed to evaluate the possible health
hazards of such materials. Too often, new contaminants enter
the environment and are widely dispersed before recognition that
they may endanger human health. The Secretary presently has
authority to set standards for emissions from motor vehicles.
Should he find that any fuel additive emitted from motor vehicles
is presenting a threat to health and welfare, he has the authority
to act pursuant to that title.
Among the substances widely used as fuel additives, tetraethyl
lead has been identified as a compound of major concern to the
public health. An intensified research program on the long-term
effects of lead at concentrations found in the ambient atmosphere
of urban communities is being undertaken. Other additives in
common use are barium and nickel and their health significance
is under review. Still others will inevitably be introduced in the
future.
In order to evaluate the biological hazard, it is necessary to
know what substances are emitted into the air in the original
effluents, and the concentrations they reach. Under the various
weather conditions,
[p. 35]
they may interact chemically to produce new pollutants, and,
finally, the influence of the resultant chemical mixture on health.
Fuel additives, while designed to improve engine performance,
may actually contribute to pollution. The concern for health ef-
fects of lead emissions from cars falls into three categories: direct
toxicity, ecologic upset, and weather modification.
Although direct toxicity of fuel additives such as lead is a
proven fact for occupationally exposed people, proof is lacking
with regard to the general populace. This will almost certainly
be a problem in the future as the auto population and lead and
other fuel additives increase.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 637
NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS STUDY
As was pointed out in the general statement considerable atten-
tion was given, in the hearings, to the concept of national emission
standards. Such standards were urged by the administration as
(1) a means of eliminating the economic disadvantage of com-
plying with air pollution controls as a local requirement and the
temptation for industry to leave or avoid areas where such con-
trols are presently necessary; and (2) on the ground that some
industries, by their nature, are a danger to health and welfare
wherever they are located.
In the judgment of the committee, these arguments were offset
by the following considerations:
(1) The administration itself did not propose uniform national
emission standards but rather minimal national standards. Clear-
ly, there would be local variations which would not eliminate
economic disadvantages. Such variation is seen in the example
provided for the record which follows (hearing record, p. 2525):
EXAMPLE
The following is an example of a hypothetical national
emission standard for an industrial process:
For this example, we have selected sulfur dioxide emissions
from sulfuric acid manufacturing plants using the contact
process. On the basis of air quality criteria for sulfur oxides,
we selected hypothetical ambient air quality standards for
sulfur dioxide of 0.10 p.p.m. (parts of sulfur dioxide per
million parts of air) for a 24-hour average; 0.25 p.p.m. for a
1-hour average; and 0.5 p.p.m. for a 5-minute average. It
was assumed that the maximum ground concentration of sul-
fur dioxide attributable to the source to be regulated should
not exceed 35 percent of the air quality standard in an area
of moderate or low pollution; and 20 percent in an area of
relatively high pollution.
Based on the above discussion and considering available
technically and economically feasible means for reducing
emissions and using meteorological dispersion formulas, the
attached table I of allowable emissions of sulfur dioxide and
minimum stack heights was prepared for plants of various
sizes located in each of two types of areas as denned in
table II.
[p- 36]
-------
638 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
TABLE I.—HYPOTHETICAL EMISSION STANDARDS AND STACK HEIGHT
REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTACT PROCESS AND SULFURIC ACID PLANTS
Plant capai
(tons of 100 percent sulfunc
100
300
500.... .
700...
900.
Maximum allowable
emission of SOj 11 tons
:ity per day by type of area '
Type A
2
6
10
14
. - 18
TyoeB
1 5
4.5
7.5
10.5
13.5
Minimum effective stack
height in feet 2 by
type of area '
Type A
145
230
280
325
350
TypeB
150
270
320
370
400
1 See table II for definition.
1 see Taoie n ror aerinmon.
1 Minimum effective stack heights can be decreased if emissions are less than the maximum allowable. The decrease
in effective stack height will be in direct proportion to the extent to which emissions are less than the maximum allowable.
TABLE II.—DEFINITION OF AREAS1
Sulfur dioxide concentration parts per million - Sulfui dioxide
emission density Population
Type of area 24 hour average 1 hour average 5 minute average tons per square in 1,000's 4
miles per day 3
A.. __ 00-005 00-0.12 0.0-025 00-1.3 Less than 200.
B Greater than 005__ Greater than 0.12.. Greater than 025.. Greater than 1 3... Greater than 200
1 Use sulfur dioxide concentrations if available, if not, use emission density, if neither is available, use population.
2 Maximum values at any point within 1 mile of the plant after subtracting the calculated concentration attributed to
the source to be regulated.
3 Average for the area within 3 miles of the plant to be regulated on a day of maximum emissions, not including the
plant to be regulated
4 Population of the standard metropolitan area, or, if not in such an area, of the county in which the source is located.
In some areas it may be necessary to require even more
restrictive emission control. It may also be necessary to pro-
vide for pollution reduction or maintenance of existing levels
by means of land use controls and emission reduction require-
ments applicable to other sources of pollution. This respon-
sibility would rest with State and local governments.
This hypothetical standard, for the sake of brevity, does
not include many of the details that might need to be incor-
porated in an actual standard.
(2) At the time administration witnesses testified they were
not in a position to designate industry sources, which by their
very nature, were a danger to health and welfare wherever locat-
ed. However, the administration was able to furnish a representa-
tive list of industries which were suspected of producing a health
and welfare effect wherever located and would be considered for
national emission standards (p. 2260):
In case of the steel mill, for instance, we think of the pollut-
ants being principally particulate matter; smoke; and carbon
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 639
monoxide, at least from the blast furnace.
From the steam electric generating stations, we again think
of particulate matters; smoke, the sulfur oxides and for some
of the new plants some nitrogen oxides would be a problem.
[p. 37]
For the nonferrous smelters, the particulate matter and
sulfur compounds. Then, referring to the specific smelters,
there may be specific metallic particulate that we would have
to consider.
For the petroleum refineries, again it is the sulfur com-
pounds, hydrocarbons, smoke, particulate matter, and some
odorous matter.
For cement plants, particulate matter and sulfuric acid.
For iron and steel foundries, smoke, particulate, and odor-
ous materials.
For pulpmills, sulfur compounds, odorous matter, and for
some of them, the problem of chlorine.
(3) Under the amendments approved by the committee, the
Secretary's authority has been extended so that he can deal effec-
tively with any situation which, by its nature, is a danger to
health and welfare, on any location.
(4) National emission standards would eliminate some control
options—relocation of pollution sources, fuel substitutes, and so
forth—which may be essential in serious problem areas in the
absence of effective technology.
(5) Wise use of capital resources dictates that the first priority
for the pollution control dollar is in those areas where the problem
is most critical. National emission standards would give equal
priority to critical areas and areas where no problem presently
exists.
(6) The program authorized in the committee amendments
will lead to control of the industries described on a national basis,
with the kind of local variations envisioned by administration
witnesses.
However, the committee feels that the concept of national emis-
sion standards for stationary sources deserves further investiga-
tion as a supplement to the standard setting procedures provided
in S. 780 as reported.
For the purpose of further consideration of national emission
standards, the committee amendments direct the Secretary to
undertake a 2-year study of the concept. At that time further
consideration should be given to the concept.
-------
640 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
TITLE III
COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC COST STUDIES
In order to provide the committee a basis for evaluating pro-
grams authorized by this act and the development of new pro-
grams, the Secretary is required to make a detailed estimate of
the cost of carrying out the provisions of this act for a 5-year
period beginning July 1, 1969. The report is to include (1) a
comprehensive study of the cost of program implementation by
affected units of government; and (2) a comprehensive study of
the economic impact of air quality standards.
In addition the Secretary is required to make a complete inves-
tigation and study to determine (1) the need for additional
trained State and local personnel; (2) means of using existing
Federal training programs to train such personnel; and (3) the
need for additional trained personnel to develop, operate, and
maintain those pollution control facilities designed and installed to
implement air quality standards.
[p. 38]
ADDITIONAL REPORTS TO CONGRESS
Section 306 of the bill requires the Secretary to submit reports
to Congress which describe program accomplishments in connec-
tion with the Act. The annual report is to include—
(1) The progress and problems associated with control of
automotive exhaust emissions and the research efforts related
thereto;
(2) The development of air quality criteria and recom-
mended emission control requirements;
(3) The status of enforcement actions taken pursuant to
this act;
(4) The status of State ambient air standards setting,
including such plans for implementation and enforcement as
have been developed;
(5) The extent of development and expansion of air pollu-
tion monitoring systems;
(6) Progress and problems related to development of new
and improved control techniques;
(7) The development of quantitative and qualitative in-
strumentation to monitor emissions and air quality;
(8) Standards set or under consideration pursuant to title
II of this act;
(9) The status of State, interstate, and local pollution con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 641
trol programs established pursuant to and assisted by this
act; and
(10) The reports and recommendations made by the Presi-
dent's Air Quality Advisory Board.
APPROPRIATIONS
The committee has authorized a total of $325 million for 3 years
for carrying out operation and program functions other than sec-
tions 103 (d) and 104 which are subject to separate authorization.
The new requirements authorized by these amendments demand
expanded Federal activity in every facet of air pollution control.
Manpower requirements, general research activities, expanded
abatement procedures, and other newly authorized functions will
require these additional funds.
[p. 39]
VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF S. 780, AS
REPORTED
The following analysis of S. 780 discusses all of the recom-
mended changes in the Clean Air Act of 1963—Public Law 88-
206—as amended—Public Laws 89-272 and 89-675. It describes
in some detail the modifications in the Clean Air Act together with
appropriate remarks.
TITLE I—AIR POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL
Section 101. Findings and Purposes
The purposes of this title are revised to include by revising
paragraph (b) (1) "to protect and enhance the quality of the
Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and
welfare and the productive capacity of its population."
Sec. 102. Cooperative Activities and Uniform Laws
No changes were effected in this section of the act. The intent
of this provision was appropriately defined in Senate Report 88-
638 (p. 6).
"This section authorizes 'the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare to not only encourage cooperative activities
by State and local governments but he is also required to
cooperate with and encourage cooperative activities by all
Federal departments and agencies. The Secretary is author-
-------
642 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
ized to encourage the enactment of uniform State and local
laws where practicable, and to encourage the making of
agreements and compacts between States. The consent of
Congress is given to the negotiation of such compacts of
agreements for cooperative effort, mutual assistance, and
enforcement of their respective laws and for the establish-
ment of such agencies as may be desirable to effectuate such
agreements or compacts. Such compacts or agreements must
be approved by the Congress before they become binding or
obligatory.'"
Sec. 103. Research, Investigation, Training, and Other Activities
First, the provision of subsection (a) (4) of the act which re-
quires the Secretary to specifically initiate, among others, a pro-
gram of research directed toward the development of improved,
low-cost techniques for extracting sulfur from fuels is deleted and
included in new section 104 of this bill.
Second, the provision of subsection (a) (5) of the act which
requires the Secretary to conduct research programs relating to
the control of emissions from gasoline- and diesel-powered vehi-
cles, and emissions of oxides of sulfur from sulfur-containing fuels
has also been deleted and included in section 104 of this bill.
[p. 40]
Third, the provision of subsection (c) (2) of the act which
authorizes the Secretary to compile and publish for informational
purposes criteria relating to air pollutants which may be harmful
to the public health or general welfare has been deleted and in-
cluded under subsection 107 (b) of the bill.
The remaining provisions of this section are unchanged and
are:
"Briefly, it requires the Secretary to establish a national
research and development program for prevention and con-
trol of air pollution, and for that purpose to conduct research,
render technical service, and conduct investigations and re-
search if requested to do so by appropriate air pollution con-
trol agencies, or to do so on his own initiative if the problem
of air pollution is interstate in nature. For these purposes
the Secretary is authorized to collect and make available in-
formation on the subject; to cooperate with all interested
public and private agencies and institutions; to make grants
for research, training, surveys, studies, and demonstrations;
to contract for these purposes; to establish research fellow-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 643
ships; to collect and disseminate basic data on chemical,
physical, and biological effects of varying air quality; to
develop effective and practical processes, methods, and pro-
totype devices for the prevention and control of air pollution"
(S. Kept. No. 88-638, p. 6).
Sec. 104. Research Relating to Fuels and Vehicles
This new section expands the provisions deleted from section
103, dealing with research directed toward the development of
improved, low-cost techniques for extracting sulfur from fuels,
and research relating to the control of emissions from gasoline
and diesel-powered vehicles, and emissions of oxides of sulfur
from sulfur-containing fuels.
This section requires the Secretary to give special emphasis to
research into new methods for the control of air pollution result-
ing from fuel combustion. To this end he is required to conduct
research programs which will include the control of combustion
byproducts, removal of potential pollutants, and control of emis-
sions from evaporation; provide for Federal payments to public
and private groups; test results of air pollution control research
to develop new or improved processes and designs which can be
demonstrated on a practical scale; participate in, or be responsi-
ble for, the operation of demonstration plants for such new proc-
esses; study methods for the use of commercially valuable by-
products resulting from the removal of pollutants; and establish
technical committees to examine and evaluate research progress
and contracts and to insure the avoidance of research duplication.
In order to carry out the provisions of this section the Secretary
is directed to conduct research and development of low-cost in-
strumentation techniques to determine the quantity and quality
of air pollution emissions; make use of existing Federal labora-
tories; establish and operate facilities to carry out the research;
acquire property and rights by various means, and cooperate and
participate in the development of foreign and domestic projects.
Grants awarded under this provision are to be limited to $1,-
500,000 and 75 percent of the cost of the project. The bill author-
izes $100 million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968; $125
million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969; and $150 million
for the fiscal year
[p. 41]
ending June 30, 1970. The authorizations under this section are
-------
644 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
in addition to those to carry out the provisions of all other sections
of the bill under section 309.
Sec. 105, Grants for Support of Air Pollution Planning and Con-
trol Programs
This section amends section 104 of the act, by expanding the
authority of the Secretary to make grants to air pollution control
agencies and planning commissions for planning- costs.
This section now authorizes grants to air pollution control agen-
cies in support of the cost of planning, developing, establishing,
or improving programs for the prevention and control of air pollu-
tion. The amounts authorized to be allocated for such grants may
not exceed 20 percent of the total appropriations for all purposes
under the act. Grants are authorized to be made, under such
terms and conditions as the Secretary finds necessary, in amounts
to two-thirds of the eligible program costs, except that in the
case of grants to intermunicipal or interstate agencies, the grants
may be up to three-fourths of eligible program costs.
Revision of grant restrictions has been amended to read that:
"No agency shall receive any grant under this section with
respect to the maintenance of a program for the prevention
and control of air pollution unless the Secretary is satisfied
that such grant will be so used as to supplement and, to the
extent practicable, increase the level of State, local, or other
non-Federal funds that would in the absence of such grant
be made available for the maintenance of such program. And
the grant will in no event supplant such State, local, or other
non-Federal funds."
Federal support of interstate agencies or commissions up to 100
percent of the air quality planning program costs are covered
under new section 106.
The purposes of section 195 of the act are unchanged by S. 780
and where clearly expressed in Senate Report 88-638 (p. 5):
"The objective of the grant program is to provide impetus
to the establishment and improvement of air pollution pre-
vention and control programs in the States and local commu-
nities but not to provide a substitute for State and local funds.
"By 'financial need' of an agency, the committee intends
that more than mere budgetary limitations of the agency be
considered. The capability of the community or communities
supporting the agency, taking into account such factors as
financial resources, bonding limitations, per capita income,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 645
market values of property, and other relevant factors, should
guide the Secretary's decisions. For example, if two commu-
nities, each having an air pollution control agency, possess
approximately the same tax resources, per capita income,
and market valuation of properties within their corporate
limits, and have the same bonding limitations, preference
would be indicated in the case of the agency supported by a
community which has bonded itself to the maximum, as
against the agency supported by a community which has not
done so.
[p. 42]
"The funds authorized to be appropriated for this purpose
together with the formula and matching provisions of the bill,
should operate, in the committee's opinion, to encourage local
effort in financing new or expanded programs, or the im-
provement of existing programs. The committee would expect
the regulations of the Department with respect to the grant
program to be designed to carry out this objective.
"The committee believes that the primary responsibility for
the prevention and control of air pollution should remain with
the State and local governments and accordingly is convinced
that the stimulation provided by the grant program will help
to expand the local programs. The committee urges that the
funds allocated be utilized to expand and initiate local re-
search and control programs.
"Under the provisions of the bill, the Secretary would be
authorized to make grants directly to local air pollution con-
trol agencies without prior State approval. The committee
would expect, however, that in the administration of this
program, the Department will take precautions to insure that
a grant will be made only after appropriate consideration
has been given to the views of the State air pollution control
authority (where such a State authority exists) with respect
to the particular program for which a grant is sought. This
procedure would assure, to a greater degree, that the objec-
tive of a planned and coordinated statewide program would
be achieved most efficiently and economically."
Sec. 106. Interstate Air Quality Agencies or Commissions
Under subsection (a) of this new section the Secretary is au-
thorized to make grants, for 2 years, to defray up to 100 percent
of the planning costs of any interstate agency. The agency must
-------
646 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
be designated by the Governors of the affected States for the pur-
pose of expediting the establishment of air quality standards for
interstate air quality control regions designated pursuant to new
section 107 (a) (2).
Under subsection (b) of this new section the Secretary has the
authority to designate or establish an Air Quality Planning Com-
mission for the purpose of developing recommended regulations
for an interstate air quality control region whenever he deems it
necessary to expedite the establishment of standards. In this case
the Secretary designates the Chairman, provides the staff, and
pays the associated expenses.
Sec. 107. Air Quality Control Regions, Criteria and Control Tech-
niques
This new section requires the Secretary to issue to Governors
the information required for the establishment of air quality
standards and a plan for their implementation. The issuance of
such information is precedent to the adoption of State standards
under new section 108.
Subsection (a) requires the Secretary to define atmospheric
areas of the Nation, considering those parameters which affect
atmospheric interchange and diffusion of pollutants. In the estab-
lishment of such atmospheric areas parameters such as climate,
meteorology, and topography are to be considered.
The Secretary is further required to define those air quality
control regions he deems necessary for the establishment of air
quality standards to protect public health and welfare. Such air
quality control areas shall be defined on the basis of jurisdictional
boundaries,
[p. 43]
up to two-thirds of the elegible program costs, except that in the
urban-industrial concentrations, and other factors including at-
mospheric regions necessary to provide adequate implementation
of air quality standards, and after consultation with appropriate
State and local authorities.
Subsection (b) expands the provision of subsection 103 (c) (2)
of the act which authorizes the Secretary, after consultation with
appropriate advisory committees and Federal departments and
agencies, to compile and issue for informational purposes criteria
relating to air pollutants which may be harmful to public health
or welfare. Criteria issued shall reflect the latest scientific knowl-
edge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 647
effects on health and welfare of an air pollution agent, or com-
bination of agents in the ambient air. At the same time the cri-
teria must include those factors which may result in a synergistic
effect on public health and welfare as a result of any air pollution
agent or combination of agents. Criteria issued pursuant to this
subsection will be the basis for air quality standards established
pursuant to new section 108. Criteria issued prior to these amend-
ments are to be reevaluated, and if necessary modified and re-
issued.
Under subsection (c) the Secretary is required to issue infor-
mation on those recommended pollution control techniques to the
States and appropriate air pollution control agencies. Before issu-
ance of such information the Secretary is directed to consult with
appropriate advisory committees, the Department of Commerce,
and other Federal departments and agencies. The information
issued is to include the latest technical data on the technological
and economic feasibility of alternative methods of emission con-
trol including a cost effectiveness analysis.
Subsection (d) provides for the revision of the ambient air
quality criteria and emission control requirements issued pursuant
to this section.
Sec. 108. Air Quality Standards and Abatement of Air Pollution
This section amends section 105 of the act by adding a new sub-
section (c) providing for the establishment by the States of
ambient air quality standards and a plan for their enforcement
and implementation.
Paragraph (1) requires the Governor of a State to file a letter
of intent, adopt air quality standards, and adopt a plan for their
implementation and enforcement, all within 15 months.
Approval by the Secretary of the State standards and plan is to
be contingent upon whether (1) the State standards are consistent
with the air quality criteria and the recommended control tech-
niques issued by him under section 107; (2) the State plan is
consistent with the purposes of the act and assures achieving the
air quality standards within a reasonable time; and (3) that a
means of enforcement by State action is provided, including im-
minent danger authority comparable to new subsection (k).
Paragraph (2) provides the Secretary with authority to set
standards where a State fails to establish standards, or the Secre-
tary finds it necessary to carry out the purpose of the act. The
Secretary is authorized to prepare regulations setting forth air
quality standards for a control region, after reasonable notice and
-------
648 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
a conference of agencies and industries involved. The State has
6 months from the date the Secretary publishes such regulations
to adopt standards (satis-
[p. 44]
factory to the Secretary) or to file a petition for public hearing
under paragraph (3). If neither is done, the Secretary is required
to promulgate such standards.
Paragraph (3) provides that within 30 days after the Secretary
has promulgated standards (above), or at any earlier time, the
Governor of any State affected by the standards may petition the
Secretary for a hearing. The standards hearing board and pro-
cedure is similar to the abatement hearing board and procedure
provided by the act, including a requirement of 30 days' notice.
The standards approved by the hearing board if unchanged take
effect upon receipt by the Secretary, or if modified by the hearing
board upon promulgation by the Secretary of revised regulations.
Paragraph (4) authorizes the Secretary to abate any violation
of air quality standards, whenever he finds that (A) the ambient
air quality of a control region is below the standards established,
and (B) that the State has failed to enforce such standards. The
Secretary must notify State, alleged violators, and other inter-
ested parties 180 days before initiating abatement action under
(g). Court to give consideration to the practicability, technologi-
cal and economic feasibility of complying with the standards.
Paragraph (5) provides for the protection of trade secrets.
Paragraph (6) provides for a maintenance of existing confer-
ence and enforcement procedure during the time period when
standards are being developed.
No change was made in subsection (c) (1) of the act other than
its redesignation as subsection (d)(l). The provisions of sub-
section (d) (1) were previously stated as:
"* * * establishes the procedure for the initiation of a con-
ference on an air pollution problem when there is interstate
pollution involved. * * * establishes procedures for the
initiation of a conference in the case of an intrastate air
pollution problem. * * * authorizes the Secretary, after con-
sultation with State officials, to call a conference in the case
of interstate air pollution on his own initiative.
The Secretary must invite the cooperation of any munici-
pal, State, or interstate air pollution control agencies to par-
ticipate in the making of any surveys or studies forming the
basis of conference action. This is to allow the agencies to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 649
know what is being done in their area, but failure to accept
the invitation should not deter the Secretary from acting
(S. Kept. No. 88-638, p. 9)."
Subsection (c) (2) of the act was redesignated subsection (d)
(2) was revised to require the Secretary to deliver to agencies
and make available to interested parties, at least 30 days prior
to conference, a Federal report including data and conclusions or
findings, if any. Three weeks notice changed to 30 days notice,
including newspaper publication. Chairman of conference is re-
quired to give interested parties opportunity to present views with
respect to Federal report. Secretary to provide that a transcript
of the proceedings be made available to any participant.
Subsection (c) (3) of the act was redesignated subsection (d)
(3), and subsection (d) through (i) of the act where redesignated
subsections (e) through (j), and appropriate cross references
changed accordingly. The provisions of these sections include:
[p. 45]
"After the conference the Secretary must allow at least 6
months for any remedial action; if remedial action is not
taken, he may call a public hearing before a hearing board
appointed by him after notice to the interested parties. The
hearing board, after the hearing, may recommend to the
Secretary measures to secure abatement of the pollution and
the Secretary shall send such recommendations to the inter-
ested parties together with a notice specifying a reasonable
time (but not less than 6 months) to secure abatement of the
air pollution. If, after the expiration of the time set by the
Secretary to secure abatement, such abatement measures
have not been taken, the Secretary, in the case of intra-
state pollution, may with the written consent of the Governor
request the Attorney General to bring suit on behalf of the
United States to secure abatement. In the case of interstate
air pollution the Secretary may request the Attorney General
to bring a suit on behalf of the United States to secure abate-
ment.
"This section also authorizes the Secretary, in connection
with any conference called, to require any person whose activ-
ities result in causing or contributing to air pollution to file
a report with respect to character, kind, and quantities of
pollutants discharged and the use by such person of various
devices and means to prevent or reduce that pollution. After
the conference has been held with respect to such pollution
526-702 O - 73 -- 6
-------
650 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
the Secretary shall require such reports from the person
whose activities result in such pollution only to the extent
recommended by such conference. No person would be re-
quired in such report to divulge trade secrets or secret proc-
esses and all information is to be considered confidential for
the purposes of title 18, United States Code, section 1905.
Failure to file such a report subjects the person in default to
forfeit $100 a day to the United States to be recoverable in
a civil action. The Secretary may remit or mitigate any such
forefeiture (S. Kept. No. 638, p. 9)."
A new subsection (k) authorizes Secretary, upon receipt of
evidence of imminent and substantial endangerment to health,
and finding State or local authorities have not acted, to request
Attorney General to seek injunctions to stop emission of contami-
nants or to take such other action as may be necessary.
Sec. 109. Standards to Achieve Higher Level of Air Quality
The new section assures that States, localities, intermunicipal,
or interstate agencies may adopt standards and plans to achieve
a higher level of ambient air quality than approved by the Secre-
tary.
Sec. 110. President's Air Quality Advisory Board and Advisory
Committees
This section replaces section 106 of the act titled "Automotive
Vehicles and Fuel Pollution." Provisions of act which provide for
the Secretary to encourage development of devices and fuels to
control automotive air pollution, and required semiannual report
to Congress are incorporated within new sections 104 and 306,
respectively.
The new section 110 establishes the President's Air Quality Ad-
visory Board in HEW, composed of Secretary or designee and 15
[p- 46]
members appointed by President, none Federal, from State, inter-
state and local agencies, of public or private interests contributing
to, affected by, or concerned with air pollution, and others. The
Board is to advise and consult with Secretary on policy under the
act, and make recommendations to President.
This new section also authorizes the Secretary to establish ad-
visory committees from time to time to help develop criteria, rec-
ommended control techniques, standards, research and develop-
ment, and to encourage efforts on the part of industry.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 651
Sec. 111. Cooperation by Federal Agencies To Control Air Pollu-
tion From Federal Facilities
No changes were made in this section which was section 107 of
the act. The purpose of this section was spelled out in Senate
Report No. 88-638 (p. 11):
"This section requires all Federal departments and agencies
to cooperate with the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare and with air pollution agencies in controlling air
pollution discharges from any Federal building, installation,
or property. Further, the Secretary is authorized to estab-
lish classes of potential pollution sources for which any Fed-
eral department or agency would be required to obtain a
permit from the Secretary before discharging any matter into
the air. The Secretary is required to report each January to
the Congress the status of such permits and compliance with
this provision.
"The cooperation of Federal departments and agencies in
controlling the discharge of air pollutants from buildings,
installations, or other property over which they have juris-
diction has not been equal to the leadership role in air pollu-
tion control rightfully contemplated for the Federal estab-
lishment. Accordingly, the committee has provided for a
permit system, to be administered by the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare, which will assure effective coopera-
tion in the control of pollution from these installations."
TITLE II—SHORT TITLE
Section 201
The title was redesignated the "National Emission Standards
Act" to reflect the incorporation in this title of all sections of the
act and bill concerned with national emission standards.
Sec. 202. Establishment of Standards
No change in this section of act.
The intent of this provision was appropriately expressed in
Senate Report 89-192 (p. 10):
New section 202 would direct the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare, by regulation, giving appropriate
consideration to technological feasibility and economic costs,
to prescribe standards, requirements, or limitations applica-
ble to the emissions of any kind of substance, from any class
or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines,
-------
652 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
which in his judgment cause or contribute to, or are accessi-
ble as in the case of gasoline-powered engines. Likewise, it
would be difficult, at this time, to establish a single
[p. 47]
national standard. However, it is the belief of the committee
that criteria can be established for groups of diesel-powered
vehicles. The committee strongly urges that the joint industry-
Government technical committee authorized by the Clean Air
Act, and further expanded in the bill to include representa-
tives of the diesel-powered vehicle industry, make a concerted
effort to determine the extent, effect, and ways and means
of controlling detrimental and offensive emissions from diesel-
powered vehicles.
The committee has made no provision for the periodic in-
spection of vehicles to insure their proper operation and main-
tenance of emission control facilities because of the many
variations in State procedures and the lack of suitable testing
equipment for large-scale inspection. However, it does feel
strongly that the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare should work with the various States in developing
equipment for making rapid checks of operating character-
istics of control systems and in developing inspection pro-
cedures.
Sec. 203. Prohibited Acts
No change in this section of act.
Sec. 204. Injunction Procedure
No change in this section of act.
Sec. 205. Penalties
No change in this section of act.
Sec. 206. Certification
No change in this section of act.
Sec. 207. Records and Reports
No change in this section of act.
Sec. 208. State Standards
This new section provides Federal preemption of the right to
set standards on emissions from new motor vehicles and engines.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 653
Requires the Secretary to waive Federal standards, after notice
and opportunity for public hearing, to any State which shall have
adopted standards—other than crankcase emission standards prior
to Federal entrance into the field. Secretary can veto waiver if
extraordinary conditions do not exist or if the standards are in-
consistent with provisions of section 202(a).
It is further provided that any State or political subdivision has
the right to control, regulate, or restrict the use, operation, or
movement of registered or licensed motor vehicles.
Sec. 209. Federal Assistance in Developing Inspection Programs
This new section provides assistance to State inspection pro-
grams by authorizing grants to State air pollution control agencies
for two-thirds cost of developing uniform motor vehicle emission
device inspection and emission testing programs. Secretary of
Transportation must certify program consistent with any inspec-
tion program established pursuant to the Highway Safety Act.
Sec. 210. Registration of Fuel Additives
This new section provides for the registration of fuel additives.
Secretary authorized to designate any fuel for registration. Fuel
manu-
[p. 48]
facturer must notify Secretary of additives used, their range
of concentration, and purpose. Civil penalties of $1,000 a day for
delivery of unregistered designated fuel.
Sec. 211. National Emissions Standards Study
This new section requires the Secretary to submit to Congress
within 2 years a comprehensive report on the need for and effect
of national emission standards for stationary sources.
Sec. 212. Definitions
No changes in this section of act other than to designate the
sections of this title to which the definition of manufacture is
restricted.
TITLE III—GENERAL
Section 301. Administration
This section of the act was unchanged.
In the language of Senate Report 88-638 (p. 11):
This section contains the usual provisions with respect to
-------
654 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
the administration of the legislation. Specifically, this section
authorizes the Secretary to prescribe necessary regulations to
carry out its functions. Further, personnel of the Public
Health Service may be detailed, upon request, to an air pol-
lution control agency to carry out the provisions of the act.
Finally, the Secretary is authorized to make payments under
grants in installments, in advance, or by way of reimburse-
ment.
The committee considers these authorities desirable and
necessary for effective administration of the act.
Sec. 302. Definition
This section was amended by adding a definition for "regional
air pollution control agency or planning commission." Other defi-
nitions unchanged.
Sec. 303. Other Authority Not Affected
No change.
In the language of Senate Report 88-638 (pp. 11-12):
Subsection (a) provides that the act shall not be construed
as superseding or limiting the responsibilities and authorities
of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare or of any
other Federal officer, department, or agency under any pro-
vision of law, except to the extent provided in subsection (b)
of this section 10.
Subsection (b) prohibits any appropriation from being
authorized or made under sections 301, 311, and 314 (c) of
the Public Health Service Act for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 1964, and for any subsequent fiscal year, for any pur-
pose for which appropriations may be made under authority
of this act. The purpose of this subsection is to insure that
this act will become the basic authority for appropriations by
the Federal Government for all air pollution programs. In
the case of programs which may be peripherally concerned
with air pollution, the committee does not intend that book-
keeping requirements be established to allocate to the penny
on a strict cost-accounting basis the air pollution aspects of
[p. 49]
those programs, but it does intend that this legislation become
the authority for appropriations for all air pollution pro-
grams, in order that the legislative committees of Congress
may have, to an extent which they presently do not have, a
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 655
fuller understanding and control of the true cost to the Fed-
eral Government of these air pollution programs.
Sec. 304. Records and Audit
No change.
In the language of Senate Report 88-638 (p. 12):
This section authorizes the Secretary to prescribe keeping
records which would disclose the amount and disposition of
the proceeds of Federal assistance received, the amount re-
ceived from other sources, and such other records as will
facilitate an effective audit.
Finally, the Secretary and the Comptroller General or their
representatives are authorized access for the purpose of audit
and examination to any books, records, and other documents
pertinent to the grants received under the act.
In view of the expansion of the grant programs, the com-
mittee believes it would be appropriate that a system of
audits be provided to assure that grant funds are used for
the purpose intended. Accordingly, provisions to accomplish
this have been included.
Sec. 305. Comprehensive Economic Cost Studies
New section which requires the Secretary to submit a report to
Congress by January 10, 1969, and annually thereafter.
Provisions include—
(1) A detailed estimate of cost of carrying out this act,
(2) A comprehensive study of cost of program implemen-
tation by affected units of government (each of above for 5
fiscal years beginning July 1, 1969), and
(3) A comprehensive study of economic impact of air
quality standards on the Nation's industries, communities,
and other pollution sources, including an analysis of national
requirements for and cost of controlling emissions to the
standards established under the act.
Secretary also required to make complete investigation of need
for additional trained personnel, and report by July 1, 1969.
Sec. 306. Additional Reports to Congress
New section which requires annual reports to Congress on prog-
ress in 10 fields authorized by the act.
Sec. 307. Separability
No change.
-------
656 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Sec. 308. Appropriation
This section authorizes appropriations, excluding sections 103
(d), (general authority for Secretary to construct, staff, and
equip facilities), and 104 (research relating to fuels and vehicles),
of up to $75 million for the fiscal year 1968, $100 million for the
fiscal year 1969, and $150 million for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1970.
Sec. 309. Short Title
No change.
[p. 50]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 657
VIII. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING PROVISIONS OF THE
LAW
TITLE I—Am POLLUTION PREVENTION CONTROL
FINDING AND PURPOSES
CLEAN AIR ACT S. 780
SEC. 101. Revises subsection (b) (1) as to
the purpose of this title "to protect
and enhance the quality of the Na-
tion's air resources so as to promote
the public health and welfare and the
productive capacity of its population.
COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES AND UNIFORM LAWS
SEC. 102. No change.
SEC. 103. Subsection (a) (4) and (5) of Act
are deleted and included under new
Section 104, dealing with research in
the prevention and control of air pol-
lution resulting from the combustion
of fuels.
Subsections 103 (c) (2) and (3) are
deleted and included in new Section
105, dealing with the issuance of
criteria of ambient air quality and
emission control techniques.
Research Relating to Fuels and
Vehicles
(NOTE.—Deleted subsections (c) (2) Sec. 104.(a) Secretary of HEW to
and (3) of Act authorize Secretary to give special emphasis to research into
conduct research on vehicle emission methods to control pollution resulting
control and reduction in emission of from the combustion fuels. Provides
oxides of sulfur. New Section 104 for grants or contracts to public and
represents an expansion of former private organizations for research, de-
provisions.) velopment or demonstration.
(c) Limits Federal grants to $1.5
million or 75 percentum of project
cost.
(d) Authorizes for purpose of this
section $100, $125 and $150 million
[P. 51]
CLEAN AIR ACT S. 780
for fiscal years 1968, 1969, and 1970,
respectively.
(NOTE.—This is in addition to funds
authorized for all other sections of the
act under Section 308.)
-------
658
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
GRANTS FOR SUPPORT OF AIR POLLUTION PLANNING AND CONTROL PROGRAMS
SEC. 104. (a) Authorizes Secretary Sec. 105, (a) Authorizes the See-
to make grants up to one-half the retary to make grants up to one-half
cost of developing and maintaining the cost of planning, developing and
agency programs, and up to three- maintaining agency programs, and up
fifths cost of maintaining regional air to three-fifths cost of maintaining re-
pollution control programs. gional air pollution control programs.
Regional Air Quality Planning
Agencies or Commissions
Sec. 106. (a) For interstate air
quality control regions designated
pursuant to Section 107(a)(2), the
Secretary may, for up to two years,
authorize 100 percentum of air quality
planning program costs, (b) When
the Secretary deems it necessary,
pursuant to Section 108(c)(2), he may
establish an air quality planning
commission for the purpose of recom-
mending standards of air quality.
Air Quality Control Regions,
Criteria and Control Techniques
Sec. 107. (a)(l) Secretary shall
define atmospheric areas of the Na-
tion, considering those parameters
which affect atmospheric interchange
and diffusion of pollutants.
(2) As he deems necessary the Sec-
retary shall designate air quality con-
trol regions for the purpose of estab-
lishing ambient air quality standards
pursuant to Section 108.
(b) Directs the Secretary to issue
criteria of ambient air quality. (Note:
Differs from Act only so far as re-
quiring consultation with appropriate
advisory committees and Federal de-
partments and agencies.)
[p. 52]
(c) Directs Secretary to issue recom-
mended control requirements to achieve
various levels of air quality set forth
in criteria published pursuant to sub-
section (b). Requires consultation with
appropriate advisory committees and
Federal departments and agencies.
(d) Authority to revise ambient air
SEC. 103 (c) (2) and (3)
(NOTE.—Deleted subsections (c)
(2) and (3) of Act authorize Sec-
retary to issue criteria of ambient air
quality for a given contaminant or
contaminants based upon the latest
scientific knowledge of effects on
health and welfare. New paragraph
107 (a) (2) represents an expansion of
former provisions.)
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 659
quality criteria and recommended con-
trol techniques issued pursuant to this
section.
Air Quality Standards and ABATEMENT OF AIR POLLUTION
SEC. 105. Provides authority for Sec. 108. (c)(l) Provides that the
Federal enforcement action to abate Governor of a State, within 90 days
air pollution. of the receipt of ambient air quality
criteria and recommended control
techniques issued pursuant to this Act,
may file a letter of intent to estab-
lish, within ISO days, after public
hearing air quality standards and
within 180 days thereafter establish
a plan for their implementation and
enforcement. Provides for Secretarial
approval of standards and plan as
consistent with purposes of Act.
(2) Provides Secretary with means
and authority to set standards of air
quality where a State does not.
(3) Allows Governor to petition
Secretary to hold a hearing in con-
nection with standards promulgated
under paragraph (2). Specifies guide-
lines for such hearing and qualifica-
tion of members. Secretary to abide
by recommendations of hearing board.
(4) Provides Secretary with en-
forcement authority where State fails.
(5) Protection of trade secrets or
secret processes.
[p. 53]
CLEAN AIK ACT S. 780
SEC. 105. (c) (2) Requires three (d)(2) extends notice period to
weeks notice of conference be given thirty days and requires a Federal
to interested parties. report 30 days prior to conference.
Provides that a transcript be main-
tained of proceedings.
(k) Expands Federal enforcement
authority to allow the Secretary to
request the Attorney General to im-
mediately enjoin a pollution source
where there exists an imminent and
substantial endangerment to health.
-------
660 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Standards to Achieve Higher
Level of Air Quality
Sec. 109. Allows State of political
subdivision to adopt standards and
plans to achieve higher air quality
than approved by the Secretary.
AUTOMOTIVE VEHICLE AND FUEL President's Air Quality Advisory
POLLUTION Board and Advisory Committees
SEC. 106. Provides for Secretary to Sec. 110. (a) Establishes Presi-
encourage development of devices and dent's Air Quality Advisory Board
fuels to control automotive air pollu- consisting of Secretary of HEW
tion. Requires semi-annual report to (Chairman) and 15 other members
Congress. (Note: These provisions are appointed for three year terms.
incorporated within new Sections 104 (b) Board to advise Secretary on
find 306, respectively.) matters of policy relating to activities
and functions under Act.
(c) Provides for clerical and tech-
nical assistance.
(d) Secretary empowered to estab-
lish advisory committees to assist him
in the development and implementa-
tion of the purposes of Act.
(e) Provides compensation for non-
Federal members.
COOPERATION BY FEDERAL AGENCIES TO CONTROL AIR POLLUTION
FROM FEDERAL FACILITIES
SEC. 107. Sec. Ill, as redesignated by S. 780.
No change.
[P. 54]
TITLE II—National Emission Standards Act
SHORT TITLE
CLEAN AIR ACT S. 780
SEC. 201. Title amended to read National
Emissions Standards Act from Motor
Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act.
ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARDS
SEC. 202. No change.
PROHIBITED ACTS
SEC. 203. No change.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 661
INJUNCTION PROCEDURE
SEC. 204. No change.
PENALTIES
SEC. 205. No change.
CERTIFICATION
SEC. 206. No change.
RECORDS AND REPORTS
SEC. 207. No change.
State Standards
Sec. 208. (a) Pre-empts State
standards for new motor vehicle en-
gines, (b) Authorizes Secretary to
waive application of this section,
after public hearing, to a State
adopting standards for other than
crankcases prior to March 30, 1966.
(c) allows State to control, regu-
late, or restrict the use, operation, or
movement of motor vehicles.
Federal Assistance in Developing
Inspection Programs
Sec. 209. Authorizes Secretary to
make two-third grants to develop uni-
form motor vehicle emission inspec-
tion and testing programs. Secretary
of Transportation is required to cer-
tify program.
[p. 55]
CLEAN AIR ACT S. 780
Registration of Fuel Additives
Sec. 210. (a) Secretary by regula-
tion may designate fuels which must
be registered by him, before introduc-
tion in interstate commerce.
(b) Manufacturer to notify him of
fuel additives. Additive -manufacturer
to notify him as to nature of additive.
(c) Provision for protection of trade
secrets.
(d) Provides for civil penalty of
$1,000 per day for violation.
-------
662 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
DEFINITIONS FOR TITLE II
SEC. 208. Sec. 211, as redesignated by S. 780.
No change.
TITLE III—GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION
SEC. 301. No change.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 302. No change.
OTHER AUTHORITY NOT AFFECTED
SEC. 303. No change.
RECORDS AND AUDIT
SEC. 304. No change.
Comprehensive Economic Cost
Studies
Sec. 305. (a) Authorizes Secretary
to conduct five year economic study
of costs of implementation of provi-
s'ons of Act upon the Nation's econ-
omy.
(b) Secretary directed to evaluate
government personnel needs to carry
out provisions of Act and Federal
training program capability to meet
needs.
[p. 56]
CLEAN AIR ACT S. 780
Additional Reports to Congress
Sec. 306. Calls for annual report
to Congress on steps taken to imple-
ment provisions of Act.
SEPARABILITY
SEC. 305. Sec. 307, as redesignated by S. 780.
No change.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 663
APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. 306. See. 308, as redesignated by S. 780.
Authorization for other than sec-
tions 103(d) and 104, of $75, $100,
and $150 million for fiscal years 1968,
1969, and 1970, respectively.
SHORT TITLE
SEC. 307. Sec. 309, as redesignated by S. 780.
No change.
[p. 57]
-------
664 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
IX. PENDING QUESTIONS
INCENTIVE ASSISTANCE FOR INDUSTRIES
Once again this year a number of witnesses, especially those
representing industry and industrial organizations, discussed the
need for various types of tax relief to assist industry in meeting
its costs of pollution control, a matter which is not within the
jurisdiction of this committee.
Last year when the committee reported the Clean Water Re-
storation Act the following statement appeared:
This committee strongly recommends that the appropriate
congressional committees give consideration to tax relief
proposals for industrial pollution control activities.
For the most part, pollution control does not provide a
return on an investment to an industry. Installation of pollu-
tion control devices is costly and, in many cases, nonremuner-
ative. The billion dollars of capital investment which will
have to be made by the industrial sector for the benefit of
the entire society will place a substantial burden on corporate
resources, and ultimately on the general public. The com-
mittee suggests that there are several alternative methods of
aiding industry in meeting its pollution control obligations.
The committee reasserts this position and strongly urges that
the appropriate committees of the Congress consider tax relief
legislation.
While tax relief legislation is not a matter over which this com-
mittee has jurisdiction, two areas which have not as yet been
thoroughly explored may be considered in the future.
It has been suggested that the committee give consideration to
authorizing a Federal loan program designed to assist industry
with the costs of air pollution control. This type of Federal as-
sistance has been utilized to facilitate a number of social pro-
grams, the most well known of which is the rural electrification
program which provides 2-percent money to assist in supplying
power to sparsely populated rural areas.
As rural electrification is a social program designed to enchance
the welfare of our rural citizens, the control of pollution is an
ever more important welfare requirement of our urban popula-
tion. The committee intends to review proposals of this type to
determine their applicability to this particular situation.
For those plants which due to their age do not justify major
capital investment for pollution control and therefore are con-
fronted with potential closure it has been suggested that a limited
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 665
Federal grant program be authorized. This type of program
could have the salutary effect of limiting undue economic disrup-
tion in some of the Nation's older communities while, at the same
time, cleaning up the air over those cities.
[p. 58]
It is important that any Federal assistance program, whether
it be incentives, loans, or grants, provide adequate assurance that
those facilities assisted will be designed to attain maximum per-
formance. Performance requirements should be related to air
quality standards and Federal assistance made available on that
basis.
ALTERNATIVES TO INTERNAL COMBUSTION
The Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution and the Com-
mittee on Commerce held 5 days of joint hearings on legislation
to authorize development of electric vehicles and other alternatives
to the internal combustion engine. A great deal of valid informa-
tion was gained which, because of the interrelationship of the
automobile and air pollution, is worthy of comment in the report.
The Federal Government is involved in considerable research
into alternatives to the internal combustion engine, including stud-
ies bearing on the development of a satisfactory electric vehicle.
Under the scope of existing legislation, the Clean Air Act and
the research and development mandates of several departments,
these research efforts might be expanded to accomplish the aims
of S. 451 and S. 453. The present nature of Federal involvement
in developing nonpolluting alternatives to internal combustion, as
an adjunct to, and resource for, an energetic research and devel-
opment program by industry, seems best suited to present needs.
The Federal Government has a clear role in protecting the pub-
lic health and a subsequent interest in the rapid reduction of
emissions from vehicular sources, and must give support to efforts
in this field. However, as long as private efforts demonstrates
sufficient regard for the public interest, the Federal Government
must be shy of going beyond its role and influencing markets by
the massive infusion of funds into a limited area of endeavor.
Nevertheless, Federal research into batteries, fuel cells, electri-
cal vehicular systems, and other alternative propulsion systems is
producing significant results, and these programs might well be
extended.
Paradoxically, while the problem is mainly one in the civilian
sector, most of this work is presently concentrated in the Depart-
526-702 O - 73 -- 7
-------
666 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
ment of Defense and its contractors, through their attempts to
insure the immediate nonclassified, civilian utilization of the fruits
of this research. Greater distribution of projects throughout
transportation-conscious departments should be sought. An esti-
mated $20 million has been spent in Federal research on battery
and fuel cell development, primarily in NASA and Defense pro-
grams.
Within existing legislation, the research efforts now under the
Department of Defense and NASA should continue. Additional
funding would be valuable for related programs of the Bureau of
Mines, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Depart-
ment of Commerce. The Bureau of Mines must be concerned not
only with its projects to develop catalysts for fuel cells, but with
the greater questions of adequate mineral resources for a chang-
ing transportation technology. There is a need for the Depart-
ment of Transportation to undertake studies of the feasibility
and effects of various alternative systems of private and mass
transportation.
Encouragement should be given to the programs of the Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development which focus on con-
sidering
[p. 59]
transportation and the total urban environment in a systems
analytic framework. And importantly, the research efforts of the
National Center for Air Pollution Control, should be further
stimulated and funded in the field of securing low-pollution pro-
pulsion systems. HEW now has the authority to build prototype
electric uses, for example, and with adequate funding they could
engage in this type of project.
There are, in fact, several Federal agencies which under exist-
ing legislation could contribute to the development of alternative
propulsion systems by making use of prototype vehicle systems.
The Post Office Department, which until 1962 was involved in
testing electric vehicles adapted to their needs, should reenter this
field with the clear aim of supporting solutions to transitional
problems. The Post Office has transportation needs suited to the
potential of electric vehicles, and in view of the Federal commit-
ment to the reduction of emissions from all Federal sources,
would do well to encourage rapid development through creative
procurement policies. This is equally true for the General Serv-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 667
ices Administration, whose purchases of automobiles constitute a
sizable portion of the market.
The efforts of private industry to develop low-pollution vehicle
systems and to accommodate the change from present internal
combustion engines are to be commended. While the figures are
not completely reliable, a present estimated $9 million per year
is being invested in private research efforts, and this figure seems
to be increasing. The principal thrust of this research effort is
long life, high energy (low weight) battery and fuel cell develop-
ment, by both large and small companies. The major automobile
manufacturers and many smaller firms have been working on
total vehicle development, as well as improvement of the internal
combustion engine.
The most intense interest has been shown by electric utilities
(public and private), who with independent research firms have
been planning for increased powers needs and developing inno-
vative hardware for charging. There are firms and municipal
planning agencies who have developed striking special use appli-
cations for limited low-pollution transportation systems, such as
modular programed systems or specially designed and controlled
sections of town.
These industry attempts have included proposals of an imagina-
tive sort, ranging from a nickel-cadmium battery-powered bus,
possible today and capable of staying in service all day with re-
generative braking to external combustion engines of low emis-
sion, to steam engines of improved technology, to breakthroughs
like the sodium-sulfur battery. These concerted efforts could pay
off in an estimated 10 years with the commercial production of
electric vehicles satisfactory to the personal transportation mar-
ket. Sales of electric vehicles, according to estimates from the
Federal Power Commission, might reach 1.5 to 2 million per year
by 1975 to 1980, and 3 to 4 million by 1985. At that time they
would comprise approximately a third of the market.
Since the benefits from developing nonpolluting vehicle systems
will be primarily to the public interest, and private industry might
be loathe to commit funds in an untried market situation, it is
incumbent upon the Federal Government to minimize the market
risk. If the Government, in the pursuit of the public interest,
should require the production of a nonpolluting substitute for
present transportation
[p. 60]
means, it could absorb a portion of the risk by purchasing proto-
type vehicles meeting its special requirements at unusually high
-------
668 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
early costs. The Federal Government might well stimulate com-
petition, facilitating an early solution and more adventurous in-
novations, by rewarding the designs best meeting its established
performance criteria.
The Federal Government has an additional role in providing
leadership to State and local authorities. Of great immediate help
might be a study of social, legal, and economic alternatives open
to State and local authorities in trying to control pollution by the
proscription of high-emitting vehicles or the encouragement of
the use of low-pollution propulsion systems.
It must be clear above all that the Federal Government, in the
name of the American people, is fully committed to restoring the
quality of our atmosphere by reducing emissions from vehicles.
In an effort to do this, the committee is not bound to any single
endeavor but encourages any and all approaches which hold out
promise of achieving this end.
[p. 61]
X. INDIVIDUAL VIEWS
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS OF MR. SPONG
This legislation, in my opinion, represents the most practicable
approach to the abatement of air pollution that can be made with
the technology and scientific data presently available. States and
localities are further encouraged to initiate programs to combat
this growing threat.
The bill approved by the committee contemplates the preemp-
tion by the Federal Government of the right to set emission stand-
ards for automobiles. In my judgment, this is necessary. Testi-
mony by many witnesses from urban areas throughout the Nation
demonstrated conclusively that a large percentage of air pollution
results from motor vehicles. The number of automobiles expected
to be on our highways within the next decade is frightening to
comprehend.
To subject auto manufacturers to varied requirements by the
several States would constitute an economic hardship that ulti-
mately would be passed on to the purchasers of automobiles. We
must not delude ourselves into believing that merely by the estab-
lishment of national standards for motor vehicles we can effec-
tively combat air pollution.
In the absence of a requirement for the mandatory inspection
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 669
of devices installed in automobiles to curb pollution, it becomes
the responsibility of the automobile and petroleum industries to
develop antipollution devices that are efficient, economical, and
durable.
There currently are no low-cost instruments available to meas-
ure emission from automobiles, and I would hope that the research
grants authorized by the bill will facilitate the development of
such instruments. These would be used in States having man-
datory periodic inspection requirements for motor vehicles.
It is hoped that the several States will take full advantage of
the programs made available to them under this legislation, par-
ticularly the disbursal of Federal funds for the encouragement
of the inspection of automobiles for antipollution devices.
WILLIAM B. SPONG, Jr.
[p. 62]
XL CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with subsection (4) of the rule XXIX of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the
bill as reported are shown as follows (existing law proposed to
be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in
italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in
roman):
THE CLEAN AIR ACT
TITLE I—AIR POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL
FINDINGS AND PURPOSES
SEC. 101. (a) The Congress finds—
(1) that the predominant part of the Nation's population
is located in its rapidly expanding metropolitan and other
urban areas, which generally cross the boundary lines of local
jurisdictions and often extend into two or more States;
(2) that the growth in the amount and complexity of air
pollution brought about by urbanization, industrial develop-
ment, and the increasing use of motor vehicles, has resulted
in mounting dangers to the public health and welfare, includ-
-------
670 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
ing injury to agricultural crops and livestock, damage to and
the deterioration of property, and hazards to air and ground
transportation;
(3) that the prevention and control of air pollution at its
source is the primary responsibility of States and local gov-
ernments; and
(4) that Federal financial assistance and leadership is es-
ential for the development of cooperative Federal, State,
regional, and local programs to prevent and control air pollu-
tion.
(b) The purposes of this title are—
(1) to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air
resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and
the productive capacity of its population;
(2) to initiate and accelerate a national research and de-
velopment program to achieve the prevention and control of
air pollution;
(3) to provide technical and financial assistance to State
and local governments in connection with the development
and execution of their air pollution prevention and control
programs; and
(4) to encourage and assist the development and operation
of regional air pollution control programs.
COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES AND UNIFORM LAWS
SEC. 102. (a) The Secretary shall encourage cooperative acti-
vities by the States and local governments for the prevention and
control of
[p- 63]
air pollution; encourage the enactment of improved and, so far
as practicable in the light of varying conditions and needs, uni-
form State and local laws relating to the prevention and control
of air pollution; and encourage the making of agreements and
compacts between States for the prevention and control of air
pollution.
(b) The Secretary shall cooperate with and encourage coopera-
tive activities by all Federal departments and agencies having
functions relating to the prevention and control of air pollution,
so as to assure the utilization in the Federal air pollution control
program of all appropriate and available facilities and resources
within the Federal Government.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 671
(c) The consent of the Congress is hereby given to two or more
States to negotiate and enter into agreements or compacts, not in
conflict with any law or treaty of the United States, for (1) coop-
erative effort and mutual assistance for the prevention and control
of air pollution and the enforcement of their respective laws relat-
ing thereto, and (2) the establishment of such agencies, joint or
otherwise, as they may deem desirable for making effective such
agreements or compacts. No such agreement or compact shall be
binding or obligatory upon any State a party thereto unless and
until it has been approved by Congress.
RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES
SEC. 103. (a) The Secretary shall establish a national research
and development program for the prevention and control of air
pollution and as part of such program shall—
(1) conduct, and promote the coordination and accelera-
tion of, research, investigations, experiments, training, dem-
onstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, ef-
fects, extent, prevention, and control of air pollution;
(2) encourage, cooperate with, and render technical serv-
ices and provide financial assistance to air pollution control
agencies and other appropriate public or private agencies,
institutions, and organizations, and individuals in the conduct
of such activities;
(3) conduct investigations and research and make surveys
concerning any specific problem of air pollution in cooperation
with any air pollution control agency with a view to recom-
mending a solution of such problem, if he is requested to do
so by such agency or if, in his judgment, such problem may
affect any community or communities in a State other than
that in which the source of the matter causing or contributing
to the pollution is located [;].
[(4) initiate and conduct a program of research directed
toward the development of improved, low cost techniques for
extracting sulfur from fuels.
[(5) conduct and accelerate research programs (A) relat-
ing to the means of controlling hydrocarbon emissions result-
ing from the evaporation of gasoline in carburetors and fuel
tanks, and the means of controlling emissions of oxides of
nitrogen and aldehydes from gasoline-powered or diesel-
powered vehicles, and to carry out such research the Secre-
tary shall consult with the technical committee established
under section 106 of this Act, and for research concerning
-------
672 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
diesel powered vehicles he may add to such committee such
representatives from the diesel-powered
[p. 64]
vehicle industry as he deems appropriate; and (B) directed
toward the development of improved low-cost techniques de-
signed to reduce emissions of oxides of sulfur produced by
the combustion of sulfur containing fuels." ; and]
(b) In carrying out the provisions of the preceding subsection
the Secretary is authorized to—
(1) collect and make available, through publications and
other appropriate means, the results of and other information,
including appropriate recommendations by him in connection
therewith, pertaining to such research and other activities;
(2) cooperate with other Federal departments and agen-
cies, with air pollution control agencies, with other public
and private agencies, institutions, and organizations, and
with any industries involved, in the preparation and conduct
of such research and other activities;
(3) make grants to air pollution control agencies, to other
public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, and organi-
zations, and to individuals, for purposes stated in subsection
(a) (1) of this section;
(4) contract with public or private agencies, institutions,
and organizations, and with individuals, without regard to
sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C.
529; 41 U.S.C. 5);
(5) provide training for, and make training grants to,
personnel of air pollution control agencies and other persons
with suitable qualifications;
(6) establish and maintain research fellowships, in the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and at public
or nonprofit private educational institutions or research or-
ganizations;
(7) collect and disseminate, in cooperation with other
Federal departments and agencies, and with other public or
private agencies, institutions, and organizations having re-
lated responsibilities, basic data on chemical, physical, and
biological effects of varying air quality and other information
pertaining to air pollution and the prevention and control
thereof; and
(8) develop effective and practical processes, methods, and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 673
prototype devices for the prevention or control of air pollu-
tion.
(c) [(!)] In carrying out the provisions of subsection (a) of
this section the Secretary shall conduct research on, and survey
the results of other scientific studies on, the harmful effects on the
health or welfare of persons by the various known air pollution
agents (or combinations of agents).
[ (2) Whenever he determines that there is a particular air pol-
lution agent (or combination of agents), present in the air in cer-
tain quantities, producing effects harmful to the health or welfare
of persons, the Secretary shall compile and publish criteria reflect-
ing accurately the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating
the kind and extent of such effects which may be expected from
the presence of such air pollution agent (or combination of agents)
in the air in varying quantities. Any such criteria shall be pub-
lished for informational purposes and made available to municipal,
State, and interstate air pollution control agencies. He shall revise
and add to such criteria whenever necessary to reflect accurately
developing scientific knowledge.
[p. 65]
[(3) The Secretary may recommend to such air pollution con-
trol agencies and to other appropriate organizations such criteria
of air quality as in his judgment may be necessary to protect the
public health and welfare.]
(d) The Secretary is authorized to construct such facilities and
staff and equip them as he determines to be necessary to carry out
his functions under this Act.
(e) If, in the judgment of the Secretary, an air pollution prob-
lem of substantial significance may result from discharge or dis-
charges into the atmosphere, he may call a conference concerning
this potential air pollution problem to be held in or near one or
more of the places where such discharge or discharges are occur-
ring or will occur. All interested persons shall be given an oppor-
tunity to be heard at such conference, either orally or in writing,
and shall be permitted to appear in person or by representative
in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary. If the
Secretary finds, on the basis of the evidence presented at such
conference, that the discharge or discharges if permitted to take
place or continue are likely to cause or contribute to air pollution
subject to abatement under section [105] 108(a), he shall send
such findings, together with recommendations concerning the
measures which he finds reasonable and suitable to prevent such
-------
674 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
pollution, to the person or persons whose actions will result in the
discharge or discharges involved; to air pollution agencies of the
State or States and of the municipality or municipalities where
such discharge or discharges will originate; and to the interstate
air pollution control agency, if any, in the jurisdictional area of
which any such municipality is located. Such findings and rec-
ommendations shall be advisory only, but shall be admitted, to-
gether with the record of the conference, as part of the record of
proceedings under subsections [(c), (d), and (e) of section 105J
(d), (e), and (/) of section 108.
RESEARCH RELATING TO FUELS AND VEHICLES
Sec. 104. (a) The Secretary shall give special emphasis to re-
search and development into new and improved methods, having
industrywide application, for the prevention and control of air
pollution resulting from the combustion of fuels. In furtherance
of such research and development he shall—
(1) conduct and accelerate research programs directed to-
ward development of improved, low-cost techniques for con-
trol of combustion byproducts of fuels, for removal of poten-
tial pollutants from fuels, and for control of emissions from
evaporation of fuels;
(2) provide for Federal grants to or contract with public
or private agencies, institutions, or persons for payment of
(A) part of the cost of acquiring, constructing, or otherwise
securing, for research and development purposes, new or im-
proved devices or methods having industryivide application
of preventing or controlling discharges into the air of various
types of pollutants; and (B) carrying out the other provisions
of this section, tvithout regard to sections 3648 and 3709 of
the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C. 529; 41 U.S.C. 5): Provided,
That research or demonstration contracts awarded pursuant
to this subsection (including contracts for construction) may
be made in accordance with, and subject to the limitations
provided with respect to research contracts of the military
departments in, section 2353 of
[p. 66]
title 10, United States Code, except that the determination,
approval, and certification required thereby shall be made by
the Secretary.
(3) determine, by laboratory and pilot plant testing, the
results of air pollution research and studies in order to devel-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 675
op new or improved processes and plant designs to the point
where they can be demonstrated on a large and practical
scale;
(4) construct, operate, and maintain, or assist in meeting
the cost of the construction, operation, and maintenance of
neiv or improved demonstration plants or processes which
have promise of accomplishing the purposes of this Act;
(5) study neiv or improved methods for the recovery and
marketing of commercially valuable byproducts resulting
from the removal of pollutants; and
(6) establish technical advisory committees composed of
recognized experts in various aspects of air pollution to
assist in the examination and evaluation of research progress
and proposals and to avoid duplication of research.
(b) In carrying out the provisions of this section, the Secretary
may—
(1) conduct and accelerate research and development of
low-cost instrumentation techniques to facilitate determina-
tion of quantity and quality of air pollutant emissions, includ-
ing, but not limited to, automotive emissions;
(2) utilize, on a reimbursable basis, the facilities of exist-
ing Federal scientific laboratories;
(3) establish and operate necessary facilities and test
sites at which to carry on the research, testing, development,
and programing necessary to effectuate the purposes of this
section;
(4) acquire secret processes, technical data, inventions,
patent applications, patents, licenses, and an interest in lands,
plants, and facilities, and other property or rights by pur-
chase, license, lease, or donation; and
(5) cause on-site inspections to be made of promising
domestic and foreign projects, and cooperate and participate
in their development in instances in which the purposes of
the Act will be served thereby.
(c) Federal payments under subsection (a) (2) of this section
shall be subject to the following limitations:
(1) no grant shall be made in excess of $1,500,000; and
(2) no grant shall be made for more than 75 per centum
of the cost of the project.
(d) For the purposes of this section there are authorized to be
appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $100,000,-
000; for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, $125,000,000; and
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, $150,000,000. Amounts
-------
676 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
appropriated pursuant to this subsection shall remain available
until expended.
GRANTS FOR SUPPORT OF AIR POLLUTION Planning and
CONTROL PROGRAMS
[SEC. 104. (a) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to
air pollution control agencies in an amount up to two-thirds of
the cost of developing, establishing, or improving, and grants to
such agencies in an amount up to one-half of the cost of main-
taining, programs for the prevention and control of air pollution:
Provided, That the Secretary is authorized to make grants to
intermunicipal or interstate air
[p- 67]
pollution control agencies (described in section 302(b) (2) and
(4)) in an amount up to three-fourths of the cost of developing,
establishing, or improving, and up to three-fifths of the cost of
maintaining, regional air pollution control programs. As used in
this subsection, the term "regional air pollution control program"
means a program for the prevention and control of air pollution
in an area that includes the areas of two or more municipalities,
whether in the same or different States.]
Sec. 105. (a)(l) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to
air pollution control agencies and planning commissions, in an
amount up to two-thirds of the cost of planning, developing, estab-
lishing, or improving, and grants to such agencies in an amount
up to one-half of the cost of maintaining, programs for the pre-
vention and control of air pollution and the implementation of
the air quality standards program as authorized by this Act:
Provided, That the Secretary is authorized to make grants to
intermunicipal or interstate air pollution control agencies (de-
scribed in section 302(b) (2) and (4)) in an amount up to three-
fourths of the cost of planning, developing, establishing, or im-
proving and up to three-fifths of the cost of maintaining, regional
air quality control programs, including but not limited to inter-
state commissions approved by the Congress pursuant to section
102 (c): Provided, That the Secretary is authorized to make
grants up to 100 per centum pursuant to section 106(a). As used
in this subsection the term "regional air quality control program"
means a program for the prevention and control of air pollution
and the implementation of air quality standards programs as
authorized by this Act, in an area that includes the areas of two
or more municipalities whether in the same or different States.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 677
(2) Prior to the approval of any grant to any regional air
pollution control agency or planning commission pursuant to this
subsection, the Secretary shall receive assurances that such agency
or commission provides for adequate representation of appropriate
State, interstate, local, and (when appropriate) international,
interest in the air quality control region.
(3) Prior to the approval of any planning grant to any regional
air pollution control agency or planning commission pursuant to
this section, the Secretary shall receive assurances that such agen-
cy or commission has the capability of developing a comprehensive
air quality plan for the air quality control region, which plans
include (when appropriate) a recommended system of alerts to
avert and reduce the risk of situations in which there may be
imminent and serious danger to the public health or welfare from
air pollutants and the various aspects relevant to the establish-
ment of air quality standards for such air quality control region,
including the concentration of industries, other commercial estab-
lishments, population and naturally occurring factors which shall
affect such standards.
(b) From the sums available for the purposes of subsection (a)
of this section for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall from time
to time make grants to air pollution control agencies upon such
terms and conditions as the Secretary may find necessary to carry
out the purpose of this section. In establishing regulations for
the granting of such funds the Secretary shall, so far as prac-
ticable, give due consideration to (1) the population, (2) the
extent of the actual or potential air pollution problem, and (3)
the financial need of the respective agencies. No agency shall
receive any grant under this section during any fiscal year when
its expenditures of non-Federal funds for other than nonrecurrent
expenditures for air pollution control programs will be less than
its expenditures were for such programs during the
[p. 68]
preceding fiscal year; and no agency shall receive any grant under
this section with respect to the maintenance of a program for the
prevention and control of air pollution unless the Secretary is
satisfied that such grant will be so used as to supplement and, to
the extent practicable, increase the level of State, local, [and]
or other non-Federal funds that would in the absence of such
grant be made available for the maintenance of such program,
and will in no event supplant such State, local [and] or other
non-Federal funds. No grant shall be made under this section until
-------
678 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
the Secretary has consulted with the appropriate official as desig-
nated by the Governor or Governors of the State or States affected.
(c) Not more than I2y? per centum of the total of funds appro-
priated or allocated for the purposes of subsection (a) of this
section shall be granted for air pollution control programs in any
one State. In the case of a grant for a program in an area cross-
ing State boundaries, the Secretary shall determine the portion of
such grant that is chargeable to the percentage limitation under
this subsection for each State into which such area extends.
Interstate Air Quality Agencies or Commissions
Sec. 106. (a) For the purpose of expediting the establishment
of air quality standards in an interstate air quality control region
designated pursuant to section 107(a) (2), the Secretary is author-
ized to pay, for tivo years, up to 100 per centum of the air quality
planning program costs of any agency designated by the Gover-
nors of the affected States, which agency shall be capable of rec-
ommending to the Governors standards of air quality and plans
for implementation thereof and shall include representation from
the States and appropriate political subdivisions within the air
quality control region. After the initial tioo-year period the Secre-
tary is authorized to make grants to such agency pursuant to
section 105.
(6) (1) Whenever the Secretary deems it necessary to expedite
the establishment of standards for an interstate air quality control
region designated pursuant to section 108 (c) (2) he may, after
consultation with the Governors of the affected States, designate
or establish an air quality planning commission for the purpose
of developing recommended regulations setting forth standards
of air quality to be applicable to such air quality control region.
(2) Such Commission shall consist of the Secretary or his de-
signee who shall serve as Chairman, and adequate representation
of appropriate State, interstate, local and (when appropriate),
international, interests in the designated air quality control region.
(3) The Secretary shall, ivithin available funds, provide such
staff for such Commission as may be necessary to enable it to
carry out its functions effectively, and shall pay the other ex-
penses of the Commission; and may also accept for the use by
such Commission, funds, property, or services contributed by the
State involved or political subdivisions thereof.
(4) Each appointee from a State, other than an official or em-
ployee thereof, or of any political subdivision thereof, shall, ivhile
engaged in the work of the Commission, receive compensation at
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 679
a rate fixed by the Secretary, but not in excess of $100 per diem,
including traveltime, and while away from his home or regular
place of business, he may be allowed travel expenses, including
per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized
[p. 69]
by law (5 U.S.C. 3109) for persons in the Government service
employed intermittently.
Air Quality Control Regions, Criteria, and Control Techniques
Sec. 107 (a)(l) The Secretary shall, as soon as practicabje,
define for the purposes of this Act, atmospheric areas of the
Nation on the basis of those conditions, including, but not limited
to, climate, meteorology, and topography, which affect the inter-
change and diffusion of pollutants in the atmosphere.
(2) The Secretary, after consultation with appropriate State
and local authorities, shall, from time to time as he deems neces-
sary to protect the public health and welfare, ]or the purpose of
establishing ambient air quality standards pursuant to section
108, and for administrative and other purposes, designate air
quality control regions based on jurisdictional boundaries, urban-
industrial concentrations, and other factors including atmospheric
areas necessary to provide adequate implementation of air quality
standards. The Secretary shall immediately notify the Governor
or Governors of the affected State or States of such designation.
(b) (1) The Secretary shall, after consultation wiih appropriate
advisory committees and Federal departments and agencies, from
time to time, but as soon as practicable, develop and issue to the
States such criteria of air quality as in his judgment may be
requisite for the protection of the public health and welfare:
Provided, That any criteria issued prior to enactment of this sec-
tion shall be reevaluated in accordance ivith the consultation pro-
cedure and other provisions of this section and, if necessary,
modified and reissued. Such issuance shall be announced in the
Federal Register and copies shall be made available to the general
public.
(2) Such criteria shall accurately reflect the latest scientific
knoivledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identi-
fiable effects on health and welfare ivhich may be expected from
the presence of an air pollution agent, or combination of agents
in the ambient air, in varying quantities.
(3) Such criteria shall include those variable factors ivhich of
themselves or in combination with other factors may alter the
-------
680 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
effects on public health and welfare of any subject agent or com-
bination of agents, including, but not limited to, atmospheric con-
ditions, and the types of air pollution agent or agents which, when
present in the atmosphere, may interact with such subject agent
or agents, to produce an adverse effect on public health and wel-
fare.
(c) The Secretary shall, after consultation with appropriate
advisory committees and Federal departments and agencies, issue
to the States and appropriate air pollution control agencies infor-
mation on those recommended pollution control techniques the
application of which is necessary to achieve levels of air quality
set forth in criteria issued pursuant to subsection (b), including
those criteria subject to the proviso in subsection (b) (1), ivhich
information shall include technical data relating to the technology
and costs of emission control. Such recommendations shall include
such data as are available on the latest available technology and
economic feasibility of alternative methods of prevention and con-
trol of air contamination including cost-effectiveness analyses.
Such issuance shall be announced in the Federal Register and
copies shall be made available to the general public.
(d) The Secretary shall, from time to time, revise and reissue
material issued pursuant to subsections (b) and (c) in accordance
with procedures established in such subsections.
[p. 70]
Air Quality Standards and Abatement of Air Pollution
SEC. [105] 108. (a) The pollution of the air in any State or
States which endangers the health or welfare of any persons, shall
be subject to abatement as provided in this section.
(b) Consistent with the policy declaration of this title, munici-
pal, State, and interstate action to abate air pollution shall be
encouraged and shall not be displaced by Federal enforcement
action except as otherwise provided by or pursuant to a court
order under [subsection (g)] subsections (c), (h), or (k).
(c) (1) If, after receiving any air quality criteria and recom-
mended control techniques issued pursuant to section 107, the
Governor of a State, voithin ninety days of such receipt, files a
letter of intent that such State will within one hundred and eighty
days, and from time to time thereafter, adopt, after public hear-
ings, ambient air quality standards applicable to any designated
air quality control region or portions thereof within such State,
and ivithin one hundred and eighty days thereafter, and from
time to time as may be necessary, adopts a plan for the implemen-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 681
tation, maintenance, and enforcement of such standards of air
quality adopted, and if such standards and plan are established
in accordance with the letter of intent and if the Secretary deter-
mines that such State standards are consistent with the air quality
criteria and recommended control techniques issued pursuant to
section 107; that the plan is consistent with the purposes of the
Act insofar as it assures achieving such standards of air quality
within a reasonable time; and that a means of enforcement by
State action, including authority comparable to that in subsection
(k) of this section, is provided, such State standards and plan
shall be the air quality standards applicable to such State. If the
Secretary determines that any revised State standards and plan
are consistent with the purposes of this Act and this subsection,
such standards and plan shall be the air quality standards appli-
cable to such State.
(2) If a State does not (a) file a letter of intent or (b) estab-
lish air quality standards in accordance with paragraph (1) of
this subsection with respect to any air quality control region or
portion thereof and if the Secretary finds it necessary to achieve
the purpose of this Act, or the Governor of any State affected by
air quality standards established pursuant to this subsection peti-
tions for a revision in such standards, the Secretary may after
reasonable notice and a conference of representatives of appro-
priate Federal departments and agencies, interstate agencies,
States, municipalities, and industries involved, prepare regulations
setting forth standards of air quality to be applicable to such air
quality control region or portions thereof. If, within six months
from the date the Secretary publishes such regulations, the State
has not adopted air quality standards found by the Secretary to
be consistent with the purposes of this Act, or a petition for public
hearing has not been filed under paragraph (3) of this subsection,
the Secretary shall promulgate such standards.
(3) If at any time prior to thirty days after standards have
been promulgated under paragraph (2) of this subsection, the
Governor of any State affected by such standards petitions the
Secretary for a hearing, the Secretary shall call a public hearing
for the purpose of receiving testimony from State and local pollu-
tion control agencies and other interested parties affected by the
proposed standards, to be held in or near one or more of the
places where the air quality standards will take effect, before a
hearing board of five or more persons appointed by the Secretary.
Each State which
[p. 71]
-------
682 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
would be affected by such standards shall be given an opportunity
to select a member of the hearing board. The Department of Com-
merce and other affected Federal departments and agencies shaH
each be given an opportunity to select a member of the hearing
board and not less than a majority of the hearing board shall be
persons other than officers or employees of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare. The members of the board who
are not officers or employees of the United States, while partici-
pating in the hearing conducted by such hearing board or other-
wise engaged in the work of such hearing board, shall be entitled
to receive compensation at a rate fixed by the Secretary, but not
exceeding $100 per diem, including traveltime and while away
from their homes or regular places of business they may be allowed
travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as au-
least thirty days prior to the date of such hearing notice of such
hearing shall be published in the Federal Register and given to
parties notified of the Conference required in paragraph (2) of
this subsection. On the basis of the evidence presented at such
hearing, the hearing board shall make findings as to whether the
standards published or promulgated by the Secretary should be
approved or modified and transmit its findings to the Secretary.
If the hearing board approves the standards as published or pro-
mulgated by the Secretary, the standards shall take effect on re-
ceipt by the Secretary of the hearing board's recommendations. If
the hearing board recommends modifications in the standards as
published or promulgated by the Secretary, the Secretary shall
promulgate revised regulations setting forth standards of air
quality in accordance with the hearing board's recommendations
which will become effective immediately upon promulgation.
(4) Whenever, on the basis of surveys, studies, and reports,
the Secretary finds that the ambient air quality of any air quality
control region or portion thereof is below the air quality standards
established under this subsection and he finds that the State has
failed to enforce such air quality standards, such violation of the
standards shall be subject to abatement in accordance with the
provisions of paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (g) of this
section, except that at least one hundred and eighty days before
any abatement action is initiated under either paragraph (1) or
(2) of subsection (g) as authorized by this subsection, the Secre-
tary shall notify the affected State or States, persons contributing
to the alleged violation, and other interested parties of the viola-
tion of such standards. In any suit brought under the provisions
of this subsection the court shall receive in evidence a transcript
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 68;$
of the proceedings of the hearing provided for in this subsection,
together with the recommendations of the hearing board and the
recommendations and standards promulgated by the Secretary,
and such additional evidence, including that relating to the alleged
violation of the standards, as it deems necessary to complete re-
view of the standards and to determination of all other issues
relating to the alleged violation. The court, giving due considera-
tion to the practicability and to the technological and economic
feasibility of complying with such standards, shall have jurisdic-
tion to enter such judgment and orders enforcing such judgment
as the public interest and the equities of the case may require.
(5) In connection with any hearings under this section no wit-
ness or any other person shall be required to divulge trade secrets
or secret processes.
[p. 72]
(6) Nothing in this subsection shall prevent the application of
this section to any case to ivhich subsection (a) of this section
would be othemvise applicable.
[(c)](d) (1) (A) Whenever requested by the Governor of any
State, a State air pollution control agency, or (with the concur-
rence of the Governor and the State air pollution control agency
for the State in which the municipality is situated) the governing
body of any municipality, the Secretary shall, if such request
refers to air pollution which is alleged to endanger the health or
welfare of persons in a State other than that in which the dis-
charge or discharges (causing or contributing to such pollution)
originate, give formal notification thereof to the air pollution con-
trol agency of the municipality where such discharge or discharges
originate, to the air pollution control agency of the State in which
such municipality is located, and to the interstate air pollution
control agency, if any, in whose jurisdictional area such munici-
pality is located, and shall call promptly a conference of such
agency or agencies and of the air pollution control agencies of the
municipalities which may be adversely affected by such pollution,
and the air pollution control agency, if any, of each State, or for
each area, in which any such municipality is located.
(B) Whenever requested by the Governor of any State, a State
air pollution control agency, or (with the concurrence of the
Governor and the State air pollution control agency for the State
in which the municipality is situated) the governing body of any
municipality, the Secretary shall, if such request refers to alleged
air pollution which is endangering the health or welfare of per-
-------
684 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
sons only in the State in which the discharge or discharges (caus-
ing or contributing to such pollution) originate and if a munici-
pality affected by such air pollution, or the municipality in which
such pollution originates, has either made or concurred in such
request, give formal notification thereof to the State air pollution
control agency, to the air pollution control agencies of the munici-
pality where such discharge or discharges originate, and of the
municipality or municipalities alleged to be adversely affected
thereby, and to any interstate air pollution control agency, whose
jurisdictional area includes any such municipality and shall
promptly call a conference of such agency or agencies unless, in
the judgment of the Secretary, the effect of such pollution is not
of such significance as to warrant exercise of Federal jurisdiction
under this section.
(C) The Secretary may, after consultation with State officials
of all affected States, also call such a conference whenever, on
the basis of reports, surveys, or studies, he has reason to believe
that any pollution referred to in subsection (a) is occurring and is
endangering the health and welfare of persons in a State other
than that in which the discharge or discharges originate. The
Secretary shall invite the cooperation of any municipal, State, or
interstate air pollution control agencies having jurisdiction in the
affected area on any surveys or studies forming the basis of con-
ference action.
(D) Whenever the Secretary, upon receipt of reports, surveys,
or studies from any duly constituted international agency, has
reason to believe that any pollution referred to in subsection (a)
which endangers the health or welfare of persons in a foreign
country is occurring, or whenever the Secretary of State requests
him to do so with respect to such pollution which the Secretary
of State alleges is of such a nature, the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare
[p. 73]
shall give formal notification thereof to the air pollution control
agency of the municipality where such discharge or discharges
originate, to the air pollution control agency of the State in which
such municipality is located, and to the interstate air pollution
control agency, if any, in the jurisdictional area of which such
municipality is located, and shall call promptly a conference of
such agency or agencies. The Secretary shall invite the foreign
country which may be adversely affected by the pollution to attend
and participate in the conference, and the representative of such
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 685
country shall, for the purpose of the conference and any further
proceeding resulting from such conference, have all the rights
of a State air pollution control agency. This subparagraph shall
apply only to a foreign country which the Secretary determines
has given the United States essentially the same rights with re-
spect to the prevention or control of air pollution occurring in
that country as is given that country by this subparagraph.
(2) The agencies called to attend such conference may bring
such persons as they desire to the conference. [Not less than
three weeks' prior notice of the conference date shall be given to
such agencies.] The Secretary shall deliver to such agencies and
make available to other interested parties, at least thirty days
prior to any such conference, a Federal report ^vith respect to the
matters before the conference, including data and conclusions or
findings (if any); and shall give at least thirty days' prior notice
of the conference date to any such agency, and to the public by
publication on at least three different days in a newspaper or
newspapers of general circulation in the area. The chairman of
the conference shall give interested parties an opportunity to
present their views to the conference with respect to such Federal
report, conclusions or findings (if any), and other pertinent infor-
mation. The Secretary shall provide that a transcript be main-
tained of the proceedings of the conference and that a copy of
such transcript be made available on request of any participant
in the conference at the expense of such participant.
(3) Following this conference, the Secretary shall prepare and
forward to all air pollution control agencies attending the con-
ference a summary of conference discussions including (A) oc-
currence of air pollution subject to abatement under this Act; (B)
adequacy of measures taken toward abatement of the pollution;
and (C) nature of delays, if any, being encountered in abating
the pollution.
[(d)](e) If the Secretary believes, upon the conclusion of the
conference or thereafter, that effective progress toward abatement
of such pollution is not being made and that the health or welfare
of any persons is being endangered, he shall recommend to the
appropriate State, interstate, or municipal air pollution control
agency (or to all such agencies) that the necessary remedial ac-
tion be taken. The Secretary shall allow at least six months from
the date he makes such recommendations for the taking of such
recommended action.
[(e)](/) (1) If, at the conclusion of the period so allowed, such
remedial action or other action which in the judgment of the
-------
686 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Secretary is reasonably calculated to secure abatement of such
pollution has not been taken, the Secretary shall call a public
hearing, to be held in or near one or more of the places where the
discharge or discharges causing or contributing to such pollution
originated, before a hearing board of five or more persons ap-
pointed by the Secretary. Each State in which any discharge
causing or contributing to such pollution originates and each
State claiming to adversely affected by such
[p. 74]
pollution shall be given an opportunity to select one member of
such hearing board and each Federal department, agency, or in-
strumentality having a substantial interest in the subject matter
as determined by the Secretary shall be given an opportunity to
select one member of such hearing board, and one member shall
be a representative of the appropriate interstate air pollution
agency if one exists, and not less than a majority of such hearing
board shall be persons other than officers of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare. At least three weeks' prior notice
of such hearing shall be given to the State, interstate, and munici-
pal air pollution control agencies called to attend such hearing and
to the alleged polluter or polluters.
(2) On the basis of evidence presented at such hearing, the
hearing board shall make findings as to whether pollution referred
to in subsection (a) is occurring and whether effective progress
toward abatement thereof is being made. If the hearing board
finds such pollution is occurring and effective progress toward
abatement thereof is not being made it shall make recommenda-
tions to the Secretary concerning the measures, if any, which it
finds to be reasonable and suitable to secure abatement of such
pollution.
(3) The Secretary shall send such findings and recommenda-
tions to the person or persons discharging any matter causing
or contributing to such pollution; to air pollution control agencies
of the State or States and of the municipality or municipalities
where such discharge or discharges originate; and to any inter-
state air pollution control agency whose jurisdictional area
includes any such municipality, together with a notice specifying
a reasonable time (not less than six months) to secure abatement
of such pollution.
C(f)](flf) If action reasonably calculated to secure abatement
of the pollution within the time specified in the notice following
the public hearing is not taken, the Secretary—
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 687
(1) in the case of pollution of air which is endangering the
health or welfare of persons (A) in a State other than that
in which the discharge or discharges (causing or contributing
to such pollution) originate, or (B) in a foreign country
which has participated in a conference called under subpara-
graph (D) of subsection [(c)](d) of this section and in all
proceedings under this section resulting from such confer-
ence, may request the Attorney General to bring a suit on
behalf of the United States in appropriate United States
district court to secure abatement of pollution,
(2) in the case of pollution of air which is endangering
the health or welfare of persons only in the State in which
the discharge or discharges (causing or contributing to such
pollution) originate, at the request of the Governor of such
State, shall provide such technical and other assistance as in
his judgment is necessary to assist the State in judicial pro-
ceedings to secure abatement of the pollution under State or
local law or, at the request of the Governor of such State,
shall request the Attorney General to bring suit on behalf
of the United States in appropriate United States district
court to secure abatement of the pollution.
[(g)] W The court shall receive in evidence in any suit brought
in a United States court under subsection [(f)l(sO of this sec-
tion a transcript of the proceedings before the board and a copy of
the board's recommendations and shall receive such further evi-
dence as the court
[p. 75]
in its discretion deems proper. The court, giving due considera-
tion to the practicability of complying with such standards as may
be applicable and to the physical and economic feasibility of secur-
ing abatement of any pollution proved, shall have jurisdiction to
enter such judgment, and orders enforcing such judgment, as the
public interest and the equities of the case may require.
[(h)](z) Members of any hearing board appointed pursuant to
subsection [(e)](/) who are not regular full-time officers or
employees of the United States shall, while participating in the
hearing conducted by such board or otherwise engaged on the
work of such board, be entitled to receive compensation at a rate
fixed by the Secretary, but not exceeding $50 per diem, including
traveltime, and while away from their homes or regular places
of business they may be allowed travel expenses, including per
-------
688 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 73b-2)
for persons in the Government service employed intermittently.
C(i)]0') (1) In connection with any conference called under
this section, the Secretary is authorized to require any person
whose activities result in the emission of air pollutants causing
or contributing to air pollution to file with him, in such form as
he may prescribe, a report, based on existing data, furnishing to
the Secretary such information as may reasonably be required
as to the character, kind, and quantity of pollutants discharged
and the use of devices or other means to prevent or reduce the
emission of pollutants by the person filing such a report. After a
conference has been held with respect to any such pollution the
Secretary shall require such reports from the person whose activi-
ties result in such pollution only to the extent recommended by
such conference. Such report shall be made under oath or other-
wise, as the Secretary may prescribe, and shall be filed with the
Secretary within such reasonable period as the Secretary may
prescribe, unless additional time be granted by the Secretary.
No person shall be required in such report to divulge trade secrets
or secret processes and all information reported shall be con-
sidered confidential for the purposes of section 1905 of title 18
of the United States Code.
(2) If any person required to file any report under this sub-
section shall fail to do so within the time fixed by the Secretary
for filing the same, and such failure shall continue for thirty days
after notice of such default, such person shall forfeit to the United
States the sum of $100 for each and every day of the continuance
of such failure, which forfeiture shall be payable into the Treas-
ury of the United States, and shall be recoverable in a civil suit
in the name of the United States brought in the district where
such person has his principal office or in any district in which he
does business: Provided, That the Secretary may upon application
therefor remit or mitigate any forfeiture provided for under this
subsection and he shall have authority to determine the facts upon
all such applications.
(3) It shall be the duty of the various United States attorneys,
under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States,
to prosecute for the recovery of such forfeitures.
(k) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the
Secretary, upon receipt of evidence that a particular pollution
source or combination of sources (including moving sources) is
presenting an imminent and substantial endangerment to the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 689
health of persons, and finding that appropriate State or local
authorities have not acted to abate such sources, may
[p. 76]
request the Attorney General to being suit on behalf of the United
States in the appropriate United States district court to immedi-
ately enjoin any contributor to the alleged pollution to stop the
emission of contaminants causing such pollution or to take such
other action as may be necessary.
Standards to Achieve Higher Level of Air Quality
Sec. 109. Nothing in this title shall prevent a State, political
subdivision, intermunicipal or interstate agency from adopting
standards and plans to implement an air quality program which
will achieve a higher level of ambient air quality than approved
by the Secretary.
[AUTOMOTIVE VEHICLE AND FUEL POLLUTION
[SEC. 106. (a) The Secretary shall encourage the continued
efforts on the part of the automotive and fuel industries to develop
devices and fuels to prevent pollutants from being discharged from
the exhaust of automotive vehicles, and to this end shall maintain
liaison with automotive vehicle, exhaust control device, and fuel
manufacturers. For this purpose, he shall appoint a technical
committee, whose membership shall consist of an equal number
of representatives of the Department and of automotive vehicle,
exhaust control device, and fuel manufacturers. The committee
shall meet from time to time at the call of the Secretary to evalu-
ate progress in the development of such devices and fuels and to
develop and recommend research programs which could lead to
the development of such devices and fuels.
[(b) One year after enactment of this section, and semiannu-
ally thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Congress on meas-
ures taken toward the resolution of the vehicle exhaust pollution
problem and efforts to improve fuels including (A) occurrence of
pollution as a result of discharge of pollutants from automotive
exhaust; (B) progress of research into development of devices and
fuels to reduce pollution from exhaust of automotive vehicles;
(C) criteria on degree of pollutant matter discharged from auto-
motive exhausts; (D) efforts to improve fuels so as to reduce
emission of exhaust pollutants; and (E) his recommendations for
additional legislation, if necessary, to regulate the discharge of
pollutants from automotive exhausts.]
-------
690 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
President's Air Quality Advisory Board and Advisory
Committees
Sec. 110. (a)(l) There is hereby established in the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare an Air Quality Advisory
Board, composed of the Secretary or his designee, who shall be
Chairman, and fifteen members appointed by the President, none
of whom shall be Federal officers or employees. The appointed
members, having due regard for the purposes of this Act, shall
be selected from among representatives of various State, inter-
state, and local governmental agencies, of public or private inter-
ests contributing to, affected by, or concerned with air pollution,
and of other public and private agencies, organizations, or groups
demonstrating an active interest in the field of air pollution pre-
vention and control, as well as other individuals who are expert
in this field.
(2) Each member appointed by the President shall hold office
for a term of three years, except that (A) any member appointed
to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for
which his predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the
remainder of such term, and
[p. 77]
(B) the terms of office of the members first taking office pursuant
to this subsection shall expire as follows: five at the end of one
year after the date of appointment, five at the end of two years
after such date, and five at the end of three years after such date,
as designated by the President at the time of appointment, and
(C) the term of any member under the preceding provisions shall
be extended until the date on which his successor's appointment
is effective. None of the members shall be eligible for reappoint-
ment within one year after the end of his preceding term, unless
such term was for less than three years.
(b) The Board shall advise and consult with the Secretary on
matters of policy relating to the activities and functions of the
Secretary under this Act and make such recommendations as it
deems necessary to the President.
(c) Such clerical and technical assistance as may be necessary
to discharge the duties of the Board and such other advisory com-
mittees as hereinafter authorized shall be provided from the per-
sonnel of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
(d) In order to obtain assistance in the development and imple-
mentation of the purposes of this Act including air quality cri-
teria, recommended control techniques, standards, research and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 691
development, and to encourage the continued efforts on the part
of industry to improve air quality and to develop economically
feasible methods for the control and abatement of air pollution,
the Secretary shall from time to time establish advisory commit-
tees. Committee members shall include, but not be limited to,
persons who are knowledgeable concerning air quality from the
standpoint of health, welfare, economics, or technology.
(e) The members of the Board and other advisory committees
appointed pursuant to this Act who are not officers or employees
of the United States, while attending conferences or meetings of
the Board or while otherwise serving at the request of the Secre-
tary, shall be entitled to receive compensation at a rate to be
fixed by the Secretary, but not exceeding $100 per diem including
traveltime, and while away from their homes or regular places
of business they may be allowed travel expenses, including per
diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title
5 of the United States Code for persons in the Government service
employed intermittently.
COOPERATION BY FEDERAL AGENCIES TO CONTROL AIR POLLUTION
FROM FEDERAL FACILITIES
SEC. \107.~\ 111. (a) It is hereby declared to be the intent of
Congress that any Federal department or agency having jurisdic-
tion over any building, installation, or other property shall, to
the extent practicable and consistent with the interests of the
United States and within any available appropriations, cooperate
with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and with
any air pollution control agency in preventing and controlling the
pollution of the air in any area insofar as the discharge of any
matter from or by such building, installation, or other property
may cause or contribute to pollution of the air in such area.
(b) In order to control air pollution which may endanger the
health or welfare of any persons, the Secretary may establish
classes of potential pollution sources for which any Federal de-
partment or agency having jurisdiction over any building, instal-
lation, or other property shall, before discharging any matter into
the air of the United States, obtain a permit from the Secretary
for such discharge,
[p. 78]
such permits to be issued for a specified period of time to be deter-
mined by the Secretary and subject to revocation if the Secretary
finds pollution is endangering the health and welfare of any per-
-------
692 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
sons. In connection with the issuance of specifications, and other
information as he deems relevant thereto and under such condi-
tions as he may prescribe. The Secretary shall report each January
to the Congress the status of such permits and compliance there-
with.
TITLE II—[CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM MOTOR
VEHICLES] NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS ACT
SHORT TITLE
SEC. 201. This title may be cited as the ["Motor Vehicle Air
Pollution Control Act"] "National Emission Standards Act."
ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARDS
SEC. 202. (a) The Secretary shall by regulation, giving appro-
priate consideration to technological feasibility and economic costs,
prescribe as soon as practicable standards, applicable to the emis-
sion of any kind of substance, from any class or classes of new
motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judg-
ment cause or contribute to, or are likely to cause or to contribute
to, air pollution which endangers the health or welfare of any per-
sons, and such standards shall apply to such vehicles or engines
whether they are designed as complete systems or incorporate
other devices to prevent or control such pollution.
(b) Any regulations initially prescribed under this section, and
amendments thereto, with respect to any class of new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines shall become effective on
the effective date specified in the order promulgating such regu-
lations which date shall be determined by the Secretary after
consideration of the period reasonably necessary for industry
compliance.
PROHIBITED ACTS
SEC. 203. (a) The following acts and the causing thereof are
prohibited—
(1) in the case of a manufacturer of new motor vehicles or
new motor vehicle engines for distribution in commerce, the
manufacture for sale, the sale, or the offering for sale, or the
introduction or delivery for introduction into commerce, or
the importation into the United States for sale or resale, of
any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine, manu-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 693
factured after the effective date of regulations under this
title which are applicable to such vehicle or engine unless it
is in conformity with regulations prescribed under section
202 (except as provided in subsection (b));
(2) for any person to fail or refuse to permit access to or
copying of records or fail to make reports or provide infor-
mation, required under section 207; or
(3) for any person to remove or render inoperative any
device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle
or motor
[p. 79]
vehicle engine in compliance with regulations under this title
prior to its sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser.
(b) (1) The Secretary may exempt any new motor vehicle or
new motor vehicle engine, or class thereof, from subsection (a),
upon such terms and conditions as he may find necessary to pro-
tect the public health or welfare, for the purpose of research,
investigations, studies, demonstrations, or training, or for reasons
of national security.
(2) A new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine offered
for importation by a manufacturer in violation of subsection (a)
shall be refused admission into the United States, but the Secre-
tary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare may, by joint regulation, provide for deferring final de-
termination as to admission and authorizing the delivery of such
a motor vehicle or engine offered for import to the owner or
consignee thereof upon such terms and conditions (including the
furnishing of a bond) as may appear to them appropriate to
insure that any such motor vehicle or engine will be brought into
conformity with the standards, requirements, and limitations
applicable to it under this title. The Secretary of the Treasury
shall, if a motor vehicle or engine is finally refused admission
under this paragraph, cause disposition thereof in accordance
with .the customs laws unless it is exported, under regulations
prescribed by such Secretary, within ninety days of the date of
notice of such refusal or such additional time as may be per-
mitted pursuant to such regulations, except that disposition in
accordance with the customs laws may not be made in such man-
ner as may result, directly or indirectly, in the sale, to the ultimate
consumer, of a new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine
that fails to comply with applicable standards of the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare under this title.
-------
694 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
(3) A new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine intended
solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the outside of the
container and on the vehicle or engine itself, shall not be subject
to the provisions of subsection (a).
INJUNCTION PROCEEDINGS
SEC. 204. (a) The district courts of the United States shall have
jurisdiction to restrain violations of paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of
section 203(a).
(b) Actions to restrain such violations shall be brought by and
in the name of the United States. In any such action, subpenas
for witnesses who are required to attend a district court in any
district may run into any other district.
PENALTIES
SEC. 205. Any person who violates paragraph (1), (2), or (3)
of section 203 (a) shall be subject to a fine of not more than
$1,000. Such violation with respect to section 203 (a) (1) and
203 (a) (3) shall constitute a separate offense with respect to each
new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine.
CERTIFICATION
SEC. 206. (a) Upon application of the manufacturer, the Secre-
tary shall test, or require to be tested, in such manner as he
deems appro-
[p. 80]
priate, any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine sub-
mitted by such manufacturer to determine whether such vehicle
or engine conforms with the regulations prescribed under section
202 of this title. If such vehicle or engine conforms to such regu-
lations the Secretary shall issue a certificate of conformity, upon
such terms, and for such period not less than one year, as he may
prescribe.
(b) Any new motor vehicle or any motor vehicle engine sold
by such manufacturer which is in all material respects sub-
stantially the same construction as the test vehicle or engine for
which a certificate has been issued under subsection (a), shall for
the purposes of this Act be deemed to be in conformity with the
regulations issued under section 202 of this title.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 695
RECORDS AND REPORTS
SEC. 207. (a) Every manufacturer shall establish and maintain
such records, make such reports, and provide such information as
the Secretary may reasonably require to enable him to determine
whether such manufacturer has acted or is acting in compliance
with this title and regulations thereunder and shall, upon request
of an officer or employee duly designated by the Secretary, permit
such officer or employee at reasonable times to have access to and
copy such records.
(b) All information reported or otherwise obtained by the
Secretary or his representative pursuant to subsection (a), which
information contains or relates to a trade secret or other matter
referred to in section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code,
shall be considered confidential for the purpose of such section
1905, except that such information may be disclosed to other offi-
cers or employees concerned with carrying out this Act or when
relevant in any proceeding under this Act. Nothing in this section
shall authorize the withholding of information by the Secretary
or any officer or employee under his control, from the duly
authorized committees of the Congress.
STATE STANDARDS
Sec. 208. (a) No State or any political subdivision thereof shall
adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control
of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle en-
gines subject to this title. No State shall require certification,
inspection, or any other approval relating to the control of emis-
sions from any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine
as condition precedent to the initial retail sale, titling (if any),
or registration of such motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or
equipment.
(b) The Secretary shall, after notice and opportunity for pub-
lic hearing, waive application of this section to any State which
has adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards)
for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor
vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966, unless he finds that such
State does not require standards more stringent than applicable
Federal standards to meet compelling and extraordinary condi-
tions or that such State standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures are not consistent with section 202 (a) of this title.
(c) Nothing in this title shall preclude or deny to any State of
political subdivision thereof the right otherwise to control, regu-
-------
696 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
late, or restrict the use, operation, or movement of registered or
licensed motor vehicles.
[p. 81]
Federal Assistance in Developing Vehicle Inspection
Programs
Sec. 209. The Secretary is authorized to make grants to appro-
priate State air pollution control agencies in an amount up to two-
thirds of the cost of developing meaningful uniform motor vehicle
emission device inspection and emission testing programs except
that (1) no grant shall be made for any part of any State vehicle
inspection program ivhich does not directly relate to the cost of the
air pollution control aspects of such a program; and (2) no such
grant shall be made unless the Secretary of Transportation has
certified to the Secretary that such program is consistent with any
highway safety program developed pursuant to section 402 of title
23 of the United States Code.
REGISTRATION OF FUEL ADDITIVES
Sec. 210. (a) The Secretary may by regulation designate any
fuel or fuels (including fuels used for purposes other than motor
vehicles), and after such date or dates as may be prescribed by
him, no manufacturer or processor of any such fuel may deliver
any fuel for introduction into interstate commerce or to another
person who, it can reasonably be expected, will deliver such fuel
for such introduction unless such fuel has been registered with
the Secretary in accordance with this section.
(b) For the purposes of this section the Secretary shall require
(1) the manufacturer of such fuel to notify him as to the com-
mercial identifying name and manufacturer of any additive con-
tained in such fuel; the range of concentration of such additive
or additives in the fuel; and the purpose of the use of such addi-
tive; (2) the manufacturer of any such additive to notify him as
to the chemical structure and composition of such additive or
additives as indicated by compliance with clause (1) above, the
recommended range of concentration of such additive, if any, and
the recommended purpose in the use of such additive. Upon com-
pliance with clauses (1) and (2), including assurances that any
change in the above information will be provided to the Secretary,
the Secretary shall register such fuel.
(c) All information reported or otherwise obtained by the Sec-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 697
retary or his representative pursuant to subsection (b), which
information contains or relates to a trade secret or other matter
referred to in section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code,
shall be considered confidential for the purpose of such section
1905, except that such information may be disclosed to other
officers or employees concerned with carrying out this Act or lohen
relevant in any proceeding under this Act. Nothing in this section
shall authorize the ivithholding of information by the Secretary
or any officer or employee under his control, from the duly author-
ized committees of the Congress.
(d) Any person who violates subsection (a) shall forfeit and
pay to the United States a civil penalty of $1,000 for each and
every day of the continuance of such violation, lohich shall accrue
to the United States and be recovered in a civil suit in the name
of the United States, brought in the district where such person
has his principal office or in any district in which he does business.
The Secretary may, upon application therefor, remit or mitigate
any forfeiture provided for in this subsection, and he shall have
authority to determine the facts upon all such applications.
(e) It shall be the duty of the various United States attorneys,
under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States,
to prosecute for the recovery of such forfeitures.
[p. 82]
National Emissions Standards Study
Sec. 211. The Secretary shall submit to the Congress, no later
than two years after the effective date of this section, a compre-
hensive report on the need for and effect of national emission
standards for stationary sources. Such report shall include: (A)
information regarding identifiable health and welfare effects from
single emission sources; (B) examples of specific plants, their
location, and the contaminant or contaminants which, due to the
amount or nature of emissions from such facilities, constitute a
danger to public health or welfare; (C) an up-to-date list of those
industries and the contaminant or contaminants which, in his
opinion, should be subject to such national standards; (D) the
relationship of such national emission standards to ambient air
quality, including a comparison of situations wherein several
plants emit the same contaminants in an air region with those in
which only one such plant exists; (E) an analysis of the cost of
applying such standards, and (F) such other information as may
be appropriate.
526-702 O - 73 -- 9
-------
698 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
DEFINITIONS FOR TITLE II
SEC. [208.] 212. As used in this title—
(1) The term "manufacturer" as used in sections 203, 206, 207,
and 208 means any person engaged in the manufacturing or as-
sembling of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, or
importing such vehicles or engines for resale, or who acts for and
is under the control of any such person in connection with the
distribution of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines,
but shall not include any dealer with respect to new motor vehicles
or new motor vehicle engines received by him in commerce.
(2) The term "motor vehicle" means any self-propelled vehicle
designed for transporting persons or property on a street or high-
way.
(3) The term "new motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle the
equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred to
an ultimate purchaser; and the term "new motor vehicle engine"
means an engine in a new motor vehicle or a motor vehicle engine
the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred to
the ultimate purchaser.
(4) The term "dealer" means any person who is engaged in the
sale or the distribution of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle
engines to the ultimate purchaser.
(5) The term "ultimate purchaser" means, with respect to any
new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine, the first person
who in good faith purchases such new motor vehicle or new engine
for purposes other than resale.
(6) The term "commerce" means (A) commerce between any
place in any State and any place outside thereof; and (B) com-
merce wholly within the District of Columbia.
TITLE III—GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION
SEC. 301. (a) The Secretary is authorized to prescribe such
regulations as are necessary to carry out his functions under this
Act. The Secretary may delegate to any officer or employee of the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare such of his powers
and
[p. 83]
duties under this Act, except the making of regulations, as he
may deem necessary or expedient.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 699
(b) Upon the request of an air pollution control agency, per-
sonnel of the Public Health Service may be detailed to such agency
for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act. The
provisions of section 214 (d) of the Public Health Service Act shall
be applicable with respect to any personnel so detailed to the
same extent as if such personnel had been detailed under section
214 (b) of that Act.
(c) Payments under grants made under this Act may be made
in installments, and in advance or by way of reimbursement, as
may be determined by the Secretary.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 302. When used in this Act—
(a) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare.
(b) The term "air pollution control agency" means any of the
following:
(1) A single State agency designated by the Governor of
that State as the official State air pollution control agency
for purposes of this Act;
(2) An agency established by two or more States and hav-
ing substantial powers or duties pertaining to the prevention
and control of air pollution;
(3) A city, county, or other local government health au-
thority, or, in the case of any city, county, or other local
government in which there is an agency other than the health
authority charged with responsibility for enforcing ordi-
nances or laws relating to the prevention and control of air
pollution, such other agency; or
(4) An agency of two or more municipalities located in
the same State or in different States and having substantial
powers or duties pertaining to the prevention and control of
air pollution.
(c) The term "regional air pollution control agency or planning
commission" means an agency of two or more municipalities lo-
cated in the same State or in different States and having the
capability of carrying out the planning functions authorized by
this Act,
[(c)](d) The term "interstate air pollution control agency"
means—
(1) an air pollution control agency established by two or
more States, or
-------
700 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
(2) an air pollution control agency of two or more munici-
palities located in different States.
[(d)](e) The term "State" means a State, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
Guam, and American Samoa.
C(e)](/) The term "person" includes an individual, corpora-
tion, partnership, association, State, municipality, and political
subdivision of a State.
[(f )](#) The term "municipality" means a city, town, borough,
county, parish, district, or other public body created by or pursu-
ant to State law.
[(g)]W All language referring to adverse effects on welfare
shall include but not be limited to injury to agricultural crops and
livestock,
[p. 84]
damage to and deterioration of property, and hazards to trans-
portation.
OTHER AUTHORITY NOT AFFECTED
SEC. 303. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this
section, this Act shall not be construed as superseding or limiting
the authorities and responsibilities, under any other provision of
law, of the Secretary or any other Federal officer, department, or
agency.
(b) No appropriation shall be authorized or made under section
301, 311, or 314 (c) of the Public Health Service Act for any fiscal
year after the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, for any purpose
for which appropriations may be made under authority of this
Act.
RECORDS AND AUDIT
SEC. 304. (a) Each recipient of assistance under this Act shall
keep such records as the Secretary shall prescribe, including
records which fully disclose the amount and disposition by such
recipient of the proceeds of such assistance, the total cost of the
project or undertaking in connection with which such assistance
is given or used, and the amount of that portion of the cost of the
project or undertaking supplied by other sources, and such other
records as will facilitate an effective audit.
(b) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the
Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 701
authorized representatives, shall have access for the purpose of
audit and examinations to any books, documents, papers, and
records of the recipients that are pertinent to the grants received
under this Act.
Comprehensive Economic Cost Studies
Sec. 305. (a) In order to provide the basis for evaluating pro-
grams authorized by this Act and the development of new pro-
grams and to furnish the Congress with the information necessary
for authorization of appropriations by fiscal years beginning after
June 30,1969, the Secretary, in cooperation with State, interstate,
and local air pollution control agencies, shall make a detailed esti-
mate of the cost of carrying out the provisions of this Act; a
comprehensive study of the cost of program implementation by
affected units of government; and a comprehensive study of the
economic impact of air quality standards on the Nation's indus-
tries, communities, and other contributing sources of pollution,
including an analysis of the national requirements for and the
cost of controlling emissions to attain such standards of air quality
as may be established pursuant to this Act or applicable State law.
The Secretary shall submit such detailed estimate and the results
of such comprehensive study of cost for the five-year period be-
ginning July 1, 1969, and the results of such other studies, to the
Congress not later than January 10, 1969, and shall submit a
reevaluation of such estimate and studies annually thereafter.
(b) The Secretary shall also make a complete investigation and
study to determine (1) the need for additional trained State and
local personnel to carry out programs assisted pursuant to this
Act and other programs for the same purpose as this Act; (2)
means of using existing Federal training programs to train such
personnel; and (3) the need for additional trained personnel to
develop, operate, and maintain those pollution control facilities
designed and installed to implement air quality standards.
[p. 85]
He shall report the results of such investigation and study to the
President and the Congress not later than July 1,1969.
Additional Reports to Congress
Sec. 306. Not later than six months after the effective date of
this section and not later than January 10 of each calendar year
beginning after such date, the Secretary shall report to the Con-
-------
702 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
gress on measures taken toward implementing the purpose and
intent of this Act including, but not limited to, (1) the progress
and problems associated with control of automotive exhaust emis-
sions and the research efforts related thereto; (2) the develop-
ment of air quality criteria and recommended emission control
requirements; (3) the status of enforcement actions taken pursu-
ant to this Act; (4) the status of State ambient air standards
setting, including such plans for implementation and enforcement
as have been developed; (5) the extent of development and ex-
pansion of air pollution monitoring systems; (6) progress and
problems related to development of new and improved control tech-
niques: (7) the development of quantitative and qualitative in-
strumentation to monitor emissions and air quality; (8) standards
set or under consideration pursuant to title II of this Act; (9)
the status of State, interstate, and local pollution control programs
established pursuant to and assisted by this Act; and (10) the
reports and recommendations made by the President's Air Quality
Advisory Board.
SEPARABILITY
SEC. [305] 307. If any provision of this Act, or the application
of any provision of this Act to any person or circumstance, is
held invalid, the application of such provision to other persons or
circumstances, and the remainder of this Act, shall not be affected
thereby.
APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. [306] 308. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this Act, [$46,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1967, $66,000,000] other than sections 103(d) and 104, $75,-
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, [and $74,000,-
000] $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, [1969.]
1969, and $150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970.
SHORT TITLE
SEC. [307.] 309. This Act may be cited as the "Clean Air Act."
[p. 86]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 703
Uh(2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 728, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Subject: Page
Principal purposes of the bill 1
Other provisions of the bill 1
Appropriation authorizations 3
Need for legislation 3
Major provisions of the bill as reported 9
Implementation of the principal provisions 9
Air quality control regions, criteria, and control tetchniques 13
Atmospheric areas __. 14
Air quality control regions 14
Air quality criteria 15
Recommended control techniques 16
Air quality standards 17
Imminent endangerment 19
Motor vehicle emissions 20
Waiver of preemption 21
Fuel additives 23
Cooperative activities and uniform laws 23
Research, investigations, training, and other activities 24
Interstate air quality agencies or commissions 25
Grants for support of air pollution planning and control programs 26
Abatement 27
President's Air Quality Advisory Board and advisory committees 28
National Emission Standards Study and Aircraft emissions Study 29
Comprehensive economic cost studies 29
Additional reports to Congress 29
Section-by-section analysis of S. 780, as reported 30
Agency reports 38
Changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported 51
Provisions of existing law cross-referred to in the reported bill 75
Additional views 96
-------
704 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
AIR QUALITY ACT OF 1967
OCTOBER 3, 1967.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, submitted the following
REPORT
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 780]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (S. 780) to amend the Clean Air Act to
authorize planning grants to air pollution control agencies; expand
research provisions relating to fuels and vehicles; provide for
interstate air pollution control agencies or commissions; authorize
the establishment of air quality standards, and for other purposes,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment strikes out all after the enacting clause and
inserts a new text, revising the Clean Air Act, which is set forth
in the reported bill in italic type.
PRINCIPAL PURPOSES OF THE BILL
The bill is intended primarily to pave the way for control of air
pollution problems on a regional basis in accordance with air
quality standards and enforcement plans developed by the States.
State standards and enforcement plans would have to be consist-
ent with air quality criteria and control technology data published
by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. The Secre-
tary would be empowered to initiate action to insure setting and
enforcement of standards if a State failed to take reasonable
action to achieve compliance.
In general, the bill follows the pattern of the bill as passed by
the Senate, with modifications discussed hereafter.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 705
OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE BILL
The bill would also—
(1) Retain the existing authority for the Secretary to take
action to abate interstate and intrastate air pollution;
[p. 1]
(2) Retain the existing authority for the Secretary to pro-
mulgate national standards for the control of air pollution
from new motor vehicles and provide new authority for
promulgation of more stringent standards applicable to areas
where special problems exist;
(3) Retain the existing authority for grants to air pollu-
tion control agencies for the development, establishment, im-
provement, or maintenance of control programs and provide
new authority for grants to such agencies for the purpose of
planning control programs;
(4) Revise downward from 121/4 percent to 10 percent of
total grant funds the amount that may be awarded to control
agencies in any single State;
(5) Retain the existing authority for air pollution research
and training activities;
(6) Authorize financial support of air quality planning
programs set up by Governors to recommend air quality
standards and implementation plans for interstate air quality
control regions designated by the Secretary;
(7) Authorize the Secretary, when he deems it necessary,
to establish air quality planning commissions to recommend
air quality standards for designated air quality control re-
gions;
(8) Require reevaluation of air quality criteria issued prior
to enactment of the bill and, if necessary, revision and reissu-
ance of such criteria;
(9) Preserve the rights of States, political subdivisions,
and intermunicipal or interstate agencies to adopt and imple-
ment programs which will achieve a higher level of air
quality than approved by the Secretary;
(10) Provide for the establishment of a 15-member Air
Quality Advisory Board to consult with the Secretary and
make recommendations to the President;
(11) Provide for the establishment of advisory committees
to assist the Secretary in implementing the provisions of the
legislation, including those pertaining to the development of
air quality criteria and the publication of information on
recommended control techniques;
-------
706 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
(12) Retain the existing authority for prevention and con-
trol of air pollution at Federal facilities;
(13) Provide for grants to State air pollution control agen-
cies to assist them in developing programs for the inspection
of motor vehicle pollution control systems installed in com-
pliance with standards promulgated by the Secretary;
(14) Provide for registration of fuel additives;
(15) Provide for a study of the need for and effect of
national emission standards for stationary sources of air
pollution and a report to the Congress within 2. years;
(16) Provide for a study of the feasibility and practica-
bility of controlling emissions from jet and piston aircraft
engines;
(17) Provide for comprehensive economic studies of the
cost of implementing the legislation;
(18) Provide for a study of manpower needs and training
programs in the field of air pollution control; and
[p. 2]
(19) Provide for an initial report to the Congress on im-
plementation of the legislation not later than 6 months after
enactment and annual reports thereafter.
APPROPRIATION AUTHORIZATIONS
The committee has authorized a total of $362.3 million of new
obligational authority over a 3-year period. This total includes
$33 million additional for fiscal 1968, $145 million total for fiscal
1969, and $184.3 million total for fiscal 1970.
[In thousands of dollars]
Grants:
Research
Survey and demonstration
Direct operations:
Training _
Total
1968*
amendment 1969
9,200
500
2 900
28,500
2,000
31,400 82,981
1,500 15 419
1 600
.... .. 100 1,900
33,000 145 000
1970
11,000
1,000
3,000
43,000
2,500
101,725
17,875
1,900
2,300
184 300
"Current authorizations total $66,000,000 for fiscal 1966. Amounts shown for 1966 are in addition to the $66,000,000
already authorized.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 707
NEED FOR LEGISLATION
There can be no doubt that air pollution is a threat to the health
and well-being of the American people. Air pollution in the United
States is responsible, wholly or in substantial part, for some deaths
and for a great deal of unnecessary disability and discomfort.
Moreover, this problem, which is already serious, is worsening in
direct proportion to the Nation's economic and urban population
growth and its continuing technological progress.
Of paramount importance are the dangers to public health. In
his testimony before the Committee, the Surgeon General ex-
plained that there are four principal types of evidence associating
air pollution with injury to human health: (1) The direct asso-
ciation between air pollution and excess mortality during periods
of unusually severe air pollution; (2) epidemiological evidence
that shows direct correspondence between the incidence of disease
and the levels of air pollution experienced by large population
groups over substantial periods of time; (3) clinical evidence
derived from studies of human individuals; and (4) laboratory
evidence based upon animal studies.
Each of these four has produced data which, even when con-
sidered alone, present impressive evidence of damage to health
resulting from air pollution. Taken together, these data add up
to a disturbing and convincing portrait of a major health menace.
Though the data have come from many different studies con-
ducted under many different conditions, they are mutually rein-
forcing to a remarkable degree. No conceivable chain of coinci-
dence could have produced such strikingly parallel results. The
cumulative indictment is overwhelming.
[p-3]
The first class of evidence comes from studies of major episodes
of unusually severe air pollution during relatively short time
periods. The most widely known of these episodes occurred in the
heavily industrialized Meuse Valley of Belgium in 1930; in Donora,
Pa., in 1948; in New York City in 1953; and in London in 1952
and 1962. During the London smog of 1952, 4,000 more deaths
were recorded in that city than would normally have occurred
during a similar period of time. In Donora, an industrial town
which, in 1948, normally recorded about one death every 3 days,
17 people died in a single 24-hour period during a 4-day smog.
The chart below shows the increase in death rates from arterio-
sclerotic heart disease in New York City occurring during the
period of the thermal inversion in that area over last Thanks-
giving.
-------
708
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
DAILY DEATHS DUE TO ARTERIOSCLEROTIC HEART DISEASE
NOVEMBER 6-DECEMBER 10, NEW YORK CITY
NUMBER
OF
DEATHS
107-
103 -
99-
95 -
91 -
87 -
83
79 -
75 -
71 -
67 -
63
1.20
1.10
1.00
.90
PPM
.70
.60
.50
.40
.30
.20
.10
0
NOVEMBER
DECEMBER
Studies of such episodes have shown that most of those who die
are persons already suffering from chronic respiratory or cardio-
vascular disease. Excessive pollution aggravates their preexisting
condition to the point of death. The population of every city
and town contains substantial numbers of such individuals, as
well as many members of other population groups—including in-
fants and young children, the elderly, and others—some of whom
may become seriously ill or die during severe pollution episodes.
Moreover, the air over most cities and towns contains the kinds
of ingredients that could produce another London or Donora.
There is absolutely no way to predict with confidence that such
disasters will not happen again, in the same cities or in any of
hundreds of others.
Thus far, such occurrences have been rare. This fact tends to
create the false impression that air pollution is a health hazard
only when unusual weather conditions conspire to produce local-
ized disasters.
[p. 4]
As a result, people tend to evaluate the hazards of air pollution
as roughly equivalent to the liklihood of being struck by lightning.
The facts are otherwise. The subtler, less dramatic long-range
effects of air pollution are of much more serious consequences
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 709
to the population as a whole. In his testimony, the Surgeon Gen-
eral cited several examples of the many studies that have docu-
mented the long-term health hazards.
The association between lung cancer and cigarette smoking has
tended to obscure other elements in the lung cancer picture. The
classic study, "Smoking and Death Rates," published by Drs.
Hammond and Horn in 1958, contains the following significant
passage: "The age-standardized death rate (from lung cancer)
was 34 per 100,000 in rural areas, as compared with 56 per 100,-
000 in cities of over 50,000 in population. Standardized for smok-
ing habits as well as for age, the rate was 39 per 100,000 in rural
areas and 52 per 100,000 in cities of over 50,000 population. Thus,
when standardized for both factors, the rate was still 25 percent
lower in rural areas than in large cities."
In other words, although the association with smoking appears
to be the strongest single factor, there is still a 25-percent urban-
rural differential in lung cancer death rates when the smoking
factor has been balanced out. Other studies have shown that lung
cancer death rates in general rise in direct proportion to city size,
as do air pollution levels.
Statistical and epidemiological studies show significant correla-
tion between air pollution levels and a number of other conditions
including emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and the common cold.
Chronic bronchitis mortality in Great Britain has been correlated
with population density, amount of fuel used, dust measures,
decreased visibility, and levels of sulfur dioxide in the air—all of
these being indices of air pollution. Common colds and other
upper respiratory infections occur more often in conjunction with
high pollution levels, as has been documented in a study in Mary-
land, another in Detroit, and in Great Britain, Japan, and the
Soviet Union.
Studies in Nashville, Tenn., and Buffalo, N.Y., indicate relation-
ships between pollution levels and community patterns of disease.
In Nashville, data were studied on 38,207 deaths over a 12-year
period. Making full allowance for such differences as socioeco-
nomic status, age, and race, the sections of the city subject to
heaviest air pollution were the areas of highest death rates from
all respiratory diseases and from such specific diseases as tuber-
culosis, influenza, pneumonia. In Buffalo, those parts of the city
with the heaviest pollution load had the highest death rates from
all causes and from chronic respiratory disease. Separate studies
done elsewhere have shown that mortality from such infectious
-------
710
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
respiratory diseases as influenza is higher where pollution is heavy
than in comparable areas with low pollution. [p. 5]
RESPIRATORY DISEASE MORTALITY BY AIR POLLUTION EXPOSURE
FOR BUFFALO AND NASHVILLE
BUFFALO
NASHVILLE
i
I
100-
50 -
n .
50-69 YEARS
(3 g
^ 5
x £ 100-
°g"i
3 " K.
2Z%
1 « 50-
g I
n .
AIR POLLUTION LEVEL
(SUSPENDED PARTICULATES)
S03
AIR POLLUTION LEVEL
(SULFATION)
BARS REPRESENT LOW, LOWER MEDIUM, UPPER MEDIUM, HIGH POLLUTION FOR BUFFALO; BARS REPRESENT
LOW, MEDIUM AND HIGH POLLUTION FOR NASHVILLE
Clinical research adds to the indictment against air pollution
and suggests some of the reasons underlying the effects noted in
epidemiological investigations. Studies with both normal volun-
teers and persons suffering from chronic illness show that the
breathing patterns of both groups changed together from day to
day in response to pollution levels in the air.
The condition of patients suffering from emphysema improves
when they are protected from irritant air pollution in the com-
munity air. One group in Los Angeles showed striking improve-
ment, both in their own subjective feeling and in terms of objec-
tive measurements, after 24 hours of breathing filtered air. In a
group of about 1,000 chronic bronchitis patients, who recorded
daily whether they felt better or worse than the day before, varia-
tions in their response closely paralleled fluctuations in the sulfur
dioxide and smoke content of the air around them.
Clinical studies of chronic disease patients exposed for a week
to the city air of Los Angeles showed that they increased their
rate of oxygen consumption and at the same time had lower levels
of oxygen in the blood, as compared with their experience in
breathing filtered air. Studies of the effect of carbon monoxide
have shown that even low levels impair visual sensitivity. Inves-
tigations indicate that the levels of carbon monoxide sometimes
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
711
occurring in automobiles on busy streets may adversely affect
many persons whose susceptibility is heightened by anemia or
cardiorespiratory disease—perhaps to the point of damaging vital
organs.
[p. 6]
EFFECT OF MILD CARBON MONOXIDE INTOXICATION
ON COGNITIVE AND PSYCHOMOTOR ABILITIES
OF HUMAN VOLUNTEERS
100
50
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
LEVEL OF CARBOXYHEMOGLOBIN
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
LEVEL OF CARBOXYHEMOGLOBIN
Additional evidence has come from laboratory studies related
to specific pollutants and to community air, with laboratory ani-
mals used as subjects. The results of such studies cannot be extra-
polated in their entirety to apply to human beings. But they pro-
vide insights, difficult or impossible to obtain otherwise, on how
much damage pollution can do and the mechanisms by which that
damage may be done.
Considerable work has been done on possible cancer causation
in mice by pollutants acting alone or in combination. In one study
a selected strain of mice developed bronchogenic cancer of a type
humans have after they had been sensitized with influenza virus
and exposed to ozonized gasoline similar to smog. In another
study, hamsters which were treated internally with one of the
commonest known cancer-producing substances in community air
experienced 100 percent incidence of bronchogenic cancer. A long-
range study of mice exposed to community smog levels over a 16-
month period showed an increase in lung tumors in the aging
animals as compared with a similar group which had lived in a
filtered atmosphere.
-------
712
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Other animal studies have shown that the presence of any of a
number of common pollutants impedes the breathing process. It
increases the resistance to the passage of air and slows down the
ciliary action whereby impurities are taken care of in the lungs.
Solid particles are deposited in abnormal quantities in the tissues
of the respiratory system. Some pollutants, such as carbon mon-
oxide, lower oxygen levels in the blood and thereby make it harder
for the cardiovascular system to do its work.
All of these effects place an additional burden on the body. For
a person already suffering some degree of impairment, this added
burden may be critical. Moreover some of these effects may set
the stage for the development of serious disease and accelerate
the progress of that disease once it begins.
[p. 7]
The conclusion is inescapable that air pollution is a major factor
in the development of many diseases affecting millions of Ameri-
cans. There is evidence of many kinds, from many sources, point-
ing inexorably in this direction. In short, air pollution is clearly
one of the most serious public health problems facing the Nation
today, and it is a problem that is steadily worsening.
Health problems, however, are not the only difficulty arising
from pollution in the air. Damage to buildings, vegetation, and
materials of all kinds also result, and visibility is not consistent
with the purposes of the bill.
PERCENT OF
PRE-EXPOSURE CONTROL
GUINEA PIG RESPIRATION
DURING EXPOSURE TO
IRRADIATED EXHAUST
OR CLEAN AIR
LEGEND
lou-
140-
120-
100-
80-
60 -
140-
120-
100-
60-
160
140-
120-
80-
60-
»** "" '*.
#•* **
y*
<'
.*****"""
/'*
FLOW
RESISTANCE
**»
****,
FREQUENCY
TIDAL VOLUME
CYCLED EXHAUST
CLEAN AIR
HOURS i
4 5 6
RECOVERY
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 713
There is not a single major metropolitan area in the United
States that does not have an air pollution problem. There are few
places, if any, where control efforts are adequate to deal with the
problems that already exist, let alone the much greater problems
that lie ahead. All the trends that contribute to growth of the
air pollution problem are rising. By 1980, the Nation's urban
population will be one-third greater; the number of motor vehicles
in use will increase by 40 percent; and demands for energy will
be 50 percent higher. Unless control efforts are expanded and
strengthened, air pollution will reach critical proportions in the
next decade.
In a message to the Congress on January 30, 1967, the President
noted that some progress toward better control of air pollution
has already been made. In particular, he cited expansion of State
and local activities, Federal action to abate interstate air pollution,
and the promulgation of national standards for the control of
motor vehicle pollution, and intensification of research on methods
of controlling pollution—all accomplished under provisions of the
Clean Air Act, as amended.
[p. 8]
All of the major activities authorized by the Clean Air Act and
the amendments of 1965 and 1966 are essential and must be con-
tinued. But the fact remains that greatly accelerated efforts are
needed if the Nation is to overtake the rising tide of air pollution.
In his message of January 30, the President urged the adoption
of new legislation. Virtually all the witnesses who testified before
the committee agreed that new legislation is needed. While there
were differences of opinion on what the legislation should provide,
there was no disagreement on the fundamental question of whether
greater Federal participation in the fight against air pollution is
needed. The proposed Air Quality Act of 1967 would pave the
way for the Federal Government to furnish increased support of
air pollution control activities in all parts of the country. This
legislation has the support of the administration, as indicated in
Secretary Gardner's testimony. Prompt enactment of the bill is
vital.
MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL AS REPORTED
The Clean Air Act of 1963 marked the beginning of a new and
much more hopeful era in air pollution control. For the first time,
526-702 O - 73 -- 10
-------
714 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
authority was provided for Federal regulatory action to abate
interstate air pollution problems and for the awarding of Federal
funds to encourage the development of regulatory control pro-
grams at the State and local levels.
The proposed new legislation would provide for continuation
of all of the major activities which the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare is currently authorized to conduct. In
addition, it would provide the basis for systematic control activi-
ties on a regional scale. The committee recognizes that it would
not lead to direct abatement of air pollution sources, but rather
to the development of a technically sound and rational plan by
which pollution sources would be controlled in accordance with air
quality criteria and detailed data control technology.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS
The approach taken in this bill would hinge mainly on State
action to deal with air pollution problems within air quality con-
trol regions designated by the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. In brief, the States would be responsible for setting
air quality standards for such regions and for developing and
implementing plans to meet those standards. This means that it
will be up to State governments to determine, first, the maximum
concentrations of pollutants that will be permitted in the air in
such regions during given time periods, and second, the extent to
which pollution sources in a region must be controlled to meet the
regional air quality standards.
The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare would assist
the States by publishing air quality criteria and information on
recommended control technology; moreover, the Department would
be given responsibility for determining whether State standards
are adequate and consistent with the purposes of the bill. In addi-
tion, the Department would be empowered to initiate action to
insure both the development and implementation of air quality
standards if action at the State level is not consistent with the
purposes of the bill.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
INITIAL ACTIONS
715
106(b)
106(c)
The bill would require the Department to delineate the broad
atmospheric areas of the Nation, mainly on the basis of those
meteorological and topographical factors that influence the diffu-
sion and transport of pollutants in the air. Then, after consulta-
tion with State and local agencies, the Department would be em-
powered to designate air quality control regions. Such regions
could include parts of two or more States or could lie entirely
within a single State. In either case, each one would include a
group of communities affected by a common air pollution problem.
To assist the States in setting air quality standards which will
be adequate for the protection of public health and welfare, the
Department would continue to develop and publish air quality
criteria reflecting the best available scientific data on the adverse
effects of individual pollutants and combinations of pollutants.
The bill would require that such criteria also reflect available
knowledge of atmospheric and other environmental factors that
may influence the effects of air pollutants on health and welfare.
In addition, the bill would require that appropriate advisory com-
mittees and Federal departments and agencies be consulted during
the development of criteria and that criteria which have already
been issued be reevaluated and, if necessary, modified and reissued
in accordance with these new requirements.
The bill would also direct the Department to develop and publish
detailed information on the status and cost of recommended tech-
niques for preventing and controlling air pollution, including cost-
effectiveness analyses of alternative methods. Consultation with
appropriate advisory committees and Federal departments and
-------
716
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
agencies would be a mandatory step in the development of this
information. There can be no doubt that such information would
be useful both to State and local control agencies and to industry.
This information would be intended to help State governments
develop and implement plans for achieving air quality levels con-
sistent with the Department's published criteria of the adverse
effects of air pollution.
[p. 10]
IF GOVERNOR ACTS
GOVEf
CREATE!
(NOR
90 DAY
5
REGIONAL
PI AMMINP
AGENCIES
105(a)
LETTER OF
INTENT
180 DAYS
(HEARINGS)
f
AGENCY
KtUUMMtNDS
STANDARDS
105(a]
¥
STATE
STANDARDS
HEW AGREES
ACTION
1 '
180 DAYS STATE
HEW PLAN
IftRrrC
The publication of air quality criteria and emission control data
would be the signal for States to begin developing air quality
standards and plans for implementing the standards in air quality
control regions designated by the Department. Each State would
be given 90 days to file a letter indicating its intent to set air
quality standards for any portion of an air quality control region
lying within its boundaries. The States would have 180 days after
the filing to set such standards and another 180 days after the
standards are set to develop plans for implementing the stand-
ards. In all cases, the standards and plans for implementation
would be submitted to the Department for evaluation. If the
standards are found to be consistent with the applicable air
quality criteria and recommendations on control technology, and
if the plans for implementation would insure that the standards
could be met within a reasonable time, then those standards and
plans would become effective in the air quality control region for
which they were developed.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
717
This same procedure would have to be followed for each class
of pollutants for which the Department publishes air quality
criteria and control technology data. This means that each time
new criteria are published, States would repeat the standard-
setting procedures with respect to the new class of pollutants.
Whenever criteria and recommended control techniques are revised
pursuant to section 106 (c) of the act, it is expected that the States
will revise and reissue their ambient air standards and plans for
implementation thereof accordingly.
[p. 11]
IF GOVERNOR DOES NOT ACT
1. LETTER NOT FILED
2. STANDARDS NOT ADOPTED,
(OR INADEQUATE)
3. PLAN NOT ADOPTED
(OR INADEQUATE)
ACTION
(NO PETITION)
CONFERENCE
*•
STANDARDS
107(c)(2)
107(c)(2)
PETITION
107(c)(3) L
ACTION
Under the provisions of the bill, if a State fails to file a letter
of intent or fails to establish air quality standards, or if the
Department finds that the standards established for any part of
a designated air quality control region are not in accord with the
requirements of the bill, the Department would be empowered to
initiate action to insure the development of appropriate standards.
The Committee expects that this residual power in the Secretary
of HEW will seldom, if ever, be used, since the States are expected
to take the necessary steps to establish and enforce air quality
standards. If, however, a State fails to take appropriate action,
the Department is empowered under the bill to take the necessary
action to protect health and welfare expected of the State, partic-
ularly where interstate pollution is involved.
-------
718
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
The Department would first hold a conference with appropriate
State and local agencies and other interested parties and could
then develop and publish standards which would become effective
6 months after publication unless an affected State requests a
hearing be held. The request may be made either within the
6-month period or up to 30 days after promulgation. On receiving
a request for such a hearing, the Secretary must call a hearing
and appoint a board of five or more persons, including representa-
tion from the States involved, the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare, and other Federal departments and agencies
which have a substantial interest in the subject. The hearing
board would receive testimony from State and local air pollution
control officials and other parties affected by the proposed stand-
ards and would recommend that the standards either be approved
or modified. The hearing board would be given 90 days to report
its findings, unless the Secretary found that a longer period was
necessary. The hearing board's recommendations would be bind-
ing; if modification of the standards is recommended, they would
have to be modified.
[p. 12]
IF ACTION INADEQUATE
(AIR QUALITY BELOW STANDARDS,
AND GOVERNOR NOT ENFORCE)
HEW
NOTICE TO
POLLUTERS
AND
OTHERS
ISO DAYS
DE NOVO
COURT
REVIEW
ACTION
107(c)(4)
107(0(4)
On completion of the standard-setting procedures, States would
be expected to begin action to enforce the standards. Enforce-
ment action would be taken at the Federal level (except under
present abatement procedures) only if air quality in a designated
region falls below the air quality standards for the region and if
the Secretary finds that a State has not taken reasonable action
to implement the standards. The bill would require that 180 days'
notice be given before Federal action is initiated. Then, with
respect to interstate pollution, the Attorney General could take
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 719
action in court on request from the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare; with respect to intrastate pollution, such action
would be taken, or assistance in State action would be provided,
only on request from the State involved. In either instance, the
court in which action is taken would be required to make a com-
plete review of the applicable air quality standards and to con-
sider the economic and technical feasibility of complying with
such standards in making its judgment.
In order to assure that the Secretary will have available the
broad expertise of the entire Federal Government in carrying out
his responsibilities under this Act, he is directed in many instances
to consult with appropriate advisory committees and Federal de-
partments and agencies. Your Committee particularly intends
that the resources of the Department of Commerce will be fully
utilized in areas involving atmospheric conditions and economic
feasibility.
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS, CRITERIA, AND CONTROL
TECHNIQUES
The most important objective of the bill is to insure that air
pollution problems will, in the future, be controlled in a systematic
way. To this end, the bill contains provisions intended to insure
that control action will be taken in accordance with the regional
nature
[p. 13]
of the air pollution problem and that sources of air pollution will
be controlled to the extent consistent with available knowledge
of the adverse effects of pollutants on health and welfare and with
available control technology. The bill would give the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare the responsibility for denning
these parameters. States would not be required to take any action
until air quality control regions have been designated and until
there has been an initial publication of air quality criteria and
information on control technology.
Sections 106(b) and (c) require the Secretary to issue to the
States criteria of air quality and recommended pollution control
techniques. The sound administration of these provisions is the
sine qua non to effective air pollution control. These criteria and
recommended control techniques set the guidelines for subsequent
State action.
In order to achieve cleaner air with the minimum possible eco-
nomic cost or disruption, both the criteria and recommended con-
-------
720 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
trol techniques will have to be based upon the most careful studies
and analysis. They must have a substantial evidentiary backup,
so that they may be relied on by the responsible State and local
authorities in developing effective and reasonable air pollution
abatement programs. They must permit the maximum possible
flexibility so that each area may pick the means most suitable to
it for resolving its pollution problems.
It is important that the Secretary call to the attention of the
States in connection with his recommendation of control tech-
niques, the various methods which may be used to achieve cleaner
air, and provide information as to the economics of the more sig-
nificant of these methods. Thus, for example, it may be possible to
remove a pollutant from a fuel, or from stack gases, or to so
disperse the pollutant through the use of high stacks so that
ground level concentrations are lessened by the stack emissions.
The careful selection from among these various methods even
within an area may greatly reduce the economic disruption in-
volved and permit more rapid achievement of improved air quality.
Any previously issued criteria must be reconsidered in the light
of these requirements and objectives and the procedures called for
by section 106. There should be no hesitancy in revising such
criteria as a result of these changes in the law.
ATMOSPHERIC AREAS
The first requirement is that the Secretary define the Nation's
atmospheric areas on the basis of such factors as climate, meteor-
ology, and topography. A period of 1 year is allowed for the
Secretary to define these atmospheric areas; the committee believes
that this period is more than adequate, particularly in the light of
the knowledge and experience available to the Secretary through
other agencies of the Government, such as the Weather Bureau
and the Atomic Energy Commission.
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS
The actual pattern of regional activity will be determined by
the designation of air quality control regions. The Secretary is
required to make such designations after consultation with State
and local au-
[p. 14]
thorities, but no later than 18 months after enactment of the
legislation. This period is also more than adequate, in the com-
mittee's judgment. Each region should encompass those com-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 721
munities which, because of the extent of urbanization and indus-
trialization, meteorological factors, and so on, are affected by a
common air pollution problem requiring uniformity of control
action. In designating the regions, the Secretary will be required
to consider existing jurisdictional boundaries, urban-industrial
concentrations, and any other factors which will affect the ade-
quacy of regional control efforts. It is expected that the Secretary
will consider, among other things, the boundaries of air basins or
regions already designated by State governments.
The committee learned that in at least one State (Colorado) air
pollution regions have already been set under State law, and there
is some concern that those regions designated by the Secretary
will not be coterminous with them, thus raising problems of the
administration of standards where the regions differ. The com-
mittee expects the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
to consult with proper officials of the States to assure that maxi-
mum consideration is given to the regions established or that may
be established in such States, and to the State law under which
they were established.
AIR QUALITY CRITERIA
Since the prime purpose of controlling air pollution is to protect
public health and welfare, it is essential that scientific knowledge
of the adverse effects of air pollutants be available in a form
which can help control agencies develop and adopt standards and
regulations. To this end, a requirement that the Secretary develop
and issue air quality criteria was included in the Clean Air Act
of 1963. This requirement is retained in the proposed new legis-
lation, but with some modification in the procedures to be followed
by the Secretary.
The principal change is the inclusion of a requirement that the
Secretary consult with appropriate advisory committees and Fed-
eral departments and agencies before issuing criteria. This should
not be construed as diminishing the Secretary's responsibility; it
is expected that the Secretary will make the final determination
on all questions involved in criteria development.
The committee expects that in the development of air quality
criteria under subsection (b) as well as in formulating recom-
mendations indicated by such criteria, the Secretary will utilize
the resources of qualified Federal departments and agencies to the
fullest extent practicable, including those within the Department
of Commerce. For example, with regard to atmospheric conditions
the Environmental Science Services Administration has been con-
-------
722 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
ducting the basic national program in meteorological measure-
ments and predictions. The Business and Defense Services Ad-
ministration is well qualified to analyze questions of economic
feasibility by virtue of its continuing evaluation of processes,
costs, investment, and financing of industrial production and com-
mercial enterprise, economywide as well as on an industry-by-
industry basis. Moreover it is intended that the resources of the
Department of Commerce be utilized in conducting the compre-
hensive studies provided for under sections 211 and 305.
Testimony by officials of the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare indicated that criteria for several important types
of pollutants
[p. 15]
are in advanced stages of development. While the committee rec-
ognizes that the new requirements for consultation with advisory
groups and Federal departments and agencies may delay the
issuance of these criteria to some extent, it is expected that the
Department will make every effort to expedite the procedures.
The only criteria issued thus far, those pertaining to the sulfur
oxides, would have to be reevaluated in accordance with the new
requirements and, if necessary, modified and reissued.
Under the proposed legislation, air quality criteria are of much
greater importance than they have been until now. The issuance
of such criteria is among the prerequisites for the development of
air quality standards by the States. It is essential, then, that there
be no confusion about the purpose of air quality criteria. They are
not regulations; as Dr. John T. Middleton, Director of the National
Center for Air Pollution Control, emphasized in his testimony,
they are descriptive, rather than prescriptive. They describe the
effects that can be expected to occur whenever and wherever the
ambient air level of a pollutant reaches or exceeds a specific figure
for a specific time period. Thus, they define the health and welfare
considerations that must be taken into account in the development
of standards and regulations. Economic and technical considera-
tions have a place in the pattern of control activity but not in the
development of criteria. Air quality criteria should provide a clear
statement of how well air pollution should be controlled in order to
safeguard the public health and welfare, economic and technical
factors notwithstanding. If control technology is not adequate, it
must be improved. This legislation contains ample provision for
evaluation of existing technology and for the development of new
and better tools. In short, it is the committee's view that air
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 723
quality criteria shall reflect an honest appraisal of available knowl-
edge relating to the health and welfare hazards of air pollution.
RECOMMENDED CONTROL TECHNIQUES
The legislation gives the Secretary a major new responsibility
for the publication of information on the status and cost of tech-
nology for the control of air pollution. The publication of such
information is still another prerequisite to the setting of air
quality standards; that is, after publication of air quality criteria
for a given type of pollutant, information on control technology
applicable to sources of that type of pollutant must be published
before the States will be obligated to begin setting air quality
standards for that type of pollutant. Though the legislation con-
tains no requirements as to the time of publication of control
technology information, the committee expects that information
on the control of sources of a given type of pollutant will be made
available as soon as possible. This may occur after the publication
of air quality criteria for that type of pollutant; however, simul-
taneous publication would be desirable.
The requirement of the proposed legislation is that the Secre-
tary shall, after consultation with appropriate advisory commit-
tees and Federal departments and agencies, issue information on
the cost and effectiveness of those recommended control techniques
whose application is necessary to achieve the levels of air quality
set forth in the Secretary's air quality criteria. Thus, the Secre-
tary is required to
[p. 16]
recommend certain control techniques. During hearings, objec-
tions were raised on the ground that a private firm might wish
to employ a control technique that has not been recommended by
the Secretary. The committee does not believe that the language
of the bill on this point precludes the use of techniques not recom-
mended by the Secretary.
The purpose of this provision is to insure that air pollution con-
trol agencies and other interested parties have access to enough
technical data to permit them to make an informed and intelligent
choice among the various techniques which could be used to reduce
air pollution from any given source. The choice of control tech-
niques is left up to those who are actually responsible for sources
of air pollution, but the Secretary is assigned the duty of provid-
ing detailed information on control techniques which he believes
-------
724 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
are applicable. This should provide private firms sufficient infor-
mation to use as a basis for planning their control efforts.
There is, however, a real limitation on the extent to which con-
trol agencies and industries can rely on the information published
by the Secretary. This information must be their servant, not
their master. The extent to which pollution sources will have to
be controlled to achieve air quality levels set forth in the Secre-
tary's air quality criteria will necessarily vary from one place to
another, depending on such factors as the number and size of
sources of a pollutant and meteorological conditions. The Secre-
tary can do no more than provide data on available control tech-
niques; under the proposed legislation, States must determine
which control techniques or combinations of techniques will
achieve the necessary degree of abatement with a particular air
quality control region.
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
The provisions relating to the adoption of air quality standards
are the heart of the legislation. These provisions are largely
adapted from existing Federal law in the field of water pollution
control. They place a very high degree of reliance on action by
State governments. In most States, implementation of the stand-
ard setting and enforcement provisions will clearly require State
governments to take a much more active role in dealing with the
problem of air pollution than they have played in the past.
The States would be required to adopt air quality standards and
enforcement plans for each type of air pollutant for which the
Secretary publishes air quality criteria and control technology
data. Following the publication of such information on a given
class of pollutants, each State would have 90 days to notify the
Secretary of its intent to set air quality standards for those pollu-
tants. Each State would be obligated to set such standards for
any portion of a designated air quality control region lying within
its boundaries.
After a letter of intent is filed, a State would have 180 days to
set the required air quality standards and another 180 days after
the standards are set to develop plans for implementing the stand-
ards. All States would have to submit their standards and imple-
mentation plans to the Secretary for evaluation.
To warrant approval by the Secretary, air quality standards for
a given class of pollutants must be consistent with the Secretary's
[p. 17]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 725
air quality criteria and control technology data for those pollu-
tants. This means, in the opinion of the committee, that such
standards must call for air quality levels which, based on the
Secretary's criteria, are at a minimum adequate for the protection
of public health and which can be achieved through the applica-
tion of feasible control techniques.
Where a designated air quality control region includes portions
of two or more States, the possibility exists that the respective
States may adopt differing standards of air quality. It is the com-
mittee's view that no State should be permitted to set air quality
standards which, even if fully implemented, would impair air qual-
ity in any portion of another State below the standards set by that
other State.
With respect to implementation plans, the bill requires that
plans include a means of enforcement by State action. This means
that the plans must insure that the standards can be met within
a reasonable time. Since air quality standards can be met only by
preventing or controlling pollution at its sources, plans for imple-
menting air quality standards for a given class of pollutants
should include emission standards applicable to the sources of
those pollutants—or at least to those sources for which the Secre-
tary has published information on control technology—and a time-
table for enforcement of such emission standards. Where a State,
because of a lack of sufficient information on pollution sources in
a designated region, cannot determine the extent to which those
sources must be controlled, it is expected that the implementation
plans will include a timetable for obtaining the necessary informa-
tion and for subsequent adoption and enforcement of emission
standards.
If a State fails to (1) file a letter of intent within 90 days; (2)
establish standards within 180 days; or (3) file a plan for imple-
mentation and enforcement within 180 days, the Secretary is
authorized to perform these functions for the air quality control
regions within that State. When standards have been set, either
by a State or by the Federal Government, the Federal Govern-
ment will have authority to enforce the standards in the absence
of effective State action. First, the Secretary could hold a con-
ference with representatives of appropriate Federal departments
and agencies, interstate agencies, States, municipalities, and in-
dustries. Following such a conference, the Secretary could develop
and publish air quality standards and plans for implementation
and enforcement.
The Secretary's standards and plan for implementation and
-------
726 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
enforcement would become effective 6 months after publication
unless an affected State requests a hearing be held; such request
may be made either within the 6 month period or up to 30 days
after promulgation. In receiving a request for such a hearing, the
Secretary must call a hearing and appoint a board of five or more
persons, including representation from the States involved, the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and other Federal
departments and agencies having a substantial interest in the
subject matter. The hearing board would receive testimony from
State and local air pollution control officials and other parties
affected by the proposed standards and would recommend that the
standards either be approved or modified. The hearing board
would be given 90 days to report its findings, unless the Secretary
found that a longer period was necessary. The hearing board's
recommendations would be binding; if modification of the stand-
ards is recommended, they would have to be modified.
[p. 18]
On completion of the standard-setting procedures, States would
be expected to begin action to enforce these standards. State
action would presumably include enforcement emission standards
for the control of air pollution sources, or provisions for setting
such standards, and a schedule for enforcing them. Enforcement
action would be taken at the Federal level only if air quality in a
designated region falls below the air quality standards for the
region and if the Secretary finds that a State has not taken rea-
sonable action to implement the standards. The bill would require
that 180 days' notice be given before Federal action is initiated.
Then, with respect to interstate pollution, the Attorney General
could take action in court on request from the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare; with respect to intrastate pollution, such
action would be taken only on request from the State involved.
In either instance, the court in which action is taken would be
required to make a complete review of the applicable air quality
standards and to consider the economic and technical feasibility
of complying with such standards in making its judgment.
IMMINENT ENDANGERMENT
Under this provision the Secretary will have authority to pro-
ceed immediately to court for abatement of any pollution that
creates substantial and imminent public health endangerment.
The committee feels this authority is necessary during the stand-
ards development period, due to the necessary passage of time
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 727
which will occur prior to establishment of enforceable standards.
This provision is intended to provide a remedy in an emergency
situation and where the responsible State and local authorities
have not taken the necessary action. It is not intended as a sub-
stitute procedure for chronic or generally recurring pollution
problems, which should be dealt with under the other provisions
of the act. Where, however, there is an unusual atmospheric in-
version or other extraordinary grouping of circumstances creat-
ing a substantial and imminent danger to public health such as
occurred in the Donora incident in 1948, or in London in 1952 or
1962, then the public must be protected and this section provides
for appropriate action by the Secretary for that purpose. Unlike
the other provisions of section 107, where technological and
economic feasibility are a prerequisite to sound regulation, where
an emergency incident is in the making which could seriously
jeopardize the public health, the Secretary may obtain the neces-
sary injunction regardless of technological and economic feasi-
bility.
This provision directs itself to the control of pollution sources
which are contributing to air pollution under conditions resulting
in an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health.
Under this provision the Secretary would have absolute authority
to take the required control steps to avert disaster episodes such as
occurred in the heavily industrialized Meuse Valley of Belgium in
1930; in Donora, Pa., in 1948; in New York City in 1953; and in
London in 1952 and 1962.
The committee realizes, however, that the Secretary must have,
as he said in testimony, the opportunity to know a great deal about
the air pollution problem of an area, and the best ways to proceed
in that area to abate pollution—he cannot be expected to make
such an important decision as this in a vacuum, and in such a
situation he will
[p. 19]
require the utmost cooperation from States, local governments,
and industry. The committee believes the Secretary's statement
on this matter indicates this difficulty well, and the procedures he
would follow are reasonable. The Secretary stated (hearings, p.
204) as follows:
Appropriate action in emergency situations would require
detailed knowledge of the nature and location of pollution
sources, immediate access to information on local meteoro-
logical conditions and air-quality levels, and detailed plans
-------
728 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
tailored to the local need to shut down or curtail pollution
sources.
I will take steps, therefore, to further encourage the local
and State control agencies, primarily responsible for the
quality of the air in their jurisdictions, to develop appro-
priate air-monitoring systems and emergency procedures for
curtailing sources of pollution.
Only in this way could I be assured that a decision to seek
emergency court action would be based on sound technical
information gathered and developed in the locality concerned.
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS
Public Law 89-272, enacted October 20, 1965, authorized the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to establish national
standards applicable to emissions from new motor vehicles and
new motor vehicle engines. That legislation contains no explicit
statement concerning the preemption of State laws on this subject,
and no statements concerning this problem were made on either
the House or the Senate floor when the bill was debated.
The report of this committee on the bill (H. Kept. 899, 89th
Cong.) contains the following statement:
The committee is convinced that motor vehicle exhaust con-
trol standards on a national scale are necessary and would
be of benefit to the entire country. * * * While the committee
is cognizant of the basic rights and responsibilities of the
States for control of air pollution, it is apparent that the
establishment of Federal standards applicable to motor vehi-
cle emissions is preferable to regulation by individual States.
The report of the Senate committee on the bill (S. Kept. 192,
89th Cong.) contains the following two statements:
In view of the fact that the automobile is one of the prin-
cipal sources of air pollution and manufacturers have the
capability of incorporating air pollution reduction facilities
in their vehicles, there is no apparent reason why the entire
Nation should not benefit from such advances. Also, it would
be more desirable to have national standards rather than for
each State to have a variation in standards and requirements
which could result in chaos insofar as manufacturers, dealers,
and users are concerned (p. 6).
The committee has found that the automotive industry has
the capability for limiting the emissions of hydrocarbons and
carbon monoxide from both the crankcase and exhaust sys-
tems of gasoline powered motor vehicles and found a willing-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 729
ness to accept legislation which would establish national
standards, and it is the
[p. 20]
hope of the committee that individual States will accept na-
tional standards rather than additionally impose restrictions
which might cause undue and unnecessary expense to the
user. (P. 8.)
Since the enactment of Public Law 89-272, the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare has established national stand-
ards applicable to emissions from new motor vehicles for the 1968
and subsequent model years. The Congress is therefore presented
directly with the question of the extent to which the Federal
standards should supersede State and local laws on emissions
from motor vehicles.
Rather than leave this question to the uncertainties involved in
litigation, the committee has agreed, with modifications hereafter
discussed, to the provision contained in the bill as passed by the
Senate providing explicitly (section 208(a)) that State laws ap-
plicable to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or
new motor vehicle engines are superseded. The committee feels
that a provision such as this is necessary in order to prevent a
chaotic situation from developing in interstate commerce in new
motor vehicles.
WAIVER OF PREEMPTION
As passed by the Senate, section 208 (b) of the Clean Air Act
proposed to provide for waiver by the Secretary of the application
of subsection (a) (providing for preemption of State laws) in
the case of California, upon a finding that compelling and extra-
ordinary conditions require more stringent standards and that
the State's standards and enforcement procedures were consistent
with the intent of section 202 (a) of the act, including economic
practicability and technological feasibility. Although the situation
may change, in the 15 years that auto emission standards have
been debated and discussed, only the State of California has
demonstrated compelling and extraordinary circumstances suffi-
ciently different from the Nation as a whole to justify standards
on automobile emissions which may, from time to time, need be
more stringent than national standards.
In other words, as passed by the Senate, section 208 (b) pro-
vides for a waiver of preemption in the case of California, so that
California could be permitted to establish (1) more stringent
526-102 O - 73 -- 11
-------
730 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
standards applicable to emissions covered by Federal standards,
(2) standards applicable to emissions not covered by Federal
standards, and (3) enforcement procedures and standards with
respect to emissions differing from Federal enforcement proce-
dures and standards.
The manufacture of automobiles is a complex matter, requiring
decisions to be made far in advance of their actual execution. The
ability of those engaged in the manufacture of automobiles to
obtain clear and consistent answers concerning emission controls
and standards is of considerable importance so as to permit econ-
omies in production. Mr. Thomas C. Mann, president of the
Automobile Manufacturers Association presented to the committee
during his testimony a summary of the problems that would be
faced by the industry if required to comply with both Federal and
California standards, separately administered (hearings, pp. 482-
483):
The process of fixing and administering emission standards
for new cars is at best a complex one. Judgments must be
made, often on the basis of incomplete scientific evidence, on
[p. 21]
the question of which pollutants endanger health and welfare
and at what levels it is technologically and economically feasi-
ble to fix emission rates.
In a program of this kind many questions arise. What are
the requirements for testing new vehicles as they are pro-
duced each year ? Precisely how are the tests to be performed
and under what conditions? What are the rules for inter-
preting the scientific data developed in the testing process?
What kind of a certificate will be issued by the authorities ?
How can emissions performance of vehicles in actual use be
determined and how is this data to be correlated with data
developed by testing vehicles on the proving grounds?
What instrumentation will be used for testing? To measure
emissions, will the so-called "mass" emissions control method
based on absolute volumes be used or the "concentration"
method based on percentages—having in mind that the two
methods do not produce identical results?
Moreover, there are various questions of interpretations of
the pertinent laws and regulations, some of which are written
in very broad terms and some of which contain ambiguities.
How are these to be resolved?
Uniform answers to these and other administrative ques-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 731
tions inherent in Government controls are most important.
The ability of the industry to get clear and consistent answers
to questions such as these so that companies can make their
plans and initiate in time their programs required for com-
pliance can be as important as what the answer is.
The committee feels that the problems faced by the automobile
manufacturing industry arising out of identical Federal and State
standards, separately administered, would be difficult for the in-
dustry to meet since different administration could easily lead to
different answers to identical questions. Similarly, the problems
arising out of different standards applicable nationwide (except
California) and to California, even though identically adminis-
tered, would also lead to difficulties.
If, however, both different standards and separate administra-
tion are permitted, the difficulties faced by manufacturers would
be compounded enormously. While manufacturers could meet these
problems by building vehicles that meet whichever standard is the
more stringent, this would lead to increased costs to consumers
nationwide, with benefit only to those in one section of the country.
The committee therefore decided to provide for uniform ad-
ministration of standards for motor vehicle emissions, by provid-
ing that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall
administer the program of control of automotive emissions; how-
ever, in recognition of the unique problems facing California as
a result of its climate and topography, the committee has provided
that upon a showing by California that it requires more stringent
standards than the nationwide standards otherwise applicable, the
Secretary may prescribe standards with respect to such State
more stringent than, or applicable to emissions or substances not
covered by, the national standards. These standards are required
to be consistent with the
[p. 22]
other provisions of title II, and are to be prescribed, giving appro-
priate consideration to technological feasibility and economic costs.
FUEL ADDITIVES
The bill would provide new authority pertaining to fuel addi-
tives, in the form of a requirement that fuel manufacturers reg-
ister such additives with the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare. This is intended to provide an opportunity for full as-
sessment of the effects of such additives on the environment and
on public health. It is clearly in the best interests of both the
-------
732 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
public and industry to evaluate the effects of additives already in
widespread use and to provide a mechanism for advance evalua-
tion of proposed new additives before they reach the environment.
These provisions of the bill would require manufacturers to
furnish the Secretary such information as he finds necessary
concerning the characteristics and composition of fuel additives
and any additional information which he may reasonably require.
It is anticipated that the Secretary will, after giving interested
parties an opportunity to present their views, promulgate regula-
tions prescribing the types of information he will require for
registration. Such regulations could, of course, be modified if
experience with this provision indicates that changes are neces-
sary. Since fuel additives released into the environment from
combustion sources may contaminate not only the air, but also
water, soil, vegetation, and so on, it is expected that the Secretary
will require manufacturers to furnish enough information to
evaluate not just the air pollution problems arising from the use
of fuel additives, but to assess the total effect on the human
environment and human health and welfare.
The prime purpose of this proposal is to insure full access to
the technical information needed to evaluate the possible health
hazards of such materials. Too often, new contaminants enter
the environment and are widely dispersed before recognition that
they may endanger human health.
The bill would not, in itself, require registration of all fuel addi-
tives. It would empower the Secretary to designate, by regulation,
those fuels or uses of fuels involving additives, for which registra-
tion will be required. The Committee expects that registration
will be required with respect to additives used in motor vehicle
fuels. The use of such fuels, according to all the information avail-
able to the committee, is the most important single means by
which fuel additives are currently released into the environment.
The Secretary would also have authority to require registration of
additives to other fuels, and it is expected that he will exercise
this authority with respect to any others where evaluation of
known or suspected health hazards is deemed necessary.
COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES AND UNIFORM LAWS
Subsection 102 (c) of the existing law purports to give the con-
sent of the Congress to two or more States to negotiate agree-
ments or compacts for cooperative efforts in the field of air pollu-
tion control, but provides that no such compact shall be binding
until it has been approved by the Congress. The committee has
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 733
deleted this subsection as unnecessary, since it is merely a restate-
ment of the general con-
[p. 23]
stitutional provision applicable to all compacts (art. I, sec. 10),
and since States do not require the consent of the Federal Govern-
ment to enter into negotiations.
The committee's action is not intended to discourage State ef-
forts to work together in dealing with interstate air pollution
problems. On the contrary, groups of two or more States are en-
couraged to mount cooperative efforts. In the committee's opinion,
however, such efforts should be focused on problems in specific
metropolitan areas, in which all communities clearly share a com-
mon air pollution problem. In practice, this will necessarily mean
that the States involved in a particular compact or agreement
should be contiguous and that a portion of each State should be
within the metropolitan area covered by the compact or agree-
ment.
RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES
Increased research activities are essential to provide an im-
proved technological basis for meaningful progress in air pollu-
tion control.
Section 103, as reported, requires the Secretary to conduct a
research program relating to the causes, effects, extent, preven-
tion, and control of air pollution, and to encourage and assist pol-
lution control agencies, institutions, and individuals in the conduct
of such activities. It also directs him to give special attention to
pollution resulting from the combustion of fuels. It provides for
advisory committees to assist the Secretary in administering the
research program. The broad authority granted the Secretary to
enable him to conduct such a program is carried over intact from
existing law. This authority includes the ability to collect and
publish information; to cooperate with other Federal agencies,
with air pollution control bodies, industries, and institutions; to
make grants to public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions,
and organizations, and to individuals; to contract with such
groups; and to provide fellowships and other forms of training.
The committee has retained the location of all research provisions
in a single section of the bill, as in the case in the existing law.
This allows the Secretary needed flexibility in the management of
research activities so that he may employ available manpower and
funds efficiently.
-------
734 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
To this end the language of subsection 103 (a) of the Clean Air
Act was amended as follows:
Paragraphs (4) and (5), which specifically direct research
activities to be conducted in the areas of removal of sulfur from
fuels, reduction of emissions of sulfur oxides produced by the
combustion of sulfur-containing fuels, and control of vehicle
fuel emissions and evaporation, have been deleted.
A new paragraph (4) has been substituted for the above
paragraphs, which authorizes the same research activities, but
in more general terms, and also authorizes additional research
activities relating to means of controlling combustion byprod-
ucts of fuels.
A new paragraph (5) has been added. It requires the Secre-
tary to establish technical advisory committees, composed of air
pollution experts, to provide assistance in administering the re-
search program, and is identical to the language contained in
paragraph 104 (a) (6) of S. 780 as passed by the Senate.
[p. 24]
The remainder of the provisions found in section 104 of the
Senate-passed bill have not been adopted. The committee con-
siders them to be unnecessary since section 103 of existing law
contains sufficient authorization for the Secretary to initiate and
accelerate the large-scale research activities demanded for the
proper discharge of his responsibilities under this act.
Research is the key to effective air pollution control. The amend-
ments to S. 780 to eliminate 104 were not in any way intended to
lessen the emphasis on research. Rather, they were intended to
eliminate provisions which were considered duplicatory of section
103, and therefore unnecessary.
Under section 103 the Secretary has full authority to enter into
the necessary contracts with public and private institutions and
organizations for research work on all aspects of air pollution
control. This includes means of reducing pollution and means of
measuring air quality. It includes the economics as well as the
technology of pollution control including such matters as the mar-
keting of byproducts where that may make a particular method
of pollution control economically feasible. It is expected that the
Department will make maximum use of the expertise of other
Federal departments such as the Departments of Commerce and
Interior in research programs conducted under this section.
In addition to research, the Secretary is authorized to take the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 735
necessary developmental steps, including, where appropriate, the
contracting for the building of pilot plants and demonstration
plants. Further, the Secretary is specifically encouraged to use
Federal facilities, where possible and appropriate, for air pollu-
tion research purposes.
Among the most critical problems of pollution control are the
pollution problems relating to the burning of fuels. It is the inten-
tion of this legislation that the Secretary pursue a most aggres-
sive policy of research directed toward solving the pollution prob-
lems relating to the combustion of fuels.
The economy of the Nation depends on an adequate supply of
low-cost energy. Only through technological breakthroughs can
such a supply be assured consistent with our requirements for
cleaner air. Since effective regulation therefore will depend upon
such technological breakthroughs, this research must be of the
highest priority. Further, while the language of the legislation is
discretionary in terms of how the Secretary shall proceed with re-
gard to research activities, the imperative nature of this work
should clearly be understood by all, including those who will ad-
minister the legislation.
INTERSTATE AIR QUALITY AGENCIES OR COMMISSIONS
The air quality standards which will be established under this
legislation will require careful planning to insure that they are
tailored to the needs of the designated air quality control regions,
the types of pollution and the damages it is causing, and the tech-
nological and economic feasibility of proposed controls. In addi-
tion, the activities of different jurisdictions will have to be co-
ordinated, so that standards for all portions of a particular region
are rationally related and effective. The bill provides for support
of planning bodies to assist States into bringing such regional
control efforts to fruition.
[p. 25]
Recognizing the administrative and political difficulties inherent
in the establishment of effective interstate air pollution control
planning agencies, section 105 of the bill authorizes the Secretary
to pay up to 100 percent of the air quality planning program
costs of any interstate agency designated by the Governors of the
affected States under section 105 (a) for up to 2 years. After this
initial period, grants are authorized for up to three-fourths of the
air quality planning program costs.
The interstate agency is to concern itself with recommending to
-------
736 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
the Governors of the participant States standards of ambient air
quality and plans for implementation and enforcement of emis-
sion controls required to achieve the recommended standards of
air quality.
In the absence of any action by the States involved in an inter-
state air quality control region designated pursuant to section
106 (a) (2), the Secretary is authorized to designate an air quality
planning commission for the purpose of recommending air quality
standards and a plan for their implementation. The interstate
commission, when established by the Secretary under section
105 (b), is essentially an arm of the Federal Government in that
it is designed to assist the Secretary in establishing standards and
plans for implementation. Provision is made, however, for con-
sultation with the affected States and representation of appro-
priate units of government within the area. In this way, even in
the event the States fail to act, the Secretary can utilize the avail-
able information regarding State and local conditions and maxi-
mize the effectiveness of any standards or plans which may be
adopted either at the State or Federal level.
GRANTS FOR SUPPORT OF AIR POLLUTION PLANNING AND CONTROL
PROGRAMS
Section 104 of the bill expands the provision for grants for de-
velopment and maintenance of State and local pollution programs
to include grants for the planning of programs for the prevention
and control of air pollution and of programs for the implementa-
tion of air quality standards. As revised, the provision authorizes
grants up to two-thirds of the cost of planning, in addition to de-
veloping, establishing, or improving such programs, and grants in
an amount up to one-half of the cost of maintaining them.
The revised section also provides up to three-fourths of the cost
of planning, developing, establishing, or improving regional air
quality control programs (denned as a program for the prevention
and control of air pollution or the implementation of air quality
standards authorized by this act, in an area including the area of
two or more municipalities whether in the same or different
States), and up to three-fifths of the cost of maintaining such
programs.
Any grant recipient must be capable of carrying out certain
conditions specified in the bill. For example, a pollution control
agency which is administering a regional control program which
is interstate must provide for adequate representation of appro-
priate State, interstate, and local interests.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 737
The committee made one additional change in existing law. Un-
der the Clean Air Act, Federal grant funds to air pollution pro-
grams in any one State were limited to no more than 12V^ percent
[p. 26]
of the total funds appropriated or allocated for such financial sup-
port. This figure has been changed to 10 per cent, since the com-
mittee feels that the problem of air pollution—although differing
somewhat in its magnitude, character, and effects—is present
throughout our country; the new figure is intended to provide ad-
ditional assurance that all areas experiencing pollution have ade-
quate access to financial support by the Federal Government.
ABATEMENT
Existing law provides for abatement actions involving sources
of air pollution. Upon request of appropriate authorities, or in the
case of interstate air pollution, on his own motion, the Secretary
may call a conference concerning air pollution adversely affecting
health and welfare, with further procedures authorized thereafter
in case the conference action does not suffice to lead to elimination
of the pollution.
In order to provide all parties affected by an abatement action
a greater opportunity to participate in the proceeding of the
abatement action, the conference procedure has been revised. No-
tice of any abatement conference has been extended from 3 weeks
to 30 days. At the time the notice is given a Federal report is to
be made available which defines the matters to be set before the
conference, and any data and/or recommendations which the Fed-
eral Government wishes to make.
In this manner the committee expects the Secretary to provide
interested parties who may be affected by any abatement actions
resulting from the conference, an opportunity to present their
views relative to the Federal report and/or recommendations, and
other pertinent information.
It is expected that the Secretary will provide more detailed reg-
ulations for these conferences and other hearings provided for in
the act so that they will be carried out under standardized pro-
cedures. To the extent consistent with orderly and fair adminis-
trative practices, it is expected that those regulations will provide
that all persons having a substantial interest in a matter under
consideration, and whose participation would not simply be repe-
titious or cumulative, will be permitted to participate therein and
-------
738 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
that adequate public notice will be provided to permit such per-
sons to request the right to participate. This policy will provide
the conferees with the broadest review of the pollution problems
in a given area.
Time will be required for the establishment of air quality stand-
ards and their effective implementation. It is not intended that
the time required to establish such standards interfere with the
protection of public health and welfare.
Because of the nature of the air quality standards setting proc-
ess, requiring criteria and control information as a triggering
mechanism, many interstate and intrastate regions will continue
to have interim air pollution problems. It is therefore essential
that the Secretary continue to act expeditiously to abate pollution
either on his own motion or at the request of a Governor in inter-
state situations, or at the request of a Governor in an intrastate
situation.
[p. 27]
PRESIDENT'S AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD AND ADVISORY
COMMITTEES
The committee recognizes the need for participation by all seg-
ments of our national economy if air pollution control and abate-
ment is to be achieved. For this reason there has been provided in
the bill for a 15-member President's Air Quality Advisory Board
to advise and consult with the Secretary on matters of policy re-
lating to the programs of the Secretary conducted under the
provisions of this act.
Appointed members are to be selected so as to be representative
of State, interstate, and local governmental agencies and of public
or private interests demonstrating an active interest in the vari-
ous aspects of air pollution prevention and control and related
problems, as well as other individuals who are expert in the field
of air pollution.
The purpose of the Air Quality Advisory Board and the advis-
ory committees is twofold. First, it is to provide a means where-
by the Secretary may obtain the best possible advice and infor-
mation available from sources outside the Government. Second,
it is to provide a means of liaison with the various communities
including State and local authorities, medical and scientific groups,
and industrial groups, who are concerned with the air pollution
problem. The representation both on the Board and on the com-
mittees should permit the Secretary fully to obtain the views of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 739
those persons familiar with the regulatory, medical and scientific,
technical, and economic problems of air pollution abatement, of
those communities which bear the brunt of our air pollution prob-
lems, and of those industries who will bear the brunt of the neces-
sary regulation.
Similarly, the representation should permit an easy and effec-
tive liaison between the Secretary and the various affected groups
so that they may frankly discuss their common problems and
thereby achieve the most meaningful and reasonable solutions to
the difficult problems which are posed by the Nation's rapid rise in
air pollution. The Air Quality Advisory Board and the advisory
committees thus also would provide a means for exchange of views
among the various groups involved. It would be hoped that, by
each becoming more familiar with the problems and proposed
solutions of the others, a common approach could be developed
toward effective air pollution abatement.
It is intended that the Secretary consult with the Air Quality
Advisory Board and with the advisory committees on all major
policy issues.
Additional technical advisory committees are authorized under
this provision. Such advisory committees are to be established
from time to time by the Secretary, in order to obtain assistance
in the development and implementation of air quality criteria, rec-
ommended control techniques, standards, research, and develop-
ment, and to encourage the continued efforts on the part of indus-
try to improve air quality and to develop economically feasible
methods for the control and abatement of air pollution.
The committee feels that these advisory committees should con-
tain sufficient representation from the various groups concerned
with air pollution, including State and local authorities, medical
and scientific personnel, and industry experts in pollution abate-
ment, to permit and enhance both effective and useful consulta-
tion between the Secretary and his associates and other interested
parties.
[p. 28]
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS STUDY AND
AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS STUDY
The committee feels that the concept of national emission stand-
ards for stationary sources deserves further investigation as a
supplement to the standard setting procedures provided in the bill.
For the purpose of further consideration of national emission
standards, the committee amendments direct the Secretary to
-------
740 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
undertake a 2-year study of the concept. It is expected that the
Secretary will utilize the expertise of other Government agencies
to the maximum feasible extent in conducting this study. At that
time further consideration should be given to the concept.
The committee has also provided for a study by the Secretary of
emissions from jet and piston-engine aircraft, with a view to de-
termining the advisability and feasibility of controlling such emis-
sions and the establishment of national standards with respect
thereto. Such a study is needed, in view of the substantial in-
crease in air traffic anticipated in the future. Of course, the
problem of control of emissions in the case of aircraft presents
more difficulties than in the case of automobiles, since safety and
reliability of engine performance is crucial to aircraft operations.
The committee expects the Department to work closely with the
Federal Aviation Administration, NASA, and other interested de-
partments and agencies in the conduct of the study called for by
this amendment.
COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC COST STUDIES
In order to provide the committee a basis for evaluating pro-
grams authorized by this act and the development of new pro-
grams, the Secretary is required to make a detailed estimate of
the cost of carrying out the provisions of this act for a 5-year
period beginning July 1, 1969. The report is to include (1) a com-
prehensive study of the cost of program implementation by af-
fected units of government; and (2) a comprehensive study of the
economic impact of air quality standards. In making these eco-
nomic studies the Department will, of course, consult with other
Federal agencies whose knowledge and experience will be of
assistance.
In addition the Secretary is required to make a complete inves-
tigation and study to determine (1) the need for additional
trained State and local personnel; (2) means of using existing
Federal training programs to train such personnel; and (3) the
need for additional trained personnel to develop, operate, and
maintain those pollution control facilities designed and installed
to implement air quality standards.
ADDITIONAL REPORTS TO CONGRESS
Section 306 of the bill requires the Secretary to submit reports
to Congress which describe program accomplishments in connec-
tion with the act. The annual report is to include—
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 741
(1) The progress and problems associated with control of
automotive exhaust emissions and the research efforts related
thereto;
(2) The development of air quality criteria and recom-
mended emission control requirements;
[p. 29]
(3) The status of enforcement actions taken pursuant to
this act;
(4) The status of State ambient air standards setting, in-
cluding such plans for implementation and enforcement as
have been developed;
(5) The extent of development and expansion of air pollu-
tion monitoring systems;
(6) Progress and problems related to development of new
and improved control techniques;
(7) The development of quantitative and qualitative in-
strumentation to monitor emissions and air quality;
(8) Standards set or under consideration pursuant to title
II of this act;
(9) The status of State, interstate, and local pollution con-
trol programs established pursuant to and assisted by this
act; and
(10) The reports and recommendations made by the Presi-
dent's Air Quality Advisory Board.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF S. 780, AS REPORTED
The following analysis of the sections of S. 780 discusses all of
the recommended changes in the Clean Air Act of 1963 (Public
Law 88-206) as amended by Public Laws 89-272 and 89-675. It
describes in some detail the modifications which would be made in
the Clean Air Act.
TITLE I—AIR POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL
Section 101. Findings and purposes
The purposes of this title are revised, by revising paragraph
(b).(l), to include provisions to protect "and enhance the quality
of" the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health
and welfare and the productive capacity of its population.
Sec. 102. Cooperative activities and uniform laws
Subsection (c) of existing law, which expressed the consent of
-------
742 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
the Congress to negotiations between States for the purposes of
formulating compacts providing for cooperative to become effec-
tive after congressional ratification, has been deleted as unneces-
sary. A new subsection (c) has been substituted, expressing the
intent of the Congress that no agreement or compact entered into
by States subsequent to the enactment of the Air Quality Act of
1967 relating to air pollution control in an air quality control re-
gion shall provide for participation by a State which is not wholly
or partially included within such a region.
The remainder of the section is unchanged, and directs the Sec-
retary to encourage cooperative activities by States and local gov-
ernments and to cooperate with and encourage cooperative activi-
ties by all Federal departments and agencies. The Secretary is also
authorized to encourage the adoption of uniform State and local
laws where practicable.
Sec. 103. Research, investigations, training, and other activities
The provision of subsection (a) (4) of the act, which requires
the Secretary to specifically initiate, among others, a program of
research
[p. 30]
directed toward the development of improved, low-cost techniques
for extracting sulfur from fuels, and the provision of subsection
(a) (5) of the act, which requires the Secretary to conduct re-
search programs relating to the control of emissions from gas-
oline- and diesel-powered vehicles, and emissions of oxides of
sulfur from sulfur-containing fuels, have been deleted. They have
been replaced by a new subsection (a) (4), which requires the Sec-
retary, in more general terms, to conduct and accelerate research
in the control of fuel combustion byproducts, the removal of poten-
tial pollutants from fuels, and the control of evaporation of fuels.
The new subsection (a) (4) includes all the authority previously
contained in subsections (a) (4) and (5), and expands the au-
thority of those subsections to cover all fuels and combustion by-
products thereof. In addition, a new subsection (a) (5) has been
added, directing the Secretary to establish technical committees
to examine and evaluate research progress and contracts and to
insure the avoidance of research duplication.
Also, the provision of subsection (c) (2) of the act which au-
thorizes the Secretary to compile and publish for informational
purposes criteria relating to air pollutants which may be harmful
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 743
to the public health or general welfare has been deleted and in-
cluded under subsection 106 (b) of the bill.
The remaining provisions of this section are unchanged. Briefly,
they require the Secretary to establish a national research and de-
velopment program for prevention and control of air pollution,
and for that purpose to conduct research, render technical serv-
ice, and conduct investigations and research if requested to do so
by appropriate air pollution control agencies, or to do so on his
own initiative if the problem of air pollution is interstate in na-
ture. For these purposes the Secretary is authorized to collect and
make available information on the subject; to cooperate with all
interested public and private agencies and institutions; to make
grants for research, training, surveys, studies, and demonstra-
tions; to contract for these purposes; to establish research fellow-
ships ; to collect and disseminate basic data on chemical, physical,
and biological effects of varying air quality; to develop effective
and practical processes, methods, and prototype devices for the
prevention and control of air pollution.
Sec. 104. Grants for support of air pollution planning and control
programs
This section amends section 104 of the existing act, by expand-
ing the authority of the Secretary to make grants to air pollution
control agencies for planning costs.
This section, as amended authorizes grants to air pollution con-
trol agencies in support of the costs of planning, developing, es-
tablishing, or improving programs for the prevention and control
of air pollution and programs for the implementation of the air
quality standards authorized under the act. Grants may also be
made for the maintenance of such programs. Grants are author-
ized to be made under such terms and conditions as the Secretary
finds necessary, in amounts up to two-thirds of the eligible pro-
gram costs, except that in the case of program maintenance the
amounts may only be up to one-half of the eligible program costs.
Air pollution control agencies which fall within the meaning of
sections 302(b) (2) and 302(b) (4) are to be eligible for grants in
larger
[p. 31]
proportions; namely, up to three-fourths of the costs of planning,
developing, establishing, or improving, or up to three-fifths of
the costs of maintaining, regional air quality control programs.
In regard to these agencies, the Secretary shall first receive assur-
-------
744 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
ance that they provide for adequate representation of appropriate
State, interstate, local, and, when appropriate, international inter-
ests in the region, and that they are capable of developing air
quality control plan for the region, including recommended alert
systems, when appropriate. Agencies eligible for regional pro-
gram grants are defined in sections 302(b) (2) and 302 (b) (4),
which have been retained from existing law. The committee is
aware of the present interpretation of these terms by the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare and believes that the pur-
pose of the new legislation would be served by retaining this inter-
pretation; in particular, the committee believes that county agen-
cies with jurisdiction in more than one incorporated municipality
can be construed as air pollution control agencies within the mean-
ing of section 302 (b) (4).
The objective of the grant program is to provide impetus to the
establishment and improvement of air pollution prevention and
control programs in the States and local communities but not to
provide a substitute for State and local funds.
By "financial need" of an agency, the committee intends that
more than mere budgetary limitations of the agency be considered.
The capability of the community or communities supporting the
agency, taking into account such factors as financial resources,
bonding limitations, per capita income, market values of prop-
erty, and other relevant factors, should guide the Secretary's de-
cisions. For example, if two communities, each having an air pol-
lution control agency, possess approximately the same tax re-
sources, per capita income, and market valuation of properties
within their corporate limits, and have the same bonding limita-
tions, preference would be indicated in the case of the agency sup-
ported by a community which has bonded itself to the maximum,
as against the agency supported by a community which has not
done so.
The funds authorized to be appropriated for this purpose to-
gether with the formula and matching provisions of the bill,
should operate, in the committee's opinion, to encourage local ef-
fort in financing new or expanded programs, or the improvement
of existing programs. The committee would expect the regula-
tions of the Department with respect to the grant program to be
designed to carry out this objective.
The committee believes that the primary responsibility for the
prevention and control of air pollution should remain with the
State and local governments and accordingly is convinced that the
stimulation provided by the grant program will help to expand the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 745
local programs. The committee urges that the funds allocated be
utilized to expand and initiate local research and control pro-
grams.
Under the provisions of the bill, the Secretary would be author-
ized to make grants directly to local air pollution control agen-
cies without prior State approval. The committee would expect,
however, that in the administration of this program, the Depart-
ment will take precautions to insure that a grant will be made
only after appropriate consideration has been given to the views
of the State air pollution control authority (where such a State
authority exists) with respect to the particular program for which
a grant is sought. This procedure
[p. 32]
would assure, to a greater degree, that the objective of a planned
and coordinated statewide program would be achieved most effi-
ciently, and economically.
Sec. 105. Interstate air quality agencies or commissions
Under subsection (a) of this new section the Secretary is au-
thorized to make grants, for 2 years, to defray up to 100 percent
of the planning costs of any interstate agency, and thereafter
grants to defray up to three-fourths of such costs. The agency
must be designated by the Governors of the affected States for the
purpose of expediting the establishment of air quality standards
for interstate air quality control regions designated pursuant to
new section 106 (a) (2).
Under subsection (b) of this new section the Secretary has the
authority, after consultation with the affected States, to designate
or establish an air quality planning commission for the purpose
of developing recommended regulations for an interstate air qual-
ity control region whenever he deems it necessary to expedite the
establishment of standards. In this case the Secretary designates
the Chairman, provides the staff, and pays the associated ex-
penses.
Sec. 106. Air quality control regions, criteria, and control tech-
niques
This new section requires the Secretary to issue to Governors
the information required for the establishment of air quality
standards and a plan for their implementation. The issuance of
such information is precedent to the adoption of State standards
under new section 107.
526-702 O - 73 -- 12
-------
746 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Subsection (a) requires the Secretary to define atmospheric
areas of the Nation, within 1 year from the date of enactment of
this act, considering those factors which affect atmospheric inter-
change and diffusion of pollutants. In the establishment of such
atmospheric areas factors such as climate, meteorology, and to-
pography are to be considered.
The Secretary is further required, within 18 months of the date
of enactment of this act, to define those air quality control regions
he deems necessary for the establishment of air quality standards
to protect public health and welfare. Such air quality control
areas shall be defined on the basis of jurisdictional boundaries,
urban-industrial concentrations, and other factors including at-
mospheric areas necessary to provide adequate implementation of
air quality standards, and after consultation with appropriate
State and local authorities.
Subsection (b) authorizes the Secretary, after consultation with
appropriate advisory committees and Federal departments and
agencies, to compile and issue for informational purposes criteria
relating to air pollutants which may be harmful to public health
or welfare. Criteria issued shall reflect the latest scientific knowl-
edge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable ef-
fects on health and welfare of an air pollution agent, or combina-
tion of agents in the ambient air. At the same time the criteria
must include those factors which may result in a synergistic effect
on public health and welfare as a result of any air pollution agent
or combination of agents. Criteria issued pursuant to this sub-
section will be the basis for air quality standards established pur-
suant to new section 107. Criteria issued prior to these amend-
ments are to be reevaluated, and if necessary modified and re-
issued.
[p. 33]
Under subsection (c) the Secretary is required to issue infor-
mation on those recommended pollution control techniques to the
States and appropriate air pollution control agencies. Before issu-
ance of such information the Secretary is directed to consult with
appropriate advisory committees and Federal departments and
agencies. The information issued is to include the latest technical
data on the technological and economic feasibility of alternative
methods of emission control including cost effectiveness analyses.
Subsection (d) provides for the revision of the ambient air
quality criteria and emission control requirements issued pursu-
ant to this section.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 747
Sec. 107. Air quality standards and abatement of air pollution.
This section amends section 105 of the existing act by adding a
new subsection (c) providing for the establishment by the States
of ambient air quality standards and a plan for their enforcement
and implementation.
Paragraph (1) requires the Governor of a State to file a letter
of intent, adopt air quality standards, and adopt a plan for their
implementation and enforcement, all within 15 months.
Approval by the Secretary of the State standards and plan is to
be contingent upon whether (1) the State standards are consistent
with the air quality criteria and the recommended control tech-
niques issued by him under section 107; (2) the State plan is con-
sistent with the purposes of the act and assures achieving the air
quality standards within a reasonable time; and (3) a means of
enforcement by State action is provided, including imminent dan-
ger authority comparable to new subsection (k).
Paragraph (2) provides the Secretary with authority to set
standards where a State fails to establish standards and the Sec-
retary finds it necessary to carry out the purpose of the act. The
Secretary is authorized to prepare regulations setting forth air
quality standards for a control region, after reasonable notice and
a conference of agencies and industries involved. The standards
must be consistent with the air quality criteria and recommended
control techniques issued pursuant to section 106. The State has 6
months from the date the Secretary publishes such regulations to
adopt standards (satisfactory to the Secretary) or to file a peti-
tion for public hearing under paragraph (3). If neither is done,
the Secretary is required to promulgate such standards.
Paragraph (3) provides that within 30 days after the Secretary
has promulgated standards under paragraph (2), or at any earlier
time, the Governor of any State affected by the standards may
petition the Secretary for a hearing. The standards hearing board
and procedure is similar to the abatement hearing board and pro-
cedure provided under existing law, including a requirement of 30
days' notice. The board is given 90 days, unless the Secretary de-
termines that a longer period is required, to make its findings. The
standards approved by the hearing board if unchanged take effect
upon receipt by the Secretary, or if modified by the hearing board
upon promulgation by the Secretary of revised regulations.
The committee has deleted a specific requirement in S. 780 as
passed by the Senate that the Department of Commerce be repre-
-------
748 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
sented on any hearing board established under this paragraph
since no other
[p. 34]
Federal agency is specifically mentioned. The committee, however,
does not intent this change to be construed as an expression of
intent to the contrary. The Department of Commerce will have
many responsibilities in providing technical and economic advice
under this Act. Also, the participation of the Department of
Commerce in the ultimate establishment of air quality standards
could provide a basis for achieving the objective of air pollution
abatement, with the minimum economic disruption to the various
industries affected.
Paragraph (4) authorizes the Secretary, whenever he finds that
(A) the ambient air quality of all or a part of a control region is
below the standards established and (B) such lowered air quality
is due to the failure of a State to take reasonable action to enforce
such standards, to notify the affected State or States and inter-
ested parties including persons contributing to the alleged viola-
tion, of the violation. If, within 180 days of the Secretary's noti-
fication the failure does not cease, he may proceed under authority
similar to that of subsection (f) of the existing act.
Paragraph (5) provides for the protection of trade secrets.
A proposed paragraph (6) was deleted as unnecessary.
No change was made in subsection (c)(l) of the existing act
other than its redesignation as subsection (d) (1).
Subsection (c) (2) of the act is redesignated subsection (d) (2).
It is revised to require the Secretary to deliver to agencies and
make available to interested parties, at least 30 days prior to con-
ference, a Federal report including data and conclusions or find-
ings, if any. The provisions of existing law requiring three weeks'
notice are changed to require 30 days' notice, including news-
paper publication. The Chairman of the conference is required to
give interested parties opportunity to present views to the confer-
ence with respect to Federal report. The Secretary is to provide
that a transcript of the proceedings be made available to any par-
ticipant.
Subsection (c) (3) of the act is redesignated subsection (d) (3),
and subsection (d) through (i) of the act are redesignated sub-
sections (e) through (j), and appropriate cross-references
changed accordingly. The subsection to be designated (f) (1) is
amended to add a provision assuring all interested parties an op-
portunity to present evidence to the hearing board.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 749
A new subsection (k) authorizes the Secretary, upon receipt of
evidence of imminent and substantial endangerment to health, and
finding State or local authorities have not acted, to request Attor-
ney General to seek injunctions to stop emission of contaminants
or to take such other action as may be necessary.
Sec. 108. Standards to achieve higher level of air quality
The new section assures that States, localities, inter-municipal,
or interstate agencies may adopt standards and plans to achieve a
higher level of ambient air quality than approved by the Secretary.
Sec. 109. President's Air Quality Advisory Board and advisory
committees
This section replaces section 106 of the present act titled "Auto-
motive Vehicle and Fuel Pollution." Provisions of that section
which provide for the Secretary to encourage development of de-
vices and fuels to control automotive air pollution and required
semiannual
[p. 35]
report to Congress are incorperated within new sections 103 and
306, respectively.
The new section 109 establishes the President's Air Quality
Advisory Board in HEW, composed of the Secretary or his desig-
nee and 15 members appointed by the President, from State, inter-
state, and local agencies, of public or private interests contribut-
ing to, affected by, or concerned with air pollution, and others. No
appointee may be a Federal officer or employee. The Board is to
advise and consult with the Secretary on policy under the act and
make recommendations to the President.
This new section also authorizes the Secretary to establish ad-
visory committees from time to time to help develop criteria; rec-
ommend control techniques, standards, research, and development;
and to encourage efforts on the part of industry.
Sec. 110. Cooperation by Federal agencies to control air pollution
from Federal facilities
No changes were made in this section which is section 107 of
the existing act.
TITLE II—SHORT TITLE
Section 201
The title was redesignated the "National Emission Standards
-------
750 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Act" to reflect the incorporation in this title of all sections of the
act and bill concerned with national emission standards.
Sec. 202. Establishment of standards
No change in this section of the act.
Sec. 203. Prohibited acts
No change in this section of the act.
Sec. 204- Injunction procedure
No change in this section of the act.
Sec. 205. Penalties
No change in this section of the act.
Sec. 206. Certification
No change in this section of the act.
Sec. 207. Records and reports
No change in this section of the act.
Sec. 208. State standards
This new section provides explicit Federal preemption of the
power to set standards on emissions from new motor vehicles and
engines. It further provides that the Secretary may set other
standards, either more stringent or applicable to emissions not
covered by the national standards under section 202, after notice
and an opportunity for a public hearing for a State which shall
have adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards)
prior to March 30, 1966. The Secretary can set more stringent or
other standards if he finds that such State requires such standards
to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.
It is further provided that any State or political subdivision has
the right otherwise to control, regulate, or restrict the use, opera-
tion, or movement of registered or licensed motor vehicles.
[p. 36]
Sec. 209. Federal assistance in developing inspection programs
This new section provides assistance to State inspection pro-
grams by authorizing grants to State air pollution control agencies
for two-thirds of the cost of developing uniform motor vehicle
emission device inspection and emission testing programs. The
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 751
Secretary of Transportation must certify that the program is con-
sistent with any highway safety program established pursuant to
the Highway Safety Act.
Sec. 210. Registration of fuel additives
Prohibits any manufacturer or processor, after a date or dates
prescribed by regulation, from introducing into interstate com-
merce any fuel designated in regulations for any use whatsoever
which contains any additive, unless such additive is registered
with the Secretary. The Secretary would register an additive upon
filing of an application containing such information as to the char-
acteristics and composition of the additive as the Secretary finds
necessary and including assurances that such additional informa-
tion as the Secretary may reasonably require will be provided
upon request. The Secretary shall make provision to protect trade
secrets and national security interests with respect to any addi-
tive, or any class or use thereof. A civil penalty of $1,000 per day
is provided for violations of this section.
Sec. 211. National emissions standards study
This new section requires the Secretary to submit to Congress
within 2 years a comprehensive report on the need for and the ef-
fect of national emission standards for stationary sources. It also
requires that the Secretary investigate the feasibility and practica-
bility of controlling emissions from jet and piston-driven aircraft
engines and of establishing national emission standards with re-
spect thereto and report to the Congress within 1 year of the date
of enactment of this act.
Sec. 212. Definitions
No changes in this section of the act other than to designate the
sections of this title to which the definition of manufacture is re-
stricted.
TITLE III
Section 301. Administration
No change in this section of the act.
Sec. 302. Definitions
No change in this section of the act.
Sec. 303. Other authority not affected
No change in this section of the act.
-------
752 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Sec. 304. Records and audit
No change in this section of the act.
Sec. 305. Comprehensive economic cost studies
New section which requires the Secretary to submit a report to
Congress by January 10, 1969, and annually thereafter.
Provisions include—
(1) A detailed estimate of cost of carrying out this act;
[p. 37]
(2) A comprehensive study of cost of program implemen-
tation by affected units of government (each of above for 5
fiscal years beginning Jujy 1, 1969): and
(3) A comprehensive study of economic impact of air qual-
ity standards on the Nation's industries, communities, and
other pollution sources, including an analysis of national re-
quirements for and cost of controlling emissions to the stand-
ards established under the act.
The Secretary is also required to make complete investigation
of need for additional trained personnel, and report by July 1,
1969.
Sec. 306. Additional reports to Congress
New section which requires annual reports to Congress on prog-
ress in 10 specific fields authorized by the act.
Sec. 307. Labor standards
The Secretary shall do whatever is necessary to insure that all
laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontrac-
tors on projects assisted under this act shall be paid wages at
rates not less than those prevailing for the same type of work on
similar construction in the locality, determined by the Secretary
of Labor, as provided by the Davis-Bacon Act.
Sec. 308. Separability
No change in this section of the act.
Sec. 309. Appropriations
This section authorizes $99 million for fiscal year 1968, $145
million for fiscal year 1969, and $184,300,000 for fiscal year 1970.
Sec. 310. Short title
No change in this section of the act.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 753
AGENCY REPORTS
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
Washington, D.C., May 12, 1967.
Hon, HARLEY O. STAGGERS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request of
May 3,1967, for a report on H.R. 9509, a bill "To amend the Clean
Air Act to improve and expand the authority to conduct or assist
research relating to air pollutants, to assist in the establishment
of regional air quality commissions, to authorize establishment of
standards applicable to emissions from establishments engaged in
certain types of industry, to assist in establishment and mainte-
nance of State programs for annual inspections of automobile
emission control devices, and for other purposes."
On January 31, 1967, you introduced H.R. 4279, which was the
same as the draft bill we submitted to the Congress to carry out
the recommendations with respect to improving the quality of our
air contained in the President's Message to the Congress on Pro-
tecting Our National Heritage. Subsequently, on April 27, we
submitted to the Congress a request that this bill be amended to
increase from $84,000,000 to $99,000,000 the authorization of ap-
propriations for the fiscal year
[p. 38]
ending June 30, 1968 to carry out the existing and proposed legis-
lation. The additional funds would be made available for research
and development in the control of sulfur emissions from fuels.
As you explained in introducing H.R. 9509, it is the same as
H. R. 4279 except for this additional amendment to carry out our
recommendation. We, therefore, urge that favorable consideration
be given to H.R. 9509.
We are advised by the Bureau of the Budget that enactment of
H.R. 9509 would be in accord with the program of the President.
Sincerely,
WILBUR J. COHEN,
Under Secretary
-------
754 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
DEPARTMENT OP HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
Washington, D.C., August 14,1967.
Hon. HARLEY 0. STAGGERS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request
of July 20, 1967, for a report on S. 780, a bill "To amend the Clean
Air Act to authorize planning grants to air pollution control agen-
cies; expand research provisions relating to fuels and vehicles;
provide for interstate air pollution control agencies or commis-
sions; authorize the establishment of air quality standards, and for
other purposes."
This bill, which was passed by the Senate on July 18, 1967, and
H.R. 9509, which you introduced at the request of this Depart-
ment, will be the subject of hearings before your Committee,
beginning August 9, 1967. Officials of this Department will be
testifying at these hearings.
We are pleased that the Committee has scheduled its hearings so
promptly after completion of action on this legislation by the
Senate. In our testimony at the hearings, we intend to make a full
presentation of our views on both bills; subsequently, if you deem
it necessary or desirable, we will be pleased to submit a formal
report.
Sincerely,
WILBUR J. COHEN,
Under Secretary
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,
Washington, D.C., August 16, 1967.
Hon. HARLEY 0. STAGGERS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for
the views of the Bureau of the Budget on H.R. 4279 and S. 780,
bills to amend the Clean Air Act. H.R. 4279, which the President
has recommended, would provide for national emission standards
to control pollution from major industries throughout the country,
and for Regional Commissions to establish and enforce air pollu-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 755
tion standards on a regional basis. The Senate-passed bill contains
a number of the provisions of the Administration's bill. However,
it substitutes for
[p. 39]
the national emission standards and the Regional Commissions a
process by which the States would initially have the opportunity
to establish air quality standards, subject to the approval of the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
We strongly urge enactment of legislation to strengthen this
Nation's attack on air pollution. We would prefer the enactment
of H.R. 4279, but we recognize that the Senate-passed bill would
provide for substantial improvements in air pollution control.
If S. 780 is favorably considered by your Committee, we endorse
the amendments recommended by the Department of Defense in
its report. We believe that a provision similar to that contained in
H.R. 4279 is needed for the protection of the national security in
extraordinary circumstances.
Sincerely yours,
WILFRED H. ROMMEL,
Assistant Director for Legislative Reference
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C., August 9, 1967.
Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. STAGGERS: Your Committee has requested this De-
partment's views on H.R. 9509, a bill "To amend the Clean Air
Act to improve and expand the authority to conduct or assist re-
search relating to air pollutants, to assist in the establishment of
regional air quality commissions, to authorize establishment of
standards applicable to emissions from establishments engaged in
certain types of industry, to assist in establishment and mainten-
ance of State programs for annual inspections of automobile emis-
sion control devices, and for other purposes," and a similar bill
H.R.4279.
H.R. 9509 is identical to the Administration's bill on this sub-
ject. H.R. 4279 differs from H.R. 9509 only in the sum authorized
-------
756 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
to be appropriated for fiscal year 1968 and the 4 succeeding years.
The sum in H.R. 9509 is higher.
Your Committee has also requested this Department's views on
S. 780, a bill "To amend the Clean Air Act to authorize planning
grants to air pollution control agencies; expand research provi-
sions relating to fuels and vehicles; provide for interstate air pol-
lution control agencies or commissions; authorize the establish-
ment of air quality standards, and for other purposes," which
passed the Senate on July 18, 1967. S. 780 substantially amends
the Clean Air Act. The bill includes many of the recommendations
of the Administration.
The provisions of these bills are of interest to this Department,
particularly as they relate to the work we have done through re-
search and other activities in the area of fuels. They are, however,
of more direct concern to the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. We therefore defer to that Department on these bills.
[p. 40]
The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection
to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Ad-
ministration's program.
Sincerely yours,
J. CORDELL MOORE,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Washington, D.C., August 2b, 1967.
Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your letter of May 3,
1967, requesting a report on H.R. 9509, a bill "To amend the Clean
Air Act to improve and expand the authority to conduct or assist
research relating to air pollution, to assist in the establishment of
regional air quality commissions, to authorize establishment of
standards applicable to emissions from establishments engaged in
certain types of industry, to assist in establishment and mainten-
ance of State programs for annual inspections of automobile emis-
sion control devices, and for other purposes." This also replies to
your requests for reports on H.R. 10, H.R. 698, H.R. 3126, and
H.R. 4279.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 757
H.R. 9509 would provide among other things, for the conduct
and acceleration of research especially relating to fuels, and Fed-
eral payments for costs of devices, methods, or other means to
prevent or control discharge into the air of various types of pol-
lutants. Fuel additives would be required to be registered with
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare with provision
for civil penalties for violations. Vehicle pollution control devices
on model years after 1967 would be inspected on a regular basis
and assistance provided in the administration of State inspection
programs.
Emission control standards would be established for those in-
dustries which contribute heavily to air pollution. The bill would
provide procedures for enforcement of emission standards includ-
ing civil penalties. Also, provision would be made for acceptance
of emission standards developed by the States which are sub-
stantially equivalent to or more stringent than Federal standards.
Regional air quality commissions would be established in coopera-
tion with the States to deal with pollution problems which cut
across State and local boundaries with enforcement provisions
including civil penalties.
Air pollution, especially from effluents containing fluorine, sul-
fur, and other compounds and combustion products, has been dem-
onstrated to cause extensive damage to crops, livestock, and
forests upon which this country depends for food, fiber, shelter,
and other materials. This Department favors the enactment of
H.R. 9509.
In this connection the Department of Agriculture has authority,
and will continue, to undertake research and related services in
connection with air pollution affecting agriculture.
The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to
the presentation of this report and that the enactment of this
proposed legislation would be in accord with the President's pro-
gram.
Sincerely yours,
ORVILLE L. FREEMAN, Secretary
[p. 41]
-------
758 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION,
Washington, B.C., August 15,1967.
Hon. HARLEY 0. STAGGERS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for
the views of this Department on H.R. 698, H.R. 3126, H.R. 4279,
and H.R. 9509, bills which would variously amend the Clean Air
Act to provide for more effective prevention, control and abate-
ment of air pollution.
The Department of Transportation strongly urges the enact-
ment of legislation to strengthen the authority to attack air pollu-
tion. Pollution from fuel combustion is a critical, nationwide
problem which must be dealt with promptly and effectively.
The bulk of the air pollution control and abatement authority
proposed in these bills would be vested in the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare. The Department of Transportation will
have a supporting role in carrying out some of the programs con-
templated. We favor the enactment of H.R. 9509; however, we
would not oppose enactment of S. 780.
The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to
the submission of this report and that enactment of H.R. 9509
would be in accord with the President's program.
Sincerely,
JOHN L. SWEENEY,
Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
Washington, D.C., August 14,1967.
Hon. HARLEY 0. STAGGERS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to S. 780, the proposed
"Air Quality Act of 1967" as passed by the Senate and now pend-
ing before your Committee. Although the Department of Defense
prefers the language of H.R. 9509, which is identical to S. 780
as introduced, this opportunity is taken to present its views in con-
nection with certain provisions of S. 780 as passed by the Senate.
As introduced S. 780 (proposed Sees. 107 (a) and 108 (e)) pro-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTOKY 759
vided authority for exemptions from otherwise contemplated air
quality standards and emission standards upon a finding, by the
Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, that exemption is
necessary "to protect the public health or welfare, for the purpose
of research, investigations, studies, demonstrations, or training,
or for reasons of national security" (emphasis added). Similarly,
in connection with registration of fuel additives (proposed sec-
tion 103(f)(3)), S. 780 would have authorized the Secretary,
HEW, to protect fuel additive data submitted if in his judgment
such protection is needed in the interest of trade secrets or na-
tional security. In its present form, no such exemption or authori-
ty is retained in the bill, as concerns national security.
[p. 42]
Consistent with the position of the Administration as reflected
in the introduced bill, it is recommended that the substance of the
deleted provisions bearing on national security considerations be
reinstated in S. 780, as suggested below. In connection with stand-
ards to be established by the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
a. Add, as a new subparagraph 108 (c) (7), text to the following
effect:
"The Secretary may exempt any industry or establishment or
class thereof from the standards established under paragraphs 2
and 3 of this subsection, upon such terms and conditions as he
finds necessary, for the protection of the public health and welfare
or for reasons of national security."
This provision is considered necessary in order to avoid situa-
tions wherein the national security clearly requires continuance
of operations which may for short periods of time not conform to
the air quality criteria. For example, operation of a stand-by
munitions manufacturing plant may have to be resumed in a time
of crisis or national emergency in such a mode as to produce
emissions above those established under this section, but below
an immediate health hazard concentration.
b. Introduce the following text as a new subparagraph 210 (d),
and reletter the present subparagraphs 210 (d) and (e) as sub-
paragraphs 210 (e) and (f) respectively:
"The Secretary shall make provision, with respect to any addi-
tive, or any class or use thereof, or any information furnished in
connection therewith, as in his judgment is necessary in the inter-
est of national security."
This provision is essential to prevent disclosure of information
-------
760 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
regarding current and projected military capabilities in aircraft
fuels, rocket and missile propellants, and other specialized military
propulsion systems. In absence of a clear basis for exception from
the otherwise mandatory disclosure provisions of proposed section
210, much of the information required could provide direct data
on miltary capabilities. As introduced, the protection of national
security data would, of course, have been coextensive with the
coverage of the fuel additive provision which, it is understood, was
intended to deal only with motor vehicle fuels. In light of the
expanded coverage as now contemplated, to include fuels used for
other than motor vehicles, the need for such national security
safeguard becomes even more significant.
The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of
the Administration's program, there is no objection to the presen-
tation of this report for the consideration of the Committee.
Sincerely yours,
L. NlEDERLEHNER,
Acting General Counsel
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Washington, D.C., August 23,1967.
Hon. HARLEY 0. STAGGERS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of March 13, 1967, requested
the comments of the General Services Administration on H.R.
4279
[p. 43]
(superseded by H.R. 9509), 90th Congress, a bill "To amend the
Clean Air Act to improve and expand the authority to conduct
or assist research relating to air pollutants, to assist in the estab-
lishment of regional air quality commissions, to authorize estab-
lishment of standards applicable to emissions from establishments
engaged in certain types of industry, to assist in establishment
and maintenance of State program for annual inspections of au-
tomobile emission control devices and for other purposes."
Section 2 (a) of the bill would amend section 103 (a) of the
Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857b(a)) to provide,
among other things, that the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare shall conduct and accelerate research programs for the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 761
development of improved low-cost techniques for control of com-
bustion byproducts of fuels. Section 4 of the bill would amend the
Clean Air Act by adding a new section 208 to provide, in part,
that the Secretary of Transportation is authorized to impose pro-
cedures to assure the adequacy of performance of vehicle emission
control systems or devices.
The President in his message to the Congress of February 8,
1865, on the subject of "Natural Beauty" stated, among other
things, that the Administrator of General Services had already
taken steps to assure that motor vehicles purchased by the Federal
Government meet minimum standards of exhaust quality. The
President was referring to our publication, in proposed form, of
Federal Standard No. 515/14 in the Federal Register on January
30, 1965 (30 F.R. 801).
This standard, which had been developed with the full collabora-
tion of industry and Government agencies concerned, placed limi-
tations on vehicle exhaust emissions. It was issued pursuant to
Public Law 88-515, approved August 30, 1964 (78 Stat. 696), and
section 205 (c) of the Federal Property and Administrative Serv-
ices Act of 1949. On June 30, 1965, the standard was published
in final form, with September 28, 1966, as its effective date (30
F.R. 8326, 8327). Federal Standard No. 515/14 has been amended
to conform to regulations established by the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare. The amendment will become effective on
October 13, 1967 (31 F.R. 5170, 9635, 9638).
In addition, pursuant to section 206 (a) (4) of the Property Act,
we have issued specifications as early as 1963 requiring that the
engines of motor vehicles purchased by Federal agencies be pro-
vided with positive crankcase ventilation systems. This require-
ment is now included in Federal Standard 515/14a. These systems
route most crankcase emissions back into the combustion chambers
of the engines, and thereby substantially reduce the pollutants re-
leased by the crankcase. Beginning with the 1968 models, control
of crankcase emission, along with exhaust emission control, will
be governed by regulations issued by HEW (31 F.R. 5170).
We believe that GSA's program is consistent with the objectives
of sections 2(a) and 4 of H.R. 4279 (H.R. 9509).
Since the remainder of the bill, if enacted, would have little, if
any, effect on GSA's functions or responsibilities, we have no
appropriate basis for comment thereon.
The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection
to the submission of this report to your Committee and that enact-
[p. 44]
526-702 O - 73 -- 13
-------
762 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
ment of H.R. 9509 would be in accord with the President's pro-
gram.
Sincerely yours,
LAWSON B. KNOTT, JR.,
Administrator
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Washington, D.C., August 23, 1967.
Hon. HARLEY 0. STAGGERS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of July 20, 1967, requested
the comments of the General Services Administration on S. 780,
90th Congress, a bill "To amend the Clean Air Act to authorize
planning grants to air pollution control agencies; expand research
provisions relating to fuels and vehicles; provide for interstate air
pollution control agencies or commissions; authorize the establish-
ment of air quality standards, and for other purposes."
The proposed section 104 (a) of the Clean Air Act would provide
among other things, that the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare shall conduct and accelerate research programs for the
development of improved low-cost techniques for control of com-
bustion by-products of fuels. The proposed section 208 would pro-
vide Federal preemption of the right to adopt or attempt to en-
force standards relating to the control of emissions from new
motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines with the sole waiver
of application of preemption to the State of California. With this
one exception, the standards prescribed by the Secretary under
section 202 (a) of the Clean Air Act and accompanying enforce-
ment procedures for the control of air pollution from motor vehi-
cles would apply uniformly throughout the United States.
The President in his message to the Congress of February 6,
1965, on the subject of "Natural Beauty" stated, among other
things, that the Administrator of General Services had already
taken steps to assure that motor vehicles purchased by the Federal
Government meet minimum standards of exhaust quality. The
President was referring to our publication, in proposed form, of
Federal Standard No. 515/14 in the Federal Register on January
30,1965 (30F.R. 801).
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 763
This standard, which had been developed with the full collabora-
tion of industry and Government agencies concerned, placed lim-
itations on vehicle exhaust emissions. It was issued pursuant to
Public Law 88-515, approved August 30, 1964 (78 Stat. 696), and
section 205 (c) of the Federal Property and Administrative Serv-
ices Act of 1949. On June 30, 1965, the standard was published
in final form, with September 28, 1966, as its effective date (30
F.R. 8326, 8327). Federal Standard No. 515/14 has been amended
to conform to regulations established by the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare. The amendment will become
effective on October 13, 1967 (31 F.R. 5170, 9635, 9638).
In addition, pursuant to section 206 (a) (4) of the Property Act,
we have issued specifications as early as 1963 requiring that the
engines of motor vehicles purchased by Federal agencies be pro-
vided with positive crankcase ventilation systems. This require-
ment is now included in Federal Standard 515/14a. These systems
route most crankcase emis-
[p. 45]
sions back into the combustion chambers of the engines, and
thereby substantially reduced the pollutants released by the crank-
case. Beginning with the 1968 models, control of crankcase emis-
sions, along with exhaust emission control, will be governed by
regulations issued by HEW (31 F.R. 5170).
We believe that GSA's program is consistent with the objectives
of sections 104 (a) and 208 of S. 780, and we have no objection to
the enactment of these provisions.
Since the remainder of the bill, if enacted, would have little, if
any, affect on GSA's functions or responsibilities, we have no ap-
propriate basis for comment thereon.
The Bureau of the Budget has advised that, from the standpoint
of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the
submission of this report to your Committee.
Sincerely yours,
LAWSON B. KNOTT, JR.,
Administrator
-------
764 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
ADVISORY COMMISSION ON
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS,
Washington, D.C., July 31,1967.
Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request of
July 20 for the views of the Advisory Commission on Intergovern-
mental Relations regarding S. 780, an Act "To amend the Clean
Air Act to authorize planning grants to air pollution control agen-
cies; expand research provisions relating to fuels and vehicles;
provide for interstate air pollution control agencies or commis-
sions; authorize the establishment of air quality standards, and
for other purposes." The Commission has not studied the pro-
visions of this legislation, nor has it studied the specific inter-
governmental problems of air pollution control embodied in the
legislation. The following comments, therefore, unless otherwise
noted, are those of the Commission staff.
Section 105 authorizes the Secretary of HEW to make grants
for support of air pollution planning and control programs. Sub-
section (b) provides that in establishing regulations for granting
such funds the Secretary shall, so far as practicable, "give due
consideration to (1) the population, (2) the extent of the actual
or potential air pollution problem, and (3) the financial need of
the respective agencies." Except for the fact that subsection (c)
limits the allocation of funds to any one State to 121/2 percent of
the total, funds are to be allocated on a "project" rather than a
"formula" basis.
Since an effective formula approach depends on the availability
of adequate measures of program need, and since such measures
are currently lacking because of the rudimentary state of the
science of air pollution prevention and control, the project ap-
proach seems necessary at this time. It would seem, however, that
in not too many years, HEW will have developed reasonably good
measures of need. This Act's authorization of grants for support
of operating programs should encourage widespread pollution con-
trol activity. Also, Section 107 of the Act requires the Secretary
of HEW to develop criteria of air
[p. 46]
quality, and Section 108 requires him to establish standards con-
sistent with those criteria and if necessary prepare regulations
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 765
setting forth standards of air quality applicable to air quality
control regions or portions thereof. Thus, the Act itself should
generate the development of indices and techniques for measuring
air pollution which produce the type of data needed to enable
allocation of grant funds for conducting air pollution control
programs on a formula rather than project basis.
From its examination of the administration of the categorical
grant system, the Commission staff is convinced that a formula
grant, based on adequate measures of program need, provides a
greater degree of Congressional assurance that the grant funds
authorized will be applied to the places of need as prescribed in
the legislation. The project system, by contrast, places great re-
liance on administrative discretion and favors those State and
local applicants that have highly-developed capacity for preparing
and submitting applications, regardless of their relative need for
the grant funds. The Commission's staff would therefore urge
your Committee, in its continuing review of the operation of the
Clean Air Act to take special note of progress in developing air
pollution control techniques and measures of need, with a view to
possible future amendment of Section 105 (b) of the Act to provide
for distributing grants for operating purposes on a formula basis.
Section 302 (b) (1) defines a State air pollution control agency
to mean "(a) single State agency designated by the Governor of
that State as the official State air pollution control agency for pur-
poses of this Act." The Advisory Commission on Intergovern-
mental Relations has taken the position that "single State agency"
requirements unnecessarily limit the organizational powers and
flexibility of State government and may lead to weak administra-
tion of Federal programs. We would suggest adding the following
language after the word "Act":
"Provided, that the Secretary may, upon request of the Gover-
nor or other appropriate executive or legislative authority of the
State responsible for determining or revising the organizational
structure of State government, waive the single State agency
provision hereof and approve another State administrative struc-
ture or arrangement if the Secretary determines that the objec-
tives of this Act will not be endangered by the use of such other
State structure or arrangement."
Finally, we would suggest amending the definition of "regional
air pollution control agency or planning commission" in Section
302 (c) to read as follows:
"The term 'regional air pollution control agency or planning
commission' means an agency with jurisdiction over the area of
-------
766 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
two or more municipalities located in the same State or in differ-
ent States and having the capability of carrying out the planning
functions authorized by this Act."
The change makes it clear that the regional agency need not be
an agency established by two or more municipalities. It might, for
example, be a State agency with its governing body appointed by
the Governor. The crucial point is that its coverage extends to
more than a single municipality. This clarification is consistent,
moreover, with
[p. 47]
the definition of "regional air quality control program" contained
in the last sentence of Section 105 (a) (1).
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on S. 780.
Sincerely yours,
WM. G. COLEMAN,
Executive Director
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Washington, D.C., August 28, 1967.
Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further reply to your request
for the views of this Department concerning S. 780, an Act
"To amend the Clean Air Act to authorize planning grants to
air pollution control agencies; expand research provisions relating
to fuels and vehicles; provide for interstate air pollution control
agencies or commissions; authorize the establishment of air quality
standards, and for other purposes."
to be cited as the "Air Quality Act of 1967."
Title I of S. 780 defines the basic purposes of the Act and the
role of the Federal Government in air pollution control. In this
respect the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, who is
charged with administering the Act, is directed to defer to State
and regional standards and control programs unless they are
deficient, in which case he is authorized to implement such Fed-
eral control as the Act permits. With respect to prevention and
control of air pollution, the Secretary is directed to encourage
activities by the various State and local governments, to establish
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 767
a national research and development program, to establish air-
quality criteria and, as necessary, to designate air quality control
regions. The Secretary is authorized to make grants to air pollu-
tion control agencies and planning commissions. Also, Title I
establishes in the Department of HEW the President's Air Quality
Advisory Board, composed of the Secretary and fifteen non-
Federal members appointed by the President, who shall advise
and consult with the Secretary on matters regarding this Act and
make recommendations to the President as necessary.
Title II deals with the establishment of standards for emission
of pollutants, and it sets forth enforcement procedures and penal-
ties for violation. It directs the Secretary to prescribe emission
standards for new motor vehicles and to submit to Congress
within two years a comprehensive report on the need for and the
effect of national emission standards for stationary sources. The
Secretary is authorized to require manufacturers to reveal the
composition of fuels, and in the case of motor vehicles, he is
authorized to make grants to State air pollution control agencies
for developing uniform emission device inspection and emission
testing programs.
Title III authorizes the Secretary to prescribe such regulations
as are necessary to carry out his functions under this Act, and
to detail personnel of the Public Health Service to air pollution
control agencies. It also requires the Secretary, in cooperation
with State, interstate and local air pollution control agencies to
make comprehensive economic cost studies in order to provide a
basis for evaluating programs authorized by this Act.
[P- 48]
S. 780 is designed to implement certain of the recommendations
for an accelerated attack on the contamination of our air con-
tained in the President's message of January 30, 1967 to the Con-
gress on Air Pollution.
This Department recommends the enactment of legislation for
this purpose. While we would prefer the enactment of H.R. 9509,
as recommended by the President, we believe that S. 780 would
provide much of the additional authority needed for control of air
pollution in this country. We would not therefore object to enact-
ment of S. 780.
The added responsibilities which this Department will incur
under this Act, both those implied throughout the Act and those
specifically alluded to in Senate Report No. 403, will result in
increased responsibilities for this Department and will require the
-------
768 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
expenditure of additional funds, the extent of which is not known
at this time.
We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there
would be no objection to the submission of this report and further
that enactment of H.R. 9509 would be in accord with the program
of the President.
Sincerely,
JAMES L. PARRIS,
General Counsel
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, B.C., September 12, 1967.
Hon. HARLEY 0. STAGGERS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Although the Department of State has
not been asked to comment on S. 780, we would like to place before
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce certain trade
considerations with respect to section 208 (b) of the bill, as re-
ported by the Senate Committee on Public Works and passed by
the Senate. This letter is prompted by expressions of concern
which we have received from foreign embassies and from repre-
sentatives of American importers.
The Department was pleased to see included in paragraph (a)
of section 208 a clear statement of the principle of Federal pre-
emption of the right to set standards on emissions from new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. This principle had hereto-
fore not been explicit in the Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control
Act. Its omission had occasioned concern among foreign embassies
here.
Paragraph (b) of section 208, however, gives the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare authority, after public hearing
and upon satisfaction of certain conditions, to waive application
of paragraph (a) to a State which has adopted automobile air
pollution control standards, other than crankcase emission stand-
ards, prior to March 30, 1966. We note that California is the only
State that might now qualify for such a waiver. We are, never-
theless, concerned that this exemption may serve as a precedent
for waiver of the principle of Federal preemption with respect to
additional States. The report to accompany S. 780, Committee on
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 769
Public Works, U.S. Senate (Report No. 403, July 15, 1967), indi-
cates that the Senate Committee has not ruled out the possibility
that the Congress might expand the waiver,
[p- 49]
now proposed only for California, to include other States if cir-
cumstances should so suggest. We are also troubled that the waiver
may serve as a precedent for sanctioning other State laws and
regulations affecting an unlimited range of products that move
in foreign commerce. To permit individual States to establish
regulations affecting foreign commerce can cause grave trade
complications.
Recognition of two or more sets of emission standards would
entail diseconomies of scale and efficiency for both domestic and
foreign automobile manufacturers, but the burden would fall with
disproportionate severity upon imported car manufacturers. About
8 million domestically made cars were sold here last year. About
700,000 foreign cars were sold. The market for the domestic
product will remain substantial in California and in other stand-
ards areas. Foreign manufacturers will have fewer sales than
domestic manufacturers in any special standards area over which
to spread the costs of compliance. Some foreign producers might
thereby be excluded from the American market or from some
sections of it. While many justify the plight of foreign suppliers
by observing that American producers would be laboring under
the same handicap, we must in all fairness consider whether or
not, in acceeding to the regionalization of standards, we might be
giving domestic manufacturers relief from foreign competition,
and exercising de facto, if not technical, discrimination against
the comparable imported product. In this case we could expect
foreign governments and foreign suppliers to accuse us of violat-
ing the spirit of many bilateral treaties of friendship, commerce,
and navigation and other international agreements in which we
have undertaken to grant foreign products, once they have entered
the United States, the same treatment that we give to similar
domestic products with respect to all laws, regulations, and re-
quirements affecting their internal sale, offering for sale, pur-
chase, transportation, distribution, or use. Frustration could
prompt our trading partners to use health and safety regulations
as disguised trade barriers in retaliation, to the detriment of
American export capability.
The Department of State believes that, ideally, there should be
uniform national standards for the control of automobile air pol-
-------
770 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
lution. It recognizes the critical concern of California for air
pollution control, which is prompted especially by the acute sus-
ceptibility of the Los Angeles basin to concentrations of smog.
However, air pollution has become an increasingly pressing prob-
lem in most metropolitan areas where by 1985, 75 percent of our
population will be living. New York City in 1963 experienced a
surge in the death rate directly traceable to air pollution. A vast
area of the east coast last Thanksgiving Day was threatened by
a near-critical concentration of stagnant air. Detroit, Pittsburgh,
Chicago, Baltimore, and Washington, among other cities, are
bothered by smog. Different automotive pollutants may be the
special concern of different areas—hydrocarbon emissions in Los
Angeles, carbon monoxide in New York, nitrogen oxides in other
cities. The committee therefore, may wish to provide for a uni-
form national standard for each type of emission that would re-
flect the degree of control required to protect air quality in the
area most severely affected by that pollutant. National standards,
then, would reflect, compositely, the most critical needs of all
areas.
If, despite the trade considerations raised above, the committee
believes that there are overriding reasons for retention of the
Cali-
[p. 50]
fornia waiver provision, the Department of State would not op-
pose the suggestion of Thomas C. Mann, president of the Auto-
mobile Manufacturers Association, made to the House Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on August 23, 1967. Remark-
ing that the domestic automobile manufacturers would prefer uni-
form national standards, Mr. Mann proposed as an alternative to
paragraph (b), as now drafted, that the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare, rather than the State of California, be
given the authority to issue and administer the more stringent
standards for which the committee might wish to provide.
In the view of this Department, it is essential that the bill
should assert the preeminence of the Federal Government in order
that (1) emission standards will be based on the best available
information—which the wide resources of the Federal Govern-
ment are soon likely to provide—and that (2) procedures and the
interpretation of data, regulations, and laws will be uniform
throughout the Nation.
The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 771
the administration's program there is no objection to the sub-
mission of this report.
Sincerely yours,
WILLIAM B. MACOMBER, JR.,
Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, As REPORTED
In compliance with clause 3 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the
bill, S. 780, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law pro-
posed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is
printed in italics, existing law in which no change is proposed is
shown in roman) :
CLEAN AIR ACT
AN ACT To improve, strengthen, and accelerate programs for
the prevention and abatement of air pollution
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
TITLE I—AIR POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL
FINDINGS AND PURPOSES
SECTION 101. (a) The Congress finds—
(1) that the predominant part of the Nation's population
is located in its rapidly expanding metropolitan and other
urban areas, which generally cross the boundary lines of local
jurisdictions and often extend into two or more States;
(2) that the growth in the amount and complexity of air
pollution brought about by urbanization, industrial develop-
ment, and the increasing use of motor vehicles, has resulted
in mounting dangers to the public health and welfare, includ-
ing injury to agricultural crops and livestock, damage to and
the deterioration of property, and hazards to air and ground
transportation;
[p. 51]
-------
772 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
(3) that the prevention and control of air pollution at its
source is the primary responsibility of States and local gov-
ernments; and
(4) that Federal financial assistance and leadership is es-
sential for the development of cooperative Federal, State,
regional, and local programs to prevent and control air pollu-
tion.
(b) The purposes of this title are—
(1) to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air
resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and
the productive capacity of its population;
(2) to initiate and accelerate a national research and devel-
opment program to achieve the prevention and control of air
pollution;
(3) to provide technical and financial assistance to State
and local governments in connection with the development
and execution of their air pollution prevention and control
programs; and
(4) to encourage and assist the development and operation
of regional air pollution control programs.
COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES AND UNIFORM LAWS
SEC. 102. (a) The Secretary shall encourage cooperative activi-
ties by the States and local governments for the prevention and
control of air pollution; encourage the enactment of improved and,
so far as practicable in the light of varying conditions and needs,
uniform State and local laws relating to the prevention and con-
trol of air pollution; and encourage the making of agreements
and compacts between States for the prevention and control of
air pollution.
(b) The Secretary shall cooperate with and encourage coop-
erative activities by all Federal departments and agencies having
functions relating to the prevention and control of air pollution,
so as to assure the utilization in the Federal air pollution control
program of all appropriate and available facilities and resources
within the Federal Government.
[(c) The consent of the Congress is hereby given to two or more
States to negotiate and enter into agreements or compacts, not in
conflict with any law or treaty of the United States, for (1) coop-
erative effort and mutual assistance for the prevention and control
of air pollution and the enforcement of their respective laws relat-
ing thereto, and (2) the establishment of such agencies, joint or
otherwise, as they may deem desirable for making effective such
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 773
agreements or compacts. No such agreement or compact shall be
binding or obligatory upon any State a party thereto unless and
until it has been approved by Congress.]
(c) It is the intent of Congress that no agreement or compact
entered into between States after the date of enactment of the
Air Quality Act of 1967, ivhich relates to the control and abate-
ment of air pollution in an air quality control region, shall provide
for participation by a State which is not included (in whole or in
part) in such air quality control region.
[p. 52]
RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES
SEC. 103. (a) The Secretary shall establish a national research
and development program for the prevention and control of air
pollution and as part of such program shall—
(1) conduct, and promote the coordination and acceleration
of, research, investigations, experiments, training, demon-
strations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects,
extent, prevention, and control of air pollution;
(2) encourage, cooperate with, and render technical serv-
ices and provide financial assistance to air pollution control
agencies and other appropriate public or private agencies,
institutions, and organizations, and individuals in the conduct
of such activities;
(3) conduct investigations and research and make surveys
concerning any specific problem of air pollution in coopera-
tion with any air pollution control agency with a view to rec-
ommending a solution of such problem, if he is requested to
do so by such agency, or if, in his judgment, such problem
may affect any community or communities in a State other
than that in which the source of the matter causing or con-
tributing to the pollution is located;
[(4) initiate and conduct a program of research directed
toward the development of improved, low-cost techniques for
extracting sulfur from fuels; and
[(5) conduct and accelerate research programs (A) relat-
ing to the means of controlling hydrocarbon emissions result-
ing from the evaporation of gasoline in carburetors and fuel
tanks, and the means of controlling emissions of oxides of
nitrogen and aldehydes from gasoline-powered or diesel-
powered vehicles, and to carry out such research the Secre-
tary shall consult with the technical committee established
under section 106 of this Act, and for research concerning
-------
774 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
diesel-powered vehicles he may add to such committee such
representatives from the diesel-powered vehicle industry as
he deems appropriate; and (B) directed toward the develop-
ment of improved low-cost techniques designed to reduce
emissions of oxides of sulfur produced by the combustion of
sulfur-containing fuels.]
(4) conduct and accelerate research programs directed to-
ward development of improved low-cost techniques for control
of combustion byproducts of fuels, for removal of potential
pollutants from fuels, and for control of emissions from evap-
oration of fuels;
(5) establish technical advisory committees composed of
recognized experts in various aspects of air pollution to assist
in the examination and evaluation of research progress and
proposals and to avoid duplication of research.
(b) In carrying out the provisions of the preceding subsection
the Secretary is authorized to—
(1) collect and make available, through publications and
other appropriate means, the results of and other informa-
tion, including appropriate recommendations by him in con-
nection therewith, pertaining to such research and other
activities;
(2) cooperate with other Federal departments and agen-
cies, with air pollution control agencies, with other public
and private agencies, institutions, and organizations, and with
any industries
[p. 53]
involved, in the preparation and conduct of such research and
other activities;
(3) make grants to air pollution control agencies, to other
public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, and organi-
zations, and to individuals, for purposes stated in subsection
(a) (1) of this section;
(4) contract with public or private agencies, institutions,
and organizations, and with individuals, without regard to
sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C.
529; 41 U.S.C. 5);
(5) provide training for, and make training grants to, per-
sonnel of air pollution control agencies and other persons
with suitable qualifications;
(6) establish and maintain research fellowships, in the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and at public
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 775
or non-profit private educational institutions or research or-
ganizations;
(7) collect and disseminate, in cooperation with other Fed-
eral departments and agencies, and with other public or pri-
vate agencies, institutions, and organizations having related
responsibilities, basic data on chemical, physical, and biologi-
cal effects of varying air quality and other information per-
taining to air pollution and the prevention and control there-
of; and
(8) develop effective and practical processes, methods, and
prototype devices for the prevention or control of air pollu-
tion.
(c) [(1)3 In carrying out the provisions of subsection (a) of
this section the Secretary shall conduct research on, and survey
the results of other scientific studies on, the harmful effects on the
health or welfare of persons by the various known air pollution
agents (or combinations of agents).
[ (2) Whenever he determines that there is a particular air
pollution agent (or combination of agents), present in the air in
certain quantities, producing effects harmful to the health or wel-
fare of persons, the Secretary shall compile and publish criteria
reflecting accurately the latest scientific knowledge useful in indi-
cating the kind and extent of such effects which may be expected
from the presence of such air pollution agent (or combination of
agents) in the air in varying quantities. Any such criteria shall
be published for informational purposes and made available to
municipal, State, and interstate air pollution control agencies. He
shall revise and add to such criteria whenever necessary to reflect
accurately developing scientific knowledge.
[(3) The Secretary may recommend to such air pollution con-
trol agencies and to other appropriate organizations such criteria
of air quality as in his judgment may be necessary to protect the
public health and welfare.]
(d) The Secretary is authorized to construct such facilities and
staff and equip them as he determines to be necessary to carry out
his functions under this Act.
(e) If, in the judgment of the Secretary, an air pollution prob-
trol agencies and to other appropriate organizations such criteria
charges into the atmosphere, he may call a conference concerning
this potential air pollution problem to be held in or near one or
more of the places where such discharge or discharges are occur-
-------
776 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
ring or will occur. All interested persons shall be given an oppor-
tunity to be heard at such
[p. 54]
conference, either orally or in writing, and shall be permitted to
appear in person or by representative in accordance with proce-
dures prescribed by the Secretary. If the Secretary finds, on the
basis of the evidence presented at such conference, that the dis-
charge or discharges if permitted to take place or continue are
likely to cause or contribute to air pollution subject to abatement
under section [105(a)} 10?'(a), he shall send such findings, to-
gether with recommendations concerning the measures which he
finds reasonable and suitable to prevent such pollution, to the
person or persons whose actions will result in the discharge or
discharges involved; to air pollution agencies of the State or
States and of the municipality or municipalities where such dis-
charge or discharges will originate; and to the interstate air
pollution control agency, if any, in the jurisdictional area of which
any such municipality is located. Such findings and recommenda-
tions shall be advisory only, but shall be admitted, together with
the record of the conference, as part of the [record of] proceed-
ings under subsections [(c), (d), and (e) of section 105] (d),
(e), and (/) of section 107.
GRANTS FOR SUPPORT OP AIR POLLUTION PLANNING AND
CONTROL PROGRAMS
SEC. 104. (a) (1) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to
air pollution control agencies in an amount up to two-thirds of the
cost of planning, developing, establishing, or improving, and
grants to such agencies in an amount up to one-half of the cost of
maintaining, programs for the prevention and control of air pol-
lution and programs for the implementation of air quality stand-
ards authorized by this Act: Provided, That the Secretary is au-
thorized to make grants to [intermunicipal or interstate air pollu-
tion control agencies (described in section 302 (b) (2) and (4))]
air pollution control agencies ivithin the meaning of sections
302(b) (2) and 302(b) (4) in an amount up to three-fourths of the
cost of planning, developing, establishing, or improving[,] and up
to three-fifths of the cost of maintaining, regional air [pollution]
quality control programs. As used in this subsection[,] the term
"regional air [pollution] quality control program" means a pro-
gram for the prevention and control of air pollution or the imple-
mentation of air quality standards programs as authorized by this
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 777
Act, in an area that includes the areas of two or more munici-
palities [,] whether in the same or different States.
(2) Before approving any grant under this subsection to any
air pollution control agency within the meaning of sections 302
(b) (2) and 302(b) (4), the Secretary shall receive assurances
that such agency provides for adequate representation pf appro-
priate State, interstate, local, and (when appropriate) interna-
tional, interests in the air quality control region.
(3) Before approving any planning grant under this subsection
to any air pollution control agency within the meaning of sections
302(b) (2) and 302(b) (4), the Secretary shall receive assurances
that such agency has the capability of developing a comprehensive
air quality plan for the air quality control region, which plan shall
include (ivhen appropriate) a recommended system of alerts to
avert and reduce the risk of situations in which there may be im-
minent and serious danger to the public health or welfare from
air pollutants and the various aspects relevant to the establish-
ment of air quality standards for such air quality control region,
including the concentration of industries, other commercial estab-
lishments,
[p. 55]
population and naturally occurring factors which shall affect such
standards.
(b) From the sums available for the purposes of subsection (a)
of this section for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall from time
to time make grants to air pollution control agencies upon such
terms and conditions as the Secertary may find necessary to carry
out the purpose of this section. In establishing regulations for the
granting of such funds the Secretary shall, so far as practicable,
give due consideration to (1) the population, (2) the extent of
the actual or potential air pollution problem, and (3) the financial
need of the respective agencies. No agency shall receive any grant
under this section during any fiscal year when its expenditures of
non-Federal funds [,] for other than nonrecurrent expenditures^]
for air pollution control programs will be less than its expendi-
tures were for such programs during the preceding fiscal year; and
no agency shall receive any grant under this section with respect
to the mainenance of a program for the prevention and control of
air pollution unless the Secretary is satisfied that such grant will
be so used as to supplement and, to the extent practicable, increase
the level of State, local, [and] or other non-Federal funds that
would in the absence of such grant be made available for the
526-702 O - 73 -- 14
-------
778 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
maintenance of such program, and will in no event supplant such
State, local, [and] or other non-Federal funds. No grant shall be
made under this section until the Secretary has consulted with the
appropriate official as designated by the Governor or Governors of
the State or States affected.
(c) Not more than [1214] 10 per centum of the total of funds
appropriated or allocated for the purposes of subsection (a) of
this section shall be granted for air pollution control programs in
any one State. In the case of a grant for a program in an area
crossing State boundaries, the Secretary shall determine the por-
tion of such grant that is chargeable to the percentage limitation
under this subsection for each State into which such area extends.
Interstate Air Quality Agencies or Commissions
Sec. 105. (a) For the purpose of expediting the establishment of
air quality standards in an interstate air quality control region
designated pursuant to section 106 (a) (2), the Secretary is au-
thorized to pay, for two years, up to 100 per centum of the air
quality planning program costs of any agency designated by the
Governors of the affected States, which agency shall be capable of
recommending to the Governors standards of air quality and plans
for implementation thereof and shall include representation from
the States and appropriate political subdivisions within the air
quality control region. After the initial ttvo-year period the Sec-
retary is authorized to make grants to such agency in an amount
up to three-fourths of the air quality planning program costs of
such agency.
(6) (1) Whenever the Secretary deems it necessary to expedite
the establishment of standards for an interstate air quality con-
trol region designated pursuant to section 106(a)(2) he may,
after consultation with the Governors of the affected States, desig-
nate or establish an air quality planning commission for the pur-
pose of developing recommended regulations setting forth stand-
ards of air quality to be applicable to such air quality control re-
gion.
(2) Such Commission shall consist of the Secretary or his des-
ignee ivho shall serve as Chairman, and adequate representation
of appropriate
[p. 56]
State, interstate, local and (when appropriate) international,
interests in the designated air quality control region.
(3) The Secretary shall, within available funds, provide such
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 779
staff for such Commission as may be necessary to enable it to
carry out its functions effectively, and shall pay the other expenses
of the Commission; and may also accept for the use by such Com-
mission, funds, property, or services contributed by the State in-
volved or political subdivisions thereof.
(4) Each appointee from a State, other than an official or em-
ployee thereof, or of any political subdivision thereof, shall, while
engaged in the work of the Commission, receive compensation at
a rate fixed by the Secretary, but not in excess of $100 per diem,
including traveltime, and ivhile away from his home or regular
place of business, he may be allowed travel expenses, including per
diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 3109)
for persons in the Government service employed intermittently.
Air Quality Control Regions, Criteria, and Control Techniques
Sec. 106. (a) (1) The Secretary shall, as soon as practicable, but
not later than one year after the date of enactment of the Air
Quality Act of 1967, define for the purposes of this Act, atmos-
pheric areas of the Nation on the basis of those conditions, includ-
ing, but not limited to, climate, meteorology, and topography,
which affect the interchange and diffusion of pollutants in the
atmosphere.
(2) For the purpose of establishing ambient air quality stand-
ards pursuant to section 107, and for administrative and other
purposes, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate State
and local authorities, shall, within eighteen months after the date
of enactment of the Air Quality Act of 1967, designate air quality
control regions based on jurisdictional boundaries, urban-indus-
trial concentrations, and other factors including atmospheric areas
necessary to provide adequate implementation of air quality stand-
ards. The Secretary shall immediately notify the Governor or
Governors of the affected State or States of such designation.
(b) (1) The Secretary shall, after consultation with appropri-
ate advisory committees and Federal departments and agencies,
from time to time, but as soon as particabJe, develop and issue to
the States such criteria of air quality as in his judgment may be
requisite for the protection of the public health and welfare: Pro-
vided, That any criteria issued prior to enactment of this section
shall be reevaluated in accordance with the consultation procedure
and other provisions of this section and, if necessary, modified and
reissued. Such issuance shall be announced in the Federal Regis-
ter and copies shall be made available to the general public.
-------
780 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
(2) Such criteria shall accurately reflect the latest scientific
knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifi-
able effects on health and welfare which may be expected from the
presence of an air pollution agent, or combination of agents in the
ambient air, in varying quantities.
(3) Such criteria shall include those variable factors which of
themselves or in combination ivith other factors may alter the ef-
fects on public health and welfare of any subject agent or combi-
nation of agents, including, but not limited to, atmospheric condi-
tions, and the types of air pollution agent or agents which, when
present in the atmosphere, may interact with such subject agent
or agents, to produce an adverse effect on public health and wel-
fare.
[p. 57]
(c) The Secretary shall, after consultation with appropriate
advisory committees and Federal departments and agencies, issue
to the States and appropriate air pollution control agencies infor-
mation on those recommended pollution control techniques the ap-
plication of which is necessary to achieve levels of air quality set
forth in criteria issued pursuant to subsection (b), including those
criteria subject to the proviso in subsection (b) (1), which infor-
mation shall include technical data relating to the technology and
costs of emission control. Such recommendations shall include
such data as are available on the latest available technology and
economic feasibility of alternative methods of prevention and con-
trol of air contamination including cost-effectiveness analyses.
Such issuance shall be announced in the Federal Register and
copies shall be made available to the general public.
(d) The Secretary shall, from time to time, revise and reissue
material issued pursuant to subsections (b) and (c) in accordance
with procedures established in such subsections.
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND ABATEMENT OF AIR POLLUTION
SEC. [105] 107. (a) The pollution of the air in any State or
States which endangers the health or welfare of any persons, shall
be subject to abatement as provided in this section.
(b) Consistent with the policy declaration of this title, munici-
pal, State, and interstate action to abate air pollution shall be en-
couraged and shall not be displaced by Federal enforcement action
except as otherwise provided by or pursuant to a court order un-
der subsection [(g)l (c), (h), or (k).
(c) (1) If, after receiving any air quality criteria and recom-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 781
mended control techniques issued pursuant to section 106, the
Governor of a State, ivithin ninety days of such receipt, fiiles a let-
ter of intent that such State will ivithin one hundred and eighty
days, and from time to time thereafter, adopt, after public hear-
ings, ambient air quality standards applicable to any designated
air quality control region or portions thereof ivithin such State
and within one hundred and eighty days thereafter, and from time
to time as may be necessary, adopts a plan for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of such standards of air quality
adopted, and if such standards and plan are established in accord-
ance with the letter of intent and if the Secretary determines that
such State standards are consistent with the air quality criteria
and recommended control techniques issued pursuant to section
106; that the plan is consistent with the purposes of the Act inso-
far as it assures achieving such standards of air quality within a
reasonable time; and that a means of enforcement by State action,
including authority comparable to that in subsection (k) of this
section, is provided, such State standards and plan shall be the air
quality standards applicable to such State. If the Secretary de-
termines that any revised State standards and plan are consistent
with the purposes of this Act and this subsection, such standards
and plan shall be the air quality standards applicable to such State.
(2) If a State does not (a) file a letter of intent or (b) estab-
lish air quality standards in accordance with paragraph (1) of
this subsection with respect to any air quality control region or
pare regulations setting forth standards of air quality consistent
the purpose of this Act, or the Governor of any State affected by
air quaHty standards established pursuant to this subsection peti-
tions for a revision in such standards, the
[p. 58]
Secretary may after reasonable notice and a conference of repre-
sentatives of appropriate Federal departments and agencies, inter-
state agencies, States, municipalities, and industries involved, pre-
pare regulations setting forth standards of air quaHty consistent
with the air quaHty criteria and recommended control techniques
issued pursuant to section 106, to be applicable to such air quality
control region or portions thereof. If, ivithin six months from the
date the Secretary publishes such regulations, the State has not
adopted air quality standards found by the Secretary to be con-
sistent with the purposes of this Act, or a petition for pubHc hear-
ing has not been fVed under paragraph (3) of this subsection, the
Secretary shall promulgate such standards.
-------
782 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
(3) If at any time prior to thirty days after standards have
been promulgated under paragraph (2) of this subsection, the
Governor of any State affected by such standards petitions the
Secretary for a hearing, the Secretary shall call a public hearing
for the purpose of receiving testimony from State and local pollu-
tion control agencies and other interested parties affected by the
proposed standards, to be held in or near one or more of the places
where the air quality standards will take effect, before a hearing
board of five or more persons appointed by the Secretary. Each
State which would be affected by such standards shall be given an
opportunity to select a member of the hearing board. Each Fed-
eral department, agency, or instrumentality having a substantial
interest in the subject matter as determined by the Secretary shall
be given an opportunity to select one member of the hearing board
and not less than a majority of the hearing board shall be persons
other than officers or employees of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare. The members of the board who are not
officers or employees of the United States, while participating in
the hearing conducted by such hearing board or otherwise en-
gaged in the work of such hearing board, shall be entitled to re-
ceive compensation at a rate fixed by the Secretary, but not ex-
ceeding $100 per diem, including traveltime, and while away from
their homes or regular place of business they may be allowed
travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as au-
thorized by section 5703, title 5, of the United States Code for per-
sons of the Government service employed intermittently. At least
thirty days prior to the date of such hearing notice of such hear-
ing shall be published in the Federal Register and given to parties
notified of the conference required in paragraph (2) of this sub-
section. On the basis of the evidence presented at such hearing,
the hearing board shall within ninety days, unless the Secretary
determines a longer period is necessary, make findings as to wheth-
er the standards published or promulgated by the Secretary should
be approved or modified and transmit its findings to the Secretary.
If the hearing board approves the standards as published or pro-
mulgated by the Secretary, the standards shall take effect on re-
ceipt by the Secretary of the hearing board's recommendations. If
the hearing board recommends modification in the standards as
published or promulgated by the Secretary, the Secretary shall
promulgate revised regulations setting forth standards of air
quality in accordance with the hearing board's recommendations
which will become effective immediately upon promulgation.
(4) Whenever, on the basis of surveys, studies, and reports, the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 783
Secretary finds that the ambient air quality of any air quality con-
trol region or portion thereof is below the air quality standards
established under this subsection, and he finds that such lowered
air quality results from the failure of a State to take reasonable
action to enforce such stand-
[p. 59]
ards, the Secretary shall notify the affected State or States, per-
sons contributing to the alleged violation, and other interested
parties of the violation of such standards. If such failure does not
cease within one hundred and eighty days from the date of the
Secretary's notification, the Secretary—
(i) in the case of pollution of air which is endangering the
health or welfare of persons in a State other than that in
which the discharge or discharges (causing or contributing to
such pollution) originate, may request the Attorney General
to bring a suit on behalf of the United States in the appro-
priate United States district court to secure abatement of the
pollution.
(ii) in the case of pollution of air which is endangering
the health or welfare of persons only in the State in which the
discharge or discharges (causing or contributing to such pol-
lution) originate, at the request of the Governor of such State,
shall provide such technical and other assistance as in his
judgment is necessary to assist the State in judicial proceed-
ings to secure abatement of the pollution under State or local
law, or, at the request of the Governor of such State, shall re-
quest the Attorney General to bring suit on behalf of the
United States in the appropriate United States district court
to secure abatement of the pollution.
In any suit brought under the provisions of this subsection the
court shall receive in evidence a transcript of the proceedings of
the hearing provided for in this subsection, together with the rec-
ommendations of the hearing board and the recommendations
and standards promulgated by the Secretary, and such additional
evidence, including that relating to the alleged violation of the
standards, as it deems necessary to complete review of the stand-
ards and to determination of all other issues relating to the alleged
violation. The court, giving due consideration to the practicability
and to the technological and economic feasibility of complying
with such standards, shall have jurisdiction to enter such judg-
ment and orders enforcing siich judgment as the public interest
and the equities of the case may require.
-------
784 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
(5) In connection with any hearings under this section no wit-
ness or any other person shall be required to divulge trade secrets
or secret processes.
[(c)] (d) (1) (A) Whenever requested by the Governor of any
State, a State air pollution control agency, or (with the concur-
rence of the Governor and the State air pollution control agency
for the State in which the municipality is situated) the governing
body of any municipality, the Secretary shall, if such request re-
fers to air pollution which is alleged to endanger the health or
welfare of persons in a State other than that in which the dis-
charge or discharges (causing or contributing to such pollution)
originate, give formal notification thereof to the air pollution con-
trol agency of the municipality where such discharge or dis-
charges originate, to the air pollution control agency of the State
in which such municipality is located, and to the interstate air
pollution control agency, if any, in whose jurisdictional area such
municipality is located, and shall call promptly a conference of
such agency or agencies and of the air pollution control agencies
of the municipalities which may be adversely affected by such
pollution, and the air pollution control agency, if any, of each
State, or for each area, in which any such municipality is located.
(B) Whenever requested by the Governor of any State, a State
air pollution control agency, or (with the concurrence of the Gov-
ernor
[p. 60]
and the State air pollution control agency for the State in which
the municipality is situated) the governing body of any municipal-
ity, the Secretary shall, if such request refers to alleged air pollu-
tion which is endangering the health or welfare of persons only
in the State in which the discharge or discharges (causing or
contributing to such pollution) originate and if a municipality
affected by such air pollution, or the municipality in which such
pollution originates, has either made or concurred in such request,
give formal notification thereof to the State air pollution control
agency, to the air pollution control agencies of the municipality
where such discharge or discharges originate, and of the munici-
pality or municipalities alleged to be adversely affected thereby,
and to any interstate air pollution control agency, whose juris-
dictional area includes any such municipality and shall promptly
call a conference of such agency or agencies, unless in the judg-
ment of the Secretary, the effect of such pollution is not of such
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 785
significance as to warrant exercise of Federal jurisdiction under
this section.
(C) The Secretary may, after consultation with State officials
of all affected States, also call such a conference whenever, on the
basis of reports, surveys, or studies, he has reason to believe that
any pollution referred to in subsection (a) is occurring and is en-
dangering the health and welfare of persons in a State other than
that in which the discharge or discharges originate. The Secre-
tary shall invite the cooperation of any municipal, State, or inter-
state air pollution control agencies having jurisdiction in the af-
fected area on any surveys or studies forming the basis of con-
ference action.
(D) Whenever the Secretary, upon receipt of reports, surveys,
or studies from any duly constituted international agency, has
reason to believe that any pollution referred to in subsection (a)
which endangers the health or welfare of persons in a foreign
country is occurring, or whenever the Secretary of State requests
him to do so with respect to such pollution which the Secretary of
State alleges is of such a nature, the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare shall give formal notification thereof to the
air pollution control agency of the municipality where such dis-
charge or discharges originate, to the air pollution control agency
of the State in which such municipality is located, and to the inter-
state air pollution control agency, if any, in the jurisdictional area
of which such municipality is located, and shall call promptly a
conference of such agency or agencies. The Secretary shall invite
the foreign country which may be adversely affected by the pollu-
tion to attend and participate in the conference, and the repre-
sentative of such country shall, for the purpose of the conference
and any further proceeding resulting from such conference,
have all the rights of a State air pollution control agency. This
subparagraph shall apply only to a foreign country which the
Secretary determines has given the United States essentially the
same rights with respect to the prevention or control of air pollu-
tion occurring in that country as is given that country by this
subparagraph.
(2) The agencies called to attend such conference may bring
such persons as they desire to the conference. [Not less than three
week's prior notice of the conference date shall be given to such
agencies.] The Secretary shall deliver to such agencies and make
available to other interested parties, at least thirty days prior to
any such conference, a Federal report with respect to the matters
-------
786 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
before the conference, including data and conclusions or findings
(if any); and shall give at least thirty
[p. 61]
days' prior notice of the conference date to any such agency, and
to the public by publication on at least three different days in a
newspaper or newspapers of general circulation in the area. The
chairman of the conference shall give interested parties an oppor-
tunity to present their views to the conference with respect to
such Federal report, conclusions or findings (if any), and other
pertinent information. The Secretary shall provide that a tran-
script be maintained of the proceedings of the conference and
that a copy of such transcript be made available on request of any
participant in the conference at the expense of such participant.
(3) Following this conference, the Secretary shall prepare and
forward to all air pollution control agencies attending the confer-
ence a summary of conference discussions including (A) occur-
rence of air pollution subject to abatement under this Act; (B)
adequacy of measures taken toward abatement of the pollution;
and (C) nature of delays, if any, being encountered in abating
the pollution.
[ (d) ] (e) If the Secretary believes, upon the conclusion of the
conference or thereafter, that effective progress toward abatement
of such pollution is not being made and that the health or welfare
of any persons is being endangered, he shall recommend to the
appropriate State, interstate, or municipal air pollution control
agency (or to all such agencies) that the necessary remedial
action be taken. The Secretary shall allow at least six months
from the date he makes such recommendations for the taking of
such recommended action.
C(e)] (/) (1) If, at the conclusion of the period so allowed,
such remedial action or other action which in the judgment of the
Secretary is reasonably calculated to secure abatement of such
pollution has not been taken, the Secretary shall call a public hear-
ing, to be held in or near one or more of the places where the dis-
charge or discharges causing or contributing to such pollution
originated, before a hearing board of five or more persons ap-
pointed by the Secretary. Each State in which any discharge
causing or contributing to such pollution originates and each
State claiming to be adversely affected by such pollution shall be
given an opportunity to select one member of such hearing board
and each Federal department, agency, or instrumentality having
a substantial interest in the subject matter as determined by the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 787
Secretary shall be given an opportunity to select one member of
such hearing board, and one member [of such hearing board]
shall be a representative of the appropriate interstate air pollu-
tion agency if one exists, and not less than a majority of such
hearing board shall be persons other than officers or employees of
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. At least three
weeks' prior notice of such hearing shall be given to the State,
interstate, and municipal air pollution control agencies called to
attend such hearing and to the alleged polluter or polluters. All
interested parties shall be given a reasonable opportunity to pre-
sent evidence to such hearing board.
(2) On the basis of evidence presented at such hearing, the
hearing board shall make findings as to whether pollution referred
to in subsection (a) is occurring and whether effective progress
toward abatement thereof is being made. If the hearing board
finds such pollution is occurring and effective progress toward
abatement thereof is not being made it shall make recommenda-
tions to the Secretary concerning the measures, if any, which it
finds to be reasonable and suitable to secure abatement of such
pollution.
(3) The Secretary shall send such findings and recommenda-
tions to the person or persons discharging any matter causing or
contributing
[p. 62]
to such pollution; to air pollution control agencies of the State
or States and of the municipality or municipalities where such
discharge or discharges originate; and to any interstate air pol-
lution control agency whose jurisdictional area includes any such
municipality, together with a notice specifying a reasonable time
(not less than six months) to secure abatement of such pollution.
[ (f) ] (ff) If action reasonably calculated to secure abatement
of the pollution within the time specified in the notice following
the public hearing is not taken, the Secretary—
(1) in the case of pollution of air which is endangering the
health or welfare of persons (A) in a State other than that in
which the discharge or discharges (causing or contributing
to such pollution) originate, or (B) in a foreign country
which has participated in a conference called under subpara-
graph (D) of subsection [(c)] (d) of this section and in all
proceedings under this section resulting from such conference,
may request the Attorney General to bring a suit on behalf
-------
788 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
of the United States in the appropriate United States district
court to secure abatement of the pollution[, and].
(2) in the case of pollution of air which is endangering the
health or welfare of persons only in the State in which the
discharge or discharges (causing or contributing to such pol-
lution) originate, at the request of the Governor of such
State, shall provide such technical and other assistance as in
his judgment is necessary to assist the State in judicial pro-
ceedings to secure abatement of the pollution under State or
local law or, at the request of the Governor of such State,
shall request the Attorney General to bring suit on behalf of
the United States in the appropriate United States district
court to secure abatement of the pollution.
[(g)] (h) The court shall receive in evidence in any suit
brought in a United States court under subsection [(f)] (g) of
this section a transcript of the proceedings before the board and
a copy of the board's recommendations and shall receive such fur-
ther evidence as the court in its discretion deems proper. The
court, giving due consideration to the practicability of complying
with such standards as may be applicable and to the physical and
economic feasibility of securing abatement of any pollution
proved, shall have jurisdiction to enter such judgment, and orders
enforcing such judgement, as the public interest and the equities of
the case may require,
[ (h) ] (i) Members of any hearing board appointed pursuant
to subsection [ (e) ] (/) who are not regular full-time officers or
employees of the United States shall, while participating in the
hearing conducted by such board or otherwise engaged on the
work of such board, be entitled to receive compensation at a rate
fixed by the Secretary, but not exceeding [$50] $100 per diem, in-
cluding traveltime, and while away from their homes or regular
places of business they may be allowed travel expenses, including
per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C.
73b-2) for persons in the Government service employed inter-
mittently.
[(i)] (/) (1) In connection with any conference called under
this section, the Secretary is authorized to require any person
whose activities result in the emission of air pollutants causing or
contributing to air pollution to file with him, in such form as he
may prescribe, a report,
[p. 63]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 789
based on existing data, furnishing to the Secretary such informa-
tion as may reasonably be required as to the character, kind, and
quantity of pollutants discharged and the use of devices or other
means to prevent or reduce the emission of pollutants by the
person filing such a report. After a conference has been held with
respect to any such pollution the Secretary shall require such
reports from the person whose activities result in such pollution
only to the extent recommended by such conference. Such report
shall be made under oath or otherwise, as the Secretary may pre-
scribe, and shall be filed with the Secretary within such reasonable
period as the Secretary may prescribe, unless additional time be
granted by the Secretary. No person shall be required in such
report to divulge trade secrets or secret processes and all infor-
mation reported shall be considered confidential for the purposes
of section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code.
(2) If any person required to file any report under this subsec-
tion shall fail to do so within the time fixed by the Secretary for
filing the same, and such failure shall continue for thirty days
after notice of such default, such person shall forfeit to the United
States the sum of $100 for each and every day of the continuance
of such failure, which forfeiture shall be payable into the Treasury
of the United States, and shall be recoverable in a civil suit in the
name of the United States brought in the district where such per-
son has his principal office or in any district in which he does busi-
ness: Provided, That the Secretary may upon application therefor
remit or mitigate any forfeiture provided for under this subsec-
tion and he shall have authority to determine the facts upon all
such applications.
(3) It shall be the duty of the various United States attorneys,
under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States,
to prosecute for the recovery of such forfeitures.
(k) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the
Secretary, upon receipt of evidence that a particular pollution
source or combination of sources (including moving sources) is
presenting an imminent and substantial endangerment to the
health of persons, and finding that appropriate State or local au-
thorities have not acted to abate such sources, may request the
Attorney General to bring suit on behalf of the United States in
the 'appropriate United States district court to immediately en-
join any contributor to the alleged pollution to stop the emission
of contaminants causing such pollution or to take such other action
as may be necessary.
-------
790 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
[AUTOMOTIVE VEHICLE AND FUEL POLLUTION
[SEC. 106. (a) The Secretary shall encourage the continued ef-
forts on the part of the automotive and fuel industries to develop
devices and fuels to prevent pollutants from being discharged
from the exhaust of automotive vehicles, and to this end shall
maintain liaison with automotive vehicles, exhaust control device,
and fuel manufacturers. For this purpose, he shall appoint a
technical committee whose membership shall consist of an equal
number of representatives of the Department and of automotive
vehic!? exhaust control device, and fuel manufacturers. The com-
mittee shall meet from time to time at the call of the Secretary
to evaluate progress in the development of such devices and fuels
and to develop and recommend research programs which could
lead to the development of such devices and fuels.
[ (b) One year after enactment of this section, and semiannual-
ly thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Congress on meas-
ures
[p. 64]
taken toward the resolution of the vehicle exhaust pollution prob-
lem and efforts to improve fuels including (A) occurrence of
pollution as a result of discharge of pollutants from automotive
exhaust; (B) progress of research into development of devices and
fuels to reduce pollution from exhaust of automotive vehicles; (C)
criteria on degree of pollutant matter discharged from automotive
exhausts; (D) efforts to improve fuels so as to reduce emission
of exhaust pollutants; and (E) his recommendations for addi-
tional legislation, if necessary, to regulate the discharge of pollu-
tants from automotive exhausts.]
Standards to Achieve Higher Level of Air Quality
Sec. 108. Nothing in this title shall prevent a State, political sub-
division, intermunicipal or interstate agency from adopting stand-
ards and plans to implement an air quality program which will
achieve a higher level of ambient air quality than approved by the
Secretary.
President's Air Quality Advisory Board and
Advisory Committees
Sec. 109. (a) (1) There is hereby established in the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare an Air Quality Advisory Board,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 791
composed of the Secretary or his designee, who shall be Chairman,
and fifteen members appointed by the President, none of whom
shall be Federal officers or employees. The appointed members,
having due regard for the purposes of this Act, shall be selected
from among representatives of various State, interstate, and local
governmental agencies, of public or private interests contributing
to, affected by, or concerned with air pollution, and of other pub-
lic and private agencies, organizations, or groups demonstrating
an active interest in the field of air pollution prevention and con-
trol, as well as other individuals who are expert in this field.
(2) Each member appointed by the President shall hold office
for a term of three years, except that (A) any member appointed
to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for
which his predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the re-
mainder of such term, and (B) the terms of office of the members
first taking office pursuant to this subsection shall expire as fol-
lows: five at the end of one year after the date of appointment,
five at the end of two years after such date, and five at the end of
three years after such date, as designated by the President at the
time of appointment, and (C) the term of any member under the
preceding provisions shall be extended until the date on which his
successor's appointment is effective. None of the members shall be
eligible for reappointment within one year after the end of his
preceding term, unless such term was for less than three years.
(b) The Board shall advise and consult with the Secretary on
matters of policy relating to the activities and functions of the
Secretary under this Act and make such recommendations as it
deems necessary to the President.
(c) Such clerical and technical assistance as may be necessary
to discharge the duties of the Board and such other advisory com-
mittees as hereinafter authorized shall be provided from the per-
sonnel of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
(d) In order to obtain assistance in the development and im-
plementation of the purpose of this Act including air quality cri-
teria, recommended control techniques, standards, research and
development, and to encourage
[p. 65]
the continued efforts on the part of industry to improve air quality
and to develop economically feasible methods for the control and
abatement of air pollution, the Secretary shall from time to time
establish advisory committees. Committee members shall include,
but not be limited to, persons who are knowledgeable concerning
-------
792 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
air quality from the standpoint of health, welfare, economics, or
technology.
(e) The members of the Board and other advisory committees
appointed pursuant to this Act who are not officers or employees
of the United States, while attending conferences or meetings of
the Board or while otherwise serving at the request of the Secre-
tary, shall be entitled to receive compensation at a rate to be fixed
by the Secretary, but not exceeding $100 per diem, including
traveltime, and while away from their homes or regular places of
business they may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem
in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5 of
the United States Code for persons in the Government service em-
ployed intermittently.
COOPERATION BY FEDERAL AGENCIES TO CONTROL AIR POLLUTION
FROM FEDERAL FACILITIES
SEC. [107] 110. (a) It is hereby declared to be the intent of
Congress that any Federal department or agency having jurisdic-
tion over any building, installation, or other property shall, to the
extent practicable and consistent with the interests of the United
States and within any available appropriations, cooperate with
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and with any
air pollution control agency in preventing and controlling the pol-
lution of the air in any area insofar as the discharge of any mat-
ter from or by such building, installation, or other property may
cause or contribute to pollution of the air in such area.
(b) In order to control air pollution which may endanger the
health or welfare of any person, the Secretary may establish
classes of potential pollution sources for which any Federal de-
partment or agency having jurisdiction over any building, instal-
lation, or other property shall, before discharging any matter into
the air of the United States, obtain a permit from the Secretary
for such discharge, such permits to be issued for a specified period
of time to be determined by the Secretary and subject to revoca-
tion if the Secretary finds pollution is endangering the health and
welfare of any persons. In connection with the issuance of such
permits, there shall be submitted to the Secretary such plans,
specifications, and other information as he deems relevant thereto
and under such conditions as he may prescribe. The Secretary
shall report each January to the Congress the status of such per-
mits and compliance therewith.
[p. 66]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 793
TITLE II—[CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM MOTOR
VEHICLES] NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS ACT
SHORT TITLE
SECTION 201. This title may be cited as the ["Motor Vehicle Air
Pollution Control Act"] "National Emission Standards Act".
ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARDS
SEC. 202. (a) The Secretary shall by regulation, giving appro-
priate consideration to technological feasibility and economic costs,
prescribe as soon as practicable standards, applicable to the emis-
sion of any kind of substance, from any class or classes of new
motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judg-
ment cause or contribute to, or are likely to cause or to contribute
to, air pollution which endangers the health or welfare of any per-
sons, and such standards shall apply to such vehicles or engines
whether they are designed as complete systems or incorporate
other devices to prevent or control such pollution.
(b) Any regulations initially prescribed under this section, and
amendments thereto, with respect to any class of new motor vehi-
cles or new motor vehicle engines shall become effective on the
effective date specified in the order promulgating such regulations
which date shall be determined by the Secretary after considera-
tion of the period reasonably necessary for industry compliance.
PROHIBITED ACTS
SEC. 203. (a) The following acts and the causing thereof are
prohibited—
(1) in the case of a manufacturer of new motor vehicles or
new motor vehicle engines for distribution in commerce, the
manufacture for sale, the sale, or the offering for sale, or the
introduction or delivery for introduction into commerce, or
the importation into the United States for sale or resale, of
any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine, manu-
factured after the effective date of regulations under this
title which are applicable to such vehicle or engine unless it
is in conformity with regulations prescribed under [section
202] this title (except as provided in subsection (b));
(2) for any person to fail or refuse to permit access to or
copying of records or to fail to make reports or provide infor-
mation required under section 207; or
(3) for any person to remove or render inoperative any
526-702 O - 73 -- 15
-------
794 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle
or motor vehicle engine in compliance with regulations under
this title prior to its sale and delivery to the ultimate pur-
chaser.
(b) (1) The Secretary may exempt any new motor vehicle or
new motor vehicle engine, or class thereof, from subsection (a),
upon such terms and conditions as he may find necessary to pro-
tect the public health or welfare, for the purpose of research, in-
vestigations, studies, demonstrations, or training, or for reasons
of national security.
(2) A new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine offered
for importation by a manufacturer in violation of subsection (a)
shall
[p. 67]
be refused admission into the United States, but the Secretary
of the Treasury and the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare may, by joint regulation, provide for deferring final deter-
mination as to admission and authorizing the delivery of such a
motor vehicle or engine offered for import to the owner or con-
signee thereof upon such terms and conditions (including the fur-
nishing of a bond) as may appear to them appropriate to insure
that any such motor vehicle or engine will be brought into con-
formity with the standards, requirements, and limitations appli-
cable to it under this title. The Secretary of the Treasury shall, if
a motor vehicle or engine is finally refused admission under this
paragraph, cause disposition thereof in accordance with the cus-
toms laws unless it is exported, under regulations prescribed by
such Secretary, within ninety days of the date of notice of such
refusal or such additional time as may be permitted pursuant to
such regulations, except that disposition in accordance with the
customs laws may not be made in such manner as may result,
directly or indirectly, in the sale, to the ultimate consumer, of a
new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine that fails to com-
ply with applicable standards of the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare under this title.
(3) A new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine intended
solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the outside of the
container and on the vehicle or engine itself, shall not be subject
to the provisions of subsection (a).
INJUNCTION PROCEEDINGS
SEC. 204. (a) The district courts of the United States shall have
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 795
jurisdiction to restrain violations of paragraph (1), (2) or (3)
of section 203(a).
(b) Actions to restrain such violations shall be brought by and
in the name of the United States. In any such action, subpoenas
for witnesses who are required to attend a district court in any
district may run into any other district.
PENALTIES
SEC. 205. Any person who violates paragraph (1), (2), or (3)
of section 203(a) shall be subject to a fine of not more than
$1,000. Such violation with respect to sections 203 (a) (1) and
203(a) (3) shall constitute a separate offense with respect to each
new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine.
CERTIFICATION
SEC. 206. (a) Upon application of the manufacturer, the Secre-
tary shall test, or require to be tested, in such manner as he deems
appropriate, any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine
submitted by such manufacturer to determine whether such vehi-
cle or engine conforms with the regulations prescribed under sec-
tion 202 or 208(b) of this title. If such vehicle or engine con-
forms to such regulations the Secretary shall issue a certificate of
conformity, upon such terms, and for such period not less than
one year, as he may prescribe.
(b) Any new motor vehicle or any motor vehicle engine sold by
such manufacturer which is in all material respects substantially
the same construction as the test vehicle or engine for which a
certificate has been issued under subsection (a), shall for the pur-
poses
[P- 68]
of this Act be deemed to be in conformity with the regulations
issued under section 202 of this title.
RECORDS AND REPORTS
SEC. 207. (a) Every manufacturer shall establish and maintain
such records, make such reports, and provide such information
as the Secretary may reasonably require to enable him to deter-
mine whether such manufacturer has acted or is acting in com-
pliance with this title and regulations thereunder and shall, upon
request of an officer or employee duly designated by the Secretary,
-------
796 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
permit such officer or employee at reasonable times to have access
to and copy such records.
(b) All information reported or otherwise obtained by the
Secretary or his representative pursuant to subsection (a), which
information contains or relates to a trade secret or other matter
referred to in section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code,
shall be considered confidential for the purpose of such section
1905, except that such information may be disclosed to other offi-
cers or employees concerned with carrying out this Act or when
relevant in any proceeding under this Act. Nothing in this section
shall authorize the withholding of information by the Secretary or
any officer or employee under his control, from the duly authorized
committees of the Congress.
State Standards
Sec. 208. (a) No State or any political subdivision thereof shall
adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control
of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle en-
gines subject to this title. No State shall require certification,
inspection, or any other approval relating to the control of emis-
sions from any new motor vehicle or neiv motor vehicle engine as
condition precedent to the initial retail sale, titling (if any), or
registration of such motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equip-
ment.
(b) The Secretary may, after notice and opportunity for public
hearings, upon application of any State which has adopted stand-
ards (other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of
emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines
prior to March 30,1966, prescribe standards limited to such State,
which are more stringent than, or apply to emissions or sub-
stances not covered by, the nationally applicable Federal stand-
ards prescribed pursuant to section 202, if he finds that such State
requires such more stringent or other standards to meet compel-
ling and extraordinary conditions and that such more stringent or
other standards prescribed hereunder are consistent with this
title; and such more stringent or other standards prescribed here-
under shall be regarded as if prescribed pursuant to section 202,
with respect to new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines
manufactured for sale, sold or offered for such sale in, or intro-
duced or delivered for introduction into, such State.
(c) Nothing in this title shall preclude or deny to any State or
political subdivision thereof the right otherwise to control, regu-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 797
late, or restrict the use, operation, or movement of registered or
licensed motor vehicles.
[p. 69]
Federal Assistance in Developing Vehicle Inspection Programs
Sec. 209. The Secretary is authorized to make grants to appro-
priate State air pollution control agencies in an amount up to two-
thirds of the cost of developing meaningful uniform motor vehicle
emission device inspection and emission testing programs except
that (1) no grant shall be made for any part of any State vehicle
inspection program which does not directly relate to the cost of
the air pollution control aspects of such a program; and (2) no
such grant shall be made unless the Secretary of Transportation
has certified to the Secretary that such program is consistent with
any highway safety program developed pursuant to section 402 of
title 23 of the United States Code.
Registration of Fuel Additives
Sec. 210. (a) The Secretary may by regulation designate any
fuel or fuels, or any classes and uses thereof, and, after such date
or dates as may be prescribed by him, no manufacturer or proces-
sor of any such fuel may deliver it for introduction into inter-
state commerce or to another person who, it can reasonably be
expected, will deliver such fuel for such introduction unless any
additive contained in such fuel has been registered with the Secre-
tary in accordance with this section.
(b) Upon filing of an application containing or accompanied by
such information as to the characteristics and composition of any
additive for any fuel as the Secretary finds necessary, and includ-
ing assurances that such additional information as the Secretary
may reasonably require will upon request be provided, the Secre-
tary shall register such additive.
(c) The Secretary shall make such provision, with respect to
any additive, or any class or use thereof, or any information fur-
nished in connection therewith, as in his judgment is necessary
to protect any trade secret or is necessary in the interest of na-
tional security. Nothing in this section shall authorize the with-
holding of information by the Secretary or any officer or employee
under his control, from the duly authorized committees of the
Congress.
(d) Any person who violates subsection (a) shall forfeit and
pay to the United States a civil penalty of $1,000 for each and
-------
798 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
every day of the continuance of such violation, which shall accrue
to the United States and be recovered in a civil suit in the name of
the United States, brought in the district where such person has
his principal office or in any district in which he does business.
The Secretary may, upon application therefor, remit or mitigate
any forfeiture provided for in this subsection, and he shall have
authority to determine the facts upon all such applications.
(e) It shall be the duty of the various United States attorneys,
under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States,
to prosecute for the recovery of such forfeitures.
National Emissions Standards Study
Sec. 211. (a) The Secretary shall submit to the Congress, no
later than ttvo years after the effective date of this section, a com-
prehensive report on the need for and effect of national emission
standards for stationary sources. Such report shall include: (A)
information regarding identifiable health and welfare effects from
single emission sources; (B) examples of specific plants, their lo-
cation, and the contaminant or contaminants
[p. 70]
which, due to the amount or nature of emissions from such facil-
ities, constitute a danger to public health or welfare; (C) an up-
to-date list of those industries and the contaminant or contam-
inants which, in his opinion, should be subject to such national
standards; (D) the relationship of such national emission stand-
ards to ambient air quality, including a comparison of situations
wherein several plants emit the same contaminants in an air region
with those in which only one such plant exists; (E) an analysis
of the cost of applying such standards; and (F) such other infor-
mation as may be appropriate.
(b) The Secretary shall conduct a full and complete investiga-
tion and study of the feasibility and practicability of controlling
emissions from jet and piston aircraft engines and of establishing
national emission standards with respect thereto, and report to
Congress the results of such study and investigation within one
year from the date of enactment of the Air Quality Act of 1967,
together with his recommendations.
DEFINITIONS FOR TITLE II
SEC. [208] 212. As used in this title—
(1) The term "manufacturer" as used in sections 203, 206, 207,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 799
and 208 means any person engaged in the manufacturing or as-
sembling of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, or
importing such vehicles or engines for resale, or who acts for and
is under the control of any such person in connection with the
distribution of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines,
but shall not include any dealer with respect to new motor vehicles
or new motor vehicle engines received by him in commerce.
(2) The term "motor vehicle" means any self-propelled vehicle
designed for transporting persons or property on a street or high-
way.
(3) The term "new motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle the
equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred to an
ultimate purchaser; and the term "new motor vehicle engine"
means an engine in a new motor vehicle or a motor vehicle engine
the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred to
the ultimate purchaser.
(4) The term "dealer" means any person who is engaged in the
sale or the distribution of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle
engines to the ultimate purchaser.
(5) The term "ultimate purchaser" means, with respect to any
new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine, the first person
who in good faith purchases such new motor vehicle or new engine
for purposes other than resale.
(6) The term "commerce" means (A) commerce between any
place in any State and any place outside thereof; and (B) com-
merce wholly within the District of Columbia.
TITLE III—GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION
SEC. 301. (a) The Secretary is authorized to prescribe such reg-
ulations as are necessary to carry out his functions under this
Act. The Secretary may delegate to any officer or employee of the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare such of his powers
and duties
[p. 71]
under this Act, except the making of regulations, as he may deem
necessary or expedient.
(b) Upon the request of an air pollution control agency, per-
sonnel of the Public Health Service may be detailed to such agency
for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act. The
-------
800 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
provisions of section 214 (d) of the Public Health Service Act shall
be applicable with respect to any personnel so detailed to the same
extent as if such personnel had been detailed under section 214 (b)
of that Act.
(c) Payments under grants made under this Act may be made
in installments, and in advance or by way of reimbursement, as
may be determined by the Secretary.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 302. When used in this Act—
(a) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare.
(b) The term "air pollution control agency" means any of the
following:
(1) A single State agency designated by the Governor of
that State as the official State air pollution control agency for
purposes of this Act;
(2) An agency established by two or more States and hav-
ing substantial powers or duties pertaining to the prevention
and control of air pollution;
(3) A city, county, or other local government health au-
thority, or, in the case of any city, county, or other local
government in which there is an agency other than the health
authority charged with responsibility for enforcing ordi-
nances or laws relating to the prevention and control of air
pollution, such other agency; or
(4) An agency of two or more municipalities located in the
same State or in different States and having substantial
powers or duties pertaining to the prevention and control of
air pollution.
(c) The term "interstate air pollution control agency" means—•
(1) an air pollution control agency established by two or
more States, or
(2) an air pollution control agency of two or more munic-
ipalities located in different States.
(d) The term "State" means a State, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and
American Samoa.
(e) The term "person" includes an individual, corporation,
partnership, association, State, municipality, and political sub-
division of a State.
(f) The term "municipality" means a city, town, borough,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 801
county, parish, district, or other public body created by or pur-
suant to State law.
(g) All language referring to adverse effects on welfare shall
include but not be limited to injury to agricultural crops and live-
stock, damage to and the deterioration of property, and hazards to
transportation.
[p. 72]
OTHER AUTHORITY NOT AFFECTED
SEC. 303. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this
section, this Act shall not be construed as superseding or limiting
the authorities and responsibilities, under any other provision of
law, of the Secretary or any other Federal officer, department, or
agency.
(b) No appropriation shall be authorized or made under section
301, 311, or 314 of the Public Health Service Act for any fiscal
year after the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, for any purpose
for which appropriations may be made under authority of this Act.
RECORDS AND AUDIT
SEC. 304. (a) Each recipient of assistance under this Act shall
keep such records as the Secretary shall prescribe, including rec-
ords which fully disclose the amount and disposition by such
recipient of the proceeds of such assistance, the total cost of the
project or undertaking in connection with which such assistance
is given or used, and the amount of that portion of the cost of the
project or undertaking supplied by other sources, and such other
records as will facilitate an effective audit.
(b) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the
Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly
authorized representatives, shall have access for the purpose of
audit and examinations to any books, documents, papers, and
records of the recipients that are pertinent to the grants received
under this Act.
Comprehensive Economic Cost Studies
Sec. 305. (a) In order to provide the basis for evaluating pro-
grams authorized by this Act and the development of new pro-
grams and to furnish the Congress with the information necessary
for authorization of appropriations by fiscal years beginning after
June 30,1969, the Secretary, in cooperation with State, interstate,
-------
802 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
and local air pollution control agencies, shall make a detailed esti-
mate of the cost of carrying out the provisions of this Act; a com-
prehensive study of the cost of program implementation by af-
fected units of government; and a comprehensive study of the
economic impact of air quality standards on the Nation's indus-
tries, communities, and other contributing sources of pollution,
including an analysis of the national requirements for and the
cost of controlling emissions to attain such standards of air quality
as may be established pursuant to this Act or applicable State
law. The Secretary shall submit such detailed estimate and the
results of such comprehensive study of cost for the five-year period
beginning July 1, 1969, and the results of such other studies, to
the Congress not later than January 10, 1969, and shall submit a
reevaluation of such estimate and studies annually thereafter.
(b) The Secretary shall also make a complete investigation and
study to determine (1) the need for additional trained State and
local personnel to carry out programs assisted pursuant to this Act
and other programs for the same purpose as this Act; (2) means
of using existing Federal training programs to train such per-
sonnel; and (3) the need for additional trained personnel to de-
velop, operate, and maintain those pollution control facilities de-
signed and installed to implement air quality standards. He shall
report the results of such investigation and study to the President
and the Congress not later than July 1, 1969.
[p. 73]
Additional Reports to Congress
Sec. 306. Not later than six months after the effective date of
this section and not later than January 10 of each calendar year
beginning after such date, the Secretary shall report to the Con-
gress on measures taken toward implementing the purpose and
intent of this Act including, but not limited to, (1) the progress
and problems associated with control of automotive exhaust emis-
sions and the research efforts related thereto; (2) the development
of air quality criteria and recommended emission control require-
ments; (3) the status of enforcement actions taken pursuant to
this Act; (4) the status of State ambient air standards setting,
including such plans for implementation and enforcement as have
been developed; (5) the extent of development and expansion of
air pollution monitoring systems; (6) progress and problems re-
lated to development of new and improved control techniques; (7)
the development of quantitative and qualitative instrumentation
to monitor emissions and air quality; (8) standards set or under
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 803
consideration pursuant to title II of this Act; (9) the status of
State, interstate, and local 'pollution control programs established
pursuant to and assisted by this Act; and (10) the reports and
recommendations made by the President's Air Quality Advisory
Board.
Labor Standards
Sec. 307. The Secretary shall take such action as may be neces-
sary to insure that all laborers and mechanics employed by con-
tractors or subcontractors on projects assisted under this Act shall
be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing for the same
type of work on similar construction in the locality as determined
by the Secretary of Labor, in accordance with the Act of March
3, 1931, as amended, known as the Davis-Bacon Act (46 Stat.
1494; 40 U.S.C. 276a—276a-5). The Secretary of Labor shall
have, with respect to the labor standards specified in this sub-
section, the authority and functions set forth in Reorganization
Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 (15 F.R. 3176; 64 Stat. 1267) and
section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended (48 Stat. 948;
40 U.S.C. 276c).
SEPARABILITY
SEC. [305] 308. If any provision of this Act, or the application
of any provision of this Act to any person or circumstance, is held
invalid, the application of such provision to other persons or cir-
cumstances, and the remainder of this Act, shall not be affected
thereby.
APPROPRIATIONS
[SEC. 309. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this Act, $46,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1967, $66,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, and
$74,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969.]
Sec. 309. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this Act, other than section 103 (d), $99,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $145,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1969, and $184,300,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1970.
SHORT TITLE
SEC. [307] 310. This Act may be cited as the "Clean Air Act".
[p. 74]
-------
804 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
PROVISIONS OF EXISTING LAW CROSS-REFERRED TO IN
THE REPORTED BILL
(5 U.S.C. 73b-2)
§ 73b-2. Travel expenses of consultants or experts: transportation
of persons serving without compensation
Persons in the Government service employed intermittently as
consultants or experts and receiving compensation on a per diem
when actually employed basis may be allowed travel expenses
while away from their homes or regular places of business, includ-
ing per diem in lieu of subsistence while at place of such employ-
ment, in accordance with the Standardized Government Travel
Regulations, sections 73a, 821—823 and 827—833 of this title,
and persons serving without compensation or at $1 per annum
may be allowed, while away from their homes or regular places of
business, transportation in accordance with said regulations and
section 73a of this title, and not to exceed $16 per diem within the
limits of the continental United States and beyond such limits, not
to exceed the rates of per diem established pursuant to section
836 of this title in lieu of subsistence en route and at place of such
service or employment unless a higher rate is specifically provided
in an appropriation or other Act: Provided, That where due to
the unusual circumstances of a travel assignment the maximum
per diem allowance would be much less than the amount required
to meet the actual and necessary expenses of the trip, the heads
of departments and establishments may, in accordance with regu-
lations promulgated by the Director, Bureau of the Budget, pur-
suant to section 840 of this title, prescribe conditions under which
reimbursement for such expenses may be authorized on an actual
expenses basis not to exceed a maximum amount to be specified in
the travel authorization, but in any event not to exceed, for each
day in travel status, (1) the amount of $30, within the limits of
the continental United States, or (2) the sum of the maximum per
diem allowance plus $10, for travel outside such limits.
(5 U.S.C. 3109)
§ 3109. Employment of experts and consultants; temporary or
intermittent
(a) For the purpose of this section—
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 805
(1) "agency" has the meaning given it by section 5721 of
this title; and
(2) "appropriation" includes funds made available by sta-
tute under section 849 of title 31.
(b) When authorized by an appropriation or other statute, the
head of an agency may procure by contract the temporary (not in
excess of 1 year) or intermittent services of experts or consultants
or
[p. 75]
an organization thereof, including stenographic reporting serv-
ices. Services procured under this section are without regard to—
(1) the provisions of this title governing appointment in
the competitive service;
(2) chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of this
title; and
(3) section 5 of title 41, except in the case of stenographic
reporting services by an organization.
However, an agency subject to chapter 51 and subchapter III of
chapter 53 of this title may pay a rate for services under this
section in excess of the daily equivalent of the highest rate pay-
able under section 5332 of this title only when specifically author-
ized by the appropriation or other statute authorizing the pro-
curement of the services.
(5 U.S.C. 5703)
§ 5703. Per diem, travel, and transportation expenses; experts and
consultants; individuals serving without pay
(a) For the purpose of this section, "appropriation" includes
funds made available by statute under section 849 of title 31.
(b) An individual employed intermittently in the Government
service as an expert or consultant and paid on a daily when-
actually-employed basis may be allowed travel expenses under
this subchapter while away from his home or regular place of
business, including a per diem allowance under this subchapter
while at his place of employment.
(c) An individual serving without pay or $1 a year may be
allowed transportation expenses under this subchapter and a per
diem allowance under this section while en route and at his place
of service or employment while away from his home or regular
place of business. Unless a higher rate is named in an appropria-
-------
806 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
tion or other statute, the per diem allowance may not exceed—
(1) the rate of $16 for travel inside the continental United
States; and
(2) the rates established under section 5702 (a) of this title
for travel outside the continental United States.
(d) Under regulations prescribed under section 5707 of this
title, the head of the agency concerned may prescribe conditions
under which an individual to whom this section applies may be
reimbursed for the actual and necessary expenses of the trip, not
to exceed an amount named in the travel authorization, when the
maximum per diem allowance would be much less than these ex-
penses due to the unusual circumstances of the travel assignment.
The amount named in the travel authorization may not exceed—
(1) $30 for each day in a travel status inside the continen-
tal United States; or
(2) the maximum per diem, allowance plus $10 for each
day in a travel status outside the continental United States.
[P- 76]
(10 U.S.C. 2353)!
§ 2353. Contracts: acquisition, construction, or furnishing of test
facilities and equipment
(a) A contract of a military department for research or devel-
opment, or both, may provide for the acquisition or construction
by, or furnishing to, the contractor, of research, developmental, or
test facilities and equipment that the Secretary of the military
department concerned determines to be necessary for the perform-
ance of the contract. The facilities and equipment, and specialized
housing for them, may be acquired or constructed at the expense
of the United States, and may be lent or leased to the contractor
with or without reimbursement, or may be sold to him at fair
value. This subsection does not authorize new construction or
improvements having general utility.
(b) Facilities that would not be readily removable or separable
without unreasonable expense or unreasonable loss of value may
not be installed or constructed under this section on property not
owned by the United States, unless the contract contains—
(1) a provision for reimbursing the United States for the
fair value of the facilities at the completion or termination of
the contract or within a reasonable time thereafter;
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 807
(2) an option in the United States to acquire the under-
lying land; or
(3) an alternative provision that the Secretary concerned
considers to be adequate to protect the interests of the
United States in the facilities.
(c) Proceeds of sales or reimbursements under this section shall
be paid into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts, except to the
extent otherwise authorized by law with respect to property ac-
quired by the contractor.
(18 U.S.C. 1905)
§ 1905. Disclosure of confidential information generally
Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or
of any department or agency thereof, publishes, divulges, dis-
closes, or makes known in any manner or to any extent not author-
ized by law any information coming to him in the course of his
employment or official duties or by reason of any examination or
investigation made by, or or return, report or record made to or
filed with, such department or agency or officer or employee there-
of, which information concerns or relates to the trade secrets,
processes, operations, style of work, or apparatus, or to the iden-
tity, confidential statistical data, amount or source of any income,
profits, losses, or expenditures of any person, firm, partnership,
corporation, or association; or permits any income return or copy
thereof or any book containing any abstract or particulars thereof
to be seen or examined by any person except as provided by law;
shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than
one year, or both; and shall be removed from office or employment.
1 This provision is not included in the House amendment, but is referred to in section 104 (a) of
the bill as passed by the Senate.
[p. 77]
(23 U.S.C. 402)
§ 402. Highway safety programs
(a) Each State shall have a highway safety program approved
by the Secretary, designed to reduce traffic accidents and deaths,
injuries, and property damage resulting therefrom. Such pro-
grams shall be in accordance with uniform standards promulgated
by the Secretary. Such uniform standards shall be expressed in
-------
808 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
terms of performance criteria. Such uniform standards shall be
promulgated by the Secretary so as to improve driver perform-
ance (including, but not limited to, driver education, driver test-
ing to determine proficiency to operate motor vehicles, driver
examinations (both physical and mental) and driver licensing)
and to improve pedestrian performance. In addition such uniform
standards shall include, but not be limited to, provisions for an
effective record system of accidents (including injuries and deaths
resulting therefrom), accident investigations to determine the
probable causes of accidents, injuries, and deaths, vehicle reg-
istration, operation, and inspection, highway design and mainte-
nance (including lighting, markings, and surface treatment),
traffic control, vehicle codes and laws, surveillance of traffic for
detection and correction of high or potentially high accident loca-
tions, and emergency services. Such standards as are applicable
to State highway safety programs shall, to the extent determined
appropriate by the Secretary, be applicable to federally adminis-
tered areas where a Federal department or agency controls the
highways or supervises traffic operations. The Secretary shall be
authorized to amend or waive standards on a temporary basis for
the purpose of evaluating new or different highway safety pro-
grams instituted on an experimental, pilot, or demonstration basis
by one or more States, where the Secretary finds that the public
interest would be served by such amendment or waiver.
(b) (1) The Secretary shall not approve any State highway
safety program under this section which does not—
(A) provide that the Governor of the State shall be respon-
sible for the administration of the program.
(B) authorize political subdivisions of such State to carry
out local highway safety programs within their jurisdictions
as a part of the State highway safety program if such local
highway safety programs are approved by the Governor and
are in accordance with the uniform standards of the Secre-
tary promulgated under this section.
(C) provide that at least 40 per centum of all Federal funds
apportioned under this section to such State for any fiscal
year will be expended by the political subdivisions of such
State in carrying out local highway safety programs author-
ized in accordance with subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.
(D) provide that the aggregate expenditure of funds of the
State and political subdivisions thereof, exclusive of Federal
funds, for highway safety programs will be maintained at a
level which does not fall below the average level of such ex-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 809
penditures for its last two full fiscal years preceding the date
of enactment of this section.
(E) provide for comprehensive driver training programs,
including (1) the initiation of a State program for driver
education
[p. 78]
in the school systems or for a significant expansion and im-
provement of such a program already in existence, to be
administered by appropriate school officials under the super-
vision of the Governor as set forth in subparagraph (A) of
this paragraph; (2) the training of qualified school instruc-
tors and their certification; (3) appropriate regulation of
other driver training schools, including licensing of the
schools and certification of their instructors; (4) adult driver
training programs, and programs for the retraining of se-
lected drivers; and (5) adequate research, development and
procurement of practice driving facilities, simulators, and
other similar teaching aids for both school and other driver
training use.
(2) The Secretary is authorized to waive the requirement of
subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of this subsection, in whole
or in part, for a fiscal year for any State whenever he determines
that there is an insufficient number of local highway safety pro-
grams to justify the expenditure in such State of such percentage
of Federal funds during such fiscal year.
(c) Funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out this sec-
tion shall be used to aid the States to conduct the highway safety
programs approved in accordance with subsection (a), shall be
subject to a deduction not to exceed 5 per centum for the necessary
costs of administering- the provisions of this section, and the
remainder shall be apportioned among the several States. For the
fiscal years ending June 30, 1967, June 30, 1968, and June 30,
1969, such funds shall be apportioned 75 per centum on the basis
of population and 25 per centum as the Secretary in his adminis-
trative discretion many deem appropriate and thereafter such
funds shall be apportioned as Congress, by law enacted hereafter,
shall provide. On or before January 1, 1969, the Secretary shall
report to Congress his recommendations with respect to a non-
discretionary formula for apportionment of funds authorized to
carry out this section for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and
fiscal years thereafter. After December 31, 1968, the Secretary
shall not apportion any funds under this subsection to any State
526-702 O - 73 -- 16
-------
810 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
which is not implementing a highway safety program approved
by the Secretary in accordance with this section. Federal aid
highway funds apportioned on or after January 1, 1969, to any
State which is not implementing a highway safety program ap-
proved by the Secretary in accordance with this section shall be
reduced by amounts equal to 10 per centum of the amounts which
would otherwise be apportioned to such State under section 104
of this title, until such time as such State is implementing an
approved highway safety program. Whenever he determines it to
be in the public interest, the Secretary may suspend for such
periods as he deems necessary, the application of the preceding
sentence to a State. Any amount which is withheld from appor-
tionment to any State under this section shall be reapportioned
to the other States in accordance with the applicable provision
of law.
(d) All provisions of chapter 1 of this title that are applicable
to Federal-aid primary highway funds other than provisions relat-
ing to the apportionment formula and provisions limiting the ex-
penditure of such funds to the Federal-aid systems, shall apply to
the highway safety funds authorized to be appropriated to carry
out this section, except as determined by the Secretary to be incon-
sistent with this section. In applying such provisions of chapter 1
in carrying out this
[p. 79]
section the term "State highway department" as used in such
provisions shall mean the Governor of a State for the purposes
of this section.
(e) Uniform standards promulgated by the Secretary to carry
out this section shall be developed in cooperation with the States,
their political subdivisions, appropriate Federal departments and
agencies, and such other public and private organizations as the
Secretary deems appropriate.
(f) The Secretary may make arrangements with other Federal
departments and agencies for assistance in the preparation of
uniform standards for the highway safety programs contemplated
by subsection (a) and in the administration of such programs.
Such departments and agencies are directed to cooperate in such
preparation and administration, on a reimbursable basis.
(g) Nothing in this section authorizes the appropriation or
expenditure of funds for (1) highway construction, maintenance,
or design (other than design of safety features of highways to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 811
be incorporated into standards) or (2) any purpose for which
funds are authorized by section 403 of this title.
(31 U.S.C. 529)
§ 529. Advances of public moneys, prohibition against
No advance of public money shall be made in any case unless
authorized by the appropriation concerned or other law. And in all
cases of contracts for the performance of any service, or the
delivery of articles of any description, for the use of the United
States, payment shall not exceed the value of the service ren-
dered, or of the articles delivered previously to such payment.
It shall, however, be lawful, under the special direction of the
President, to make such advances to the disbursing officers of the
Government as may be necessary to the faithful and prompt dis-
charge of their respective duties, and to the fulfillment of the
public engagements. The President may also direct such advances
as he may deem necessary and proper, to persons in the military
and naval service employed on distant stations, where the dis-
charge of the pay and emoluments to which they may be entitled
cannot be regularly effected.
(40 U.S.C. 276a—276a-5; 276c)
276a. Rate of wages for laborers and mechanics
(a) The advertised specifications for every contract in excess
of $2,000, to which the United States or the District of Columbia
is a party, for construction, alteration, and/or repair, including
painting and decorating, of public buildings or public works of
the United States or the District of Columbia within the geo-
graphical limits of the States of the Union, or the District of
Columbia, and which requires or involves the employment of
mechanics and/or laborers shall contain a provision stating the
minimum wages to be paid various classes of laborers and
mechanics which shall be based upon the wages that will be
determined by the Secretary of Labor to be prevailing for the
corresponding classes of laborers and mechanics employed on
corresponding classes of laborers and mechanics em-
[p. 80]
-------
812 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
ployed on projects of a character similar to the contract work in
the city, town, village, or other civil subdivision of the State, in
which the work is to be performed, or in the District of Columbia
if the work is to be performed there; and every contract based
upon these specifications shall contain a stipulation that the con-
tractor or his subcontractor shall pay all mechanics and laborers
employed directly upon the site of the work, unconditionally and
not less often than once a week, and without subsequent deduction
or rebate on any account, the full amounts accrued at time of pay-
ment, computed at wage rates not less than those stated in the
advertised specifications, regardless of any contractual relation-
ship which may be alleged to exist between the contractor or
subcontractor and such laborers and mechanics, and that the
scale of wages to be paid shall be posted by the contractor in a
prominent and easily accessible place at the site of the work;
and the further stipulation that there may be withheld from the
contractor so much of accrued payments as may be considered
necessary by the contracting officer to pay to laborers and
mechanics employed by the contractor or any subcontractor on
the work the difference between the rates of wages required by
the contract to be paid laborers and mechanics on the work and
the rates of wages received by such laborers and mechanics and
not refunded to the contractor, subcontractors, or their agents.
(b) As used in sections 276a to 276a-5 of this title the term
"wages", "scale of wages", "wage rates", "minimum wages", and
"prevailing wages" shall include—
(1) the basic hourly rate of pay; and
(2) the amount of—
(A) the rate of contribution irrevocably made by a
contractor or subcontractor to a trustee or to a third
person pursuant to a fund, plan, or program; and
(B) the rate of costs to the contractor or subcon-
tractor which may be reasonably anticipated in provid-
ing benefits to laborers and mechanics pursuant to all
enforcible commitments to carry out a financially re-
sponsible plan or program which was communicated
in writing to the laborers and mechanics affected,
for medical or hospital care, pensions on retirement or death,
compensation for injuries or illness resulting from occupa-
tional activity, or insurance to provide any of the foregoing,
for unemployment benefits, life insurance, disability and
sickness insurance, or accident insurance, for vacation and
holiday pay, for defraying costs of apprenticeship or other
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 813
similar programs, or for other bona fide fringe benefits, but
only where the contractor or subcontractor is not required by
other Federal, State, or local law to provide any of such bene-
fits:
Provided, That the obligation of a contractor or subcontractor to
make payment in accordance with the prevailing wage determina-
tions of the Secretary of Labor, insofar as sections 276a to 276a-5
of this title and other Acts incorporating sections 276a to 276a-5
of this title by reference are concerned may be discharged by the
making of payments in cash, by the making of contributions of
a type referred to in paragraph (2) (A), or by the assumption
of an enforcible commitment to bear the costs of a plan or
program of a type referred to in paragraph (2)(B), or any
combination thereof, where the aggregate
[p. 81]
of any such payments, contributions, and costs is not less than
the rate of pay described in paragraph (1) plus the amount re-
ferred to in paragraph (2).
In determining the overtime pay to which the laborer or
mechanic is entitled under any Federal law, his regular or basic
hourly rate of pay (or other alternative rate upon which premium
rate of overtime compensation is computed) shall be deemed
to be the rate computed under paragraph (1), except that where
the amount of payments, contributions, or costs incurred with
respect to him exceeds the prevailing wage applicable to him
under sections 276a to 276a-5 of this title, such regular or basic
hourly rate of pay (or such other alternative rate) shall be
arrived at by deducting from the amount of payments, contribu-
tions, or costs actually incurred with respect to him, the amount
of contributions or costs of the types described in paragraph
(2) actually incurred with respect to him, or the amount deter-
mined under paragraph (2) but not actually paid, whichever
amount is the greater.
§ 276a-l. Termination of work on failure to pay agreed wages;
completion of work by Government
Every contract within the scope of sections 276a to 276a-5 of
this title shall contain the further provision that in the event it
is found by the contracting officer that any laborer or mechanic
employed by the contractor or any subcontractor directly on the
site of the work covered by the contract has been or is being
-------
814 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
paid a rate of wages less than the rate of wages required by the
contract to be paid as aforesaid, the Government may, by written
notice to the contractor, terminate his right to proceed with the
work or such part of the work as to which there has been a failure
to pay said required wages and to prosecute the work to com-
pletion by contract or otherwise, and the contractor and his
sureties shall be liable to the Government for any excess costs
occasioned the Government thereby.
§ 276a-2. Payment of wages by Comptroller General from with-
held payments; listing contractors violating contracts
(a) The Comptroller General of the United States is authorized
and directed to pay directly to laborers and mechanics from any
accrued payments withheld under the terms of the contract any
wages found to be due laborers and mechanics pursuant to sections
276a to 276a-5 of this title; and the Comptroller General of the
United States is further authorized and is directed to distribute
a list to all departments of the Government giving the name of
persons or firms whom he has found to have disregarded their
obligations to employees and subcontractors. No contract shall be
awarded to the persons or firms appearing on this list or to any
firm, corporation, partnership, or association in which such per-
sons or firms have an interest until three years have elapsed from
the date of publication of the list containing the names of such
persons or firms.
(b) If the accrued payments withheld under the terms of the
contract, as aforesaid, are insufficient to reimburse all the laborers
and mechanics, with respect to whom there has been a failure
to pay the wages required pursuant to sections 276a to 276a-5
of this title, such laborers and mechanics shall have the right
of action and/or of intervention against the contractor and his
sureties conferred by law upon persons furnishing labor or
materials, and in such proceedings it shall
[p. 82]
be no defense that such laborers and mechanics accepted or agreed
to accept less than the required rate of wages or voluntarily made
refunds.
§276a-3. Effect on other Federal laws
Sections 276a to 276a-5 of this title shall not be construed to
supersede or impair any authority otherwise granted by Federal
law to provide for the establishment of specific wage rates.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 815
§ 276a-4. Effective date of sections 276a to 276a-5
Sections 276a to 276a-5 of this title shall take effect thirty
days after August 30, 1965, but shall not affect any contract
then existing or any contract that may thereafter be entered
into pursuant to invitations for bids that are outstanding on
August 30, 1965.
§ 276a-5. Suspension of sections 276 to 276a-5 during emergency
In the event of a national emergency the President is authorized
to suspend the provisions of sections 276a to 276a-5 of this title.
§ 276c. Regulations governing contractors and subcontractors
The Secretary of Labor shall make reasonable regulations for
contractors and subcontractors engaged in the construction, pros-
ecution, completion or repair of public buildings, public works
or buildings or works financed in whole or in part by loans or
grants from the United States, including a provision that each
contractor and subcontractor shall furnish weekly a statement
with respect to the wages paid each employee during the preced-
ing week. Section 1001 of Title 18 shall apply to such statements.
(41 U.S.C. 5)
§ 5. Advertisements for proposals for purchases and contracts
for supplies or services for Government departments; appli-
cation to Government sales and contracts to sell and to Gov-
ernment Corporations
Unless otherwise provided in the appropriation concerned or
other law, purchases and contracts for supplies or services for
the Government may be made or entered into only after advertis-
ing a sufficient time previously for proposals, except (1) when the
amount involved in any one case does not exceed $2,500, (2) when
the public exigencies require the immediate delivery of the articles
or performance of the service, (3) when only one source of supply
is available and the Government purchasing or contracting officer
shall so certify, or (4) when the services are required to be
performed by the contractor in person and are (A) of a technical
and professional nature or (B) under Government supervision
and paid for on a time basis. Except (1) as authorized by section
-------
816 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1638 of Appendix to Title 50, (2) when otherwise authorized by
law, or (3) when the reasonable value involved in any one case
does not exceed $500, sales and contracts of sale by the Govern-
ment shall be governed by the requirements of this section for
advertising.
In the case of wholly owned Government corporations, this
section shall apply to their administrative transactions only.
[p. 83]
SECTIONS 214, 301, 311, AND 314 OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICE ACT (42 U.S.C. 215, 241, 243, 246)
DETAIL OF PERSONNEL
SEC. 214. (a) The Secretary is authorized, upon request of the
head of an executive department, to detail officers or employees
of the Service to such department for duty as agreed upon by the
Secretary and the head of such department in order to cooperate
in, or conduct work related to, the functions of such department
or of the Service. When officers or employees are so detailed their
salaries and allowances may be paid from working funds estab-
lished as provided by law or may be paid by the Service from
applicable appropriation and reimbursement may be made as
agreed upon by the Secretary and the head of the executive de-
partment concerned. Officers detailed for duty with the Army,
Navy, or Coast Guard shall be subject to the laws for the
government of the service to which detailed.
(b) Upon the request of any State health authority or, in the
case of work relating to mental health, any State mental health
authority, personnel of the Service may be detailed by the Surgeon
General for the purpose of assisting such State or political sub-
division thereof in work related to the functions of the Service.
(c) The Surgeon General may detail personnel of the Service
to nonprofit educational, research, or other institutions engaged
in health activities for special studies of scientific problems and
for the dissemination of information relating to public health.
(d) Personnel detailed under subsections (b) and (c) shall be
paid from applicable appropriations of the Service except that,
in accordance with regulations such personnel may be placed on
leave without pay and paid by the State, subdivision, or institution
to which they are detailed. The services of personnel while de-
tailed pursuant to this section shall be considered as having been
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 817
performed in the Service for purposes of the computation of
basic pay, promotion, retirement, compensation for injury or
death, and the benefits provided by section 212.
TITLE III—GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICE
PART A—RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION
IN GENERAL
SECTION 301. The Surgeon General shall conduct in the Service,
and encourage, cooperate with, and render assistance to other
appropriate public authorities, scientific institutions, and scien-
tists in the conduct of, and promote the coordination of, research,
investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and studies relating
to the causes, diagnosis, treatment, control, and prevention of
physical and mental diseases and impairments of man, including
water purification, sewage treatment, and pollution of lakes and
streams. In carrying out the foregoing the Surgeon General is
authorized to—
(a) Collect and make available through publications and
other appropriate means, information as to, and the practical
application of, such research and other activities;
[p. 84]
(b) Make available research facilities of the Service to
appropriate public authorities, and to health officials and
scientists engaged in special study;
(c) Establish and maintain research fellowships in the
Service with such stipends and allowances, including travel-
ing and subsistence expenses, as he may deem necessary to
procure the assistance of the most brilliant and promising
research fellows from the United States and abroad;
(d) Make grants-in-aid to universities, hospitals, labora-
tories, and other public or private institutions, and to indi-
viduals for such research or research training projects as
are recommended by the National Advisory Health Council,
or, with respect to cancer, recommended by the National
Advisory Cancer Council, or, with respect to mental health,
recommended by the National Advisory Mental Health Coun-
cil, or with respect to heart diseases, recommended by the
National Advisory Heart Council, or, with respect to dental
-------
818 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
diseases and conditions, recommended by the NationaF
Advisory Dental Research Council, and include in the grants
for any such project grants of penicillin and other antibiotic
compounds for use in such projects; and make, upon recom-
mendation of the National Advisory Health Council, grants-
in-aid to public or nonprofit universities, hospitals, labora-
tories, and other institutions for the general support of their
research and research training programs: Provided, That
such uniform percentage, not to exceed 15 per centum, as the
Surgeon General may determine, of the amounts provided
for grants for research or research training projects for any
fiscal year through the appropriations for the National
Institutes of Health may be transferred from such appropria-
tions to a separate account to be available for such research
and research training program grants-in-aid for such fiscal
year;
(e) Secure from time to time and for such periods as he
deems advisable, the assistance and advice of experts,
scholars, and consultants from the United States or abroad;
(f) For purposes of study, admit and treat at institutions,
hospitals, and stations of the Service, persons not otherwise
eligible for such treatment;
(g) Make available, to health officials, scientists, and
appropriate public and other nonprofit institutions and or-
ganizations, technical advice and assistance on the applica-
tion of statistical methods to experiments, studies, and sur-
veys in health and medical fields; and
(h) Enter into contracts during the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1966, and each of the two succeeding fiscal years,
including contracts for research in accordance with and
subject to the provisions of law applicable to contracts en-
tered into by the military departments under title 10, United
States Code, sections 2353 and 2354, except that determina-
tion, approval, and certification required thereby shall be by
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare; and
(i) Adopt, upon recommendation of the National Advisory
Health Council, or, with respect to cancer, upon recommenda-
tion of the National Advisory Cancer Council, or with respect
to mental health, upon recommendation of the National
Advisory Mental Health Council, or, with respect to heart
diseases, upon recommendation of the National Advisory
[p. 85]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 819
Heart Council, or, with respect to dental diseases and condi-
tions, upon recommendations of the National Advisory Dental
Research Council, such additional means as he deems neces-
sary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section.
PART B—FEDERAL-STATE COOPERATION
IN GENERAL
SEC. 311. (a) The Surgeon General is authorized to accept
from State and local authorities any assistance in the enforcement
of quarantine regulations made pursuant to this Act which such
authorities may be able and willing to provide. The Surgeon
General shall also assist States and their political subdivisions
in the prevention and suppression of communicable diseases,
shall cooperate with and aid State and local authorities in the
enforcement of their quarantine and other health regulations
and in carrying out the purposes specified in section 314, and
shall advise the several States on matters relating to the preserva-
tion and improvement of the public health.
(b) The Surgeon General shall encourage cooperative activities
between the States with respect to comprehensive and continuing
planning as to their current and future health needs, the establish-
ment and maintenance of adequate public health services, and
otherwise carrying out the purposes of section 314. The Surgeon
General is also authorized to train personnel for State and local
health work.
GRANTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING AND PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICES
Grants to States for Comprehensive State Health Planning
SEC. 314. (a) (1) AUTHORIZATION.—In order to assist the
States in comprehensive and continuing planning for their cur-
rent and future health needs, the Surgeon General is authorized
during the period beginning July 1, 1966, and ending June 30,
1968, to make grants to States which have submitted, and had
approved by the Surgeon General, State plans for comprehensive
State health planning. For the purposes of carrying out this
subsection, there are hereby authorized to be appropriated
$2,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and
$5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968.
(2) STATE PLANS FOR COMPREHENSIVE STATE HEALTH PLAN-
-------
820 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
KING.—In order to be approved for purposes of this subsection,
a State plan for comprehensive State health planning must—
(A) designate, or provide for the establishment of, a
single State agency, which may be an interdepartmental
agency, as the sole agency for administering or supervising
the administration of the State's health planning functions
under the plan;
(B) provide for the establishment of a State health plan-
ning council, which shall include representatives of State and
local agencies and nongovernmental organizations and groups
concerned with health, and of consumers of health services,
to advise such State agency in carrying out its functions
under the
[p.86]
plan, and a majority of the membership of such council shall
consist of representatives of consumers of health services;
(C) set forth policies and procedures for the expenditure
of funds under the plan, which, in the judgment of the
Surgeon General, are designed to provide for comprehensive
State planning for health services (both public and private),
including the facilities and persons required for the provision
of such services, to meet the health needs of the people of
the State;
(D) provide for encouraging cooperative efforts among
governmental or nongovernmental agencies, organizations
and groups concerned with health services, facilities, or
manpower, and for cooperative efforts between such agencies,
organizations, and groups and similar agencies, organiza-
tions, and groups in the fields of education, welfare, and
rehabilitation;
(E) contain or be supported by assurances satisfactory to
the Surgeon General that the funds paid under this subsec-
tion will be used to supplement and, to the extent practicable,
to increase the level of funds that would otherwise be made
available by the State for the purpose of comprehensive
health planning and not to supplant such non-Federal funds;
(F) provide such methods of administration (including
methods relating to the establishment and maintenance of
personnel standards on a merit basis, except that the Surgeon
General shall exercise no authority with respect to the selec-
tion, tenure of office, and compensation of any individual
employed in accordance with such methods) as are found by
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 821
the Surgeon General to be necessary for the proper and
efficient operation of the plan;
(G) provide that the State agency will make such reports,
in such form and containing such information, as the Surgeon
General may from time to time reasonably require, and will
keep such records and afford such access thereto as the
Surgeon General finds necessary to assure the correctness
and verification of such reports;
(H) provide that the State agency will from time to time,
but not less often than annually, review its State plan ap-
proved under this subsection and submit to the Surgeon
General appropriate modifications thereof;
(I) provide for such fiscal control and fund accounting
procedures as may be necessary to assure proper disburse-
ment of and accounting for funds paid to the State under
this subsection; and
(J) contain such additional information and assurances as
the Surgeon General may find necessary to carry out the
purposes of this subsection.
(3) (A) STATE ALLOTMENTS.—From the sums apropriated for
such purpose for each fiscal year, the several States shall be
entitled to allotments determined, in accordance with regulations,
on the basis of the population and the per capita income of the
respective States; except that no such allotment to any State for
any fiscal year shall be less than 1 per centum of the sum ap-
propriated for such fiscal year pursuant to paragraph (1). Any
such allotment to a State for a fiscal year shall remain available
for obligation by the State, in accordance with the provisions of
this subsection and the State's plan approved thereunder, until
the close of the succeeding fiscal year.
[p. 87]
(B) The amount of any allotment to a State under subpara-
graph (A) for any fiscal year which the Surgeon General de-
termines will not be required by the State, during the period for
which it is available, for the purposes for which allotted shall be
available for reallotment by the Surgeon General from time to
time, on such date or dates as he may fix, to other States with
respect to which such a determination has not been made, in
proportion to the original allotments to such States under sub-
paragraph (A) for such fiscal year, but with such proportionate
amount for any of such other States being reduced to the extent
it exceeds the sum the Surgeon General estimates such State needs
-------
822 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
and will be able to use during such period; and the total of such
reductions shall be similarly reallotted among the States whose
proportionate amounts were not so reduced. Any amount so real-
lotted to a State from funds appropriated pursuant to this sub-
section for a fiscal year shall be deemed part of its allotment under
subparagraph (A) for such fiscal year.
(4) PAYMENTS TO STATES.—From each State's allotment for a
fiscal year under this subsection, the State shall from time to
time be paid the Federal share of the expenditures incurred
during that year or the succeeding year pursuant to its State
plan approved under this subsection. Such payments shall be
made on the basis of estimates by the Surgeon General of the
sums the State will need in order to perform the planning under
its approved State plan under this subsection, but with such
adjustments as may be necessary to take account of previously
made underpayments or overpayments. The 'Federal share' for
any State for purposes of this subsection shall be all, or such
part as the Surgeon General may determine, of the cost of such
planning.
Project Grants for Area wide Health Planning
(b) The Surgeon General is authorized, during the period
beginning July 1, 1966, and ending June 30, 1968, to make, with
the approval of the State agency administering or supervising the
administration of the State plan approved under subsection (a),
project grants to any other public or nonprofit private agency or
organization to cover not to exceed 75 per centum of the costs of
projects for developing (and from time to time revising) com-
prehensive regional, metropolitan area, or other local area plans
for coordination of existing and planned health services, including
the facilities and persons required for provision of such services;
except that in the case of project grants made in any State prior
to July 1, 1968, approval of such State agency shall be required
only if such State has such a State plan in effect at the time of
such grants. For the purposes of carrying out this subsection,
there are hereby authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and $7,500,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 3,1968.
Project Grants for Training, Studies, and Demonstrations
(c) The Surgeon General is also authorized, during the period
beginning July 1, 1966, and ending June 30, 1968, to make grants
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 823
to any public or nonprofit private agency, institution, or other
organization to cover all or any part of the cost of projects for
training, studies,
[p. 88]
or demonstrations looking toward the development of improved
or more effective comprehensive health planning throughout the
Nation. For the purposes of carrying out this subsection, there
are hereby authorized to be appropriated $1,500,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1967, and $2,500,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1968.
Grants for Comprehensive Public Health Services
(d) (1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are author-
ized to be appropriated $62,500,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1968, to enable the Surgeon General to make grants to
State health or mental health authorities to assist the States in
establishing and maintaining adequate public health services, in-
cluding the training of personnel for State and local health work.
The sums so appropriated shall be used for making payments to
States which have submitted, and had approved by the Surgeon
General, State plans for provision of public health services.
(2) STATE PLANS FOR PROVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES.—
In order to be approved under this subsection, a State plan for
provision of public health services must—
(A) provide for administration or supervision of admin-
istration by the State health authority or, with respect to
mental health services, the State mental health authority;
(B) set forth the policies and procedures to be followed in
the expenditure of the funds paid under this subsection;
(C) contain or be supported by assurances satisfactory to
the Surgeon General that (i) the funds paid to the State un-
der this subsection will be used to make a significant contri-
bution toward providing and strengthening public health
services in the various political subdivisions in order to im-
prove the health of the people; (ii) such funds will be made
available to other public or nonprofit private agencies, in-
stitutions, and organizations, in accordance with criteria
which the Surgeon General determines are designed to
secure maximum participation of local, regional, or metro-
politan agencies and groups in the provision of such services;
and (iii) such funds will be used to supplement and, to the
-------
824 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
extent practical, to increase the level of funds that would
otherwise be made available for the purposes for which the
Federal funds are provided and not to supplant such non-
Federal funds;
(D) provide for the furnishing of public health services un-
der the State plan in accordance with such plans as have been
developed pursuant to subsection (a) ;
(E) provide that public health services furnished under
the plan will be in accordance with standards prescribed by
regulations, including standards as to the scope and quality
of such services;
(F) provide such methods of administration (including
methods relating to the establishment and maintenance of
personnel standards on a merit basis, except that the Surgeon
General shall exercise no authority with respect to the selec-
tion, tenure of office, and compensation of any individual
employed in accordance with such methods) as are found by
the Surgeon General to be necessary for the proper and
efficient operation of the plan;
[p. 89]
(G) provide that the State health authority or, with re-
spect to mental health services, the State mental health au-
thority, will from time to time, but not less often than an-
nually, review and evaluate its State plan approved under
this subsection and submit to the Surgeon General appro-
priate modifications thereof ;
(H) provide that the State health authority or, with
respect to mental health services, the State mental health
authority, will make such reports, in such form and contain-
ing such information, as the Surgeon General may from
time to time reasonably require, and will keep such records
and afford such access thereto as the Surgeon General finds
necessary to assure the correctness and verification of such
reports;
(I) provide for such fiscal control and fund accounting
procedures as may be necessary to assure the proper dis-
bursement of and accounting for funds paid to the State
under this subsection; and
(J) contain such additional information and assurances as
the Surgeon General may find necessary to carry out the
purposes of this subsection.
(3) STATE ALLOTMENTS.—From the sums appropriated to carry
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 825
out the provisions of this subsection the several States shall be
entitled for each fiscal year to allotments determined, in accord-
ance with regulations, on the basis of the population and financial
need of the respective States, except that no State's allotment
shall be less for any year than the total amounts allotted to such
State under formula grants for cancer control, plus other allot-
ments under this section, for the fiscal year ending1 June 30, 1967.
(4) (A) PAYMENTS TO STATES.—From each State's allotment
under this subsection for a fiscal year, the State shall be paid the
Federal share of the expenditures incurred during such year
under its State plan approved under this subsection. Such pay-
ments shall be made from time to time in advance on the basis of
estimates by the Surgeon General of the sums the State will
expend under the State plan, except that such adjustments as
may be necessary shall be made on account of previously made
underpayments or overpayments under this subsection.
(B) For the purpose of determining the Federal share for any
State, expenditures by nonprofit private agencies, organizations,
and groups shall, subject to such limitations and conditions as
may be prescribed by regulations, be regarded as expenditures
by such State or a political subdivision thereof.
(5) FEDERAL SHARE.—The "Federal share" for any State for
purposes of this subsection shall be 100 per centum less that
percentage whcih bears the same ratio to 50 per centum as the
per capita income of such State bears to the per capita income
of the United States; except that in no case shall such percentage
be less than 331/3 per centum or more than 66% per centum,
and except that the Federal share for the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands
shall be 66% per centum.
(6) DETERMINATION OF FEDERAL SHARES.—The Federal shares
shall be determined by the Surgeon General between July 1 and,
September 1 of each year, on the basis of the average per capita
incomes of each of the States and of the United States for the
most recent year for which satisfactory data are available from
the Department of Commerce,
[p. 90]
and such determination shall be conclusive for the fiscal year be-
ginning on the next July 1. The populations of the several States
shall be determined on the basis of the latest figures for the
population of the several States available from the Department
of Commerce.
526-702 O - 73 -- 17
-------
826 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
(7) ALLOCATION OP FUNDS WITHIN THE STATES.—At least 15
per centum of a State's allotment under this subsection shall be
available only to the State mental health authority for the pro-
vision under the State plan of mental health services.
Project Grants for Health Services Development
(e) There are authorized to be appropriated $62,500,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, for grants to any public or
nonprofit private agency, institution, or organization to cover
part of the cost of (1) providing services to meet health needs of
limited geographic scope or of specialized regional or national
significance, (2) stimulating and supporting for an initial period
new programs of health services, or (3) undertaking studies,
demonstrations, or training designed to de'velop new methods
or improve existing methods of providing health services. Such
grants may be made pursuant to clause (1) or (2) of the preceding
sentence with respect to projects involving the furnishing of
public health services only if such services are provided in ac-
cordance with such plans as have been developed pursuant to
subsection (a).
Interchange of Personnel With States
(f) (1) For the purposes of this subsection, the term "State"
means a State or a political subdivision of a State, or any agency
of either of the foregoing engaged in any activities related to
health or designated or established pursuant to subparagraph
(A) of paragraph (2) of subsection (a) ; the term "Secretary"
means (except when used in paragraph (3) (D)) the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare; and the term 'Department'
means the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
(2) The Secretary is authorized, through agreements or other-
wise, to arrange for assignment of officers and employees of States
to the Department and assignment to States of officers and em-
ployees in the Department engaged in work related to health, for
work which the Secretary determines will aid the Department
in more effective discharge of its responsibilities in the field of
health as authorized by law, including cooperation with States
and the provision of technical or other assistance. The period of
assignment of any officer or employee under an arrangement shall
not exceed two years.
(3) (A) Officers and employees in the Department assigned to
any State pursuant to this subsection shall be considered, during
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 827
such assignment, to be (i) on detail to a regular work assignment
in the Department, or (ii) on leave without pay from their
positions in the Department.
(B) Persons considered to be so detailed shall remain as officers
or employees, as the case may be, in the Department for all
purposes except that the supervision of their duties during the
period of detail may be governed by agreement between the
Department and the State involved.
(C) In the case of persons so assigned and on leave without
pay—
(i) if the rate of compensation (including allowances) for
[p- 91]
their employment by the State is less than the rate of com-
pensation (including allowances) they would be receiving had
they continued in their regular assignment in the Depart-
ment, they may receive supplemental salary payments from
the Department in the amount considered by the Secretary
to be justified, but not at a rate in excess of the difference
between the State rate and the Department rate; and
(ii) they may be granted annual leave and sick leave to
the extent authorized by law, but only in circumstances con-
sidered by the Secretary to justify approval of such leave.
Such officers and employees on leave without pay shall, notwith-
standing any other provision of law, be entitled—
(iii) to continuation of their insurance under the Federal
Employees' Group Life Insurance Act of 1954, and coverage
under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959,
so long as the Department continues to collect the employees'
contribution from the officer or employee involved and to
transmit for timely deposit into the funds created under
such Acts the amount of the employee's contributions and
the Government's contribution from appropriations of the
Department; and
(iv) (I) in the case of commissioned officers of the Service,
to have their service during their assignment treated as
provided in section 214(d) for such officers on leave without
pay, or (II) in the case of other officers and employees in
the Department, to credit the period of their assignment
under the arrangement under this subsection toward periodic
or longevity step increases and for retention and leave ac-
crual purposes, and, upon payment into the civil service
retirement and disability fund of the percentage of their
-------
828 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
State salary, and on their supplemental salary payments, if
any, which would have been deducted from a like Federal
salary for the period of such assignment and payment by
the Secretary into such fund of the amount which would
have been payable by him during the period of such assign-
ment with respect to a like Federal salary, to treat (notwith-
standing the provisions of the Independent Offices Appropri-
ation Act, 1959, under the head "Civil Service Retirement
and Disability Fund") their service during such period as
service within the meaning of the Civil Service Retirement
Act;
except that no officer or employee or his beneficiary may receive
any benefits under the Civil Service Retirement Act, the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959, or the Federal Employees'
Group Life Insurance Act of 1954, based on service during an
assignment hereunder for which the officer or employee or (if
he dies without making such election) his beneficiary elects to
receive benefits, under any State retirement or insurance law
or program, which the Civil Service Commission determines to
be similar. The Department shall deposit currently in the funds
created under the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Act
of 1954, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959,
and the civil service retirement and disability fund, respectively,
the amount of the Government's contribution under these Acts
on account of service with respect to which employee contributions
are collected as provided in subparagraph (iii) and the amount
of the Government's contribution under the Civil Service Retire-
ment Act on account of service with respect to which payments
[p. 92]
(of the amount which would have been deducted under that Act)
referred to in subparagraph (iv) are made to such civil service
retirement and disability fund.
(D) Any such officer or employee on leave without pay (other
than a commissioned officer of the Service) who suffers disability
or death as a result of personal injury sustained while in the
performance of his duty during an assignment hereunder, shall
be treated, for the purposes of the Federal Employees' Compensa-
tion Act, as though he were an employee, as defined in such Act,
who had sustained such injury in the performance of duty. When
such person (or his dependents, in case of death) entitled by
reason of injury or death to benefits under that Act is also entitled
to benefits from a State for the same injury or death, he (or his
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 829
dependents in case of death) shall elect which benefits he will
receive. Such election shall be made within one year after the
injury or death, or such further time as the Secretary of Labor
may for good cause allow, and when made shall be irrevocable
unless otherwise provided by law.
(4) Assignment of any officer or employee in the Department
to a State under this subsection may be made with or without
reimbursement by the State for the compensation (or supplemen-
from the place of assignment), and allowances, or any part there-
of, of such officer or employee during the period of assignment,
and any such reimbursement shall be credited to the appropriation
utilized for paying such compensation, travel or transportation
expenses, or allowances.
(5) Appropriations to the Department shall be available, in
accordance with the standardized Government travel regulations
or, with respect to commissioned officers of the Service, the joint
travel regulations, the expenses of travel of officers and employees
assigned to States under an arrangement under this subsection
on either a detail or leave-without-pay basis and, in accordance
with applicable law, orders, and regulations, for expenses of
transportation of their immediate families and expenses of trans-
portation of their household goods and personal effects, in con-
nection with the travel of such officers and employees to the
location of their posts of assignment and their return to their
official stations.
(6) Officers and employees of States who are assigned to the
Department under an arrangement under this subsection may
(A) be given appointments in the Department covering the
periods of such assignments, or (B) be considered to be on detail
to the Department. Appointments of persons so assigned may be
made without regard to the civil service laws. Persons so appoint-
ed in the Department shall be paid at rates of compensation
determined in accordance with the Classification Act of 1949,
and shall not be considered to be officers or employees of the
Service for the purposes of (A) the Civil Service Retirement Act,
(B) the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Act of 1954,
or (C) unless their appointments result in the loss of coverage
in a group health benefits plan whose premium has been paid in
whole or in part by a State contribution, the Federal Employees
Health Benefits Act of 1959. State officers and employees who are
assigned to the Department without appointment shall not be
considered to be officers or employees of the Department, except
-------
830 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
as provided in subsection (7), nor shall they be paid a salary or
wage by the Service during the period of their assignment. The
supervision of the
[p. 93]
duties of such persons during the assignment may be governed
by agreement between the Secretary and the State involved.
(7) (A) Any State officer or employee who is assigned to the
Department without appointment shall nevertheless be subject
to the provisions of sections 203, 205, 207, 208, and 209 of title
18 of the United States Code.
(B) Any State officer or employee who is given an appointment
while assigned to the Department, or who is assigned to the
Department without appointment, under an arrangement under
this subsection, and who suffers disability or death as a result
of personal injury sustained while in the performance of his duty
during such assignment shall be treated, for the purpose of the
Federal Employees' Compensation Act, as though he were an
employee, as denned in such Act, who had sustained such injury
in the performance of duty. When such person (or his dependents,
in case of death) entitled by reason of injury or death to benefits
under that Act is also entitled to benefits from a State for the
same injury or death, he (or his dependents, in case of death)
shall elect which benefits he will receive. Such election shall be
made within one year after the injury or death, or such further
time as the Secretary of Labor may for good cause allow, and
when made shall be irrevocable unless otherwise provided by law.
(8) The appropriations to the Department shall be available, in
accordance with the standardized Government travel regulations,
during the period of assignment and in the case of travel to and
from their places of assignment or appointment, for the payment
of expenses of travel of persons assigned to, or given appoint-
ments by, the Service under an arrangement under this subsec-
tion.
(9) All arrangements under this subsection for assignment of
officers or employees in the Department to States or for assign-
ment of officers or employees of States to the Department shall
be made in accordance with regulations of the Secretary.
General
(g) (1) All regulations and amendments thereto with respect to
grants to States under subsection (a) shall be made after con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 831
sultation with a conference of the State health planning agencies
designated or established pursuant to subparagraph (A) of para-
graph (2) of subsection (a). All regulations and amendments
thereto with respect to grants to States under subsection (d)
shall be made after consultation with a conference of State health
authorities and, in the case of regulations and amendments which
relate to or in any way affect grants for services or other activities
in the field of mental health, the State mental health authorities.
Insofar as practicable, the Surgeon General shall obtain the agree-
ment, prior to the issuance of such regulations or amendments,
of the State authorities or agencies with whom such consultation
is required.
(2) The Surgeon General, at the request of any recipient of a
grant under this section, may reduce the payments to such
recipient by the fair market value of any equipment or supplies
furnished to such recipient and by the amount of the pay, allow-
ances, traveling expenses, and any other costs in connection
with the detail of an officer or employee to the recipient when such
furnishing or such detail, as the case may be, is for the con-
venience of and at the request of such
[p. 94]
recipient and for the purpose of carrying out the State plan or
the project with respect to which the grant under this section is
made. The amount by which such payments are so reduced shall
for purposes of determining the Federal share under subsection
(a) or (d), be deemed to have been paid to the State.
(3) Whenever the Surgeon General, after reasonable notice and
opportunity for hearing to the health authority or, where appro-
priate, the mental health authority of a State or a State health
planning agency designated or established pursuant to subpara-
graph (A) of paragraph (2) of subsection (a), finds that, with
respect to money paid to the State out of appropriations under
subsection (a) or (d), there is a failure to comply substantially
with either—
(A) the applicable provisions of this section;
(B) the State plan submitted under such subsection; or
(C) applicable regulations under this section;
the Surgeon General shall notify such State health authority,
mental health authority, or health planning agency, as the case
may be, that further payments will not be made to the State
from appropriations under such subsection (or in his discretion
that further payments will not be made to the State from such
-------
832 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
appropriations for activities in which there is such failure), until
he is satisfied that there will no longer be such failure. Until he
is so satisfied, the Surgeon General shall make no payment to
such State from appropriations under such subsection, or shall
limit payment to activities in which there is no such failure.
(4) For the purpose of this section—
(A) The term "nonprofit" as applied to any private
agency, institution, or organization means one which is a
corporation or association, or is owned and operated by one
or more corporations or associations, no part of the net
earnings of which inures, or may lawfully inure, to the
benefit of any private shareholder or individual; and
(B) The term "State" includes the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and
the District of Columbia and the term "United States" means
the fifty States and the District of Columbia.
[p. 95]
SEPARATE VIEWS OF MESSRS. JOHN E. MOSS AND
LIONEL VAN DEERLIN ON S. 780, THE AIR QUALITY
ACT OF 1967
While we believe that most of the actions taken by the com-
mittee tend to strengthen the proposed Air Quality Act, we
disagree completely with the decision to eliminate the auto
emission waiver provision for California.
Under the bill's section 208 (b), as amended by the committee,
California would have to persuade the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare to prescribe standards for California that
were more stringent than the national standards. Even if he
agreed California needed tougher regulations, the Secretary
would retain administrative control over the program in that
State.
As approved by the Senate, section 208(b) in effect would
exempt California from the bill's requirement that States con-
form to the Federal auto emission standards. The burden would
be on the Secretary to show why California, which already has a
successful antipollution law of its own, should not be allowed
to go beyond the Federal limitations in adopting and enforcing
its own standards.
We feel the Senate provision makes sense. It is consistent with
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 833
the preamble of the bill which states, in section 101 (a) (3), that
"the prevention and control of air pollution at its source is the
primary responsibility of States and local governments."
Are we now to tt1! California that we don't quite trust her to
run her own program, that big government should do it instead?
A look at the record should be enough to convince anyone of
California's need for this exemption—and of the State's proven
capabilities in the fight against smog.
As the prime victim of auto-caused air pollution, California has
led the Nation in promulgating strict emission control require-
ments.
Since 1966, all new passenger cars and light trucks built for
sale in California have been equipped to control hydrocarbon and
carbon monoxide emissions from both the crankcase ventilation
system and from the engine exhaust. The devices now in use each
day are keeping 550,000 gallons of unburned gasoline and 2,300
tons of carbon monoxide from seeping into the air Californians
breathe. Of the more than 11 million vehicles in the State, 7.8
million have crankcase controls, and 1.8 million have exhaust
controls.
California has been a model for the Nation in this critical field.
In fact, the new Federal standards for emission control are the
same as those now in force in California. The difficulty is that
California, with its compelling and extraordinary problems, will
require even tougher controls in the near future.
The current standard of 275 parts per million (p.p.m.) of
hydrocarbons, for example, is scheduled to be dropped to 180
p.p.m. in 1970. By 1975, this standard may have to be further
reduced to 100 p.p.m.
[p. 96]
These figures are not the whim of bureaucratic minds; they are
dictated by harsh reality. Motor vehicles are responsible for
about 90 percent of the smog in Los Angeles County, some 56 per-
cent in the San Francisco Bay area, and about 50 percent in
San Diego. Moreover, with 17 percent of the industry's sales
concentrated there, California's burgeoning car population is in-
creasing at the rate of 1,800 to 2,000 a day.
The auto industry has shown itself willing and able to make
the modifications required for its lucrative California market.
And we suspect the industry would be only too happy to comply
with the special requirements of any foreign nation that accounted
for as many sales as California. The objections of the auto manu-
-------
834 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
facturers to the Senate-approved waiver provision, therefore,
leave us distinctly unimpressed.
In short, unique local conditions virtually demand that Cali-
fornia retain strict and hopefully total control over all efforts to
reduce emissions within her boundaries.
JOHN E. Moss
LIONEL VAN DEERLIN
[p. 97]
l.lh(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 916, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967)
CLEAN AIR ACT
NOVEMBER 13, 1967.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the committee of conference,
submitted the following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany S. 780]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 780)
to amend the Clean Air Act to authorize planning grants to air
pollution control agencies, expand research provisions relating to
fuels and vehicles, provide for interstate air pollution control
agencies or commissions, authorize the estabishment of air quality
standards, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free
conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to
their respective Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the House and agree to the same with an amendment as
follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House
amendment insert the following: That this Act may be cited as
the "Air Quality Act of 1967".
tP-1]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 835
STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE
HOUSE
The managers on the part of the House at the conference on
the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the
House to the bill (S. 780) to amend the Clean Air Act to authorize
planning grants to air pollution control agencies, expand research
provisions relating to fuels and vehicles, provide for interstate
air pollution control agencies or commissions, authorize the
establishment of air quality standards, and for other purposes,
submit the following statement in explanation of the effect of the
action agreed upon by the conferees and recommended in the
accompanying conference report:
The House amendment strikes out all of the Senate bill after
the enacting clause and inserts a substitute. The Senate recedes
from its disagreement to the amendment of the House, with an
amendment which is a substitute for both the Senate bill and the
House amendment. The differences between the House amendment
and the substitute agreed to in conference are noted in the
following outline, except for technical, clerical, conforming, and
clarifying changes.
APPROPRIATION AUTHORIZATIONS
The bill as passed by the Senate authorized appropriations
totaling $700 million over a 3-year period, fiscal years 1968
through 1970. The House amendment provided authorizations
totaling $428.3 million over the same period. The conference
substitute provides the same total authorization as is contained in
the House amendment, $428.3 million, but revises the amounts
for each of the fiscal years concerned.
The Senate bill authorizes a total of $375 million for research
into combustion byproducts of vehicles, with $100 million for
fiscal 1968, $125 million for fiscal 1969, and $150 million for
fiscal 1970. The House bill contained no authorization specifically
earmarked for this program. The conference substitute authorizes
$35 million for fiscal 1968 for this program, and $90 million
for fiscal 1969, with no authorization for fiscal 1970.
For general operating expenses, other than for research into
combustion byproducts, and for facilities construction, the bill as
passed by the Senate authorized a total of $325 million, with
$75 million authorized for fiscal 1968, $100 million for fiscal 1969,
and $150 million for fiscal 1970. The House amendment authorized
-------
836 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
a total of $428.3 million for all purposes under the act, other than
facilities construction, for the same 3 fiscal years, with $99 million'
authorized for fiscal 1968, $145 million for fiscal 1969, and $184.3
million for fiscal 1970.
The conference substitute authorizes appropriations for the
same 3 fiscal years for activities under the act, other than funds
specifically earmarked for combustion byproducts and facilities
construction, a total of $303.3 million, with $74 million authorized
for fiscal 1968, $95 million for fiscal 1969, and $134.3 million for
fiscal 1970.
[p. 25]
COMBUSTION BYPRODUCTS RESEARCH
The Senate bill contained a separate section 104 providing
specific authorization for research into combustion byproducts
of fuels, authorizing the grants and contracts for such research
with public or private organizations and institutions, and author-
izing specific amounts for this purpose over the 3-year period,
fiscal 1968 through 1970. The House amendment contained no
specific authorization for this program, but would have permitted
such research, in the amounts determined by the administration,
out of the overall appropriation authorization contained in the
amendment.
The conference substitute follows the Senate version, with
modifications. The conference substitute provides a separate sec-
tion authorizing research into combustion byproducts of fuels,
but eliminates the portion of the Senate bill which would have
authorized grants to private profitmaking organizations. Because
of the elimination of private profitmaking organizations from
participating in the grant program contained in the bill, the
conferees agreed to the deletion of the provision contained in
the Senate bill restricting grants to not to exceed three-fourths
of the cost of projects.
As agreed to by the conferees, the new program of specific
earmarking of research funds contained in the Senate bill is
limited to 2 years by the conference substitute rather than 3
years as contained in the Senate bill, and limits the authorization
for this program to a total of $125 million for fiscal 1968 and
1969, rather than $375 million for 3 years as authorized by the
Senate.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 837
FUEL ADDITIVES
The Senate bill provided for the registration of fuels containing
additives and required the filing of information concerning ad-
ditives contained in such fuel. The House version limited the
requirements with respect to registration to the additives involved,
and provided that the Secretary should make provisions with
respect to such additives as in his judgment is necessary to
protect trade secrets and is necessary in the interest of national
security.
The conference agreement provides that the manufacturer of
fuels is required to notify the Secretary as to the name, the range
of concentration, and the purpose in use of any additive contained
in any fuel delivered in interstate commerce. The additive manu-
facturer is required to register the additive and to furnish in-
formation as to chemical composition, recommended range of
concentration, recommended purpose in use, and, where available,
the chemical structure of such additive. The conference agree-
ment follows the language of the Senate bill with respect to
protection of trade secrets, except that information relating to
trade secrets may be disclosed only in proceedings under title II
of the act relating to motor fuel emissions, rather than in all
proceedings under the act.
The House conferees feel that the language of the conference
agreement with respect to protection of trade secrets, and with
respect to registration of fuel additives, are adequate to protect
against disclosure of any information which might adversely
affect the national security, and cannot be construed to require
that the Secretary may require that research be conducted by
the manufacturer of such
[p. 26]
additive relating to health or other effects of such additive as a
prerequisite to registration.
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS ; HEARING BOARDS
The House bill provided that air quality control regions must
be designated by the Secretary within 18 months after the date
of enactment of the bill. The conference substitute provides that,
to the extent feasible, such regions must be established within 18
months, but authorizes the revision of any prior designation, or
the establishment of additional regions, after the expiration of
such 18 months to the extent the Secretary determines such
-------
838 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
revision or designation to be necessary to protect the public
health and welfare. Such revision or designation may take place
only after consultation with appropriate city and local authorities.
It is expected that the revision of designated air quality control
regions will take place only where necessary to meet changing
circumstances, in order to minimize the impact of such revisions1
on State and local authorities and industries within or outside
the designated regions.
The House bill provided that where a State requests a hearing
upon air quality standards prescribed by the Secretary in those
cases where State action has not provided within the time specified
in the act for such air quality standards, the findings of the
hearing board must be issued within 90 days, unless the Secretary
determines that a longer period is necessary. The conference
substitute follows the language of the House amendment, but
provides that the 90-day period may not be extended by the
Secretary for more than an additional 3 months.
INTERSTATE COMPACTS
The House amendment proposed to delete a provision of exist-
ing law encouraging States to enter into compacts for the control
of air pollution, stating that no such compact should become
effective until ratified by the Congress. This provision was deleted
in the House amendment on the theory that it was unnecessary;
however, a number of questions were raised concerning the pos-
sible implications of action by the Congress in repealing this
section. The managers on the part of the House therefore agreed
to reinsert this language into the bill in section 102 (c), so that
with respect to this language, the substitute restates existing law.
The conferees also agreed to the retention of the provision con-
tained in the House amendment stating it to be the intent of" the
Congress that agreements or compacts hereafter entered into
relating to the control and abatement of air pollution in air
quality control regions should not provide for participation by
States not included (in whole or in part) in such region.
HARLEY O. STAGGERS,
JOHN JARMAN,
PAUL G. ROGERS,
WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,
ANCHER NELSEN,
Managers on the Part of the House.
[p- 27]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
839
l.lh(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 113 (1967)
l.lh(4)(a) July 18: Considered and passed Senate, pp. 19164;
19171-19186
AIR QUALITY ACT OF 1967
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Calen-
dar No. 390, S. 780, the Air Quality
Act of 1967.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (S.
780) to amend the Clean Air Act to
improve and expand the authority to
conduct or assist research relating to
air pollutants, to assist in the estab-
lishment of regional air quality com-
missions, to authorize establishment
of standards applicable to emissions
from establishments engaged in
certain types of industry, to assist in
establishment and maintenance of
State programs for annual inspection
of automobile emission control de-
vices and for other purposes.
[P. 19164]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the
Senate has demonstrated its recogni-
tion of air pollution as a serious
national problem. Beginning with the
Clean Air Act of 1963 the Senate has
given unanimous approval to legisla-
tion designed to expand Federal sup-
port for the battle to preserve the
quality of our air resources.
We realize there are no panaceas,
no overnight cures for the complex
problems of air pollution, but we are
pledged to protect the health and wel-
fare of every citizen of this Nation
whether that person be healthy, or
suffering from a bronchial disorder.
Mr. President, there is an abund-
ance of compelling evidence to indicate
that air pollution is a hazard to
health. There is more compelling evi-
dence to indicate that the public wel-
fare is adversely affected by indis-
criminate pumping of waste into the
air. we know this as individuals who
have experienced discomfort from foul
odors, had our eyes burn from smog
or looked at the color of a white shirt
after a day in any of our industrial
cities.
At the same time popular concern
for air pollution control has risen
dramatically as the result of increased
leisure time, greater publicity, in-
creased awareness of health problems
and a variety of other reasons. There
is a demand for action, and all the
evidence received by the Public Works
Committee this year in 18 days of
hearings, in consultations and in re-
search supports that demand.
Mr. President, S. 780, as amended
by the committee, is complex, as are
the problems of environmental control.
The problem of air pollution is neither
local nor temporary. It is a universal
problem, and, so long as our standard
of living continues to increase, it will
be a permanent threat to human well-
being.
The committee's recommendations
provide far-reaching opportunities for
a comprehensive, broad-based attack
on the Nation's air pollution problem
while expanding the potential of con-
trol technology and identifying the
health and welfare effects of air pollu-
tion. The objective of S. 780 is the
enhancement of air quality and the
reduction of harmful emissions con-
sistent with maximum utilization of
an expanding capacity to deal with
them effectively. At the same time, it
provides authority to abate any pollu-
tion source which is an imminent dan-
ger to health, by whatever means
necessary.
-------
840
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
The Air Quality Act of 1967, there-
fore, serves notice that no one has the
right to use the atmosphere as a
garbage dump, and that there will be
no haven for polluters anywhere in
the country.
The committee believes that, to date,
public and private efforts to accom-
plish air quality objectives have been
inadequate. Research has been insuffi-
cient, with little significant develop-
ment of new and improved methods
for controlling or eliminating air
pollution. As each day passes there is
a greater urgency for closer coopera-
tion between government and in-
dustry in an effort to make substantial
inroads on air pollution control and
abatement.
I would like to point out, for clarifi-
cation, that the bill as reported by the
committee is the entire Clean Air Act
as amended by this year's action. Be-
cause the amendments are complex
and because they recast the force and
effect of the Federal air pollution con-
trol effort the committee thought it
wise to present to the Senate a com-
plete act containing both the amend-
ments and previously adopted
language which was not changed. The
Cordon print beginning on page 63 of
the report indicates the changes in
existing law.
In order to facilitate the objective
of a national abatement program
which will enhance the quality of our
Nation's air, the proposed amend-
ments to the Clean Air Act provide
the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare with the following
authority:
First. To request an immediate in-
junction to abate the emission of con-
taminants which present "an imminent
and substantial endangerment to the
health of persons," anywhere in the
country;
Second. To designate "air quality
control regions" for the purpose of
implementing air quality standards,
whenever and wherever he deems it
necessary to protect the public health
and welfare.
Third. In the absence of effective
State action in accordance with the
provisions of the act, to establish
ambient air quality standards for
such regions.
Fourth. In the absence of effective
State action in accordance with the
provisions of the act, to enforce such
standards.
Fifth. In the absence of action by
the affected States, to establish Fed-
eral interstate air quality planning
commissions.
It should be emphasized that it is
the intent of the committee to enhance
air quality and to reduce harmful
pollution emissions anywhere in the
country, and to give the Secretary
authority to implement that objective
in the absence of effective State and
local control. It is believed that the
Air Quality Act of 1967 carries out
that intent.
The committee recognizes the poten-
tional economic impact, and therefore
economic risk, associated with major
social legislative measures of this
type. But this risk was assumed when
the Congress enacted social security,
fair labor standards, and a host of
other legislation designed to protect
the public welfare. Such a risk must
again be assumed if the Nation's air
resources are to be conserved, and en-
hanced to the point that generations
yet to come will be able to breathe
without fear of impairment of
health.
S. 780 is a logical expansion of the
Clean Air Act of 1963 as amended. In
the basic act the Congress provided
for development by the Public Health
Service of "air quality criteria" to
identify the effects of pollutants on
health and welfare. To date, one such
set of criteria relating to oxides of
sulfur has been issued and the com-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
841
mittee understands that criteria on
several other contaminants including
carbon monoxide, particulates and
oxidants will be released within the
next 6 months.
The committee recognizes this ac-
tivity and has encouraged its expan-
sion under S. 780. In addition to
continuing the analysis of the quanti-
tative and the qualitative effects of
air pollution under strengthened and
refined procedures of evaluation, the
committee bill authorizes two new
areas of activity. A first and im-
portant step will be the identification
of those areas of the Nation which
have significant air pollution prob-
lems. The designation by the Secre-
tary of these problem areas will
trigger the setting of air quality
standards related to those pollutants
for which criteria have been de-
veloped.
In concert with expanded criteria
development will be the compilation of
information of methods of pollution
control, which will be a publication
of the technology and economically
feasible methods of control of pollut-
ants subject to criteria. This informa-
tion will be designed to assist the
States in carrying out their responsi-
bility to control air pollution within
their respective boundaries.
These three steps, designation of
air quality control regions, criteria
development, and publication of con-
trol technology information are the
tools for development of air quality
standards and an early warning sys-
tem to those industries and others in
problem areas who will be required to
control their emissions.
The committee does not suggest
that, with one fell swoop, the air pollu-
tion problems of the Nation will be
solved. De-
[p. 19171]
velopment of the above-mentioned in-
formation will require a time equiva-
lent to that considered in the initial
administration proposal for uniform
national emission standards. And
after the information is available and
the States adopt standards, there will
be the necessary time to achieve de-
sired emissions control.
But we will have a national program
of air quality. The States will retain
the primary responsibility to deter-
mine the quality of air they desire. In
no event, however, will the Federal
Government approve any air quality
standard or plan for implementation
of that standard which does not pro-
vide for protection of the public
health and welfare of all citizens
within the air quality region.
Moreover, in the absence of
effective State action the bill gives
the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare the authority to set
standards in such regions.
In addition, new industries, wher-
ever they locate, will know that con-
trol is inevitable and plan for it. The
fact that an area is not now a problem
area will not mean that controls will
never be required. When the air
quality of any region deteriorates
below the level required to protect
public health and welfare, the Secre-
tary is required to designate that
region for the establishment of air
quality standards, enforceable by the
Federal Government if the States fail
to act. It should be pointed out in this
connection that the Public Health
Service has expressed the view that
every urban area of 50,000 or more
population now has an air pollution
problem. There are also population
areas under that size which yearly
have problems related to particular
pollution sources and conditions.
Considerable attention was given,
in the hearings and also in informal
conferences and executive sessions, to
the concept of national emission
standards. Such standards were urged
by the administration first, as a
526-702 O - 73 -- 18
-------
842
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
means of eliminating the economic
disadvantage of complying with air
pollution controls as a local require-
ment and the temptation for industry
to leave or avoid areas where such
controls are presently necessary; and,
second, on the ground that some in-
dustries, by their nature, are a
danger to health and welfare
wherever they are located.
In the judgment of the committee,
these arguments were offset by the fol-
lowing considerations:
First. The administration itself did
not propose uniform national emission
standards but rather minimal national
standards. Clearly, therefore, there
would be local variations which would
not eliminate economic disadantages.
Dr. John T. Middleton, Director, Na-
tional Center for Air Pollution Con-
trol, Health, Education, and Welfare,
said:
Our intention is to get minimum national
standards to help insure that no single pollu-
tion source would, in itself, be a threat to
public health and welfare. These standards
should be based on scientific criteria of the ef-
fects of air pollutants on man, animals, vege-
tation and the air resources itself. The criteria
we would use would be those which were au-
thorized to publish under the provisions of the
Clean Air Act (p. 11B3).
He said later:
The setting of such standards at the Federal
level would not relieve States and communities
of the responsibility of insuring that pollution
sources located within their jurisdictions are
controlled to the full extent necessary. States
could adopt emission standards more stringent
than those set at the Federal level (p. 1166).
Second. Administration witnesses
testified that PHS has made no find-
ings with respect to industries which,
in and of themselves, constitute a
danger to public health and welfare.
Third. Under the bill approved by
the committee, the Secretary's au-
thority has been extended so that he
can deal effectively with any situation
which, by its nature, is a danger to
health and welfare, in any location.
Fourth. National emission standards
would eliminate some control options
—relocation of pollution sources, fuel
substitutes, and so forth—which may
be essential in serious problem areas
in the absence of effective technology.
Fifth. Wise use of capital resources
dictates that the first priority for the
pollution control dollar is in those
areas where the problem is most
critical. National emission standards
would give equal priority to critical
areas and areas where no problem
presently exists.
Sixth. The program authorized in
the committee bill will lead to control
of the industries described on a
national basis, with the kind of local
variations envisioned by administra-
tion witnesses.
Seventh. The difficulty in areas
which have an air pollution problem
is that the quality of the ambient air
has deteriorated below the level con-
sistent with the protection of health
and welfare. National emission stand-
ards would relate to that problem only
to the extent that "national" polluters
happened to be located in the problem
area. Other sources would not be
touched by such standards. Such
standards do not, therefore, represent
a comprehensive attack on the prob-
lem of ambient air quality. The com-
mittee has chosen to deal with the
problem of ambient air quality directly
and to provide authority designed to
improve it.
The committee does recognize the
need for national action on sources of
pollution which move in interstate
commerce. For the purpose of further
consideration of national emission
standards, for moving and stationary
sources, the committee bill directs the
Secretary to undertake a 2-year study
of the concept and the full range of its
implications.
Basic to any understanding of what
the committee has done is compre-
hension of the concept of air quality
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
843
criteria and standards. Dr. John
Middleton, Director of the National
Center for Air Pollution Control, pro-
vided the committee with an excellent
definition of the difference between
standards and criteria:
Air quality criteria are descriptive—that if,
they describe the effects that can be expected
to occur whenever and wherever the ambient
air level of a pollutant reaches or exceeds a
specific figure for a specific time period. Air
quality standards are prescriptive—they pre-
scribe pollutant levels that cannot legally be
exceeded during a specific time period in a spe-
cific geographic area. Ideally, the area should
be the entire region that shares a common air
supply and thus shares the impact of pollution
from all sources in the region.
Criteria then become the essential
first function of any standards setting
procedure whether those standards
are on quality or emission. The latter
point is verified in my earlier discus-
sion of national emission standards.
Without criteria, any air quality
program would be without scientific
basis or rationale. Therefore, it is
important that any criteria developed
accurately reflect the best available
information of the effects of pollutants
on health or welfare.
Because of this requirement and a
general feeling that the criteria
presently available can be improved
the committee has included language
which directs the Secretary to re-
evaluate all criteria issued precedent
to enactment of this act in accordance
with the new provisions and, if neces-
sary, to reissue those criteria.
It is expected that those criteria
presently nearing completion will be
issued only after careful consideration
of the directives contained in section
107(b). Early consideration of these
directives, even though this legisla-
tion may still be pending, will miti-
gate against unnecessary modification
or reissuance of such criteria. Active
reconsideration of those criteria al-
ready issued, without awaiting final
congressional action, could facilitate
the effectiveness of this legislation.
The committee also strongly urges
the Secretary to move as quickly as
practicable to develop information re-
quired by section 107 (c). Recom-
mended control techniques are essen-
tial to the establishment of meaning-
ful air quality standards and there-
fore should be made available to the
States and local government as soon
as possible giving due consideration to
the need for developing the best avail-
able information.
The committee has purposely not
required a specific order for release of
criteria and control techniques. While
requiring that both be available to a
Governor before a standard setting
procedure can be triggered, it is
recognized that these scientific and
technical documents are more than
just the tools for a standard setting
procedure.
Criteria and recommended control
requirements are advance warnings to
industries or other sources of con-
tamination of what will be expected
of them. On the basis of any criteria
issued, an industry can begin to
analyze its pollution problem and plan
to meet its responsibility. After re-
ceiving the latest and best information
on control techniques and alterna-
tives, an industry can begin to plan
its control program. Both of these
activities will facilitate achievement of
ambient air quality standards at such
time as those standards are estab-
lished.
The committee recognized that
criteria of ambient air quality which
define health and welfare effects of
air pollution do not and should not
take into consideration the technologi-
cal and economic feasibility of achiev-
ing such air quality. It is further
recognized that existing control tech-
nology is not ade-
[p.19172]
quate in many areas; however, the
best available control methods must
-------
844
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
be implemented as soon as economi-
cally feasible and technologically
available. As an aid to air pollution
control agencies in the formulation of
plans, including time schedules to im-
plement emission control standards,
the bill directs the Secretary, after
consultation with appropriate advisory
committees and Federal departments
or agencies, to issue recommended
control techniques which reflect cur-
rent technology and the economic fea-
sibility of achieving various levels of
air quality as specified in the criteria,
including alternative control tech-
niques and their economic feasibility.
Such recommendations shall include
such data as are available on the
latest available technology and eco-
nomic feasibility of alternative meth-
ods of prevention and control of air
contamination, including cost-effec-
tiveness analyses.
Thus, the bill directs the Secretary
to: First, designate air quality control
regions; second, publish criteria; and,
third, publish information on the best
available control technology. When-
ever a Governor has received the lat-
ter two documents, he must then move
to establish air quality standards for
any designated air quality control
region within his State. A Governor is
given 90 days to file a letter of intent
to establish State standards consistent
with the purposes of this act for the
air quality control regions in his
State. The standards must be set,
after public hearings, within 6 months
after he files the letter of intent. The
time schedule and plan for implement-
ing such standards must be filed with-
in 6 months thereafter.
If a State fails to: First, file a let-
ter of intent within 90 days; second,
to establish standards within 180
days; or, third, file a plan for im-
plementation and enforcement within
180 days, the Secretary is authorized
to perform these functions for the air
quality control regions within that
State. When standards have been set,
either by a State or by the Federal
Government, the Federal Government
will have authority to enforce the
standards in the absence of effective
State action. These are the three
additional extensions of control and
abatement authority S. 780 gives to
the Secretary.
The Secretary will approve the
State standards if he finds, first, the
air quality standards are consistent
with the air quality criteria and rec-
ommended control techniques which
he published; second, the plan is con-
sistent with the purposes of the act,
including assurances of achieving such
standards of air quality within a
reasonable time; and third, a means
of enforcement by State action, in-
cluding authority comparable to the
imminent endangerment provisions of
this bill is provided. If the above
conditions are met, such State stand-
ards and plan shall be the air quality
standards applicable to such State.
Effective action in an air quality
region will not depend upon the avail-
ability of technology which has not
been developed. If the problem in a
given region happens to be critical,
such alternatives as have been used
already will be applied. These include,
for example, substitute fuels, plant
location, and other techniques which
are clearly available.
These, then, are the major provi-
sions and the major thrust of the
legislation. There are, however, other
significant changes in the act which,
in an effort to conserve time, I will
summarize:
First. Specific directive to the
Secretary to continue to use existing
enforcement procedures as may be
necessary to protect public health or
welfare during the standards develop-
ment period; and provision for partic-
ipation by interested parties in an
abatement conference.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
845
Second. An expanded research and
demonstration program to advance the
technology for controlling pollution
from fuels and vehicles, including
specific authorization of $375 million
for 3 years—through 1970.
Third. Federal preemption of the
right to set standards on automobile
exhaust emissions, with waiver of
application of preemption to any State
(California) which had adopted
standards precedent to promulgation
of Federal standards.
Fourth. Expanded State and local
program grants provision to encourage
comprehensive planning for air quali-
ty standards.
Fifth. Establishment of a statutory
President's Air Quality Advisory
Board and such other advisory com-
mittees as may he necessary to as-
sist the Secretary in performing the
functions authorized.
Sixth. A study of the concept of
national emission standards, includ-
ing an analysis of the health benefits
to be derived, as well as the economic
impact and costs.
Seventh. Federal assistance to the
States to develop motor vehicle
emission and device inspection and
testing systems.
Eighth. Federal registration of fuel
additives.
Ninth. Comprehensive cost analyses
of the economic effect on the Nation,
industries, and communities of air
pollution control, and a report thereon
to Congress and the President.
Tenth. Comprehensive reports to
the Congress.
Eleventh. Three-year authorization
of $325 million for programs other
than research on control of pollution
from fuels and vehicles—total au-
thorization, including research, $700
million.
Improvement of man's environment
centers on the enhancement of the
quality of human life. This was appro-
priately stated by Dr. William H.
Stewart, Surgeon General of the
United States:
Thanks to many advances in protecting peo-
ple against disease, we are able in the health
professions to think about the positive face of
health—the quality of individual living. The
healthy man or woman is not merely free of
specific disability and safe from specific haz-
ard. Being healthy is not just being unsick.
Good health implies, to me, the full and en-
thusiastic use by the individual of his powers
of self-fulflllment.
Therefore in controlling air pollution for
the benefit of health we are working toward
an environment that is not only safe but con-
ducive . to good living. I know that you and
the members of this committee share this
aspiration.
For this reason, if for no other—
and there are a great many others—I
urge enactment of this legislation.
Mr. President, in closing I wish to
express my appreciation for the out-
standing leadership provided by the
distinguished chairman of the Com-
mittee on Public Works, the Senator
from West Virginia [MR. RANDOLPH],
and his counterpart on the Republican
side, the distinguished Senator from
Kentucky [MR. COOPER], without whose
assistance the work would have
suffered in quality.
I wish especially to express appre-
ciation to the ranking minority mem-
ber of the Subcommittee on Air and
Water Pollution, the Senator from
Delaware [MR. BOGGS], for his con-
tinuing contribution to the work of
this committee and all the other mem-
bers of the committee and subcom-
mittee who have given an unusual
amount of thought, attention, and
active participation not only to the
consideration of this bill but also to
its shape and form. This contribution
has been so unusual as to require this
special comment.
Finally, I wish to express my appre-
ciation to the staffs of the full com-
mittee, the subcommittee, and the
individual Senators who have worked
together in an unusually effective
cooperative effort to help the Senators
-------
846
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
put this bill together. I could not
begin to list them all by name, but
this has been a nonpartisan and
wholehearted contribution at the staff
level and at the committee level and
the bill bears testimony to the quality
of that effort.
Mr. President, I would like also to
pay a special tribute to the senior
Senator from California [MR. KUCHEL]
who authored the first Federal air
pollution legislation in 1955. Though
Senator KUCHEL is no longer on the
Public Works Committee we continue
to seek his guidance and he continues
to give his full support and assistance.
For this we on the committee are al-
ways appreciative.
Mr. President, at this point I yield
to the distinguished chairman of the
full committee, the Senator from West
Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH].
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
commend the distinguished chairman
of the subcommittee, Senator MUSKIE,
for his leadership in bringing this
measure to the Senate. The Subcom-
mittee on Air and Water Pollution
has had a productive record in the
field of pollution control legislation. It
is my firm belief as chairman of the
full committee that the bill is the
most significant step toward pollution
abatement and control in the subcom-
mittee's history.
I express also my appreciation to
Senator BOGGS and Senator COOPER,
the ranking minority members of the
subcommittee and full committee,
respectively, for their continued sup-
port and for their assistance in draft-
ing the revised bill.
The record shall show my personal
and official appreciation to all the
Members who have contributed pro-
posals—often criticism, but always
constructive deliberation—as we have
developed this measure. The complexi-
ties of this legislation reflect the intri-
cate problems involved in air pollution
control and abatement.
The pending measure has grown out
of extensive revision of the original
bill
[p. 19173]
and of my amendments and others
as the subcommittee and full com-
mittee worked diligently and patiently
to provide the most effective course
for control and abatement of pollution
through reasonable, responsible, and
enforceable standards. The committee
staff, and the staff members of the
committee, have labored long and hard
with us in pursuit of a realistic pro-
posal, and they deserve commenda-
tion. A considerable amount of
patience and understanding has been
exhibited by many, many persons.
I would also like to express my ap-
preciation to the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare, John W.
Gardner, for his counsel and coopera-
tion and for the assistance and advice
his staff has supplied to the com-
mittee. Our informal discussions on
July 11 with Secretary Gardner were
very helpful and informative, and his
response to this measure, as expressed
in his letter of July 12, 1967, to me
reflects the cooperative spirit which
has guided the working relationship
of our committee and the executive
branch. I ask unanimous consent that
the letter received from Secretary
Gardner be included in the RECORD at
this point.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH.
EDUCATION, AND WELFARE.
Washington, D.C., July 12, 1967.
HON. JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR JENNINGS: Thank you for the oppor-
tunity to discuss the air pollution bill with
you and your colleagues. Your full and care-
full consideration of the very difficult issues
involved in air pollution legislation deserves
warm praise.
As I told you, the bill which the Subcom-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
847
mittee reported to the full Committee does
not provided everything the Administration
requested, but it does represent a very im-
portant and constructive, forward step in
the continuing development of effective leg-
islation to deal with a serious national prob-
lem.
Your hearings have been thorough and
complete. Your consideration of this legis-
lation has been responsive and thoughtful.
We are appreciative of the fine cooperation
we have received from the members of the
committee and from your fine staff.
You will agree with me, I am sure, that
problems will occupy the attention of your
continued consideration of air pollution prob-
lems will occupy the attention of your Com-
mittee and of the Department for years to
come. We welcome this latest legislative pro-
posal as another indication of the seriousness
of purpose with which you have approached
the problem.
Sincerely,
JOHN W. GARDNER,
Secretary
Mr. RANDOLPH. We have had de-
liberations as we should have. I call
attention to the 4 volumes of hearings
before the subcommittee. I do not
know the number of pages. Has the
Senator from Maine counted the num-
ber of pages?
Mr. MUSKIE. There are 2,694
pages.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The hearings re-
flect 2,694 pages of testimony and
material pertinent to this subject.
Now, when we reflect, as we do in
drafting this legislation, on these
intricate problems we realize that
even though the problems are com-
pelling, the reason for a solution to
the problems is even more compelling
because the people of the United
States and our citzenry generally
believe we must present legislation in
the national interest, keeping in mind
the public health and welfare, and
also the legitimate rights and re-
sponsibilities of those who are engaged
properly in manufacturing industries
and in other vital segments of our
business complex in the United States.
Mr. President, I draw particular
reference to one provision of Senate
780 as reported.
(At this point Mr. TYPINGS took the
chair as presiding officer.)
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, before my colleague gets
into that area of his speech, I wonder
whether he would yield to me briefly?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I am delighted to
yield to my colleague from West Vir-
ginia. Although he is not a member
of our committee, as a leader in the
Senate, and as a West Virginian, he
is faced, as I have been, with attempt-
ing to be reasonable and realistic and
yet pass effective legislation. We have
discussed some of these matters in-
formally and I appreciate his keen
attention to this problem and am
happy to yield to him at this point.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I
thank my colleague for yielding to me.
Mr. President, I want to take a
moment to compliment my senior
colleague from West Virginia, who is
chairman of the Committee on Public
Works, and also to compliment the
distinguished Senator from Maine
[Mr. MUSKIE], who is chairman of
the subcommittee which has brought
the bill to the floor, on the very
extensive and thorough hearings con-
ducted by that subcommittee.
My colleague has just indicated
that the four volumes of hearings
which are on the desk of each Senator
number virtually 2,700 pages. Looking
at the list of witnesses, I note that
scores of competent witnesses ap-
peared and that scores and scores of
statements were submitted to the sub-
committee. I have also noted that the
hearings were held all over the
country; so, indeed, this subject has
had the most comprehensive and
thoroughgoing study of this subject
which is of such vital importance to
all our people.
I feel that the subject matter of this
legislation is of the most vital im-
portance to the health of our people
and the well-being of our industries. I
hope that the Senate, if not unani-
-------
848
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
mously, will overwhelmingly support
the legislation, because the legislation
is so vitally needed.
Again, I thank my colleague for
yielding to me, and I assure him of
my support for the pending legisla-
tion.
Mr. EANDOLPH. The expressed
words of my colleague are character-
istic of his attention to legislation of
this kind. Those of us who have
labored in the committee and sub-
committee are grateful to him for his
comments on this occasion.
Now, I had previously called at-
tention to a provision in Senate 780 as
reported which gives authority to the
Secretary to enjoin pollution sources
that present an imminent and substan-
tial danger to public health.
The Senator from Maine [Mr.
MUSKIE] has properly emphasized that
this authority is necessary. I ask the
Senator, the Secretary did not ask for
this authority? In effect, the com-
mittee proposal would give the Fed-
eral executive branch greater author-
ity in this respect than the adminis-
tration requested?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is cor-
rect.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I thank the Sena-
tor. As Senator MUSKIE has empha-
sized, this authority the Secretary does
not now have, and it is, I think, the
most significant enlargement of his
authority that is contained in this
measure. It is my feeling that when
we deal with an emergency there must
be lodged within a responsible official
of the Government the desire, the
determination, and the decision to
think in terms of public interest,
and the authority to implement his
decisions. Has the Senator from
Maine any further comment to make
on that statement?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. Mr. President, I
made reference to this in my prepared
remarks this afternoon. It is the
objective of this legislation, as the
Senator has said, to, first of all, pro-
vide adequate authority to deal with
emergency situations. The committee
realized that conditions exist in many
parts of the country—which, with a
shift in meteorological conditions,
could bring about emergencies over-
night resulting in the death of many,
many people.
At the present time authority to
deal with that kind of situation does
not exist at the Federal level, and it
should exist, particularly since so
many of these potentially dangerous
conditions are interstate in character.
I think the intent is very clear.
Second, the committee felt it neces-
sary to create authority which would
come to grips with the long-range
problems of lower level, more subtle
exposure to air pollution and the
effects on those who are chronically
ill and, indeed, on those who are
healthy.
While these policies unfold, the com-
mittee has made it clear that existing
authority continues while standards
are in the process of being developed
and while public policies are developed
by the Secretary.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I thank the Sena-
tor. I appreciate his further emphasiz-
ing this point.
*****
[p. 19174]
The Senate resumed the considera-
tion of the bill (S.780) to amend the
Clean Air Act to improve and expand
the authority to conduct or assist re-
search relating to air pollutants, to
assist in the establishment of regional
air quality commissions, to authorize
establishment of standards applicable
to emissions from establishments en-
gaged in certain types of industry, to
assist in establishment and mainte-
nance of State programs for annual
inspection of automobile emission con-
trol devices, and for other purposes.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
849
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays on the pending
bill.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Maine has the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
yield to the distinguished Senator
from West Virginia.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President,
the committee recognized the need for
participation by all segments of our
national economy if air pollution con-
trol and abatement are to be achieved.
For this reason there has been pro-
vided in the bill a 15-member Presi-
dent's Air Quality Advisory Board to
advise and consult with the President,
the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare, and the Congress on
matters of policy relating to the pro-
grams administered by the Secretary
under the provisions of this act.
Appointed members are to be
selected so as to be representative of
State, interstate, and local govern-
mental agencies and of public or
private interests demonstrating an
active concern for the various aspects
of air pollution prevention and con-
trol and related problems, not except-
ing individuals from the professions
and industry who are expert in the
field of air pollution.
Additional technical advisory com-
mittees are authorized to assist the
Secretary in the development and
implementation of air quality criteria.
The committee has included lan-
guage which requires that all ambient
air criteria previously issued prior to
this act—oxides of sulfur only, at
this time—must be reexamined and re-
evaluated in accordance with the up-
dated provisions of this act, and, if
necessary, that they be modified and
reissued.
The economic and technological in-
formation which the Secretary must
provide as a part of the recommended
the medical and scientific data relat-
control techniques to accompany the
criteria is expected to reflect the same
careful study and preparation as do
ing to air quality criteria. In the
report of the committee, the Secre-
tary is urged to encourage and sup-
port continued efforts on the part
of industry to develop economically
feasible methods for the control of air
pollution to improve air quality.
Emphasis must be placed on techno-
logical advances, too.
State, regional, and local authorities
throughout the United States will be
moving forward toward achieving
cleaner air in reliance upon these
data—air quality criteria and recom-
mended control techniques—using
such data to measure the extent of
their pollution problems, the technical
feasibility of abating that pollution,
and the economic costs involved.
Therefore, it is most important that
the Secretary furnish to the States,
and to regional and local authorities,
the air quality criteria defining health
and welfare effects and recommended
control techniques, as well as associ-
ated technological and economic data
based on substantial studies and
reliable evidence.
Recognizing the need for an accel-
erated Federal program directed at
the control of emissions from the com-
bustion of fuels, the committee has
included in the reported bill the re-
search amendment which I offered.
Representing an expansion of research
authority in the act, the provision
stresses the urgency of the problem,
and the amount of resources that the
committee thought should be devoted
to the task. With regard to appropri-
ations, it is for the administration
to decide the priorities against other
Federal requirements. But, as far as
the committee is concerned, the
measure before the Senate includes
the authorizations which we con-
sidered necessary to accomplish the
task.
-------
850
LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
I ask that I may have the attention
of the Senator from Delaware [Mr.
BOGGS] at this point, because he has
been very intimately acquainted and
associated in this matter. We con-
sidered very carefully the matter of
authorization of dollars. We have
authorized a program of $700 million
over a 3-year period. We feel that
such an expenditure is necessary. We
believe that the impact must be felt,
the job must be done, and we must
not fragmentize it.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I say to
the distinguished chairman of the
committee, the Senator from West
Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH], that he is
absolutely correct, in my judgment, in
the statement he makes. It was the
committee's concept of this broad plan
to attack the air pollution problem
that we should provide the authoriza-
tion, as realistically as possible, to
meet the problem. I believe that is
what the committee has done.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I thank the Sena-
tor. I think there was general agree-
ment that this amount of money
would be needed. We do not, of course,
want money appropriated which can-
not be used. Certainly this was con-
sidered very carefully. We attempted
to think in terms of the potential for
improving the quality of our air with-
out inordinately disturbing the eco-
nomic balance. Enactment of this
measure is in the public interest, from
the standpoint of improving the public
health and general welfare. So I urge
the Senate to give us what I hope will
be not only overwhelming, but unani-
mous support.
Mr. President, S. 780 as reported by
our Committee on Public Works, in
my judgment, is a thoughtfully and
rationally conceived legislative instru-
ment which I recommend to my
colleagues with confidence as to its
workability, its potential for advancing
the quality of the Nation's air without
inordinately disturbing economic bal-
ances, and Its applicability In the
public interest from the standpoints
of both improving the public health
and the public welfare. I urge the
Senate to give its overwhelming sup-
port and endorsement to this signifi-
cant measure and I hope it will merit
affirmative action in the House of
Representatives.
Again, I commend the dedication,
the diligence, and the wisdom of the
distinguished manager of this legisla-
tion, the Senator from Maine [Mr.
MUSKIE], and I appreciate and applaud
the nonpartisanship on this issue
primarily made possible by the help-
fulness and the cooperation of the
managers on the part of the minority,
especially the Senator from Delaware
[Mr. BOGGS] and the Senator from
Kentucky [Mr. COOPER], the ranking
members of the subcommittee and the
full committee.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, the
distinguished chairman of the Com-
mittee on Public Works, the senior
Senator from West Virginia [Mr.
RANDOLPH], and the distinguished
chairman of the Subcommittee on Air
and Water Pollution, the junior Sena-
tor from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] have
effectively outlined the provisions of
S. 780. I certainly agree with the
points they have made.
It is clear to me that the proposed
Air Quality Act of 1967 reflects the
urgent need to step up our national
effort to improve the quality of our air.
It is legislation of concern to the
'health and well-being of all Ameri-
cans. Even those fortunate enough to
be in the area where air pollution is
not a problem travel to our urban
areas; and, in the opinion of the Public
Health Service every urban area of
50,000 or more population now has an
air pollution problem.
Air pollution is an unwelcome com-
panion to our Nation's growth and
[p. 19175]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
851
prosperity. Those now living, as well
as the generations to come, are
dependent on action now if we are to
make our air healthy again. This is a
fight we simply cannot lose.
As in the original Clean Air Act
of 1963, the proposed amendments
again stress the fact that the pre-
vention and control of air pollution
at its source is the primary responsi-
bility of States and local governments.
This provision is highly important.
Our emphasis on it is further evi-
dence of our belief in a strong Federal
system in which each level of govern-
ment carries out its responsibilities.
Also essential if the national effort
is to be successful is the cooperation
of industry and private citizens.
Because of the national, as well as
local problem inherent in air pollu-
tion, the Federal Government has its
clear responsibility in this field. This
legislation intends to meet this by first
giving the States every opportunity,
plus financial assistance, to set up
air quality standards. Only if States
fail to act will the Federal Govern-
ment set up the necessary air quality
standards.
It is my hope and belief that, with
the States moving expeditiously to
carry out the task of devising air
quality standards, the Nation as a
whole will have a network of State
and National quality standards in 5
years or less which will have been
developed by and tailored to the dif-
ferent areas of our country.
I think it is also significant that
this legislation strengthens research
in air pollution. As we have delved
into the problem in the last 4 years, it
has become increasingly evident that
we have much more to learn; and
technological developments are con-
stantly posing new threats to our
environment.
The distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollu-
tion has again demonstrated his lead-
ership and dedication in this field and
it has been a personal pleasure to
work with him in considering this
important legislation.
The whole Public Works Committee,
and especially its able chairman from
West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH] and the
ranking minority member from Ken-
tucky [Mr. COOPER], have been helpful
in developing this bill. In this con-
nection, I would particularly like to
recognize the contributions by the
other subcommittee members on the
minority side, Mr. MURPHY and Mr.
BAKER.
And I also want to compliment the
staff, including my own legislative as-
sistant, Mr. Hildenbrand, for the
great effort they have made in work-
ing out the details and compromises
involved in a significant piece of legis-
lation such as the bill we are now
considering.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, the
pending measure embodying amend-
ments to the Clean Air Act is a re-
vision of the administration's pro-
posal. It is a revision which every
member of the committee, without any
preconception, agreed upon after long
hearings and a most thorough con-
sideration as being a more effective
means of securing clean air than the
administration proposal.
This bill recognizes and declares
again that air pollution is a critical,
national problem. It provides in the
view of the committee a practical and
effective method to obtain timely and
substantial control of air pollution.
It is my judgment that under the
program provided by the bill, sub-
stantial accomplishment can be
secured in the prevention and control
of air pollution—and within a period
of 5 years.
I have never seen in my service in
the Senate a better demonstration of
the committee legislative process than
-------
852
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
in its consideration and development
of this measure. The record testifies to
the thoroughness of the hearings. The
Secretary of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare and
his staff gave our committee fine sup-
port. The research and work of the
committee staff were outstanding.
The interest of the chairman of the
committee, the senior Senator from
West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH], led to
its emphasis upon research—research
in basic knowledge and in the tech-
nology that will be required for effec-
tive air pollution control. And his
initiative led to the authorization of
necessary funds to support adequate
research and its application.
From the outset, Senator RANDOLPH
recognized the importance and impact
of the proposed legislation. The de-
velopment of the bill rests in great
measure upon his industry and good
common sense and his leadership of
the full committee.
The distinguished junior Senator
from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS] led the
minority subcommittee members—not
on a partisan basis, for air and water
pollution are hardly partisan.
The junior Senator from Delaware
deserves great credit for his thorough,
faithful, and statesmanlike work on
this measure.
We are proud of the contributions of
the minority members, the Senator
from California [Mr. MURPHY] and
the new member, the Senator from
Tennessee [Mr. BAKER].
I pay special tribute to the distin-
guished chairman of the subcommittee
from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], who has
taken the initiative in the field of air
pollution control and abatement. It is
fair and proper to say that he has
brought before Congress and before
the Nation as has no other Member
of Congress, the importance and neces-
sity of obtaining control of air pollu-
tion for the benefit of the people of
this country. His successful work on
water pollution control over a number
of years, and now his work upon air
pollution control, should give him
great pride and satisfaction not
merely as a personal achievement,
which he deserves, hut as a notable
achievement for our country and its
people. His work will benefit our
country in all the years to come.
It came to my mind today in the
course of a meeting of the Committee
on Public Works on another subject
that in the last few years our com-
mittee has accomplished a great deal
in the way of legislation for the
benefit of the country. We regularly
consider bills apportioning funds for
our great system of highways
throughout the country and for the
regular authorization of public works
projects in the country, with tremen-
dous impact upon the Nation's
economy. In late years we have added
to those measures bills such as the
Highway Safety Act, which will re-
duce the fatalities and injuries on our
highways; the Highway Beautification
Act, which is having some trouble but
which will come along to protect and
enhance the beauty of the countryside;
the Economic Development 'Act, which
assists in providing systems of water
and sewage for our communities; the
Appalachian Regional Development
Act, a new initiative in Federal-State
partnership in the field of economic
development of backward areas; the
Water Pollution Control Act, and the
Air Pollution Control Act. These
measures will have tremendous impact
upon the economic growth of our
country, the conservation of the re-
sources of our country, and the
betterment of the good health of the
people of our country. The sociological
consequences and influences of these
measures will continue for years.
I am very proud of the work that
the Senate Committee on Public
Works is doing, and chiefly because of
the thought and nonpartisan work of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
853
its members, both Democrats and Re-
publicans, and the staff.
I pay tribute again to the junior
Senator from Maine who has shown
such vision and initiative in this work.
Mr. President, the senior Senator
form West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH]
and the junior Senator from Maine
[Mr. MUSKIE] have detailed in their
speeches the provisions of the pending
legislation. I shall not go over that
ground. However, I have a statement
which gives my views on the im-
portant features, and the concept of
the pending bill, and the differences
between the approach that the com-
mittee has taken and the original ap-
proach suggested by the administra-
tion.
I ask unanimous consent that the
statement be printed at this point in
the RECORD.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT OP SENATOR COOPER ON S. 780
The Air Quality Act of 1967—developed
after thorough hearings, months of study and
full consideration—provides a practical and
effective means of dealing with the serious
problem of air pollution. It is recommended
unanimously by the membership of the Sub-
committee on Air and Water Pollution and of
the full Committee on Public Works.
The revised bill S. 780 is an example of
constructive development through the Commit-
tee legislative process. It is a strong bill,
comprehensive, and can bring into full play
the resources of the States and the Federal
Government. It provides opportunity for the
exercise of local initiative by the States and
local communities in planning, establishment
of air quality standards, and enforcement of
pollution controls. The first initiative and re-
sponsibility are local. But if the States fail to
act, the bill provides authority for the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare to do so.
S. 780, as written and recommended by the
Subcommittee, is quite different from the bill
proposed by the Administration—in its con-
cept and in the mechanism which it provides
for the attainment of its objectives. In addi-
tion to placing the first responsibility on the
States, it offers a far moe realistic and orderly
means than the Administration program toward
securing the objec- [p. 19176]
tive of clean air. In addition to placing the
first responsibility on the States, it offers a
far more realistic and orderly means than the
Administration program toward securing the
objective of clean air.
The Administration's proposal contained two
principal provisions. First, the establishment
by the Seci etary of emission standards for
designated emissions from designated indus-
tnes—such as steel, cement, pulp mills, oil re-
fineries and power generating plants—with au-
thoiity for the Secretary to issue cease-and-
de^ist orders against any establishment violat-
ing such standards. Second, it proposed the
establishment by the Secretary, upon request
or his own initiative, of Regional Air Quality
Commissions under the control of and crea-
tures of the Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, to establish air quality standards
more stringent than those otherwise prescribed
by the Secretai y, and also enf 01 ceable by
cease-and-desist orders issued by the Secretary.
The Administration proposal failed to take
into account local differences in climate,
weather, topography, and the concentration of
industry and population. It failed to take into
account the availability and development of
alternatives to stack emission controls, such as
tall stacks and the dispersal of new industry so
as to avoid air pollution. It gave little recog-
nition to the fact that in the case of many
pollution agents, the technology of removal
from flue gases, or from the fuels themselves,
has not yet advanced to the point where meth-
ods and devices are available to control their
emission.
In effect, the Administration bill could have J
set requirements impossible or impractical of <_
being met. Not the least of its difficulties was [
the prospect of attempting Federal abatement '
action against every source of pollution in the -
nation. The Committee considers that the prob-
lems of air pollution, the cost of their solution,
and the scope of the Administrative tasks of
securing prevention and enforcing control, are
too large to be handled except through the co-
operation and participation of Federal, State
and local government—and of industry. But',
we believe the Committee bill offers the means *
to actually accomplish air pollution control,
rather than imposing national stack emission
standards which could not be met, or setting
minimum national emission standards which
would be ineffective in the very areas where
pollution problems are most serious.
The Committee bill, in contrast to the pro-
posed uniform national emission standards and
Federal enforcement plant by plant, directs its
attention to the air we breathe in each locality
of the country. For it is the quality of the air
which is important—not a doctrinaire plan of
Federal control.
These localities differ in their topography, in
their weather—and in their degree of urban-
-------
854
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
industrial concentration and patterns of growth
which determine the effect of emissions on the
quality of air in the locality.
The Committee bill places upon the States
and municipalities the final responsibility for
determining the quality of air, and for the
abatement of any pollution that degrades that
standard. It places upon the Federal Govern-
ment, through the Public Health Sen ice and
the Department of HEW, the four functions
which the Committee believes most appropriate
as the Federal responsibility in providing as-
sistance to the States and local communities:
1. The definition of air quality control re-
gions, with the expectation that the Secretary
will give priority in defining those regions to
the areas in which air pollution problems are
acute and most demanding: of action.
2. The collection, analysis, publication, and
dissemination to State and local control agen-
cies of the health and welfare effects of specific
pollution agents which may be the subject of
emission controls or abatement action—to be
known as "air quality criteria."
3. The collection, appraisal and dissemination
of the existing technology, and of the develop-
ing and promising technology, for the preven-
tion of pollution and control of the sources of
pollution—including the latest data on meth-
ods, processes and devices, together with their
relative effectiveness and costs of application
in different situations and under different re-
quirements of control.
4. The active development, through independ-
ent research anl cooperation with industry and
others, of improved techniques and methods,
including pilot plant applications and large-
ecale demonstration units.
The Committee bill also provides for the
establishment of regional planning commis-
sions, to recommend standards of air quality to
the States and the Secretary. And very impor-
tant, it provides for assistance to and the
utilization of existing planning agencies such
as metropolitan, regional and interstate bodies,
which need to take into account the quality of
air as they pursue area-wide planning to ac-
commodate industrial development, the growth
of cities, mass transportation, recreation, and
other aspects of orderly growth.
Next, the Committee bill provides ample au-
thority for the Secretary to establish regional
planning commissions, to establish regional air
quality standards, and to enforce those stand-
ards or the State standards, in the event the
States fail to act within a reasonable time.
Finally, in one of the most important pro-
visions added by the Committee, the bill au-
thorizes the Secretary to act immediately in
potential disaster situations, by seeking: an in-
junction where there is imminent and substan-
tial endangrerment to the health of persons.
In our judgment, this concept for the
achievement of clean air; this mechanism for
the accomplishment of that objective through
Federal-State cooperation; and this division be-
tween Federal, State and local authority of the
primary responsibilities for research and de-
velopment, for the analysis and distribution of
information, for the definition of geographic
regions in which air pollution problems require
action, for regional planning, for establish-
ment of the standards of quality of the air we
breathe, and for enforcement of those stand-
ards, represents a comprehensive approach, and
programs for effective air pollution control,
it is flexible, practical, and orderly—and offers
the certainty of substantial accomplishments
in achieving its important national goal—but,
I believe, within 5 years.
Under the plan of action provided by the
Committee bill, the Public Health Service and
the Department of HEW, regional planning
agencies, State and local control agencies—and
certainly those industries which must take the
steps necessary to prevent air pollution—all
have a large and demanding task. That task
will require the best efforts of all and the ap-
plication of substantial investments—invest-
ments of knowledge and experience, and the
wise investment of resources—and research to
achieve cleaner air for the people of the na-
tion wherever pollution is now or might other-
wise become a problem.
It is the desire of the Committee that this
promise be realized for the benefit of the pub-
lic health and welfare, and I hope the Senate
will approve the Committee bill, that it will
become law, and will be effectively administered.
Mr. COOPER. Mr President, our
approach takes into account the
features of weather and climate,
topography, concentration of industry,
and other factors, and really goes to
the means of securing clean air
rather than adopting doctrinaire
national standards.
Our bill provides emergency powers
to the Secretary, as has been outlined
by the Senator from Maine and the
Senator from West Virginia, to take
whatever action he thinks necessary
in situations where the health of
the people is endangered.
The committee approach also pro-
vided an orderly and systematic
means of engaging as a matter of
first responsibility the action of the
States and local communities, backed
up with the authority of the Federal
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
855
Government to act, if local government
does not act.
[p. 191771
The Senate resumed the considera-
tion of the bill (S.780) to amend the
Clean Air Act to improve and expand
the authority to conduct or assist re-
search relating to air pollutants, to
assist in the establishment of regional
air quality commissions, to authorize
establishment of standards applicable
to emissions from establishments en-
gaged in certain types of industry, to
assist in establishment and mainte-
nance of State programs for annual
inspection of automobile emission con-
trol devices and for other purposes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
yield to the distinguished Senator
from Hawaii.
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, I rise to
express my strong support for the
pending bill, S. 780, the Clean Air Act
of 1967, which it is my privilege to
cosponsor, and which was reported
unanimously by the Senate Public
Works Committee on which I serve.
This measure represents a major
step toward restoring clean air in
America, where now smog and con-
tamination all too often befoul our
environment.
It is urgently needed to help pro-
tect the health of millions of Ameri-
cans, particularly those in urban
areas.
It is urgently needed to reduce the
billions of dollars of economic loss
every year resulting from harmful
pollutants in the air.
But important and forward-moving
as this bill is, it is not by any means
the total answer. And we should not
delude ourselves that it is. A great
deal more must be learned and must
be done if we are to clean up our
dirty air.
•The task of purifying air in our
Nation's cities and polluted areas is
exceedingly complex and difficult. But,
for health's sake, if for no other
reason, we cannot tolerate further
delay in air pollution control.
I doubt if the Founding Fathers in
all their wisdom would have antici-
pated that the States and Federal
Government would one day have to
take steps to regulate the air which
the people of our land breathe. But to-
day it is literally becoming more and
more difficult to find a place to draw a
breath of fresh air.
In a sense, the problems of air
pollution are part of the price paid
for the phenomenal success of the
American economy and for the tre-
mendous growth of our Nation.
Because so many people drive so
many cars and trucks, because so
many airplanes traverse the airlanes,
because so many trains crisscross the
continent, because so many forms of
transportation emit noxious gases, we
have harmful amounts of pollutants
damaging the air.
Because so many factories produce
so much for America's nearly 200
million people, we have intolerable
amounts of pollutants contaminating
our air.
The pulsing heartbeat of Amer-
ica's industrial areas serves our
people remarkably well, but in the
process many byproducts befoul the
air we must breathe to live.
And so, as we have progressed, our
Nation has increasingly despoiled one
of our essential resources, a resource
indispensable to life itself—pure air.
When the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare, Mr. John W.
Gardner, testified on this bill before
the Senate Subcommittee on Air and
Water Pollution earlier this year, he
described in broad strokes the dismay-
ing picture of air pollution in
America:
-------
856
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
More often than not, an ugly shroud of pol- |
lution hangs over the New York area. This
shroud thins out a bit now and then—and here
and there—but most of the time it covers most
of the eastern seaboard.
Along the shores of the Great Lakes, from
Buffalo and Cleveland to Chicago and Milwau-
kee, where one metropolis barely ends before
another begins, dozens of communities are
fouling their own and their neighbors' air. The
boundary lines that divide city from city and
State from State are no obstacle to the flow
of polluted air.
In Florida, as your subcommittee found when
it visited there 3 years ago, fluoride pollution
from the manufacture of fertilizer threatens
to wipe out the cattle and citrus industries
that once flourished in Polk and Hillsborough
Counties.
In Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Cleveland, and
many other communities, people are beginning
to recognize that their old-fashioned smoke-
abatement programs are inadequate to cope
with the more serious and complicated air pol-
lution problems now confronting them.
There is not enough air in the big sky
[p. 19178]
over Texas to thin out the pollutants which
sour upward from many of the State's thriv-
ing metropolitan centers.
Air pollution is a growing problem in places
such as Tucson and Phoenix, whose once
salubrious atmosphere had long made them
a haven for people afflicted with respiratory
diseases.
And in California, the air pollution prob-
lem threatens to halt progress and growth,
despite valiant efforts by State Government and
particularly by the county of Los Angeles.
It is not only in our large urban areas that
polluted air damages property and endangers
health. It is a problem in many smaller com-
munities as well, and its impact is felt in
agricultural and recreational areas where it
damages farm crops, timber, and plants of
all kinds.
Every community in America with
50,000 or more people has an air pollu-
tion problem. Many smaller com-
munities also have serious air pollu-
tion problems.
We can only hazard an estimate
as to the total amount of illness and
suffering and number of deaths in our
land attributable to our contaminated
air.
More and more people are increas-
ingly aware of the irritation to eyes,
throats, lungs from breathing harm-
ful contaminants in the air: carbon
monoxide from gasoline, diesel, and
jet engines; sulfur oxides, hydro-
carbons and a variety of other com-
pounds from a variety of sources.
We are convinced that poisons in
the air aggravate respiratory prob-
lems, such as asthma, bronchitis, lung
cancer, and emphysema. The lung
disease emphysema is one of the
fastest growing causes of death in the
United States. More than a thousand
workers are forced into early retire-
ment every month by emphysema.
Added to the damage to health is
the damage to homes, apparel, and
other property from air pollutants.
Economic losses attributable to pol-
lution exceed several billion dollars a
year, according to estimates.
The total cost of air pollution in
terms of health damage and economic
damage is staggering.
The cost to clean up our air will
be staggering.
But it is a cost we must bear and
a cost we must share.
For the sake of health of the mil-
lions of men, women, and children in
America, we must make the effort
and we must pay the price to purify
the air and keep it that way.
It is the committee's particular con-
cern with protecting the health of
Americans from polluted air that
impelled us to write the pending bill,
which goes considerably beyond exist-
ing law in means to attack air pollu-
tion.
In his message to the Congress on
January 30 this year, the President
declared:
The pollution problem is getting worse. We
are not even controlling today's level of pol-
lution.
Ten years from now, when industrial pollu-
tion and waste disposal have increased and the
number of automobiles on cur streets and high-
ways exceeds 110 million, we shall have lost
the battle for clean air—unless we strengthen
our regulatory and research efforts now.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
857
The pending bill does both.
It strengthens regulatory measures
to prevent and to abate pollution of
the air.
It strengthens research into the
causes of, and control measures for,
pollution of air.
In the field of regulation and abate-
ment, the bill provides as follows:
First. When health of persons is
imminently and substantially en-
dangered, the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare is empowered
to go immedately to court and seek an
injunction against the emission of con-
taminants responsible for the danger.
At such times of imminent and sub-
stantial hazard to people's health, as
in Donora, Pa., a few years ago and in
New York City last Thanksgiving, the
Federal Government could move
swiftly to curb the source or combina-
tion of sources of pollutants causing
the hazard.
Second. As air pollution knows no
city or state boundaries, the bill pro-
vides for establishment of Federal in-
terstate air quality planning agencies
if the States involved do not request
that a planning agency be designated
for an interstate air quality control
region.
Third. The bill provides for the
Secretary to designate air quality
control regions and to designate air
quality criteria. If a State fails to
adopt air quality control standards
within 15 months after receiving
criteria and recommended control
techniques from the Secretary, then
the Secretary could set standards and
implementing programs.
These provisions assure air quality
standards and implementation pro-
grams for all States within a couple
of years after the enactment of the
bill.
Fourth. The bill also permits the
Secretary to go to court after 180
days' notice to enforce any violation
of standards in any designated air
quality control region. In addition,
there is a specific directive to the
Secretary to continue to use existing
enforcement procedures as necessary
to protect public health and welfare
during the period standards are being
developed.
Fifth. The bill provides for an ex-
panded research and demonstration
program to advance technology for
controlling pollution from fuels and
vehicles. The total authorization is
$375 million for 3 years—through
1970.
Sixth. The 3-year authorization is
$325 million for air-pollution pro-
grams other than the just-mentioned
research program.
This brings to $700 million the total
authorized in the bill to fight air
pollution.
Seventh. To encourage comprehen-
sive planning for intrastate air quality
standards the bill expands the grant
program for State and local agencies.
Eighth. Also provided is a study of
national emission standards and a
study of the economic impact of pollu-
tion control. The study is to be sub-
mitted within 2 years.
Ninth. Federal assistance would be
available to States to develop inspec-
tion and testing systems for motor
vehicle emission and emission devices
to control exhaust gases and by-
products of motor vehicles.
Tenth. Federal registration of fuel
additives is also required.
Those are the highlights of the bill
in brief.
It is true, powers granted to the
Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare are considerable. In most
cases, however, the bill gives the
States and local communities first op-
portunity to control and abate air
pollution.
The bill underscores what is a cry-
ing need: a national air pollution
prevention and control program.
526-702 O - 73 -- 19
-------
858
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
We are moving in a field about
which we know too little and in which
we have too few skilled personnel.
But move we must, for the hazards
are too great and growing.
The clock is ticking, but time is not
on our side.
We have no choice except to in-
tensify research and intensify control
efforts.
S. 780 represents the studied efforts
of the members of the Public Works
Committee to provide the tools and
the impetus, the fuel and the thrust
to move ahead in a desperate race
against catastrophe.
The approach is sound.
The need is urgent.
I strongly support enactment of S.
780, and ask my colleagues to join
in passing the bill.
Before closing, I want to pay par-
ticular tribute to the chairman of the
subcommittee on Air and Water
Pollution, the junior Senator from
Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], and to the
ranking minority member, the junior
Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS],
for their diligent efforts to devise a
workable and effective bill to advance
the struggle for clean air in America.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the distin-
guished Senator from Hawaii for his
generous comments.
I yield to the distinguished junior
Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, my dis-
tinguished senior colleagues on both
sides of the aisle have already outlined
in some detail the nature and propor-
tions of the country's compelling and
increasingly severe air pollution prob-
lem. They have further described the
way in which the proposed Air
Quality Act of 1967 addresses itself to
the abatement and control of the
various pollutants which contaminate
our limited air resource. I will not
prolong this debate by repeating or
elaborating upon what has already
been adequately stated.
I do wish at this time, however, to
express formally my full support of
the bill which is now before us. While
we would be ill-advised and quixotic
to regard these amendments as a
panacea, the bill is a good bill. It is
a strong bill with teeth.
As all Senators know, hearings on
S. 780 have been virtually exhaustive,
given the state of the art at this
point in time. Under the energetic
leadership of the Senator from Maine
[Mr. MUSKIE], some 18 days of hear-
ings have been held from coast to
coast. Such extensive investigation
was not only warranted by, but also
dictated by the unusual gravity and
complexity of the problem to which
our committee has addressed itself.
[p. 19179]
The abatement and control of air
pollution is closely bound up with two
instances of critical equilibrium and
balance in our national life. First, the
need for control measures reflects a
tension between the economic well-
being and the well-being of our highly
mobile, mechanized and urbanized
society. Second, control measures and
their enforcement have obvious impli-
cations in regard to the balance of
power among our Federal, State, and
local governments.
The problem of pollution control is
further complicated by seemingly re-
sponsible estimates of its nature and
severity which are at variance with
each other. Another area of disagree-
ment and controversy is the adequacy
of current technology to deal with the
problem. Another is the inequitable
impact on certain industries in cer-
tain locations.
To be perfectly frank, had I been
told in January that a bill as effective
as the one which the Senate is con-
sidering today would be ready for
enactment in July, I would have been
skeptical. The subcommittee's exten-
sive work and deliberation have im-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
859
proved, I think, the proposal submitted
at the first of the year.
The bill's hallmark is flexibility—
not weakness—I am quick to empha-
size, and not vagueness but flexibility,
It recognizes, as uniform national
standards could not have done, that
the chemical nature and quantitative
nature of pollution problems are not
the same all over the country. The bill
recognizes that much remains to be
done in developing technology and in
exploring other avenues of research;
authorized funds and methods of as-
sistance in research have been greatly
expanded. The bill respects, insofar
as it could, the prerogatives of the
State and local governments. There
can be no doubt that, while the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare is given greater and more far-
reaching authority, the responsibility
and initiative for action lie in the
statehouses, the city halls, and the
county courthouses of the Nation.
One very important aspect of
air pollution abatement and control
which is not within the jurisdiction of
the Public Works Committee is the
question of tax relief. Many of the
control measures which will be applied
in the coming years will be costly;
many of them will produce little if
any return on capital invested. Some
polluters, I am sure, will be hard
pressed or unable to comply with
necessary regulations. I strongly urge
that the Committee on Finance and
the Senate as a whole give thorough
and sympathetic consideration to a
variety of measures now pending
which would provide additional relief
for capital investment in pollution
control devices and techniques.
I close, Mr. President, by express-
ing my great admiration for Senator
RANDOLPH and Senator MUSKIE and
their tireless efforts in developing this
legislation. I also commend Senator
COOPER, the ranking minority member
of the full committee, and Senator
BOGGS, the ranking minority member
of the subcommittee. They have pro-
vided valuable guidance for me in this
intriguing work. Each member of the
committee, along with an exceptionally
capable staff, has devoted long hours
of honest and bipartisan effort to
developing this practical, workable
step forward toward the control of a
critical national problem.
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. Presi-
dent, the Air Quality Act of 1967
authorizes a 3-year program designed
to eliminate pollution from the air
that Americans breathe. This meri-
torious legislation is of vital import-
ance to the well-being of every in-
habitant of the land. The bill reflects
many hours of painstaking work by
members of the Subcommittee on Air
and Water Pollution of the Committee
on Public Works. The members of the
subcommittee and its chairman, the
distinguished junior Senator from
Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], are to be com-
mended on their efforts. Also all mem-
bers of the Senate Committee on Pub-
lic Works gave time and consideration
to this proposal.
Mr. President, more than 60 percent
of all Americans live in areas afflicted
with impure air. In most cities clothes
drying on lines are dirty again by
nightfall. New buildings are grimy
before they are occupied. More than
135 million tons of aerial garbage is
released into the bright, clean air
every year. Half comes from auto-
mobiles. Americans are now beginning
to clean up this mess. Dr. William
H. Stewart, Surgeon General of the
United States, has said:
The problem of air pollution is a health
challenge of the first magnitude confronting
the American people.
For many years Congress has been
reluctant to enforce strict air pollu-
tion controls, hoping that local and
State governments would handle the
problem. Our hopes have not been
-------
860
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
realized. Furthermore, since dirty air
does not respect political boundaries,
one community's ordinances are not
sufficient to control air pollution in
an entire area. Air pollution is a
national problem. The proposed bill
will go far toward helping solve it.
Mr. President, the answer to this
problem is by no means simple to find.
The fact is that our great productive
capacity contaminates our air, water,
and land faster than nature and man
can cleanse them. One cannot just
simply eradicate the sources of pollu-
tion, for the very activities that con-
tribute to pollution are the lifeblood
of a modern civilization. However,
there are acceptable ways of reducing
and controlling the sources of pollu-
tion without disrupting our economy,
without stopping the forward progress
of technology, and without depriving
Americans of the conveniences of a
modern society.
For the thousands of years that
man has inhabited the earth, he has
treated his environment as a dump-
ing ground for his wastes, confident
in its ability to absorb them. Several
hundred years ago, North America
was a fair and unspoiled land, wild
and beautiful; a land where the air
was clean and the water of its rivers
and lakes pure. Today, each year the
sky darkens. The precious cover of air
supporting life on this planet becomes
dangerously soiled and poisoned. Life
itself is menaced. People living in our
cities are afflicted with lung cancer
to a greater degree than those in
rural areas. Of course, effective air
pollution control involves added costs
to both government and industry.
Americans without doubt are willing
to bear these additional costs if only
they can once again breathe fresh air
and enjoy clean water.
Mr. President, we must accelerate
the war on air pollution, a war of far
more importance to the welfare of
Americans than the miserable war in
Vietnam which we have made an
American ground and air war. The
problems will be many, and each must
be met with strong programs to re-
move contamination, to restore a safe
environment, and to conserve our
natural heritage.
Mr. President, the rate at which we
Americans are destroying our environ-
ment is astounding. Air pollution can
no longer be considered as a problem
to deal with only at the crisis level.
We must not legislate on air pollu-
tion only when our major cities are
choking to death. We must not wait
to enact water pollution legislation
only when all living organisms are
dying in our rivers and lakes, and
when our water is unfit for human
consumption.
We must take action to avert im-
pending disaster. We should create a
system which will help us to foresee
these hazards and prevent them
from getting out of hand.
Today, 70 percent of our people live
on only 10 percent of our country's
land. By 1980, our population will rise
to approximately 235 million. By the
year 2000, we will have supercities
stretching from Boston to Washing-
ton, from Buffalo to Milwaukee and
from San Francisco to San Diego; in
addition to other giant urban areas.
The pollution problem, if not tackled
adequately now, will have expanded
to enormous proportions.
Mr. President, Americans make up
only 6 percent of the world's popula-
tion. Yet, we produce 50 percent of
the world's goods and services, and
more than half of the world's trash.
The rate at which we are destroying
our environment is incredible. For
example, we are pouring 24 million
tons of sulfur oxides every year into
the air we breathe. Without controls
this figure will double by 1980.
This year 90 million motor vehicles
in this country will burn 60 billion
gallons of gasoline. In simpler terms,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
861
this means that each automobile will
discharge more than 1,600 pounds of
carbon monoxide, 230 pounds of
hydrocarbons, and 77 pounds of oxides
of nitrogen.
We Americans are applying annu-
ally 600 million pounds of pesticides,
fungicides, and herbicides to soil and
crops. The problems created in doing
so will haunt us in the years to come.
The biological effects of all these
hazards will continue to grow slowly
and silently over decades and genera-
tions. They may reveal themselves
only after their impact has become
irreversible.
The Air Quality Act of 1967 is an
important step toward helping to
eliminate air pollution and to safe-
guard future generations of Ameri-
cans—to conserve our natural heritage
not only for ourselves but for our
children and grandchildren and for
all Americans to follow us.
[p. 19180]
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, we
have finally reached the point in the
development of our society where air
pollution has ceased to be the invisible
danger. Today, everyone can see it,
feel it and smell it. More than 7,000
communities across the Nation are
affected by it. It is a cause for
national concern. But the magnitude
of the problem has also given rise to
a national determination to take the
action necessary to shop the contamin-
ation of the atmosphere.
The distinguished Senator from
Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] has been a leader
in the battle for clean air. For the
third consecutive year he has re-
ported legislation to the Senate which
makes a major advance toward this
goal. I commend him for his out-
standing efforts to purify the skies.
The Clean Air Act of 1967 is the
product of 18 days of comprehensive
hearings held in five cities. The bill is
broad in scope. For the most part it
vests initial regulatory authority in
the States, but reserves ultimate
power to the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare to control nir
pollution.
This legislation is a timely, logical,
and responsible expansion of the Clean
Air Act of 1963, which I sponsored. It
contains four principal provisions:
First. It requires the Secretary of
HEW to define air quality control
regions. All air pollution programs
will be geared to these atmospheric
units. Second. It grants the Secretary
authority to create interstate air
quality planning commissions, if the
States do not do so. These commissions
will assist the States and the Federal
Government in developing air quality
standards. Third. It permits the Secre-
tary to establish and implement air
quality standards for the control
regions, if the States do not take such
action within 15 months after these
regions are designated and after the
Secretary has issued criteria for air
quality and information on abatement
techniques. These standards will set
limits on the pollution in every
atmospheric area of the country.
Fourth. The Secretary is authorized
to initiate court proceedings to halt
any pollution that creates a substan-
tial and imminent public health
danger anywhere in the country. This
will enable the Secretary to act im-
mediately to prevent a recurrence of
the air pollution disasters of Donora,
Pa., in 1948 and New York City in
1953 and 1966.
The bill provides $700 million over
a 3-year period for program support
and research. This will include an
expanded research and demonstration
program to advance the technology of
controlling pollution from fuels and
vehicles and an enlarged program of
grants to encourage States and local
governments to begin comprehensive
planning for intrastate air quality
standards. The bill also directs the
-------
862
LEGAL COMPILATION—Are
Secretary of HEW to conduct a 2-year
study of national emission standards
for industry.
Mr. President, the Public Health
Service has reported that every urban
area of 50,000 or more population now
has an air pollution problem. In the
coming years we can expect conditions
to worsen as urban population in-
creases, industrial production grows,
and use of motor vehicles rises. To
avoid a series of national air pollu-
tion tragedies our research and
regulatory activities must be strength-
ened. We must insure that all our
technological resources are brought to
bear on this problem and that we
exercise every economically feasible
method of control.
The legislation now before us fulfills
these objectives. It gives us a national
program to upgrade the quality of the
air we breathe. With this legislation
we move beyond simply controlling
and reducing air pollution. We have
begun to direct our efforts toward
establishing an environment that is
conducive to good living. I support S.
780 and urge its passage.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, at
the outset I want to congratulate
Senator MUSKIB and Senator BOGGS
for once again steering through the
Senate Public Works Committee, a bill
which I believe represents a great,
giant step forward in our Nation's
battle against air pollution.
In addition, I believe S. 780 evi-
dences the legislative branch's re-
sponsive to a clear need in the most
responsive manner. And, Mr. Presi-
dent, the record is clear that it has
been the Congress that has taken the
initiative in the country's battle
against pollution, both air and
water. In fact, many of us in the Con-
gress have been greatly disappointed
in the administration's budget re-
quests in the pollution area.
To the credit of the distinguished
chairman of the subcommittee, and to
the ranking Republican member, Sen-
ator BOGGS, this committee held most
exhaustive hearings and developed an
outstanding record. This record
clearly documents the danger and
suggests the direction in which the
Nation should move in order to com-
bat pollution. Subsequently, in execu-
tive session, the subcommittee ham-
mered out and shaped the form of S.
780 that we now have before the
Senate today.
It is a good bill; it merits the sup-
port of the entire Congress; it will
receive the thanks of a concerned
citizenry. Last year in a statement
before the Senate Subcommittee on
Air and Water Pollution, I stated:
In my judgment the pollution problem Is
one of the most serious domestic problems fac-
ing our country today. While serious, it is not
yet critical. The time is not in our side. It is
running out. The delay will not only be costly
in terms of dollars, but even more important,
will be the possible detriment to human health
and the interference with the general well-
being of our society.
Mr. President, this bill, while recog-
nizing the critical nature of the pollu-
tion problem, adopts a rational and
reasonable approach to the pollution
problem. It should do the job. It
recognizes the legitimate and pri-
mary responsibility of the State and
local governments in the field of air
pollution but yet the message of the
legislation is clear. Although we are
going to give the States and the local
governments the initiative in the
pollution field, we will not permit
inaction. The battle against pollution
will and must be won. For while we
are fully aware that cleaning up the
air will be costly, an article in the
Harvard Business Review estimated
that expenditures of some $105 billion
will be necessary over the next 30-year
period to provide clean air. While
costly, we recognize clearly that we
cannot afford to do less.
Mr. President, we already know
much about the damage that pollution
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
863
causes to both property and, more
importantly, to persons. It has been
estimated that property damages re-
sulting from air pollution in the
United States is $11 billion annually.
Agricultural losses in my State total
approximately $132 million each year.
In addition, we know that pollution
contributes to the deterioration and
corrosion of our physical structures.
As consumers, we can see the effects
of pollution by the need for more fre-
quent trips to the laundry and the need
for more frequent car washes. Even
more important, Mr. President, are the
adverse effects that pollution may have
on human health. Evidence continues
to grow associating air pollution with
certain respiratory disorders, such as
asthma, bronchitis, emphysema and
lung cancer. Surg. Gen. William H.
Stevart on April 19, testified before
the subcommittee and he centered his
remarks on the adverse effects of air
pollution on public health. Dr.
Stewart, after discussing the types of
evidence available linking air pollu-
tion and "specific health detriment,"
declared emphatically that air pollu-
tion was a health hazard and that
the evidence created a "disturbing and
convincing portrait of a major health
menace.
It is clear, Mr. President, that we
cannot wait until conclusive evidence
is produced for it is obvious that air
pollution does not do anyone any good.
Therefore, it behooves us to clean up
the air. Since my father was one of
the Nation's outstanding track
coaches, I naturally have an interest
in track. I read with interest a March
30 study which appeared in the Jour-
nal of the American Medical Associa-
tion, which concluded that high levels
of smog have a negative effect on the
performance of long distance runners.
Mr. President, as a Californian, I
am very proud of the State's pioneer-
ing efforts in the field of air pollution.
I am, however, as are most Cali-
fornians, not satisfied with the quality
of air that we have achieved. We can
and we must do better. In Los Angeles
County a vigorous and effective pro-
gram to abate air pollution from
stationary sources is paying off.
Aimed at reducing the air pollution
levels from stationary sources to those
existing in 1940, the goal has almost
been reached. Los Angeles County's
control program for stationary sources
has kept more than 5,000 tons of con-
taminates out of the air daily. Los
Angeles County has demonstrated that
pollution from stationary sources can
be controlled. Los Angeles County and
the State of California, for that
matter, have demonstrated that local
and State governments can, and are
willing to, adopt and enforce stand-
ards to control pollution.
I only wish, Mr. President, that the
State of California was making as
rapid progress in controlling the pollu-
tion from the automobile as we have
made in controlling the pollution from
stationary sources. Unfortunately,
such is not the
[p. 19181]
case. Although we are making prog-
ress, the truth of the matter is that
we have to run as fast as we can to
stand still. This is so because of our
rapidly growing population which is
expected to double by the end of this
century, and the increasing number of
automobiles.
On May 27, 1966, the Air Pollution
Control District of the County of Los
Angeles issued its report to the board
of supervisors regarding the status of
air pollution control in Los Angeles
County and the prospects of success
of the current control program. Their
conclusions were: First, current motor
vehicle control programs will not
achieve acceptable air quality in Los
Angeles in the next decade, and sec-
ond, control of motor vehicle emis-
sions must be intensified and accel-
-------
864
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
erated if Los Angeles County is to
have acceptable air quality by 1980.
In California, Mr. President, it is
estimated that emissions from the
motor vehicles are responsible for
approximately 80 percent of the Los
Angeles problem, and I am certain
that the automobile is a substantial
contributor elsewhere. In 1963, all new
cars were required by California law
to be equipped with devices limiting
the amount of hydrocarbons that can
be emitted from 275 parts per million
and carbon monoxide to 1.5 percent.
Effective in 1970, standards have been
adopted to further reduce the ex-
haust emissions in the case of hydro-
carbons from 275 parts per million to
180 parts per million, and carbon
monoxide from 1.5 percent to 1 per-
cent. These statistics document the
tremendous challenge the State of
California will face in the next few
years and the next decade as we
attempt to clean up the air of the
State of California. The extraordi-
nary and compelling circumstances
that have existed in California have
prompted the State to move into un-
charted areas. By so doing, the State
and many of its citizens have pro-
vided the Nation with many of the
tools, many of the ideas and with
many of the competent personnel
necessary to zero in on the Nation's
pollution problem. That California
has developed the needed expertise
is readily apparent by counting the
number of Californians that have
been called upon by the Federal Gov-
ernment to serve in positions of
leadership and responsibility in the
Federal air pollution program.
It is because of the extraordinary
and compelling problem that has
existed and that exists in the State of
California that the State has had to
make a great effort in the past and
will undoubtedly be called upon to
make even greater efforts in the
future, in order to assure that the
citizens of the great State of Cali-
fornia will have acceptable and clean
air. Because of the efforts the State
has made, and because of the very
serious problem that exists, I natur-
ally, was very concerned and very
disturbed when the committee was
considering the question of Federal
preemption on the right to such
standards of automobile exhaust emis-
sions. I also, of course, recognize that
industry's argument that they could
not live with 50 different standards of
50 different States was not without
merit.
I am particularly grateful for the
recognition that the committee has
given to the State of California by
accepting an amendment offered by
me which recognizes the State's
unique problems and pioneering
efforts by granting a waiver from the
Federal preemption to the State of
California, and thus insuring that the
State will be able to continue "its
already excellent program to the
benefit of the people of that State."
Because of the importance of this
issue, Mr. President, I would ask
unanimous consent that this por-
tion of the committee's report dealing
with the question of Federal pre-
emption be printed in full at this
point in my remarks.
There being no objection, the
excerpt was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
To date only California has actively engaged
in this form of pollution control and, in fact,
the initial Federal standard is based on Cali-
fornia's experience. The Federal standard will
be applicable to all 1968 model automobiles
sold in the United States. Other States have
enacted legislation and regulations governing
crankcase emissions but this control method
has been in general use throughout the United
States since 1963.
On the question of preemption, representa-
tives of the State of California were clearly
opposed to displacing that State's right to set
more stringent standards to meet peculiar local
conditions. The auto industry conversely was
adamant that the nature of their manufactur-
ing mechanism required a single national
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
865
standard in order to eliminate undue economic
strain on the industry.
The committee has taken cognizance of both
of these points of view. Senator Murphy con-
vinced the committee that California's unique
problems and pioneering efforts justified a
waiver of the preemption section to the State
of California. As a result, the committee incor-
porated in section 202(b) a waiver amendment
offered by Senator Murphy. It is true that, in
the 15 years that auto emission standards have
been debated and discussed, only the State of
California has demonstrated compelling and
extraordinary circumstances sufficiently differ-
ent from the Nation as a whole to justify
standards on automobile emissions which may,
from time to time, need be more stringent than
national standards.
This situation may change. Other regions of
the Nation may develop air pollution situations
related to automobile emissions which will re-
quire standards different from those applicable
nationally. The committee expects the Secre-
tary to inform the Congress of any such situa-
tion in order that expansion or change in the
existing waiver provision may be considered.
Until such time as additional problems of
this type arise it seemed appropriate that the
waiver provision of subsection (b) should be
limited solely to California. This approach can
have several positive values:
1. Most importantly California will be able
to continue its already excellent program to
the benefit of the people of that State.
2. The Nation will have the benefit of Cali-
fornia's experience with lower standards which
will require new control systems and design. In
fact California will continue to be the tasting
area for such lower standards and should those
efforts to achieve lower emission levels be suc-
cessful it is expected that the Secretary will,
if required to assure protection of the national
health and welfare, give serious consideration
to strengthening the Federal standards.
3. In the interim periods, when California
and the Federal Government have differing
standards, the general consumer of the Nation
will not be confronted with increased costs as-
sociated with new control systems.
4. The industry, confronted with only one
potential variation, will be able to minimize
economic disruption and therefore provide
emission control systems at lower cost to the
people of the Nation.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, at
one time air pollution in this country
was thought to be a peculiar phenome-
non which everyone associated with
Los Angeles. Now, we are told that
every city in the Nation with a popu-
lation of 50,000 or more has an air
pollution problem.
I have had the privilege and
pleasure, Mr. President, of traveling
across this great country and count-
less times over the past years my eyes
have witnessed what the experts tell
us—the pollution problem is a grow-
ing one and can be. seen in every
State.
On top of this, the leading authori-
ties tell us that we will see a doubling
of the population in the urban areas
of our Nation in the next 40 years.
The number of automobiles is ex-
pected to grow at an even faster rate.
The challenge to the Nation is great.
But we have no choice, Mr. President,
if we are to assure to the American
people the quality of air and the
quality of life that they expect and
deserve.
Early in this century, a great
American, Teddy Roosevelt, very
disturbed over the manner in which
the Nation was allowing its land and
its other natural resources to waste,
led us on a great conservation move-
ment. An equally great challenge
faces us today.
Mr. President, air and water are
also precious natural resources, which
we have been neglecting for too long.
All of us are guilty, and as the Los
Angeles Times in a March 19 article,
entitled, "Let's Clean Up Spaceship
Earth," observed:
Spaceship Earth is a "closed space capsule."
Only sunlight gets in: nothing leaves. Getting
"rid" of waste often is merely the redistribu-
tion of it within our "capsule." But it atays
with us in our journey through space.
I am encouraged, Mr. President, for
I can sense a crusading spirit and a
determination by all segments of our
society that the Nation can and will
be victorious in its battle against
pollution. A Harris poll of April 3
indicated that there was more public
support for accelerated Federal pollu-
tion control than any other single
domestic program. Over one-half of
the persons queried indicated that
-------
866
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
they wanted more action by the Gov-
ernment. One-third supported action
at the current level.
One seldom picks up a newspaper,
a magazine, or a trade journal, Mr.
President, without seeing an article
on the pollution problem. Business-
men throughout the country recog-
nize that we must win the battle
against pollution and that we cannot
afford to do otherwise.
Having the greatest of faith in our
system of government and in the
judgment of the American people, Mr.
President, I firmly believe that what
the American people want and de-
mand will be accomplished.
Also, having the greatest of confi-
dence in the genius and capacity of
American industry, I am convinced
that technology and know-how, where
not presently ex-
[p. 19182]
isting—and much of it is already in
existence—can be developed. Industry
should aim high; it should aim at
completely or nearly eliminating pol-
lution. The automobile industry, for
example, should not rest until it pro-
duces a pollution-free engine. This
does not suggest that we panic, for
we cannot demand that which is not
technologically or economically feasi-
ble.
Mr. President, we should not leave
the impression that the bill we are
enacting today will clean up the air
overnight. It will provide a framework
for effective action by State and local
governments. I urge States to make
maximum utilization of this bill's pro-
visions and incentives, and I have a
feeling that those elected representa-
tives who do not heed the cry of the
American people for clean air may
not be elected officials too long. The
bill rightly gives the State and local
governments the opportunity to exer-
cise leadership and to face up to the
challenge and responsibility of clean-
ing up the Nation's air. By combining
our resources of government, industry
and individuals, I for one am confi-
dent that we can clean up the air.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent that a staff analysis of S. 780
be printed in full at this point.
There being no objection, the text
of the bill was ordered to be printed
in the RECORD, as follows:
PROVISIONS OF S. 780
S. 780, as ordered reported includes the
following provisions:
1. Authority for the Secretary to go imme-
diately to court in the event that he finds
a particular pollution source or combination
of sources, wherever such sources or sources
may be located, is presenting an "imminent
and substantial endangerment to the health
of persons" to seek an injunction against
the emission of such contaminants as may be
necessary to protect public health.
2. Provision for establishment of the Fed-
eral interstate air quality planning agencies
if the States do not request designation of a
planning agency for an interstate air quality
control region.
3. Provision for the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare to set ambient air
standards in any designated air quality con-
trol region, if the States fail within IB
months after receiving criteria and recom-
mended control techniques, to adopt such
standards and an acceptable plan for imple-
mentation.
4. Provision for the Secretary to go to court,
after 180 days notice, to enforce any violation
of standards in any designated air quality con-
trol region.
5. Specific directive to the Secretary to
continue to use existing enforcement proce-
dures as may be necessary to protect public
health and welfare during standards devel-
opment period; and provision for participa-
tion by interested paities in an abatement
conference.
6. A three-step approach to development
of air quality standards including (1) desig-
nation, by the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare, of air quality control re-
gions based on the need for pollution con-
trol and protection of health and welfare;
(2) expansion of the existing provision for
development and issuance of criteria as to
the health and welfare effects of pollutants
or combinations of pollutants; and (3) pub-
lication of information on the control tech-
nology required to achieve various levels of
air quality.
(7) An expanded research and demonstra-
tion program to advance the technology for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
867
controlling pollution from fuels and vehicles
incJjdingr specific authorization of $375 million
for three years (through 1970).
8. Federal pre-emption of the right to set
standards on automobile exhaust emissions
with waiver of application of pre-emption to
any State which had adopted standards pre-
cedent to promulgation of Federal standards
(California).
9. Expanded State and local program grants
provision to encourage comprehensive planning
for intrastate air quality standards.
10. Establishment of a statutory President's
Air Quality Advisory Board and such other
advisory committees as may be necessary to
assist the Secretary in performing the func-
tions authorized.
11. A study of the concept of national emis-
sion standards and a study of the economic
impact of pollution control.
12. Federal assistance to the States to de-
velop motor vehicle emission and device in-
spection and testing systems.
13. Federal registration of fuel additives.
14. Comprehensive reports to the Congress.
15. Three year authorization of $325 mil-
lion for programs other than research on con-
trol of pollution from fuels and vehicles. (Total
authorization including research $700 million.)
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. Presi-
dent, I am pleased to make a state-
ment in support of the air quality bill
of 1967. Air pollution, along with
many other far-distant and not
readily visible evils, is often lamented,
but too seldom acted upon.
The Committee on Public Works
has in the air quality control bill
taken vital steps toward furthering
public authority to curb air pollution.
The committee deserves to be com-
mended on the comprehensive and
ambitious bill that it has presented
to the Senate.
S. 780 recognizes that air pollution
can only be abated by a total effort on
all fronts and that a truly effective
program to get cleaner air requires a
combination of immediate action and
long-range research. Both parts are
essential to a formula for curing one
of our Nation's most acute ills. The
committee that has presented us with
this bill did not shirk from its over-
whelming task, despite the tremend-
ous economic, administrative, and
technological problems inherent in the
implementation of the desired pro-
grams to control air pollution.
The air quality bill of 1967 pro-
poses that minimum standards of air
quality be set by the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare and
establishes the regulatory equipment
necessary to see that the clean air
standards are enforced across the
country. Besides coping with the
obvious immediate problems that have
aroused the greatest public attention,
like the stifling smog in the larger
industrial cities of our Nation, this
bill also provides for research into
the probable disastrous consequences
of prolonged, unchecked pollution of
the air. Such research will, no doubt,
be of great help in discovering the
relationship between the quality of
the air and the health of the popula-
tion. It is certainly the time for up-
dating the now inadequate earlier
measures for insuring the future safe
content of our most vital resource—
the air.
I am proud to be a conponsor of so
comprehensive, broad-based, and yet
flexible bill which attempts through
regulation and research to alleviate
the all too prevalent blight of air
pollution.
AIR QUALITY ACT OF 1967—
MANDATE FOR ACTION
Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, the
Air Quality Act of 1967 represents a
significant legislative victory in the
continuing battle for clean air. It was
more than 12 years ago that the first
Federal legislation was enacted by
the Congress dealing with the problem
of air pollution.
As a member of the Committee on
Public Works at that time, it still is a
matter of deep personal pride that I
authored the initial legislation effort
—the Air Pollution Control Act of
1955. That proposal authorized the
first program of research and techni-
-------
868
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
cal assistance to devise and develop
methods for the control and abate-
ment of air pollution. But that bill,
as does the one now before the Sen-
ate, recognized that the primary
responsibility for the control of air
pollution rests with State and local
government as well as private in-
dustry. The Federal Government, as a
consequence of the Clean Air Act of
1963 and the amendments that have
been adopted since that time, has a
mandate to provide leadership and
assistance in the national effort to
control this growing menace, but the
real job has always been in the hands
of the States, communities, and
industries that create and are affected
by pollution. And yet, despite the
public and private efforts in this area,
despite the volumes of research and
the thousands of dollars of assistance,
despite the controls that have been
established, and the standards that
have been developed, air pollution con-
tinues to grow and to threaten the
environment of our Nation.
Today, the threat of a contami-
nated environment for mankind has
become a real and major concern for
all people. Science has deduced that
the pollutants in the air strike at
virtually everything that exists. In
economic losses alone, air pollution
costs the country billions of dollars a
year through injury to vegetation and
livestock, corrosion and soiling of
materials and structures, depression
of property values, and interference
with ground and air transportation.
Of even greater significance are the
adverse effects on human health.
Pollution has been related to a grow-
ing number of ailments—asthma, bron-
chitis, lung cancer and emphysema.
The Surgeon General's office has indi-
cated that:
In the not-too-distant future, if present
rates of national growth are sustained pol-
lution will reach truly critical proportions.
The Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare states:
What is already known about the relation-
ship of air pollution to illness, disability, and
premature death, togther with considerations
of prudence in the protection of public health,
leave no doubt that the contemporary air pol-
lution problem is a threat to the lives and
health of millions of people in all parts of the
country.
As the hazards increase, the Nation
gropes for any effective answer or
solution which can meet the chal-
lenge of air pollution. The American
public, to whom the Congress is
ultimately responsible, is no longer
content with efforts
[p. 19183]
which are not equal to the challenges
of the present and the future.
The bill that is today before the
Senate—S. 780—reflects a fuller ap-
preciation of what really is at stake
and seeks to provide unprecedented
opportunities for effective action at
all levels of government. The Air
Quality Act of 1967 broadens air
pollution programs at all levels of
government in an effort to protect
and enhance the quality of the en-
vironment.
But the creation of a national pro-
gram of air quality is not in any
sense intended to relieve State and
local government as well as industry
of its responsibilities in this area.
The committee clearly points out in
its report:
The States will retain the primary responsi-
bility to determine the quality of air they
desire.
I was particularly pleased to see
that the committee has recognized the
outstanding efforts of my own State
of California in attempting to control
this growing hazard. California was
one of the first to grant local juris-
dictions the authority to regulate
factories and other sources of atmos-
pheric contamination through the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
869
establishment of air pollution control
districts. In 1959, the State legisla-
ture directed the State department of
public health to establish standards
for the air and created a motor
vehicle pollution control board to test
and, if necessary, require control
devices; devices which in fact are to-
day required on all cars sold in Cali-
fornia. It is because of my State's
pioneering efforts in this area that the
committee accepted an amend-
ment offered by my distinguished col-
league, Senator GEORGE MURPHY,
which allows California the power to
continue to control its own standards
on automobile emissions.
The true success of this legislation
will be measured not by the Federal
enforcement provisions that are estab-
lished but by the response of local and
State government and private indus-
try to this mandate for action. It is
clear that the efforts of all concerned
have proven inadequate in the past.
As I stated before the Subcommittee
on Air and Water Pollution in Febru-
ary of this year:
What is needed to meet this challenge to
human environment is an attack equal to the
threat . . . the time has arrived for an en-
lightened overview of the problems of the
human environment and of measures and plans
for solution of these problems, both immediate
and long range.
Mr. President, the ultimate solution
of present and future environmental
problems will have to be generated out
of a collaboration between govern-
ment and industry the equal of which
may be unprecedented, but the
pattern for which is neither new nor
controversial. The Air Quality Act of
1967 states, in effect, that the time
for such action by government and
industry alike is now. The protection
of our human environment cannot,
indeed, must not, be delayed any
longer.
Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President,
today we are considering the Air
Quality Act of 1967 which would
amend the Clean Air Act.
This bill, S. 780, represents another
positive forward step toward our long-
range goal of restoring the pure
quality of the air we breathe.
During recent months, I have been
disturbed by reports from knowledge-
able scientists that we are losing
ground in our fight for clean air. It
is simply getting dirtier at a faster
rate than we are cleaning it up.
The air of most of our large cities,
as well as many of our smaller ones,
is filled with tons of polluting' agents.
As President Johnson has pointed out,
this polluted air not only aggravates
respiratory diseases in man such as
asthma, bronchitis, lung cancer, and
emphysema; but it also corrodes
machinery and defaces buildings. The
cost estimates for other forms of air
pollution do exist, and they are stag-
gering—$12 billion annually—about
$65 per person. Federal money in air
pollution programs is not money
being poured down the drain. It is an
investment, and it is an investment
on which we can expect a substantial
return.
I recognize that this bill will have
a great economic impact, and have
cosponsored legislation (S. 734 and S.
950) which would provide tax exemp-
tions to encourage industries to insti-
tute pollution controls. These bills
should go hand-in-hand with the Air
Quality Act of 1967.
This bill, while it would increase
Federal activity in the field of air
pollution, is a vital support for those
States and local communities that are
moving aggressively to meet the chal-
lenge. It would:
First. Provide for the establish-
ment of a regional approach to air
quality planning;
Second. Provide authority for the
Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare to go to court to seek an
injunction against the emission of
-------
870
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
such contaminants as may be
dangerous to the public health, or to
enforce a violation of standards in
any designated air quality control
region;
Third. Begin to develop a set of air
quality standards;
Fourth. Authorize increased re-
search relating to pollutants from
fuels and vehicles;
Fifth. Establish Federal standards
on automobile exhaust emissions.
Beginning with the 1968 model cars,
antipollution control devices will be
standard equipment; and
Sixth. Provide increased Federal
funds for State and local clean air
programs.
Air pollution control is a project
which we must begin now before the
air we breathe becomes so dirty and
so toxic that the problem is entirely
uncontrollable. The final bill which has
been reported by the Committee on
Public Works is slightly different
from the original bill that I cospon-
sored. However, I think that this
present bill is more workable. The
committee deserves thanks for the
careful consideration it gave to this
measure. I urge my colleagues to
pass this essential legislation.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, there
are few commodities as precious in
our society as the air we breathe.
There are a few problems confronting
us in our rapidly urbanizing society
which deserve our attention more
immediately, and to whose solutions
we should be more attentive, than the
rapidly multiplying and compounding
problem of air pollution control. Ac-
cordingly, Mr. President, I wish to
emphasize my enthusiastic support of
the Air Quality Act of 1967.
This legislation will provide a broad
base of support for an effective, co-
ordinated nationwide program. The
facts and figures on the amounts and
kinds of refuse and choking filth
daily poured into the air around us
are truly staggering. We must act
now, and act with increasing effective-
ness at all levels of government if we
are initially to bring the problem
under control, much less start the
long process of improving the present
quality of the air around us.
Accordingly, I commend the Sub-
committee on Air and Water Pollu-
tion and its chairman, the distin-
guished Senator from Maine [Mr.
MUSKIE] for the quick and thorough
action taken on this bill, which bears
so extensively the imprint of its am-
bitious multicity hearings and delib-
erations on the original administra-
tion measure. And I particularly com-
mend the Committee on Public Works
for its sensitivity to the necessity for
balance between Federal and State
and local government action in seek-
ing and implementing antipollution
programs, devices, and techniques.
For the essential responsibility for
checking air pollution is at the local
level. As the experience of my own
city of Chicago has shown, this is the
most effective level at which to start
to turn back the menace which,
though concentrated in our cities, is
rapidly spreading across the face of
the land.
I say "start to turn back," because
as countless examples show, few pollu-
tion problem areas are limited to a
single political subdivision. Regional
problems, such as those in Chicago-
Gary area and the New York City-
New Jersey complex, confirm the need
for the regional conferences and
regional standards that the Air
Quality Act proposes.
I might say in this regard that I
hope the interest expressed by this
body in consideration and passage of
this Air Quality Act will have the
effect of expediting executive approval
of the Illinois-Indiana air pollution
compact, S. 470, and other similar
measures now pending executive ap-
proval. Where the States have acted,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
871
in my view, the Federal Government
should not delay in adding the neces-
sary approval to implement these
State laws. In the case of S. 470,
executive action is long overdue.
Additionally, the support indicated
in the committee report for incentive
assistance for industries in meeting
its costs of pollution control is most
gratifying. As a cosponsor of S. 734,
the Pollution Abatement Incentive
Act of 1967 originated and introduced
by the distinguished Senator from
Kansas [Mr. CARLSON], I join in
urging the Committee on Finance to
hold hearings on these measures, so
that this effective avenue of attack
on pollution of both air and water
may be opened.
Mr. President, in stressing the need
for initiative and ingenuity at the
local level, I do so from a home base
of the experiences of Chicago in this
field. One of the most advanced cities
in combating pollution, the effective-
ness of the Chicago program is com-
promised to a
[p. 19184]
great extent by high-pollution areas
in nearby Indiana, which have not yet
had the relative success we in Chicago
have enjoyed. In order that others
may have the benefit of it, I ask
unanimous consent that the initial
presentation of our experienced and
distinguished mayor, Richard J.
Daley, to the Subcommittee on Air
and Water Pollution be included
in the RECORD at the close of these
remarks. I call particular attention
to a significant aspect of the Chicago
story highlighted in this presentation
which points out the voluntary effort
of the industries located in the area
which have recognized and responded
to community responsibility to assist
in solving the problem.
The Air Quality Act of 1967 is truly
universal legislation in the promise
of benefits it holds out to all our
citizens. We can do no less, in pro-
viding for the needs of our present
and future constituents, than to enact
immediately these concrete, effective
measures to continue efforts to control
the pollution of a precious and limited
resource, the air around us.
*****
[p. 19185]
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
*****
The bill having been read a third
time, the question is shall it pass?
*****
The result was announced—yeas 88,
nays 0,* * *.
*****
[p. 19186]
-------
872
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
l.lh(4)(b) Nov. 2: Considered and passed House, amended,
pp. 30939-30968; 30975-30981; 30988-30989; 30999
AIR QUALITY ACT OF 1967
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up
House Resolution 955 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
*****
[p. 30939]
S. 780 is intended primarily to pave
the way for control of air pollution
problems on a regional basis in ac-
cordance with air quality standards
and enforcement plans developed by
the State. State standards and en-
forcement plans would have to be
consistent with air quality criteria
and control technology data published
by the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare. The Secretary would be
empowered to initiate action to insure
setting of enforcement of standards
if a State failed to take reasonable
action to achieve compliance.
Mr. Speaker, this has been a subject
which many Members of the House
have long been interested in, and
many people across our Nation. Cer-
tainly clean air is just as important
as clean water, clean food, and in
many other areas of interest in order
to maintain human life in this
country.
Unfortunately, as we have con-
taminated many of our streams, and
contaminated other areas, we have
unfortunately contaminated certainly
in many places the air which human
beings have to breathe.
In the consideration of this par-
ticular legislation I wish to commend
the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce for the time that
they have spent, the studies that they
have made, and the deliberations that
have gone on. Particularly, I wish to
commend the distinguished chairman
of that committee, the gentleman from
West Virginia [Mr. STAGGERS] for the
work that he has done along with that
of the other members of his committee.
Mr. Speaker, we come here today
with a bill which I believe basically
meets the majority of the needs and
the requirements as a first step in
attempting to clean up this air which
is so important for all of us as
human beings. However, I do have
certain concerns, as many of my col-
leagues do, particularly from the
State of California, with reference
to some of the language in the House
bill which is different from that
passed by the Senate.
For years many of the States have
had a rather passive or indifferent
attitude toward air pollution, basically
those States that were not confronted
with the pollutants in the air that we
unfortunately have had in some areas
of California. But all the while the
State of California, and in many
instances with the vigorous opposi-
tion, I might say, of the automobile
industry, has struggled to find a solu-
tion to what is a life-and-death prob-
lem to millions of Californians.
Instead of turning its vast research
and financial resources loose on ways
to make automobile exhausts safe for
society, unfortunately the automobile
industry in too many instances
devoted its attention to ways to turn
the family car into a prestige palace
on wheels complete with six-way
seats, and eight-track stereo.
The automobile industry we feel in
all too many instances has shown a
callous disregard for the health and
safety of American citizens, and has
been a balky and reluctant partner in
the conscientious efforts of our people
to find a way to reconcile its needs for
transportation with its even greater
need for safe, clean air.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
873
AH the State of California seeks, or
wants, is the right to maintain the
momentum it has gained in working
out means for its own salvation.
We feel that many valuable years
have been lost by our Nation for not
attacking this problem vigorously in
the past. But we also feel that now
is not the time to shackle the deter-
mined efforts of a frustrated, red-eyed
people that have had about enough.
We, in California, have had little
leadership or help from the automo-
bile industry in the past and, frankly,
this is our concern with the bill and
the present language before us that
we are not content to let our fate rest
with the industry and its Washington
lobby in the years to come.
Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues
from California and particularly
from the Los Angeles area where this
problem has been such a serious
menace are much more expert on some
of the things that have been done and
some of the actions that have been
taken and some of the needs, and
they will expound their ideas further.
But certainly I do feel it is vital and
important that California be per-
mitted in view of the tens of millions
of dollars it has spent in the past in
developing programs and the State
legislature has spent many weeks and
months in developing regulations to
protect the health of our people, that
the State be permitted to go ahead
and maintain those high standards
which we feel are essential to the
well-being of our State and not to
permit the Federal Government to
preempt—and that, basically, I think,
is what the issue is here—the issue
of preemption of States' rights in
this area.
We seek no preferential treatment.
We simply ask that so long as our
standards that have already been
promulgated are equal to or above
those promulgated by the Federal
Government that we be permitted to
continue with those standards and
enforce those standards. I think
frankly, as we examine many areas in
which the Federal Government has
gone into the regulatory field, it has
permitted States that have had regula-
tions to continue so long as those reg-
ulations were equal to or above those
standards set by the Federal Govern-
ment.
As I say, that is the only thing we
will be seeking in the amendment
which later will be offered by my
distinguished colleague, the gentle-
man from California [Mr. Moss].
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
the resolution, House resolution 955,
in order that the bill, S. 780, may be
considered.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance
of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
PRICE of Illinois). The gentleman
from California has consumed 8
minutes.
Mr. SMITH of California. Mtr.
Speaker, I yield myself 15 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 955
provides for an open rule with 2 hours
of debate for the consideration of S.
780—the Air Quality Act of 1967. I
believe the rule also provides for the
House language to be substituted for
the Senate language.
The purpose of the bill is to provide
for methods to control and abate our
national problem of air pollution by
creating a series of regional control
areas, primarily administered by the
States involved, under standards of
control and enforcement based upon
criteria and data made available to
the States by Health, Education, and
Welfare.
That the problem is a serious one
for our public health is too clear to be
questioned. Illnesses from heart prob-
lems to lung diseases have been linked
with the existence of polluted air in
some of our cities. Every major
526-702 O - 73 -- 20
-------
874
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
metropolitan area has the problem to
some degree, some continuously.
According to the report and testi-
mony, the bill will continue all
current programs for air pollution
control and research now existing in
HEW. In addition it will provide for
a systematic control of air pollutant
activities on a regional basis. These
regions will be established by the
Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare within the next 18 months.
They may include parts of several
States or areas within one State.
Each is to contain within it an area
which, because of such factors as
urbanization and industrialization,
topography and meteorological pat-
terns, is affected by common air pol-
lution problems requiring uniformity
of control action.
The provisions relating to the adop-
tion of air quality standards are
the key to the bill. Standards will not
be national in scope, but will be tailor-
ed to each region, and based upon cri-
teria and data collected and published
by HEW. After such publication each
State will have 90 days to inform
HEW of its intention to set air
quality standards on pollutants for
each regional area with which it is
involved. After such notice, a State
has 180 days to set the required air
quality standards, and another 180
days to develop plans for implementa-
tion and enforcement of standards.
All such plans will be submitted to
HEW for evaluation and approval as
consistent with HEW's published
criteria and data.
[p. 30940]
If a State fails in any way to meet
the requirements outlined above, the
Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare is authorized by the bill to
perform the State's function of setting
standards. A hearing board may be
called at a State's request, but its
recommendations too would be bind-
ing upon the State. Whether by State
or Federal initiative, once the stand-
ards and enforcement provisions are
activated, enforcement will be pri-
marily in the hands of the State in-
volved. Enforcement at the Federal
level will occur only when a State or
States fail to do so, and then only
after notice by HEW of an intention
to act if no appropriate enforcement
action is taken within 180 days.
In emergency situations, where im-
mediate action is necessary, the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare will have authority to go into
court for abatement of any pollution
that creates substantial and imminent
public health endangerment.
The bill adds to the authorizations
already existing for fiscal 1968, and
makes authorizations for an addi-
tional 2 years; $33,000,000 is added
for fiscal 1968, making the total
$99,000,000; for 1969 the total author-
ized is $145,000,000; for 1970 the au-
thorization is $184,300,000.
All appropriate agencies support
the legislation.
The bill also provides for the crea-
tion of an Air Quality Advisory Board
of 15 members to advise and consult
with the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare and make recom-
mendations to the President. All will
be appointed by the President; they
are $100 per day men.
A study of national pollution and
emission standards is to be under-
taken by HEW. A report is to be
made to the Congress within 2 years
of the need for and effect of such
standards. Further studies of the
economic cost of implementing this
legislation are also required by the
bill. This seems a little late to me.
There are separate views, filed by
Messrs. Moss and VAN DEERLIN. They
oppose the action of the committee in
removing the waiver provision for
California which was in the Senate-
passed version of the bill. It provided
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
875
that California could have more strin-
gent antipollutant requirements than
the rest of the country. These Mem-
bers feel that California's problems
are so serious in this field, and that
her efforts so far have been a model
for the Nation; under these circum-
stances they believe that a waiver
provision is necessary if California is
to adequately protect the public health
of her cities.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I would like
to direct my remarks to the bill and
to the problem, as it affects the State
of California. This is the third time
that I have presented a "rule" on
this subject. The previous measures, I
believe, were referred to as the Clean
Air Act. On each previous occasion I
joined in supporting the measures.
California welcomed the Federal Gov-
ernment into the field in an effort to
try to solve this serious problem. But,
I cautioned on each previous occasion,
that I hoped that the Federal Govern-
ment would not do anything that
would hinder the efforts of Cali-
fornia, because the problem there is
by far the worst in the country. That
we had spent, and were spending, mil-
lions and millions in an effort to solve
it. Such statements were made in July
1963, in connection with H.R. 6518.
Today, I find that if this bill, S. 780,
is passed as approved by the Inter-
state and Foreign Commerce Com-
mittee, it will do what I feared might
sometime occur if the Federal Govern-
ment entered the field. It will preempt
California's States rights and may
seriously set us back for years to
come in our efforts to rid California
of its terrible smog problem.
BACKGROUND AND
TECHNICAL MATERIAL
Since the time that smog became a
major nuisance in the Los Angeles
Basin, important steps have been
taken to control objectionable emis-
sions. In 1947 an air pollution control
district was formed in Los Angeles
County charged with the task of
returning clean air to this area. The
District was created by State law and
it designates the county supervisors
as members of the governing board of
the district. As such, they are directly
responsible to the voters. In the 18
years of its existence, dust, smoke,
and fumes from steel factories,
mineral industries, foundries, and
the petroleum industry have been con-
trolled to a very high degree. At
present these industries have set an
example for the rest of the country in
cleanliness of their operations. As a
matter of fact, the real estate develop-
ment in the southwestern part of the
basin would have been unthinkable
without this control. One of the most
difficult accomplishments and one of
the most exasperating, too, has been
the control of open burning in dumps
and in home incinerators. The result
of these control efforts is clearly seen
in monitoring records which show
that dust and oxides of sulfur have
reached better than prewar levels.
After the cause of the eye-irritating
part of the smog was identified, con-
trol of hydrocarbons at the petroleum
industry was started. This phase of
the control effort was practically
finished around 1957.
In the meantime, the automobile
emissions have more than doubled and
gains made in hydrocarbon control at
the refineries have been more than
neutralized by this increase. While in
the early part of the 1950's the district
conducted exploratory investigations
on automobile emissions, this was dis-
continued when in 1960 a State law
was passed which created a special
motor vehicle pollution board charged
with the responsibility of controlling
emissions of cars. The auto testing
laboratory of the county was trans-
ferred to the State. During the 6
years of its existence important steps
-------
876
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
toward hydrocarbon control have been
taken. The 1966 cars have both crank-
case and tailpipe emission brought
to the State of California health
standards. These standards require
a tighter control in 1970 when the
present exhaust standards of 275
will be reduced to 180 parts per mil-
lion.
It is thus abundantly clear, Mr.
Speaker, that southern California be-
came aware of the dangers of smog
long before other major metropolitan
areas even admitted that they suffered
from the same malady. However, the
victory is far from won, in fact just
holding our own has been a problem.
But California is far ahead of any
other part of the Nation in fighting
smog—through enforcement of much
stricter regulations than the rest of
the Nation. We agree that Federal
smog legislation is badly needed, but
not legislation that will impede Cali-
fornia's progress. That brings me to
the pending measure, S. 780, from the
possibility of its impeding Cali-
fornia's progress.
As originally drafted in the
other body, S. 780 set Federal
standards to comply with those now in
effect in California—toughest in the
country. But if the measure were to
pass in that form, it would mean that
the Federal law would have preempted
California's. In other words, if Cali-
fornia wanted to raise its standards
for controlling auto smog, it would
have to come to Washington to get a
new law passed. So Senator MURPHY,
of California, offered an amendment
which would permit California to have
stricter standards if it deemed them
to be necessary. The amendment was
accepted unanimously. This is section
208 (b) of the bill. Let me make it
crystal clear that California is not
asking to be released from the stand-
ards in the bill. We intend to comply
with them. After all, they are ours in
effect as of now. We simply want to
be able to have any stricter standards
that may be necessary to solve the
problem. They will not be the whim of
any one person. They will have to be
placed into effect by appropriate
legislation passed by the California
State Legislature.
When the bill reached the House
Interstate and Foreign Commerce
Committee, the auto industry brought
in its heavy weapons, and the result
was that the Murphy language was
amended out, and in its place was
inserted the so-called Dingell amend-
ment. This turns the situation com-
pletely around. It states that the
Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare may, after notice and oppor-
tunity for public hearing, upon appli-
cation of any State which has
adopted standards, prescribed stand-
ards limited to such State, which are
more stringent. This means that Cali-
fornia could not by legislative action
have more stringent standards without
first coming to the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare and
getting permission. This could be
a long, involved, time-consuming
process. In fact, it places the entire
State of California at the mercy of
the decision of one appointed head
of a Federal department. This just
does not make sense.
The automobile industry argues
that they cannot be faced with the
possibility of being required to have
different equipment for different
States. If such a possibility existed, I
could understand their concern. But
California has the greatest problem,
and if it is to be solved, it will have
to be solved through the com-
bined efforts of all concerned. And
if we solve it, then other States
that may later be faced with the prob-
lem will be years ahead in being able
to base their decisions on the efforts
and results which take place in Cali-
fornia. California has been entirely
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
877
cooperative with the
and it seems to me
auto industry
[p. 30941]
that the industry should be doing
everything it can to cooperate with
California. After all, California has
almost one-tenth of the total popula-
tion of the 50 States, and more than
10 percent of all automobiles sold are
purchased in California. And the cost
of any required equipment will be
added to the price of the car. Cali-
fornians purchasing cars will pay for
it—not the automobile manufacturer.
Does this not seem fair so far as the
industry is concerned?
Let me emphasize that California is
not asking for any money. Our exemp-
tion will not affect tourists. It is only
to cars sold in California. We are not
asking for a public works project or
the like. We just want our States
rights. We want to have the right to
try to solve our very serious problem.
As an example of the seriousness,
and of the interest in California, let
me mention the following. On October
5 and 6, 1967, this year, the California
Legislature Assembly Committee on
Transportation and Commerce held
hearings. Dr. Joseph F. Boyle, presi-
dent of the Los Angeles County Medi-
cal Association, testified as follows on
October 5:
The Environmental Health Committee of the
Los Angeles County Medical Association, repre-
senting approximately 10,000 physicians, has
reviewed air monitoring measurements and
other data compiled by the Los Angeles County
Air Pollution Control District. This committee
concludes that air pollution is becoming in-
creasingly worse and may lead to great lethal-
ity in this community.
The evidence is conclusive that the increase
in the significant components of this air pollu-
tion is due primarily to emissions from motor
vehicles. These emissions constitute a serious
threat to the health of residents of the Los
Angeles Basin. Although this is especially true
for those who are ill, the very young and the
aged, it also applies to those who are presently
in good health.
The Los Angeles County Medical Association
wishes to emphasize to the Legislature of the
State of California and the Congress of the
United States that A critical and worsening
health crisis exists in Los Angeles County de-
spite all efforts for its control. The pending
crisis is imminent and demands that every ap-
propriate action, however drastic, be taken
immediately. No further delay can be tolerated
with safety.
In this morning's mail I received,
by air mail, a package which was
delivered to me about an hour ago. It
contained a set of X-rays. I am not
familiar with X-rays. I cannot read
them. I am not a doctor. I have not
shown them to any doctor. I want to
show the Members I have the X-rays
here, and if any Member wishes to
see them he can.
Accompanying the X-rays was a
letter, dated Oct. 30, 1967, from a con-
stituent, I do not know him personally.
He is Mr. Paul A. Kyrlach.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
PRICE of Illinois). The gentleman has
consumed 15 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of California. Mr.
Speaker, I yield myself 5 additional
minutes.
This letter was in the pouch with
the X-rays. It reads in part:
H. ALLEN SMITH,
Congressman, Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN SMITH : The x-ray that
accompanies this letter was taken of the chest
of my three year old daughter, Debbie, on Oc-
tober 23, 1967.
You will note that my Deborah's lungs show
an infection. Our doctor called it: "smogitus."
A low grade bronchial infection he directly
attributed to the polluted air of the recent Los
Angeles smog attack. His prescription: Pray
for some clear days—and effective controls.
It is my wish that you show this tragic effect
of air pollution to Congressman Dingell and
solicit his suggestions for me. Should I uproot
my family and move from the Los Angeles
area?
The x-rays are on loan from: Glendale Clin-
ical Laboratories, 1371 E. Colorado, Glendale,
California.
Please return either to me or them as I am
presently signed out with them. Thank you.
PAUL A. KYRLACH.
His pessimism was echoed by the
local and State county's air pollution
control officer, Louis J. Fuller and by
-------
878
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Eric Grant, executive officer of the
State motor vehicle pollution control
board. Both officials warned that
California's present auto emission
standards are inadequate and must be
strengthened to cope with the con-
tinuing increase of motor vehicles.
As a result of these hearings, the
committee unanimously agreed that
California must retain the right to
set and enforce its own standards for
controlling motor vehicle emissions.
On October 5, 1967, the Los Angeles
City Council passed a resolution call-
ing upon Congress to amend the Air
Quality Act of 1967 to permit Cali-
fornia to set and maintain more
stringent standards for controlling air
pollution and also allow California to
administer such standards at the
State level. The Los Angeles County
Board of Supervisors took similar ac-
tion. The County Supervisors Associa-
tion of the State of California took
similar action. Newspapers, television,
and radio are daily requesting the
same action. Thousands of petitions
have been sent to us here in Washing-
ton representing California.
An amendment will be offered to
delete the so-called Dingell amend-
ment and to reinstate the so-called
Murphy amendment. We in California
respectfully ask your support. Cer-
tainly 20 million people are more
entitled to the support of the Con-
gress of the United States than is the
automobile industry. I urge you to
help us.
Mr. Speaker, I know of no objection
to the rule, and urged its adoption.
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10
minutes to the gentleman from Cali-
fornia [Mr. HOLIFIELD].
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate this time during the con-
sideration of the rule, because I know
that the time will be very tight during
general debate and it probably will be
very difficult for a nonmember of the
committee to get any time.
I want to say at the beginning I
think that the bill S. 780, that has
been reported by the committee, is in
general a good bill. I want to compli-
ment the committee chairman, the
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr.
STAGGERS!, and the subcommittee
chairman, the gentleman from Michi-
gan [Mr. DINGELL], and the members
of that committee on both sides of the
aisle, because I think they have done
a pretty good job.
I want it to be very plain and clear
that the California delegation is not
opposing this bill. Neither do we have
any antagonism to any member of the
committee. I served with John Dingell,
Sr., in this House for 12 years. He
was one my very good friends and one
of my best friends. I served with
JOHN DINGELL, Jr., his son, for 12
years also, it so happens. I believe that
we have had a good friendship. We
have differed on a few questions and
a few problems, but I think we have
a good friendship.
I want to make it very clear that I
am not among those in the press or
otherwise who questions any Mem-
ber's motives.
I do not go along with scurrilous
attacks on the motives of Members. I
do not care whether they are on my
side of the aisle or on the other side of
the aisle because I just do not believe
in doing business that way.
While this legislation in my opinion
is good legislation, I believe it can be
made better. I believe there is no
reason why in the judgment of the
House amendments cannot be offered
to bills, and all of us know that they
are offered to bills, almost every bill
that comes before this House. The
House has a right to work its judg-
ment after the committee has done its
job.
Now, we in California have a
unique problem, and that problem is
caused by what we call an atmos-
pheric inversion. It is also caused, to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
879
some extent, by the peculiar topog-
raphy of the metropolitan area of
Los Angeles County, and the ad
joining counties, because there is a
spillover of this smog into adjoining
counties.
We are talking about a place where
more than 7 million people live in
Los Angeles County alone, and
another million in Orange County,
where the gentlemen from California
[Mr. HANNA and Mr. UTT] represent
the people. We are talking about more
people than in many of the States of
the Union in population, and we are
talking about more than 10 million
automotive devices of different kinds,
buses, trucks and automobiles. Twice
as many automotive devices as any
State in the Union, twice as many as
New York, twice as many as Ohio,
and we are crowded into small coastal
areas and plains in between two great
mountain chains. The mountain chain
behind the metropolitan area of Los
Angeles is 8,500 feet high. All you
have to do is look at the photographs
that are out in the lobby here, and
you can see the density of this smog
coming into that Los Angeles
basin and lying there. You can see it
at 8:30 in the morning when men are
going to work in the factories with
their lights on. The pictures are out
there.
And let me tell you that these are
genuine pictures, they are genuine
pictures of smog conditions. They have
nothing to do with the forest fires in
California. I have a letter from the
Los Angeles County Flood Control, so
let us not have that assertion made
during this debate, to the effect that
these were taken on days when the
forest fires were burning, and when
the winds were blowing toward Los
Angeles, and over the basin.
I have heard that-there is going to
be that assertion made, and I want to
lay that to rest right now. These
pictures were taken last week or the
week of October 23, many of them.
Now, I see my good friend, Mr. H. R.
[p. 30942]
GROSS, coming down the aisle with
a gleam in his eye. He said to me
yesterday, "You know, it is a real
pleasure to me to see CHET HOLIFIELD
advocating States rights.
I want to say to my friend, H. R.
GROSS, that I am not embarrassed a
bit. I have voted for many States
rights provisions in bills in this House
many, many times, and I have also
voted for Federal principles in
national legislation. And I will say
that every Member in this House who
votes for Senate bill S. 780 is voting
for a Federal principle that carries
across the Nation. And I hope that I
can vote for Senate bill S. 780 also.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield to my
friend from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, all I
want to say to the gentleman is
welcome to the ranks, you are real
welcome to the ranks.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I thank my good
friend. He said to me one day, if he
thought I would resign—he said, "I
get more pleasure out of you than
any other Member of Congress"—and,
of course, that is true.
Unfortunately, the flow of air
knows no State boundaries. It knows
no city boundaries. It knows no
county boundaries. That is
why regional areas are recognizing
this bill that the committee has pro-
posed.
We ask that California, a State
larger in population, larger in square
miles, and larger in its automobile
inventory than many regions of the
United States that have a number of
States in it—be allowed not only to
conform to the bill, S. 780, but to go
beyond S. 780, to strip the require-
-------
880
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
ments which are required by the Los
Angeles County area because of that
atmosphere and congestion of cold
air coming in from the ocean to hold
these auto emissions down at that
level where people have to breathe.
I believe that the bill is a step
forward nationally in that it requires
of the automobile companies the same
kinds of devices that we have required
in California now for a number of
years. When the automobile companies
express concern just remember this—
than since 1961 they have been putting
these devices on these automobiles;
and listen to this—the people of Cali-
fornia have been paying for that.
We have some of the devices right
here. Here is an air pump.
Here is a cutaway section of a
valve chamber. All the motor does is
to pump oxygen into the valve
chamber and the oxygen causes the
hot air in the valve chamber to burn
in place of going out in the form of
raw gasoline from the tailpipe of an
automobile.
These devices run at different
prices but this combination runs about
$50. But the manufacturer does not
pay for it. The citizen in California
pays for it. Nobody complains because
it is a lot better to pay for something
to clean the air that you are breathing
than it is to have your eyes smarting
and to go around coughing and having
people die from pneumonia, and
children have died. Smog does raise
the death rate in those areas during
that period of time.
So the people of California are
willing to work out their own prob-
lems—and I will say this—we have
been working on it since 1947 and we
have spent over $50 million in Los
Angeles County alone of taxpayers'
money. We have bought over $150
million worth of these devices in
California.
There are 7.8 million cars in Cali-
fornia that have these devices now in
one form or another and not all of
them are identical to this—but the
devices as we have developed them
from a technological standpoint have
improved and are surely better
devices. We want to keep on
improving these devices because our
present devices are not doing the job
we want done in California. We are
just keeping even and the reason we
are only keeping even, although these
devices improve the output of emis-
sions by a factor in some instances
from 50 percent to 65 percent—the
reason we are not getting any better
is because this year there will be
600,000 new automobiles coming into
California.
So as we improve the air from the
automobiles that are there, 600,000 a
year more are coming in and spewing
more pollutants into the air.
This situation does not obtain in
any State in the United States. It
does not apply to those States in the
Midwest that have a free flow of air
coming across the plains or to the
States where they have a strong wind
from the ocean, the Atlantic Coast
and places like that. We are in a
peculiar situation. We are not asking
to be exempted from the Federal
standards because we want lower
standards. We know that we will con-
form to the Federal standards but we
want to go beyond that. What is
wrong with that? We are willing to
pay for it—what is wrong with that?
That is the amendment that the
gentleman from California [Mr. Moss]
will offer and that is the amendment
which was accepted by a vote of 88 to
0 in the other body.
All we are asking is to be given a
chance to work out our own salvation
at our own cost. All right—if you
want States rights—is that States
rights or is it not?
Do we in California, who have
several hundred experts working on
this problem, and who have been work-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
881
ing on it for a period of 20 years,
know more about the situation than
some bureaucrat here in Washington?
I say that we do. I say the very
standards that we have adopted, many
of them at our own expense—80 or
90 percent at our own expense—are
now being- considered and adopted by
the Federal agencies that are in-
volved.
So when the Moss amendment
comes to the floor of the House, which
is a reinstitution of the Murphy
amendment that was accepted in the
Senate, I hope the Members of the
House will give it the consideration
that we deem is necessary for the
health of our people in the State of
California. We do not want to break
Federal laws by setting lower stand-
ards at Federal levels. We want to be
allowed to spend our own money to
protect the health of our own people.
That is what we are asking for.
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3
minutes to the distinguished chairman
of the Committee on Rules, the gentle-
man from Mississippi [Mr. COLMER].
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, first I
want to extend my sympathy to the
members of the California delegation
on both sides of the aisle and welcome
them into the States rights fold.
What is the problem here? They
want to spend their own money to
regulate the air in California. They
do not want the Federal Government
giving them a minimum or a maximum
provision in taking care of this very
serious problem.
Why can they not do that? Why
cannot the sovereign state of Califor-
nia do the very thing that they want
to do?
The question is answered very
simply. This great judicial body
across the plaza in their marble
palace has invoked the doctrine of
preemption. They take the position, as
they took in the Cloverleaf Butter case
and in a half dozen or more other
cases, including one involving subver-
sive activities in Pennsylvania, that
once the Congress has entered a field
of legislation, State statutes are null
and void.
Is it not that simple? Does anyone
disagree with that? Very well, we do
not.
My great predecessor, the former
chairman of the Rules Committee,
here recognized that problem a long
time ago. For several years he intro-
duced in the Congress, as did I, a bill
known as H.R. 3, which would restore
the right to the States to do the very
thing you are trying to do here today.
But some people who, like the Court,
term themselves "great liberals," will
not go along with that needed reform.
I say that I have sympathy for
these people. I am going to support
their amendment for whatever that is
worth. I do not imagine it will be
worth very much, but whatever I can
contribute, I will do so.
I have pending in the great Judi-
ciary Committee of the House, not H.
R. 3, but H.R. 395, introduced on the
first day of this session, a bill which is
similar to H.R. 3 that I have just
been talking about.
I repeat, I am going to support the
amendment of the gentleman from
California, but my purpose in rising
is to urge not only the California dele-
gation, but all other delegations to get
behind that legislation. Let us pass it
and restore to the States the rights
that they once enjoyed as sovereign
States.
It is California's trouble today, and
it will be Missouri's problem
tomorrow. It has been Mississippi's
problem a long time.
Let us get back to the fundamental
principles of the Constitution, which
under the Bill of Rights simply says
that all of those powers not delegated
specifically to the Federal Govern-
ment shall remain in the States or the
people.
-------
882
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Mr. SMITH of California. Mr.
Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California [Mr.
TALCOTT].
Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I live
in a county—Monterey County, of
California—on the beautiful central
coast on scenic and historic Monte-
rey Bay, one of the major tourist
attractions of
[p. 30943]
the United States, and one of the
most productive agricultural areas in
the world. In addition to the many
important arguments already made
by my distinguished colleagues who
represent urban areas, I want to re-
mind those Members representing
rural areas that you do not have to
live in the big cities or be entwined
with freeways and overrun by motor
vehicles to be concerned about smog
and poisoned air.
Rural agricultural areas should be
just as apprehensive and concerned
as the big cities or megalopoli.
Our county literally turned down
an application by Humble Oil Co. to
build a $38 million modern refinery at
Moss Landing on Monterey Bay. No
other county in the Nation would turn
down such a facility; but we are con-
cerned about air pollutants. All rural
and agricultural areas should be
joining with the big cities in the
fight to keep our air clean. If you live
in, or represent a rural area and are
not yet worried about the dangers of
air pollution, please do not vote to
prevent us from protecting our people,
our agricultural industry, our towns,
and our rural areas from the "four
D's of pollution"—death, disability,
discomfort, or damage.
The continual pollution of our en-
vironment by men and machines must
be restrained. Most Members of the
Congress have finally come around to
this terrible realization. We are many
years late.
To combat pollution great individual
and collective consideration and effort
are required. The citizens should have
a right to join forces to deter the
defilement of their communities. No
person has the right to pollute
another's environment. No person
should be required to tolerate
another's inconsiderate or malicious
pollution of another's private prop-
erty, or water, or air, or public place.
Strict laws are as necessary to pro-
tect our environment—air, land, and
water—as to protect our personal
safety and national interests.
Many States and communities have
long since taken positive steps to
safeguard their environment for them-
selves and their posterity.
Monterey County in California was
the first county in America to employ
a fulltime litter control officer to help
keep our roadsides clean and attrac-
tive. We believe we have a right to
prevent our own citizens and visitors
from despoiling our roadside scenery
and cluttering our highways with
debris.
Long- ago, our country banned bill-
boards from the scenic roadways to
preserve the natural beauty of our
area. We set high standards and guard
them zealously. We were disappointed
and frustrated when the Highway
Beautification Act of 1966 degraded
our standards. We were not satisfied
with the mediocrity forced upon us
by the Federal legislation.
Long ago, the State of California
attacked the problem of air pollution
and smog. We have made great prog-
ress. We have probably been the
foremost contributor to the "war on air
pollution." We in California have set
standards for the rest of the Nation
to emulate. Air pollution is a deadly
enemy. We cannot relax our effort or
permit our attack to flag.
Almost always Federal legislation
is a consensus, a compromise, a half
measure. Federal legislation is seldom
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
883
superior; it is almost always mediocre.
This bill is a classic example of this
particular shortcoming and failure of
Federal legislation. Here, one State,
California, has superior legislation
designed to protect its citizens from a
deadly condition. California would be
derelict in its public responsibility if
it did not develop and maintain
adequate safeguards for its citizens
against air pollution.
This is a State responsibility re-
gardless of what the national interest
or Federal attitude may be. It is
ironic that the committee report on
page nine states:
The approach taken in this bill would hinge
mainly on State action to deal with air pollu-
tion problems ... In brief, the States would
be responsible for setting air quality standards
... it will be up to the State governments to
determine, first, the maximum concentrations
of pollutants that will be permitted in the air.
Yet, when it comes to one of the
major sources of air pollution, the
State which has on its own initiative
taken the most effective action to con-
trol pollution from automobile exhaust
would be precluded from setting
standards more stringent than those
for other States.
Failure to accept the so called Mur-
phy amendment is tantamount to
active and direct intervention by the
Federal Government to prevent the
State of California from protecting its
citizens from death, disability, dis-
comfort, or damage.
Here is a State acting on the basis
of unrefuted evidence and in the best
interests of its citizens and the Nation
which will be frustrated and even
prevented from taking the necessary
steps to ameliorate air pollution unless
this amendment is adopted.
The Moss-Reinecke amendment
should be passed unanimously. Can
there possibly be a Member of this
House who would intentionally vote
for a bill which would prevent a State
official from acting in the best
interests of the citizens of the State?
I cannot believe that such is true.
If any Member votes against this
amendment, he will be committing
two serious errors. First, he may con-
tribute to the death, disability, dis-
comfort, or damage to millions of
California residents and visitors.
Second, he will be dramatizing the
mediocrity of general Federal laws
which perforce must apply evenly to
every citizen in every State.
There can now be little wonder why
many of us prefer to permit the indi-
vidual States to solve their own local
problems. Federal laws too often im-
pose mediocrity upon all citizens. In
this instance, we cannot tolerate the
mediocrity. In this case, the mediocrity
can cause death, disability, discomfort,
or damage.
We must pass the Murphy amend-
ment; we must let the State of Cali-
fornia establish higher standards; we
must permit the State of California to
set new examples and lead the way
for cleaner air. We can do all this
without any harm to any other citi-
zen in any other State. We can do more
to fight air pollution by passing this
amendment than by defeating it.
I urge every Member to let Cali-
fornia and other like-minded States
protect their citizens and visitors
from the disabling, discomforting and
lethal effects of air pollution. I urge
the passage of this amendment.
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. PICKLE].
Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
support of the rule and in support
of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, air pollution is one of
the most major health challenges con-
fronting Americans tolay. The
prospects of a spoiled atmosphere are
awesome, therefore I rise in support
of the wise and timely provisions of
the Air Quality Act of 1967.
-------
884
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
As a member of the Interstate and
Foreign Commerce Committee, I have
an intrinsic knowledge of the prob-
lems faced in determining the final
form of this bill—and I commend it to
you now as the best possible solution
to this ultracritical problem.
Since 1963, when the Clean Air Act
was first passed, the Federal Govern-
ment has recognized the need for con-
trolling the level of pollution in our
air. Later measures were passed in
1965 and 1966 to strengthen and
improve the legislation under which
these programs were initiated, and
under all of these laws, the initiative
is vested in the State and local gov-
ernments. The Federal Government is
presently spending over $25 million a
year on matching grants and research
and this has gone to create 80 new
local air pollution programs and to
improve some 40 others. Also, the cur-
rent laws have provided the basis for
national standards controlling the
emissions from automobiles, and these
go into effect on the 1968 models.
There is virtually no region of this
country that is totally exempt from
the danger of air pollution. The
growth, amount and complexity of air
pollution that has been brought about
by urbanization, industrial develop-
ment and the increasing use of auto-
mobiles has resulted in mounting im-
mediate dangers to the public health
and welfare.
The Surgeon General has cited evi-
dence to support his conclusion that—
Air pollution is clearly unquestionably a fac-
tor in the development of not one, but many
diseases affecting literally millions of our
people.
I feel that the start made on the
problem of air pollution is indeed a
good one. It is characterized by re-
sponsible, sound judgment and I think
the groundwork has been laid.
The legislation we consider reflects
a realization of what is really at stake
in the fight against air pollution and
provides unprecedented opportunities
for effective control action at all levels
of Government. Control actions, that I
might add, can and will save lives.
We cannot afford to wait until each
community and hamlet in this Nation
is faced with killer fogs or smogs
similar to those which killed hundreds
of British in the 1950's.
Still, there are unsatisfied problems
in the program, and it is to these that
the act of 1967 is addressed. Perhaps
one of the greatest loopholes in the
current law
[p. 30944]
is that for those areas which do not
choose to initiate their own control
system there is very little left in the
way of relief. Even though the pollu-
tion of one city may carry across
State lines to do harm and discomfort
in another State, there is no central
authority to which an appeal for relief
can be made.
The Air Quality Control Act of 1967
handles this problem. Under the terms
of the act the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare is required
to delineate the broad atmospheric
areas of the Nation, mainly on the
basis of those meteorological and topo-
graphical factors that influence the
diffusion and transport of pollutants
in the air. Then, after consultation
with State and local agencies, the De-
partment would be empowered to
designate "air quality control
regions." Such regions could include
parts of two or more States or could
lie entirely within a single State. In
either case, each one would include a
group of communities affected by a
common air-pollution problem.
After a region has been established,
a regional planning agency, containing
representatives from the States in-
volved, would meet to review the causes
of the particular problems they face.
The Secretary would assist them by
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
885
providing information—criteria—as to
what particular pollutants are preva-
lent in the area, and by giving advice
as to what steps are available to con-
trol that pollution. The regional
agency then would establish what
levels of pollution would be allowed
in their region, and what individuals
must do to comply with that decision
—this function is known as setting
standards.
Finally, the States who are mem-
bers of a region are individually
responsible to enforce the standards
they have agreed to. Thus, the States
must be an active participant, and
can, and should, take the leading role
in establishing standards.
Only if there is a breakdown of the
process which I have just described
will the Federal Government become
actively involved. Hence, if a regional
planning agency fails to set standards,
the Secretary may perform this
function. If the enforcement a State
affords is inadequate, then the Secre-
tary may initiate suit to enforce the
standards.
Through this system, local initiative
and control is preserved, but when
local governments fail to act, there is
still a means to protect the public.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us
today has received broad, bipartisan
support. Only last week, the House
Republican policy committee endorsed
the bill, and I am glad to see that
there is such good understanding of
the problem.
As President Johnson said in his
clean air message of January 30,
1967:
Ten years from now, when industrial pro-
duction and waste disposal have increased and
the number of automobiles on our streets and
highways exceeds 110 million, we shall have
lost the battle for clean air—unless we
strengthen our regulatory and research efforts.
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from Cali-
fornia [Mr. HANNA],
Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, at the
outset I should like to correct an im-
pression that was left with the letter
that my good friend, the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. DINGELL], sent to
all Members relative to an article that
appeared in the Fullerton News Trib-
une, which happens to be in my
district. I have a telegram from Mr.
Elfstren, publisher of the newspaper,
this morning in which he says:
I am afraid Congressman Dingell has mis-
understood the editorial position taken on
October 3, by the Fullerton News Tribune. The
Tribune fully supports the California Dele-
gation's attempt to gain a waiver allowing
California's high standards for air pollution
control devices to remain in effect.
I should like further, in the
presence of the gentleman from Michi-
gan [Mr. DINGELL], to make reference
to that letter in which he says that
the bill provides the Secretary shall
promulgate for California such stand-
ards which are more stringent or
apply to emissions or substances not
covered by the nationally applicable
Federal standards. As has been
pointed out by my friend from Cali-
fornia in his presentation, the bill
actually, on page 97, dealing with the
State standards, provides that—
The Secretary may, after notice and oppor-
tunity for public hearing, upon application of
any State which has adopted standards ... if
he finds that such State requires such more
stringent or other standards . . .
I think it should be clarified, that it
is the "may" language, and not the
"shall" language.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield? The gentleman
mentioned my name.
Mr. HANNA. I will yield to the
gentleman immediately after I clarify
this point.
If the Members will look at what
very simply is proposed in the Dingell
amendment as opposed to what is in
the Senate bill and what will be pro-
prosed by Mr. Moss' amendment here,
-------
886
LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
this is the situation where we are
asking for consideration.
The Senate bill says in effect to
California, "You may go beyond the
Federal statutes unless we find that
there is no justification for your
progress." Mr. DINGELL'S amendment
says, "You shall stay where you are
unless we find there is some justifica-
tion for your going further."
So it is the question of whether the
law shall read, "Do not move until
we tell you," or whether the law shall
read, "Continue your progress until
we find some reason to stop you."
I believe the position of the Secre-
tary has to be understood in determin-
ing which way he should utilize his
powers.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HANNA. I yield to the gentle-
man from Michigan.
Mr. DINGELL. I want to read the
language of the editorial. I do not
know when the letter referred to was
sent out, but I do have a copy of the
editorial. It is from the Fullerton,
Calif., News-Tribune. It reads in part:
We do not agree that the Smog Control Pro-
gram approved by the House Commerce Com-
mittee is necessarily bad because it modified
California's option of imposing more stringent
measures than would be obligatory in the rest
of the country.
It goes on and says as follows:
California should have no difficulty in prov-
ing its case to the Secretary. There are more
automobiles in this state than there are people
in all but three of the 50 states of the Union.
It goes on and points out why Cali-
fornia should be able to come forward
very clearly and establish an adequate
basis of need for getting the special
treatment it seeks.
If the gentleman will yield further,
I will put the editorial in the RECORD.
I assume that the gentleman is fully
capable of reading it. It certainly is
capable of speaking for itself.
Mr. HANNA. Let me say that the
editorial will be in the RECORD, and
every Member can make his own
interpretation of what it says. The
language is the best evidence.
I should like to sum up by saying
it is not a question of what this
newspaper says or does not say. The
question very clearly is on what should
be the utilization of the Secretary's
powers. Shall he use his powers to
stop us from making progress, or shall
he allow us to make progress unless
his power needs to come into play to
say it is not required that we make
progress?
As to the situation in California,
with everything we have been doing
we have been losing ground to smog.
That does not mean to say California
has not been doing a good job, be-
cause this is a tremendous engineer-
ing problem. It is not a political prob-
lem we face. We have a hard time just
staying even with the problem.
Believe, my friends, we are out in
front of anyone in any other place
in the country on this problem.
Further, the people of the Los
Angeles basin have seen a bright sun
only a few hours in the last 2 weeks.
A heavy blanket of smog, made up of
nearly 14,000 tons of noxious
solid wastes are released daily into
the southern California sky returning
ordinarily bright days into muddy
brown.
*****
[p. 30945]
This condition would be unaccept-
able under any circumstance. It kills
plant life. It destroys valuable prop-
erty. And most of all, it infringes
upon what I called, in a speech
delivered before this House some
months ago, 'The Right To Breathe."
How fundamental is this right to
breathe? I would assert it is as basic
as the oft quoted phrase of the Decla-
ration of Independence that "every
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
887
man is entitled to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness." Science has
shown that clean air is essential to
normal life. We have recognized in our
foreign assistance programs that an
unhealthy person has no liberty. At
least the same standard should apply
here. Experience, such as the one the
people of southern California are en-
during at this time, indicates that
pollution of the magnitude we are
seeing is an antithesis of "happiness."
Our constituents are aroused to a
fever pitch of unhappiness over this
condition.
A STRANGE STATE OF AFFAIRS
Given the "crisis level" problem of
air pollution we observe in California,
one would expect that this Congress—
responding to the needs of this area,
as it has to earthquakes in Alaska,
floods in Louisiana, and riots in our
cities—would be turning its efforts
to more effective programs to deal
with this equally serious problem.
Instead, I and my colleagues from
California find ourselves confronted
with legislation which could if
enacted, reduce the effectiveness of
our already inadequate efforts—local,
State, and Federal—to combat this
clear and present danger to our funda-
mental right to breathe. Last spring,
shortly after the administration an-
nounced the specifics of its Air Quality
Act, I placed in the RECORD a state-
ment in which I attempted to point
out the shortcomings of the proposal.
In that statement—"The Right to
Breathe"—I said the most glaring
shortcoming of the President's clean
air program was the limited way with
which it dealt with the deadly emis-
sions from auto exhaust. I made clear
the standards for auto exhaust emis-
sions in the President's proposal were
below those required by the State of
California. I went on to say that even
with California's high standards, and
the vigorous battle waged by the Los
Angeles Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, air pollution, primarily from
auto exhaust emissions was becoming
an increasingly alarming threat in
the Los Angeles Basin.
My hope at the time I made the
statement last spring was that by
calling to the attention of the House
at an early date the serious defect in
the President's proposal ample time
would be available to develop a
strengthened piece of legislation.
Unfortunately this has not been the
case. Not only has the bill not been
strengthened, but it now carries a pro-
vision recommended by the House
Interstate Commerce Committee which
could all too easily have the effect
of reducing California's high stand-
ards for auto emissions.
The illogic of reducing California to
the inadequate minimum standards
the bill requires for the rest of the
Nation is obvious to even the most
casual observer of congressional
politics. Certainly it is difficult, in
view of the national magnitude of the
problem, to comprehend why this Con-
gress does not demand that the stand-
ards for auto exhaust emissions be
equal to the standards of California.
To penalize California for being ahead
of the rest of the country in combating
the menace of air pollution is totally
incomprehensible.
Section 208 (b) of the air quality
bill which is before us represents a
deliberate attempt on the part of
special interest groups to strip our
State of the ability to protect our
people's right to breathe. It will
penalize our State for making a sig-
nificant attempt to control air pollu-
tion. I am completely opposed to the
section of the bill which reduces Cali-
fornia's standards and will support my
able colleague, Representative Moss,
in his efforts to amend this bill to
allow California's more rigorous
standards to remain in effect.
-------
888
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
The irony of this sitution is inescap-
able. History will surely judge harshly
a Congress which, in the face of a
massive attack by noxious air pollu-
tion, crippled our State's already
inadequate ability to defend itself.
Mr. SMITH of California. Mr.
Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. BELL].
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BELL. I yield to the gentleman
from California.
Mr. HOSMER. I thank the gentle-
man.
I just want to point out, in connec-
tion with the so-called controversial
editorial, it comes 5rom a relatively
small newspaper in a relatively smog
free area, and undoubtedly was writ-
ten by a man who had absolutely no
experience in trying to convince a
Washington bureaucrat that some kind
of standard he requires higher than
those for somebody else should be
imposed.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BELL. I yield to my distin-
guished friend from California.
Mr. MOSS. I should like to point
out that my good friend from Michi-
gan had to search long and hard to
find even this single remote editorial
which ambiguously states a case
which could be interpreted either in
support of or in opposition to his
amendment. I do not believe he will
produce other editorials from my
State even giving this very fragile
support to his position.
Mr. BELL. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, if anyone in the
United States has earned the right
to demand full Federal cooperation in
controlling air pollution, it is the 7
million people of Los Angeles County.
For 20 years, they have operated
the leading control program for
stationary sources of pollution at a
cost that has been estimated at three-
quarters of a billion dollars.
Today, as the result of this tre-
mendous effort, pollution from such
sources is minor.
Ninety percent of pollutants in the
atmosphere of Los Angeles County
result from motor vehicles.
Exhaust ctontrol systems have been
installed on cars sold in California
since 1965.
But much more effective controls
are urgently needed.
Present State law requires more
effective devices beginning with 1970
models.
If the Federal Government com-
pletely preempts the field, this advance
by my State will be nullified.
When the Senate Subcommittee on
Air and Water Pollution visited Los
Angeles, it was recommended that
they do one of two things: First,
either set the national standards for
motor vehicle emissions at the level
required for Los Angeles or, second,
allow the State of California to estab-
lish standards more stringent than
those for the rest of the Nation.
The other body wisely chose the
second alternative.
But as reported to this House, Mr.
Speaker, the bill would destroy Cali-
fornia's initiative—-and the progress
it has made—in cleaning its own air.
The people of California want, and
have earned, the right to set their
own standards for control of motor
vehicle emission.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues
to recognize that right.
I urge the membership to support
the amendment that will be offered by
the gentleman from California [Mr.
Moss].
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very
reasonable, also, to say that, in the
past as in the present, whenever the
Federal Government has given aid to
States, they have always allowed the
States to update or upgrade their pro-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
889
grams. In other words the States
always have retained the right to
upgrade their own methods of prob-
lem solving. This has applied to educa-
tion, poverty, and health programs
and many others. It is very important
that this principle be maintained and
that the States reserve the right to
upgrade their programs to meet the
complex problems within their own
borders.
Mr. REID of New York. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BELL. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. REID of New York. Mr. Speak-
er, I commend the gentleman for the
statement he is making with regard to
California. I think it has equal appli-
cability to New York. As the gentle-
man knows, at Thanksgiving of last
year there was a serious thermal in-
version affecting the New York City
area. The statistics on that are rela-
tively shocking, because there was a
striking and severe increase experi-
enced in death rates from arterio-
sclerotic heart disease. I would hope
that no State would be prohibited from
setting the highest possible standards
and taking every appropriate action
to save lives and prevent any de-
terioration in the health of our popu-
lation that might result from these
conditions. I hope both California and
New York are free to do what is
clearly indicated.
In a word, the legislation should be
amended to permit States to effect
more stringent standards where
needed, and I understand that such an
amendment is to be offered today.
In this connection, I am also
disturbed that under the provisions of
this bill as it has been brought to the
floor, not more
[p. 30946]
than 10 percent of the total funds
appropriated or allocated for grants
for support of air pollution planning
and control programs under section
104 (a) may be granted for programs
in any one State. I would hope that
it would be possible for the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare to
approve grants in excess of that per-
centage when he determines that one
or more air pollution control agencies
is in critical need of such aid in light
of the extent of its actual or poten-
tial air pollution problem.
The simple fact, Mr. Speaker, is
that if we are to make meaningful
headway in combating the awful
menace of air pollution we must be
willing to concentrate our efforts in
those cities and regions where the
need is critical. When factors of
population, geography, industrial pro-
duction, wind patterns, and other re-
lated elements combine to produce air
pollution problems of the highest
order of magnitude, we must be
willing to meet these problems with
assistance in excess of any predeter-
mined limit.
Mr. BELL. I thank the gentleman
for hisscomments.
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I urge the
adoption of the resolution so that the
committee may be permitted to discuss
the bill before us.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous
question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I
move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill (S. 780) to
amend the Clean Air Act to authorize
planning grants to air pollution con-
trol agencies; expand research pro-
visions relating to fuels and vehicles;
provide for interstate air pollution
control agencies or commissions;
authorize the establishment of air
quality standards, and for other
purposes.
The motion was agreed to.
526-702 O - 73 -- 21
-------
890
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the bill S. 780,
with Mr. GALLAGHER in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first
reading of the bill was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule,
the gentleman from West Virginia
[Mr. STAGGERS] will be recognized for
1 hour and the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER] will be recog-
nized for 1 hour. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from West
Virginia.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, we
have heard a great deal of discussion
here about this bill, and particularly
about one aspect of this bill. This is a
very important bill to all America,
and I am sure every Member of the
Congress recognizes its importance.
As the gentleman from New York
stated in regard to the incident that
occurred in New York City to which
some 40 to 80 deaths have been
attributed, certainly New York is
involved, and every other State in the
Union is involved in this problem.
The bill we have before us today is
designed to deal with a health prob-
lem which is serious today and which,
unfortunately, is going to become
more serious as time goes on.
Air pollution is a problem which
has only come to nationwide attention
in relatively recent years, although it
has been a problem in isolated areas
throughout history. It has been re-
ported that the citizens of ancient
Rome were troubled by the smoky air
of that city. In England during the
Middle Ages, the people of London
were troubled by smoke, and it has
been reported that during the 16th
century, a man was executed in Eng-
land for violating English law against
the burning of soft coal.
Every civilization requires large
amounts of energy, obtained primarily
by burning fuels. Industrial processes
give off byproducts, some of which are
annoying, some obnoxious, and some
hazardous to health.
Although many cities in the United
States have had smoke-control ordi-
nances for relatively long periods of
time, there have been few, if any,
controls on other forms of air pollu-
tion. We have now reached the point,
however, where the disposal of the
byproducts from the combustion of
fuels and other industrial processes is
beginning to adversely affect all of us.
It is unfortunate, but true, that a
high level of prosperity and increasing
amounts of air pollution have gone to-
gether. As we produce more and con-
sume more, we have to dispose of
byproducts, and the only places they
can go are our rivers, our soil, and
our air. As our prosperity has in-
creased in recent years, the contami-
nants that have entered our atmos-
phere have increased, both in gross
quantities and also in increased types.
There is a correlation between
levels of air pollution and adverse
effects on health and welfare. Testi-
mony before our committee showed
that there is a direct correspondence
between increased death rates and
increased rates of disability and
disease and increased levels of pollut-
ants in the atmosphere.
Occasionally weather conditions In
the United States lead to greatly in-
creased concentration of pollutants in
specific areas. When a layer of warm
air occurs above a layer of relatively
cool air, this thermal inversion pre-
vents pollutants placed in the air at
lower levels from being dispersed and
their concentrations increase. Thermal
inversions occur over most of the
United States. They occur with the
greatest frequency in the Los Angeles
area because of the geography of that
area, and the pattern of pre-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
891
vailing winds. These inversions also
occur on the east coast of the United
States, and although they occur with
less frequency than is the case in
the Los Angeles area, the east coast
inversions usually cover a much
greater area, sometimes extending
from as far south as Georgia to as far
north as Massachusetts.
During times of thermal inversion,
as pollutant levels increase in the
atmosphere, death rates go up. Occa-
sionally, extremely severe inversions
occur, and so-called air pollution dis-
asters then take place. Such a disaster
killed over 4,000 people in London in
1952. It has been estimated that as
many as 250 excess deaths occurred
in the New York City area during the
thermal inversion in the winter of
1962. New York City and the sur-
rounding area faced a potentially
serious situation last Thanksgiving as
the result of a thermal inversion,
which led the mayor of that city to
shut down the municipal incinerators
for several days and to request that
citizens voluntarily limit the amount
of driving they did in the area.
We have reached a point now where
our capacity to contaminate our
environment is approaching our ability
to control that contamination.
The Congress has been, since 1954,
dealing with the problem of air pollu-
tion through legislation providing
initially for research, then through
subsequent amendments, for acceler-
ated research and training programs,
grants to the States and localities to
aid in the establishment and mainte-
nance of air pollution control pro-
grams, and in recent years through
authority granted the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare to
take action in specific cases to deal
with individual air pollution problems.
The bill we have before us today is
designed to provide a greatly strength-
ened, accelerated, and expanded pro-
gram for the control of air pollution
nationwide.
The testimony before our committee
indicated clearly that a nationwide
approach is necessary. All witnesses
before the committee, whether they
represented the Federal Government,
State or local governments, industry,
or private organizations were in
unanimous agreement that further
action is called for today. This bill is
designed to provide that additional
program aimed at cleaning up our
Nation's air.
We held 2 weeks of hearings, and
over 2 weeks of executive sessions
considering this bill. We also had the
benefit of the hearings held before the
Senate committee this year, and after
our committee's consideration, we re-
ported to the House a bill which with
the exception of one section, is unani-
mously supported by the committee.
That one section has to do with the
preemption of California's laws re-
lating to motor vehicle emissions. In
all other respects, as I said, our com-
mittee was unanimous in supporting
this bill.
The bill establishes a program for
the control of air pollution modeled in
many respects upon the water pollu-
tion control legislation.
We had 8 days of hearings, and we
heard witness from all over the land,
from industry and from every seg-
ment of our society. We had 7 days of
executive sessions in marking the bill
up. I believe that the committee in its
collective wisdom brought forth a
good bill. It has been cut down on in
appropriation authorizations by some
$275 million below the Senate bill that
was brought over to the House. It
provides the exact funds asked in the
budget by the administration.
For the fiscal year 1968, $99 million
is authorized to be appropriated. For
the year 1969, $145 million, and for
the year 1970, $184 million.
-------
892
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
The bill follows in general the
Senate
[p. 30947]
bill. We made several amendments to
it. And as I say, I believe that we
have brought a good bill to the floor.
Briefly stated, the bill provides that
the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare shall establish air quality
control regions throughout the United
States. These regions are to be estab-
lished so as to embrace areas sharing
a common air pollution problem. The
Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare is required to issue air
quality criteria which will be state-
ments of scientific fact setting forth
the effects on health and welfare which
will occur as a result of various con-
centrations of pollutants in the air.
When these criteria are set, the
Secretary will also recommend control
measures which may be used to elimi-
nate or minimize, to the extent
feasible, pollutants of the type
covered by the criteria.
When this information is furnished
to the States, this will serve as the sig-
nal for the States to begin action. The
States included within each control
region established by the Secretary
are given 90 days to file a letter of
intent to establish a program to control
pollutants which are the subject of
the criteria and recommend control
techniques; 180 days are then given
for the State to determine the level of
air quality which they will seek to
obtain within the region in their State.
Once this level of desired ambient air
quality has been determined by the
State, 6 months are given for the
State to establish and set into opera-
tion a plan for achieving this level
of ambient air quality. As a practical
matter, this will mean control over
individual sources of pollutants. En-
forcement of these standards, both
ambient air quality and individual
emission, will be up to the States,
acting under State law. In other
words, to this point, this is a State
program operating under State stand-
ards in accordance with State law
and State procedures.
Where a State does not file a letter
of intent, or does not establish
ambient air standards which are
adequate to protect public health, or
does not adequately enforce standards
established, the Secretary is given
authority under the bill to perform
these functions for the State; how-
ever, as a practical matter the au-
thority of the Secretary is limited to
control of interstate air pollution.
Where interstate pollution is in-
volved, the Secretary may on his own
motion request the Attorney General
to go into Federal court and obtain
necessary court orders for enforce-
ment of standards. Where the pollu-
tion involved is solely intrastate, and
this will very seldom happen because
of the nature of air pollution prob-
lems, the Secretary may take action
only upon the request of the Governor
of the State affected.
We provided in the bill for the con-
tinuation of all the authority the
Secretary presently has to deal with
air pollution. Although some of the
authorities are somewhat changed,
nothing in the bill is intended to
affect existing abatement proceedings,
and the Secretary is authorized to
continue them as well as the other
programs he is conducting, such as
research, aid to State and local pro-
grams, and the like.
The bill also provides emergency au-
thority for the Secretary to deal with
actual or threatened air pollution
disasters, where the Secretary deter-
mines that there is an imminent
danger to public health such as oc-
curred in the Donora, Pa., area in
1948, where the death rate rose to 50
times normal during an air pollution
disaster, the Secretary may obtain
injunctions against polluters.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
893
The Secretary explained during our
hearings that this extraordinary
power would be exercised very cau-
tiously; that he expected State and
local officials to establish systems of
alerts and information to serve as a
basis for action under this section if
it ever proved necessary.
The committee made several changes
in the bill. We deleted a section con-
tained in the bill as passed by the
Senate providing for the earmarking
of funds for research into combustion
byproducts of fuels. It was our feeling
that existing authority in this area is
adequate and that it was, therefore,
not necessary to specifically earmark
funds for this purpose. We also
revised a provision of the bill dealing
with preemption of State laws relating
to motor vehicle exhaust controls. The
bill specifically preempts State laws
on this subject, but as passed by the
Senate would have permitted a com-
plete waiver of this preemption for
the State of California. The majority
of the committee felt that the overall
national interests required uniform
administration of controls on motor
vehicle emissions, with special recog-
nition given by the Secretary to the
unique problems facing California as
the result of numerous thermal inver-
sions that occur within that State be-
cause of its geography and prevailing
winds pattern. Because of the com-
plexity involved in the manufacture of
motor vehicles, uniform administration
of the law in this regard, we felt,
would lead to overall economies in the
manufacture of automobiles. We,
therefore, modified the Senate bill in
this regard. I expect that this area
of the bill will be more fully discussed
later in the debate by other Members.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, we have
a bill before the House today to deal
with a serious national health and
welfare problem. Unfortunately, our
technology is not today at a level
adequate to clean up our Nation's
air. Even if we had completely un-
limited amounts of money to do the
job with, we do not have the tech-
nology available to accomplish the job,
but it will be accomplished. This bill
is designed to establish a program to
deal with air pollution on a nation-
wide basis, to provide for cleaning up
the air the best we can today, and to
do an even better job in the future,
through increased research and
through increased controls today.
Our committee has thoroughly con-
sidered the problem and with the ex-
ception of the preemption question,
we unanimously recommend favorable
action by the Committee.
Now we, as I said, considered the bill
very carefully and heard all of the
witnesses. I think we have come out
with a good bill and a bill that is
essential to the country.
There has been talk of undue pres-
sures that have been placed. I do not
know where any pressures have come
from. No pressure has been put on me
and I do not know any member of the
committee that has had any pressure
put on.
The committee acted in their wis-
dom and each member has done what
he thinks is best for the Nation.
I want to go back to some other
problems just briefly.
We have said that there should be
two studies made—one with reference
to aircraft emissions in this country
—and to report back to the Congress
as to what should be done. This aifects
every State in the Nation. I know
every State wants to be included in
that.
We have also asked that a study
be made on national emission stand-
ards and that a report be made back
to the Congress so that they may be
put into operation if needed. The
study will determine which standards
should prevail over the entire country
according to each pollutant that is in
-------
894
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
the air and how much of each pol-
lutant should be allowed regardless
of any regional setup that we have.
These two studies are to be made
and are to be brought back as I say
so that we can determine our further
course of action along these lines.
This bill is not the last word on air
pollution and it could not possibly be.
This is a new field. The Federal Gov-
ernment and the State governments
are groping for what is needed and
they are trying to do their best.
As to the preemption question in-
volving California, I heard several
Members say that we are trying to
take something away from them. We
are not trying to do that. We recog-
nize that California has a special
problem and we have dealt with that
and said, "You have a special problem
and we want to take care of it if it
is necessary." And the bill provides
an avenue to take care of that prob-
lem.
But the fact is, remember, Califor-
nia is only one of the 50 States of the
Union—and they do participate in air
pollution control in different ways
and they will participate in all the
programs under this bill.
They will get Federal moneys for
their air pollution programs. We feel,
however, that auto emissions are also
a national problem that should be
dealt with under one head and under
one jurisdiction. We did make special
provision that if they needed more
stringent motor vehicle standards,
they would be allowed to have them.
I say again, that is the intent of
this committee. If the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare can
hear me now and if he cannot hear me,
he can read my words—I say it is
the intention of this committee to do
just that.
Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the
gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, I hate to
divert the debate into a less glamorous
channel, but I think it is necessary, if
I am to avoid offering an amendment
to the bill, to write a little legislative
history. If I may direct these ques-
tions to the distinguished gentleman
from West Virginia and the distin-
guished gentle-
[p. 30948]
man from Illinois, I think it may be
possible to obviate an amendment.
As the gentleman knows, the pres-
ent law, which was first enacted in
1963, in section 102, subsection (c),
states that Congress grants—what
was really not necessary to grant—its
consent to the States to enter into
compacts. In the same paragraph the
Congress reserved something not nec-
essary for it to reserve: the right to
pass upon compacts before they be-
come binding upon the States.
In the Senate bill, there appears
the same language that is present in
the law as it now stands. The House
Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, in striking all after the
enacting clause, automatically struck
that language. When it added new
language, it omitted the language of
the present law.
I feel that since the Constitution
in article I, section 10, provides clear-
ly that the Congress must pass upon
compacts between the States before
they become obligatory, there is no
reason that a court might interpret
the committee bill otherwise. But out
of an abundance of caution, I believe
that inasmuch as this provision was
once originally in the law and now
by the action of the committee has
been extirpated from the law, it
would be advisable to make clear the
legislative intent not in any way to
impair the right of Congress, under
article I, to pass upon the air-pollution
compacts between States already en-
tered into nor in any way impair the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
895
right to modify or, if necessary, to
repeal consent granted to compacts
already entered into.
Speaking for the majority, is it the
intent of the gentleman from West
Virginia that these powers of the Con-
gress be preserved?
Mr. STAGGERS. It certainly is.
The provision to which the gentleman
has referred is in the Constitution,
and this language in the law is rep-
etitious. I do not see that the bill
would affect any compact that has
been in effect or that will come up in
the future, because this is a matter
that is provided for in the Constitu-
tion.
Mr. POFF. I understand the gentle-
man to say that it shall not be in-
ferred that we are granting in future
ratification of, or blanket consent to,
any compacts that may hereafter be
made.
Mr. STAGGERS. That is correct.
The consent of Congress is still nec-
essary.
Mr. POFF. By eliminating the
present unnecessary provision from
the law, I understand the situation
to revert to the status quo ante; is
that correct?
Mr. STAGGERS. Yes, it is. The
slate is wiped clean, and the consti-
tutional requirement of congressional
consent still obtains.
Mr. POFF. I understand the gentle-
man further to say that the Congress
shall not be considered to have relin-
quished its right either to grant or
refuse consent to air-pollution com-
pacts hereinafter entered into or,
where consent has been given, to
modify or, if necessary, repeal the
consent.
Mr. STAGGERS. Certainly not. We
feel that this is provided for in the
Constitution.
Mr. POFF. I thank the gentleman.
Will the gentleman yield to the gentle-
man from Illinois, of whom I would
like to ask the same questions?
Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the
gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. SPRINGER. I think the
gentleman from West Virginia has
stated sound constitutional law. At
no place in this legislation have we
attempted either to contravene or
modify the constitutional law which
he has so well stated here on the floor
now. Nor at any time have we sought
to give blanket consent to compacts
—past, present, or future. The right
of Congress to pass on each compact
individually is retained.
Mr. POFF. If the gentleman will
yield further, I might say the re-
sponses satisfy my purposes, and I
shall not offer the amendment. I thank
the gentlemen.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself 15 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, preliminary to dis-
cussing the Air Quality Act now before
the House it might be of interest to
the Members to review briefly the
history of air pollution legislation. It
occurred to me that we have had leg-
islation before us practically every
year of late. This led me to look in-
to our activities in this area over
the period of the last 12 years.
The first air pollution bill which
recognized the problem for what it is
passed this House in 1955 at the re-
quest of the administration and was
presented to us by a special message
from President Eisenhower. It pro-
vided for research and technical assist-
ance to States and localities. Since
that day a great deal of research has
taken place, and there is a great deal
yet to do. The hearings on the present
legislation suggest that much re-
search legislation suggest that much
research is still necessary before prac-
tical abatement programs will bear
fruit.
During the next 3 years after the
legislation I have just referred to,
-------
896
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
the Committee on Interstate and For-
eign Commerce studied the problem
and held several hearings and in 1959
extended the program then in ex-
istence. During this same period the
problem of automobile exhausts and
the air pollution caused thereby had
come to the attention of the commit-
tee, but here again too little was
known about causes and effects to take
action.
In 1960 the House authorized a
research program on automobile ex-
hausts and the pollution problems con-
nected therewith. In 1962 a report
was rendered to the Congress and
the research on automobiles was ex-
tended.
Nineteen hundred and sixty-three
marked the beginning of air pollution
legislation as we know it today. It
was the first attempt at writing gen-
eral provisions for control and abate-
ment of air pollution through State
and local control agencies assisted
by the Federal Government. It was
also the first time that we recognized
as a congressional concern the air pol-
lution problems caused by Federal
installations. Research into all phases
of air pollution was encouraged and
funds were provided to assist State
and local governments in organizing
air pollution control agencies. Funds
also were provided to assist in the
cost of establishing local agencies and
also intercommunity or regional agen-
cies. The bill before us today, S.
780, is basically an extension of the
format and the principles set forth
in the 1963 legislation.
In 1965, however, the Congress did
grant to the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare the authority
to prescribe emission standards for
automobiles.
Last year, 1966, the Congress con-
solidated the various authorizations
for research and abatement and added
grants to help operate control agencies
as well as establish them.
The role of the Federal Government
in enforcement has changed con-
siderably in the various pieces of
legislation passed beginning in 1963.
At first there was no provision for
Federal enforcement in any event.
Later we provided for enforcement
through actions of the Attorney Gen-
eral at the request of a Governor.
The funds provided by these various
pieces of legislation I will discuss later.
In the Air Quality Act of 1967
which is now before us for considera-
tion, we have, for the first time, sort-
ed out the appropriate roles for the
Federal agencies and State and local
agencies. I will try to describe in as
simple terms as possible what I think
we are doing in this regard. I will
probably oversimplify because the
terms and the provisions of this leg-
islation are necessarily complex. The
committee, having the advantage of
hearing witnesses and conferring with
all the experts, found it rather difficult
to keep all of the concepts clearly
separated.
First I will try to describe my un-
derstanding of the role to be played
by the Federal Government in air
pollution control and abatement under
the terms of S'. 780. The Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare
had been instructed some years ago
to gather scientific data relating to
various pollutants and publish them
for the benefit of all concerned. So far
the Department has completed the
work and published a treatise on one
of the major pollutants—the sulfur
oxides. There are eight or 10 other
such efforts yet to come forth. As
each of these studies is published, all
of those which preceded it will nec-
essarily be reviewed because of the
fact that air pollutants interact among
themselves.
These scientific findings are known
as air pollution criteria. They describe
the scientific and health effects of the
pollutants on man and on plants when
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
897
found in the air in various concen-
trations. They are not rules to be
enforced but merely information to
be used as the basis for determining
and enforcing: air standards.
It will also be the duty of the Fed-
eral Government to study and rec-
ommend devices and procedures
which might be used to abate success-
fully the pollution caused by various
systems.
One other thing will be done by
the Federal Government in normal
situations. It will designate air quali-
ty regions based upon the developing
knowledge of the airsheds in our
country. Those designations will be
based upon meteorological and geo-
graphical data to set out and delineate
areas having common air pollution
problems and possible common pol-
lutions.
Once all of these things have been
done
[p. 30949]
by the Federal Government, it will
devolve upon the States, using this
information, to set air quality stand-
ards. Here we are talking about
something that is often called ambient
air standards. This means a deter-
mination of how much of what pol-
lutants can be and should be allowed
in the air over a large area. It is
then the yardstick for measuring the
efforts to abate air pollution.
In order to maintain ambient air
standards it will obviously be neces-
sary for the State and in many cases
local governments to specify what
must be done by individual industries
and individual localities to maintain
this standard. Here we encounter the
term "emission standards." In any
event, it becomes the duty of the
Governor to carry forth such a pro-
gram. There are many steps involved
and many instances calling for con-
sultation with industry and various
governmental units, but the ultimate
aim is to minimize pollution and main-
tain the air standards found to be
desirable.
Again oversimplifying, there are
fairly complicated procedures to be
used in the event a Governor will not
carry out a program within his own
State. There being no other answer to
such a problem, the Federal Govern-
ment will step in and do what must
be done to set and enforce air quality
standards for the protection of the
people within that State and par-
ticularly for the protection of people
in surrounding areas. There are safe-
guards in the way of administrative
procedure, advice and consultations
and court review.
At this point I would like to refer
back to the 1963 and 1966 laws. Many
States and many local governments
have created individual or joint agen-
cies for the control and abatement of
air pollution. There is some concern
among them about whether the ma-
chinery in S. 780 will make it neces-
sary to eliminate these and start over
again. As a matter of fact, the legis-
lation is designed to make use of
those agencies already operating, and
it is anticipated that they will remain
in business.
Separate and apart from the prob-
lem of ambient air standards as they
apply to stationary sources of emis-
sions, we have the troublesome con-
cept of standards for motor vehicles.
You will recall that 2 years ago the
Federal Government was given au-
thority to determine standards for au-
tomobile emissions. It was well un-
derstood at that time that the tech-
nology available did not permit ideal
standards but that standards could be
set within the realities of present
knowledge. It is certainly to be hoped
that new and better devices to con-
trol automobile emissions will be
forthcoming rapidly and tnat internal
combustion engines and jet engines
will be perfected to the point where
-------
898
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
dangerous pollutants will somehow be
consumed and not cast into the air.
The 1967 act did not make at all
clear whether the standards set by the
Federal Government would be the only
standards although the law could very
well be interpreted in that manner.
The purpose of including a provision
on motor vehicle standards in S. 780
is to clarify that particular point. It
is not possible from an economic
point of view to build automobiles to
50 different standards. Even if this
were so, it is very unrealistic since
automobiles necessarily travel from
State to State. It is only sensible to
have one national standard.
One possible exception to that prin-
ciple is the State of California. The
State has pioneered in that area be-
cause its problem is and has been so
much more acute than in any other
part of the country. California antic-
ipates that it may wish to make its
standards even more stringent in the
years ahead. Because of that the other
body in reporting out S. 780 made an
exception in the case of California
which would allow that State to ad-
minister its own vehicle emission pro-
gram.
Our committee felt that although
California does have a special prob-
lem and may very likely need separate
standards for this purpose, overall
national administration of vehicle
emission standards is desirable. It was
on this basis that an amendment was
offered and adopted to provide for
special standards for California only
if that State makes a showing of
necessity for such standards. Once
these different standards are created,
the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare will administer them as
in all other cases. It is interesting to
note that as of this particular time
the standards issued by the Federal
Government are the same as those
in existence in California. It is possi-
ble, and I think not unlikely, that the
Federal standards may advance as
rapidly as those felt necessary by Cali-
fornians, in which case there would
be no need whatsoever for completely
separate systems of administration.
The bill which reached our commit-
tee had some very elaborate and ex-
pensive provisions for research. The
law as it now stands provides broad
authority for research into all phases
of air pollution and the ways to com-
bat air pollution. The bill before the
House this afternoon provides plenty
of money, not earmarked, to carry
this out.
I have not found the administra-
tion to be stingy in its requests for
research or other funds, and I am
well satisfied that the amounts re-
maining for research are at least
adequate and may in fact be very
generous.
The funds authorized by S. 780 are
an additional $33 million for the pres-
ent fiscal year—which is well under-
way—for a total of $99 million to be
spent overall during fiscal year 1968.
The 1966 law had authorized the sum
of $66 million for fiscal year 1968,
and we are raising that now to $99
million. Also in the previous legis-
lation we authorized a sum of $74
million for fiscal year 1969. This
present legislation raises that sum to
$145 million. S. 780 authorizes for
fiscal year 1970, $184.3 million. These
are the exact amounts requested by
the administration for air pollution
research, control and abatement.
These are large sums of money. I
am given to wonder why the estimates
of only a year ago were so inadequate.
If the money is well spent, it is worth
the price. It will be interesting to see,
however, how accurate these new esti-
mates will turn out to be.
Because this legislation is the first
comprehensive bill to tackle the air
pollution problems and the continu-
ing relationships between Federal and
other governmental entities, it is a
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
899
most important bill. The machinery
set up is in some ways a compromise
but then that is true of most legisla-
tion which comes before this House
and it is usually for the best that this
is so. I feel that the various interests
are well represented in the procedures
that we have provided. The Federal
Government cannot completely domi-
nate the field and it should not. States
cannot go it alone regardless of the
effects in other areas. Industry can
and will be heard on the very prac-
tical problems connected with abate-
ment. All in all this would seem to be
a workable scheme.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPRINGER. I yield to my dis-
tinguished colleague from California.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
I was at the point, I believe, where
I asked him to yield when he men-
tioned the fact that this bill would
adopt the California standards.
Mr. SPRINGER. I do not believe I
said it that way. What I said was that
at this point in history the national
standards and the California stand-
ards are identical. If that means the
same thing, then it is the same.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I think that
means the same thing to me. I would
be the first to admit, and I would call
to the gentleman's attention, if I may,
that we have spent hundreds of mil-
lions of dollars in developing the
standards to the point and developing
the devices to the point where we have
developed them, but they are not satis-
factory in California. They will be
more than satisfactory in many of the
States of the Nation, particularly in
the Great Plains States where you
have a free flow of air, but in Cali-
fornia we found out they are inade-
quate, because the devices are around
40 or 50 percent effective in certain
areas and because of a 600,000 accre-
tion of new automobiles registered in
California this year and the pollution
that they emit from their tailpipes,
the overall quantity of pollution does
not go down. Therefore, we seek more
efficient devices. What we want to do
is go forward and have these de-
vices perfected I know that there is
an administrative provision in the bill,
but you change certain vital words in
the House bill, which disturbs us in
California. The words that are changed
in the Murphy amendment are that
"the Secretary shall approve more
stringent standards" under certain sit-
uations.
The wording in the so-called Dingell
amendment says "he may, if he finds,"
certain things.
Now, very frankly—I want to be
frank on this—we feel that in Cali-
fornia we have hundreds of experts
who have developed a great deal of
expertise in this field because of the
urgent problem we have had, not be-
cause they are any smarter, but because
We know that the
[p. 30950]
present national standards that will
be adopted in this bill are not ade-
quate to take care of our problem, be-
cause of the buildup of the automobile
inventory.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr.
MUCINSKI). The time of the gentle-
man has expired.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself 1 additional minute.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPRINGER. I yield further to
the gentleman.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. All we are asking
to do is to let California conform to
the Federal standards, and go beyond
them because of our peculiar situa-
tion. We will pay for devices, we will
pay for the difference, and we are
paying for it now; 7.8 million cars
have those devices in them, by the law
-------
900
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
of California, and our people are
paying up to $55 each for them on
the assembly; they are priced with
the car along with air conditioning
and extra grade tires. All we are
asking is to let us solve our problem
at our expense. It will not hurt
anyone in the other 49 States, it will
help them, in fact, because if we
develop new standards and better
standards, and we have been improv-
ing in our standards all along, then
someday some other State or States
that develop the same sort of affliction
we have may also want to so improve
their standards to the point where we
have improved on ours. The automo-
bile industry has agreed that they will
install devices on buses and trucks in
1969 and on passenger cars in 1970,
devices that are far more efficient
than these that are set up in the
standards of the Dingell bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
time of the gentleman has again
expired.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 1 additional minute to myself.
Mr. Chairman, I may reply to the
gentleman by saying that I believe
there is a difference of opinion be-
tween what the committee brought
forth and what the gentleman from
California is saying, and that it was
the feeling of the committee that if
California went before the Adminis-
trator and proved its need and justi-
fied a difference that he would grant
it.
Now, what California is saying is:
"We want something different from
any other State. We want a right
that nobody else will have, to do
something which can be also done in
an orderly procedure by filing a peti-
tion with the Administrator of the
program." I am sure they recognize
that.
There will be a letter introduced a
little later on from HEW in which it
recognizes that California has a
special problem, and they will work
with California. That is the position
of the committee.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman will yield further
Mr. SPRINGER. I do not have any
more time. I believe the gentleman has
had a chance to pretty well explain
his position.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
time of the gentleman has again
expired.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr.
Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. HERLONG].
Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Chairman, I
support the committee fully on this
bill.
Mr. Chairman, a lot will be said
and has been said about the amend-
ment to section 208 (b) adopted by the
House Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce Committee, an amendment
which relates to the treatment to be
accorded the photochemical smog
problem in California. The House com-
mittee version provides that the Sec-
retary of Health, Education, and
Welfare may, upon an appropriate
showing by the State of California,
prescribe automotive emission stand-
ards which are more strict than those
otherwise applicable throughout the
United States. By contrast, a Senate
provision would require the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare to
waive the Federal preemption clause
in order that California may set its
own standards and administer its own
program unless the Secretary is able
to establish that California does not
satisfy certain conditions. These are
conditions specially tailored for Cali-
fornia which California clearly meets.
Thus, the practical impact of the
Senate amendment would be to man-
date the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare to exempt the State
of California from the national auto-
motive emissions control program so
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
901
it can operate its own program inde-
pendently of the national program. In
effect, the Senate version would main-
tain two often competing bureauc-
racies, one for California and one for
the other 49 States.
The House provision, on the other
hand, consistent with the decision of
the Congress in the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1965 to establish a
nationwide automotive emissions
standards program, centralizes the
authority for setting and administer-
ing both the national and California
standards in the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare. Under this
provision, the State of California
would be required only to prove to the
satisfaction of the Secretary the very
conditions which the Senate provision
would require the Secretary to estab-
lish. If California can establish those
conditions, and there is no doubt
in my mind that California can, then
the Secretary will proceed to set more
stringent standards for California
than are applicable nationally and
California's photochemical smog needs
will be met.
In my judgment, the House com-
mittee version is superior to the
Senate language. California's particu-
lar problem is that of photochemical
smog, the constituent components of
which are hydrocarbons and nitrogen
oxide. However, the total program for
control of automotive emissions is
expected to include the control of
many other pollutants including
carbon monoxide, lead, and particulate
matters. If the Senate provision is
adopted, and the Secretary required
to exempt the State of California
from the national program, several
serious questions arise. First of all, is
the exemption for California a blanket
exemption which would enable the
State of California to set standards
for pollutants other than the constitu-
ent elements of photochemical smog?
Moreover, if the Federal standards
for hydrocarbons are at the same level
as the California standards—as they
are today—would the Secretary be
able to withdraw the exemption once
it has been granted? In short, once
the exemption has been granted, does
it exist in perpetuity or until the
statute is changed by the Congress?
Also, does Congress possess the
authority to preempt 49 States from
setting and administering automotive
emission standards and, at the same
time, preserve the right of the 50th
State to proceed independently of
Federal supervision and direction?
Mr. Chairman, it is abundantly
clear to me that the State of Cali-
fornia, in supporting the Senate ap-
proach, is basically seeking an amend-
ment which would give that State the
right to establish a separate program
without regard to the national pro-
gram. This is not a matter of States
rights—it is a request for un-
warranted preferential treatment. I
see no necessity for the Congress to
go this far in meeting the California
problem. Moreover, I can see that an
independently administered State pro-
gram would wreak havoc with the
production of automobiles if, as is
likely, inconsistencies develop in the
administration of the California and
national programs. Moreover, such in-
consistencies inevitably translate into
additional costs which would in all
likelihood be passed on to consumers
throughout the United States.
In my judgment, the sensible way
to proceed would be to do as the House
committee bill does—that is, vest the
authority in the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare to set and
administer separate standards for the
State of California. Such centralized
administration would avoid costly
inconsistencies in testing procedures,
evaluation of test data, certification
procedures, and other enforcement
requirements which all experience
teaches are likely to result where
-------
902
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
responsibility is divided. Moreover, if
the conditions which now require
separate standards are corrected, or
the technology advances so that the
industry can meet California's needs on
a national basis, there will be no
problem of having to ask the Congress
to reclaim Federal jurisdiction from
the State of California.
Mr. Chairman, I support the House
committee bill.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I yield 5 minutes to the gentle-
man from California [Mr. ROYBAL].
Mr. ROYBAL. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROYBAL. I yield to the gentle-
man from California.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding.
The point that I wish to make in
connection with the remarks of the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER]
is in connection with the administra-
tive procedure. In California we
believe that we have more expertise
in this field than they have down at
the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, and we feel that there
are certain dangers in the Administra-
tive Procedures Act. In appealing
from a decision of the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare, we
would have to appeal under the
Administrative Procedure Act.
[p. 30951]
I hope the gentleman from Illinois
will give me his attention, because I
am replying to his statement.
We would have to be bound by an
administrative decision. The adminis-
trative decision under the Adminis-
trative Procedure Act rests upon the
latitude of judgment of the Ad-
ministrator, not on the merits of the
case. If he has made a decision within
the latitude of administrative judg-
ment, whether it is right or wrong
we are bound with it.
Now, I have gone through this, and
the gentleman from California [Mr.
Moss] has gone through it with 4
years of committee hearings on ad-
ministrative action by the Home Loan
Bank Board, when the Home Loan
Bank Board seized without justifica-
tion the Long Beach Savings & Loan,
and the Long Beach Savings & Loan
people tried to get into the courts to
have a decision on the merits of the
case.
They were not permitted to go into
the courts because they had not ex-
hausted the procedures under the Ad-
ministrative Procedures Act. If they
had exhausted them, all they had to do
then was to go back to the very Ad-
ministrator that made the decision
to seize their institution
and he would confirm his original act
and deny the appeal. They never
would get a chance to have a decision
based on the merits of their case.
This was in litigation for 16 years.
Three committees of the House—the
committee of which our former col-
league, the gentlemen from Virginia,
Howard Smith, was chairman, a. com-
mittee in 1951 and 1952 under my
chairmanship, and a committee later
on under the chairmanship of our col-
league, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Moss]—for 6 years we held hear-
ings and tried to correct an adminis-
trative decision, and we could not do
it because we were up against this
principle as enunciated.
This is why, knowing the facts as
they are in California, we seek an
exemption from this Federal standard
limitation—not to violate or to go
below Federal standards or to have
inferior standards but to take care of
our particular problem and to go
above those Federal standards. We
would like to have it written into the
law. Of course, if we cannot get this
decision by law, then we will have
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
903
to go to the Administrative Procedures
Act and we will have to take our
chances under the situation as I have
described.
This is why we are making this
fight. I am not pointing my finger at
the present Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare or at any other
Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare, whoever it might happen to
be, but I am pointing out the fact of
the dangers of an administrative
decision which we might face and
which is vital to the health of every
individual in California.
We can have purity if we can
evolve better devices and better stand-
ards than are necessary nationally—
even though they cost a little bit
more or even though they cost not $40
or $50 but $100. Our people are willing
to pay the cost. We are not asking the
Federal Government to pay the cost.
The people of our State are glad to
pay if we decide it is necessary for the
health of the people of our State. Why
do you not give us this additional
power to do what we know will be
necessary? We already have an agree-
ment with the automobile manufac-
turers on trucks and buses for the
year 1969. We have an agreement with
them on automobiles as to the year
1970. These agreements have been ar-
rived at by negotiation—and that will
go out the window under this bill as
now written. The auto manufacturers
can just say goodby, so far as we are
concerned in the State, and our police
powers to get them to put on better
devices will be gone unless we can
convince someone in Washington.
I do not know what person might be
in office, whether it is the present in-
dividual or somebody else, but I would
like to see the amendment that was
put in in the Senate by a vote of 88 to
0, put in this bill so that we would be
guaranteed this right that we think
we should have.
Mr. ROYBAL. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to say that this is the
longest speech I have made on the
floor of this House.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from California [Mr.
ROYBAL] has expired.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. CUN-
NINGHAM] may insert his remarks in
the RECORD immediately following the
remarks of the gentleman from Michi-
gan [Mr. HARVEY].
The CHAIRMAN. Without objec-
tion, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. HARVEY],
Mr. HARVEY. Mr. Chairman, I
want to speak for just a minute on
these auto emission standards that we
have heard so much about and at-
tempt to straighten out, if I can,
what I consider to be three very basic
misunderstandings with regard to
these standards.
First of all, I have heard it said
in the last week here that the auto-
mobile industry which hails from
Michigan—and it does not all come
from Michigan—but the automobile
industry was trying to force a single
standard upon all the people in
America when the people of California
wanted even more stringent stand-
ards.
Believe me, nothing could be further
from the truth.
If you will look at the hearings
on page 484, I would refer you to the
testimony there of Mr. Mann, who
represented the Automobile Manu-
facturers Association. I will confess
that I was trying, perhaps, to put
words into his mouth when I asked
him this question at the time. I said:
From listening to your statement, do I
gather correctly that if the automobile indus-
try had its choice, forgetting what the other
body might do over there, but if the automobile
industry had its choice, they would prefer uni-
-------
904
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
form national standards in this regard ap-
plicable to all States?
Mr. MANN. From our point of view, Mr.
Congressman, it would make life much simpler
but from the point of view of the national
interests I must say to you in all candor that
I believe we all mieht regret it if we did not
provide In some way for the special problem In
California.
This is what we have tried to do.
This is what the auto industry has
tried to do. Anyone who would have
you to believe otherwise, that the bill
as it came out of the House committee
does not provide that is just misrep-
resenting the situation.
There is another very serious mis-
understanding with regard to the bill
as it comes out of the House. This is
the statement that I have heard over
and over again that the House
version of the bill, as opposed to the
Senate bill, would prevent the appli-
cation of these special and more
stringent standards in California.
That simply is not true. Either the
Senate bill, as it was originally pass-
ed, or the bill as it comes out of the
House right now, recognizes Cali-
fornia as a special example, as a
single State only that can take ad-
vantage of these more stringent re-
quirements and that can seek and
apply them.
Section 208 (b) of the House bill
clearly authorizes the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare to set
any standard required by public
interest in California. Surely Cali-
fornia can show "compelling and
extraordinary conditions" that are
required there. Surely, regardless of
where the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare comes from, Cali-
fornians should have faith that he
will recognize these compelling and
extraordinary conditions that even
the auto industry has set forth in
their testimony.
No one has come in and said that
these conditions do not exist.
I would point out to you that
whether you look at the version of the
bill that came over from the Senate
with the Murphy amendment, or
whether you look at the version of
the bill that the House reported out,
both of them require a hearing by the
Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare. He cannot act without a
hearing. Both of them would permit
the State of California to have more
stringent requirements. There is no
difference whatsoever.
Let me tell you that there is a real
difference in the decision as to whether
this House wants right here and now
to have two administrations or two
bureaucracies administering these
standards rather than just one. I say
to you that certainly you can do
what you can under this Senate bill;
you can do it under the House bill. I
have the utmost faith and confidence
that the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare would call a hearing
as required and do it.
There is another misrepresentation
—I will not say a "misrepresenta-
tion," but there is a misunderstanding
about this particular bill. I have
heard it said now, all of a sudden,
we should not come in here and pre-
empt State standards. Let me tell you
that anyone who thinks we are for
the first time moving to preempt State
standards just was not here in 1965,
because that is when this House moved
to preempt the State standards. If
you do not believe that, I refer you
back to the report that was put out
in 1965 or, better yet, I refer you to
the paragraph here on page 20 of
the Report of this Air Quality Act
of this year where we repeat what we
said then:
The committee is convinced that motor
vehicle exhaust control standards on a national
scale are necessary and would be of benefit to
the entire country. * * • While the committee
is cognizant of the basic
[p. 30952]
rights and responsibilities of the States for
control of air pollution, it is apparent that the
establishment of Federal standards applicable
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
905
to motor vehicle emissions is preferable to
regulation by individual States.
We recognized then that there were
more than 100 different bills intro-
duced in various State legislatures set-
ting up different standards. You just
cannot possibly have, what I heard
said earlier here, States rights and
mass production in this particular re-
gard.
Finally, I would point out to the
House the answer to the question as to
why a single administration of the
standards is important.
I would say again, look at the testi-
mony of Mr. Thomas Mann, represent-
ing the auto industry and this again
was not contradicted. No witnesses
came in to say otherwise.
Why is a single administration BO
important? Let me quote from my
own argument, and this is on page
482 of the hearings:
The process of fixing and administering
emission standards for new cars is at best a
complex one. Judgments must be made, often
on the basis of incomplete scientific evidence,
on the question of which pollutants endanger
health and welfare and at what levels it is
technologically and economically feasible to fix
emission rates.
In a program of this kind many questions
arise. What are the requirements for testing
new vehicles as they are produced each year?
Precisely how are the tests to be performed
and under what conditions? What are the
rules for interpreting the scientific data devel-
oped in the testing process?
All we are asking is that if we are
going to have different standards—
which everybody recognizes, because
both the Senate and the House bills
contain different standards—all we are
asking is that we have the same um-
pire enforce the rules, that we have
one fellow or one administration that
is going to interpret the regulations,
one administration that will say what
laws are applicable and how they will
be administered.
It is bad enough to have two stand-
ards, because we do have 50 States
that are united, but we do recognize
this problem of California. But this is
not only doubling but compounding
the problem when we go beyond that
and say we will have not only two
standards but two different adminis-
trations to interpret and administer
those standards.
This is creating bureaucracy at its
worst. I want no part of it whatsoever.
I hope the House will support the
House Interstate Commerce Commit-
tee version of the bill.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HARVEY. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. Chairman, I wish to
subscribe to the views on S. 780 ex-
pressed by the ranking member of the
committee, the gentleman from Illi-
nois [Mr. SPRINGER].
This measure represents a very
great and needed improvement over
the present Clean Air Act, enacted in
1965. The principal areas of improve-
ment lie in the additional attention
to research and in putting initial re-
sponsibility on the States to move be-
fore Federal enforcement procedures
come into play. It should be noted that
the bill as reported by the committee
incorporates the suggestions of the
recent report of the Republican co-
ordinating committee and the recom-
mendations set out therein. That re-
port was recently printed in the CON-
GRESSIONAL RECORD on October 24, at
page 29755 at the request of the Sen-
ator from New York [Mr. JAVITS],
The report advocated five principles,
most of which are included in the com-
mittee bill as reported on the floor of
the House. These principles call for
eliminating gaps of our knowledge in
technical capability through addition-
al research, for emphasizing regional
agreements among State and local
governments in the control of air pol-
lution, for needed economic analysis
of the results of air pollution con-
trol and of the pollution itself,
526-702 O - 73 -- 22
-------
906
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
for tax benefits for controlling
pollution, and for cleaning up air
pollution from Federal installations.
While the tax approach has not been
taken in this legislation, it is hoped
that some time in the near future,
we may be able to consider that ap-
proach as well.
It should be noted that the present
Clean Air Act includes certain pro-
visions as to evidence under section
105 (g), which would still come under
section 107 (h) under the bill. The
provisions involve the use of reports
that possible offenders have been re-
quired to file in earlier proceedings.
Whether this transcends proper con-
stitutional limits involving the right
against self-incrimination, is some-
thing that should be studied careful-
ly as the procedures on the present
law and amendments by this bill de-
velop.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chair-
man, I have been a strong proponent
of clean air and I strongly support S.
780, the Air Quality Act of 1967. I
have long been interested in this prob-
lem. During the time that I was may-
or of the city of Omaha we enacted
the first effective legislation to clean
our air of pollutants. As mayor I
assembled a very capable staff to carry
out the legislation which I sponsored
and there was a tremendous difference
in the cleanliness of our air in Omaha
as a result of this very effective pro-
gram.
Our program, however, at that time
was aimed primarily at belching
smokestacks and other industrial emis-
sions. I might add that there is abso-
lutely no excuse for a smokestack to
belch smoke. If it does, it means that
the incinerator and/or the burning
unit, whether it be in a plant or in a
home, is not operated correctly or
efficiently. By operating a heating unit
and/or an incinerator in an industrial
plant efficiently the smokestacks will
not produce black, sooty smoke.
However, this act is much broader,
as it should be, and takes into con-
sideration many other problems that
confront us today, and I am hopeful
that the day will sometime come when
we can walk our streets without breath-
ing toxic and polluted air. Auto-
mobile exhausts are a major pollutant,
and with the fine cooperation of the
automobile industry and the operators
of vehicles larger than the ordinary
passenger car, I am hopeful that we
can sometime soon feel free to breathe
good, fresh air, which we all know is
so valuable to our health and the
length of our lives. I would also be
hopeful that truck and bus owners and
operators might recognize the problem
and give their serious attention and
assistance to its solution. It would
seem to me that they would want to
do this, not only as a public relations
gesture, but because they, too, are
interested in the health of our people.
It is for these and many other rea-
sons that I strongly endorse this
legislation and I am pleased to have
been a member of the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce that
brought this bill to the floor.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Moss].
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I take
this time to make it very clear that I
do not now question, nor have I ques-
tioned, the motives of a single Member
of this House or of the Interstate and
Foreign Commerce Committee. I have
been privileged to serve for a full
decade as a member of the Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
and I have served on that committee
with great pride. That pride is as
strong today as at any time during
my service.
It is a committee which deals with
difficult and complex problems, and
I think every member of it approaches
those problems with a full understand-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
907
ing of the responsibility he bears as a
part of that committee.
Inevitably, we are going to have
areas of disagreement. I think they
should be objectively reviewed and
dealt with on their merits. That is
what I ask each member of this Com-
mittee to do today.
There are substantive differences
in the committee as to the approach
which should be used in granting an
exemption to my State of California
—which incidentally is the second
largest assembler of automobiles in
this Nation and the largest consumer
of automobiles in this Nation. Those
are not inconsequential differences.
The gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
HARVEY] said that under either the
language of the distinguished junior
Senator from California or the lan-
guage of the gentleman from Michigan
my State would have an avenue for ex-
emption. But under the language of the
gentleman from Michigan, the entire
burden is on my State, and the Sec-
retary is vested with the power to
veto the requests of the State.
The distinguished ranking minority
member said that air pollution was
not new on this floor—and I quote
him: "Air pollution goes back to 1955."
He then mentioned the request made
by then President Eisenhower. I might
say to members of this Committee that
in my State of California the air
pollution consideration goes back at
least a decade earlier. I recall 19 years
ago, as a member of the Assembly of
the State of California, voting ap-
propriations for research into the
causes of pollution which were then
plaguing—and plaguing very drasti-
cally—the southern portion of
[p. 30953]
California. It is because of that action
that my State has been the leader and
has developed the basic technology in
devising means of dealing with this
problem. I feel it should be permitted
to continue to assert its initiative
and its leadership.
This is not at a cost to the Fed-
eral Government. The overwhelming
portion of the cost has been borne by
the taxpayers and by the consumers
of California, and willingly borne, I
might add.
Under the restoration of the lan-
guage, which I will propose under
the 5-minute rule, there is offered to
this Nation the ideal laboratory,
where the demonstrated initiative ex-
ists and where the resources exist to
solve this problem and contribute sig-
nificantly to the entire Nation. I be-
lieve we should take advantage of this
unique opportunity.
It is not going to impose a burden.
Let me point out one fact. If the
automobile industry could find a mar-
ket outside the United States that
even provided half the volume of the
California market they would willingly
make any modification required in
order to enter that market.
Our request is not unreasonable. It
is not unprecedented. It is a just re-
quest. I ask it be considered on its
merits.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. BROWN].
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chair-
man, a public opinion survey published
in the Washington Post in April of
this year revealed an attitude on the
part of the American people that is
apropos to our discussion on the Air
Quality Act today.
Titled "Public Mandate of Domes-
tic Programs," the poll has been quot-
ed often by our colleagues because
it offers a vivid insight into public
sentiment regarding Federal domes-
tic programs.
The probe of what the poll called
a "carefully drawn cross section of
the adult population" asked the partic-
ipants to categorize certain programs
under three headings: "Expand,"
-------
908
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
"Keep as is." or "Want cutback."
Leading the list of programs which
those polled said should be expanded
were those to curb air pollution and
water pollution. In these two areas,
50 percent of the respondents wanted
the programs expanded.
In an information report, another
famous poll claims:
In some urban areas, recent surveys show
that public concern about pollution is pushing
toward the crisis stage.
Mr. Chairman, there is little doubt
that the American people recognize
and regret the sad degradation of
our most vital resource, the air
around us.
Today we have before us legislation
which, when enacted into law and im-
plemented by Federal, State, and local
governments, will serve as a Federal
response to the public mandate.
The esteemed chairman of the In-
terstate and Foreign Commerce Com-
mittee, the gentleman from West Vir-
ginia, HARLEY 0. STAGGERS, has aptly
described the dangers inherent in un-
controlled air pollution. There is sub-
stantial evidence that the dirty air
hanging over many of our urban
areas may be causing unnecessary
death, illness, and property damage.
Our country has experienced air pol-
lution disasters, as the gentleman
from West Virginia has mentioned, in
which it is believed large numbers of
deaths have occurred.
As a nation and worldwide we seem
to be contaminating our air faster
than we can clean it up with present
facilities and technology—at least,
short of banning cars, trucks, and
buses from our streets and forcing
the great industry which gives us
our high standard of living to close
up shop.
Unfortunately, we still do not have
a firm knowledge of what the total
results of air pollution are, or how
best to control air pollution in our
present industrial society. And we
have yet to reach scientific agreement
on where the acceptable criteria and
standards of air pollution should be
set. But the criteria must be developed
and realistic control standards must
be recommended before we can suc-
cessfully throw the weight of our
resources into the battle.
Up to this point, the Federal Gov-
ernment has taken some steps forward
in attempting to find answers to the
challenge of air pollution.
The Federal interest goes back to
the Eisenhower administration when
the Republican Congress in 1954 first
approved legislation for Federal re-
search.
Since then, major responsibility has
been given the Secretary of the De-
partment of Health, Education, and
Welfare to establish the command
center in the battle against pollution.
Federal standards for air-fouling emis-
sions from cars and light trucks have
been researched. Federal grants to
municipalities have been adjusted to
allow greater Government contribu-
tions toward the cost of community
facilities construction. But, in point
of fact, the Federal Government is
still behind the needs of the situation.
In spite of all its laboratory and per-
sonnel resources, the Federal Govern-
ment has yet to determine the full
effect that a wide range of pollutants
have on our health and well-being.
A report by the Research Manage-
ment Advisory Panel confirms that
the basic issue in the field of environ-
mental pollution relates to a clear
definition of goals. The development
of criteria is the area in which the
Federal Government has the best
capabilities and the most qualified
expertise.
Until these criteria are adequately
researched and fully established, ef-
forts to establish and enforce stand-
ards will continue to lag. Only after
a clear definition of criteria have been
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
909
determined and set, can the problems
of abatement technology be attacked
effectively.
Many think there is political advan-
tage in pointing an accusing finger at
industry. But it is noteworthy that
when the Congress temporarily sus-
pended the 7-percent investment tax
credit last year, this tax credit was not
suspended on investments in pollution-
control facilities. It should be men-
tioned that many industries had been
working on the problem through re-
search and resulting nonproductive
investments in plant improvements
long before the Federal Government
or the Congress began to react to
public pressure on the problem of pol-
lution or feel any Federal Government-
al responsibility to act in the situation.
Some private work in this area goes
back to before the turn of this cen-
tury. And a number of States are well
ahead of Washington in governmental
concern and action.
There continue to be notable exam-
ples of efforts by the private and local
government sector to combat air pol-
lution. One of the critical issues in
this legislation focuses on the efforts
of one State to set tighter than Fed-
eral controls.
Because I feel the Federal Govern-
ment should encourage industry in
the development of economical meth-
ods of resolving this problem and
should share in the costs, I have in-
troduced legislation in two successive
Congresses to provide incentive tax
credits to those industries which wish
to spend their own dollar resources
to research or invest in plant technol-
ogy to control pollution.
My bill, H.R. 4287, has received
broad bipartisan support, with some
110 of my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle in the House introducing
the same legislation. I take this sup-
port as an indication that Congress
feels that both the public and private
sector have responsibilities for the
present state of air pollution in our
country. My legislation would foster
a partnership of responsibility for re-
search, action, and financing between
the Federal Government and our Na-
tion's industries, recognizing the con-
tinuing contributions which can best
be made by all parties at interest.
Industry, after all, faces costly
problems if it is to meet the public
demand for a cleaner, more healthy
environment. But because of its spe-
cialization, industry already has, in
many instances, the facilities to do
more than just clean its own house. I
believe we should encourage industry
to help lead the way in solving the
total pollution problem facing the
Nation today.
An incentive tax credit is perhaps
the most effective step the Federal
Government could take to promote
such a partnership. I recognize that
my proposal has been deferred in
committee because our Government
is in dire straits financially, and is
not in a position at this time to re-
linquish or reduce its tax dollar re-
sources.
But the principle is sound, and its
potential implementation should be
considered in our long range anti-
pollution battle plan.
The Federal interest must include
an awareness of economics in another
sense. We cannot overlook the fact
that there is bound to be an economic
impact on business and industry when
standards for pollution emissions are
established. Standards covering the
burning of soft coal may very well
have a deleterious effect on the coal
producing economy in several of our
States. If we seriously consider sub-
stituting electric cars for gasoline en-
gines, such a reversal in trends will
certainly have an impact, not only on
the automobile industry, but on the
petroleum industry as well—and quite
likely on the electricity producing in-
-------
910
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
dustry which has had its pollution
problems.
Suffice it to say that, as criteria
and standards are developed and pre-
scribed,
[p. 30954]
weight must be given to the impact
they will have on all elements of our
economy.
These things, the Air Quality Act
is designed to try to do, at the same
time recognizing the ability and de-
sire of State and local governments to
carry their share of the load.
Mr. Chairman, I endorse this bill,
and recommend it as a sincere re-
sponse to the public declaration that
air pollution must be controlled.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. ROYBAL).
Mr. ROYBAL. Mr. Chairman,
there is no doubt that the State of
California, particularly Los Angeles
County, has a tremendous problem.
A great deal has been said about
smog and its origin, and the problems
which we have in the State of Cali-
fornia. It seems to me, though, that
one must go back into time just a
little bit and as we do we find that
history tells us that when the Span-
iards landed in what is now Los An-
geles they saw an inversion of smoke
and they called Los Angeles the
Valley of Smoke.
This is actually the problem in Los
Angeles today. There was and is to-
day a certain atmospheric inversion
that does not permit the smoke to go
over the mountains or disappear in
the gentle winds of the area. The
truth of the matter is that today
smoke has not only increased because
of the density of the population; it
has also increased in its pollutants, its
eye irritants, and its chemical con-
tents that are today polluting the air.
Because of that we find that the peo-
ple of the city of Los Angeles are
perhaps at this very moment stand-
ing with tears in their eyes, not be-
cause they are sad but because of the
eye irritants that make it almost im-
possible to do otherwise in that city.
Mr. Chairman, a great deal has
been said about the experts here in
Washington versus the experts in the
State of California. I think we can
stipulate to the fact that there are
experts in both places, but we must
also acknowledge the fact that the ex-
perts in California have far more ex-
perience with smog than the experts
in the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare who spend all their
time here in the Nation's Capital.
There is one thing that they no
doubt have in common, and that is
that medical experts here in
Washington and those in California
all agree that the studies made in
Los Angeles on the effects of smog
are genuine and actually show that
people with heart and lung diseases
such as emphysema, bronchitis, and
asthma are made substantially worse
during periods of increased concentra-
tion of smog. I think they also agree
on the fact that the problem of smog
and deaths as a result of smog are
not just a problem in the Los Angeles
basin but they are a problem for other
cities in this Nation. For example, in
1948 smog in Donora, Pa., caused
acute illness to 5,000 of the 144,000
population, with 18 deaths. In New
York City in 1966 a heavy concentra-
tion of smog was responsible for 168
deaths. In London a major disaster
was responsible for several hundred
deaths.
I think we can also point to the
fact that in the air pollution basin
which is Los Angeles there are ap-
proximately 11 million residents and
approximately 1,600,000 of these citi-
zens have today some kind of signifi-
cant chest pathology who are in dan-
ger of dying prematurely if we con-
tinue to have an excessive number of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
911
smog1 alerts in the city of Los An-
Some of my colleagues have said
that this legislation makes it possible
for California to continue with its
progress. What this legislation actual-
ly does is make it necessary for Cal-
ifornia to come with hat in hand to
Washington and on its knees plead
acceptance of a program already
proven and very much desired by the
people living in California, a program
which is based on knowledge of the
danger based on scientific research,
and a willingness of the people of the
State of California to foot the bill.
Knowing bureaucracy in Washing-
ton, I can tell you that under the pres-
ent version of the bill many danger-
ous smog alerts can well occur in the
city of Los Angeles while California
experts are pleading their case here
in Washington, trying to convince the
bureaucrats of the merits of their re-
quest.
So I say that this legislation must
definitely be improved. It is good leg-
islation now, and I compliment the
members of the committee for it, but
it can be made a lot better by adopt-
ing the amendment the gentleman
from California (Mr. Moss) will pre-
sent to this body.
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROYBAL. Yes; I yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN, Mr. Chair-
man, I certainly want to associate my-
self with the remarks made by the
gentleman from California, but I
would also like to read from the
testimony of Mr. Mann, President of
the National Automobile Association,
that has been alluded to previously a
few times, indicating that he is aware
of his problem, and this relates
to the question of double standards,
and how they recognize it as being
necessary.
He said:
V. The one possible exception to national
standards I referred to earlier has Its roots in
scientific considerations.
The smog; problem in southern California is
unique in its intensity and in the number of
days it is present. Unlike other areas, it has
a hot sun most of the year and a topography
which impedes the free flow of air currents
with a consequent propensity for air to remain
motionless.
Because of these unique conditions, para-
graph (b) of section 208 of S. 780 in effect
authorizes, after notice and opportunity for
hearing and subject to certain safeguards,
standards more stringent than national stand-
ards. While the automobile industry would, for
the reasons already stated, prefer a single na-
tional standard, it recognizes that the Los
Angeles smog problem is unique.
Indeed, one of the problems we all face in
the future is to keep the cost of the automobile
within reach of the great majority of those
who need them.
Under these circumstances, and given these
possible future contingencies, the automobile
manufacturers while preferring uniform na-
tional standards, do not oppose the objectives
of paragraph (b) of section 208.
With diiPcuIty automobile manufacturers
could "live" with two different sets of stand-
ards.
I repeat, he makes the point that
with difficulty automobile manu-
facturers could live with two differ-
ent sets of standards. But what we
are asking, Mr. Chairman, is we want
to have a guarantee and not a prom-
ise.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr Chairman, I
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Tennessee [Mr. KUYKENDALL].
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in support of the Air Qual-
ity Act of 1967 and urge its favorable
consideration by the House.
The gentleman from West Virginia
[Mr. STAGGERS], chairman of the In-
terstate and Foreign Commerce Com-
mittee and his very capable colleague,
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
SPRINGER] , the ranking minority mem-
ber, should be complimented for their
energetic and dedicated efforts in
studying and analyzing this propo-
sal and reporting to the House the
very best bill possible. I congratulate
-------
912
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
them for their fine leadership and for
a job well done.
As a member of this committee who
has spent many of his working hours
on this bill I have become aware of
the gravity of the growing problems
of air pollution and it is time the Fed-
eral Government quit dragging its
feet on this subject and took positive
steps toward bringing about effective
controls. With the exception of section
208 (b) entitled "State Standards," I
think the bill reported from the House
committee is an excellent piece of leg-
islation and I recommend its adoption.
In reference to this particular sec-
tion, I personally prefer the version
passed by the Senate.
The most important objective of
this legislation is to insure that air
pollution problems will, in the future,
be controlled in a systematic way. To
this end, the bill contains provisions
intended to insure that control action
will be taken in accordance with the
regional nature of the air pollution
problem and that sources of air pol-
lution will be controlled to the ex-
tent consistent with available knowl-
edge of the adverse effects of pollu-
tants on health and welfare and with
available control technology. The bill
gives the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare the responsibility
for defining these standards. States
would not be required to take any
action until air quality control re-
gions have been designated and until
there has been an initial publication
of air quality criteria and informa-
tion on control technology.
The bill does a wise job of separat-
ing static emission sources and mov-
ing emission sources by separating
automotive exhaust problems from
the remainder of the pollution prob-
lems. It also meticulously adheres to
the principle of local responsibility by
State authority when the pollution
problem is totally within one State
and regional authority when the prob-
lem is within more than one State,
and national authority in dealing
with problems of moving emissions.
There are a great many unanswered
problems in the area of air pol-
lution. This bill is very attentive to
the problem of research and develop-
ment and insures full access to the
technical information needed to eval-
uate the possible health hazards of
pollutants in the air.
I am proud to have had a part in the
[p. 30955]
committee's consideration of this
legislation and I strongly urge its im-
mediate passage.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California, Mr. REINECKE.
Mr. REINECKE, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to associate myself with
the authors of this bill. I believe it is
a fine bill as far as it goes. I certain-
ly believe it is timely that the House
of Representatives did something
about air pollution.
However, I would like to get right
to the meat of the problem regard-
ing the California situation, and par-
ticularly with respect to the questions
that the auto industry has raised on
this particular legislation.
A picture was painted a few mo-
ments ago of the automobile industry
that had offered generously to have
two standards. They admit they could
live with two standards, it is quite
true, and yet who else has been lobby-
ing for this particular bill without
the double standard, Mr. Chairman,
I ask you? None other than the auto-
mobile manufacturers.
I would also have you read page
479 of the hearings, and you will
find Mr. Mann himself, before the
controversy ever came up, testified
that preemption is necessary.
On page 497 our colleague, the gen-
tleman from Michigan (Mr. DiNGELL),
asked Mr. Mann if he could draft the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
913
language of an amendment—and this
he did.
So I do not think the manufac-
turers can disassociate themselves
from this particular situation. I think
it is very good that the beneficiaries
of the language as written is clearly
that of the manufacturers association.
Please refer also to the hearings
before the California Assembly of
October 5 where a representative of
the manufacturers admitted that the
Dingell amendment was that of the
auto industry.
The basic difference between this
bill and the proposed amendment to
the bill is one word "may" or "shall"
—that the Secretary may require a
State to hold to the national stand-
ards or whether he shall after due
hearings allow the State to enforce
stricter standards.
I lack confidence in any Secretary,
Mr. Chairman. I personally do not
have that confidence in an appointed
official. I am saying this on the part
of California here and I am perfect-
ly willing to say it with regard to any
other State at any other time in the
future.
I do not think any appointed of-
ficial should have the veto power over
the health of the citizens of any State
for reason of political expediency.
Another argument was made re-
garding mass production—that chaos
would come if we destroy the con-
cept of mass production. This is not
quite the case because the automobile
manufacturers have been complying
with separate standards for Califor-
nia alone for the last 2 years. The
model 1966 and 1967 cars have been
different in California. Why suddenly
is this going to cause chaos within
the industry?
So far as foreign imports are con-
cerned, they only sell a tiny percent-
age of their cars in California and
yet they are not objecting at all to
the California standards.
General Motors admitted they were
perfectlv willing to provide emission
exhaust controls for cars delivered to
Ontario, Canada.
I think it is obvious if we were talk-
ing of the days when a person could
buy a Ford in any color he wanted as
long as it was black that maybe that
is a good argument. There are so
many options and parts of cars that
can be put on cars today that adding
one more device with over 800,000 new
cars being built every year is not go-
ing to destroy or cause chaos within
the industry.
The Secretary himself admitted he
did not have the experience and need-
ed a great deal more information be-
fore standards could be set.
In his testimony on page 234, Dr.
Stewart admitted there were no stand-
ards on carbon monoxide and there
were no standards on hydrocarbons.
So how in the world is the Secre-
tary going to be well advised, to take
California standards, or to go further,
when they have not even provided
for the first standards of their own?
I should qualify that because they
have provided for the first standards
•—they have copied California. Now
they are asking the omnipotent and
omniscient Secretary to know what is
good for California by developing
new standards in industry.
California has been in this field
doing research for years. We have
spent several hundreds of millions of
dollars on automobile exhaust re-
search and implementation. We are
oldtimers in the field.
Yet the Secretary is supposed to
know what is. good for us.
I have one final comment to make
regarding double and bureaucratic
standards referred to by my friend
from Michigan. I wonder also if he
intends to do away with the State
government in matters that dupli-
cate the Federal Government.
So I could go on, Mr. Chairman. I
-------
914
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
would like to make also a few com-
ments as to just what is happening
in California. If the bill remains as
it is presently written, California,
whose standards go substantially be-
yond the present standards—while
not being enforced today, will be
forced to cancel the plans to improve
on hydocarbon content of 275 to 180
in 1970 to 100 in 1975. We will be
forced to cancel plans to reduce car-
bon monoxide to 1 percent in 1970
and one-half of 1 percent in 1975. We
will cancel the order that all trucks
in 1969 be equipped properly. And on
until the entire 20-year effort of
California is ground to a halt.
Regarding1 mass production. To-
day's auto is built of mass produced
parts and custom assembly by means
of computerized material control sys-
tems. There are millions of combina-
tions of any given model when we
consider engines, transmissions, pow-
er steering, power brakes, colors, in-
teriors, air conditioning, and so
forth, not even bothering with
the accessory options. Yet the
manufacturers will make one of
any one of these with no question.
Why then should the exhaust reduc-
tion equipment turn the industry into
chaos?
All California wants is the right to
go beyond the national standards—at
no cost to anyone outside of Califor-
nia. We ask no exemption—only an
opportunity.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. LIPSCOMB].
Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Chairman, I
know that this seems like "California
Day," and I realize that Californians
are occupying a great deal of the time
in this debate. Perhaps we may be re-
peating on a point which is very vital
to our State and, we feel, to our Na-
tion. We are attempting to tell the
House that we are not only here to
protect California, but we are here
trying to protect our Nation from the
threat of smog and polluted air.
I believe that under the leadership
of the gentleman from West Virginia
[Mr. STAGGERS], and the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER], the com-
mittee has done a fine job in report-
ing out S. 780. It is a good bill, and
I certainly believe that the Nation
will benefit by their action.
There is no question but that air
pollution has become a problem of
critical proportions and a threat to
the health and welfare of our Nation
and its citizens.
The air we breathe is being polluted
at a rapidly increasing rate. It is vital
that the various levels of govern-
ment, Federal, State, local, and pri-
vate industry and the people generally
join in a concerted effort to work to-
ward eliminating this menace.
Representing as I do the 24th Dis-
trict of California which is located in
the Los Angeles basin and having lived
in the area most all of my life I can
certainly vouch for the seriousness of
air pollution to us.
Just over recent weeks air pollution
in the basin has been at a very dan-
gerous level. Literally hundreds of resi-
dents of my district have written to
me to express their views on the ur-
gency of the smog problem and the
need to move ahead to strengthen the
air pollution control program.
The propsed Air Quality Act of
1967, S. 780, before the House today
basically represents a significant
step forward toward formulating
needed policies and procedures to deal
with air pollution.
But it is a matter of deep concern
to the State of California and the
congressional district I represent that
section 208(b) of the bill, as passed
by the Senate, designed to permit
California to move ahead without
undue restraint in setting higher
emission standards than the Federal
auto emission standards, has been so
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
915
revised that it would take away part
of the tools we so sorely need to move
ahead aggressively in providing1 ade-
quately for the protection of Cali-
fornia, which it is recognized has a
special problem.
The State of California pioneered
air pollution control work, in estab-
lishing and enforcing standards of air
purity. Our legislature in 1959 en-
acted the first motor vehicle emission
standards. Under this and subsequent
legislation, today 7.8 million Califor-
nia vehicles are already equipped
with smog-control systems. These sys-
tems every day are keeping 2,300 tons
of toxic carbon monoxide and
[p. 30956]
550,000 gallons of unburned gasoline
from seeping into the air which resi-
dents of California breathe.
We have already set the standards
for the 1970 model cars and industry
representatives have stated they are
prepared to meet those standards.
It is very unfortunate that section
208 (b) was modified by the House
Interstate and Foreign Commerce
Committee in a way which could
potentially seriously affect California
efforts.
As pointed out in a letter sent to
the entire membership of the House
earlier this week, signed by Repre-
sentative CECIL KING, chairman of
the California congressional delega-
tion, and myself, this action could
have serious effects on the California
smog program.
Our current inspection require-
ments for certification of new cars for
sale in the State would be wiped out.
The State's requirements that 1969-
model g-asoline powered trucks and
buses be equipped with emission con-
trol systems would be nullified unless
the Federal Government OK'd them.
Evaporation loss controls, estab-
lished by California in 1965 for adop-
tion in 1970 models, could not take
effect without the consent of HEW.
Also, State standards already set
to require more effective controls of
hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide
emissions by 1970 would be threatened
—since there are no comparable Fed-
eral requirements.
California has been fighting air
pollution for a long time. We have
been leading the Nation in taking
steps to solve the problem. Our health
authorities see the need for air
standards in California far in excess
of those that may be acceptable on a
national basis. Why place the damper
of national conformity on our local
and State air pollution work when it
is so vital to the health and safety
of our California citizens?
It cannot be overemphasized that
California seeks the waiver from
national standards not to do less
toward dealing with air pollution, but
because we want to do more. Unfortu-
nately it appears this work could be
seriously hampered by needless delays
and roadblocks under the legislation
as written preempting the field of
establishing emission standards for
the Federal Government.
I think it is of interest to note that
the various Government departments
and agencies, in their comments as
printed in House Report No. 728 on
S. 780, do not interpose objection to
the bill as passed by the Senate con-
taining the waiver to California of the
general Federal emission standards in
order that California might set higher
standards. Some agencies in fact state
that they have no objection to the bill
as passed by the Senate.
The one reservation interposed by
an agency as printed in House Re-
port No. 728 is by the Department of
State which sees the California
waiver, of all things, in resulting ulti-
mately in discrimination against im-
ported automobiles and says it would
cause "grave trade complications."
-------
916
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
The Department goes on to state that
in the event a waiver provision is
retained in the bill it should be
modified as suggested by Thomas C.
Mann, president of the Automobile
Manufacturers Association, whose
suggested approach for a provision is
now embodied in the bill. The Depart-
ment of State indicates that while it
had not been asked to comment on S.
780, it had heard from foreign em-
bassies and representatives of Ameri-
can importers about the matter.
In my opinion it is highly disturb-
ing for the State Department to place
the interests of foreign car manu-
facturers above the health and welfare
of the citizens of California, which
is after all the reason for the proposal
to allow California to set its own
higher standards.
An amendment will be proposed at
the appropriate time by the distin-
guished gentleman from California
[Mr. Moss] to allow California to set
auto emission standards higher than
the general Federal standards in line
with the provision contained in S. 780
as passed unanimously by the other
body. I respectfully ask that the
amendment receive the support of the
House.
California has devoted untold effort
and has spent many millions of dollars
to help control air pollution and pro-
tect our citizens. Help us to see that
unnecessary restraints are not im-
posed which could impede this vital
work. California's accomplishments
have and certainly will continue to be
of benefit throughout the Nation
toward protecting all our people from
air pollution.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LIPSCOMB. I yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Is it not true
that the foreign automobiles that come
into California, such as the Volks-
wagen, Fiat, Volvo, and others, are
complying with the California law
and are installing these devices in
order to get into the California
market?
Mr. LIPSCOMB. Because of the
effective administration of our Cali-
fornia laws, foreign automobile manu-
facturers are cooperating with our
State, and arrangements have been
made for the placement of smog de-
vices on automobiles coming into the
State.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. And they are
anxious to cooperate with the State?
Mr. LIPSCOMB. Yes, for California
is a large market.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. The gentleman is
correct.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. HOSMER].
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, I
suppose this debate thus far, if it -were
in a courtroom, might be entitled,
"The People of the State of California
versus Ford, General Motors, and
American Motors," because actually
this issue is between the 20 million
people of the State of California and
these three giant corporations. To
give an idea of what 20 million people
amounts to, most of the countries of
the world have a smaller population.
Our gigantic neighbor to the north,
Canada, has 20 million people, just
like the State of California has 20
million people. Both are large and
important societies.
What is this issue between these 20
million Californians and the three
corporations? It is simply whether, as
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
HARVEY] so well pointed out, these
corporations go before one regulatory
body or two in connection with the
control of emissions from automobiles.
Put another way, the issue is
whether California can act respon-
sibly, as it has in the past, to protect
its people and their lives and their
health, or whether California is going
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
917
to have to go, as somebody said, hat in
hand, alongside these three corpora-
tions, up to a department in Washing-
ton and beg and plead for the oppor-
tunity to try to protect its citizens.
Believe me, this smog problem is
an avalanche of trouble. Imagine any
one of the States with a gigantic
river raging all the way up to its
banks. The people of the State want
to keep this flood inside the banks
from destroying them. They want to
put sandbags on top of the bank,
but there is a law that says, "No, you
cannot do that. You have to go to
Washington to get permission to stop
this flood." This avalanche of smog is
exactly that kind of situation.
We cannot see this stuff, but it can
see and feel us, and it can burn our
eyes, and can put disease in our
lungs and can shorten our lives. We
do not want to have to go pleading to
Washington in the midst of a crisis
to staunch this avalanche.
Believe me, I think any one of our
States certainly ought to be able to
protect its people in that kind of
situation. I do not think any one of
these three gigantic corporations has
any right, natural or otherwise, to
peddle a product in any part of this
country, in any single State, that can
cause consequences that these auto-
mobiles are causing under the very
unique meteorological and geographi-
cal conditions in California that trap
these poisons close to the ground in
the air that people must breathe.
We have to give the people in Cali-
fornia the right to protect themselves,
This is the only way to do it.
Why does the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. HARVEY] say these
three gigantic corporations should not
have to go before two regulatory
bodies? He says they should just go
to one. He says this is because the sub-
ject involved is one of scientific com-
plexity and difficulty of interpretation.
He says that is why.
Let nobody kid us. Scientific inter-
pretations are as easy to make in
California as in Washington, and in
this situation they should be made in
both places.
These three corporations are the
same ones who are constantly down
here in Washington arguing with the
Government about safety standards
in their automobiles. It is almost
certain, if we give them the oppor-
tunity and the privilege to come only
to Washington on this smog issue
they will gum it up, they will get into
hassles about smog devices, they will
fog it up and slow it down, and the
people in California will not be pro-
tected.
Give us the chance to protect our
people. Support the amendment that
will be offered permitting California
to establish the higher standards
applicable to automobile emissions that
it needs.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume to
[p. 30957]
the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
ROGERS].
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I thank the gentleman for yield-
ing. I want to commend the gentle-
man, the chairman of the committee,
for his leadership in this field, and the
ranking minority member of the com-
mittee as well as all the members of
the committee. I think all of the Mem-
bers have tried to approach this sub-
ject in a realistic way, to find a solu-
tion which is the best way not just for
one State but for all the States. I
think we have lost sight of the fact
that the present Federal standards
are as high as the standards for the
State of California. They are exactly
the same.
I do not want the people in Florida
to have automobiles coming into my
State with lesser standards than cars
going into California. I have no
-------
918
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
reason to believe that they will, if this
bill is enacted as approved by the
committee.
I do not believe that New York
State should have cars going into New
York with any less stringent require-
ments than for those going into Cali-
fornia. Under this law that would not
happen.
I believe that California has done a
magnificent job. I do not deny that.
They have had some leadership, be-
cause they had a more acute problem
at the time.
Now we have taken action. The
Federal law has been enacted only
since 1963, and only since 1965 have
we had Federal emission standards
for automobiles.
What we are doing is moving this
whole Nation toward higher and safer
standards. California can give advice.
That will be most helpful. I am sure
the Secretary will use that advice.
I want high standards set for every
car in the country.
What about the cars that go into
California? California is a great
tourist State. Millions of Americans
go there. Do we not want those cars
to have just as high standards as the
cars there? They are going to be there
perhaps a month at a time.
I remember when we all descended
on Los Angeles, thousands of people,
during a convention there not too long
ago. Every one of those cars ought
not to be allowed to emit air pollu-
tion any worse than those in Cali-
fornia.
This legislation is designed to get
at that problem.
We want California to participate
and to help, and to help set standards.
This is the way we designed the legis^
lation. We want every State to have
the same protection as California.
This is what we plan. That is what
the legislation is designed for.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I yield to
my good friend, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Moss].
Mr. MOSS. I want to say to my
most eloquent friend from Florida
that his concern for us in California is
deeply appreciated, and reciprocated.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. We Florid-
ians must have concern for Cali-
fornians.
Mr. MOSS. Would the gentleman in-
form the members of the Committee
where the initiative for the present
standards originated? Is it not true
that the present standards, which the
gentleman has characterized as being
high national standards, without the
pioneering of California and the tech-
nology of California would not be so
high nor so uniform?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. If the
gentleman will permit me to answer,
I would agree with the gentleman.
This is certainly true. As a result of
that, as the gentleman knows, our
committee passed legislation in 1965.
We are now moving to solve this
problem of air pollution. The Secre-
tary has used the experience Cali-
fornia has had. We would expect him
to. We would expect him still to do so
in the future.
We have the high standards which,
as the gentleman says, may have been
developed in part by California.
Surely the gentleman knows we
have now taken action on the national
scene because of the interstate com-
plexion of the auto industry. We have
gotten beyond just one State. Surely
the gentleman would want to protect
all the States just as much as he
would want to protect California.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield further?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I yield.
Mr. MOSS. Let me say to the
gentleman, I certainly want to insure
the progress which has been character-
ized because of the leadership of Cali-
fornia, by preserving its role of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
919
leadership and not tying its hands
through a Federal bureaucracy.
Mr. ROGERS' of Florida. I thank
the gentleman. Certainly the role in
experimentation, if that is desired,
can continue. There is nothing to stop
that. We would welcome it.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I yield to
the gentleman from California.
Mr. HOSMER. I want to say to the
gentleman first, insofar as the tourist
cars are concerned, those come out to
about 5 percent of the vehicles on the
road. If we can clean up 95 percent of
the cars, we will get rid of the smog
problem.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I hope, if
the gentleman will permit me
Mr. HOSMER. I am trying to tell
the gentleman
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I hope
the gentleman will not be provincial
and just say that you want to clean up
95 percent of the cars which you have
in your State. I hope you will have
consideration for the other Members
of Congress and the American public
so as to let us have just as high
standards as California has. That is
what this committee wants.
Mr. HOSMER. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. And that
is what we want to insist upon. Yes;
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HOSM.ER. That is exactly what
I am trying to tell the gentleman, but
you do not seem to understand how
smog occurs. What comes out of the
automobile and its consequences
depends upon the meteorology and the
geography of location. It is one thing
in Florida as a consequence, but quite
a different thing in California. Cer-
tainly we do not want you to have
any less delightful air than we have
in California.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I thank
the gentleman.
Mr. HOSMER. But in order to
accomplish that end, there must be
very much stricter control of the
emissions from vehicles in California
than in Florida. The gentleman will
certainly grant that.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I will not
agree to that. It may be more of a
problem there because of your air
inversion. I agree with that. But I do
not believe emission should be allowed
to be any higher in Florida than in
California.
Mr. HOSMER. You do not have the
same problem and do not require the
same answer.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. We may
have the problem here in Washington,
also. In the summertime, as you go
along Rock Creek Park and on 14th
Street, there is a problem. I have felt
the smog at times. I can understand
the position of the gentleman from
California, but all we are trying to
do is set higher standards for all of
our Nation. The Congress should do
no less.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Yes. I will
be glad to yield to the gentleman from
Ohio.
Mr. HAYS. As I understand it, the
automobile manufacturers say that
they can make a car which will pro-
duce less emission for California and
make one for the rest of the country
which produces 80 parts per million.
Is that not right?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. That is
the basis.
Mr. HAYS. Why not do this by
having them make the car that is good
for California for the whole country?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I thank
the gentleman, and that is exactly
what the committee is trying to do.
Mr. HAYS. No, it is not.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. The gentle-
man does not understand, then.
-------
920
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Mr. HAYS. Yes. I understand only
too well.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Let me
tell the gentleman he does not under-
stand the intent of the committee,
because what we have said is we
want the high standards set for all
of the Nation so that the cars in
Ohio will have no greater emission of
air pollution in your State or my
State of Florida than they have in
California.
Mr. HAYS. Will the gentleman
yield now?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. And the
present standards are now the same.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HAYS. But they can make one
with lower emission than 275 parts
per million.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. That is
right. And it will be required by the
Department. I have already discussed
it with them. They say these stand-
ards will be changed.
Mr. HAYS. Why do you say they
will require that? It is the same silly
outfit that tested those seat belts
where you break your neck and they
put it on your car. I tell my dealer, if
it is on my car, "Take it back. I do not
want it."
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. This is a
[p.30958]
different department entirely. This is
the department which is set up for it.
What we are trying to do simply is
set national standards where every
American car will not pollute the air
any more than any other American's
car. That is what we are trying to
accomplish.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. HOSMER. I want to say in
some parts of the country you do not
need the extra emission control. One
of them is Florida. You do not want
your Florida people to have to buy
devices that are necessary in Cali-
fornia, unnecessary in Florida, and
pay extra for them. They are not
needed in Florida.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Let me
answer the gentleman by saying the
gentleman is somewhat presumptuous
in saying that we do not want to have
our cars emit as little pollution as
any other State. I think Americans all
over the country are so conscious now
of air pollution that they are ready
to attack the problem.
We have already passed the law in
1963 and 1965, and this is simply an
extension, and it is to be nationwide,
and not just to apply for the purpose
of one State.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from California [Mr.
TUNNEY].
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. Chairman, I am
very much in favor of the Air Quality
Act, so long as it contains an amend-
ment giving California the right to
set its own auto emission standards.
Mr. Chairman, the Air Quality Act
which we are considering today
amends the Clean Air Act to provide
for planning grants to air pollution
control agencies, to expand research
provisions relating to fuels and
vehicles, to provide for interstate
air pollution control agencies or com-
missions, and to authorize the estab-
lishment of air quality standards.
The Congress, State, and local gov-
ernments, and industries, have only
recently begun to show their concern
and awareness of the problem of air
pollution in the face of the ever-
increasing outcry of public dissatis-
faction. We have acted slowly and the
bill before us today is at least an
important first step in the fight
against air pollution.
However, the Air Quality Act, as
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
921
reported out of the House Interstate
and Foreign Commerce Committee,
contains a major flaw which I hope
we will act to correct today.
The Senate-passed bill exempts
California from the proposed auto
emission provision. The House bill,
however, would prohibit California
from adopting auto emission stand-
ards more stringent than the proposed
Federal standards despite the fact
that we have an air pollution prob-
lem of different magnitude than in
other States.
Mr. Chairman, the past few years
have witnessed a rise in concern over
State and local responsibility. Cali-
fornia has made some progress in an
attempt to solve the serious problems
of air pollution and environmental
quality control. It is significant to
note that the Federal standards pro-
posed under the Air Quality Act are
modeled after those in effect in Cali-
fornia in 1966 and were not then
satisfactory to our needs. It would be
ironic to tell the people of California
and those of other States that they
cannot wage a better and more
effective battle against air pollution
than the Federal Government. This is
especially true since the results of
California's research and past experi-
ence have contributed so much to the
formulation of the Air Quality Act
which we are now considering. Cali-
fornia should not be penalized for its
accomplishments.
California has already outgrown the
proposed Federal regulations and
should be allowed to progress accord-
ing to its needs. We are facing a
serioUs and spreading smog problem,
primarily caused by motor vehicle
emissions. In 1965, for example, Cali-
fornia had 11.1 million registered
vehicles and 18.4 million people, two
cars for every three people. There are
2,000 additional new motor vehicles
per day registered in California. My
district, consisting of Riverside and
Imperial Counties, was relatively
smog free until just a few years ago.
Now a good portion of my district is
covered by an ever-increasing smog
haze. How can I tell my constituents
that the State cannot move rapidly to
correct this problem because the Fed-
eral Government must first catch up?
To a people threatened by the health
and other dangers of air pollution,
this is too much to ask.
It is alleged that the preemption of
California, allowing the State to set
more stringent air pollution stand-
ards, would work a hardship on the
auto industry. However, the opposite
choice is to ask the people of Cali-
fornia to bear the hardship of air
pollution and mark time until the
Federal Government is ready to move
ahead. The choice that the Congress
makes will have a long-range effect
on encouraging future State and local
responsibility. California did not rely
on the Federal Government in fight-
ing air pollution. I would have hoped
that the Air Quality Act would have
stronger controls than those proposed
in the bill we are considering. How-
ever, the least we can do now is to
allow a State to move ahead with
more stringent and effective stand-
ards. I am sure that other regions and
States will be faced with a similar
problem soon and I urge the House to
amend the bill now to allow Cali-
fornia to move ahead with its fight
against air pollution and protect the
health and welfare of its people.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
MINISH].
Mr. MINISH. Mr. Chairman, I rise
to urge the passage of the Air Quality
Act of 1967. In my judgment, this is a
matter of the greatest importance and
urgency. This measure will pave the
way for a concerted and systematic
attack on air pollution throughout the
United States.
526-702 O - 13 -- 23
-------
922
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
The district which I am privileged
to represent is located in one of our
Nation's major metropolitan areas
and I am, therefore, keenly aware of
the extent of the pollution menace.
However, let me hasten to point out
that there is no single urban area in
the United States today free from the
growing threat of air pollution.
I have been continually concerned
with this serious situation during my
service in the Congress. The enact-
ment of the initial Clean Air Act in
1963 during my first year in the House
of Representatives was most gratify-
ing to me, as were the strengthening
amendments approved in 1965 and
1966. Today, I am pleased to vote for
the Air Quality Act of 1967, which
arguments and implements the origi-
nal legislation.
Mr. Speaker, we now have definitive
evidence linking air pollution to the
aggravation of disorders of the
respiratory system such as asthma,
bronchitis, and emphysema. In addi-
tion, many otherwise healthy persons
are troubled by coughs, throat irrita-
tions, and headaches as a result of air
pollution. These dangers, not to men-
tion the effect on man's natural envir-
onment, are well documented. On the
other hand, knowledge of how to com-
bat air pollution is far from adequate.
The Air Quality Act of 1967
provides for extensive new research
efforts to develop methods and tech-
niques for eliminating pollutants from
our atmosphere. It authorizes the
Secretary of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare to
continue current air pollution research
and adds authority for the Secretary
to establish various technical advisory
committees to assist him in admin-
istering and planning his future re-
search program.
More specifically, the legislation
directs the Secretary to conduct
studies into the problem of controlling
emissions from aircraft, to make
grants to State air pollution control
agencies for the development of inspec-
tion and testing facilities to combat
pollution caused by motor vehicles,
and to determine the feasibility of
establishing national emission stand-
ards for stationary sources of air
pollution.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that Congress
will acknowledge the seriousness of
the air pollution problem by passing
the Air Quality Control Act of 1967.
The need is evident. The issue is
clear. The health of our people and
our environment is at stake. Without
this bill, the future is bleak indeed. In
the next 10 years alone, we will have
one-third more motor vehicles on our
highways, our industrial production
will double, and the population in our
urban centers will increase by 30
percent. If we wait, in the words of
President Johnson, "We will have lost
the battle for clean air." The time to
act is now.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
EILBEKG].
Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, now we have heard
the harmful effects of air pollution
discussed many times. A repetition of
the facts, however, does not dilute
their significance. Nor does a repeti-
tion of the facts add to our knowledge
about the causes of air pollution. We
must continue and expand our re-
search efforts to establish effective
remedies.
[p. 30959]
President Johnson had this problem
well in mind when he said:
Many sources of air pollution cannot be eco-
nomically or effectively controlled by our pres-
ent technology. The sheer number of motor
vehicles may. within a decade or two, defy the
best pollution control methods we can develop.
If this proves true, surely we cannot continue
to use the type of internal combustion engine
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
923
now in service. New types of internal combus-
tion engines—or indeed new propulsion sys-
tems—may be required. Aircraft engine ex-
hausts are also becoming significant pollution
problems. Sulfur compounds—created wherever
coal or oil is burned—threaten the environ-
ment of almost every city and town in
America.
The President has said, and I
repeat, "threaten the environment of
almost every city and town in
America." This is not a problem of
one area or even several. This is not
even an urban problem as opposed to
suburban, exurban or rural. This is a
universal problem in our Nation, solu-
tions to which must cross city, county,
and State lines as the pollutants them-
selves do.
The health or economic implications
of a solution to this problem are of
tremendous importance. We cannot
afford to jeopardize the vast resources
that have been invested by industry
thus far. But neither can we afford to
ignore the health of millions of Ameri-
cans. The Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce is to be com-
mended for thoughtful consideration
of the complex problems involved in
drafting this legislation, and in carry-
ing out the President's recommenda-
tions. I strongly urge the passage of
the Air Quality Act of 1967.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the gentle-
man from New York [Mr. MURPHY]
may extend his remarks at this point
in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
West Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. MURPHY of New York. Mr.
Chairman, I rise today in support of
S. 780, the Air Quality Act of 1967.
The Air Quality Act is a vital part
of the comprehensive national effort
to control and abate air pollution
which began with the Clean Air Act of
1963. The Clean Air Act was amended
once in 1965, and is being amended
today through the new Air Quality
Act.
The need for Federal legislation in
the air pollution field is well docu-
mented. There can be no doubt that
air pollution is a threat to the health
of the American people. For example,
there is a direct association between
air pollution and excess mortality
during periods of unusually severe air
pollution, and there is a direct rela-
tionship between the incidence of many
diseases and air pollution experienced
by large population groups over a
period of time. In addition, there is a
large amount of laboratory evidence
gathered from experiments on animals
which demonstrates the harm caused
by air pollution. But while public
health is our primary concern, air
pollution also has a serious economic
impact; it is estimated that the effects
of air pollution result in a loss of over
$11 billion a year.
The need for this bill, therefore, is
obvious. There is no reason why we
should continue to breathe polluted
air. A nation which can send a rocket
to the moon is certainly capable of
cleaning the air it breathes on earth.
This bill would be an important
step forward in the battle to clean
our air here on earth. It would direct
the States to deal with air pollution
problems within air quality control
regions designated by the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare,
and thus would focus control efforts
on specific problem areas. In addition,
the Secretary would be directed to
establish air quality criteria and to
provide information on the available
air pollution control techniques.
Once these regions were delineated,
the criteria established, and informa-
tion on the control techniques made
available, it would be up to the States
to establish air quality standards and
adopt a plan for their enforcement
and implementation. The Federal
Government would be empowered to
-------
924
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
initiate action to insure setting1 and
enforcement of standards only if a
State failed to take reasonable action
to achieve compliance.
A major section of this bill requires
the Secretary to initiate a program of
research and training. This is neces-
sary because no single State has
facilities or resources to carry out a
comprehensive research effort. It is
important, however, that the benefits
of this research program be made
available to S'tate and local agencies;
this is provided for in the bill.
The bill also provides for a strong
regional approach to fighting air
pollution, an approach which recog-
nizes the fact that air pollution does
not respect State or local boundaries.
Interstate air quality agencies or com-
missions are encouraged under the
act, and the Federal Government will
pay up to 100 percent of the cost of
their programs for up to 2 years, and
up to three-fourths of the cost there-
after.
This is of particular importance to
my own State of New York, because
of the five-state air pollution control
compact proposed by Governor Rocke-
feller.
There is no area which needs inter-
state action more than the New York-
New Jersey metropolitan area, which
includes my own district. According to
the Public Health Service, this area
has the worst air pollution problem
in the Nation. An interstate agree-
ment between New Jersey and New
York for this specific area, which com-
prises about 17 counties, would be a
logical response to the problem.
Instead, Governor Rockefeller pro-
posed a five-State compact which does
not relate to any problem area, and
which would be so cumbersome as to
virtually eliminate any chance of
effective air pollution control.
For this reason, I offered an amend-
ment in committee, which was adopted
as section 102 (a) of the bill, which
would discourage interstate agree-
ments or compacts unless each signa-
tory State is entirely or partially
included in a common air quality con-
trol region. This is in keeping with
the basic purpose of the bill, which is
to deal with the specific problem areas
—the air quality control regions
designated by the Secretary.
These are just a few of the im-
portant provisions in the bill—there
are many others. In general, it
provides for a coordinated effort be-
tween local, State, and Federal govern-
ments directed at controlling and
abating air pollution. It provides the
tools necessary to eventually overcome
the pollution problem which today
smothers our cities in filth. I am confi-
dent that with this bill we can make
significant progress in our fight
against air pollution, and I urge my
colleagues to support it today.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, 1
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland [Mr. MACHEN].
Mr. MACHEN. Mr. Chairman, I
rise to give my firm support to the
legislation we are considering today
to amend the Clean Air Act of 1963,
the Air Quality Act of 1967. The
prompt enactment of this legislation
is of great concern to me and all those
who live in this great country of ours.
There can be no doubt that air
pollution is a threat to the health and
well-being of the American people.
Air pollution is responsible to a degree
for some deaths and a great deal of
unnecessary disability and discomfort.
Moreover, this problem, which we all
recognize as being very serious, is
growing worse in direct relation to
the Nation's continued economic
growth and technological advance-
ment.
The Clean Air Act of 1963 marked
the beginning of a new and more
hopeful era in air pollution control.
Under this act, for the first time,
authority was provided for Federal
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
925
regulatory action to abate interstate
pollution problems and for the award-
ing of Federal funds to encourage the
development of regulatory programs
at the State and local level.
In spite of the efforts undertaken as
a result of this legislation, and the
additional measures which the 1965
and 1966 amendments to the Clean Air
Act provided, we are not even con-
trolling today's level of pollution. It
is estimated that by 1980 the Nation's
urban population will be one-third
greater; the number of motor vehicles
in use will have increased by 40 per-
cent; and the demands for energy will
be 50 percent greater. Unless we ex-
pand our efforts in the area of air
pollution control now, this problem
will reach highly critical proportions
in the next decade.
This legislation we are considering
today does not take anything away
from our past efforts in the field of
air pollution control, but adds a new
and I believe a much needed dimension
to them. The approach taken in this
measure hinges to a great extent on
the necessity for the States to take
action to deal with this problem within
air quality control regions designated
by the Secretary of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare. In
brief, the States would be responsible
for setting air quality standards for
such regions and for implementing
plans to meet those standards. This
means that it will be up to the State
governments to determine, first, the
maximum concentrations of pollutants
that will be permitted in the air in
such regions during a given time
period before the danger point is
reached, and second, the extent that
such pollution sources in the region
must be controlled to meet the
regional air quality standards.
[p.30960]
The Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare would assist the
States in their effort, by publishing
air quality criteria and information
on recommended control technology.
Moreover, the Department would be
given the responsibility and duty to
determine whether State standards
are adequate and consistent with the
purposes of this bill. In addition, the
Department would be empowered to
initiate action against the States if
it were discovered that action at that
level was not consistent with the man-
date to develop and implement air
quality standards.
Efforts to combat air pollution in
the past have been limited by a re-
luctance on the part of governmental
units to cross jurisdictional lines in
seeking solutions to the problem. I
believe that, in seeking any solution to
this problem, it is of the utmost im-
portance that the attack on pollution
sources be broad enough so that action
can be taken on the whole problem.
This still recognizes this weakness in
past efforts and provides, among other
things, for the establishment of inter-
state air pollution control agencies
and commissions.
In summation, I believe the bill we
are considering today deserves our
support because it recognizes that we
must now enter a new era in the
nationwide struggle against air
pollution. The hit-or-miss, largely un-
certain control efforts on the part of
all levels of government thus far,
have not achieved the success which is
needed. These former efforts have to
be augmented and in some instances
supplanted by a more rational scien-
tific effort which attacks the prob-
lem at its root causes. I believe this
legislation provides the tools which, if
used effectively, can assure us of
achieving a real breakthrough in
winning the battle for clean air.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. VAN DEERLIN].
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Chair-
-------
926
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
man, I thank the gentleman for yield-
ing.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. I yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I have
asked for this time in order to clear
up the point made by the distinguished
gentleman from Florida, who was
talking about the desirability of the
same standards of emission clear
across this Nation.
There is a question here of whether
that would be economically wise. In or-
der to maintain the same standards
across this Nation it would be neces-
sary to have different standards of
emission. For that reason the bill
provides for varying ambient air
standards, regional standards. And
it is for that reason and now recog-
nition of the fact that we in Cali-
fornia seek the opportunity to have
the most stringent requirement on
emission standards. But the two
should be kept clearly in mind.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Chair-
man, it should not be necessary to
reiterate this, but for my own part I
would like to emphasize that with none
of us is there the slightest feeling of
animosity toward any Member of this
House who, for whatever the reason
that has impelled him, takes a position
in opposition to the aspirations of
California on this legislation.
I could even be more specific by
saying that in the 5 years that I have
served in this House, no Member on
my committee of the House has shown
me courtesy or kindness exceeding that
of the gentleman from Michigan,
JOHN DINGELL. I would add that my
friend, the gentleman from Michigan,
JIM HARVEY, is one of the most
articulate and courageous Members
in this House.
I hope that we Californians will be
forgiven for what may have appeared
to some of you, as we badgered you
in committee or as we buttonholed
you in the hallways, as parochialism
on this subject. It must be quite
apparent that we do feel deeply on
the subject of air pollution.
It happens that a majority of our
California delegation are native sons
of California—we were born there.
We do not say very much about this
around election time, because the per-
centage of native sons is not sufficient
in California to constitute much of a
voting bloc. But it does mean that a
good many of us on the California
delegation remember back a long
way.
We remember what our State was
like before the savage intrusion of air
pollution. I was a student at the Uni-
versity of Southern California back in
the mid-thirties. We did not see such
a good football team in those days as
they do today—but on almost any day
in the year, we could see as far as
the mountains surrounding Los
Angeles. It is interesting to note that
it was only on certain kinds of days
that you could not see all the way to
the mountains. Those were on the
crisp, cold days in the winter when
the orange growers were using their
smudge pots to keep the fruit on the
trees from freezing. Now the orchard-
ists use more sophisticated methods
to keep the air in circulation, and
to protect the fruit. So it happens that
these are only days now—the cold,
crisp days of winter—when it seems
that sometimes you can see the
mountains.
Now we Californians are not to be
entirely absolved of blame. It is true
that our natural air is still the same
as it was in the thirties. We have put
an awful lot of pollutants into the air.
We have got rid of backyard incinera-
tors and sources of industrial pollu-
tion, some 15 years ago. We find now
that auto emissions are the last really
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
927
remaining villain, and we have under-
taken to do something about them.
You can understand that problem
when you understand that since World
War II the number of automobiles
nationally has tripled from some 30
million to nearly 90 million. In Cali-
fornia we have gone up about four
times. It is a very staggering statistic.
Every day in the year 1,800 new
automobiles are registered in the
State of California.
Would you believe this? That it 5s
literally possible for the entire State
of California, the entire population, to
ride on the streets and highways in
cars that are licensed in California
today—and to do that occupying only
the front seats?
Quite clearly, this became a very in-
tense political problem, some 15 years
ago. Many a member of the California
delegation, when he served in the State
legislature or in the city councils of
California, has been a part of the local
or State governments that responded
to this challenge. They have responded
to the extent that if California had
not taken the pioneer steps that she
has taken on her own, and at her own
expense, and discovered through scien-
tific inquiry what was going to be
required to meet this, it is estimated
that the smog today in southern Cali-
fornia would be 25 percent worse than
it is in these pictures that you see out
here in the Speaker's lobby. Yet it is
still worse than it was in 1960.
We want the right to continue this
program as we have started it. We do
not want you to tell us we must now
stop it. We want you to think of the
19 million people that we represent,
and who are watching the actions that
will take place in this body during
the next 2 hours. They look upon our
decision this afternoon as a real crisis
for California.
So, to paraphrase a great 20th
century leader of the free world, I
will close by saying, "Let us keep
the tools, and we will finish the job."
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Kentucky [Mr. CARTER].
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the bill now before
us to provide a more effective means
to control air pollution.
To me, it seems that we are losing
ground in the fight against air pollu-
tion, although the Clean Air Act of
1963 initiated the national effort to
control air pollution. Some progress
has been made since that time, but
the fact remains that air pollution
is increasing much faster than are
our efforts to control it.
In short, we are losing ground in
our struggle to control the air we
breathe. This fact was forcefully
documented last December by Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare John Gardner, in an address
before the Third National Conference
on Air Pollution.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to include in my remarks a
portion of the Secretary's address:
EXCERPTS FKOM SECRETARY GARDNER'S ADDRESS
While this response is encouraging, it is
little more than a beginning. Most State pro-
grams lack adequate authority and resources.
Only a half-dozen have more than a minimal
abatement program. Few are able to serve
communities which are too small to operate
their own programs.
Our most recent estimate indicates that only
58 percent of the urban population of the
United States is now served by local air pollu-
tion programs. And where programs do exist,
their resources are meager. On a per capita
basis, annual spending for local air pollution
control amounts to about 15 cents. Yet at least
40 cents per capita is considered necessary
for an adequate local effort.
Regional programs are virtually non-existent.
Only 5 of the 24 largest metropolitan areas
are now served by regional activity of any
sort. Sixty-nine million people—about one-half
of the Nation's urban population—live in these
24 areas.
The truth is that we are actually losing
[p. 30961]
ground in the fight against pollution. The smog
continues to grow more dense even aa we con-
-------
928
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
tinue to talk about it.
Neither government nor industry haa yet
moved forward with the vigor and determina-
tion which were so well described.
State and local governments have been slow
in seizing the opportunities for action. In par-
ticular, they have failed to establish the re-
gional approaches demanded by a problem that
ignores traditional state boundaries.
As the Secretary pointed out,
regional air pollution programs are
absolutely necessary but are "virtually
nonexistent."
But, Mr. Chairman, we now have
an opportunity to remedy this shock-
ing situation. The Air Quality Act of
1967, as reported out by the Com-
mittee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, will provide the basis for
systematic air pollution control activi-
ties on a regional scale.
Therefore, I strongly support this
bill and urge its speedy enactment.
Mr. BROTZMAN. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARTER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Colorado.
Mr. BROTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding. I
congratulate him on his excellent re-
marks and his diligent and hard work
as a member of the committee.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
S. 780, the Air Quality Act of 1967.
This bill is the product of long and
extensive hearings by the House Inter-
state and Foreign Commerce Com-
mitte, on which I serve. I wish to
commend our distinguished chairman,
the gentleman from West Virginia
[Mr. STAGGERS], and the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER], the rank-
ing member, for the manner in which
they conducted those hearings.
Certainly, Mr. Chairman, there can
be no doubt that the need to face the
menacing problem of air pollution
must be met. Today, approximately
130 million tons of pollutants are dis-
charged annually into the atmosphere.
Not one major metropolitan area in
the United States is without an air
pollution problem today. By 1980, the
Nation's urban population will in-
crease by a third, the number of motor
vehicles by 40 percent and the demand
for industrial power and energy by 50
percent, all adding to the dangers of
a growing air pollution problem.
Steps must be taken now to improve
our capacity to meet this problem. I
am pleased that this type of legisla-
tion enjoys bipartisan support. In
1955, President Eisenhower urged the
enactment of air pollution legislation.
Subsequently, the first legislation in
this area was enacted by the 84th
Congress with strong Republican sup-
port. During the 88th Congress, I was
pleased to assist in the drafting of
legislation which culminated in the
enactment of the Clean Air Act. The
bill which we are considering today is
part of President Johnson's program
to assure a healthy environment to
every American. The Republican
policy committee has urged enactment
of the bill.
Basically, S. 780 will provide $362.3
million over a 3-year period for air
control research, studies, planning,
and grants to States and air pollu-
tion agencies. The bill also encourages
the solution of air pollution problems
on a regional basis.
I would like to take a moment to
discuss this bill's relationship to Colo-
rado.
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we in Colo-
rado have been more fortunate than
many of our more industrialized sister
States. We have not had the same
experiences as California, New York,
or New Jersey. But, Mr. Chairman,
pollution is coming to Colorado and
other States, and it is coming fast.
I am pleased to report, Mr. Chair-
man, that Colorado has taken steps to
control and regulate air pollution. In
testimony before our committee, Mr.
John Fleming Kelly, legal counsel
for the Colorado Association of Com-
merce and Industry, stated that S.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
929
780, if improperly interpreted by the
Federal Government could seriously
endanger the Colorado air pollution
program.
As he said, under the bill—
It is possible that an air control region
within a particular state would be larger
or not coincide with a basin as denned in our
Colorado act and as regulated by our Colo-
rado law.
I expressed my very grave concern
to the committee, and worked to assure
that Colorado's interests would be pro-
tected. I am pleased to say that
language in the bill report states:
The Committee learned that in at least
one State (Colorado) air pollution regions
have already been set under State law, and
there is some concern that those regions
designated by the Secretary will not he coter-
minous with them, thus raising problems of
the administration of standards where the
regions differ. The committee expects the De-
partment of Health, Education, and Welfare
to consult with proper officials of the States
to assure that maximum consideration ia giv-
en to the regions established or that may be
established in such States, and to the State
law under which they were established.
I feel that this language protects
not only Colorado, but the rights of
other States in a similar situation.
Mr. STUCKEY. Mr. Chairman,
there has been a good deal of discus-
sion this afternoon about the commit-
tee version of the bill under discussion,
particularly with respect to the flexi-
bility it affords California in its
search for stringent, meaningful air
pollution control standards.
The bill, as reported by our com-
mittee, places the responsibility for
prescribing standards for California
in the hands of the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare. In
my judgment, this is a sound pro-
cedure. While it will facilitate unified
direction and enforcement of the Fed-
eral control program, it will, neverthe-
less, permit those participating in the
program to deal with a single agency.
HEW will be charged with estab-
lishing a national program in the area
of automobile exhaust emissions. At
the same time, it can permit a specific
variation from the national controls
as required by California. Most im-
portantly, the single administrative
responsibility in HEW would tend to
reduce the possibility of conflict in
administrative interpretation between
varying and possibly competing regu-
latory agencies.
I can understand the concern of
California with increasing air pollu-
tion problems, and I can understand
the need for California to give itself
the maximum amount of flexibility
possible. No one disagrees with Cali-
fornia's need to work toward increas-
ingly stringent standards. We hope
it will. But the ultimate coordination
and thrust of a national program
belongs at the national level.
Research, testing, evaluation, and
setting of standards is complex
enough without legislating parallel
or duplicative efforts. If experience is
any guide, two administrators of this
program would dilute the national
objective, diffuse testing and evalua-
tion of new control systems, and
eventually result in an increase in
costs of the devices themselves—costs
borne by every consumer in every
State. All these complications are
made worse by the problem of patch-
work laws affecting American motor-
ists driving interstate.
Since HEW is an agency of the U.S.
Government and has the authority un-
der a 1965 act of Congress to set
these standards, I urge the House to
enact S. 780 as reported by the House
Commerce Committee. Why should
the California legislature carry out the
role which Congress itself assumed
when it passed the Clean Air Act in
1963 and the 1965 amendments thereto
governing auto pollution?
I have confidence in the committee-
passed bill, and I feel that the national
interest—and that means every
State's interest—will be best served
-------
930
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
by our support of the legislation
before us.
Mr. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, the
issue as to whether or not the origi-
nal air pollution legislation of 1963
was most effectively drafted to retain
and insure the desired initiative and
participation by State and local gov-
ernment was resolved with the en-
actment of that original legislation
in 1963.
The mechanics of participation by
the Federal Government as presented
at that time were enacted into law
and the mechanics of basic national
policy are, therefore, no longer before
us. Our challenge now is to move
ahead in a realistic manner which
will improve healthy habitation in the
United States.
We cannot afford to gamble with
polluted air. We must take those
measures which will insure the ac-
ceptance of maximum responsibility
at all levels of government. Need for
the legislation which is before us
today is, therefore, both self-evident
and urgent.
There are countless examples of
enlightened and effective work by
State and local government in the
fight for clean air. I am proud, for
example, of excellent progress being
made in Utah and in my district where
the Salt Lake City Air Pollution
Committee has a record of which we
are very proud. As stated by Mr.
Calvin A. Behle, cochairman of the
Air Pollution Committee of the Salt
Lake Area Chamber of Commerce:
For years an Air Pollution Committee of
the Salt Lake Area Chamber of Commerce
has met regularly to note the extent of con-
trol, to suggest steps that should be taken
to control undue pollution, and to keep in-
formed generally and act on behalf of the
public interest to prevent our own cities
from ever waking up with smog comparable
[p. 30962]
to that of Los Angeles. Official recognition
was given that Committee, and its continu-
ance was recommended as the central rep-
resentative and informational group for our
State of Utah, by an official report: Air
Resources in Utah, prepared at the request
of the 1961 State Legislature and published
and approved by the Utah Legislative Coun-
cil in June of 1962. The 1963 Legislature
pursuant to this report then extended au-
thority to our twenty-nine counties to pass
and enforce ordinances dealing with air pol-
lution in a manner comparable with the
authority previously granted to cities. Air
pollution was denned as a public nuisance
as well as a crime, with the City and County
municipal authorities authorized to bring
appropriate abatement, injunctive and crim-
inal proceedings.
It was also determined that for Utah, the
State Department of Health should be the
appropriate agency to be charged with re-
sponsibility closely to follow the air pollu-
tion situation in our State; aiid by means
of sampling programs and close cooperation
with local governments, State Universities,
industries and other agencies, to keep abreast
of the problem. A special Advisory Commit-
tee to the Director of the State Department
of Health was appointed by the Governor;
and it has functioned, primarily in the beryl-
lium testing field.
In addition, special studies have been made
by the League of Women Voters, resulting in
their own constructive report. What's in the
Air? released in February, 1966. A study of
air pollution in Salt Lake County has re-
cently been completed for ultimate publica-
tion by the Community Services Council, as
a part of its overall evaluation of the en-
vironmental health conditions in this County.
The State Board of Health with the co-
operation of the U.S. Public Health Service
has assembled a radiological laboratory at
a cost of some $150,000.00. Our Board's
measurements originating in July, 1962 with
the emissions from Frenchman's Flat, and
accompanying studies, have resulted in Utah
being the leading State of our country in
its measurement and knowledge of effects of
radioactive fall-out.
In addition, Salt Lake County and Salt
Lake City have now made a beginning by
setting up a new joint committee for the
study of air pollution.
This bill provides for control of air
pollution on a regional basis, with
States having the primary responsi-
bility for establishing air quality
standards and enforcement plans con-
sistent with criteria and technologi-
cal data furnished by the Federal
Government. It would also allow Fed-
eral intervention in setting and en-
forcing standards if a State fails to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
931
take reasonable action. And finally, it
continues the major activities provided
for in the original Clean Air Act.
I support this legislation.
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, the
Congress has taken a leadership posi-
tion in the abatement of air pollution
since 1963. The legislation which we
are considering today is one more
important step of authorizing and
funding tfhe activities of Government
which must assure collective steward-
ship of the air we breathe indi-
vidually.
This 1967 act is necessary, not be-
cause previous legislation is deficient,
but because we know so much more
about air pollution. The act will
enable us to fully utilize new informa-
tion on cause and effect relationships
between contaminants and damage to
human health, crops, property, and
esthetic values. We have additional
knowledge of terrain conditions which
cause unusually severe pollution in
local areas; and of weather patterns
which bring on the short-term but
threatening episodes such as the east
coast and New York City smog just a
year ago. We have new abatement
technologies to deploy in industry,
space heating, electric power, and
municipal incineration. New and
strengthened institutional concepts
have arisen to deal with air regions
which cross political boundaries.
The 1967 act takes these facts into
consideration with the existing law
and integrates both in a strong Fed-
eral program.
Air pollution is not just one prob-
lem. It is a complex of waste manage-
ment, economic feasibilities, personal
liberties, and technology—all of
which affect the atmosphere. Each
different pollutant has its own chemi-
cal and biological consequences. Each
combination of pollutants is a unique
problem for air quality. This Nation
is so large and diversified that even
closely neighboring regions may find
widely varying requirements to keep
their air clean.
Therefore, this bill rejects any
hasty and unsupported move toward
uniform nationwide standards for
emissions from stationary sources. It
calls for a definition of air regions
and an enforcement procedure which
avoids arbitrary State and local juris-
dictional lines. It exhorts the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare to produce scientifically sound
criteria by which to judge air quality.
Both industry and Government are
joined in defining these numerical
relationships so that equitable enforce-
ment can be obtained. Abatement tech-
nology which is effective in relation to
its cost will be developed under the
research program of this act.
Only by considering the complexity
of individual air pollution problems,
can we eventually achieve the goal of
nationwide quality where each Ameri-
can enjoys the vital breath of life.
That consideration is afforded by the
Air Quality Act of 1967.
Mr. BOB WILSON. Mr. Chairman,
I rise today in support of the Murphy
amendment, unanimously supported by
the entire California delegation, which
would permit the State of California
to establish more stringent auto pollu-
tion standards than those contained in
the proposed Air Quality Act of 1967.
California years ago took the lead
in efforts to combat one of the greatest
health hazards plaguing our cities
today—smog. We are not proud of the
fact that Los Angeles' smog is world
famous, and we have been making
a concerted effort to control the major
source of this pollution, auto exhaust
emissions. In some areas of our State,
autos account for 90 percent of the
air pollution.
The Air Quality Act is a commend-
able, and much-needed piece of legisla-
tion. Many of the provisions of the bill
are modeled after California's stand-
ards and we in California are most
-------
932
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
pleased that the Federal Government
is about to embark on this crucial
enterprise. The Air Quality Act would
set the standard for emission control
at 275 parts per million of hydro-
carbons. California plans to drop this
to 180 parts per million in 1970 and
100 parts per million in 1975, realizing
the severe health threat posed by any
further air pollution. According to Dr.
Joseph F. Boyle, president of the Los
Angeles County Medical Association:
A critical and worsening health crisis exists
in Los Angeles County despite all efforts for
its control. The pending crisis is imminent and
demands that every appropriate action, how-
ever drastic be taken immediately. No further
delay can be tolerated with safety.
On behalf of the millions of resi-
dents of California, I ask my col-
leagues in the House not to force us
to take a step backwards in our fight
against smog. We ask that California
be exempted from the Air Quality
Act. If we sought this exemption be-
cause we could not meet the minimum
standards, the House should give no
consideration whatsoever to our re-
quest. However, the Murphy amend-
ment we ask for would merely allow
California to adopt much higher
standards, which hopefully the Fed-
eral Government will want to adopt
in the near future. Our needs are too
urgent now: I ask my colleagues in
the House not to penalize excellence.
Mr. HALPERN. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of this bill and wish to
commend both the majority and
minority on the committee for its
painstaking and thorough work in
coming up with an effective, meaning-
ful bill.
I do regret, however, that the State
limitation in the bill has been reduced
from 12% to 10 percent, and I hope
that the legislation can be amended to
restore the limit to the original per-
centage or at least to give the Secre-
tary some flexibility in reallocating a
portion of the unused funds when
exceptional local circumstances war-
rant it. T also have strong reserva-
tions about provisions in section 102,
subsection (c) and in section 208,
which I will discuss later in my re-
marks. In balance, though, this is a
good bill and I trust we can further
improve it on the floor today. As one
long concerned with the grave problem
of air pollution in my own city of
New York, and in other areas of our
country, I have sponsored several bills
dealing with atmospheric pollution,
including H.R. 12098, similar to the
original S. 780, an amended version
of which is now before us.
The quality of the air we breathe
has deteriorated in small increments
over a long period of time. We have
been slow to recognize just how badly
the astmosphere has been contami-
nated. The gradual increase in in-
dustrial activity, automobile popula-
tion, municipal incineration, and
electric power production has enabled
us casually to forget what a sweet,
clean breath is like. The crowding into
cities has brought many more persons
in under the clouds of smog and the
discomfort has been accepted as the
price of progress.
But now the public has begun to
weigh the social costs which accom-
pany the use of air as a waste
disposal medium. We are beginning to
value the benefits of a dirt and odor-
free atmosphere. The health effects
from specific pollutants are beginning
to be pinned down.
Some dramatic episodes such as the
New York City smog last Thanks-
giving Day have taught a lesson which
no
[p. 30963]
amount of public service advertising
or clean air week speeches could do.
As an example, the recent change
of traffic in Sweden gives a useful
insight. The cars and trucks were to
switch from driving on the left side
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
933
to the right side of the road. As a
means of introducing the new system,
the first day only taxis and buses were
allowed to operate. The reduction in
air pollution was quite noticeable to
every citizen in the major cities. It
was as if civilization had been rolled
back 25 years-—at least in terms of
the vital air which they were breath-
ing.
Another impact is being felt as the
economic costs of pollution abatement
become apparent. This year, the buyer
of a new car will pay about $50 extra
for exhaust control modifications to
the engine. In Montana a phosphate
plant has been shut down until
suitable equipment to contain fluoride
emissions can be installed. Additional
trash trucks are on order for New
York City because apartment house
incinerators cannot operate without
polluting the air.
We are on the move to restore and
maintain air quality. And legislation
must also move to accommodate to
new technical information and new
political requirements. That is what
this bill is all about.
I am particularly enthusiastic about
the provisions in the 1967 act which
establish the sequence of action for
clean air. We are not jumping to arbi-
trary emission control standards to
satisfy an emotional response. Rather
the bill sets up a stepwise procedure
much like that followed in bringing
water pollution under control.
First air quality criteria are estab-
lished. These scientific quantitative re-
lationships are needed to tell us what
damage—to health, property, or esthet-
ic values—is caused by a given con-
centration of pollutant which is pres-
ent for a given time.
Next, society is asked to weigh the
costs of abatement against the costs
of dirty air and choose an ambient air
quality standard. This number states
the maximum amount of a contami-
nant which will be allowed in the at-
mosphere for a certain locality—in
order to hold the damage down to the
level selected from the criteria. Vari-
ations in weather, regional economics
and geography can all be taken into
account to assure that the ambient
air quality standard is suitable for
the area.
Finally, the emission sources are
identified and controlled so that they
do not release an aggregate amount
of contaminant which would exceed
the ambient air quality standard.
I am also pleased that the act
strongly supports more research. We
are not waiting for refinements of
scientific data before acting. Indeed,
there is much more well justified work
to do than we have money for right
now. However, we will need more
knowledge of cause and effect relation-
ships in human health—in order to
establish criteria which will lead to
legally enforceable standards. We will
need new abatement techniques and
devices to make pollution control
cheaper and to deal with some con-
taminants which are not now control-
lable at all.
In addition to research, the act
calls for wide dissemination of recom-
mended control techniques. The fact
that a feasible abatement method ex-
ists can become a powerful tool in
the hands of local control officials. The
industry which is reluctant to meet
standards can be shown how other
similar plants are handling the prob-
lem elsewhere. A dissemination pro-
gram should also eliminate duplication
of expensive and time-consuming tech-
nical development work.
The act provides for a study of the
pollution from aircraft engines. Al-
though this source may not account
for a large percentage of the total
material spewed into an air mass,
those of us who live under a flight
path are well aware of the increased
soiling which aviation can cause. We
need to get the facts on this narrow
-------
934
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
but important aspect of air pollution.
Mr. Chairman, as I have stated, I
am very much in favor of the bill in
general. However, when the bill is
opened for amendments after this
general debate I intend to offer an
amendment to allow for a more realis-
tic allocation of funds.
Also, another phase of the bill that
gives me strong reservations is sec-
tion 102, subsection (c), which pur-
ports to encourage, and provide
for, the formation of new re-
gional and interstate agreements.
These types of agreements are very
vital to the solving of air pollution
problems among the various States.
For example, my own State, New
York, is affected by the air pol-
lution problems of its neighbor, New
Jersey, and it is only logical that these
two States ought to be able to work
together under a formal agreement.
As I see it, subsection (c) of section
102, could hinder, rather than pro-
mote, regional agreements. It states:
(c) it is the intent of Congress that no
agreement or compact entered into between
States after the date of enactment of the
Air Quality Act of 1967, which relates to the
control and abatement of air pollution in an
air quality control region, shall provide for
participation by a State which is not in-
cluded in such air quality control region.
While this provision does not ap-
pear terribly restrictive when read in
the context of the ordinary concept
of a "regional" association of States,
under this bill, read as a whole, the
measure becomes a definite restriction
upon the ability of the States to as-
sociate themselves for cooperative
efforts to control pollution. The air
quality control regions under this act
are to be established by the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare, on
considerations of jurisdictional bound-
aries, urban-industrial concentrations,
and "other factors including atmos-
pheric areas."
Thus, States deemed by the Secre-
tary to be in different regions, perhaps
because of different patterns of wind
currents, could be precluded from
joining together in compacts or other
associations for prevention and con-
trol of pollution. This may occur in
spite of the expressed emphasis in the
balance of section 102 on cooperative
action among the States and on the
primary responsibility to States and
local governments for combating pol-
lution.
Mr. Chairman, if my conclusions
are correct, I consider this subsection
an infringement on the rights of each
State, or group of States, to deter-
mine what is best for it in the area of
air pollution. I feel subsection (c) is
unnecessary and undesirable.
And finally, I also have apprehen-
sions about section 208 which may pro-
vide that Federal regulations pre-
empt State control of motor vehicle
emissions. Mr. Chairman, it is evident
to me that each State ought to retain
the right to control motor vehicle emis-
sions at the State level and to have
authority, if found necessary, to set
emission regulations more stringent
than those currently proposed at the
Federal level. For that reason, I in-
tend to strongly support the proposed
amendments which will allow State
control in this area.
Apart from these reservations, I
urge the passage of this bill—a need-
ed additional congressional contribu-
tion to the fight for clean air.
Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the amendment of-
fered by the gentleman from California
[Mr. Moss] and I should like to con-
gratulate him and all Members of the
delegation from the Golden State for
their concern over the problem of air
pollution.
Because I have the honor to rep-
resent a constituency across the Hud-
son River from New York City, 1 am
sure that I can tell all members of this
House a few things about air pollu-
tion.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
935
I think that a very excellent letter
which appeared in the Jersey Journal,
a leading newspaper in northern New
Jersey, on October 31, 1967, is very
eloquent testimony as to the voice of
the people in northern New Jersey.
Mrs. Lilliam Allan is one of the most
respected figures in Jersey City and
has been a tireless battler for a great
many good causes. This week she
wrote to the Jersey Journal, in part,
as follows:
This morning I woke up gasping for breath.
I closed the window as the air was full of
pollution. At breakfast my husband re-
marked that coming home from work he
could see the yellow haze of air pollution on
the meadows and hanging low in the air.
We have to make up our minds. What is
more important, industry or the good health
of the people?
Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Allan's ques-
tion is very much to the point in
terms of today's debate. What, indeed,
is more important, the people's health
or industry?
The State of California, where the
problem of air pollution very literally
threatens the survival of large sec-
tions of the State, has shown the way
in fighting air pollution caused by
automobile engines. We in the rest of
the Nation have much to learn from
this State.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to see
more States, including my own, follow
the lead California has taken. Feeling
this way, I shall not be a party to
defeat the forward-looking efforts of
one State to solve its most pressing
problem. Therefore, I am going to
vote for the California amendment.
It may be a long way from Hoboken
at the gateway to New York Harbor
to the Golden Gate, but the gentlemen
from California have my support and
the support of every right-
[p. 30964]
thinking person in the State of New
Jersey.
Mr. DEL CLAWSON. Mr. Chair-
man, today's debate has focused at-
tention upon the emissions of the
automobile exhaust as a prime con-
tributor to air pollution. During the
past several years the automobile has
also been the target for many critics
because of the tragic holocaust of ac-
cident and death on the highway. Gov-
ernment, the automobile industry, and
the people who drive are keenly
aware of the immediate need for qual-
ity standards of safety if we are to
remedy the hazards of living in the
age of a motorized society. Our ef-
forts have been directed to many
safety features in the past few
months. The safety glass of wind-
shields and car doors, steering gear,
tires, seat belts, cushioned dash
boards, adequate brakes, and so forth,
are subject to high standards for
highway safety in driving. Perhaps
the most critical of all automobile
safety devices necessary for the health
and safety of our people, particularly
in those smog-prone localities, is the
control device for automobile exhaust.
The illness rate, deaths, general sick-
ness, and discomfort that result from
smog and air pollutants among the
people who reside in these areas are
sufficient evidence to warrant the in-
stallation of such devices as standard
equipment where the problems exist.
In my opinion a smog-control device
should be immediately classified and
labeled as a safety device, a safety
feature required for the health and
well-being of our people.
The peculiarity of the smog prob-
lem and its serious attack in only
certain areas of our country justifies
special and specific remedial methods.
For California to attempt to impose
the added cost of smog devices on all
automobiles sold in the country is cer-
tainly unjustified and unnecessary.
However, California should be free to
establish standards for this death-
dealing health hazard, especially since
the people of California will pay the
-------
936
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
cost and administer their own pro-
gram with no cost to the Federal
Government or the citizens of any
other State. The automobile industry
itself will be paid for the increased
expense for all installations of smog
devices. Mr. Chairman, I heartily en-
dorse the so-called Murphy amend-
ment to the legislation before us today
and urge its adoption when offered
by the gentleman from California
[Mr. Moss].
Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Chairman,
for the past several years the Con-
gress has been rightfully and serious-
ly concerned with the problem of air
pollution, which has now become a
major national danger.
This measure now before us, S. 780,
represents a further important legis-
lative step forward in more adequate-
ly meeting this danger and protect-
ing the lives and safety of many
millions of American citizens.
This current legislative proposal
combines the proven values in exist-
ing programs with the additional in-
formation that has become currently
available through technical probings
and analyses of the factors involved
in the pollution problem for the pro-
jection of a more effective corrective
and containment program.
Air pollution, which is already
serious in its adverse effects upon
human health, certain crops and some
types of property, is worsening in
direct proportion to the Nation's eco-
nomic and urban population growth
and its continuing technological prog-
ress.
Of paramount importance, of
course, are the great dangers to pub-
lic health and the most authoritative
evidence and testimony that has been
presented and reviewed here this
afternoon clearly shows that we are
today faced with a most disturbing
and frightening picture of a major
health menace which threatens to
continuously increase unless more vig-
orous measures are taken to contain
it.
All of us here are, of course,
especially in this challenging period,
vitally concerned, as we should be,
about prudent spending of the tax-
payers' money. I submit that expendi-
tures of our citizens' own money to
protect their own lives and the lives of
their family members obviously merits
being placed at the very top of any
priority expenditures listing. The
actual appropriations recommended in
this measure are entirely reasonable
by any standards, the purposes of the
bill are unquestionably in the great
public interest and the need is in-
creasingly urgent. Therefore, I hope
that this bill will be approved without
extended delay.
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, all
America is aware of the great danger
to health and safety that air pollu-
tion presents. Further, as the Nation's
economic and urban population, as
well as its advancing technological
know-how, increases, the pollution of
air heightens. Without proper legisla-
tion, this problem will continue to
grow. It is for these reasons that I
direct my full support to the passage
of S. 780, the Air Quality Act of 1967.
Although Florida, in general, and
the Miami area in particular, have a
low, national air pollution rate, I
know that we are the exception rather
than the rule. From Buffalo to Los
Angeles, the need is great for Federal
research and assistance in curbing the
germ-filled dangers of industrial and
automobile exhaust fumes which fill
the air.
Each State is plagued with different
problems and should be allowed the
opportunity to correct them. If they
are remiss, however, the Federal Gov-
ernment should be authorized to take
over the solution of the problem. S.
780 provides for this give-and-take
between National and State agencies.
The solutions of international crises
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
937
found by the United States become
minimized when such a basic domestic
problem as clean air is not alleviated
or at least diminished.
I urge my colleagues to join with
me in the support of S. 780, the Air
Quality Act of 1967.
Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman,
over 2,000 years ago, Seneca referred
to "the heavy air of Rome and the
stench of its smokey chimneys." On
January 30, 1967, President Johnson
warned the Congress that " 'ordinary'
air in New York, as in most large
cities, is filled with tons of pollutants."
While Seneca was exercising pri-
marily an esthetic judgment, Presi-
dent Johnson was talking about a
condition which, over the Thanks-
giving weekend of 1966, killed 80
people and caused untold suffering to
many more in the New York metro-
politan area.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the
Air Quality Act of 1967. More than
any previous act passed by Congress,
this legislation recognizes that man-
made pollution does not respect man-
made political boundaries. Natural
air currents blow this unnatural
debris from city to city, from county
to county, from State to State, and in
some cases, from nation to nation.
So it must be admitted that air
pollution is a truly national problem.
The Federal Government has long
been concerned with air pollution and
I feel that much of the nationwide
outcry to clean up the air is a result
of the education and pioneering efforts
in Washington. We have recognized
our responsibility to do something
about the Nation's air and the Air
Quality Act of 1967 is another at-
tempt, by the Federal Government, to
take action in behalf of all the
citizens. Pollution need not be the
price of prosperity. If this Nation
were not industralized and urbanized,
there would be litle reason to be con-
cerned about sanitizing the air. The
automobile has become a symbol of
affluence, but its uncontrolled use has
contaminated the countryside as
well as the air we breathe. A
smoking chimney was, at one time,
regarded as the sign of a healthy
economy; it is now regarded as the
sign of a soon-to-be sick society. In-
deed, we have identified certain dis-
eases—lung cancer and chronic chest
conditions are the most widely known
—that owe their existence in such
epidemic proportion, to the poisons
that we ourselves have allowed to be-
come a part of everyday life.
I do not believe that it is possible
to dispute any further the clear rela-
tionship between cigarettes and
cancer. Yet all we have been able to
do about this is to have a warning on
cigarette packs. But by allowing
industries and autos to continue to
pollute our atmosphere we are doing
to our society the same thing we would
do to ourselves when we light a
cigarette. I hope that the Air Quality
Act of 1967 will be more effective
than the warning on cigarette packs.
Until I read the statistics which
showed an increase in smoking since
the Surgeon General's report, I had
considered offering an amendment
which would have paid for skywriters
to fly over our major urban areas
and spell out: "Caution: Breathing
This Air May Be Hazardous to Your
Health."
This act is a result of the failure of
States to unite to take action against
air pollution. The Clean Air Act of
1963 provided three Federal dollars
for every one local dollar which was
spent to establish regional airsheds.
President Johnson has pointed out that
this generosity did not result in the
establishment of a single effective
and meaningful compact which was
put into operation. Unfortunately, the
attempts to mount regional action and
concern between States often resulted
in one local official waving his sooty
526-702 O - 73 -- 24
-------
938
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
fingers in front of the sooty face of an
official from another locality. In spite
of its widely heralded advance bill-
ing, the New York/New Jersey Pollu-
tion.
[p. 30965]
Control Conference produced very
few positive results. Officials of both
States clamped down the visor on
their own armor and rushed pellmell
into battle to defend their own fiefdom
from attack, and the Hudson River
was treated by both parties as some
sort of a moat.
I do not single out the New York/
New Jersey conference for any
special blame. Almost the same thing
has happened everywhere the formula
of voluntary cooperation has been
tried. The Air Quality Act of 1967 is
a recognition that State lawmakers
have too much interest in their own
"territorial imperative" to do the
imperative job of cleaning the air.
After the Secretary of F >alth,
Education, and Welfare has estab-
lished atmospheric areas and air
quality control regions, he will then
develop and issue air quality criteria
and recommend control techniques to
achieve levels of air quality sufficient
to safeguard the health of the citizens
within the regions. This is the essence
of the Air Quality Act of 1967 and it
will meet, in my judgment, the clearly
established failure of the States to
cooperate. He will also have the power
to see that his standards are com-
plied with by initiating enforcement
action at the Federal level.
By creating enforceable standards
at a Federal level, I feel that a great
step forward has been taken. Let us
consider these two aspects of the
legislation under discussion a little
more closely, because there is sure to
be the traditional cry to which Con-
gress has been over-responding
recently, that all actions must be con-
trolled within a State.
First, there is the matter of stand-
ards. These emission control levels for
identified pollution sources are long
overdue. The Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare has done a
fine job of educating the public and it
has an opportunity to again be the
major focal point of the campaign
against dirty air by establishing
intelligent and workable standards
for these specific pollutants within
specific regions. Many large industries
have already been identified as a
major source of pollution and one is
tempted to say that they will not
spend any money just to improve
their public image. But this is obvi-
ously not true. Private concerns spend
millions of dollars each year in public
relations and advertising: a seemingly
endless flow of gaudy brochures and
press releases hailing significant
breakthroughs. These national efforts
of companies must be brought into
the local picture, for the people who
live around industrial plants get a
much more lasting and constant
image. Their paint peels from their
houses, their flowers wither and die,
the common cold becomes consistent,
and uncommon congestion and death
frequently results.
Air pollution control must be made
just as much of a standard operating
expense as is the advertising budget.
Industry can be made to act and in
its own interest it must be made to
act. There will naturally be cries of
prohibitive cost, but skimming a little
history might be informative. When
the child labor laws were forced upon
unwilling industries, there were dire
predictions of ruinous expense. Doors
had to be remade so adults could pass
through, for example. Yet an aroused
public demanded action and this in-
humane practice was stopped. I am
sure that the industry will be able to
meet intelligently drawn standards
and yet still meet its payrolls.
By allowing the Federal Govern-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
939
ment to initiate enforcement pro-
cedure, another very significant step
has been taken. Once again, a little
history may make the problem easier
to understand. When the Supreme
Court outlawed segregated schools in
1954, there were firm statements from
many local officials that integration
would never take place in their areas.
Now we see how people who once
vowed implacable opposition have
actually allowed Negroes and whites
to go to school together. While integra-
tion has not proceeded as fast as many
of us had hoped, it is a fact that
massive resistance has been replaced
by a resigned sigh.
If pollution standards are realisti-
cally drawn and effectively enforced
on the Federal level, the local men
will be freed from a crushing dilemma.
He can say that he really does not
want to fine or close down the plant—
or integrate the school in our his-
torical example—but the law is the
law and it must be obeyed. It is all
too easy for a powerful local industry
to refuse to comply with regulations
established within its own community,
and by enforcing standards set by the
Federal Government, this arrogant
stand can be controlled.
Once industry can be made to realize
that pollution abatement is a neces-
sary cost to doing business, it is so
inventive and so creative that it can
do the job. For example, Detroit said
for years that there was no smog
control device for automotive
exhausts. Yet, when California passed
its laws, it was only a short time
before an inexpensive device was
ready. Further, the strict Los Angeles
law enforcement caused 64 previously
unknown pollution control inventions
to be made in a short time. The bv
products frequently paid for the cost
of their installation. When faced with
a firm requirement to consider social
costs as well as production and distri-
bution costs, American industry is
amazingly capable of solving prob-
lems.
Mr. Chairman, unless we wish to
view the future through gas masks,
the House must today pass the Air
Quality Act of 1967.
Mr. RODINO. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of S. 780, the Air
Quality Act of 1967. Since 1963 we
have made important strides toward
trying to reverse the u^vvard trend of
air pollution in our Nation. We have
supported local air pollution pro-
grams, as well as State and inter-
state programs. But in spite of this
the problem is getting worse, not
better.
There is no question now that we
must have a real cooperative move-
ment on the part of all concerned.
This is a very important piece of
legislation, and while it does not
contain everything we would like, it
is a good bill and a strong bill. It
will, however, require the greatest
effort on the part of the States to
make sure that standards of air
quality to protect the health of our
people are rapidly established and en-
forced.
Our poisoned air must be made
clean. As the President's message on
air pollution pointed out:
The poisons of air pollution aggravate
respiratory problems in man—asthma, bron-
chitis, lung: cancer and emphysema. Emphy-
sema, a lung disease, is one of the fastest
growing- causes of death in the United States
today. And it fuioes more than a thousand
workers into early retirement every month.
Polluted air corrodes machinery. It defaces
buildings. It may shorten the life of what-
ever it touches—and it touches everything.
This is not a problem of our largest cities
alone, Weirton, W. Va., and Gary, Ind., are
two among many communities that suffer
days when the sun seems a pale orange ball
hidden in a noxious cloud. Small towns,
farmlands, forests—men, animals, and plants—
are all affected by the waste we release into
the air.
The economic loss from pollution amounts
to several billions each year. But the cost in
human suffering and pain is incalculable.
This situation does not exist because it
-------
940
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
was inevitable, nor because it cannot be eon-
trolled. Air pollution is the inevitable con-
sequence of neglect. It can be controlled
when that neglect is no longer tolerated.
It will be controlled when the people of
America, through their elected representa-
tives, demand the right to air that they and
their children can breathe without fear.
Earlier this year the States of New
York and New Jersey, in conjunction
with the Federal Government, agreed
to form the Mid-Atlantic States Air
Pollution Control Commission com-
pact. This compact was conceived at a
time when the original administration
bill was pending. The House Com-
mittee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce reported the Air Quality Act of
1967 several weeks ago, and its
criteria and standard setting pro-
visions are somewhat different from
those of the original administration
bill. In general, however, the Mid-
Atlantic States compact's provisions
would still mesh reasonably well with
the Air Quality Act, if it is agreed to
by the Congress and the President.
The Federal Government may find
that several reservations might be
required because of the changes in the
Air Quality Act in order to make
the act and the compact compatible. It
seems reasonable to hope that just as
soon as congressional action on the
bill is completed, we can expect rapid
action on the part of the administra-
tion as to the agency reports on the
compact. We need both entities, and I
am hopeful that the passage of this
bill will speed enactment of the com-
pact, for one is the logical extension
of the other.
There is no question as to the com-
mitment of the Congress to the abate-
ment of air pollution. There is also no
question of the desire of New Jersey
and New York to move positively and
rapidly to obtain relief for the citizens
of these States. I am sure that with
the cooperation of these States and
the Federal Government, we can do
the job that is so urgently needed.
Mr. CORMAN. Mr. Chairman, I
support the amendment proposed by
my colleague from California, JOHN
Moss, to permit California to keep
on running its own program for auto-
caused air pollution, and I urge the
support of the other Members of the
House for this amendment.
The purpose of this amendment is
not to create an unnecessary burden
tion as to agency reports on the
or ex-
[p. 30966]
pense for the residents of States
which do not have a strong air pollu-
tion problem, but rather to permit the
people of California, who face a smog
problem of the greatest magnitude, to
exercise their police power over their
own automobile owners in an effort
to control pollutants caused by their
automobiles.
The uniqueness and the seriousness
of California's problem is evident—
more than 90 percent of the smog in
our urban areas is caused by automo-
biles, and in the next 15 years the
number of automobiles in the State
will almost double. This is not the case
in most other States. That is why
other States have not set or enforced
such stringent standards for auto-
mobile emissions as we have.
Californians were the first in the
country to recognize the automobile
smog problem. We recognized long
ago that we must have more stringent
standards than the 1966 national
standards, for example, or else face,
by 1975, automobile-caused smog
which would render our State unin-
habitable.
Californians are willing to bear the
extra expense required for air pollu-
tion control devices on our automo-
biles. We have been gratefully doing
so for some time now, for we are in-
deed desperate to rid ourselves of this
health menace. We only want the
opportunity to continue to do so.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
941
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, air,
like water pollution, is not going to
disappear unless we have an all-out,
concentrated effort to abate this
menace. The air pollution threat to
the health of our fellow citizens is a
very real thing. A parade of witnesses
has documented this case over and
over again. It is time we accept the
facts and move on with an abatement
program that is in keeping with the
task at hand. The health menace of
air pollution alone should drive us to
immediate action on every front.
Our expanding population, the pro-
liferation of sophisticated chemicals
and the constant new means of manu-
facturing all combine to make protec-
tion of our air supply an even more
vital concern. We have long acknowl-
edged the problem. It is time we take
concrete corrective action on air pollu-
tion abatement and I am proud, Mr.
Chairman, to rise in support of this
legislation.
Mrs. DWYER. Mr. Chairman, the
pending Air Quality Act of 1967,1 be-
lieve, represents the broadest and
potentially most effective attack the
Congress has yet launched against one
of our most dangerous natural
enemies—the pollution of the air we
breathe. I urge our colleagues to join
in giving this legislation the over-
whelming support it deserves.
I shall not take the time of the
House to describe the hazards of dirty
air. They are already depressingly
well known to all of us, especially
those who represent areas subject to
pollution and to the air inversions
which capture and intensify the harm-
ful effects of pollutants. The RECORD
has been full of the evidence which
has contributed to the present sense
of national urgency about arresting
the growing threat, and I would refer
at this point to only one of several
statements I have previously made on
the subject—an article I wrote for
the New Jersey Education Review
which was printed in the RECORD of
February 3, 1966.
As one who represents a district
within the Metropolitan New York-
New Jersey region, I have been all
too familiar with the problems of air
pollution for many years, and during
my service in the New Jersey State
Assembly I was instrumental in en-
larging the jurisdiction of the inter-
state sanitation commission to deal
with the problem. I am, therefore,
deeply gratified that the Congress is
moving forward and taking effective
steps to protect our people from pre-
mature death and disability.
Under the Clean Air Act of 1963
and its amendments of 1965 and 1966,
Mr. Chairman, we have made import-
ant progress in combating air pollu-
tion. State and local activities have
been increased. Federal abatement
action in interstate areas has been
undertaken, national standards for
the control of motor vehicle pollution
have been promulgated, and research
in methods of pollution control has
been stimulated. Nevertheless, these
activities have been too limited, too
local, and too slow. The sources and
effects of air pollution have exceeded
our efforts to control them.
The present legislation offers a real
possibility that we may yet reverse
the imbalance—and in time to prevent
future disasters. Under this bill, all
the resources presently available to
the Government would be continued.
In addition, however, new weapons
would be added to improve air quality
standards, to encourage regional
planning and control activities, to
increase financial support for such
activities, to stimulate non-Federal
agencies to exceed Federal standards
and achieve higher levels of air
quality, to undertake new studies
leading to more effective control, better
trained manpower, and more reliable
information about every aspect of air
pollution.
-------
942
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
The principal significance of this
bill, Mr. Chairman, as I see it, is that
it recognizes the regional, as opposed
to local, character of air pollution,
that it equips the States and the Fed-
eral Government with greater re-
sources to combat pollution, and that
it provides for enforcement on the
national level if reasonable action
to comply with necessary standards
should not be taken at other levels.
The health and welfare of our
people are at stake, Mr. Chairman. We
can no longer afford half measures in
the face of galloping pollution. Either
we control pollution with reasonable
measures and effective cooperation or
we invite severe disasters and strin-
gent public action in the future. There
is not, according to the committee re-
port, a single major metropolitan area
in the country which does not have an
air pollution problem. There are
few, if any, areas where control is
adequate under existing conditions.
And there is no place in the country
where greater problems—from more
automobiles, more people, more power
—do not lie ahead. We all know these
basic facts. We can never again plead
ignorance.
Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased to rise in support of the Air
Quality Act of 1967. This bill, like
H.R. 698, the air pollution control
measure I introduced on the first day
of the 90th Congress, recognizes that
air pollution is a problem which dis-
regards the jurisdictional bounds of
States and local government units. To
effectively mount an attack on air
pollution we must develop administra-
tive units the dimensions of which are
determined by geographical factors,
prevailing wind currents, and certain
other atmospheric conditions.
I am pleased that we are acting at
this early date to adopt such a
regional approach to combat air pollu-
tion. Had we acted earlier to adopt
a regional approach in the fight
against water pollution we might not
now be confronted with a water
quality crisis.
Under this bill the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare will
promulgate air quality criteria for the
various regional air sheds and the
States will establish and enforce air
Quality standards. This partnership
of State and Federal Governments is
similar to the partnership which has
been formed to combat water pollu-
tion. I am confident that it will
prove equally effective.
Part of the reason I am confident
we will be sucessful in our fight
against air pollution is the fact that
an ever-increasing number of in-
dustries are committing vast sums of
money to the fight. In the congres-
sional district which I represent, the
Rochester Products Division of Gen-
eral Motors and the Eastman Kodak
Co. have this year made multimillion-
dollar investments in air pollution
control equipment. Many other in-
dustries in the district have also
recognized their social responsibility
and made investments in pollution
abatement equipment that, although
smaller in dollar amount, are propor-
tionately as significant.
I take this opportunity to call to
the attention of my colleagues H.R.
11452, a bill which I introduced earlier
this year to encourage the construc-
tion of water and air pollution abate-
ment facilities by allowing a double
investment tax credit for investments
made in such facilities. Enactment of
this legislation would do much to
encourage the further cooperation of
business and industry and ease the
financial burden on those firms which
join in the pollution fight.
The bill before us today, farsighted
and responsible action by business and
industry, and additional legislation
such as the bill I have just mentioned
can be combined to purify the air
upon which we all depend. I urge my
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
943
colleagues to join me in supporting
this much needed legislation.
Mr. GILBERT. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the Air Quality Act
to provide systematic pollution control
on a regional basis. I was one of the
original sponsors of this proposal.
The intentions of the bill are good
and primarily pave the way for the
control of all pollution problems on a
regional basis in accordance with air
quality standards and enforcement
plans developed by the States.
This is an important step toward
combating one of our country's most
serious problems. The Federal Gov-
ernment is given the role of guidance
in providing critical and scientific
information on how to cope with the
health hazard. Yet, the States have
the respon-
[p. 30967]
sibility of setting standards and en-
forcing measures to meet their spe-
cific regional standards. The De-
partment of Health, Education, and
Welfare will continue current pro-
grams for air pollution control and
research, but will provide systematic
control of air pollution activities on a
regional basis, the regions based on
such factors as urbanization, industri-
alization, and topography. Standards
of air quality will be tailored to each
region, based on criteria presented
by the HEW, on which the States will
set their own required air quality
standards. In emergency situations,
where immediate action is required,
HEW will have the power to take
action. An Air Quality Advisory
Board of 15 members to advise and
consult with the Secretary of HEW
and make recommendations, will be
appointed by the President.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues
in the House to join me in voting for
passage of the Air Quality Act.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of S. 780, the Air
Quality Act of 1967. I support this
legislation basically because I believe
air pollution is a nationwide problem
requiring a nationwide Federal pro-
gram.
The harmful effects of air pollu-
tion on the health of our citizens has
been well documented. I have only to
cite the singularly tragic incident of
Thanksgiving 1966 which resulted in
the death of 40 to 80 people in New
York City. A stagnant air mass
played havoc with the residents of
our largest city for 4 days as we
stood helplessly by. My own 19th Con-
gressional District is in the very
heart of New York. The people there
can well attest to the effects of air
pollution.
Air pollution affects more than just
the public health. It can be put in
more basic economic terms, in dollars
and cents terms. It has been estimated
that air pollution will result in an
economic loss of over $11 billion
annually. Air pollution means less
healthy people, which results in more
time away from the job.
But the effects of air pollution are
not only local in nature. Polluted air
masses hold no city, county, or State
boundaries sacred. Pollution in New
York, for instance, will directly affect
the surrounding areas of New Jersey
and Connecticut, and vice versa.
In my opinion, the Air Quality Act
offers a positive program for com-
bating air pollution. It authorizes the
Secretary of HEW to set up inter-
state air quality control regions with
the Federal Government paying up to
100 percent of the cost for up to 2
years. It further directs the Secretary
to establish air quality criteria and to
provide the latest information on air
pollution control techniques to the
States.
The States are expected to carry
the fight against pollution. As partici-
pants in the air pollution regions, they
could set air quality standards and
-------
944
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
adopt a plan for their enforcement
and implementation.
There is a great need for a com-
prehensive research effort on air pollu-
tion. The bill authorizes the Secretary
of HEW to initiate a program of
research and training. It further
directs the Secretary to make the
results of this research available to
State and local agencies. Such a pro-
gram prevents duplication of efforts
among State and local agencies, yet
provides for a responsible and re-
sponsive research program on the
national level.
Some Members of the House have
proposed an amendment to the section
establishing Federal motor vehicle
emissions standards. This amendment
would exempt the State of California
from these Federal standards. I op-
pose this amendment. I oppose giving
any one State a specific exemption.
If any exemption should be made, it
should be one exempting all States to
establish more stringent standards to
take care of special local problems.
Essentially, though, I believe estab-
lishing motor vehicle standards re-
mains a Federal Government job.
Mr. Chairman, the Air Quality Act
provides for a coordinated effort be-
tween local, State, and Federal govern-
ments to combat air pollution. Il
authorizes a total of $362 million for a
3-year period to meet that end. I sup-
port this bill and urge passage of this
important social legislation. We can-
not allow air pollution to go
unchecked.
Mr. ASHLEY. Mr. Chairman, 4
years ago we launched a national
attack on air pollution with the Clean
Air Act of 1963. Under this act and
its 1965 and 1966 amendments we
made great strides in air pollution
control. We initiated several interstate
abatement actions which will ulti-
mately benefit millions of people; we
published standards which are bring-
ing all new automobiles under control
beginning with the 1968 model year;
we have begun to increase our re-
search efforts and have begun to
make progress toward the control of
sulfur oxides and other important
gaseous pollutants which were once
clearly beyond our reach. Through the
matching-grants provision of the
Clean Air Act, State and local control
programs have been able to increase
their budgets from less than $13 mil-
lion before its passage to approxi-
mately $26 million during the current
year.
But as the administration was the
first to point out, we have only begun.
Last January, in recommending that
the Congress adopt the Air Quality
Act of 1967, the President said:
The pollution problem is getting worse.
We are not even controlling today's level of
pollution. Ten years from now, when indus-
trial production and waste disposal have in-
creased and the number of automobiles on
our streets and highways exceeds 110 million,
we shall have lost the battle for clean air—
unless we strengthen our regulatory and re-
search efforts now.
In the years ahead, air pollution
will worsen in direct proportion to the
Nation's economic growth, increases
in urban population, demands for
heat and energy, use of motor
vehicles, disposal of refuse, and pro-
duction and consumption of manu-
factured goods. Given the fact that all
these factors are rapidly increasing,
it is reasonable to assume that it will
not be long before air pollution
reaches truly critical proportions in
many parts of the country. To avoid
the impending dangers to the Nation's
health and welfare, both our research
efforts and our regulatory activities
must be strengthened. Strong regula-
tory programs are needed to insure
full application of economically feasi-
ble methods of controlling pollution at
its sources.
The proposed Air Quality Act
would strengthen regulatory measures
to prevent and abate pollution of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
945
air, and would provide for expanded
research on the causes and control of
pollution of the air. The bill would
also empower the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare to make
certain that State governments meet
their responsibilities.
The Air Quality Act of 1967 would
provide the tools and the impetus, the
fuel and the thrust to move ahead in
a desperate race against catastrophe.
The approach is sound. The need is
urgent. I strongly support enactment
of this bill and urge my colleagues
to join in passing it.
*****
[p. 30968]
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Moss: On page
97, strike out lines 3 through 20, inclusive,
and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"(b) The Secretary shall, after notice and
opportunity for public hearing, waive appli-
cation of this section to any State which has
adopted standards (other than crankcase
emission standards) for the control of emis-
sions from new motor vehicles or new motor
vehicle engines prior to March 80, 1966, un-
less he finds that such State does not require
standards more stringent than applicable
Federal standards to meet compelling and
extraordinary conditions or that such State
standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures are not consistent with section
202 (a) of this title."
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, the
amendment before this Committee
bears my name, but it is offered on
behalf of 37 members of the Cali-
fornia congressional delegation, repre-
senting 'the entirety of its strength
in this House, from both political
parties. It reflects the measure of our
concern over a problem unique to our
State.
The amendment is the same lan-
guage, word for word, as was adopted
unanimously by the other body. It
provides that California may estab-
lish more stringent standards appli-
cable to emission covered by Federal
standards and may also establish and
enforce standards with respect to
emissions, such as nitrogen oxides,
not covered by Federal statutes.
California is not, however, given a
blank check by this amendment. First,
the Secretary must give notice and an
opportunity for a hearing, and then
he must waive the preemption of Cali -
fornia laws unless he finds, first, that
compelling and extraordinary condi-
tions do not exist, and, second, that
California standards are not consistent
with the test of economic practica-
bility and technological feasibility
required by section 202(a) of the
act, and, third, that the accompanying
enforcement procedures are in conflict
with the intent of section 202(a).
The amendment permits California
to continue a role of leadership which
it has occupied among the States of
this Union for at least the last two
decades. As I said in general debate,
it offers a unique laboratory, with all
of the resources necessary, to develop
effective control devices which can
become a part of the resources of this
Nation and contribute significantly to
the lessening of the growing problems
of air pollution throughout the Nation.
Let me make it very clear that
while the meteorological problems of
California are unique, it is not the
only State in the Union with a concern
over air pollution, but it is the one
where the problem is greatest at the
moment. It affects not only the auto-
mobile driver, but it has reached pro-
portions in southern California where
it affects air traffic.
When we go back into the House, I
will ask permission to include in the
RECORD at this point a letter from the
Administrator of the Federal Avia-
tion Administration, pointing out the
adverse impact of the present smog
conditions in southern California on
air traffic.
-------
946
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION.
Washington, D.C., November Z, 1967.
HON. JOHN E. Moss,
House of Representative!,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. Moss: This is in reply to your
telephone request regarding the effects smog
has on aviation in the Burbank-Los Angeles
area.
Smog definitely has an adverse effect on
aviation in the Los Angeles basin area, pri-
marily in the obstruction of visibility, and
in the creation of special problems for air-
craft landing, taking off, or on low level, en-
route flights. Major airports where smog con-
ditions deter operations are: Los Angeles In-
ternational, Long Beach, Burbank, Van
Nuys, and Santa Monica; it also affects op-
erations at numerous general aviation air-
ports in the area.
General adverse effects of smog are to: (1)
slow down the rate of utilization of airports;
(2) reduce pilot capability "to see and be
seen" so as to avoid collision with other air-
craft; (3) increase the workload in the air
traffic system in providing for safe opera-
tions; (4) require more aircraft to operate
under special air traffic procedures.
I hope this will provide you with the in-
formation you need on some of the problems
associated with smog.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM F. McKEE,
Administrator
These can only be solved by stand-
ards more stringent than those
presently contemplated under Federal
regulation.
We have proposed in California by
State law a system of standards going
through 1970. They will be signifi-
cantly more drastic than the stand-
ards which will be required in the
rest of the Nation. They will not
constitute a burden on the automobile
industry.
My State consumes between 11 and
12 percent of the total new cars sold
in this Nation every year. This is a
very rich market, greater than any
offshore market enjoyed by any manu-
facturer of automobiles in the United
States.
[p. 30975]
I might also point out that it is not
unusual in the automotive industry for
there to be variations in assembly. All
Members know there is virtually a
limitless possibility of combinations of
power packs and accessory packages
one can order on an automobile.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from California has
expired.
Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON. Mr.
Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words, and I rise
in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield to my
colleague from California if he wishes
to continue his remarks.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I just
want to make a few very brief addi-
tional observations.
It is not unusual for California to
take leadership in the field of auto
safety. As long as I can remember the
Legislature of California has con-
cerned itself with making automobiles
safer, from the days when it required
safety glass, and was one of the
pioneers in that field, to the days of
requiring reflectorized taillights, im-
proved headlight standards and wind-
shield wipers.
California has led because the auto-
mobile has been the mode of transpor-
tation in a State which grew up with-
out the mass transit systems available
in the metropolitan areas of many
other States of the Nation. But the
very fact that it has depended on the
automobile has created the problem.
The State, as I indicated earlier, for
at least 20 years has invested its
resources, developed its technology,
and given leadership to the Nation.
This amendment would permit that
type of leadership to continue.
Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON. I am
glad to yield to the gentleman from
New Jersey.
Mr. JOELSON. The gentleman
mentioned California several times.
Would the amendment also include
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
947
any other State which might feel it
had an unusual problem and wanted
more stringent regulations?
Mr. MOSS. No. This deals with a
State which has enacted prior to
March 30, 1966, standards which are
more stringent than those which
would be proposed by the Secretary.
Mr. JOELSON. Could the gentle-
man tell me whether this does, in
effect, apply to any other State?
Mr. MOSS. To my knowledge, it
does not apply to any other State.
Mr. JOELSON. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. MOSS. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON. Mr.
Chairman, I rise today to focus an
immedate problem facing not only my
State of California, but the Nation as
a whole. I am speaking of the worsen-
ing air pollution crisis. I say worsen-
ing because in my city of Los
Angeles, the smog-warning days
classified by the Los Angeles Air
Pollution Control District, have in-
creased drastically over the last few
years. In 1964 there were 80 such
days. In 1965 there were 82 and in
1966 it jumped to 98. As of yet, there
is no estimate for this year, but if the
present trend continues the number of
smog-warning days will pass 100.
Even while California has been the
leader in the fight against air pollu-
tion, we still have a serious smog
problem, proving that stronger not
weaker controls must be adopted.
Under the proposed Clean Air Act of
1967, the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare would be authorized
to enforce legislation standards re-
garding automobile exhaust emissions.
These standards would be no better
than those California already has.
Yet, under the bill to be considered
today, the Federal laws would pre-
empt or take precedence of any State
laws. As we all know, it can be quite
difficult to get changes made in Wash-
ington. California would have to con-
vince Federal officials of the need
for such changes. Large automobile
and oil company interests might find
the needs to be very costly and could
use delaying tactics that would hold
up the implementation of the higher
standards of California. Senator
GEORGE MURPHY recognized this fact
when the Senate passed this same
bill. He then amended the legislation
so that California was excluded from
the appropriate provisions which
would allow the State to establish
tougher regulations.
I, therefore, call on my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle to remove
barriers to a more effective protection
against air pollution.
Mr. Chairman, we must take every
appropriate action, however drastic,
and we must do it immediately. The
health of our people demands that
no further delay be tolerated.
It is extremely important, there-
fore, that the amendment to the Air
Quality Act of 1967 sponsored by the
distinguished gentleman from Cali-
fornia [Mr. Moss] be enacted by the
House in order that this legislation
can be implemented in its proper
form.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, there has been a
great deal of smog today. Not all of
it is in California. A good deal of it
relates to the language of the bill
that we have before us and to the
language of the amendment that we
have before us.
First of all, when the various air
pollution bills came to the Congress,
they provided a total preemption over
all automotive emissions. This con-
cept of preemption was first embodied
in the law that was passed by this
Congress in 1965. The legislation
offered by the chairman of the com-
mittee, and the legislation sent by
the administration and introduced
-------
948
LEGAL COMPILATION—Are
originally by Senator MUSKIE and in-
troduced by me on the 10th of Janu-
ary of this year provided for preemp-
tion and for Federal emission controls
on pollutants from automobiles and
other sources.
Now we are told today that this
amendment was adopted 88 to zero
in the other body. The answer is that
it was not adopted 88 to zero, but it
was put in the Senate committee
and was accepted on the floor. There
was no controversy about it in the
Senate committee.
There is a great deal of misrepre-
sentation as to what the language of
the committee will do. The committee
bill says the Secretary of HEW will
fix high standards, such standards as
are necessary to protect the health
and welfare of the persons every-
where in this country over automotive
emissions. Then it goes further—to
protect the concerns and the interests
and the health of the people of the
State of California. It says that upon
the request of the State of California,
that the State may secure such ad-
ditional stronger, more vigorous
standards as the circumstances re-
quire. To say that the Secretary of
HEW is not going to take into consid-
eration the pleas of the State of
California for additional or for
stronger standards is to fly into the
face of reason, in the face of the
language of the legislation, and in
the face of political reality and politi-
cal necessity, because no Secretary
of HEW, regardless of where he
comes from, would fail to provide for
the health of a large segment of the
American people.
I would be among the most critical
members of this body if the Secretary
were to fail to fix standards that were
adequate to meet the needs of the
State of California.
We hear the statement that this
is States rights. I want to lay this
red herring to rest for good and all,
because there is nothing more clear
than that the amendment offered by
my good friend from California—and
he is my dear friend, because I have
sat next to him on the committee for
10 years—is nothing more or less
than special preference. This amend-
ment is nothing more or less than an
attempt by a few politicians in Cali-
fornia—and I am not referring to my
friends and colleagues here in the
House of Representatives but by a
few politicians in the State of Cali-
fornia
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. DINGELL. I will be glad to
yield but in just a minute. I respect-
fully have to decline to yield, Mr.
Chairman, and I ask for regular order
in spite of my affection for the
gentleman from California.
This is nothing more or less than
an attempt of a few people in the
State of California to get for the air
pollution control administrator of
California a preference which by law
we are denying the air pollution con-
trol administrators of every other sin-
gle State in the Union. It is nothing
more or less than the attempt to get
something which the people of every
other State are being denied. There is
no States rights here. This is only
special preference.
Let us look at this in the cold light
of reason.
If the Federal Government would
fix standards so low as to jeopardize
the health of the people of California
under the language of this amend-
ment, it is very clear that they would
be jeopardizing the health of the peo-
ple in each and every other State in
the Union, and would be flying in the
face of legislative history, in face of
the language of the report and the
language of the legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Michigan has ex-
pired.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
949
(By unanimous consent, Mr. DIN-
GELL
[p. 30976]
was allowed to proceed for 5 addi-
tional minutes.)
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, would
the gentleman yield?
Mr. DINGELL. I will be glad to
yield to my friend from California.
Mr. MOSS. I just want to say that
I hope that the gentleman is not in-
tending to exclude me from the ranks
of politicians, because I with great
pride accept the label of politician.
And I want my friend to know that
I have not been under the pressure
of any politicians other than that of
my conscience and the people I rep-
resent here in this House.
Mr. DINGELL. I am certain, I say
to my good friend from California,
I will be happy to extend to my be-
loved friend from California the priv-
ilege to number himself among the
ranks of politicians if he so chooses.
Mr. KUPFERMAN. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New York.
Mr. KUPFERMAN. Mr. Chairman,
not being a Californian, I would like
to speak from the point of view of a
New Yorker for the benefit of the
whole country, and my question to
the gentleman is this:
Would the gentleman accept an
amendment which I am prepared to
offer at the next round which would
allow each individual State to have
the same privilege that is now being
asked for California?
Mr. DINGELL. I will state to the
gentleman that I have not seen his
amendment, and I must confess to the
gentleman that I do not believe it
would be in the public interest. I be-
lieve what we want are high nation-
wide standards which will be ade-
quate to protect the health of every-
one everywhere.
I do not believe we want to have
50 different standards in 50 differ-
ent States, and production of 50 dif-
ferent auto types for 50 different
States. I do not believe such to be in
the public interest, or in the interest
of the consumer, or the people that
the gentleman represents.
I would like to yield further, but
I do have some other things I wish
to say, and so I have to respectfully
decline to yield to my colleagues.
There have been a great many things
said by some of my good friends from
California which tend to create an
entirely misleading and entirely er-
roneous legislative history with re-
gard to the language of the commit-
tee bill.
I do not want, as one Member of
this body, to see this Congress permit
a piece of legislation to go forward
without a clear repudiation of the
misleading impression that persons
in the State of California have sought
to foist upon the public of this coun-
try, that this legislation is not ade-
quate.
It is the intent of the Congress,
through this legislation, to fully and
adequately protect the health and
welfare of people everywhere, not
just in California, but everywhere in
the United States.
Now, I would point out to my col-
leagues that automobiles are highly
ambulatory. They move across State
lines. At any given time any single
State has large numbers of automo-
biles which enter its borders from
other States. Automobiles are used
and sold across State lines, and it is
for this reason, in order to be sure
that the public are protected by a
high set of standards, that it is highly
important that we have one source
originating the standards dealing with
automobiles and automobile emissions.
The committee bill provides that
desirable uniformity of regulation,
and that desirable uniformity of ad-
-------
950
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
ministration which is so important to
good legislation, and provides ade-
quate safeguards from the standpoint
of pollution.
Now, I want to read something
which I believe will set forth very
clearly the legislative history of this
legislation, and that is a letter re-
ceived by me yesterday from the Sec-
retary of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare; a portion
reads as follows:
We believe that the interests of California
can be adequately protected if the bill under
consideration in the House is agreed to. There
is no reason to believe that future relationships
between the national program and the Cali-
fornia program will be impaired by the pas-
sage of this bill. The Department would, of
course, do everything that it can to activate
and enforce whatever standards are promul-
gated for California by the Secretary after
public hearings, as outlined in Section 208.
This Department, through the National Cen-
ter for Air Pollution Control, will make every
effort to cooperate with the California program
in every way to meet their clean air objectives.
Under this amendment, either as a
matter of law or as a matter of poli-
tics, the Secretary would be compelled
to present high standards to protect
the interest not just of the people of
the Nation but of the people of the
State of California.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. DINGELL. I am glad to yield
to my colleague.
Mr. MOSS. I would like to call your
attention to a speech made in Louis-
ville, Ky., on May 25 of this year by
John T. Middleton, director of the
National Center for Air Pollution
Control, Bureau of Disease Preven-
tion and Environmental Control of the
Public Health Service in Washington
in which he states:
Our basic aim is to provide uniformity and
stability in pollution control levels in coopera-
tion with industry and local governments. This
aim is underlined in recommendations that:
All industrywide emission levels be developed
in consultation with the industry concerned:
Each State be provided the opportunity to
adopt equivalent levels—or stricter ones, and
that,
The Federal levels would be applied and en-
forced only in those States which do not adopt
their own.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent to proceed for
5 additional minutes.
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, I
object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is
heard.
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY
MR. DINGELL
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. DINGELL moves that the Committee do
now rise and report the bill back to the House
with the recommendation that the enacting
clause be stricken out.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. DINGELL] is
recognized.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
want to say I appreciate what my
good friend, the gentleman from Cali-
fornia, has said. But what he has
said has nothing to do with the
language of the legislation now before
this Committee.
I want to challenge any Member of
this body to point out one word or
one paragraph or one section in the
legislation which offers less than the
adequate standards to meet the needs
of the health and welfare of the
people of the United States or of the
people of the State of California.
Mr. ROYBAL. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. ROYBAL. I would refer the
gentleman to the very section that
we are discussing at the present time.
What it actually does is to make it
necessary for the State of California
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
951
to have to come to the bureaucracy
here and to prove something that the
State has known for many years.
Mr. DINGELL. Now the gentleman
heard my challenge and the gentle-
man well heard what I said to him.
I said I defy him or any other Mem-
ber of this body to point to one word,
to one sentence, to one paragraph, to
one section in that amendment which
authorizes or requires the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare to
fix any lower standards for the pro-
tection of the health of the people of
this country or of an individual State.
I say to the gentleman from Califor-
nia, that he has not so indicated.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. DINGELL. I am delighted to
yield to my colleague.
Mr. MOSS. I would defy my very
good friend to point out one word or
paragraph which imposes upon the
Secretary a requirement to the con-
trary.
Mr. DINGELL. I have read to my
good friend from California my inter-
pretation of the amendment. As the
gentlemen well knows, the people of
California recognize me as the author
of this amendment, as does the gentle-
man, and indeed, as do the whole
California delegation. I have tried
today as I have on other occasions to
clear up the smog of misunderstand-
ing, ignorance and misrepresentation
which has surrounded this amendment
through the efforts of certain persons
in the State of California.
In addition to that, I read to my
beloved friend from California the
language of how the Secretary intends
to interpret the committee bill. That
is why I say there is effort by some
persons in the State of California to
deceive and mislead as to what the
whole intention of the author of the
amendment, as to what the effect is.
Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. In the
[p. 30977]
beginning of your statement, you
made some reference to preemption.
Did you mean by preemption that the
Federal government by the passage of
this legislation took complete control
of the smog or clean air program or
solution?
Mr. DINGELL. I would refer the
gentleman to the language of the bill,
but I would say what he has said is
correct insofar as the requirement of
emission control devices on new auto-
mobiles. That is the point at which
preemption takes place. I have tried
to answer the gentleman's remarks.
I have only a limited amount of time,
and I wish to contiue to remark about
some other points which I think are
of extreme importance.
My good friend from California
mentioned Mr. John Middleton. I think
the House of Representatives should
have this thought very clearly before
it at this time, because it has been
charged that California will have to
go before a Federal bureaucracy that
is not sympathetic. The answer is that
the bureaucrat who will be administer-
ing the Federal agency is Mr. John
T. Middleton, who is director of the
National Center for Air Pollution
Control. He is a former professor
and former director of the University
of California Statewide Air Pollution
Research Center, and who served as
chairman of the California Motor
Vehicle Pollution Control Board.
Let me just point out some other
facts. We are faced with Californians
who are a little like the position of
the farmer who had an overgrown
weed patch. He was approached
by the county agent who said, "Let me
show you how to farm better."
The farmer said, "Don't bother. I'm
-------
952
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
not farming as well as I know how
right now."
The answer to the argument of
some of our friends in that Californi-
ans right now are enforcing emission-
control devices on either exhausts
or on crankcase hydrocarbons or on
hydrocarbons coming from carbure-
tors or from gas tanks on the
80 percent of the cars that are
operating on California roads which
are in excess of 2 years old. I say that
if California wants to do a good job
on controlling air pollution, they can
commence right there, by cleaning up
the pollution from existing automo-
biles on its highways.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the preferential motion.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I shall
not use 5 minutes. I am certain that
my very good friend from Michigan
does not really want the enacting
clause stricken from this bill. I urge,
therefore, that we vote against the
preferential motion and proceed to
perfect this bill in a logical and
reasonable manner.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the preferential motion offered by
the gentleman from Michigan.
The preferential motion was re-
jected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. JOELSON
TO THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
MR. MOSS
Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment to the amend-
ment offered by the gentleman from
California, Mr. Moss.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. JOELSON to the
amendment offered by Mr. Moss: After "(b)"
insert "(1)" and at the end of the matter pro-
posed to be inserted add the following:
"(2) This section shall not apply to any
State which adopts standards for the control
of emissions from new motor vehicles or new
motor vehicle engines identical to those of any
State with respect to which there has been a
waiver under paragraph (1) of this subsection
so long as such waiver and such identical
standards both remain in effect."
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Chairman, I
intend to support the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Cali-
fornia, but I think that other States
in the Union are going to have similar
problems if they do not already have
them.
California has been a pioneer, but I
think that other States should be al-
lowed to benefit by the pioneering work
done in California. Therefore, my
amendment very simply would allow
other States which have identical
plans as California to have the same
treatment that California has, and if
their regulations are identical with
California's, they should be entitled
to have the same type of waiver.
The air pollution problem is grow-
ing constantly more serious. As a resi-
dent of the eastern seaboard and a
sufferer from sinus and hayfever I
can personally attest that this is not
a problem unique to California.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. JOELSON. I yield to the gentle-
man from California.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, as I
understand the amendment of the
gentleman from New Jersey to the
amendment which I proposed, it would
exempt any State adopting standards
which were at least as high as those
granted under the exemption as
offered?
Mr. JOELSON. The gentleman is
correct.
Mr. MOSS. That would, therefore,
not lead to a proliferation of stand-
ards in the Nation, but at the most
there would be two standards, a Fed-
eral or the higher standard developed
by the State?
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
953
Mr. JOELSON. The gentleman is
again correct.
Mr. MOSS. Those would be uniform
in their application?
Mr. JOELSON. The gentleman is
correct.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. JOELSON. I yield to the gentle-
man from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. I ask as a point of
information, I understand the amend-
ment would say that the standards
should be identical, meaning identical
to California? Is that what the amend-
ment says—identical?
Mr. JOELSON. Yes. That is what
I have stated.
Mr. CRAMER. So that if there is
any deviation whatsoever through the
legislative process between the legisla-
tion passed in another State and that
now in existence, or in existence as of
March 30 in California, they could
not qualify?
Mr. JOELSON. That is correct.
Mr. CRAMER. Does the gentleman
mean "identical"?
Mr. JOELSON. Yes; I mean
"identical." I know what "identical"
means. I am trying to avoid a prolif-
eration of standards throughout the
United States, because I think that
would be unworkable.
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. JOELSON. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding, and
I rise to support his amendment, be-
cause I think it is eminently fair and
reasonable.
I would like to ask the gentleman
about something that seems to amuse
me about this argument we are having
before the House today. Why does not
the Secretary, when he adopts national
standards, adopt the standards Cali-
fornia has set and which other States
may wish to adopt, and then we would
have one standard for the whole
country? However, the assumption
underlying this whole discussion here
today is that the Secretary is going to
adopt lower standards. I wonder why
that assumption is made?
Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Chairman, I
am not authorized to speak for the
Secretary, but I would assume that
these strict requirements are not neces-
sary in the less populous areas, where
there are less causes of pollution. I
would assume that is the reason.
Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JOELSON. I yield to the gentle-
man from Michigan.
Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Chairman,
that is obviously the reason. There is
no reason to expect everyone in the
United States to go to tremendous
expense to solve a problem that is
unique in California.
Another problem that the gentle-
man's amendment would cause would
be this: The gentleman says it is
designed not to proliferate, but if
anyone knows anything about the
problem of mass production in the au-
tomobile industry, he would recognize
that if the State of New Jersey, the
State of the gentleman, would adopt
the particular standard that is in
existence in California, but New York
and others did not adopt it, the
assembly plants would have to gear
up to handle one particular State in
one area, and it would raise the cost
to a great degree. Everybody recog-
nizes California's problem, but we
had better be careful what we are
going to do if we try to proliferate
this thing, because it would be unman-
ageable.
Mr. JOELSON. I am satisfied the
know-how and efficiency and engineer-
ing ability of the automobile industry
in this country could rise to solve this
problem.
Mr. CEDERBERG. That is an
impossibility.
526-702 O - 73 -- 25
-------
954
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. JOELSON. I yield to the
gentleman from California.
[p. 30978]
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, as I
mentioned in my remarks, it is a fact
that we can go to any dealership in
this area and order virtually a limit-
less variation of automobiles as to
color, as to power packs, as to acces-
sories, and the whole production pro-
gram is computerized, so the right
car feeds in at the right time and
comes out at the right end.
Mr. HARVEY. Mr. Chairman, 1
move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, the basic problem
we have before the House this after-
noon in this amendment by the gentle-
man from New Jersey to the amend-
ment offered by the gentleman from
California and in the Moss amend-
ment is the problem of preemption,
that is preemption of States' activities
in this particular field. Let me repeat
what I said during general debate and
what the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. DINGELL] also said earlier: This
House decided that question in 1965.
We decided it in no uncertain lan-
guage, which is found on page 20 of
this report before the House today,
for the benefit of the House at this
particular time. The reasons are well
given for that particular language,
but this House decided at that time
that there had to be Federal preemp-
tion of State standards in this par-
ticular field if we were going to make
sense in America in the administra-
tion of this air pollution law and in
the mass production of automobiles.
Mr. Chairman, last year there were
more than 100 million licensed drivers
in America. They drove more than 78
million cars. They drove those cars
more than 740 billion miles all across
America in all of our 50 States.
Pending in the legislatures of our
50 States are more than 100 bills. The
number is up to almost 125 bills right
now to make more stringent auto
emission standards.
I submit that what the committee
decided in 1965 makes eminent good
sense today. It is just not practical to
revert to State standards in a field
such as this. We must have Federal
standards.
I want to go on and answer one
other question which was brought up.
No one denies that the State of
California has done a good job. No
one denies that the State of California
has asserted real leadership in this
particular field. But the State of Cali-
fornia can do everything, with one
exception, as I see it, under the House
version of this bill that it can do
under the Senate version. That one
exception is this: I do not believe the
State could certify its own cars, if I
understand this correctly, but it could
have just as tough a requirement
under the House version as it could
have under the Senate version of the
bill.
They still would have to come be-
fore the Secretary of Health and Edu-
cation. They still would have to re-
quest a hearing. They still would
have the burden of proof. They still
would have to show compelling and
extraordinary circumstances.
But in the one case the Secretary
could be authorized to waive the Fed-
eral preemption, and in the other case
he would prescribe standards. It is
that simple.
Am I to believe that those on the
Democrat side of the aisle have so
little confidence in their Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare, that
he will not recognize compelling and
extraordinary reasons requiring
standards in California? I cannot
believe this, and I am on the other
side of the aisle. I cannot believe any
Secretary of Health, Education, and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
955
Welfare would take such a callous
attitude, after the facts are clearly
shown in a hearing provided for, and
after the burden of proof has been
met. I cannot believe that. Just the
opposite would be true.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HARVEY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Florida.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Is it not
true that the Congress passed an
emissions standard law, for interstate
Federal standards, in 1965 and that
the Federal standard is the same as
the California standard is presently?
Mr. HARVEY. The gentleman is
entirely correct.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Of course.
Mr. HARVEY. I want to correct
the dialog that took place on the
floor just a few minutes earlier, be-
cause the standard we are talking
about in this bill is the California
standard. What we say is that we
recognize California may in the future
have special problems. The auto
industry recognized this as Mr. Mann
testified, that California, because of
some peculiar geography and topo-
graphical problems, does have some
need and undoubtedly in the future
will have some need. We are trying to
provide a means to give them more
stringent standards in the future. This
is all we are trying to do.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HARVEY. I yield to my friend
from California.
Mr. HOSMER. At the present time
there is a regulatory body in Wash-
ington, on automobile safety stand-
ards, and the automobile industry, the
three big corporations, are constantly
in a hassle with these people,
constantly trying to slow down the
application of standards.
Mr. HARVEY. I do not yield
further to the gentleman. The gentle-
man is trying to put black hats on
these people.
This whole thing has been a Holly-
wood production here. He is trying to
put black hats on the auto industry,
and to have the California delegation
wear white hats.
Look at the record to see who has
been asking for these things. Look at
the record to see what progress has
been made already by the auto in-
dustry as to reducing hydrocarbons
and carbon monoxide. Hydrocarbons
have been reduced 63 percent in the
past 2 years. Carbon monoxide has
been reduced 60 percent.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Michigan has expired.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in opposition to the amendment
and move to strike the requisite num-
ber of words.
Mr. Chairman, I believe we can all
understand why there is at least
accord as to the need for this legisla-
tion.
We are all, I believe, in a frame of
mind to enjoy something amusing at
this point. I have in my hand an item
from the Sacramento Bee, a California
newspaper which I believe is about
the third largest in the State.
This is dated Monday, October 23,
1967. It is a reprint of a UPI wire
item from Maplewood, N.J. The head-
line says "Air Pollution May Curb
Sex Power." It goes on to say:
An allergy expert says air pollution may
pose a threat to human sex life.
Dr. Frank Rosen said California tests show
animals exposed to auto fumes have diminish-
ing sex powers.
"As far as I know," he said, "research has
not been carried over to human beings—but
the possibility of the adverse effect is certainly
there."
Rosen, long a critic of public apathy on air
pollution dangers, said linking sex and smog
"might open some eyes."
So perhaps this might have a little
something to do with the fact that the
gentleman from California has offered
-------
956
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
an amendment and the gentleman
from New Jersey has offered an
amendment thereto.
Very frankly and seriously now,
Mr. Chairman, I find the position of
our California colleagues hard to
understand.
Here we have a bill which provides
one measure of regulation for the
49 States other than California and
another measure of regulation for
California. I cannot think of a prece-
dent for this kind of double standard
in Federal regulatory legislation.
As I understand it, California
wants to be exempted from the pollu-
tion control program entirely so that
it could be free to go its way.
In an editorial in the Los Angeles
Times last October 8, Eric Grant,
executive officer of the California
Motor Vehicle Pollution Control
Board, is quoted as saying:
Unless the special section is restored in the
Senate version of 208(b)) it will be an out-
right violation of the concept of states'
rights . . .
I think I can recognize a legitimate
States rights argument when I see
one. But I do not see one here. I do
see preferential legislation proposed.
Automobile travel is across State
lines and any matter affecting two or
more States is clearly under the juris-
diction of the Federal Government.
No State has a right to build a wall
around itself. No State has a right
to cut itself off from the other 49 in
the administration of an important
nationwide program. This amendment
is a preferential proposal.
The States rights question was
settled when Congress passed the 1965
amendments to the Clean Air Act. At
that time we placed responsibility for
protecting the Nation from the
hazards of automotive pollution in the
hands of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare. We had good
reasons for doing that.
Controlling automotive pollution is
not like dealing with industrial and
other stationary pollution—where
State and local governments have a
logical role. Factories do not move
across State lines, but automobiles do.
By its nature this form of pollution
required a coordinated, nationwide
effort. That is what we provided in the
committee in this proposal.
Section 208 (b) as reported by the
Com-
[p. 30979]
merce Committee retains the concept
of one unified national program—
while still providing a mechanism for
doing what needs to be done to meet
California's special problem, as the
gentleman from Michigan said just a
moment ago—and they do, we all
know, have a special problem and an
urgent problem. Therefore, I urge the
House to support the committee in
this instance and I urge opposition to
the amendment of the gentleman from
California and the amendment thereto.
Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAGGONNER. I will be happy
to yield to my friend.
Mr. JOELSON. Let me say that
when I offered my amendment I did
not have the benefit of the argument
that the gentleman just offered. I
thought air pollution was a threat to
the respiratory system only, but
having heard the hazards mentioned
by the gentleman from Louisiana, I
am all the more determined to press
my amendment.
Mr. WAGGONNER. I would like to
say, insofar as the gentleman from
New Jersey and States rights are
concerned, I am glad he is a late
learner.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
wonder if we can fix the time for the
conclusion of debate on the Moss
amendment and all amendments
thereto. I ask unanimous consent that
it be completed at 10 minutes after 5.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
957
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
West Virginia?
Mr. KUPFERMAN. Mr. Chairman,
I object.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
make the same request for 15 minutes
after 5.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. CRAMER] for 1 minute.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, 1
rise in support of the Moss amend-
ment. This debate today has been very
interesting and a little bit incon-
gruous. I have heard people who
support the State rights but appar-
ently not recognize it in this obvious
instance. I believe State rights are in-
volved. Incongruous as to those who
ordinarily are supporting a nonpre-
emption and who say there is no
preemption in this bill. They suggest
it should not apply, nonpreemption
that is, but I believe it should. They
say, incongruously, that you can have
a situation in air pollution control
where the States are not permitted to
have higher than national standards
unless the Secretary says so. We
would not permit it in the air pollu-
tion control, but we just got through
doing it and permitting higher stand-
ards in the water pollution control
program, and we just got through
doing it with regard to the safety
legislation; we permit the States to
have higher standards without the
right of the Secretary to veto such
higher standards.
I support the amendment offered by
the gentleman from California, and I
am being consistent.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from California
[Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN].
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in support of the amend-
ment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Moss]. This amend-
ment, which was included in the
Senate version of this bill, will allow
California to establish more stringent
standards for the control of motor
vehicle emissions than the standards
promulgated by the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare for
the rest of the Nation.
California has pioneered the control
of automobile pollution. The nation-
wide standards which have just gone
into effect for automobile exhaust
control are the same standards which
were established by my State more
than 2 years ago. Now, if the pending
amendment is not adopted, we are to
be penalized for our leadership and,
more importantly, it is extremely un-
certain at best that California will be
able to continue its efforts to reduce
the pollution from automobiles.
It seems obvious to me that
adoption of this amendment will be a
great step forward in the fight
against air pollution. California's
original regulations on this subject
forced the automobile industry to meet
our requirements or lose access to
their largest State market. These
regulations were then adopted on a
nationwide basis and now all States
are benefiting from the action we
took. I would certainly expect that the
same process would be followed when
California makes it standards even
more stringent. The other States
might again have a time lag between
our implementation of higher stand-
ards and their own but I am certain
they would follow our lead with the
resultant reduction in physically
harmful pollution.
I have long supported improved air
and water pollution control programs.
In the past several years, the Con-
gress has made an outstanding record
in this field, but we all recognize that
much remains to be done. Recent
-------
958
LEGAL COMPILATION—AER
technological advances in the field
have made it essential that we up-
grade and strengthen our efforts. I
know that the polluting industries, for
the most part, have been making
significant progress in controlling
their pollution. It is my opinion that
the role of the Congress should be to
make clear to these industries that
we will give them the opportunity to
solve the problem on their own, which
I feel they could do, but that we feel
also that definite progress must be
made and shown or more severe re-
strictions may have to be adopted if
the problem is not solved.
I support this bill wholeheartedly
and feel it is a great step forward in
combating the menace of air pollution.
With the amendment for the benefit of
California, this legislation will pro-
vide an important tool to reduce the
dangers to health which come from
air pollution.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Colorado
[Mr. ROGERS].
Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr.
Chairman, I rise to try to clarify and
see if we can get an answer to the
question of this preemption that has
been brought up here from time to
time, as it was when I asked the
gentleman to yield to me.
If a Federal law were enacted—and
ordinarily when the Federal Govern-
ment steps into an area it preempts
and takes over the field. Is that what
we do in this legislation, Mr. Chair-
man?
Mr. STAGGERS. If the gentleman
will yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. I yield
to the gentleman that this is only on
the emission of air pollution from new
cars.
Then we do preempt the field?
Mr. STAGGERS. That is right.
Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. As it
relates to new cars?
Mr. STAGGERS. That is right.
Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. So, by
preempting the field, however, if the
amendment proposed by the gentle-
man from California is adopted,
would his amendment take preference
over the Federal, the action that is
taken by California take precedence
over what we would enact here?
Mr. STAGGERS. Yes, it would; in
the opinion of the chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from California
[Mr. REINECKE].
Mr. REINECKE. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to tlear up several points
that have been made here today.
First, that the California standards
are equal to the Federal standards.
This is true for the moment but Cali-
fornia has already put the automobile
manufacturers on notice that they
are going further in 1969 and again in
1970 and again in 1975. We cannot
get a commitment out of the Secre-
tary in this regard.
Second, I wrote the Secretary ask-
ing him if California would in his
opinion certify California for more
stringent standards without further
technical hearings.
I was not able to get a response. So
I called him on Tuesday. I called him
on Wednesday and I called him a
second time on Wednesday. I was still
unable to get any satisfactory results.
Yet, we were told here today that one
member of the committee in favor of
the DINGELL amendment has in his
possession a letter which tells the
Congressman that the Secretary will
allow California to go beyond that
particular position.
If that is the kind of underhanded
deal that California is going to get,
then this is all the more reason that
the Moss amendment should be
passed.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. JACOBS].
Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, at the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
959
request of those Members who wish
to vote, I yield back my time.
SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
MR. KUPFERMAN
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from New York
[Mr. KUPFERMAN].
Mr. KUPFERMAN. Mr. Chairman,
I offer a substitute amendment for
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from California [Mr. Moss].
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. KUPFERMAN as a
substitute for the amendment offered by Mr.
Moss: on page 97, strike out lines 3 through
20 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"(b) The Secretary shall, after notice and
opportunity for public hearing, waive applica-
tion of this section to any State which adopts
standards (other than crank-case emission
standards) for the control of emis-
[p. 30980]
sions from new motor vehicles or new motor
vehicle engines, unless he finds that such State
does not require standards more stringent than
applicable Federal standards to meet compell-
ing and extraordinary conditions or that such
State standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures are not consistent with ection
202 (a) of this title.1'
Mr. KUPFERMAN. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise to offer an amendment to
S. 780, the Air Quality Act of 1967.
My amendment would give States
like my own, New York, a freer hand
in establishing more stringent air
pollution control standards for auto-
mobiles when the Federal require-
ments do not provide adequate safe-
guards for a State's special air pollu-
tion problem.
The act, in its present form, leaves
little room for States to improve
upon the Federal standards and allows
these standards to preempt any regu-
lations established by the States. My
amendment would allow the Federal
criteria to take precedence only when
State standards are less stringent.
It will give the States greater
opportunity to expand air pollution
controls to accommodate their special
needs—particularly in urban areas
where pollution has become an ever-
increasing health hazard.
Urban areas obviously have different
problems which cannot be accommo-
dated by the same air-pollution stand-
ards for automobiles which might be
appropriate for the wide-open spaces
of Wyoming. Specific problems may
require ad hoc and immediate solu-
tions.
The tragic consequences of the
4-day thermal inversion in New York
during Thanksgiving, 1966,1 serves as
a dramatic reminder for the need to
tailor air pollution regulations to fit
the special needs of a geographic
area. No State should be encouraged
to be inactive in protecting its citizens.
Rather, States and localities should
be permitted and encouraged to take
preventive action that may be more
forceful in its measures than those
prescribed by the Federal standards.
Although the development of auto-
mobile emission controls may be
costly, human life and health is a far
more valuable commodity.
My own 17th Congressional District
in the heart of New York City is a
critical example of air pollution
aggravated by automobile exhaust
fumes. My constituents, as well as all
urban residents, can attest to the
"garbage in air" in the vacuum which
this amendment should fill.
Presently, the Federal Government
places the burden upon the automo-
bile industry pursuant to the Federal
standards to develop the devices to
limit the air pollution generated by
automobiles. Inasmuch as the auto-
mobile industry builds the air-pollu-
tion device into the car at the site of
manufacture, all cars sold in the
country will have the same exhaust
emission standards. Thus, we have the
situation where a buyer of a car in
Wyoming has the same automobile
-------
960
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
exhaust control device which a buyer
of a car in California has, but the air
pollution problem facing these two
individuals is clearly distinguishable.
To build an air-pollution device to
fit either the average need of the
1 See addendum material.
Nation or that of the least common
denominator is to deprive the large
urban area of relief from its increas-
ingly critical air pollution problem.
According to the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, the
Federal Government does not investi-
gate the success of devices which
private corporations or manufacturers
produce. These private manufacturers
are told to approach the automobile
industry with their ideas. The auto-
mobile industry, having prepared their
own devices, turns these people away.
Consequently, we do not have any
actual data on types of devices that
could be placed on an automobile at
the place of sale.
It may be that if this matter was
investigated further, we would find
devices that could be placed on the
car at the point of sale which would
adhere to the specific emission stand-
ard required by the particular State.
Presently, the Federal standards
are identical to California's, which has
the most stringent regulations of any
State. However, California authorities
admit that their present controls are
clearly inadequate to meet their needs.
Under the Air Quality Act in its
present form, any future changes
could only be made by the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare.
My amendment provides new direction
for the Nation's air pollution pro-
gram by allowing States to establish
their own economically feasible stand-
ards.
The Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare would be forced to in-
vestigate the devices, which can be
placed on the cars at the point of sale,
inasmuch as the States could present
these devices to prove the economic
feasibility of their requirements.
I urge my colleagues to give this
suggestion their careful consideration.
Under my proposal, the States would
have more power to tackle their air-
pollution problems as they develop,
as opposed to having the Federal Gov-
ernment place pressure on the auto-
mobile industry to make changes in
their exhaust systems after the State's
problem becomes so critical as to
warrant changes in the standards
applicable to the Nation.
[p. 30981]
Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the Kupferman substitute and in
support of the JOELSON amendment,
and also in support of the Moss
amendment. I feel it would be unfortu-
nate if we had 50 different State
standards as would be authorized by
the adoption of the KUPFERMAN
substitute. However, I do feel that
there should be opportunity for States
that wished to adopt more stringent
standards, under the authority of the
JOELSON amendment and the Moss
amendment, to do so. I therefore sup-
port the JOELSON amendment and
also the Moss amendment, and urge
the Committee to adopt both of these
amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from California
[Mr. HOSMER].
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, the
issue is not whether we are going to
have higher standards in California
or not. That is to be the consequence
of either the committee bill or the
Moss amendment. The issue is, Who
will impose the higher California
standards? Is California going to be
able to impose the standards neces-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
961
sary to meet its own circumstances and
conditions, or will California have to
go hat in hand to Washington along
with the four automobile manufac-
turers—General Motors, Ford, Chrys-
ler, and American Motors—and argue
about it down at HEW? That is the
only issue.
When standards do come, some
Members have asked whether cars
touring in California would have to
buy the extra equipment, and so forth,
that California car buyers have to
pay for. The answer is "No." Touring
automobiles are exempted. They
amount to about 5 percent of the
traffic. If we can get the 95 percent
of our own automobiles cleaned up, we
can lick the smog problem. We are
asking you to let us do just that.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
ROGERS].
(By unanimous consent, Mr. DIN-
GELL yielded his time to Mr. ROGERS
of Florida.)
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I hope the House will sup-
port the committee and vote against
the amendments that have been
offered, for a number of reasons.
First, it has only been since 1965
that the Federal Government has
gotten into the program to set stand-
ards for car emissions all over the
Nation. That is why we are having
California's Members talk a great
deal. They have been concerned. Cali-
fornia has been in the problem longer.
But now the Federal Government
is in it. The Federal standards are
just as high as California's. I have
been assured, and other Members as
well, that in November, this month,
you may expect to see proposed stand-
ards that will be stricter being
published.
Let me point out this: In all of the
amendments that have been offered,
if you read them carefully, you will
find that the decisions of standards to
be set still goes back to the Secretary.
It all rests on the Secretary because
in both amendments the statement
appears that "unless he," the Secre-
tary—and I hope you will listen to
this—"unless he," the Secretary "finds
that such State does not require stand-
ards more stringent than applicable
Federal standards to meet compelling
and extraordinary conditions, or that
such a State's standards and accom-
panying enforcement procedures are
not consistent with section 202(a) of
this title." In other words, the deter-
mination even in the Moss amend-
ment goes back to the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare. So
this discussion becomes academic.
The committee has thought this
out. And let me tell you, in the rating
of cities with air pollution, Los Ange-
les is not the first. It is the fourth.
Cities on the serious air pollution list
come from all parts of the Nation.
So it is a nationwide problem that the
committee is trying to meet.
I hope you will vote down the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from California
[Mr. VAN DEERLIN].
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Chair-
man, I yield to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. ROSENTHAL] for a
unanimous-consent request.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in support of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Cali-
fornia [Mr. Moss].
Mr. Chairman, Americans have
learned to be too passive about living
with hostile environments we our-
selves create. We have learned all too
well to tolerate all kinds of atmos-
pheric poisons, but we must decide now
to turn from a complacent make-do
approach in our air pollution control
programs to a genuine commitment.
All across this Nation, and particu-
larly in our urban centers, air pol-
lution continues to kill and to corrode.
-------
962
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
The Air Quality Act of 1967 which I
co-sponsor represents the kind of vig-
orous program that is desperately
needed to combat the pollution of our
air.
This bill contains within it most
of the pollution control devices needed
to institute an effective program. For
this reason, I strongly endorse the
bill's general regional approach to the
air pollution problem, as well as most
of its specific proposals. A provision
of this bill which troubles me would
weaken State and local pollution
controls in those States, notably in
New York and California, which seek
more vigorous standards than those
of the Federal Government.
Such exemplary local programs, un-
der the current wording of the Air
Quality Act's section 208 (b), would
meet serious delays in implementation.
These delays would subvert an other-
wise commendable clean air program.
I must therefore qualify my support
of the Air Quality Act as it now reads.
To improve this bill I urge my col-
leagues to support the amendment in-
troduced today by the gentleman from
California. [Mr. Moss]. This amend-
ment would free States and localities
to set clean air standards higher than
those we are considering today and
thus preserve and promote local initia-
tive and competition for excellence.
Mr. Chairman, I ask permission to
insert at this point in the RECORD
a telegram which I just received from
the Queens Tuberculosis and Health
Association on the serious nature of
the proposed limit on State action. It
read:
Efforts by Congressman Dingell to amend S.
780 would seriously damage air pollution con-
trol efforts in the U.S. and especially in New
York State where the problem of automotive
pollution is most serious. It is clear that in
order to reduce this pollution even more
stringent regulations will have to be promul-
gated in the years ahead. We urge defeat of
Congressman Dingell's amendment which
would prevent the States from enacting regu-
lations more stringent than those of the fed-
eral government. Passage would be a definite
step backward in the fight for cleaner air.
I take no pride in the fact that I
represent part of the most polluted
city in the Nation. Within New York
City's gray-brown borders, my own
district must be ranked as one of the
most polluted sections of that city. In
northern Queens, we must contend
not only with chemical wastes and
combustion residue from home heating
and automobile exhaust; we must also
inhale the jet-age wastes of those
thousands of airplanes that crowd
our skies daily. My constituents live
in conditions of constant peril, and
this peril is compounded by the fact
that much of our airborne filth de-
rives not from New York, but from
neighboring States. I am especially
pleased to endorse the present bill's
emphasis on regional and interstate
pollution standards and controls. The
air pollution that confronts us is a
social obscenity for the United States,
since most of our pollution problems
are soluble. Much can be done for the
intolerable condition of New York
City air but neither New York nor
any other city can succeed without
the cooperation of neighboring areas.
The bill before us today deserves
our fervent support, but we should
not think that it alone will solve all
of our air pollution problems. Our na-
tional ability to
[p. 30988]
poison our environment may yet over-
come our intention to cleanse that
environment, and the measure before
us should be seen as only part of a
comprehensive national antipollution
system that would reinforce and build
upon specialized State and local pro-
grams.
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Chair-
man, it should surprise no one that I,
too, rise in support of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Cali-
fornia [Mr. Moss]. But I would rather
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
963
vote than talk. Therefore, I yield back
the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from California
[Mr. GORMAN].
Mr. GORMAN. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the JOELSON amend-
ment and Moss amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair rec-
ognizes the gentleman from New York
[Mr. MCCARTHY].
Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman,
we have heard a lot today about the
concept of minimum nationwide stand-
ards, and about provisions of more
stringent standards for special sit-
uations or for the automobile indus-
try. When we dispose of the Moss
amendment and the amendment to it,
I will have an amendment to restore
the language of the original STAGGERS
bill, that provides for the setting now
of national emissions standards, for
all other industries in addition to the
automotive, such as jet aircraft, steel,
paper, oil, and any industry that con-
tributes substantially to air pollution.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair rec-
ognizes the gentleman from West Vir-
ginia [Mr. STAGGERS].
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield to the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. WATSON].
Mr. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the distinguished chairman of
the committee for yielding. I rise in
support of the committee's position.
As has been pointed out, we thorough-
ly considered these amendments in
the Commerce Committee and over-
whelmingly rejected them.
Frankly, I think Shakespeare wrote
a book about what we have been do-
ing here, entitled "Much Ado About
Nothing." The committee's version
will take care of the problem of Cali-
fornia, and I think it is the orderly
way of handling this pollution problem
on a national basis.
Then, too, we should consider the
effects passage of these amendments
will have on the costs of automobiles,
for the consumer will ultimately foot
the bill for these added control fea-
tures. Very well, the automotive in-
dustry will build its cars in accord-
ance with the highest emission stand-
ards of California, and as a conse-
quence the people in areas unaffected
by the pollution problem must pay a
higher price for their cars.
Let us move positively but in an
orderly manner.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman,
I thank the gentleman.
I might say I oppose the Moss
amendment and the amendment there-
to and the substitute therefor, be-
cause the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce—33 Members of
this House—considered this legisla-
tion very carefully. We recommend to
the House that we adopt the bill as
it is now written.
When these propositions were con-
sidered, most of the members of the
committee were present. The proposi-
tions were turned down. We tried to
arrive at a fair bill for all the 50
States. I recommend the bill be passed
in the form we reported it, and I am
opposed to all the amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has ex-
pired.
The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. JOELSON] to the amend-
ment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Moss].
The question was taken; and on a
division (demanded by Mr. JOELSON)
there were—ayes 66, noes 57.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
demand tellers.
Tellers were ordered, and the Chair-
man appointed as tellers, the gentle-
man from New Jersey [Mr. JOELSON]
and the gentleman from West Vir-
ginia [Mr. STAGGERS],
The Committee again divided, and
the tellers reported that there were
—ayes 83, noes 87.
-------
964
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
So the amendment to the amend-
ment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the substitute amendment offered
by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
KUPFERMAN] for the amendment of-
fered by the gentleman from Califor-
nia [Mr. Moss].
The substitute amendment was re-
jected.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gen-
tleman from California [Mr. Moss].
The question was taken; and the
Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
demand tellers.
Tellers were ordered, and the Chair-
man appointed as tellers the gentle-
man from California [Mr. Moss] and
the gentleman from West Virginia
[Mr. STAGGERS].
The Committee divided; and the
tellers reported that there were —
ayes 152, noes 58.
So the amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. OTTINGER
Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. OTTINGER: On
page 60, line 10, strike out the period and in-
sert in lieu thereof a semicolon.
On page 60, after line 10, insert the follow-
ing:
"(6) conduct research and development pro-
grams to develop and demonstrate feasible elec-
tric-powered vehicles or other non-polluting
alternatives to the internal combustion engine
for motor vehicles."
Mr. OTTINGER. Mr Chairman, I
am offering a simple but important
amendment to the Air Quality Act of
1967 to spur the development of elec-
tric vehicles or any other feasible al-
ternative to the internal combustion
engine.
The internal combustion engine is
clearly the major source of air pollu-
tion in the Nation today. Each year,
according to the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, cars,
trucks and buses spew some 86 mil-
lion tons of dangerous waste into the
air we breathe and that is more than
60 percent of the total pollution from
all sources.
Considering the nature of the
threat that this represents, it is vital
that we mobilize the best efforts of
Government and industry immedia-
tely.
It is not enough just to extend the
effort to reduce the emissions from
gas-powered engines. Unless there is
a major and unexpected breakthrough,
no projected reduction through abate-
ment and control devices will be
enough. Just the anticipated increase
in automobiles will more than cancel
out the reductions in pollution achieved
by inefficient control devices now in
use.
We must start now on an acceler-
ated effort to develop feasible alter-
natives—wholly different types of en-
gines whether they be battery-pow-
ered motors, external combustion en-
gines, a steam engine or some more
exotic system.
The need for this is underscored
by the report by a panel of experts
last month by the Department of
Commerce. In this report, entitled The
Automobile and Air Pollution, the
panel stressed that:
The magnitude of expected future need for
urban-suburban personal transportation re-
quires the early development of virtually non-
polluting transportation systems.
The panel recommended a 5-year
Federal program to "support, innova-
tive developments" to achieve this
goal. They stressed the need for fed-
erally supported research into new
energy sources for vehicles, new ve-
hicular propulsion systems, special
purpose urban cars and general pur-
pose vehicles.
Yet, in spite of this, there is no
such provision in the Air Quality Act.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
965
My amendment was the subject of
detailed hearings in the Senate. It
was considered by the House commit-
tee in connection -with this act and
opposed on the plea that the matter
should be left to the auto indusry.
Arguing against this Federal effort,
the auto industry would have us be-
lieve that such research and develop-
ment can be left exclusively to private
enterprise. On the one hand they say
that they can be trusted to carry the
program forward and on the other
hand they say that their studies indi-
cate that there is no reasonable al-
ternative on the horizon now.
[p. 30989]
*****
The question was taken; and there
were—yeas 362, not voting 70, * * *.
So the bill passed.
[p.30999]
l.lh(4)(c) Nov. 9: Senate rejected House amendments,
pp. 32072-73; 32079
AIR QUALITY ACT OF 1967
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
that the Chair lay before the Senate
a message from the House on S. 780.
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid
before the Senate the amendment of
the House of Representatives to the
bill (S. 780) to amend the Clean Air
Act to au-
[p. 32072]
thorize planning grants to air pollu-
tion control agencies; expand research
provisions relating1 to fuels and ve-
hicles; provide for interstate air
pollution control agencies or commis-
sions; authorize the establishment of
air quality standards, and for other
purposes, * * *.
[p. 32073]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
move that the Senate insist on its
amendments and ask for a conference
with the House, and that the Chair
appoint the conferees on the part of
the Senate.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Presiding Officer appointed Mr,
MUSKIK, Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. BAYH,
Mr. BOGGS, and Mr. COOPER conferees
on the part of the Senate.
[p. 32079]
l.lh(4)(d) Nov. 13: House insisted on amendments and agreed
to conference, p. 32213
CLEAN AIR ACT
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent to take from
the Speaker's table the bill (S. 780)
to amend the Clean Air Act to au-
thorize planning grants to air pollu-
tion control agencies, expand research
provisions relating to fuels and ve-
hicles, provide for interstate air pol-
lution control agencies or commissions,
authorize the establishment of air
quality standards, and for other pur-
poses, with an amendment of the
House thereto, insist on the amend-
-------
966
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
ment, and agree to the conference re-
quested by the Senate.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
West Virginia? The Chair hears none,
and appoints the following conferees:
Messrs. STAGGERS, JARMAN, ROGERS of
Florida, SPRINGEK, and NELSEN.
[p. 32213]
l.lh(4)(e) Nov. 14: Senate and House adopted conference re-
port, pp. 32475-32479
CLEAN AIR ACT —
CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I sub-
mit a report to the committee of con-
ference on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the amendment of
the House to the bill (S. 780) to
amend the Clean Air Act to authorize
planning grants to air pollution con-
trol agencies, expand research provi-
sions relating to fuels and vehicles,
provide for interstate air pollution
control agencies or commissions, au-
thorize the establishment of air qual-
ity standards, and for other purposes.
I ask unanimous consent for the pres-
ent consideration of the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
report will be read for the information
of the Senate.
The assistant legislative clerk read
the report.
(For conference report, see House
proceedings of this day, pp 32320-
32328, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection to the present consid-
eration of the report?
There being no objection, the Sen-
ate proceeded to consider the report.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, this
bill as agreed to unanimously by the
conferees contains the essential au-
thority of S. 780 as it was approved
by the Senate, July 18, 1967. In some
respects the legislation has been im-
proved over the Senate-passed version.
The only disappointment to the Senate
conferees was in the total level of the
authorization.
The House kept almost all of the
new concepts in the Senate version
of S. 780. Those areas of similarity
included:
First. Expanded planning grants to
States and local government to assist
in implementation of air quality stand-
ards;
Second. Two-year full Federal fi-
nancing for interstate planning bod-
ies established by Governors to assist
in development of air quality stand-
ards in interstate air quality control
regions;
Third. Authority for the Secretary
to define the Nation's air basins;
Fourth. Authority for the Secretary
to define air quality control regions;
problem areas where standards are
required;
Fifth. Expanded definition of the
Secretary's air quality criteria devel-
opment responsibility;
Sixth. Authority for the Secretary
to develop and distribute information
on air pollution control technology;
Seventh. Provision for development
and enforcement of air quality stand-
ards;
Eighth. Broadened participation in
and improved procedures for enforce-
ment conferences;
Ninth. Authority for the Secretary
to act in the event of air pollution
episodes which pose an imminent and
substantial threat to health;
Tenth. Authority for States and
local government to set standards for
stationary sources more stringent
than those approved by the Secretary;
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
967
Eleventh. Establishment of an Air
Quality Advisory Board to the Pres-
ident ;
Twelfth. Federal preemption of the
right to set standards for new motor
vehicles and new vehicle engines ex-
cept in California where more
stringent standards may be set;
Thirteenth. Federal assistance to
the
[p. 32475]
States to develop vehicle emission
inspection programs;
Fourteenth. A study of the efficacy
of internal emission standards;
Fifteenth. Comprehensive study of
the economic costs of air pollution and
a study of the personnel needs for ef-
fective air pollution control programs ;
Sixteenth. Annual reports to the
Congress on various programs author-
ized by the act.
Mr. President, this is an impressive
list of agreements. Within some of
the above there were technical dis-
agreements on particular legislation
language but the Senate's intent was
not changed by the House. Because
the Senate's intent was maintained
and because by and large the House
amendments to the above-mentioned
provisions improved the act the Sen-
ate receded from these differences.
Those differences include:
First. Clarification of the language
under section 105 relating to Federal
program and planning grants;
Second. Clarification of the lan-
guage under section 106 relating to
interstate planning agencies;
Third. Establishment of a 1-year
deadline to define the Nation's air
basins; and
Fourth. Clarification of the lan-
guage relating to development on im-
plementation of air quality stand-
ards.
Mr. President, now that I have
cited the agreements between the two
versions of S, 780 and those areas on
which the other body helped to clarify
the legislation, I should like to in-
dicate the major differences between
the two bills.
The House version did not contain
the major provision of the Senate bill
relating to research. As passed by the
Senate the Air Quality Act of 1967
included a section authorizing $375
million to develop and demonstrate
through grants and contracts meth-
ods to control pollution for combustion
of fuels. This was the proposal ad-
vanced by the distinguished chairman
of the Senate Committee on Public
Works, Mr. RANDOLPH.
The basic act provides general au-
thority for this type of research and
demonstration and the House contin-
ued that authority without earmarked
funds. The Senate did not consider
that authority adequate to stimulate
the needed research and development
of improved techniques for the con-
trol and abatement of air pollution
from fuels.
The conferees agreed to reinstate a
modified version of the Senate pro-
vision. As reported from conference
this research section provided for de-
velopment and demonstration, by con-
tract with industry, and grants to pub-
lic or nonprofit agencies and to in-
dividuals, of new or improved tech-
niques to control pollution from fuels
combustion. At the insistence of the
House the Senate receded on this sec-
tion and agreed to delete grants to
industry for these purposes.
The House also insisted, due to cur-
rent budgetary restrictions, that the
total funds authorized by the act not
to exceed the $428.3 million figure
suggested to them by the administra-
tion.
The Senate conferees did not ac-
cept the argument that current budg-
etary restrictions provide a sound
basis for legislative authorizations.
That is a function more properly left
to the appropriations process. Never-
-------
968
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
theless, in the interest of getting the
program underway, the Senate con-
ferees agreed to recede on the total
authorization and accept the House
figure of $428.3 million for fiscal
years 1968, 1969, and 1970. The House
conferees agreed to accept a Senate
compromise of $35 million for fiscal
year 1968, and $90 million for fiscal
year 1969 for fuels combustion re-
search and development. Operations
authorizations are $74 million for
fiscal year 1968, $95 million for fiscal
year 1969, and $134.3 million for fiscal
year 1970.
The second major disagreement
related to provisions in both bills
which required registration of fuel
additives. The House conferees were
concerned by the requirement in the
Senate version that fuels be regis-
tered as well as additives. A compro-
mise was reached whereby the fuel
manufacturer is required to notify
the Secretary as to the name, the
range of concentration and the pur-
pose in use of any additive contained
in any fuel delivered in interstate
commerce. The additive manufacturer
is required to register the additive as
to chemical composition, recommend-
ed range of concentration and rec-
ommended purpose in use. When the
information is known, the additive
manufacturer is also required to pro-
vide the Secretary with information
on the chemical structure of the addi-
tive. The House also accepted the Sen-
ate language for protection of trade
secrets with a minor amendment. Pro-
visions for enforcement were identi-
cal in both bills.
Mr. President, several minor differ-
ences with the House bill were com-
promised without difficulty or sacrifice.
The House bill included a provision
which expressed the intent of Con-
gress that any State not a part of
a designated air quality control region
should not participate in an air pol-
lution compact. As a part of this pro-
vision the House deleted that portion
of the Senate bill picked up from
the basic act which encouraged inter-
state compacts. The conferees agreed
to accept both provisions.
The House bill moved a subsection
relating to research advisory commit-
tees from the specific fuels research
section 104 as provided in the Senate
bill to the general research section
103. The Senate conferees accepted
this change.
The House bill lowered from 12%
to 10 percent of total funds appropri-
ated the share of Federal funds which
could be allocated for air pollution
control programs in any one State.
The conferees agreed that with 50
State programs as envisioned by this
bill, it would be unlikely that any
single State could expect even 10
percent. Therefore, the Senate con-
ferees receded.
The House bill included a provision
requiring designation of air quality
control regions within 18 months af-
ter enactment. This provision was
modified to permit the Secretary to re-
vise such regions or to add regions
as he deems it necessary to protect
the public health and welfare. It was
not the intent of the conferees that
the Secretary wait 18 months before
making the first designations.
The House bill did not contain a
Senate amendment providing for con-
tinuation of existing enforcement pro-
cedures during the standards devel-
opment period. The conferees agreed
that circumstances would arise where-
in this basic authority should be used
and the House conferees receded.
The House included provision call-
ing for a study of the feasibility and
practicality of controlling aircraft
emissions. The Senate conferees ac-
cepted this provision.
The House bill included the so-
called Davis-Bacon labor standards
program which the Senate conferees
accepted.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
969
Mr. President, the conference
agreement represents an excellent
compromise. While the Senate did
not prevail in its dollar figure, the
basic approach unanimously approved
earlier this year was maintained. The
Air Quality Act of 1967 represents
a significant expansion in Federal,
State, and local air pollution control
responsibilities. It focuses the atten-
tion of our national program where
it should be: on the enhancement of
our air quality.
The Federal role is expanded both
as a supporter of State programs and,
in the event the States fail to act,
as an active participant in the devel-
opment and implementation of air
quality standards.
This new role will cost more money,
more effort and more effective ad-
ministration. No longer can air quality
criteria be developed on an ad hoc
basis. The people of the Nation have
spoken. Congress has responded with
the act, and now the effectiveness of
our combined efforts will be judged
by the creative abilities of the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. I understand that the
Senate accepted a very sharp cut
in the amount authorized for appro-
priation. This relates to air pollution,
a matter of the most burning interest
to many of us in the big cities. I
should like, first, to continue, as so
many of us have done before, our
tribute to Senator MUSKIE for his
outstandingly fine leadership in this
matter.
As I understand, there was a con-
siderable cut. I wish the Senator would
tell us, for the record, how much of a
cut was absorbed in the authorization
and also—because this is of the ut-
most importance—what ameliorating
changes in the provisions of the bill
he feels help us to make up for the
cut in money.
Mr. MUSKIE. The resolution of
the money problem is somewhat com-
plicated. I will try to explain it.
In the Senate version, we autho-
rized a total of $700 million. Of this
amount, $375 million was authorized
over a 3-year period for research—
the section 104 research program
which was authored by the distin-
guished Senator from West Virginia
[Mr. RANDOLPH], and which the Sen-
ate committee and the Senate as a.
whole considered very important. The
remainder of the Senate authoriza-
tion, or $325 million, was for all other
purposes supported by the bill; and
authorized
[p. 32476]
under existing legislation for the cur-
rent fiscal year.
The House figure of $428.3 million
was not broken down between re-
search and general operations so that
the total House figure of $428.3 mil-
lion included an unspecified amount
for research, and the remainder was
for operations.
In order to resolve the figure, we
had to undertake some mathematical
gymnastics to get the House to com-
promise. The House was not prepared
to go along on anything above the
$428.3 million because of the mood
of the House—which the Senator
from New York has described in con-
nection with the problem he has dis-
cussed this afternoon.
We first considered a 2-year au-
thorization with an authorization fig-
ure which would be closer to the Sen-
ate figure for those 2 years. The
House was receptive to this sug-
gestion, but felt that they were risk-
ing a point of order on the House
side. So the Senate conferees then
proposed to retain the 3-year authori-
zation for general operations and con-
centrate earmarked research money
526-702 O - 73 -- ;
-------
970
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
in the first 2 years. We agreed to
eliminate research money for the
third year, on the theory that we
could come back to Congress for that
money, while retaining the operating
funds—that is, the authorization for
all other purposes—at a figure of $303
million. The $303 million for opera-
tions should be compared with the
Senate figure of $325 million.
As a result we have, in the first
2 years, a total of $125 million for re-
search, which compares with the Sen-
ate figure for research for those 2
years of $225 million and the House
figure, implicit in their total authori-
zation, of $75 million. We are a little
closer to the House figure for re-
search than to the Senate amount.
However, we are very close to the
Senate figure on operations.
By eliminating research funds for
the third year of the 3-year period,
we were able to resolve the fiscal
differences in the two bills in a way
that came some distance toward the
Senate authorization. And, most im-
portantly the House agreed to accept
modified language of section 104.
With this specific directive to the
agency and the earmarked funds the
research program can proceed at an
accelerated pace even though that
pace will be somewhat slower than we
had hoped.
A couple of other important changes
were made in the bill which came in
the direction of the Senate version.
For example, the key to the bill is
the setting of air quality standards
and this activity is triggered by the
establishment of air quality control
regions across the country by the
Secretary. Under the House version,
the Secretary would have had to des-
ignate all of these regions within a
period of 18 months from the date
of the enactment of the act after
which his authority would run out.
He would have no authority to modify
the actions as experience indicated
they should be.
The House conferees agreed to a
modification of that language, which
requires that the Secretary must des-
ignate the existing problem areas
within 18 months; but he will have
authority thereafter to add new areas
as they emerge and, in addition, will
have authority to modify those regions
if necessary. We considered this mod-
ification important to preserve the
intent of the Senate bill.
One other important provision
dealt with the registration of fuel
additives which, as the Senator knows,
are extremely important in connection
with air pollution. Lead, for example,
is the most obvious one which threat-
ens to create an air pollution prob-
lem. The House version would have
required only the registration of the
additives. The Senate committee felt
that the registration would be mean-
ingless unless information was sup-
plied by both the additive and the fuel
manufacturer. We felt the Secretary
needed to know concentrations of the
additives in the fuel, the chemical
structure and composition of the ad-
ditives, and the purposes for which
they are added to the fuels. The House
receded on this point.
All in all, I would say to the dis-
tinguished Senator from New York
that the result of the conference rep-
resents a fair compromise between the
House and the Senate versions, with
give and take on both sides.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the distin-
guished Senator from New York.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, the
Clean Air Act of 1967, S. 780, which
will go to the President to be signed
into law following this final action in
the Senate today, represents a great
deal of work by the Senate Subcom-
mittee on Air and Water Pollution,
under the leadership of its chairman,
Senator MUSKIE. I think it fair to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
971
say that it is almost a creation of the
Senate Committee on Public Works in
which Senator EDMUND MUSKIE, of
Maine, gave leadership. I believe it
to be landmark legislation.
I know that Senator BOGGS, the
ranking Republican member of the
subcommittee, and all of us who
worked together on this measure,
have great hope for what can be ac-
complished under this act.
And I wish to pay special tribute
to our chairman, Senator RANDOLPH,
whose contribution has been so con-
structive, and who continues to guide
the committee into fields of oppor-
tunity for helpful and useful legisla-
tion.
I consider S. 780 a strong bill—
providing opportunity for the exer-
cise of local initiative by the States
and local communities in planning,
establishment of air quality stand-
ards, and enforcement of pollution
controls. It places upon the States
and municipalities the responsibility
for determining the quality of air
they wish to maintain and achieve—
and for the abatement of any pollution
that degrades that standard. It places
upon the Federal Government, through
the Public Health Service and the
Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, the definition of air
quality control regions, the publica-
tion of air quality criteria, the dis-
semination of existing technology, and
the development of promising new
technology for the prevention of pollu-
tion and control of sources of pollution.
As one of the members of the Sen-
ate-House conference which worked
out the final form of the bill to be
enacted today, I would make one
other comment. The amount of the
authorization is less than that origi-
nally approved by the Senate—which
was $700 million over a period of 3
years. We agreed instead to an
amount equal to the authorizations in
the bill as amended by the House—
$428 million. But the very important
section included by the Senate and
omitted by the House—section 104—
was restored by the conference.
It is this section 104 which pro-
vides specific authority to the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, first, to conduct research in the
combustion of fuels—including coal
and automobile fuels; second, to pro-
vide grants to public and nonprofit
private groups; and third, to contract
with private industry in pilot plants
studies and large-scale demonstrations
of new controlling air pollution as-
sociated with fuel combustion. I am
very glad that the bill reported by
the conference maintains the Senate
provision which, I think, expresses
the intention of the Congress that
greater emphasis must be given to
this work. I think the Senator from
West Virginia will agree with me that
the committee expects that special
effort and more effort, be devoted to
developing these improved processes
—without which, after all, attempts
at regulation would not be able to ac-
complish the purposes of the bill.
The conference bill authorizes $35
million for section 104 in fiscal 1968,
and $90 million in fiscal 1969. By that
time, the committee will have the
benefit of an appraisal by the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare of the need for continuing work,
and will be in a better position to
recommend an authorization for fis-
cal 1970 and succeeding years.
This bill—developed after thorough
hearings, months of study and full
consideration by the Senate and
House committees—provides a prac-
tical and effective means of dealing
with the serious problem of air pol-
lution. I urge the Senate to adopt
the conference report on S'. 780.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, the
acceptance of the conference report on
the Air Quality Act of 1967 completed
the legislative journey of a measure
-------
972
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
which I believe will become one of
the most important steps ever taken
by Congress in protecting the health
of Americans everywhere.
The bill, which I was proud to co-
sponsor, represents the collective ef-
fort of a great many Senators and
Members of the other body, as well.
I am especially cognizant of the role
played by the distinguished Senator
from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] in its pas-
sage. As chairman of the Subcommit-
tee on Air and Water Pollution, the
Senator from Maine deserves much
credit for guiding this legislation in
a spirit of full cooperation with the
minority members of the subcommit-
tee. I know that I reflect the view of
the ranking minority member of the
subcommittee, the distinguished Sen-
ator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS], when
I express my appreciation to Senator
MUSKIE
[p. 32477]
for his bipartisan approach to the Air
Quality Act of 1967.
The intention of the legislation is
abundantly clear: it is to move further
along the path of providing clean,
breatheable air to Americans in every
State. While much remains to be done
in this long neglected field, the Air
Quality Act of 1967 represents the
greatest single step taken by any
Congress so far toward eliminating
filthy air.
The people of California are very
much aware of the importance of re-
ducing polluted air. California was
the pioneer State in controlling such
sources of pollution as backyard in-
cinerators, other open-air burning and,
most important of all, exhaust emis-
sions from motor vehicles. The regula-
tions for controlling motor vehicle
emissions in the Air Quality Act of
1967 were patterned after those cur-
rently in effect in California.
It was my concern for allowing
California to continue its pioneering
efforts in the field of air pollution that
led to an amendment of this bill which
the Senate and, later, the House ac-
cepted. I refer to section 208 (b) of
the legislation granting California a
waiver from Federal preemption of
the field in control of motor vehicle
emissions. The Senator from Maine,
the Senator from Tennessee [Mr.
BAKER], and other members of the
subcommittee were most understand-
ing of California's special problems
in this area, and I thank all of my col-
leagues for allowing this important
amendment to remain in the bill.
Mr. President, I am firmly convinced
that the United States as a whole will
benefit by allowing California to con-
tinue setting its own more advanced
standards for control of motor vehicle
emissions. In a sense, our State will
act as a testing agent for various
types of controls and the country as-
a whole will be the beneficiary of
this research. The smog situation in
California is a serious one. Our State
intends to continue its efforts to elimi-
nate air pollution without letup and
asks only that no roadblocks be put
in its path.
[p. 32478]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
move the adoption of the conference
report.
The report was agreed to.
[p. 32479]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 973
l.li AUTHORIZATION FOR FUEL AND VEHICLE
RESEARCH, 1969
December 5, 1969, P.L. 91-137, 83 Stat. 283
AN ACT To extend for one year the authorization for research relating to
fuels and vehicles under the provisions of the Clean Air Act.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the first
sentence of section 104 (c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
1857b-l (c)) is amended by striking out "and", and by striking
out the period at the end thereof and inserting in lieu thereof ",
and for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, $45,000,000.".
Approved December 5, 1969.
[p.l]
l.li(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
S. REP. No. 91-286, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969)
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1969
JULY 2, 1969.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. RANDOLPH, from the Committee on Public Works,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 2276]
The Committee on Public Works, to which was referred the bill
(S. 2276) to amend the Clean Air Act, as amended, to extend for
one year the authorization for research relating to fuels and
vehicles, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon
and recommends that the bill do pass.
I. GENERAL STATEMENT
With the passage of the Air Quality Act of 1967, this Nation
entered a new phase in the national effort to control and abate
air pollution. In that legislation the Congress set forth a blueprint
-------
974 LEGAL COMPILATION — AIR
for a truly systematic effort to deal with the long-term threat of
air pollution to public health and welfare.
The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the lead
agency in this effort, has made substantial progress in imple-
menting the provisions of the Air Quality Act. It was gratifying
to note that Secretary Finch, as one of his first official tasks,
issued air quality criteria, summarizing available medical and
scientific knowledge on the effects on public health and welfare
of two air contaminants — sulfur oxides and particulates. At the
same time he also issued reports on the control techniques appli-
cable to these atmospheric contaminants.
Thus, the stage has bsen set for the States to adopt regional
air quality standards for sulfur oxides and particulate matter.
In the next several months State governments will begin adopting
standards for sulfur oxides and particulates and plans for their
implementation in accordance with the provisions of the Air
Quality Act of 1967.
Initial attention has been devoted to the air quality control
regions designated by the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare. He has already designated several of the Nation's largest
metropolitan areas, and is expected to designate 32 such regions
before the end of the year and an additional 25 by the summer
of 1970.
The total population of these 57 regions is 97 million persons,
or 70 percent of the Nation's urban population. All 50 States
are represented, as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
and the Virgin Islands.
Once criteria and control data for a contaminant or group of
contaminants are issued and an air quality control region is
designated, the States represented have 90 days to signify their
intent to set air quality standards for that contaminant and the
designated area. They then have 180 days to hold public hearings
and adopt standards, and another 180 days to adopt plans and
schedules to implement and enforce these standards and requisite
emission standards.
The success of this approach is contingent on the development
of control technologies adequate to achieve established standards
within a reasonable time. The report entitled "Control Techniques
for Sulfur Oxide Air Pollutants" represents a vital, integral part
in a program designed to assist the States. The report, however,
reflects current control technologies which are insufficient to meet
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 975
long-term needs. Therefore, new and improved methods must
be developed to insure the maintenance and, where necessary or
desirable, the enhancement of existing air quality.
Section 104 of the Air Quality Act of 1967 is designed to meet
this objective and provides for research and development activities
into new and improved methods for the prevention and control
of air pollution resulting from the combustion of fuels. Much of
this research could be accomplished under section 103, but there
are two special features in section 104.
First, funds made available under section 104 can remain
available until expended. This flexibility is useful in the planning
and scheduling of research and development and demonstration
projects which may extend beyond the end of a fiscal year.
Second, section 104 defines a legal basis for supporting projects
involving construction and installation of pollution control equip-
ment on private property for the purpose of testing. This is very
useful since industrial plants often are the best possible sites for
making a realistic evaluation of the economic and technological
feasibility of new processes for the control of problems such as
sulfur oxides pollution.
For this purpose the Congress authorized $35 million for fiscal
year 1968 and $90 million for fiscal year 1969. Unfortunately,
programs and activities carried out under section 104 provisions
have not been adequately funded, with approximately $9 million
and $14 million having been expended for fiscal years 1968 and
1969, respectively. This is considerably less than the $225 million
authorization, for the same period, which passed the Senate
unanimously on July 18, 1967, and the $125 million authorization
contained in the act.
Despite inadequacies in funding, the National Air Pollution
Control Administration has moved forward in a concerted effort
to improve air pollution control technology. Programs to develop
the large-scale equipment studies necessary to firmly evaluate
first-generation proc-
[p.2]
esses for control of pollution from combustion have been given
continued high priority, and programs to develop new processes
have been expanded to give increased attention to pollutants other
than sulfur oxides originating from combustion of fuels.
The committee is encouraged by the increased emphasis being
devoted to systems studies to provide better definition of the
research and development needed to cope with any major segment
-------
976 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
of the air pollution problem presented by stationary sources.
These studies include:
(1) Industrywide surveys of basic industries such as pri-
mary smelters, pulp and paper, iron and steel, etc. In all
these surveys, combustion processes will be given special
attention.
(2) Device oriented studies to assess problems that must
be solved to permit wider application of electrostatic pre-
cipitators, fabric niters, scrubbers, and afterburners.
(3) Pollutant oriented studies to provide better definition
of the relative contributions of and control problems associ-
ated with important pollutants such as nitrogen oxides,
particulates, and odors on a nationwide basis.
The study of sulfur oxide control methods, developed with the
assistance of the Stanford Research Institute, entitled "Sulfur
Oxides Pollution Control, Federal Research and Development
Planning and Programming, 1968-72," was impressive. This re-
port should prove an invaluable assistance in the development of
control technologies for sulfur oxides.
All these systems studies involve certain common character-
istics, whether they are pollutant oriented, device oriented, or
industry oriented. In all, the intent is to accumulate the best
possible data to provide a broad base of information that can
be used by any groups interested in analysis of any segment of
the problems. The availability of such information will eliminate
the need for considerable duplication of effort.
These plans and similar plans and programs are needed for
other problem areas. For example, national research and develop-
ment plans should be developed to control nitrogen oxides emis-
sions, to control particulate materials that are so small they
elude current control effprts, and to reduce the emissions from
moving sources such as automobiles, buses, trucks, ships, and
airplanes.
The committee believes that increased emphasis is needed on
motor vehicle research. Motor vehicles contribute to the general
levels of noise in urban areas, as well as 60 percent of the atmos-
pheric pollution. A balanced research and development program
is needed on alternatives to the internal combustion engine; a
program which stimulates industry to more rapidly develop low-
pollution vehicles.
This bill, S. 2276, provides for continuation of all of these vital
activities. The bill extends section 104 authorization through
fiscal year 1970 at the currently authorized level of expenditure,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 977
and is vital to the continuance of these joint Government-industry
activities. Passage of this legislation is a necessity. Later this
year the committee will look to extending authorizations for all
sections of the Air Quality Act beyond fiscal year 1970. The
authorization for other than section 104 through fiscal year 1970
is provided for in current statutes.
[p. 3]
II. NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The successful implementation of this national effort to control
and abate air pollution depends on the development of adequate
control technology. Adequate control technology is necessary not
only to reduce the atmospheric emissions from existing sources,
but also to counteract the increasing number of new sources.
There is already knowledge to reduce air pollution by a signifi-
cant degree, but there are many control problems .for which long-
term solutions do not exist. In particular, the effective control
of air pollution emissions from motor vehicles and sulfur oxides
pollution from the combustion of fossil fuels will require intensive
research and development over the next several years. Section
104 of the Air Quality Act of 1967 is designed to meet these needs.
This section directs the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare to—
(1) Conduct and accelerate research programs directed
toward development of improved, low-cost techniques for
control of combustion byproducts of fuels, for removal of
potential pollutants from fuels, and for control of emissions
from evaporation of fuels;
(2) Provide for Federal grants or contracts with public
or private agencies, institutions, or persons for (A) part of
the cost of acquiring, constructing, or otherwise securing,
for research and development purposes, new or improved
devices or methods having industrywide application of pre-
venting or controlling discharges into the air of various types
of pollutants; and (B) carrying out the other provisions of
this section, without regard to sections 3648 and 3709 of
the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C. 529; 41 U.S.C. 5);
(3) Determine, by laboratory and pilot plant testing, the
results of air pollution research and studies in order to
develop new or improved processes and plant designs to
-------
978 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
the point where they can be demonstrated on a large and
practical scale;
(4) Construct, operate, and maintain, or participate in the
construction, operation, and maintenance of new or improved
demonstration plants or processes which have promise of
accomplishing the purposes of this act;
(5) Study new or improved methods for the recovery and
marketing of commercially valuable byproducts resulting
from the removal of pollutants; and
(6) Estabish technical advisory committees composed of
recognized experts in various aspects of air pollution and its
control to assist in the examination and evaluation of re-
search progress and of all research proposals and contracts
and to insure the avoidance of duplication of research.
[p. 4]
For this purpose the Congress authorized $35 million for fiscal
year 1968 and $90 million for fiscal year 1969, with the appropri-
ated sums for section 104 to remain available until expended. In
this way projects initiated for more than 1-year terms would
be assured of continuing support. However, the authorization
for the research and development activities under section 104
expire at the end of fiscal year 1969.
Among all the provisions of the Clean Air Act, section 104 most
clearly reflects the Nation's pressing need for practical solutions
to the very serious air pollution problems associated with fuel
combustion and motor vehicles. This section also reflects the need
for involvement of the private sector in the search for solutions
to these complex problems. Section 104 provides authorities con-
tained nowhere else in the Clean Air Act.
First, funds apropriated under section 104 remain available
until expended. This flexibility is important in the planning and
operation of large-scale research and development projects. Per-
mitting funds to be carried over from one year to the next allows
the National Air Pollution Control Administration to select the
most promising projects and the best qualified contractors and
grantees and to initiate projects at the times most advantageous
to the Government.
Second, section 104 allows for the construction and testing
of demonstration control equipment on private property. The
consequence is to ease the legal problems associated with sup-
porting large-scale development and demonstration projects in-
volving construction on private property. The construction and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 979
operation of demonstration plants at industrial sites is often the
best means of making a realistic evaluation of the economic and
technical feasibility of new processes, for example, sulfur oxides
control methods. Two such projects are scheduled to get under-
way in fiscal 1970.
For these reasons it is important that the funding under section
104 be uninterrupted, as provided for in S. 2276.
REVIEW OP PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Despite inadequacies in funding, the administration has moved
forward in implementing the provisions of section 104. A descrip-
tion of these activities has been provided by the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare to the Congress in two reports
entitled "Progress in the Prevention and Control of Air Pollu-
tion," on June 28, 1968 (S. Doc. 90-92), and March 4, 1969 (S.
Doc. 91-11).
The National Air Pollution Control Administration's research
and development program for dealing with stationary sources
consists of a three-pronged attack:
1. The development of systems and processes to control
specific pollutants; for example, sulfur oxides, nitrogen
oxides, and particulates.
2. Systems surveys to define the pollution problems of
specific industries and to cooperatively develop control ap-
proaches for these industries; for example, primary smelters,
pulp and paper manufacturers, and waste disposal plants.
3. The continuous development of new and improved con-
trol devices for use in the various control systems.
[p. 5]
In achieving these goals the NAPCA has moved forward in a
number of areas. An outline of these areas is presented below.
Details are given in the two progress reports cited earlier.
I. Control of Sulfur Oxide Pollution:
A. Removal of sulfur from coal.
1. Coal washing studies.
B. Removal of sulfur from fuel oil.
C. Removal of sulfur from flue gas:
1. Limestone-injection process.
2. Alkalized alumina process.
D. New process development:
1. Aqueous scrubbing.
-------
980 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
2. Solid metal oxides.
3. Inorganic liquids.
4. Organic liquids.
5. Inorganic solids excluding metal oxides.
6. Organic solids.
7. Catalytic oxidation to sulfuric acid.
8. Reduction to sulfur.
9. Physical methods of separation.
II. Control of nitrogen oxides pollution.
III. Control of particulate pollution.
IV. Control of pollution from specific industries.
V. Control of pollution from solid waste disposal.
VI. Control device improvement studies.
Of these areas, two deserve particular attention: The first is
fuel combustion research; the second is motor vehicle research
and development.
FUEL COMBUSTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Efforts to develop and demonstrate techniques for the prevention
and control of sulfur oxides pollution constitute a major part of
the National Air Pollution Control Administration's research and
development on air pollution problems arising from fuel combus-
tion.
Over the past 2 years, NAPCA has completed the development
of a comprehensive 5-year plan for sulfur oxides research and
development and has moved ahead on implementation of the plan
to the extent permitted by available funds. Thus, NAPCA is now
managing a national program involving the participation of
several other Federal agencies and more than 70 groups in the
private sector and in universities. The program also includes co-
operative activities with organizations in several foreign coun-
tries.
This program encompasses basic and applied research, labora-
tory testing, studies of economic and technical feasibility, and
pilot-plant and prototype testing of sulfur oxides control tech-
niques. NAPCA is placing increasing emphasis on full-scale proto-
type testing of techniques which have reached advanced stages
of development. A substantial portion of the program is supported
by NAPCA contracts with non-Federal organizations, but it is
expected that projects involving cost sharing by industry will
account for an increasing share of the program in the months
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 981
and years ahead, particularly in the area of prototype testing.
[p. 6]
The development and demonstration of techniques for removing
sulfur oxides from combustion gases represent one of the principal
work areas of the program. Availability of such techniques would
help to pave the way for achieving effective control of sulfur
oxides pollution without imposing widespread restrictions on fuel
use. NAPCA has initiated work leading to full-scale prototype
testing of limestone injection processes, which potentially are
applicable to many existing steam-electric powerplants. Proto-
type testing of the dry limestone process is scheduled to begin
in fiscal 1970 at a Tennessee Valley Authority plant. A site for
testing of the limestone injection-and-wet scrubbing process
has not been selected as yet. Agreements regarding the handling
of proprietary information have been negotiated to pave the way
for evaluation of flue-gas treatment processes developed by Well-
man-Lord and the Monsanto Co.
Also with respect to flue-gas treatment, NAPCA has begun work
on techniques that previously have not been applied to the control
of air pollution but have potential for such application. Emphasis
in this work is being placed on techniques that would permit
recovery of sulfur byproducts. NAPCA already has initiated
work on design of a small pilot plant for testing of one such
process—the molten carbonate process; construction of the pilot
plant is scheduled to begin in fiscal 1970. Early initiation of work
on three other new processes is under consideration.
The application of techniques for removing sulfur from fuels
before they are burned offers another satisfactory way of dealing
with the sulfur oxides problem. In the past 2 years, in cooperation
with the Bureau of Mines and other organizations, NAPCA has
initiated studies of the extent to which sulfur can be removed
from coals mined in various parts of the country, and in fiscal
1969, two studies were initiated to establish design parameters
for prototype sulfur-removal plants.
The amount of coal lost when sulfur-containing pyrites are re-
moved from coal constitutes an economic limitation on the extent
to which sulfur can be removed. A process that would permit
burning of the pyrite-coal mixtures to produce heat and sulfur
byproducts is being investigated by NAPCA as an approach to
maximizing the extent to which coal can be economically desul-
furized.
Exploration of new combustion processes that might drastically
-------
982 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
reduce the release of sulfur oxides is an important part of
NAPCA's program. One of the most promising of such processes
is fluidized bed combustion. The Bureau of Mines has been
evaluating the basic technology of fluidized bed combustion.
NAPCA's efforts are focused on evaluating its potential for sul-
fur-oxides reduction. NAPCA's work on this process includes co-
operative activity with several foreign groups; just recently,
an agreement was reached with the National Coal Board of Great
Britain for exchanges of information on fluidized bed combustion.
New energy conversion techniques offer still another approach
to dealing with the sulfur oxides problem. NAPCA is beginning
to explore the extent to which such techniques, possibly coupled
with fuel conversion-desulfurization processes, can make a con-
tribution to future implementation of sulfur oxides control pro-
grams.
[P. 7]
Motor vehicle research and development
The National Air Pollution Control Administration has initiated
development of a comprehensive 5-year plan for research and
development on motor vehicle pollution control. This plan will
define specific goals and outline alternative pathways toward
those goals. It will encompass not only NAPCA's research and
development activities but also the related work of other Federal
agencies. In addition, it will define the relationship between
Federal and industry research and development work on the
motor vehicle pollution problem.
Over the past 2 years, NAPCA has initiated or intensified its
research and development on many aspects of motor vehicle pol-
lution control. Areas in which significant new or intensified
activity is underway include advanced control systems applicable
to carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions from internal
combustion engines; nitrogen oxides control systems; techniques
for controlling emissions of particulate matter, particularly lead;
alternative fuels for internal combustion engines; nature and
control of diesel odors; and unconventional engines for use in
passenger cars.
Examples of specific projects initiated under section 104 in-
clude :
1. A cooperative project with the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration to develop a thermal afterburner for the
control of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions. The proj-
ect takes advantage of NASA's experience in the development
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 983
and use of materials capable of withstanding extremely high
temperatures. Progress in this work has a direct bearing on the
technical feasibility of compliance with increasingly stringent
emission standards for motor vehicles.
2. Two projects to test the feasibility of first-generation, ex-
haust-gas recirculation devices for the control of nitrogen oxides
emissions. A demonstration grant has been awarded to the State
of California to support road testing of one type of device. Tests
of another type are underway in NAPCA's own laboratories;
this one was developed by Esso Research and Engineering under
a contract with NAPCA. NAPCA also has initiated studies of
the potential value of catalytic afterburners for control of nitro-
gen oxides emissions and of ways to minimize nitrogen oxides
formation in designing engines.
3. Particulate matter emitted from motor vehicles includes lead,
smoke, and polynuclear hydrocarbons. Fuel modification may be
the most direct way to reduce or eliminate lead emissions, but
NAPCA also is exploring the potential value of devices that would
remove all types of particulate matter from automobile exhaust
gases. NAPCA has established specifications for acceptable
devices and, following review of various proposals, is negotiating
a research and development contract in this area. This project
will be the first step in a 3- to 4-year program of laboratory
work, prototype hardware development, and on-the-road dem-
onstrations.
4. NAPCA is participating in a 3-year, Government-industry
research program to develop new knowledge of factors that have
a bearing on the nature, effects, and control of motor vehicle
pollution. This program is sponsored by the Coordinating Re-
search Council; the other participants are the Automobile
Manufacturers Association and the American Petroleum Institute.
NAPCA provides funding for selected
[p. 8]
projects on the basis of their relationship to its own program.
Projects for which NAPCA is contributing funds include studies
of fuel volatility, gasoline additives, diesel odor composition, urban
driving patterns, and maintenance of exhaust control systems.
5. NAPCA is contributing to the support of research by the
Bureau of Mines on the relationship of fuel composition to total
emissions from gasoline-fueled engines and the photochemical
reactivity of such emissions. This work includes studies of fuel-
emission relationships in both gasoline-fueled and diesel engines.
-------
984 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
6. NAPCA's efforts relating to unconventional engines began
more than 2 years ago with contract-supported studies to evaluate
the potential of a variety of possible propulsion systems for motor
vehicles. These studies identified the Rankine-cycle (steam)
engine as one of the most promising. Accordingly, NAPCA cur-
rently is negotiating a contract for the development of a con-
ceptual design of a Rankine-cycle engine intended specifically for
use in passenger cars.
[P. 9]
III. HEARINGS
Though hearings on S. 2276 were not held by the Subcom-
mittee on Air and Water Pollution, the subcommittee received the
written testimony of Dr. John T. Middleton, Commissioner,
National Air Pollution Control Administration, Consumer Pro-
tection Environmental Health Service, Public Health Service, De-
partment of Health, Education, and Welfare. It is the subcom-
mittee's intention to hold hearings later this year extending
authorizations for the total act beyond fiscal year 1970. The
authorization for other than section 104 is provided for in the
Air Quality Act now. This bill extends the section 104 authori-
zation through fiscal year 1970, at the currently authorized level
of expenditure.
The statement of Dr. Middleton follows:
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am
very pleased to have this opportunity to testify on H.R.
12085. This bill would extend for 1 year the authorization
of appropriations under section 104 of the Air Quality Act
of 1967. I will say at the outset that enactment of this bill
would not result in any increase in the National Air Pol-
lution Control Administration's proposed budget for fiscal
1970, but rather would enable us to continue to make ap-
propriate use of certain special features of section 104.
In adopting the Air Quality Act, the Congress set up
an intergovernmental system for dealing with air pollution
problems on a regional basis. State and local governments
have a major share of the responsibility for making this
system work. They have a particular responsibility for deal-
ing with air pollution problems arising from the many in-
dustrial, commercial, and other stationary sources located
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 985
in virtually every urban community in the Nation and in
many small towns and rural areas.
The activities of State and local agencies depend in part
on the availability of practical and economical techniques for
preventing and controlling air pollution arising from station-
ary sources. And similarly, the national program of regula-
tory action to control air pollution from motor vehicles also
depends on progress in the development of appropriate con-
trol techniques.
It is essential, then, that the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare continue the research and development
activities authorized by the Air Quality Act, particularly
those activities relating to the air pollution problems arising
from the combustion of fossil fuels to produce electric power
and heat and from the operation of motor vehicles. Together,
fuel combustion sources and motor vehicles account for more
than two-thirds of all discharges of pollutants into the
Nation's air resource each year.
[p. 10]
Under section 104, the National Air Pollution Control
Administration currently is conducting efforts to develop and
demonstrate techniques for the prevention and control of
sulfur oxides pollution, a major national problem arising in
large part from the combustion of fossil fuels. This effort
is a coordinated Government-industry program involving not
just the National Air Pollution Control Administration but
also several other Federal agencies and more than 40 organi-
zations in the private sector.
A more modest program relating to motor vehicle pollution
control also is being conducted under section 104. This pro-
gram includes continued efforts to develop improved means
of controlling emissions from the internal combustion engine
and initial work on the development of alternative propulsion
systems for motor vehicles.
Special features of section 104 include the fact that funds
made available to us can remain available until expended.
This flexibility is useful in the planning and scheduling of
research and development and demonstration projects which
may extend beyond the end of a fiscal year.
A second feature of section 104 is that which clarifies the
legal implications of supporting projects involving construc-
526-702 O - 73 -- 27
-------
986 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
tion and installation of pollution control equipment on pri-
vate property for the purpose of testing. Very often, indus-
trial plants are the best possible sites for making a realistic
evaluation of the economic and technological feasibility of
new processes for the control of problems such as sulfur
oxides pollution.
As I noted at the beginning of my statement, enactment of
H.R. 12085 would not result in any increase in the National
Air Pollution Control Administration's proposed budget for
fiscal 1970. Funds for the types of research and development
ordinarily conducted under section 104 can be appropriated
under section 309 of the Air Quality Act; indeed, in view of
the imminent expiration of section 104, such a shift of fund-
ing has been included in the revised 1970 budget. Section 309,
however, does not contain the special features that are in-
cluded in section 104.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, authorizations in section 104
are due to expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Section
309, on the other hand, runs through fiscal 1970. While ex-
tension of section 104 is not necessary, if the Congress deter-
mines that the proposed 1-year extension is desirable, we
would not object to its enactment.
[p. ll]
IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
The bill S. 2276 provides a 1-year extension of the research au-
thorization contained in section 104 of the Air Quality Act of 1967
(Public Law 90-148) at the current level of authorization: $90
million. The authorization for section 104 now expires at the end
of fiscal year 1969. The authorization for the remaining section
of the act expires with fiscal year 1970. With this amendment all
authorizations for the act will expire with fiscal year 1970.
The provisions of this section are unchanged and described in
Senate Report 90-103, as follows:
This new section expands the provisions deleted from sec-
tion 103, dealing with research directed toward the develop-
ment of improved, low-cost techniques for extracting sulfur
from fuels, and research relating to the control of emissions
from gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles, and emissions of
oxides of sulfur from sulfur-containing fuels.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 987
This section requires the Secretary to give special em-
phasis to research into new methods for the control of air
pollution resulting from fuel combustion. To this end he is
required to conduct research programs which will include the
control of combustion byproducts, removal of potential pol-
lutants, and control of emissions from evaporation; provide
for Federal payments to public and private groups; test
results of air pollution control research to develop new or
improved processes and designs which can be demonstrated
on a practical scale; participate in, or be responsible for, the
operation of demonstration plants for such new processes;
study methods for the use of commercially valuable byprod-
ucts resulting from the removal of pollutants; and estab-
ish technical committees to examine and evaluate research
progress and contracts and to insure the avoidance of re-
search duplication.
In order to carry out the provisions of this section the Sec-
retary is directed to conduct research and development of
low-cost instrumentation techniques to determine the quan-
tity and quality of air pollution emissions; make use of exist-
ing Federal laboratories; establish and operate facilities to
carry out the research; acquire property and rights by vari-
ous means, and cooperate and participate in the develop-
ment of foreign and domestic projects.
Grants awarded under this provision are to be limited to
$1,500,000 and 75 percent of the cost of the project. The bill
authorizes $100 million for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1968; $125 million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969;
and $150 million fcr the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970.
The authorizations under this section are in addition to those
to carry out the provisions of all other sections of the bill
under section 309.
[p. 12]
V. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with subsection (4) of rule XXIX of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to
be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed
-------
988 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown
in roman):
Am QUALITY ACT OF 1967
RESEARCH RELATING TO FUELS AND VEHICLES
SEC. 104. (a) The Secretary shall give special emphasis to
research and development into new and improved methods, having
industrywide application, for the prevention and control of air
pollution resulting from the combustion of fuels. In furtherance
of such research and development he shall—
(1) conduct and accelerate research programs directed
toward development of improved, low-cost techniques for
control of combustion byproducts of fuels, for removal of
potential pollutants from fuels, and for control of emissions
from evaporation of fuels;
(2) provide for Federal grants to public or nonprofit
agencies, institutions, and organizations and to individuals,
and contracts with public or private agencies, institutions,
or persons, for payment of (A) part of the cost of acquiring,
constructing, or otherwise securing for research and develop-
ment purposes, new or improved devices or methods having
industrywide application of preventing or controlling dis-
charges into the air of various types of pollutants; and (B)
carrying out the other provisions of this section, without
regard to sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes
(31 U.S.C. 529; 41 U.S.C. 5) : Provided, That research or
demonstration contracts awarded pursuant to this subsection
(including contracts for construction) may be made in accor-
dance with, and subject to the limitations provided with res-
pect to research contracts of the military departments in,
section 2353 of title 10, United States Code, except that the
determination, approval, and certification required thereby
shall be made by the Secretary: Provided further, That no
grant be made under this paragraph in excess of $1,500,000;
(3) determine, by laboratory and pilot plant testing, the
results of air pollution research and studies in order to
develop new or improved processes and plant designs to the
point where they can be demonstrated on a large and practical
scale;
(4) construct, operate, and maintain, or assist in meeting
the cost of the construction, operation, and maintenance of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 989
new or improved demonstration plants or processes which
have promise of accomplishing the purposes of this Act;
[p. 13]
(5) study new or improved methods for the recovery and
marketing of commercially valuable byproducts resulting
from the removal of pollutants.
(b) In carrying out the provisions of this section, the Secretary
may—
(1) conduct and accelerate research and development of
low-cost instrumentation techniques to facilitate determina-
tion of quantity and quality of air pollutant emissions, includ-
ing, but not limited to, automotive emissions;
(2) utilize, on a reimbursable basis, the facilities of exist-
ing Federal scientific laboratories;
(3) establish and operate necessary facilities and test sites
at which to carry on the research, testing, development, and
programing necessary to effectuate the purposes of this
section;
(4) acquire secret processes, technical data, inventions,
patent applications, patents, licenses, and an interest in lands,
plants, and facilities, and other property or rights by pur-
chase, license, lease, or donation; and
(5) cause on-site inspections to be made of promising
domestic and foreign projects, and cooperate and participate
in their development in instances in which the purposes of
the Act will be served thereby.
(c) For the purposes of this section there are authorized to be
appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $35,000,000,
and for [the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, $90,000,000.] each
of the fiscal years ending June 30, 1969, and June 30, 1970.
Amounts appropriated pursuant to this subsection shall remain
available until expended.
[p. W]
-------
990 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
l.li(2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 91-349, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969)
EXTENDING SECTION 104 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
JULY 7, 1969.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 12085]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 12085) to amend the Clean Air Act to
extend the program of research relating to fuel and vehicles,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof
the following:
That the first sentence of section 104(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
1857b-l(c) is amended by striking out "and", and by striking out the period
at the end thereof and inserting in lieu thereof ", and for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1970, $18,700,000."
PRINCIPAL PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION
The purpose of H.R. 12085, as amended, is to extend for 1 year
(the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970) the authority contained in
section 104 of the Clean Air Act which relates to research and
development in the prevention and control of air pollution result-
ing from the combustion of fuels.
Enactment of H.R. 12085 is not intended to result in any in-
crease in the National Air Pollution Control Administration's
proposed budget for fiscal 1970. Funds for the types of research
and development ordinarily conducted under section 104 can be
appropriated under section 309 of the Air Quality Act, and have
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 991
been requested in the budget, but because section 309 does not
contain certain unique features contained in section 104, it would
be far more desirable to have the funds appropriated separately
under section 104. H.R. 12085 would make this possible. The re-
ported bill will permit the funding
[p.l]
of research programs under section 104 authority in the amount
of $18.7 million, within the overall budget of $95.8 million pres-
ently pending before the Congress.
NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The Air Quality Act of 1967 was intended to pave the way for
effective control of air pollution through coordinated efforts by
all levels of government. State and local governments have the
primary responsibility for planning and regulatory action to deal
with the air pollution problems arising from the multitude of
industrial, commercial, and other stationary sources located in all
parts of the Nation. The Federal Government, specifically the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, has the primary
responsibility for regulatory action to deal with the national
problem of motor vehicle pollution.
There can be no doubt that substantial progress in preventing
and controlling these problems can be made through greater
application of existing techniques. In the long run, however, a
fully successful effort to restore clean air to the Nation's cities
and towns will depend on the development and application of
new and better techniques. Toward this end, both government and
industry must pursue and intensify their research and develop-
ment activities.
Among all the provisions of the Clean Air Act, it is section 104
that most clearly reflects the Nation's pressing need for new and
improved means of dealing with the air pollution problems as-
sociated with fuel combustion and motor vehicles. This same pro-
vision also is the one which most clearly reflects the need for
extensive involvement of the private sector in the search for
solutions to these problems.
An important aspect of section 104 is that it provides some
unique authority not explicitly provided by other provisions of
the Air Quality Act. For one thing, funds made available under
section 104 can remain available until expended. This flexibility
is extremely useful in the planning and scheduling of large-scale
research and development and demonstration projects. By per-
-------
992 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
mitting the accumulation of funds necessary for such large-scale
projects, this provision enables the National Air Pollution Control
Administration to initiate projects at the most advantageous times
and to select the best qualified contractors and grantees.
A second unique feature of section 104 is that it clarifies the
legal implications of supporting projects involving construction
and testing of pollution control equipment on private property.
Very often, industrial or utility powerplants are the best possible
sites for making a realistic evaluation of the economic and tech-
nological feasibility of new processes for the control of problems
such as sulfur oxides pollution.
Finally, favorable action on H.R. 12085 would have the very salu-
tary effect of reaffirming the Federal Government's commitment
to providing leadership in the Nation's quest for the tools needed
to overcome the growing threat of air pollution. The Federal
Government cannot and should not be expected to take the total
responsibility, but it clearly must continue to lead the attack.
Enactment of H.R. 12085 will serve notice that the Federal com-
mitment to clean air remains just as strong as ever.
[p. 2]
PROGRAMS UNDER SECTION 104
In general, section 104 of the Clean Air Act is designed to pro-
vide clearly earmarked funds for research into problems of pollu-
tion arising out of combustion of fuels and operation of motor
vehicles. The principal focus of the research efforts conducted
under this section to date have been with respect to control of
sulfur oxides. The research and development programs which
have been carried out, or are planned, for sulfur oxide control
have included flue gas treatment, stack meteorology, fuel desul-
furization, conversion of fuels (principally coal) to other forms
such as liquids, gas, or modified solids, use of additives and other
new combustion processes, with modest additional amounts for
industrial processes control and surveys relating to the availabil-
ity of lower sulfur fuels.
With respect to motor vehicle research and development, the
total program for research, development, and demonstration of
control systems in fiscal year 1969 totaled approximately $3 mil-
lion, involving approximately $850,000 transferred to other
Federal agencies; about $500,000 to universities and State govern-
ments to support research and demonstration grants; about $1.3
million for contracts with private industry and research institu-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 993
tions; and an additional $750,000 through cost sharing with
industry and other Government agencies. This program has
covered the following seven concepts:
1. Advanced control systems for hydrocarbon and carbon
monoxide from automobile engines;
2. Systems for control of oxides of nitrogen from auto-
mobiles ;
3, Unconventional engines for passenger cars and buses;
4. Systems for control of particulates, especially lead, in
exhaust ;
5. Alternate fuels;
6. Understanding of diesel odor and evaluation of control
feasibility; and
7. Development of control concepts for lesser vehicle
sources such as aircraft, small engines, and off-highway
vehicles.
The committee realizes that considerable effort is being conduct-
ed today by the automobile industry for reduction of emissions
from motor vehicles; however, the committee does not agree with
those automobile industry spokesmen who state that "industry
has won the main air pollution battle." It is true that with existing
emission controls on new motor vehicles, it seems that air pollu-
tion problems from motor vehicles should begin to decline in the
near future and continue to decline for several years, but these
same projections indicate as discussed during the hearings that
emissions from motor vehicles will begin to increase again in
absolute amounts by the late 1970's. The only standards for
oxides of nitrogen, one of the principal offenders in photochemical
smog, are those set under California law, but there is no guarantee
that these standards will be met. This clearly indicates a need for
more stringent controls in the future than are presently scheduled
to go into effect in 1970, and the committee expects the Depart-
ment to establish them.
Budgetary restraints in recent years have required that the
National Air Pollution Control Administration set stringent
priorities for its research and development effort, and the princi-
pal focus of that effort has been on the sulfur oxide problem.
The committee feels that, al-
[p.3]
though this effort has been worthwhile, the proportion of the
total budget of the agency devoted to motor vehicle emissions has
been less than the urgency of the problem would indicate. It was
-------
994 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
pointed out during the hearings that the amount spent on research
into motor vehicle exhausts has been a little over 3 percent of the
budget, to deal with the source of 60 percent of the air pollution
problem. In general, the standards that have been established in
past years have been those which the automobile industry has
indicated that it was able to meet, and since there is no economic
incentive to the industry to develop an emission-free automobile
it appears that research conducted by persons outside the industry
should be encouraged to a much greater extent than has hitherto
been the case, particularly with respect to propulsion systems
other than the internal combustion engine.
The committee also feels that a greater effort should be made
leading to the elimination of the thoroughly obnoxious diesel and
bus exhausts which constitute a continuing insult to users of our
streets and highways, and efforts should also be made to develop
if possible relatively inexpensive devices or systems for control
of emissions from used cars.
In addition, many states and localities have adopted varying
testing methods for determining whether industrial and waste
management processes meet local requirements. Although it is
recognized that these standards are the responsibility of the
individual States and local governments, and there is no require-
ment that these standards be uniform, it would be extremely help-
ful to the States and local governments, as well as industry, if the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare would prepare
and submit for consideration by State and local governments
interested in this problem recommended uniform testing proce-
dures for various industrial and waste management processes,
where feasible.
Concern was also expressed during the hearings over the extent
to which Federal installations are carrying out control of air
pollution from Federal facilities. Section 111 of the Clean Air Act
gives the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare authority
to set standards for Federal facilities, and the committee expects
the Department to take necessary action to insure that Federal
installations not only comply with regional, State, and local pol-
lution control requirements, but also provide the maximum
feasible control of air pollution from Federal facilities consistent
with local requirements, giving due consideration to availability
and cost of fuels and the feasibility of installing control devices.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 995
AGENCY REPORT
DEPARTMENT OP HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
July 2, 1969.
Hon. HARLEY 0. STAGGERS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : This letter is in response to your request
of June 13, 1969, for a report on H.R. 12085, a bill to amend the
Clean Air Act to extend the program of research relating to fuel
and vehicles.
[P. 4]
The views of this Department were expressed in testimony
by Dr. John T. Middleton, Commissioner, National Air Pollution
Control Administration, CPEHS, before the Subcommittee on
Public Health and Welfare of your committee on June 19, 1969.
For your information and convenience, a copy of Dr. Middle-
ton's prepared statement is enclosed.
Sincerely,
ROBERT H. FINCH, Secretary.
Enclosure.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, As REPORTED
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to
be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown
in roman):
SECTION 104 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
(42 U.S.C. 1857 B-l)
TITLE I—AIR POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL
RESEARCH RELATING TO FUELS AND VEHICLES
SEC. 104. (a) The Secretary shall give special emphasis to
research and development into new and improved methods, having
industrywide application, for the prevention and control of air
-------
996 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
pollution resulting from the combustion of fuels. In furtherance
of such research and development he shall—
(1) conduct and accelerate research programs directed
toward development of improved, low-cost techniques for
control of combustion byproducts of fuels, for removal of
potential pollutants from fuels, and for control of emissions
from evaporation of fuels ;
(2) provide for Federal grants to public or nonprofit
agencies, institutions, and organizations and to individuals,
and contracts with public or private agencies, institutions,
or persons, for payment of (A) part of the cost of acquiring,
constructing, or otherwise securing for research and develop-
ment purposes, new or improved devices or methods having
industrywide application of preventing or controlling dis-
charges into the air of various types of pollutants; and (B)
carrying out the other provisions of this section, without
regard to sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes
(31 U.S.C. 529; 41 U.S.C. 5) : Provided, That research or
demonstration contracts awarded pursuant to this subsection
(including contracts for construction) may be made in ac-
cordance with, and subject to the limitations provided with
respect to research contracts of the military departments
in, section 2353 of title 10, United States Code, except that
the determination, approval, and certification required there-
by shall be made by the Secretary: Provided further, That
no grant may be made under this paragraph in excess of
$1,500,000;
[P. 5]
(3) determine, by laboratory and pilot plant testing, the
results of air pollution research and studies in order to de-
velop new or improved processes and plant designs to the
point where they can be demonstrated on a large and prac-
tical scale;
(4) construct, operate, and maintain, or assist in meeting
the cost of the construction, operation, and maintenance of
new or improved demonstration plants or processes which
have promise of accomplishing the purposes of this Act;
(5) study new or improved methods for the recovery and
marketing of commercially valuable byproducts resulting
from the removal of pollutants.
(b) In carrying out the provisions of this section, the Secretary
may—
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 997
(1) conduct and accelerate research and development of
low-cost instrumentation techniques to facilitate determina-
tion of quantity and quality of air pollutant emissions, in-
cluding, but not limited to, automotive emissions;
(2) utilize, on a reimbursable basis, the facilities of exist-
ing Federal scientific laboratories;
(3) establish and operate necessary facilities and test
sites at which to carry on the research, testing, development,
and programing necessary to effectuate the purposes of this
section;
(4) acquire secret processes, technical data, inventions,
patent applications, patents, licenses, and an interest in lands,
plants, and facilities, and other property or rights by pur-
chase, license, lease, or donation; and
(5) cause on-site inspections to be made of promising
domestic and foreign projects, and cooperate and participate
in their development in instances in which the purposes of
the Act will be served thereby.
(c) For the purposes of this section there are authorized to be
appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $35,000,000,
[and] for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, $90,000,000, and
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, $18,700,000. Amounts
appropriated pursuant to this subsection shall remain available
until expended.
[P. 6]
l.li(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 91-690, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969)
CLEAN AIR ACT
NOVEMBER 24, 1969.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the committee of conference,
submitted the following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany S. 2276]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 2276)
-------
998 LEGAL COMPILATION — AIR
to extend for 1 year the authorization for research relating to
fuels and vehicles under the provisions of the Clean Air Act,
having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recom-
mend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows :
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the House and agree to the same with an amendment as follows :
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House
amendment insert the following : That the first sentence of section
104 (c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857b-l(c)) is amended
by striking out "and", and by striking out the period at the end
thereof and inserting in lieu thereof, "and for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1970, $45,000,000.".
And the Houses agree to the same.
HABLEY 0. STAGGERS,
JOHN JARMAN,
PAUL G. ROGERS,
DAVID E. SATTERFIELD,
WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,
ANCHER NELSEN,
TIM LEE CARTER,
Managers on the Part of the House.
EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
BIRCH BAYH,
JOSEPH M. MONTOYA,
J. CALEB BOGGS,
JOHN SHERMAN COOPER,
ROBERT DOLE,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE
HOUSE
The managers on the part of the House at the conference on
the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the
House to the bill (S. 2276) to extend for 1 year the authorization
for research relating to fuels and vehicles under the provisions
of the Clean Air Act, submit the following statement in explanation
of the effect of the action agreed upon by the conferees and rec-
ommended in the accompanying conference report:
The House amendment struck out all of the Senate bill after
the enacting clause and inserted a substitute. The Senate recedes
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 999
from its disagreement to the amendment of the House, with an
amendment which is a substitute for both the Senate bill and
the House amendment.
As passed by the Senate, the bill would have authorized $90
million in appropriations for special research projects involving
air pollution problems arising out of the combustion of fuels
for the fiscal year 1970. The House amendment would have pro-
vided $18.7 million for this program and the conference substitute
provides a total authorization of $45 million for this program.
Although the appropriation bill for the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare (H.R. 11102), which passed the House
earlier this year contained no funds for this program, because
of a lack of authorization therefor, the managers on the part of
the House wish to emphasize that they expect funds to be ear-
marked for research projects in this highly important area.
The program contained in this act will be reviewed again in
connection with the overall extension of the Clean Air Act later
in this Congress.
HARLEY 0. STAGGERS,
JOHN JARMAN,
PAUL G. ROGERS,
DAVID E. SATTERFIELD,
WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,
ANCHER NELSEN,
TIM LEE CARTER,
Managers on the Part of the House.
[P. 2]
-------
1000
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
l.li(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 115 (1969)
l.li(4)(a) July 8: Considered and passed Senate,
pp. 18540-18541; 18544
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS
OF 1969
The Senate proceeded to consider
the bill (S. 2276) to extend for 1 year
the authorization for research relating
to fuels and vehicles under the pro-
visions of the Clean Air Act.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President,
S. 2276, the pending measure, amends
the Clean Air Act, as amended, and
would extend for 1 year the authori-
zation for research relating to fuels
and vehicles at the current level of
$90,000,000.
Mr. President, with the passage of
the Air Quality Act of 1967, this Na-
tion entered a new phase in the na-
tional effort to control and abate air
pollution. In that legislation the Con-
gress set forth a blueprint for a truly
systematic effort to deal with the long-
term threat of air pollution to public
health and welfare.
The Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare, the lead agency
in this effort, has made substantial
progress in implementing the provi-
sions of the Air Quality Act. It was
gratifying to note that Secretary
Pinch, as one of his first official tasks,
issued air quality criteria, summariz-
ing available medical and scientific
knowledge on the effects on public
health and welfare of two air con-
taminants—sulfur oxides and partic-
ulates. At the same time he also
issued reports on the control tech-
niques applicable to these atmospheric
contaminants.
Thus, the stage has been set for the
States to adopt regional air quality
standards for sulfur oxides and partic-
ulate matter. In the next several
months
[p. 18540]
State governments will begin adopting
standards and plans for implementing
sulfur oxides and particulate stand-
ards, in accordance with the provisions
of the Air Quality Act of 1967.
Initial attention will be devoted to
the air quality control regions desig-
nated by the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare. He has al-
ready designated several of the Na-
tion's largest metropolitan areas, and
is expected to designate 32 such re-
gions before the end of the year and
an additional 25 by the summer of
1970.
The total population of these 57
regions is 97 million persons, or 70
percent of the Nation's urban popu-
lation. All 50 States are represented,
as well as the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
Once criteria and control data for
a contaminant or group of contami-
nants are issued and an air quality
control region is designated, the States
represented have 90 days to signify
their intent to set air quality stand-
ards for that contaminant and the
designated area. They then have 180
days to hold public hearings and adopt
standards, and another 180 days to
adopt plans and schedules to imple-
ment and enforce these standards.
The objective of the Air Quality
Act of 1967 clearly is to promote and
encourage public participation in the
development of public policies and air
quality standards geared to the re-
gional nature of air pollution prob-
lems. Whether or not the Air Quality
Act is successful depends upon the
degree of commitment and coopera-
tion the Federal Government receives
from State and local government, from
industry, and from the taxpayer and
citizen. As the knowledgeable junior
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1001
Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE),
chairman of the Subcommittee on Air
and Water Pollution, so eloquently
stated at the New England Conference
on Air Pollution:
If the public welfare becomes in the future
as it has so often been in the past, the concern
on a daily basis of only those who are elected
to public office or who hold appointive office in
government, then we can indeed be concerned
about the future of participatory politics in
the American system.
Once public policies are established
which reflect desired air qualities in
terms of health, comfort, convenience,
cleanliness, and beauty, they must be
implemented. To do so requires con-
trol methods adequate to meet long-
term needs. Current control technol-
ogies are insufficient to meet these
long-term needs. Therefore, new and
improved methods must be developed
to insure the maintenance, and, where
necessary or desirable, the enhance-
ment of existing air quality.
Section 104 of the Air Pollution Act
of 1967 is designed to meet this in-
sufficiency by providing for research
and development activities into new
and improved methods for the preven-
tion and control of air pollution re-
sulting from the combustion of fuels.
Significant advancements have been
made in the implementation of these
research and development activities.
System studies have been conducted
to define needed research and develop-
ment to cope with stationary sources.
These activities should now be expand-
ed into motor vehicle research and de-
velopment to reduce emissions which
account for over 60 percent of the cur-
rent air pollution. Such activities
should be designed to encourage in-
dustry to reduce the emissions from
internal combustion engines, as well
as to develop alternative methods of
propulsion.
While program advances are en-
couraging, the committee is concerned
about the inadequacies in funding. For
the purpose of carrying out the pro-
visions of section 104, the Congress
authorized $35 million for fiscal year
1968 and $90 million for fiscal year
1969. Unfortunately, programs and
activities carried out under section
104 provisions have not been adequate-
ly funded, with approximately $9 mil-
lion and $14 million have been ex-
pended for fiscal years 1968 and 1969,
respectively.
The effect has been to delay severely
the development of much needed con-
trol technologies. A typical example
is the area of sulfur oxides control.
The study of sulfur oxide control
methods, developed with the assistance
of the Stanford Research Institute,
entitled "Sulfur Oxides Pollution Con-
trol, Federal Research and Develop-
ment Planning and Programing,
1968-72," indicates that if the develop-
ment of sulfur oxide control methods
is to be phased to meet the abatement
and control needs of the country in
5 years then Federal appropriations
for this purpose should have been $41
million and $56 million for fiscal years
1969 and 1970. Yet the appropriation
for all purposes was $23 million or
$74 million short of meeting the need
regarding sulfur oxides alone.
This failure, however, is not due
solely to Government lethargy. The
testimony of industry, in particular
the electric utilities, coal and oil in-
dustries, on the Air Quality Act of
1967 indicated a desire to participate
in joint Government-industry efforts
in control technology development. To
this end the Congress enacted section
104 of the Air Quality Act of 1967,
the authorization of which would be
extended by S. 2276 through fiscal
year 1970.
This section contains two special
features not contained in section 103,
the general research provisions. First,
funds made available under section
104 would remain available until ex-
pended. This flexibility is useful in
526-702 O - 73 -- 28
-------
1002
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
the planning and scheduling of re-
search and development and demon-
stration projects which may extend
beyond the end of a fiscal year. Sec-
ond, section 104 authorizes support-
ing projects which involve construc-
tion and installation of pollution con-
trol equipment on private property
for the purpose of testing.
Section 104 is useful to both Govern-
ment and industry, yet, it has been in-
adequately funded to meet the need
defined by the Congress.
If private industry is truly interest-
ed in participating in this program,
we have a right to expect more ef-
fective support for and interest in
the provisions of section 104 of the
Air Quality Act of 1969. The pending
bill, S. 2276, provides for continuation
of all of these vital activities for 1
year. The measure extends section 104
authorization through fiscal year 1970
at the currently authorized level of ex-
penditure, $90 million, and is vital
to the continuance of these joint Gov-
ernment-industry activities.
Later this year the committee will
consider extending authorizations for
all sections of the Air Quality Act
beyond fiscal year 1970. The author-
ization for other than section 104
through fiscal year 1970 is provided
for in current statutes.
At this time, as chairman of the
Committee on Public Works, and on
behalf of the committee's members, I
recommend enactment of S. 2276.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I am
glad to join with Senator RANDOLPH,
chairman of the Committee on Public
Works, on which I serve as ranking
minority member, in urging adoption
by the Senate of S. 2276, to extend
certain research provisions of the
Clean Air Act.
Great and urgent environmental
problems face this and other nations.
The problems are real and we must
look now to the development of ade-
quate remedies. The bill before the
Senate today represents a small por-
tion of a legislative program designed
to reverse the trend of deteriorating
air quality. It is a simple extension
for 1 fiscal year of research authority
to continue this authorization through
fiscal year 1970, when all the authori-
zations of the Air Quality Act are
subject to review and reauthorization.
Although this bill is a simple ex-
tension of existing authority, it does
illustrate a difficulty in developing
control methods and techniques at a
time when air pollution continues to
increase. I refer to the gap between
authorization and appropriation for
the pollution control efforts.
Section 104 of the Clean Air Act,
proposed to be extended by S. 2276,
authorized for fiscal 1968 and 1969
appropriations, not to exceed $125
million. However, in those 2 years
only $23 million has been appropriated
for research into fuels combustion
under section 104—less than one-fifth
of the authorized amount. I urge the
Senate to consider this fact as they
pass upon this bill and, more im-
portantly, when the several appropri-
ation bills relating to environmental
quality reach the Senate floor.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the RECORD an excerpt from
the report (No. 286), explaining the
purposes of the bill.
There being no objection, the ex-
cerpt was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD * * *.
[p. 18541]
*****
The bill was ordered to be en-
grossed for a third reading, read the
third time, and passed, as follows:
S. 2276
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled. That section 104 (c) of
the Clean Air Act is amended by striking out
"the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969" and in-
serting in lieu thereof "each of the fiscal years
ending June 30, 1969, and June 30, 1970".
[p. 18544]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1003
l.li(4)(b) Sept. 3,4: Considered and passed House, amended, pp.
24005-24006; 24356-24372; 24374-24378
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERA-
TION OF H.R. 12085, TO AMEND
THE CLEAN AIR ACT TO EX-
TEND THE PROGRAM OF RE-
SEARCH RELATING TO FUEL
AND VEHICLES
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, and on
behalf of the gentleman from New
York (Mr. DELANEY), I call up House
Resolution 518 and ask for its im-
mediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as
follows:
H. RES. 618
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that the
House resolve itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill (H.R. 12085) to amend
the Clean Air Act to extend the program of
research relating to fuel and vehicles. After
general debate, which shall be confined to the
bill and shall continue not to exceed one hour,
to be eaually divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, the bill shall be read for amendment
under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion
of the consideration of the bill for amendment,
the Committee shall rise and report the bill to
the House with such amendments as may have
been adopted, and any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment
adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce now printed in the
bill. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto
to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit with or with-
out instructions. After the passage of H.R.
12085, it shall be in order in the House to take
from the Speaker's table the bill S. 2276 and
to move to strike out all after the enacting
clause of said Senate bill and insert in lieu
thereof the provisions contained in H.R. 12075
as passed by the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
gentleman from California (Mr. SISK)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30
minutes to the gentleman from Cali-
fornia (Mr. SMITH) pending which
I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 518
provides an open rule with 1 hour
of general debate for consideration of
H.R. 12085 to extend section 104 of
the Clean Air Act. After passage of
H.R. 12085, it shall be in order to
take S. 2276 from the Speaker's table
and move to strike all after the enact-
ing clause of the Senate bill and
amend it with the House-passed
language.
The purpose of H.R. 12085 is to
amend the Clean Air Act to extend
for 1 year the authority in the act
which relates to research and develop-
ment in the prevention and control
of air pollution resulting from the
combustion of fuels.
The bill as reported will permit the
funding of research programs under
section 104 authority in the amount
of $18.7 million. Funds made available
under section 104 can remain avail-
able until expended. This flexibility
is extremely use-
[p. 24005]
ful in the planning and scheduling of
large-scale research and development
and demonstration projects.
This program has covered the fol-
lowing concepts:
First, advanced control systems for
hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide
from automobile engines;
Second, systems for control of ox-
ides of nitrogen from automobiles;
Third, unconventional engines for
passenger cars and buses;
Fourth, systems for control of par-
ticulates, especially lead, in exhaust;
Fifth, alternate fuels;
Sixth, understanding of diesel odor
-------
1004
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
and evaluation of control feasibility;
and
Seventh, development of control con-
cepts for lesser vehicle sources such
as aircraft, small engines, and off-
highway vehicles.
In the long run, a fully successful
effort to restore clean air to the Na-
tion's cities and towns will depend
on the development and application of
new and better techniques. Toward
this end, both government and indus-
try must pursue and intensify their
research and development activities.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
House Resolution 518 in order that
H.R. 12085 may be considered.
Mr. SMITH of California. Mr.
Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 518
is for a 1-hour open rule, no waiver
of points of order, for the considera-
tion of H.R. 12085, which extends
section 104 of the Clean Air Act.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the
bill is to extend for 1 year, through
fiscal 1970, the authority contained
in section 104 of the Clean Air Act.
This authority relates to research,
demonstration projects, and develop-
ment in the field of prevention and
control of air pollution resulting from
combustion of fuel, primarily as used
in motor vehicle engines.
The bill does not increase the
amount budgeted by the administration
for the program and, strictly speak-
ing, an extension of section 104 is
not absolutely necessary for the con-
tinuation of work in the general field.
Under section 309 of the Air Quality
Act, budgeted funds could be appro-
priated for these general purposes.
However, the committee believes it
desirable to extend section 104 of the
Clean Air Act to reemphasize the
commitment of the Government to the
decrease of air pollutants emitted by
motor vehicles. Additionally, the com-
mittee points out that funds made
available under section 104 remain
available until expended. This is ex-
tremely useful in long-term planning
and development work.
The bill authorizes $18,700,000 for
use on section 104 projects, which is
part of the overall budgetary amount
of $95,800,000 presently pending be-
fore Congress.
The committee notes the considera-
ble efforts being made by the automo-
bile industry to reduce air pollution
by motor vehicles. However, since
there is no economic incentive within
the industry to develop pollution-free
automobiles, the committee believes
research should be conducted outside
the industry, both with respect to
control of air pollutants and with re-
spect to vehicle propulsion systems
other than internal combustion en-
gines.
There are no minority views. The
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare has submitted a letter which
supports its earlier testimony in favor
of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of
the rule.
TRACTOR SAFETY AMENDMENT
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. STRATTON) .
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Speaker, I
take this time simply to advise the
Members of the House that in con-
nection with the bill, H.R. 10105, the
amendments to the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966,
I propose to offer an amendment to
amend the basic act, to provide for
the setting of certain standards to
cover safety with regard to tractors.
I noticed in the press this morning
that Mr. Ralph Nadar had released a
report with regard to fatalities in
tractors. Unfortunately, he did not
mention in his report that I had in-
troduced legislation dealing with this
matter last January. I have been re-
searching it carefully for some time,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1005
and as a matter of fact one of his
assistants, I think popularly known
as one of Nader's raiders, stopped by
my office some weeks ago to get a
look at our files and our legislation
and the recommendations that he has
made in his report are very similar
to those contained in my basic legis-
lation.
Primarily, what we would do
would be to require tractors to have
roll bars and also seat belts. More
than 1,000 lives are lost each year
from tractor accidents. Just in the
2% weeks that I was back in upstate
New York in my district during the
recess, there were eight tractor fatal-
ities in that area.
Mr. Speaker, this is an urgent
problem. I do not think it needs to
be studied any longer. We have had
detailed studies by the American So-
ciety of Agricultural Engineers as
well as other qualified research groups
and I think it is time now for us to
act. Therefore, I intend at the proper
time, Mr. Speaker, to offer this trac-
tor safety amendment to the bill,
H.R. 10105.
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
[p. 24006]
EXTENDING SECTION 104 OF
THE CLEAN AIR ACT
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I
move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consid-
eration of the bill (H.R. 12085) to
amend the Clean Air Act to extend
the program of research relating to
fuel and vehicles.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
[p. 24356]
question is on the motion offered by
the gentleman from West Virginia.
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved it-
self into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the bill H.R.
12085, with Mr. GALLAGHER in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first
reading of the bill was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule
the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. STAGGERS) will be recognized
for 30 minutes and the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. SPRINGER) will be
recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from West Virginia.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman,
this bill was reported unanimously by
the committee and we recommend its
passage by the House. The bill would
extend for 1 year, with limitations,
the authority for appropriations con-
tained in section 104 of the Clean Air
Act. The other body has already
palssed a bill on this subject. We be-
lieve this bill should be passed before
the appropriation bill for the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare is finally passed by the Congress
so that the programs authorized under
this bill can be contained in that ap-
propriation act.
Section 104 of the Clean Air Act,
which expired June 30, 1969, autho-
rized appropriations specifically ear-
marked for research into air pollution
problems involving fuels and motor
vehicles.
As amended by the committee, the
bill extends this authority for 1 year,
so that the authorization will expire
at the same time as the authorization
for all other programs under that act
—June 30, 1970. The bill authorizes
$18.7 million in appropriations for
section 104 programs for fiscal 1970.
-------
1006
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
This is the same amount the agency
had for this purpose in 1969.
We do not expect that passage of
the bills will involve any increase in
appropriations since there is already
authority under other provisions of
law for appropriations in excess of
those contained in the HEW appro-
priations bill as passed by the House.
Passage of this bill will permit ear-
marking of funds in the regular HEW
appropriation bill for this program,
which will not be possible unless this
bill is passed.
There is no question but that this
bill increases the authorization for
total appropriation for fiscal year
1970. The current total appropriation
authorization is $134,300,000. This bill
will add an additional $18.7 million to
that authorization, for a total of $153
million; however, we do not antici-
pate any increase in the appropriation
requests as heretofore submitted by
the administration nor do we expect
a supplemental appropriation for any
of these sums to be requested. As I
mentioned earlier, we anticipate that
some of the funds contained in the
regular appropriation bill will be spe-
cifically earmarked for the section
104 programs authorized by this bill,
authorizing appropriations for pro-
grams under section 104 of the Clean
Air Act
Mr. Chairman, the principal reason
for this bill is twofold—first, section
104 represents a clear commitment on
the part of the Federal Government
to conduct research in joint Govern-
ment-industry programs into air pol-
lution problems involving the combus-
tion of fuels and the operation of
motor vehicles. Second, section 104
contains two authorities with respect
to research which are not contained
in other provisions of the Clean Air
Act: First, authority for funds to re-
main available until expended which
aids orderly planning for research pro-
grams; and, second, clear authority
for Federal payment of construction
costs of industrial-type facilities on
private property, which can then be
disposed of to the owner of the proper-
ty. This authority is quite similar to
authority of the Department of De-
fense in this research area.
Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned,
hearings were held on this bill, and all
witnesses were in favor of the bill. I
know of no opposition to the legisla-
tion, and the committee was unani-
mous in recommending its passage to
the House.
MT. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, the
90th Congress passed the most com-
prehensive air pollution control act
thus far. We called it the Air Quality
Act, and it was a sweeping amend-
ment to the Clean Air Act. Included
therein was a provision for extensive
research on fuels and motor vehicles.
It was the feeling at that time that
the ultimate answer to our largest
contributor to air pollution—the auto-
mobile—lay in extensive research.
Since that time the committee has
discovered that priority thas been
given to research on sulfur oxides in
order to complete and issue the cri-
teria necessary for suppression of
most of the industrial pollution. The
committee in the hearings and in the
report expresses its opinion that more
should be done to find the answers
to automotive pollution since it prob-
ably accounts for 60 percent of the
entire problem.
It is the expressed contention of
the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare to expend $18.7 million
for this purpose during fiscal year
1970. Since the authorization for this
particular activity extended only
through 1969, it is now necessary
that it be extended if the authorities
therein are to be used. The other pro-
grams included in the Air Quality
Act will run out at the end of fiscal
year 1970, and for that reason a 1-
year extension only is included in this
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1007
bill. In this way all of the programs
will expire at the same time, and it
will give the committee and the Con-
gress an opportunity to again evalu-
ate the research effort which is being
made. We are hopeful that a more
encouraging report can be made when
this legislation again comes before us.
I recommend this bill to my col-
leagues in the House.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
J ARM AN), the chairman of the sub-
committee.
Mr. JARMAN. Mr Chairman, it is
my pleasure to speak in favor of pas-
sage of H.R. 12085, the purpose of
which is to extend for 1 year—fiscal
1970—the authority contained in sec-
tion 104 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended. This section authorizes re-
search and development by the De-
partment of Health, Education, and
Welfare on the prevention and con-
trol of air pollution resulting from
the combustion of fuels and the opera-
tion of motor vehicles.
In adopting the Air Quality Act of
1967, the Congress set up an inter-
governmental system for dealing with
the problems of air pollution on a
regional basis. State and local gov-
ernments were given a major share
of responsibility in making this sys-
tem work, by dealing with air pollu-
tion arising from industrial, commer-
cial, and other stationary sources
located in virtually every urban com-
munity in this Nation, as well as in
many small towns and rural areas.
The activities of State and local
agencies in preventing and controlling
these stationary sources of air pollu-
tion depend in large part on the
availability of practical and economic
techniques. Similarly, the national
program of regulatory action to con-
trol motor vehicle pollution depends
on progress in developing appropriate
control techniques.
It is essential that the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare
continue the reserach and development
activities authorized by the Air
Quality Act, especially thoise activities
under section 104 relating to air pollu-
tion problems caused by the com-
bustion of fossil fuels to produce
electric heat and power and from
the operation of motor vehicles. These
sources account for more than two-
thirds of the Nation's yearly air pollu-
tion.
Section 104 also reflects the need
for extensive involvement of the pri-
vate sector in the search for solutions
to these problems. For example, the
effort to develop and demonstrate
techniques for sulfur oxides pollution
control under section 104 is a co-
ordinated Government-industry pro-
gram which involves the National Air
Pollution Control Administration, sev-
eral other Federal agencies, and more
than 40 organizations in the private
sector. Also, under section 104, the
National Air Pollution Control Ad-
ministration is conducting research
and development on motor vehicle
pollution control. This effort includes
continued attempts to develop im-
proved emissions control from the in-
ternal combustion engine as well as
initial work on the development of
alternative propulsion systems for
motor vehicles.
Section 104 provides two unique
authorities not explicitly provided in
the rest of the Air Quality Act. The
first such feature is that funds made
available under this section can
remain available until expended. This
flexibility is very useful in planning
and scheduling large-scale research
and development projects.
The second unique feature of section
104 is that it clarifies the legal impli-
cations of supporting projects which
involve construction and testing of air
pollution control equipment on private
property. In many instances, in-
dustrial or utility power plants are
-------
1008
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
the best possible sites for making
realistic evaluations of economic and
technological feasibility of new proc-
esses in air pollution control.
Favorable action on H.R. 12085
would reaffirm the Federal Govern-
ment's commitment to providing
leadership in the Nation's efforts to
develop ways to overcome the growing
threat of air pollution.
[p. 24357]
The Federal Government cannot and
should not be expected to take all the
responsibility, but it must continue to
lead the attack. Enactment of H.R.
12085 will show that the Federal com-
mitment to clean air remains as
strong as ever.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. VANIK].
Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, I am
in full agreement with this legislation.
However, I would like to direct the
attention of the Committee to what I
believe is a necessary approach to the
critical air pollution problem con-
fronting urban areas in which heavy,
basic industries are located. In these
communities, air pollution imposes in-
credible damage on human life and
property.
Mr. Chairman, I have always felt
that the industrial air pollution prob-
lem is something that could be best
solved on an industry-by-industry
basis rather than by leaving the entire
complex burden of regulation on local
communities. A steel mill or petro-
chemical industry operates in almost
the same manner wherever it is
located. The pollution problems are
the same in the same industrial opera-
tion. The methods of control or
nuisance abatement are the same.
Industry-wide standards of abatement
or control could be uniformly adopted
on Federal recommendations for a
specific industry. Polluting industries
would not be able to compete on in-
ferior, low-cost abatement procedures
tolerated by some communities indif-
ferent to the problem. Such competi-
tition is unfair and detrimental to
the public interest.
I feel that insofar as industrial
pollution is concerned the time has
come for this Congress to set on a
course of an industry-by-industry
approach so that industries and com-
munities are not competing with each
other on the basis of what they fail to
do with respect to controlling the air
pollution problem.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would hope
that the present program will be
amplified and extended so that we may
approach this problem on an industry-
by-industry basis and so that we can
clean up the air, especially in our
urban areas where so much industrial
air pollution occurs to the detriment
of the public health.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. BELL).
Mr. BELL of California. Mr. Chair-
man, residents of California's 28th
District, which I represent, know well
the problems created by unclean air,
and they understand the immediate
urgency for finding new methods to
curb the growing threat of air pollu-
tion.
I believe that leadership in provid-
ing such research must come from the
Federal Government.
The Los Angeles air quality control
region includes seven counties.
Pollutant missions from Los Ange-
les County alone, however, account
for over 60 percent of the total
regional emissions.
The largest single source of air
pollution in Los Angeles is from
transportation.
In fact, more than 80 percent of
pollution in Los Angeles results from
the use of motor vehicles.
Nationally, motor vehicle exhausts
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1009
account for 60 percent of the air pollu-
tion problem.
Yet, as the committee has pointed
out in its report, little over 3 percent
of the national air pollution control
administration's budget has been spent
on research in this area.
I believe the agency must clearly re-
evaluate its budgetary priorities.
And I am confident that my con-
stituents would share the committee's
observation that the small proportion
of the agency's budget devoted to motor
vehicle emissions has been less than
the urgency of the problem would
indicate.
We have the highest population den-
sity in the Los Angeles air quality
control region.
Approximately one-half of the free-
way system and one-half of the total
surface transportation facilities of
the region will soon be located in Los
Angeles County.
These factors clearly indicate that
well over half of the total pollution
from mobile sources occurs in the Los
Angeles Basin.
In recent years there has been some
progress in reducing pollution from
motor vehicles.
But the industry has not yet de-
veloped an emission-free vehicle.
We must not neglect the possibility
that some alternate propulsion system
to the present internal combustion
engine may be necessary to keep the
pollution problem under control.
Existing techniques for the control
of pollution from automobiles are
clearly inadequate for Lois Angeles.
I believe that clean air will be re-
stored to our urban centers only
through the development of new tech-
niques.
Extension of section 104 affirms our
desire to secure better methods of con-
trol, and I urge my colleagues to join
me in support for H.R. 12085.
Mr. FAEBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman,
would the gentleman yield?
Mr. BELL of California. I yield to
the gentleman from New York.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman,
I thank the gentleman for yielding,
and I hope that the gentleman will be
here when the bill is read for amend-
ment, because I propose offering an
amendment to prohibit the manufac-
turing of internal combustion engines
after 1978 unless they comply with
the California law which says that
the State will bar automobiles unless
they have standards of emission that
equal that adopted by the State for
the purchase of automobiles and I
hope that the gentleman will be here.
Mr. BELL of California. I will cer-
tainly be here, and will be happy to
listen to the gentleman's statement.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. ROGERS).
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I thank the gentleman for yield-
ing, and I rise in support of this legis-
lation to amend the Clean Air Act to
extend the program of research relat-
ing to fuels and vehicles for 1 year.
This legislation would enable the
National Air Pollution Control Admin-
istration to continue for another fiscal
year, the fiscal year ending June 30,
1970, its research and development
activity in the prevention and control
of air pollution resulting from the
combustion of fuels.
Section 104 differs from the other
provisions of the Clean Air Act in that
funds made available under this sec-
tion can remain available until ex-
pended, thereby providing flexibility
which is extremely useful in the plan-
ning and scheduling of large scale re-
search and development and demon-
stration projects. Too, this section
clarifies the legal implication of sup-
parting projects involving construction
and testing of pollution control equip-
ment on private property such as the
ulse of industrial or utility power-
plants.
-------
1010
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Enactment of H.R. 12085 will not
result In any increase in the National
Air Pollution Control Administration's
proposed budget for the present fiscal
year. Funds have already been re-
quested in the budget under section
309 of the Air Quality Act, but sep-
arate appropriation under section 104
is desirable for the aforementioned
reasons and H.R. 12085 would make
this possible.
We are far from victory in our
efforts to clean up the air around us,
but we must not relent and this legis-
lation will permit us to continue in our
quest for cleaner air for all.
I believe it is essential for us to
pass the legislation, because we want
to have the kind of research work done
that is required.
Mr. Chairman, along the line of the
use of funds, I believe it may be in-
teresting to the Members to know that
the committee did go into specifics on
that, and expressed great concern,
which I share, as to the allocation of
the research funds in relation to the
problem of air pollution. For instance,
it is estimated that 60 percent of the
air pollution problems of the country
come from automobile emissions—60
percent—and yet do you know the
amount of the research funds which
are being allocated to solve the 60
percent? About 3.4 percent of the
$88,733,000 appropriated to the agency
for air pollution.
We have taken this up in tine com-
mittee hearings with the agency and
expressed the concern of the com-
mittee on the disproportionate allot-
ment of the research funds in relation
to the actual problem which exists.
I am sure that the committee will
follow this up so that the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare
will begin to allocate its funds more
in proportion with the problem that
actually exists. If not, I believe we
are going to have to take some steps
to change it ourselves. But I do think
this will come about, and I would cer-
tainly hope so, because our major
problem is this vehicle emission. We
hope they are getting into effective
research now in trying to bring about
an emission-free propulsion system for
vehicles.
Mr. BELL of California. Mr. Chair-
man, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I yield to
the gentleman from California.
Mr. BELL of California. Mr. Chair-
man, I thank the gentleman for yield-
ing. I want to add one thought to the
gentleman's concept, and that is that
there is a great deal of urgency in the
Los Angeles
[p. 24358]
County area, very, very strong ur-
gency. So I would urge that the com-
mittee move with all haste in this
direction.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I would
concur with the statement of the gen-
tleman from California. I think the
committee has made it clear that we
expect action from the Department
on this, and as rapidly as possible.
Mr. BELL of California. The gentle-
man may or may not know that the
State legislature in California almost
passed legislation that would accom-
plish that which the gentleman from
New York [Mr. FARBSTEIN] suggested
during his presentation.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I under-
stand that, and I presume that the
California Legislature in its judg-
ment did not take that action because
they thought it was better to try to
meet the problem througih research,
and to encourage achieving a solution
to the problem rather than to see
everybody start walking.
I am not sure that the public would
want to make that choice.
Mr. BELL of California. Does the
gentleman believe that the automo-
bile industry is doing all it can to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1011
develop new forms of emission pre-
vention and abatement?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I will
not say that I know personally they
are doing everything they can, but
from the information the committee
has, I do think emphasis is being
placed on this problem by the auto-
mobile companies and by the Govern-
ment as well. I think this will accel-
erate the finding of some new type of
such engines.
Mr. BELL of California. I certainly
hope the gentleman is correct because
it is going to be a real problem.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I think
we have to have action and I agree
with the gentleman.
Let me say also that we expressed
concern in the committee on the prob-
lems of exhaust—of diesel exhaust
from buses and large trucks. Now we
have been told that we can expect the
1970 models of these diesel vehicles
to have emission control devices on
them. The committee intends to follow
that up because I think this is a very
severe problem that has not been
dealt with—many people have been
talking about automobiles or motors
for private passenger travel ratoer
than talking of buses and big trucks
which I think is just as much a prob-
lem and contributes to the overall
problem.
So we are trying to emphasize these
things.
Mr. BELL of California. I thank
the gentleman.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I am glad
to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I appre-
ciate the gentleman's yielding.
I wonder if the gentleman's subcom-
mittee in its wisdom has prompted
the administrative agencies and those
expending the research and develop-
ment funds, towards the problem of
noxious gases in closed spaces emitted
by inconsiderate fellow human beings?
Have you done anything with ref-
erence to human emission by some in
closed spaces? To me this is a more
serious problem than others, to have
a human venting cigarette and cigar
and pipe smoke in a confined or
closed space, where those who may
be allergic or supersensitive to smoke
so far as his eyelidls or mucous mem-
branes are concerned.
I dare say, as a man who has been
skilled in the past in lung surgery or
black lung disease and white lung
disease and problems of silicosis and
pneumoconiosis and anthracosis—and
all of these other examples of air
vented contamination in closed places
by unthinking people, many of whom
all light up at the same time their
wish-fulfillment of expectant death,
immediately when the smoking light
goes on in an airplane, whereas they
are perhaps unthinking1—but their
nonparticipating fellow passengers
cannot escape—not even by. going into
the often scrubbed and many times
air-cleansed bathrooms aboard such
conveyances—and this applies even in
private cars, buses, and other closed
spaces.
I wonder if the committee has done
anything to see if we can increase the
scrub rate or decrease that kind of
contamination emitted by human ven-
tration in closed spaces—and if not, I
strongly recommend it.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I appre-
ciate the gentleman's remarks and
concur in saying that something needs
to be done.
The CHAIRMAN.. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. HALPERN. Mr. Chairman, I
wish to voice my strong support of
H.R. 12085, the bill we are consider-
ing today.
This bill specifically deals with sec-
tion 104 of the Air Quality Act of 1967,
a section directing the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare to
-------
1012
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
conduct research and development
programs to improve methods and
techniques currently in use for the
abatement and control of air pollution
generated by the combustion of fossil
fuels. It directs the Secretary to con-
duct a similar program relating to
automotive emission control.
A special feature of this bill is
that allocated funds can remain avail-
able until used, without being tied to
the specific fiscal year in which they
were appropriated. This means that
research and development programs
can be executed properly without un-
due haste or errors, that they can be
initiated at the most advantageous
time. Therefore, the National Air
Pollution Control Administration, the
responsible HEW agency, can select
the best possible contractors or gran-
tees for a given undertaking.
Under the Air Quality Act of 1967,
funds authorized for fiscal year 1968
totalled $35 million, and for 1969, $90
million, with the funds authorized for
section 104 projects to remain availa-
ble until expended. However, these ap-
propriations will expire at the end of
fiscal year 1969 unless an amend-
ment to the act is passed to preserve
them.
Following the enactment of the
Air Quality Act in November of 1967,
the National Air Pollution Control
Administration developed techniques
to prevent and control sulfur oxides
pollution, a major pollutant resulting
largely from the combustion of fossil
fuels.
In the area of automotive air pol-
lution control, the agency conducts a
program to improve control devices
for abating emissions from the inter-
nal combustion engine, and has em-
barked on a program of developing
alternative propulsion systems for
automobiles.
To continue these programs and
initiate new ones, the agency must
be assured of continuing use of its
funds beyond the arbitrary deadine
of the 1969 fiscal year. An extension
of the section 104 provisions of the
Air Quality Act of 1967 thus is man-
datory at this time. I therefore sin-
cerely urge all my colleagues to en-
dorse H.R. 12085 now to provide for
this essential continuity.
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I
want to express my support for this
legislation—H.R. 12085—seeking to
amend the Air Quality Act of 1967
and to extend the program of re-
search on fuels and vehicles. Progress
is being made in this field. Momentum
for abatement actions is building up.
New technology is becoming available.
Therefore, we cannot afford any lapse
in technical effort simply because of a
quirk in the existing law. The bill
which we are considering is necessary
to remedy a time deadline arbitrarily
imposed on an important research
clause in the act.
When we unanimously passed the
Air Quality Act in November, 1967,
we established a system for dealing
with air pollution problems on a re-
gional basis, charging State and local
governments with major responsi-
bility for the implementation of the
various provisions contained in the
act. To do so, however, the States de-
pend on information—information
made available by the Federal Gov-
ernment—on up-to-date feasible and
economical technology for the preven-
tion and control of air pollution stem-
ming from stationary sources such as
factories and powerplants, and from
motor vehicle engines. In the long
run, we may very well need the devel-
opment of automotive propulsion sys-
tems other than the present internal
combustion engine.
Today, more than two-thirds of all
pollution emitted into the Nation's
air is generated by combustion of fos-
sil fuels and by the operation of ever-
increasing numbers of motor vehicles.
It is critical that Federal research,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1013
development, and demonstration activ-
ities in this field be allowed to con-
tinue without lapse. Under section
104 of the Air Quality Act of 1967,
the National Air Pollution Control
Administration of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare is
carrying out numerous projects to de-
velop efficient techniques for combat-
ting sulfur oxide pollution, a major
pollution problem arising from the
combustion of fossil fuels. It also con-
tinues to improve methods for control-
ling emissions from the present auto-
mobile engines and has begun work on
the development of alternate means of
propulsion for motor vehicles.
The provisions of section 104 make
research and development funds avail-
able until used for these purposes be-
yond the fiscal year in which they
were appropriated. This allows for
much needed flexibility in planning
and execution of projects which fre-
quently must exceed the artificial lim-
its of a fiscal year. However, this
special feature expires at the end
of fiscal 1969 unless extended by the
Con-
[p. 24359]
gress. The amendment before us
today would accomplish extension to
the end of fiscal year 1970, corre-
sponding to the date when the entire
act will be considered for continuation.
Another feature of section 104 clar-
ifies the legality of supporting the
construction and installation of con-
trol technology on private property
for testing purposes. Quite logically,
an industrial plant using fossil fuels
is the best site for an evaluation of
new pollution control equipment de-
signed to combat fumes from station-
ary sources of pollution.
I am convinced that passage of
H.R. 12085 is needed now to assure
the continuation of NAPCA research
and development projects now under-
way, and to provide for the inception
of additional, equally important ef-
forts that will stimulate industry to
install air pollution control equipment
in their plants and to accelerate the
development of low-pollution engines
for automobiles. I urge the bill's pas-
sage.
Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Chairman,
this bill before us, H.E. 12085, is de-
signed to amend the existing Clean
Air Act, in order to extend the pro-
gram of research control of air pollu-
tion resulting from the combustion of
fuels and motor vehicles.
Mr. Chairman, it has been authori-
tatively established that the motor
vehicle represents the major single
source of air pollution in this country,
that this air pollution is a significant
contributor to dangerous disease and
costs the American economy at least
$12 billion a year. The Federal Gov-
ernment, through the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, has
the primary responsibility for regula-
tory action to deal with the national
problem of motor vehicle air pollution.
It is certainly obvious that this Na-
tion has an urgent need to find new
and improved methods and means of
dealing with this particular fuel com-
bustion and motor vehicle air pollu-
tion problem. The basic purpose of
this measure before us is to approve
the continuing availability, until ex-
pended, of authorized funds to pro-
ject prudent planning and scheduling
of long and large-scale research and
development and demonstration proj-
ects that will enable the Federal Gov-
ernment to take the lead in effective-
ly controlling and preventing the con-
tinuing and ever-increasing, very dan-
gerous pollution of the air from com-
bustion fuels and motor vehicles. Mr.
Chairman, by any standards, I think
it must be clearly judged that this is
a wise and urgent legislative measure
in the national interest, and I hope
that the House will overwhelmingly
accept it without extended delay.
-------
1014
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Chairman, the
Air Quality Act of 1967 includes an
unusual section which provides a re-
alistic basis for improved research
and development activities in auto-
motive air pollution control. Recog-
nizing that present control technolo-
gies are inadequate, section 104 di-
rects the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare to conduct re-
search and development activities
into new and improved methods and
low-cost techniques for the prevention
and control of air pollution resulting
from the combustion and evaporation
of fuels, and from the use of the pres-
ent automobile internal combustion
engine. To accomplish these ends,
funds under this section can remain
available until used. Thus, the pro-
vision of the 1969 amendments re-
moves the need for a research devel-
opment or demonstration project to
be completed within any one fiscal
year. It also permits the National
Air Pollution Control Administration,
the Health, Education, and Welfare
agency charged with the implemen-
tation of the Air Quality Act, to eslect
the best possible contractors and
grantees, and to start projects at the
most advantageous time. A further
advantage provided by these amend-
ments is the ability to place control
experiments on private property if
necessary for testing.
As a result of the enactment of
the Air Quality Act of 1967, the Na-
tional Air Pollution Control Adminis-
tration has embarked on an extensive
5-year plan for research and develop-
ment on automotive pollution control.
This plan attempts to define specific
goals and ways and means to attain
them, and includes the work of NAP-
CA research and development projects
as well as those of other Federal
agencies.
Since passage of the act, NAPCA
has started numerous resarch and
development activities related to mo-
tor vehicle pollution control. Projects
include new control systems to curb
carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon
emissions from internal combustion
engines, and for the control of nitro-
gen oxide emission; techniques to re-
duce emissions of particulates, espe-
cially lead; investigations of alter-
nate fuels for use in internal combus-
tion engines, and of odors emanating
from diesel engines used by trucks
and buses. The use of unconventional
engines such as the turbine and steam
and electric-powered engines, for use
in private cars also is being scruti-
nized.
This is a good beginning. But it is
only a start. The funds authorized for
fiscal year 1968 totaled $35 million,
and for 1969 $90 million, with those
funds appropriated for section 104
remaining available until expended.
However, as of now, authorizations
for research and development activi-
ties under section 104 will expire at
the end of fiscal year 1969.
Mr. Chairman, in the words of the
first progress report by the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare to
the Congress pursuant to the Air
Quality Act of 1967:
In terms of the total quantity of pollutants,
the automobile represents the most important
single source of air pollution in the United
States today.
The Federal research and develop-
ment program in automotive air pol-
lution control has, by HEW definition,
three primary objectives:
1. To stimulate optimum activity by the pri-
vate sector in developing control technology;
2. to fill the research gap areas that are not
receiving attention elsewhere; and 3. to de-
velop the technical base for establishing future
Federal emission standards.
I feel that it is essential that these
objectives be met as soon as possi-
ble. I feel that it is essential that
NAPCA be provided on a continuous
basis with adequate tools by the Con-
gress to proceed with the implementa-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1015
tion of its plans; that sufficient funds
be made available under section 104 of
the act to provide for uninterrupted,
accelerated research, development, and
demonstration activities that will re-
sult in concrete and useful findings
of benefit to the whole Nation.
I believe that NAPCA's plans of in-
vestigating alternate modes of pro-
pulsion for automobiles while deviis-
ing better control systems for exist-
ing internal combustion engines is
commendable. A limit will no doubt
be reached beyond which further emis-
sion reductions will not be feasible
technically or economically, and we
must be prepared for this eventuality.
Dr. Lee DuBridge, Presidential
science adviser, addressed himself to
this topic on August 26 when he said
that, although the Nation would have
to "depend on the gasoline engine and
its improvement for the next 10 or
20 years," it "should not be neglect-
ing the possibility that some new un-
conventional type of automotive pro-
pulsion device may be needed to keep
the pollution problem within limits in
the 1990's and the year 2000."
Congress has approved the Air
Quality Act of 1967 unanimously.
Let us now make sure that we pro-
vide for its proper and timely im-
plementation, by providing the fiscal
means to carry out its intent.
Mr. TIERNAN. Mr. Chairman,
there is perhaps no other area that
we deal with here in the Congress
that is more vital yet receives less
attention than the problem of con-
trolling our environment.
In adopting the Air Quality Act,
the Congress set up an intergovern-
mental system for dealing with air
pollution problems on a regional ba-
sis. State and local governments have
a major share of the responsibility
for making this system work. They
have a particular responsibility for
dealing with air pollution problems
arising from the many industrial, com-
mercial and other stationary sources
located in virtually every urban com-
munity in the Nation and in many
small towns and rural areas.
It is essential that the research and
development activities authorized in
section 104 be continued, particularly
those activities relating to the air
pollution problems arising from the
combustion of fossil fuels to produce
electric power and heat, from the
operation of motor vehicles, and also
emissions from aircraft engines. To-
gether, fuel combustion sources and
motor vehicles account for more than
two-thirds of all discharges of pollu-
tants into the Nation's air resource
each year.
The problems of environmental
pollution, unless dealt with quickly
and effectively, will plague mankind
ad infinitum. The steps contained in
H.R. 12085 are but the bare minimum.
I urge my colleagues to support this
vital legislation.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in support of H.R. 12085, which
would amend the Clean Air Act to
extend the program of research re-
lating to fuel and vehicles.
The legislation before the House
would extend through June 30, 1970,
the authority in section 104 of the
Clean Air Act providing for research
and development in preventing and
[p. 24360]
controlling air pollution from fuel
combustion and motor vehicles. The
sum of $18.7 million, all within the
National Air Pollution Control Ad-
ministration's overall budgetary re-
quest for fiscal year 1970, would be
authorized under this proposal. The
legislation is intended to do nothing
more than to channel the funds In-
volved into the best of two existing
air pollution control and prevention
programs.
Our Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce has discovered the
-------
1016
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
disturbing fact that the amount spent
on research into motor vehicle ex-
hausts has been a little over 3 per-
cent of the National Air Pollution
Control Administration's budget, to
deal with the source of 60 percent of
the air pollution problem. Clearly, a
reallocation of fiscal emphasis is ur-
gently needed. This bill would put our
money into the biggest battle against
air pollution, and it is a battle that
must be won.
With continued leadership by the
Federal Government, proper planning
and regulatory action by State and
local governments, and support from
the private sector, I am convinced
that the fight against air pollution
will eventually be won. In the mean-
time, greater effort must be exerted
to control or eliminate the emissions
from motor vehicles. H.R. 12085 will
make this increased effort possible.
Mr. Chairman, I urge unanimous
passage of the bill we are considering.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
have no further requests for time.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
have no further requests for time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America
in Congress oestmoied. That section 104(e) of
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857-1) is
amended by striking: out "for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1969" and insertin2 in lieu
thereof "for each of the fiscal years ending
June 30, 1969, and June 30, 1970".
COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
report the committee amendment.
The Clerk.read as follows:
Committee amendment: Strike out all after
the enacting clause and insert:
"That the first sentence of section 104(c) of
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 18B7b-l(c)) is
amended by striking out 'and', and by striking
out the period at the end thereof and insert-
ing in lieu thereof ', and for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1970, $18,700,000.' "
AMENDMENT TO THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. FARBSTEIN
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman,
I offer an amendment to the commit-
tee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment to the committee amendment of-
fered by Mr. FARBSTEIN: On page 2, after line
2, insert:
"SEC. 2. Title II of the Clean Air Act is
amended by renumbering section 212 as section
213 and by adding immediately after section
211 the following new section:
" 'INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE BAN
" 'SEC. 212. (a) Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, except as otherwise provided
in subsection (c) of this section, it is hereby
prohibited to manufacture for sale, to sell, or
to offer for sale, or to introduce or deliver for
introduction into commerce or to import into
the United States for sale or resale, any new
motor vehicle powered by one or more internal
combustion engines and any new internal com-
bustion engine manufactured for use in a
motor vehicle if such vehicle or engine is
manufactured after January 1, 1978.
" '(b) Violations of this section shall be sub-
ject to injunction and the penalties provided in
sections 204 and 205 of this Act in the same
manner and to the same extent as is provided
therein for violations of paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3) of section 203(a) of this Act.
"'(c) This section shall not apply to any
new motor vehicle powered by one or more
internal combustion engines or to any new in-
ternal combustion engine manufactured for use
in a new motor vehicle which vehicle or en-
gine produces a level of exhaust emissions of
not more than .5 gram per mile of reactive
hydrocarbons, 11 grams per mile of carbon
monoxide, and .75 gram per mile of oxides of
nitrogen.' "
Mr. FARBSTEIN (during the
reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unani-
mous consent that the further read-
ing of the amendment be dispensed
with.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman,
I offer an amendment to H.R. 12085
to prohibit the manufacture and sale
of cars powered by internal combus-
tion engines after January 1, 1978.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1017
This ban would not apply to engines
which meet the equivalent of the pol-
lution emission standard for automo-
biles purchased by the State of Cali-
fornia which are 0.5 gram per hiile
of reactive hydrocarbons, 11 grams
per mile of carbon monoxide, and 0.75
gram per mile of oxides of nitrogen.
The Federal standards for the 1970
models, which are the most stringent
to date, are 23 grams per mile of
carbon monoxide and 2.2 grams per
mile of hydrocarbons.
I offer this amendment because I
represent the city which the Public
Health Service has ranked as the
most polluted in the country. I repre-
sent a city which has suffered from
inversions in the air, periods when
the winds failed to blow away the
carbon monoxide, the lead particles,
the hydrocarbons, and the other dead-
ly pollutants which were produced by
the internal combustion-engine auto-
mobile with the result that many
died.
I come from a city where 2 million
autos daily crowd into the city spout-
ing forth dirt and heavy smoke which
corrodes every material with which it
comes into touch.
I offer this amendment because I
want to do something about this sit-
uation.
Until now, most of the effort to
combat auto-cauised air pollution has
come through utilization of emission
control devices attached to the crank-
case or tailpipe. The use of such de-
vices has brought a noticeable reduc-
tion in emission levels of certain auto
pollutants. However, these devices can
only partially reduce the level of pol-
lution emission. As the Air Pollu-
tion Control Administration projec-
tion of the level of auto pollution sug-
gests, the increasing number of cars
will begin to offset tflie decrease in
pollution brought about by exhaust
emissions control devices after 1980.
POLLUTION LEVEL FROM AUTOMOBILES BASED
ON 1970-71 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
ADMINISTRATION
HYDROCARBONS
[In millions of tons per year]
1968 1972 1975 1980 1990
Urban 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.5 7.0
Total emissions,
nationwide 12.0 10.0 8.5 7.0 10.0
CARBON MONOXIDE
Urban 47.5 40.0 32.5 27.5 43.0
Total emissions,
nationwide 68.0 55.0 45.0 37.5 58.0
OXIDES OF NITROGEN"
Urban 3.0 4.0 4.5 6.0 10.5
Total emissions,
nationwide 6.5 8.5 9.5 12.0 19.5
1 There are no current emissions standards.
The primary source of pollution is
the internal combustion engine. Since
it cannot uniformly burn all of the
gasoline it consumes, it inherently
must produce a certain level of pol-
lutant emission. Control devices can
modify its output, but they cannot
prevent it. Other types of propulsion
systems are capable of being emission
free. They can operate with little or
no release of deadly pollutants into
the atmosphere.
The need to seek alternatives to the
internal combustion engines, which
do not have to pollute, was recognized
by tihe President and his Environ-
mental Quality Council last week
when they viewed alternatives to the
internal combustion engine and heard
a warning from Dr. Lee A. DuBridge,
the Presidential science adviser, that
if we do not ban the internal combus-
tion engine sometime in the future,
we would no longer be able to breathe
anything but noxious air.
In spite of this, the auto industry
has resisted all efforts to reduce air
pollution by developing an alternative
to the internal combustion engine—
just as it resisted efforts to place
safety belts and other safety equip-
526-702 O - 73 -- 29
-------
1018
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
ment in the American car and just
as it resisted efforts to install pollu-
tant reduction equipment.
This is dramatically demonstrated
by the recent Justice Department
suit against the big three auto com-
panies, charging them with combina-
tion and conspiracy to develop and
manufacture motor vehicle air pollu-
tant equipment. Two years of Los
Angeles Federal grand jury hearings
has brought out auto company activity
going back to 1953, one year after the
link between the auto and air pollu-
tion was first established. The auto
companies agreed at that time to in-
stall pollution abatement equipment
only if all companies agreed to install
such equipment at the same time.
And on at least three subsequent oc-
casions, the companies met and
agreed to attempt to delay installa-
tion of pollution abatement equipment.
In 1961, they agreed to delay the in-
stallation of the positive crankcase
until the 1963 model. In late 1962 and
early 1963, they agreed to delay the
adoption of an improvement to the
crankcase ventilating device, and in
early 1964, the introduction of a new
[p. 24361]
exhaust emission control measure un-
til the 1967 model year. In 1964 the
auto companies agreed to tell the
State of California the technology
would not exist to install tail emis-
sion devices until the 1967 model
year although they had the technolog-
ical know-how and devices to do so.
What we are hearing today is the
same thing. Dr. Fred Bowditch, di-
rector of GM's emission control en-
gineering, told a panel of the Califor-
nia State Assembly, which was then
considering the Senate-passed bill, to
ban the internal combustion engine
by 1976, that—
The know-how isn't there to do the job by
1976. (Los Angeles Times, August 1, 1969.)
I do not believe Dr. Bowditch was
under oath for at a press conference
given by GM at its research labora-
tory, after the California bill had
been safely killed, he answered a re-
porter's query of "What would you
have done if the panel had passed
the bill?" with the statement:
We would have complied, and of course, Gen-
eral Motors would have remained in the busi-
ness of producing automobiles, (San Fernando
Valley News, August 7, 1969.)
Apparently the big three just do
not want to tell the American public
the truth. Hearings by the Senate
Commerce Committee "have revealed
that low-cost, low-emission vehicles
can be produced today but that none
of the big three is actively moving
toward this goal because they are
satisfied with the market status quo.
Only American Motors, which is not
satisfied with its share of the cur-
rent market, is moving to explore al-
ternative methods of propulsion. I am
inserting at this point the summary
of the report by the Senate Commerce
Committee which evaluated one alter-
native engine—the Rankine propul-
sion system.
[From "The Search for a Low-Emission Ve-
hicle," Report prepared for the Committee
on Commerce, U.S. Senate, 1969]
THE RANKING PROPULSION SYSTEM
Introduction
In the Rankine or vapor cycle propulsion
system,61 the ignition of the fuel takes place
without explosion outside the engine in the
burner.52 The heat produced by the burning of
the fuel in the burner is used to heat up a
working fluid—water or some other neutral
fluid. When the fluid is heated, it converts to
vapor. This conversion takes place in a mono-
tube steam generator. The vaporized fluid be-
comes the power source for the engine. It is
conducted to the engine, where it is used to
drive the pistons or turbines which turn the
shaft and drive the wheels. Valves control the
entry and exit of the vaporized fluid. Instead
of an explosion within the piston chamber, as
occurs in the internal combustion engine, there
is simply the entry and exit of a vaporized
fluid. In a closed Rankine cycle system, the
exhausted vapor is captured, run through a
condenser resembling a radiator, cooled, and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1019
returned to its liquid state where it is ready
to be heated again in the generator.
A Rankine propulsion system does not utilize
a transmission. The car can accelerate from a
dead stop without a transmission because the
engine delivers high torque at low speeds. Its
high-torque qualities may, however, require a
simple system to gear down the drive train in
order to prevent wheel spin.53
Footnotes at end of article.
When the vehicle is at a standstill, the vapor
source to the engine is cut off, and the engine
does not run. The vehicle is put in motion by
simply opening a valve. Acceleration is very
good. An engine with an engine rating of 168
horsepower will accelerate from 0 to 60 miles
per hour in 9,5 seconds. An ICE with a rating
of 250 horsepower propelling the same load
takes 10 seconds to accelerate from 0 to 60
miles er hour.54 Smaller horsepowered Rankine
engines accelerate at rates equivalent to larger
horsepowered ICE's because the Rankine en-
gine loses less power between the engine and
the wheels since there is no complicated trans-
mission.
Braking for a Rankine-powered vehicle can
be accomplished by conventional means, or else
the engine, by means of reverse torque, can
brake the car. Reverse torque can be employed
in emergency situations only or in each brak-
ing maneuver.65
The Rankine propulsion system is adaptable
to present automobiles. The burner, generator,
and condenser can fit within the existing space
under the front hood.58 The engine can be
placed in the present transmission casing or
further back under the car near the differen-
tial. Existing auxiliaries can be run off power
provided by a small Rankine turbine engine
which operates even when the main engine
does not: thus heat or air conditioning can be
provided at all times.57
Emission characteristics
Unlike an ICE, combustion of fuel in the
burner of a Rankine cycle system is almost
complete. This means that under normal OD-
erating conditions, without attempts at emis-
sion control, a steamcar produces almost no
pollution. In emissions tests conducted on the
8-year-old Williams Steamcar the followinsr re-
sults were obtained i58
Hydrocarbons _ 20 p.p.m.
Carbon monoxide -_ 0.05 percent
Nitrogen oxides (no lead) 40 p.p.m.
Lead None
Compares these results with the uncontrolled
ICE:59
Hydrocarbons - 900 p.p.m.
Carbon monoxides 3.5 percent
Nitrogen oxides 1,500 p.p.m.
Lead (f)
The low-emission characteristics of the ex-
ternal combustion engine (ECE) are built in.
This is an important feature. There are no
emission controls to maintain or repair. De-
terioration is virtually nonexistent. As long as
the engine functions, it will function with low-
emission characteristics. Compared to the con-
trolled ICE, then, the Rankine systems emis-
sion characteristics are far superior.60
Noise characteristics
The Rankine system not only helps eliminate
air pollution, it also greatly alleviates noise
pollution. A Rankine vehicle cuts perceived
vehicular noise by a factor of 4 at peakloads
which is equivalent to multiplying the distance
between sound and person by 10.61 Trucks and
buses gearing up and gearing down are the
greatest generators of surface vehicle noise.
By operating under steampower, the need for
a transmission in trucks and buses is elimi-
nated; and their roar can be reduced to a toler-
able whirring sound. Again, noise pollution
control like air pollution control is a built-in
quality of the steam engine. No practical
amount of muffling of the ICE can replicate
the inherent, relative silence of the ECE.
Fuel requirements
The Rankine vehicle operates on a variety
of fuels.62 It can burn gasoline from the pump
of any service station, or it can operate equally
as well, perhaps, better, on low-grade white
kerosene. The steamcar does not require leaded
gasoline with high octane ratings. Rankine fuel,
then, is less refined, less costly, and less pol-
luting than ICE fuel.
Fuel consumption tests on existing steam ve-
hicles and consumption projections for future
Rankine vehicles indicate that such vehicles
get, or will get, better fuel mileage than their
ICE counterparts.63 The Williams steamcar av-
eraged 20 miles per gallon on kerosene in a
conventional gasoline mileage test.64 Compara-
ble ICE vehicles get only 15 miles per gallon.
Representatives of General Motors testified that
the steam engine consumed 0,70 pounds of fuel
per horsepower hour compared to the ICE's
consumption rate of 0.50.65 Further examina-
tion of those figures revealed, however, that
the loss of horsepower in the drive train was
not represented in the ICE figures.66 It is fair
to conclude that steam engine mileage will be
as good as the ICE mileage—probably better—
and that it will consume less expensive fuels
which do not have lead and other additives
that add to air pollution.97
Cost
Vintage steamcars were quite expensive com-
pared to their ICE competitor, but this was
primarily due to low-volume, nonassembly line,
production.68 Dr. Robert Ayres maintains that
a steam-powered vehicle would cost less to pro-
duce on the same scale, and the same amount
to produce on a smaller scale, than a com-
-------
1020
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
parable present ICE vehicle.69 Dr. Morse esti-
mates that the steam engine will cost 1.5 times
as much as the present ICE; and General
Motors Co. boosts that to three times as
much.™ It is possible that the GM figures take
into account only the comparative engine costs,
not total drive train costs.71 The Battelle re-
search report properly concluded:72
"It is impossible to fix a specific cost figure
based on current data because no figures are
available which reflect volume-production
quantity. The best available evidence indicates
that the specific cost will be less than that of
a comparable diesel engine and about equal to
that of an equivalent V-8 engine with auto-
matic transmission. The additional cost of a
transmission will be eliminated with steam
power."
Maintenance and reliability
Testimony relating to the maintenance and
reliability characteristics of the Rankine pro-
pulsion system was conflicting. Ford Motor Co.
in the hearings considered the Rankine engine
to be more complex than the present ICE.78
On the other handf Professor Gouse thought
that the Rankine engine was simpler, particu-
larly when compared with an ICE with emis-
sion control:
"If you look under the hood of a new car,
the number of valves and devices added for
exhaust emission control are not negligible,
and the next year or two may bring more." 74
A recent study has compared the reliability
and maintenance characteristics of the ICE
and Rankine systems. The following tables
illustrate the better maintenance and reliabil-
ity of the Rankine system:75
Other characteristics
1. Safety
In his testimony, Mr. Hafstad of General
Motors stated that the high-pressure steam
used to propel steam engines created a consid-
erable safety hazard.76 In other steamcars the
danger of boiler explosions may have been
real.77 Today, however, steampower is certainly
safe.78 Mr. Williams discussed this point as
follows:78
"Let me state exactly what is likely to hap-
pen and what might happen if a steamcar is
involved in a collision. The modern monotube
boiler ia totally different from the kind alluded
to by Detroit. It is composed of a long length
of high-strength steel tubing—of %- to %-inch
diameter—coiled tightly in a spiral and. helical
shape. It is nothing like a storage boiler used
in factories and homes. The monotube steam
generator has only a
[p. 24362]
very small amount of steam in it at one time.
In a collision, the strong coil would be de-
formed or distorted—nothing more.
"Suppose it ruptures—what happens? First,
a small piece of tubing, three-eighths of an
inch in diameter, breaks. The result is that the
very small amount of steam contained within
the coil is dissipated in a matter of seconds,
doing virtually no damage.
"There is no large vessel to disintegrate like
a huge grenade. In short, the danger of scald-
ing is very slight, and the likelihood of serious
danger is not remotely comparable to what
happens when 20 or so gallons of high-octane
fuel are ignited in a pileup. Here you have an
explosion."
There is no danger of boiler explosion in
modern monotube steam boilers that would be
used in today's steamcar.80
2. Possibility of Freezeup
The problem of freezeup does not present
serious obstacles.81 Traditional antifreezes may
not work in systems which operate at 1,000° F.
—but other antifreezes probably can be de-
veloped. Ford Motor Co. assumes that such
freezing is a solvable engineering problem.82
Mr. Pritchard, in his testimony, suggested
alternative solutions to the freezing problem.83
First, the water tank could be constructed with
sloping sides so that freezeups would do no
damage and the burner could thaw out the
frozen water supply rather quickly. Second, a
small pilot light within the burner could keep
the water source from freezing—a solution em-
ployed in several contemporary steamcars.
Another solution to the freezing problem is
to use a working fluid with a low freezing
point. Freon, for example, is being tested by
some steamcar builders.84 When freon is used
in the closed-cycle Rankine system, the prob-
lem of freezeup is virtually eliminated.85
3. Water Consumption
In older steamcars, water consumption was
a problem. The steam cycle was not completely
closed; therefore, steam escaped from the ve-
hicle and caused appreciable water loss. Today
a hermetically sealed closed-cycle Rankine en-
gine consumes at most 1 gallon of working
fluid per 1,000 miles.86 Water consumption is
no longer a problem.
4. Lubrication and Its Effects on Boiler and
Condenser Life
Lubrication of the steam engine can be ac-
complished in a variety of ways. In some sys-
tems the lubricant is placed directly in the
working fluid. Some testimony in the bearings
suggested that impurities in the water and the
presence of lubricants would have a detri-
mental effect on boiler and condenser life.87
On the basis of experiences with the Williams
steamcar there does not seem to be a problem;
high-velocity flow through the boiler tube pre-
vents scale from accumulating.88
Thermo Electron uses solid fiuorocarbon
lubricants in the working fluid system. By plac-
ing this type of lubricant in the system, the
seals between the cylinder and the crankcase
can be eliminated. This allows a simpler piston
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1021
setup. There is no need for a cross-head piston
and a unit similar to the single-power piston
in the ICE is possible.*®
5. Startup Time
Older steam automobiles with large water
supply in their boilers took as long as 30
minutes to start. Slow startup, then, is asso-
ciated with steamcars. Today, with the modern
steam engine and its monotube boiler, initial
startup time should take less than 20 seconds.90
After the initial startup and for about a 3-
hour period after shutdown, the startup would
be instantaneous. Today, startup time is not
appreciably longer than for an ICE.
Footnotes at end of article.
Recent development*
Appendix A contains correspondence from
individuals or business enterprises working on
the development of low-emission vehicles. Ap-
pendic B contains information from secondary
sources on low-emission vehicle development.
This section will not attempt to discuss all re-
cent developments in this area but will merely
highlight some of the major activities. For
complete details on important new develop-
ments in the low-emission field the reader should
consult the appendices.
California has recently given impetus to the
development of Rankine cycle propulsion sys-
tems.91 By a resolution the California Legisla-
ture has asked the California Highway Patrol
to test Rankine cycle patrol vehicles in six dif-
ferent geographical regions of the State.93
The California Highway Patrol demonstra-
tion project initially was to be funded by Gen-
eral Motors Corp., which had agreed to pay a
selected vendor $20,000 toward the cost of de-
veloping an engine, and up to $100,000 for out-
fitting six operational patrol vehicles.83 Because
of problems of proprietary disclosure of infor-
mation and hardware,9* the Rankine engine
manufacturers rejected the General Motors of-
fer. After several false starts,95 the California
Highway Patrol has accepted letters of under-
standing from two firms which will each fur-
nish a highway patro] vehicle to the patrol for
testing within the next 6 months.99 Thermo-
dynamics Systems, Inc., has been given a late
model Oldsmobile by the California Highway
Patrol; it will convert the vehicle to steam and
return it to the patrol for testing.97 No specific
details about Thermodynamics* powerplant are
presently available.
Lear Motors Corp. of Reno, Nev., will pro-
vide the California Highway Patrol with a test
vehicle by August 1, 1969. William Lear has
purchased a 1969 Dodge Polara, the vehicle
presently used by the patrol, and is converting
that vehicle to steam.98 Lear reports that the
Rankine system he is installing will fit within
the present space under the front hood. The
engine will have a horsepower rating of at
least 300 and will meet all necessary accelera-
tion and speed requirements of the patrol.
Lear reports significant advances related to
the auxiliary system:99
"I have enclosed for your interest a dia-
grammatic representation of our basic power
system. You will see that an auxiliary package
is in operation whenever the system is used.
This auxiliary unit provides support for the
system proper and, in addition, powers the
various services required by the vehicle, such
as the air conditioner, power steering pump,
alternator, et cetera. Under this arrangement,
even though the vehicle were parked with the
motor not running, full accessory usage is
guaranteed. This has direct application to
our highway patrol vehicle where there is a
heavy demand for auxiliary power (rotating
lights, power supplies, transceivers, etc.) under
static conditions. In a passenger automobile,
the car could be heated or cooled under
'parked' conditions."
California is also undertaking a Rankine
engine demonstration project financed by the
Department of Transportation.100 This project
involves the installation and testing of Rankine
systems in buses in the San Francisco area.
The objective of the project is "to demonstrate
the complete operational feasibility and superi-
ority and public understanding and acceptance
of an external combustion engine-based propul-
sion system for urban mass transit bus use." 101
Lear Motor Corp. has announced it plans to
bid on the engine contract for this project.
The Department of Transportation has re-
cently announced the award of a second steam
bus demonstration contract.102 The city of Dal-
las will soon have buses powered by Rankine
engines using freon as the working fluid. The
Department of Transportation selected the
freon engine for testing in the Dallas project
because it appears to reduce difficulties with
freezing, lubricating, and starting.103 The en-
gine will be furnished by Kinetics Corp. of
Sarasota, Fla.; engineering work on the proj-
ect will be done by Vought Aeronautics Divi-
sion of Ling-Temco-Vought aerospace industry.
The most publicized activity in recent
months in the field of Rankine propulsion sys-
tem development is Lear Motor Corp.'s an-
nounced plans to enter a steam-powered racer
in the 1969 Indianapolis 500- There are several
interesting accounts of Mr. Lear's plans. (See
app. B.) Assuming that race officials allow the
steam racer to compete,104 it will be inter2Sting
to watch its performance when competing
with traditional power plants. Mr. Lear is not
alone in his steam racer plans; Mr. W. D.
Thompson of San Diego, Calif., also has an-
nounced plans to enter a steam racer in a
future Indianapolis 500.105
In summary, there has been considerable ac-
tivity in the Rankine cycle field in recent
months. This activity has already produced
results which reinforce the optimism of Ran-
gine cycle proponents. On the basis of current
-------
1022
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
developments and existing: technological capa-
bility,106 there is but one inescapable conclusion.
CONCLUSION
The Rankine Cycle Propulsion System la a
Satisfactory Alternative to the Present In-
ternal Combustion Engine in Terms of Per-
formance and a Far Superior Engine in Terms
of Emissions.
This conclusion is based upon the above dis-
cussion. The Rankine vehicle is more eco-
nomical to operate because it gets better gaso-
line mileage using less expensive fuels,107 and
because it has better maintenance and reliabil-
ity potential.108 Its acceleration, auxiliary op-
eration, and braking characteristics are su-
perior to those of the ICE. Alleged "problems"
in applying Rankine cycle systems to auto-
motive use have been or are being solved. The
Rankine cycle engine is as safe as the ICE;108
it consumes no more water;110 freezeup can be
avoided;111 and startup time is satisfactory.112
In terms of the all-important exhaust emission
characteristics, the Rankine cycle system ia far
superior to the ICE,113 and if the ICE becomes
more competitive in this area, it will become
less competitive in terms of gas mileage, main-
tenance, and reliability.11* These assertions
have been confirmed in a recent report, entitled
"Critical Comparison of Low-Emission Otto
and Rankine Engine for Automotive Use," de-
livered at the International Automotive Engi-
neering Congress in Detroit, Mich., on Janu-
ary 13, 1969.u5 The authors of this report con-
clude: na
"The Rankine engine has the potential of
being better than the Otto cycle engine in
maintainability and reliability, fuel economy,
and exhaust emissions. Also, the Rankine en-
gine should be at least comparable in initial
cost and safety in case of accident * * *.
"It is, therefore, recommended that the auto-
motive industry seriously consider the Rankine
engine as the future powerplant and that the
chemical and petrochemical companies concen-
trate on the development of the 'ideal' fluid."
Opponents of change may dispute the con-
clusion reached in this report. But their prev-
ious attacks on the feasibility of the Rankine
cycle engines are no longer viable; they will
have to find new criticisms. For example,
Chrysler Corp. can no longer say that the
problem of cold weather operation ia "a real
impediment to the successful application of
steampower to automotive vehicles," (See
Chrysler letter, Feb. 18, 1969, app. A). It
presents no such impediment.117 Ford Motor
Co., in face of the evidence, can no longer
argue that complexity is a disadvantage for
the Rankine vehicle.118 Finally, General Motors
[p. 24363]
should reevaluate its emission-reduction eco-
nomics charts.11* In terms of cost. General
Motors lumps Stirling, gaa turbine, and steam
engines in the same category and concludes
they are twice as expensive as controlled ICE's.
This is simply not the case: All other cost esti-
mates place controlled ICE's and Rankine sys-
tems in comparable categories. General Motors
probably neglected to include in its compari-
sons the substantial cost of the ICE trans-
mission—a transmission not required in the
Rankine cycle system.130
Opponents of the Rankine system will be
hard put to find new criticisms. Although Lear
Motor Corp, has been in operation only 6
months, it has put together a research, devel-
opment, and production program that will
place a racing vehicle in the Indianapolis 600
and will deliver an operational highway patrol
vehicle to the State of California.121 Progress
in other areas has been as rapid.122 This prog-
ress has taken place without a massive in-
fusion of research and development money;
existing technology has been applied. Any
critic of the Rankine system will have to con-
front the fact that Rankine system develop-
ment is in an embryonic state; the potential
for improvement far outstrips any potential
for improvement of the ICE upon which im-
mense amounts of capital have already been
expended without producing startling improve-
ments in emission or other characteristics.138
Finally, it should be pointed out that the
Rankine propulsion system that is being de-
veloped today is not new in the sense that it
has just come within our technological reach.
Without the myopic persistence of the auto-
mobile industry in devoting most of its research
funds to the ICE, a reliable, low-polluting
Rankine cycle engine could probably have been
developed 20 years ago.
OBSTACLES TO RANKINE CYCLE DEVELOPMENT
(1) Inertia of automobile industry
The auto industry is committed to emission
control of the ICE rather than development of
a low-emission external combustion system.1**
At the hearings General Motors stated that
"we continue to believe that clean air quality
objectives can be achieved most quickly and
at a lower price through further development
of the internal combustion engine."las In a
recent letter to the Senate Commerce Commit-
tee General Motors stated:128
"To summarize, we are actively investigat-
ing a number of energy conversion methods,
including steam engines, which offer potential
for satisfying automotive power requirements.
However, present technology indicates that the
gasoline engine still offers the best compromise
as to cost, durability, reliabiltiy, economy, per-
formance, efficiency, and the control of pol-
lutants."
To substantiate the above claims General
Motors has prepared several charts showing
pollution-reduction economics.127 In every case
their charts purport to show that in the 1970's
the internal combustion engine will match the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1023
pollution performances of the alternative
powerplants at an expenditure of at least a
third less.11®
Ford Motor Co. stresses that it is "aggres-
sively pursuing all avenues leading to the
ultimate goal of clean air." 12B The main thrust
of the Ford emission control program has been
the development of control systems for the
internal combustion engine. Ford has been a
leader in a reported $7 million automobile and
petroleum interindustry emission control pro-
gram (IIEC) based on a systems approach
concept for solving the common problem of
emissions, 13° Ford announced:
"We have not met all our emission objectives
as yet, but we are quite gratified with the re-
Footnotes at end of article.
suits achieved to date. The second vital phase
of the engineering problem—proving the dur-
ability of these hardware systems—is also
underway but the major efforts in this area
lies ahead." **•
Ford also reports engineering and research
work with alternate power sources, particu-
larly the gas turbine, which is powering Ford
trucks carrying cargo from Michigan to plants
in Ohio.wa
Without disparaging their efforts at ICE
emission control, it would seem that neither
Ford nor General Motors plans to work toward
the development of what appears to be a more
promising Rankine cycle propulsion system.
A response from Chrysler Corp. indicates they
are of like mind.138
None of the "Big Three" automobile manu-
facturers are working toward developing a
Rankine cycle vehicle. Only American Motors
Corp. reports an interest in Rankine propul-
sion development: 134
"We are pursuing a program to develop the
application of steam as a result of a sugges-
tion by a highly regarded potential supplier of
this type of equipment. We have only begun
to consider this latter alternative but are pres-
ently optimistic about its mechanical possibil-
ities.
"As you might imagine, American Motors is
highly interested in developing a low-emission,
mass-produced automobile. Not only would this
have advantages from a social point of view,
but we look upon it as a rare opportunity for
our company."
The present juxtaposition of the approach
to Rankine cycle development by the "Big
Three" and American Motors is interesting. In
the hearings, Ford Motor Co. said that "* * *
it is often assumed that our industry would re-
sist any radical change in automotive power
systems because of our tremendous investment
in existing production facilities. On the con-
trary, one of the reasons we are continually
examining new power sources is that we must
periodically update our designs, plants, and
equpiment to meet the ever-changing demands
of our customers," 136 The Big Three must not
see a customer demand for a low-emission, re-
liable Rankine cycle vehicle; American Motors,
without a large stake in the existing market,
at this time does see such a demand.
Senator Muskie's concern that "the momen-
tum of the status quo may run counter to the
public interest" is well founded.136 There is no
assurance that the present course set by the
major automobile manufacturers will lead to
the development of a low-emission, reliable in-
ternal combustion engine.137 Their present
course does seem to assure, however, that low-
emission Rankine cycle propulsion units will
not be developed by one of the major auto-
mobile manufacturers.
Ironically, Government, as the protector of
the public interest, also may very well be pur-
suing a course contrary to the public's long-
range interest. For example, in fiscal year 1967
the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare spent $3.2 million on automobile emis-
sion research.138 Only $115,000 was spent for
researching ICE alternatives; the rest went to
refining the ICE.139
The inertia of the automobile industry to-
ward the development of the Rankine cycle
propulsion system is perfectly understandable.
The auto industry has large sums committed
to the present internal combustion engine in
terms of development man-hours and produc-
tion capabilities.
There are several other reasons why the
auto industry is dragging its feet in the de-
velopment of a Rankine propulsion system.
AS Ford Motor Co. has stated, the automobile
industry changes its designs, plants, and equip-
ment "to meet the ever-changing demand of
our customers." 14° There is as yet no customer
demand for a Rankine propulsion system the
public is simply not aware of the advantages
of the Rankine system as a power source for
general-use vehicles. Not until a vehicle pow-
ered by a Rankine system is developed and
widely publicized will there be even a limited
customer demand for the Rankine-powered
vehicle.
Not only is there no customer demand for a
Rankine cycle vehicle, there is not even a gen-
eral customer demand for a low-emission ve-
hicle. When purchasing an automobile the
individual consumer does not use emission con-
trol as one of his influencing criteria.141 Al-
though he may be opposed to air pollution in
general, he does not normally shop for a low-
polluting vehicle himself. In fact, he may shop
for the highest allowable polluting vehicle be-
cause present pollution control devices inter-
fere with the efficient operation of the engine
and require constant adjustment. Because
there is no consumer demand, the automobile
industry's present posture toward Rankine sys-
tems specifically, and pollution control in gen-
eral (especially before Federal emission stand-
-------
1024
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
ards), is understandable even though it may
not be commendable.
Of course, there is presently customer de-
mand for some of the benefits that the Ran-
kine vehicle would offer. For example, the
customer presently looks for good gas mileage
and low-noise qualities. In addition the Ran-
kine system has better maintenance and relia-
bility characteristics than its elaborately con-
trolled ICE counterpart. Finally, automobile
manufacturers do not have to wait for cus-
tomer demand before they act. How often
have they created new customer demands
through saturation advertising? As auto critic
Ralph Nader once said: "Who wanted fins?"
(2) The petroleum-industry
The petroleum industry is engaged in a joint
auto-gas industry study of ICE emission con-
trol and will spend an estimated $19 to $25
million for research between 1967 and 1969.1*2
It is probable that the petroleum industry and
automobile industry are firmly wedded to each
other in their approach to the problems of
vehicular air pollution.
However, on January 30, 1968, the Wall
Street Journal reported that "the automobile
industry, in an apparent effort to simplify its
own efforts to reduce auto-caused air pollution
is now trying to shift part of the blame for
dirty air to gasoline * * *. The oil industry,
needless to say, is not pleased by the indict-
ment of its products. 'They're just looking for
someone to join them on the hot seat,' com-
plains a research executive for one major oil
company." The present rift between the auto-
mobile industry and petroleum industry may
cause the petroleum industry to review its
assumed present negative posture toward Ran-
kine cycle systems.
In such a review the oil industry would have
to balance the costs of producing "clean" gas
against the costs of converting to lower grade
fuels. It has been reported that the cost of
"clean" gasoline would result in extra costs of
1 cent to 2.3 cents per gallon and an added
investment of $1 to $3 billion.1" There are no
available cost estimates on the conversion of
refineries from high-octane petroleum to kero-
sene, but such conversion would necessitate
phaseout of existing refinery facilities and
cause disruptions which no established indus-
try favors. In addition to refining changes
there would be per mile consumption changes
downward and some changes associated with
auto servicing and supply operations. Certainly
the Rankine vehicle is preferable from the oil
industry's standpoint to electric vehicles, but
on balance the recent rift between the auto
and petroleum industry is not likely to cause
the petroleum industry to divorce itself from
the automobile industry and come out in favor
of a Rankine cycle system. Profitwise there is
probably "nothing in it for them."
[p. 24364]
(S) Costs of introducing Rankine propulsion
system in face of industry inertia
Because the major automobile manufacturers
apparently are not going to develop and mar-
ket the Rankine propulsion system, such de-
velopment and marketing will have to be un-
dertaken independently. The obstacles to such
an independent undertaking are enormous.
The price of direct entry into the passenger
vehicle market has been estimated to be $300
to $400 million.1" This price includes the
money necessary to set up nationwide dealer-
ships and nationwide service facilities as well
as a cost increment because of anticipated
subcontracting problems. In addition, it in-
cludes money necessary to sustain a fairly
high rate of production in order to produce
the vehicle at minimum cost so that it is eco-
nomically competitive with its ICE counter-
part. The extremely high price of entry will
undoubtedly prevent any independent steam
automobile manufacturer from directly enter-
ing the automotive market.
Such large capital expendtiure is all the
more unlikely, given the risks of such an
undertaking. Assuming the innovator meets
with initial success, such success is likely to
be short lived. The automobile industry is
capable of responding to any innovative com-
petitive threat by producing a Rankine vehicle
of their own.
"The steam innovator is faced with some
very difficult problems. His vehicle is general
purpose and will probably require a fairly
substantial dealer organization for initial suc-
cess. A fairly high rate of production will
probably be required for minimum cost. The
possibilities of subcontracting for large quan-
tities of components he will need are limited.
Thus his capital and organizational require-
ments are heavier than for the electric car
innovator. If he overcomes these difficulties
and markets an attractive product, success is
likely to be short lived. The automobile indus-
try could readily adapt its production and
service complex to steampower if forced by
serious competitive threat. Unless the steam
innovator is much better, or luckier than
most, he will be eliminated. What innovator
will challenge the automobile industry in an
area where the advantages accruing to him
are small and the disadvantages overwhelm-
ing? 145
Any development and marketing of a Ran-
kine propulsion system will take place only
when an entrepreneur overcomes the antici-
pated costs of direct entry. He must figure a
way to reduce the cost of establishing nation-
wide dealerships and service centers and to
reduce the cost of manufacturing his own
nonpropulsion system automotive component
parts. Ideally, he must also figure a way to
market a price competitive product at a low
initial production rate.
One way to accomplish these goals is to con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1025
tract with an existing: automobile manufac-
turer to provide Eankine propulsion units for
some of its vehicles. By marketing Rankine
propulsion system units through an organiza-
tion with existing dealer and service networks,
initial capitalization costs in those areas would
be considerably reduced. A new propulsion sys-
tem would require some service investments,
but these could be developed in conjunction
with existing facilities. The cost of nonpropul-
sion unit parts would be eliminated because
the automobile manufacturer would supply
those parts. The remaining problem of manu-
facturing a price-competitive product during
initial production could be overcome if the
Rankine system manufacturer and auto com-
pany were willing to accept temporarily an
after-tax profit margin lower than the exist-
ing one. Any such effort could be countered,
however, by a corresponding profit reduction
by industry members not producing Rankine-
powered vehicles.
Another way to reduce entry costs is to sell
Rankine vehicles in specialized markets until
production is raised to a level where a com-
pany can offer vehicles generally at competi-
tive prices. Such markets exist where vehicles
such as buses, taxis, or trucks are used in fleet
operations within a limited geographic area.
Such fleet sales would not require extensive
dealer networks. The servicing costs would be
minimal because fleet operations usually have
their own central servicing facilities. Unless
the Rankine vehicle producer worked in con-
cert with an existing automobile company, the
costs associated with nonpropulsion automotive
part procurement and low-volume production
would still have to be sustained. Too, such an
approach would not lead immediately to wide-
spread development and marketing, but as an
initial approach to Rankine development it
may be the only practicable methcj available.
A final speculative approach, used alone or
in conjunction with one of the others, might
be to try to create a consumer demand for
Rankine cycle vehicles by building prototype
cars and publicizing their advantages. Once
a customer demand has been created, then the
automobile industry might respond by develop-
ing an innovative propulsion system. Ford
Motor Co. suggests that customer demand
guides innovative development. A successful
race car, for example, built at a cost far below
the $300 million direct-entry cost, might gen-
erate consumer demand for Rankine-powered
cars, and Detroit might respond to this de-
mand.
FOOTNOTES
61 This report does not attempt to discuss in
specific detail the various kinds of external
combustion engines. The main focus in the
hearings was upon the Rankine cycle engine.
The report will primarily discuss that propul-
sion system.
TABLE 1.—PERFORMANCE OF AUTOMOBILES WITH VARIOUS 150-HP. POWER SYSTEMS
[Weight of auto plus load, 3,500 Ibs.; tire pressure= 28 p.s i; tire diameter= 2 ft.; standard air conditions;
frontal area=22.4 ft.; CD=0.4; coefficient of friction between tires and road=0.6|
Otto 'cycle (engine
ratmg=250hp.)b
TOD speed _ 117 m p.h
Vapor " reciprocator
(engine rating= 168
121 m.p.h
Vapor 'turbine
(engine rating^
150 hp.)'
117 m.D.h.
0 to 60 m.p.h. acceleration...
30 to 60 m p.h. acceleration.
Grade at 60 m.p.h
10 seconds 9.5 seconds... 10 seconds.'
5*/2 5 seconds _ SVt.
20 peicent.. 22'/2 percent 20 percent.
• Transmission efficiency taken as 90 percent.
b 150 hp. corresponds to maximum torque condition, assumed to occur at 60 percent of maximum power. Engine assume
to operate at constant 3000 r.p.m. during all calculated maneuvers.
• Transmission efficiency taken as 98 percent.
* 150 hp. corresponds to normal maximum power at maximum engine r.p m. (6,000 r p m.) Engine operates with fixed
gear ratio; rotates at 3,000 r.p.m. at 60 m.p.h. Cutoff held wide open during acceleration to 60 m.p.h ; at 60 m.p.h. the
engine develops 168 hp., and reaches 150 hp. at 7.5 seconds (50 m.p.h.). Engine could be designed never to exceed 150
hp. at slight penalty to acceleration time.
• Transmission efficiency taken as 98 percent for acceleration; 90 percent for other conditions.
' 150 hp. corresponds to normal peak power at 30,000 r.p.m tuibine speed. Fixed gear ratio assumed during acceleration
from 0 to 60 m.p.h. (30,000 r.p.m ); turbine operates at 30,000 r.p.m. at all power levels once having reached 30,000 r.p.m.
> Traction limited. Turbine supplies more torque at start than traction can transfer.
There are two systems, however, which
should briefly be discussed. General Motors
testified that the Stirling engine was perhaps
the best external combustion alternative to the
internal combustion engine. Hearings at p. 44.
The Stirling engine uses hydrogen or helium
as the working fluid, and because of very high
temperatures and pressures requires rather
exotic and expensive alloys. It has excellent
emission qualities, is more efficient than the
steam engine (about 35 percent thermal effi-
ciency) , but ia not economically competitive
-------
1026
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
except in large vehicles such as trucks or
buses. Hearings at p. 13.
A Stirling engine has been used in an ex-
ternal engine-battery hybrid propulsion sys-
tem. Id. at pp. 44-45. The low-emission engine
is used to charge the electric batteries which
serve as the power source for the drive train.
Such hybrid systems could employ controlled
internal combustion engines and might lead to
reduction of air pollution. See hearings at pp.
242-244 for a discussion of these hybrid sys-
tems and their potential pollution advantages.
See also, app. B for a recent article on GM's
hybrid car ("GM Builds No-Smog Car").
52 For a glossary of terms relating to ex-
ternal combustion engines see hearings at pp.
12-13.
=3 Professor Gouse testified that such gearing
could serve to control acceleration, but such
control might not meet with consumer accept-
ance. Hearings at p. 74.
"App. B (Critical Comparison Report) :
55 The ability of the Rankine engine to per-
form the braking maneuver may have some
important pollution control effects. Investi-
gations are currently underway to determine
the amount of asbestos pollution caused by
vehicles whose brake linings are composed of
asbestos. (See supra note 10.) If asbestos from
automobile brakes is found to be a serious
health hazard, the Rankine vehicle could sig-
nificantly reduce this danger by utilizing the
engine in each braking maneuver, thus re-
ducing wear on brakes—wear which throws
small asbestos particles into the air.
"See app. A (Lear letter).
Testimony in the hearings as to the size and
weight of a steam engine was somewhat con-
flicting. Dr. Robert Ayres stated at the hear-
ings that "a closed-cycle steam engine weighs
approximately 4 pounds per horsepower com-
pared to the ICE's 3 pounds" (hearings at p.
4). "General Motors Co. suggested that the
steam engine would weigh three times as
much as the ICE" (id. at p. 48). "Ford Motor
Co., in a chart comparing engine installa-
tions, indicated that the ECE and ICE would
be of comparable size and pictured the en-
gines occupying the same space within the
vehicle" (id. at p. 30).
67 See app. A (Lear letter). See also dis-
cussion in text accompanying note 99 infra.
68 Hearings at 113. These results are well
below the projected 1975 emission goals. The
suggested national goals for 1976 are: Hydro-
carbons, 50 p.p.m.; carbon monoxide, 0.6%;
nitrogen oxide, 250 p.p.m.
59 "Automobile and Air Pollution Report
(II)," supra note 3 at p. 23.
60 See App. A (Smith and Peterson letter)
where current Rankine engine emission
statistics are presented:
Total cram* per miU of hydrocarbont.
carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen
Gram*
California standards, 1970 ,._ 27.2
California standards, 1972 2B.9
California low emission vehicle,
AB 856 12M
1967 Smith and Peterson test 4.8
1968 Smith and Peterson capabil-
ity 2.8
61 Hearings at pp. 8 and 99.
62 Hearings at p. 99. Of course, an engine
will probably be designed to run on one par-
ticular type of fuel and be most efficient with
that fuel.
[p. 24365]
83 See app. B. "Critical Comparison of Otto
and Rankine Cycle Engines," at p. 14.
"Hearings at p. 115. The test was the
seven-mode California cycle test.
66 Id. at p. 48.
66 Id. at p. 55.
"See app. B ("Leaded Gasoline Presents
Hazards to Health").
• Id. at p. 8.
MId.
70 Id. at p. 48.
71 See the graphs submitted by General
Motors (app. A) which still show a differ-
ential in price of about 2 to 1 even when
exhaust reactors are added to the ICE, Again,
it is possible that the figures do not include
transmission cost comparisons.
72 See research report for HEW (National
Center for Air Pollution Control), "Study of
Low-Pollution Potential Power Sources for
Urban Vehicles," Battelle Memorial Institute
(March 15, 1968) at 61-62.
See also app. B, "Critical Comparison Re-
port."
TABLE 3.—RELATIVE COST COMPARISON OF OTTO AND RANKINE SYSTEM
Steam
Otto cycle reciprocator
Engine '
Heat addition
Heat rejection...
Transmission
Accessories8 -
Emission control.
Total
JO. 42
.04
.35
.13
.06 ....
1.00
JO. 40
.20
.10
.15
.13
.98
Steam Organic Organic
turbine reciprocator turbine
$0.20
.18
.10
.40
.11
.99
JO. 40
.18
.10
.15
.10
.93
JO. 16
.18
.10
.38
.10
.93
1 Engine cost includes fuel-injection system and ignition system.
' Accessories exclude ait conditioning, power steering, power brakes, power seats, powei windows.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1027
* Hearings at p. 29. But see id, at p. 166,
where the Ford data is challenged. Ford has
been severely taken to task for its complexity
ratings which testimony disclosed were based
on guesses. See also id. at p. 163. A survey
conducted in July by Industrial Research
found that of the more than 400 scientists
and engineers, 87 percent disagreed with
Ford's claim that steam engines are more
complex. See Ideas, "Information on De-
velopments in Electricity and Steam." No-
vember 19S8, at p. 15.
71 Hearings at p. 82.
75 See app. B, "Critical Comparison," at pp.
12 and 15:
"The Rankine engine has the potential of
having these major advantages over the Otto
cycle engine for automobile use: mainte-
nance and reliability, fuel, economy, low
emissions." [Emphasis added.}
TABLE 4.—RELIABILITY COMPARISON OF OTTO AND RANKINE ENGINES
Maine bearings...
Connecting rod and
wristpin bearings.
Camshaft and rocker arm
and pump bearings.
Set of rings or equivalent. .
Valves
(V-8)
Otto cycle
. 5
16
22
. 8
2 per cycle, cam
operated.
Steam
reciprocator
(4 cycle)
. 5.
. 8
. 13
. 4....
1 per cycle me-
chanically oper-
ated, 1 sleeve
Organic
reciprocator
(4 cycle)
5
8 ....
13
4
Same as steam
reciprocator.
Steam
turbine
2. .., .
0
2 ...
0
Variable nozzle
reciprocator.
2.
0.
2.
0.
Va>
Organic
turbine
riable nozzle
Controls Throttle control Value cutoff, fuel
.do.
.-do..
Seals
Transmissions.
on carburetor
(plus automatic
control on car-
buretor, coolant
temperature).
flow pump speed
(plus automatic
temperature
and pressure
control).
2 major oil seals... 1 major fluid seal ...... do _________ Same as steam
reciprocator.
Multigear, hydrau- Simple gears ------ Simplegears ____ Multigear, hy-
lically controlled draulically
system. controlled
system.
Do.
Same as steam
reciprocator.
Do.
700° F.
Peak metal temperature— 1,200° F. plus 1,000° F 700° F__ 1,000° F.
Mimmum internal steady- 180° F 212° F 150° F 212° F 150° F
TABLE 5.-PARTS NEEDING ADJUSTMENTS OR SERVICING
Heat addition
Heat rejection —
Transmission
Auxiliaries
Otto cycle
Value life
Valve surfaces
Bearings
... Ignition system
Carburetor
Carbon cleanout...
Fuel pump and
filter.
Fan belt .
Clean radiator
Coolant
Water pump
Fluid
Bands
... Voltage
Lube system
Filter
Oil
Pump
Belt drive.
Steam
reciprocator
Fuel flow control..
Valves
Igniter
Safety valve
Fan motor
Clean condenser...
Voltage
Deaerator
Oil
Pump
Condensate and
boiler feed
pump.
Organic
reciprocator
Same as steam —
Reciprocator
do
do
Fan motor
Clean condenser...
Voltage..
Deaerator
Condensate and
boiler feed
pump.
Steam turbine
Cut off valve
Fuel flow control. .
Fluid flow valve. ..
Igniter
Safety valve
Fan motor
Clean condenser...
Fluid
Bands
Deaerator
Condensate and
boiler feed
pump.
Organic turbine
Gate valve.
Same as steam
Turbine.
Do.
Do.
Fan motor.
Clean condenser.
Fluid.
Bands.
Deaerator.
Condensate and
boiler feed
pump.
[p, 24366]
-------
1028
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
78 Hearings at p. 46.
77 There have been no cases of vintage steam-
car explosions reported, however.
78 See app. A (Lear letter), where it is re-
ported that the latent energy in the generator
at any time is equivalent to a few ounces
of gasoline only.
78 Hearings at p. 112.
80 See app. A (Lear letter).
81 For a general discussion see Dr. Ayres
testimony hearings at p. 9. But see app. A
(Chrysler letter) where this problem is put
forth as a main obstacle to Rankine cycle de-
velopment.
82 Hearings at p. 28.
83 Id. at p. 153.
84 See, e.g., Product Engineering, Nov. 4,
1968, where Wallace L. Minto's freon "steam"
engine is discusssed (app. B).
85 Freon has a freezing point of —68" F.,
hearings at p. 9, Minto's freon engine will be
used in the Dallas steam bus demonstration
project funded in part by the DOT. See dis-
cussion in text accompanying notes 102 and
103 infra.
» Id. at p. 9.
87 Id. at p. 46.
88 Id. at p. 79.
89 See diagram id. at p. 129.
80 Mr. Minto claims a 3—6 second startup
time for his Freon "steam" engine. Product
Engineering, Nov. 4, 1968, at p. 66 (app. B).
91 In the first place California has passed
emission standards that will severely test the
emission control potential of the internal
combustion engine. (AB 357 (1968)). Sec-
ondly, the California Highway Patrol will
undertake a testing program of Rankine
cycle patrol vehicles. See text infra. Third,
the California Assembly will supervise a
steam bus demonstration project financed
in part by the U.S. Department of Trans-
portation. See text infra. Finally, California
by legislative mandate will purchase low-
emission vehicles for State use. (AB 356
(1968)). See text infra under "Recommen-
dations."
92 See app. B for copy of California As-
sembly Resolution No. Ill (1968).
93 See Ideas, October 1968, p. B.
"See Ideas, February 1969, p. 33 (corrob-
orated by phone conversation with William
P. Lear, Feb. 19, 1969).
95 Initial bidding did not produce satisfac-
tory results and a new request for proposal
was distributed to Rankine cycle propulsion
system manufacturers. There were four re-
spondents to the second request: Lear Motor
Corp.; Thermodynamics Systems, Inc.; Paxve,
Inc.; and Berry W. Foster. (See app. B for
complete information on the California High-
way Patrol's request for proposal.)
96 Phone conversation with Inspector David
S. Luethje, California Highway Patrol, Feb.
25. 1969.
97 Id.
98 Id.
"See app. A (Lear letter).
100 The demonstration project is supported
under the Department of Transportation's
program of research, development, and dem-
onstrations of the Urban Mass Transporta-
tion Administration which is aimed at im-
proving mass transportation in all cities
across the Nation through the application of
new technology. The total cost of the pro-
gram for 3 years is estimated at $610,000 of
which the Federal share will be $450,000. The
initial Federal grant is for $244,250 to aid in
the purchase, installation, and testing of the
engine. The State of California, AC Transit,
and San Francisco MUNI will contribute the
remaining funds. (See app. B (California
steambus proposal.))
101 Id.
102 The Dallas project will cost $464,684 of
which the Federal grant from the Urban Mass
Transportation Administration will be
$309,789. The city of Dallas will pay $114,895
of the project's cost with the balance to be
provided by LTV Aeronautics Division in
services.
This project was not formally presented
to the Department of Transportation in the
way the California project was, but the De-
partment is to be commended for allocating
funds to both these necessary demonstration
projects.
103 See app. B ("Product Engineering—
Minto") for a description of Minto's activi-
ties in developing engines using Freon.
104 Any attempt to keep the Rankine ve-
hicle out of competition will be viewed by
critics as another automotive industry at-
tempt to stifle progress and perpetuate the
status quo. Such an exclusion may, in fact,
prompt a congressional inquiry.
106 See app. A (W. D. Thompson letter).
108 See app. B, "Critical Comparison Re-
port."
107 See discussion in text accompanying
footnotes 62-67 supra.
108 See discussion in text accompanying
footnotes 73-75 supra.
109 See discussion in text accompanying
footnotes 76-80 supra.
110 See discussion in text accompanying
footnote 86 supra.
111 See discussion in text accompanying
footnotes 81-85 supra.
112 See discussion in text accompanying
footnote 90 supra.
113 See discussion in text accompanying
footnotes 58-60 supra.
114 S°e supra, footnote 38.
116 See app. B ("Critical Comparison He-
port").
M Id.
117 See discussion in text accompanying;
footnotes 81-85 supra.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1029
""See footnote 73 supra.
no See app. A (General Motors letter).
120 See footnote 71 supra.
m See footnote 98 supra.
i22 Thermodynics Systems, Inc., and Kinet-
ics Corp. are among those about to provide
operational equipment within a very short
time.
i23 Fort Motor Co. will spend a reported $7
million for one emission control research
program designed to improve the ICE. A
comparable expenditure in the Rankine field
would have far greater pollution control im-
pact. (See footnote 130 infra.)
124 Hearings at pp. 24, 33, and 48.
125 Hearings at p. 53.
i26 App. A (General Motors letter).
i"App. A (General Motors letter).
i28 See discussion accompanying footnotes 70
and 71 supra.
i29 App. A (Ford letter).
130 See hearings at p. 27; see also App. A
(Ford letter).
131 See app. A (Ford letter).
132 See app. A (Ford letter) and app. B
("Turbine Era Dawns," Automotive News,
Feb. 10, 1969, p. 8).
133See app. A (Chrysler letter).
134 See app. A (American Motors letter).
i36 Hearings at p. 25.
136 Hearings at p. 33:
"Senator MUSKIE. You [Mr. Misch, Ford
Motor Co.] make the point, which is very
legitimate, that the internal combustion en-
gine has benefited from the contributions
of thousands of engineers, scientists, and
manufacturing experts over many years. In
addition, there is a commitment to the in-
ternal combustion engine in terms of invest-
ment, and consumer acceptance, and con-
sumer familiarity.
"Doesn't all this, however, add to the mo-
mentum of the status quo in a way that may
run counter to the public interest?
"Mr. MISCH. Well, it would only run
counter to the public interest if we pursued
the internal combustion engine and failed
to arrive at the satisfactory final position
with regard to pollutants."
137 See discussion in test accompanying
footnotes 33-35 supra.
138 "The Automobile and Air Pollution: A
Program for Progress (Part ID," U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce (December 1967) at p. 25.
13» Id.
"« Hearings at p. 25.
«i Very few individuals are aware enough
or public spirited enough to choose an auto-
mobile merely on its pollution qualities. The
steam vehicle will have to be competitive in
every other way if it is ever to gain wide pub-
lic acceptance. But competition does not
require limitation. The steam vehicle may
offer an unusual opportunity to adopt in-
novative and safer, but still competitive, de-
sign characteristics that complement the
novel propulsion system. (See e.g., app. A
(Lear letter).)
142 "Automobile and Air Pollution Report
(II)," footnote 138 supra at p. 28.
143 Ideas, February 1969. p. 35. The figures
were based on an American Petroleum Insti-
tute report.
1<4 Hearings at p. 10.
i*5 Hearings at pp. 65-66.
It took congressional action to make
the auto safer. It took congressional
action to get antipollution devices in-
stalled in the auto. It will take con-
gressional action to make the air
breatheable again by doing something
about the major source of air pollu-
tion—the internal combusion engine.
It is generally recognized that the
automobile represents the most impor-
tant single source of air pollution in
the United States. It currently is re-
sponsible for 60 percent of all air
pollution in the country and in many
urban areas for well over 90 percent.
This air pollution is a cause of pul-
monary emphysema, chronic bronchi-
tis, lung cancer, genetic mutation, de-
generation of pulmonary functions,
increased sensitivity of various al-
lergic conditions, accelerations of pre-
existing heart disease, numerous other
kinds of respiratory and circulatory
diseases, cancer, and even the com-
mon cold.
Even aside from the lethal and
safety hazards, the dollar loss result-
ing from air pollution is staggering.
It is estimated at $11 billion a year
or $600 per family.
The amendment would not take ef-
fect for 9 years. I feel certain that
within that period, the industry can
come up with a motor which will
greatly reduce, if not totally eliminate,
pollution emission.
I believe that passage or even a
respectable number of votes for it
will demonstrate to the automobile
producers that the Congress is serious
in its desire to do something about
automobile-caused air pollution.
The amendment I am today offer-
-------
1030
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
ing, I originally introduced as H.R.
13225. It would prohibit the manufac-
ture, sale, or transporting into com-
merce of any new motor vehicle pow-
ered by an internal combustion en-
gine manufactured after January 1,
1978 unless the vehicular engine pro-
duces a level of exhaust emission of
not more than 0.5 gram per mile of
reactive hydrocarbons, 11 grams per
mile of carbon monoxide, and 0.75
gram per mile of nitrogen.
Mr. BELL of California. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FAEBSTEIN. I yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. BELL of California. I wish to
commend the gentleman for offering
his amendment. As the gentleman has
stated, and I certainly agree, some-
times we need some kind of hard ac-
tion in a matter of this kind to move
the automobile industry.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. I agree fully
with the gentleman from California.
That is basically the purpose of my
introducing this amendment.
Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. FARBSTEIN. I yield to the
gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, is it not true that a
period of only 8 years elapsed between
1961 when President Kennedy an-
nounced the goal of landing on the
moon and the time when we achieved
it in 1969? The gentleman from New
York is giving 1 additional year be-
yond 8, he is giving 9 years for the
industry to meet this goal. I wonder
if the gentleman feels, if we set a
goal like this, it might possibly be
the kind of challenge American in-
dustry could meet?
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Very frankly I
think American industry can meet this
prior to that date, but my purpose
in using that date was to remove
from the industry any suggestion that
we are pressing industry to the wall
and not giving industry an opportu-
nity to do something about air pollu-
tion.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARBSTEIN. I yield to the
gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to answer the gentleman
from West Virginia and say that
the Federal Government is not spend-
ing $50 billion, or anything near that,
to correct this very large danger we
have here today, but the Federal Gov-
ernment did spend $50 billion to put a
man on the moon, and it took 9 years.
If we were to spend that kind of
money, we could buy every car in
the United States and clean it up and
run it on some superfuel. We do not
have that much money to spend.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman,
I would like to tell the chairman of
the committee, apropos of what the
chairman just said, it seems to me
those who are earning not millions
but billions of dollars on the produc-
tion and sale of automobiles are the
ones who should assume the responsi-
bility for cleaning up the pollution
by manufacturing engines that will
not produce the pollution or the smog
that is harmful to people.
I do not believe the onus should be
on the Federal Government to spend
$50 billion, although, of course, I
favor the legislation before us today.
I do believe the automobile companies
should do this, and very frankly, I
believe they can do it. They have the
technology today. As a matter of
fact, different types of fuels can be
used by existing engines which great-
ly reduce pollution. I understand in
Florida, for example, a large firm uses
natural gas to run its trucks. There
are electrical cars, steam cars, and
other cars using other fuels. They
can be produced
[p. 24367]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1031
without contributing further to the
smog problem.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New
York.
The amendment offered by the gen-
tleman is unnecessary. Existing law
says the Department may ban new
motor vehicles from sale unless they
meet the emissions standards set by
the Secretary. This requires that the
Secretary take into account several
factors which were written into the
original law. This can be done at any
time.
This amendment would instead have
the Congress set emission standards,
and we are not equipped to do that.
This is the kind of a job we created
the air pollution agency to handle, and
we expect them to do the job with
the authority we have given them,
which in our opinion is adequate.
Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with
the goal of trying to make this sub-
ject to the standards set in California,
but there are other cities, such as the
home town of the gentleman from New
York, which have problems. Many dif-
ferent means are used to meet the
problem. There are different problems
and different air quality standards set
in New York from those set in Los
Angeles, and those set in Pittsburgh,
and in Chicago. Unfortunately, pro-
portionately little money is being put
into research programs on automotive
pollution. I know a great deal more
will have to be done, but we are rely-
ing on experts. The Congress is not
expert. We cannot say these are going
to be the standards. We have left
this to the Secretary, who with his
team of experts sets the standards,
and these standards must be met or
the cars cannot be sold in interstate
commerce. It is just that simple; that
is the law today.
Pollution is an immediate problem
for the large cities, we recognize this.
The gentleman from Florida made
the statement that not enough money
is being put into this, and we are tell-
ing the agency and the Secretary
that Congress feels more money should
be put into it, that the standards
should be made tougher. They have the
authority now. But with respect to the
gentleman's amendment, it certainly
is not necessary at all.
Mr. HARVEY. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.
I wish to join in what the distin-
guished chairman of the committee
has already said. Obviously that
authority is already vested.
Also I wish to reply to the gentle-
man from New York, who has said,
I believe, and I quote: "They have
the technology today" to do this sort
of thing. Dr. Lee DuBridge, who is
the President's science adviser, spoke
on this very problem just a few days
ago and he said that the development
of a new automobile engine is a big
job, and then he went on to say, and
I quote:
We must depend upon the gasoline engine
and its improvements during the next 10 or
20 years.
He went on after that to discuss the
problems of air pollution from the
automobile, and to point out that
progress has been made in this re-
gard.
After hearing some of the talk
here in the House, one would get the
impression that progress is not go-
ing forward. But it is.
Let me point out what Dr. Du-
Bridge said, for example, on progress
on the control of hydrocarbons. He
said that the control thus far achieved
—and I quote again—"has gone from
900 parts per million of hydrocarbons
before 1965 to less than 275 parts
per million of hydrocarbons today,"
and that with the introduction of the
1970 models in the auto industry that
figure will be reduced to less than
-------
1032
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
120 parts per million of hydrocarbons.
This, Mr. Chairman, represents a
reduction of more than 80 percent
being achieved by the industry today.
I would say to the House that in my
judgment this represents real and
substantial progress in attempting to
comply with the requirement to meet
a very serious and recognized health
condition.
In the field of carbon monoxide he
•went on to point out that more than
a 65-percent reduction had already
been made in that field. This again I
say is substantial evidence of progress
in this particular field.
We do not say that more progress
cannot be made, but we say they are
going ahead just as fast as they pos-
sibly can in recognition of a very
serious problem.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HARVEY. I am glad to yield
to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. STAGGERS. As the gentleman
stated they are making great prog-
ress, and have plans for research in
the future.
The great and overwhelming
amount of this material which is be-
ing put in the air now is put there
by used cars which are not equipped
with the equipment to prevent this
from going into the atmosphere. Those
are the older cars. The newer ones
are meeting the standards as set by
the Secretary.
I am sure the cars in California are
meeting the standards set by that
State. In fact, California is the only
State in the Union, out of the 50,
that we exempted from the motor ve-
hicle law. We said that the problem
is so serious in California they should
be permitted to do their own job out
there. It is up to the States to do it,
because we exempted the State of
California, as to going ahead and
making higher standards.
The fact is that it is the older
cars which are now on the roads which
are doing most of the polluting of
the air.
Mr. HARVEY. I thank the gentle-
man.
I want to say to the gentleman from
New York that in my judgment to
blindly set a date such as 1978 when
cars with internal combustion engines
can no longer be produced except un-
der these conditions is ridiculous.
The gentleman from West Virginia
pointed out that we could go to the
moon in less time than that. That may
be true, but as Dr. DuBridge pointed
out the problem has not yet been
solved, the technology does not yet
exist to do these things. Nor are we
spending the sums of money, as the
chairman pointed out, to do these
things.
But we are making substantial
progress.
I would point out to my colleagues
that, yes, I do speak as one who rep-
resents a district in which the auto-
mobile industry is very important.
There are more than 25,000 workers
in one city alone in my district who
work directly for one company in the
auto industry. I would point out to
the Members that in this Nation of
ours one out of every seven workers'
jobs is traceable to the auto industry
in some way or another; one out of
every seven workers.
I would point out to you that there
are more than a million directly em-
ployed by the industry itself, not to
mention the dealers, the suppliers,
and all of their employees. I point out
to you that the net sales of autos
last year came to over $19 billion and
that out of our balance of payments
more than $1 billion came from the
sale of autos alone. So I say to you
that the industry has significance.
You can knock it all you want to and
say that it is not doing a good enough
job in getting rid of air pollution.
But this industry means an awful lot
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1033
to an awful lot of people in America, ]
and I would consider that very care-
fully before we tamper with writing
standards that would affect it on the
floor of this House.
Thus far we in our committee, al-
though we have held lengthy hearings
on the entire matter, have never seer
fit to write in standards neither ir
auto safety, toy safety, or air pollu-
tion devices. We do not claim to have
that sort of expertise and, as a re-
sult, we have instead given the au-
thority in all cases to the Secretary,
or someone in the administration.
Never have we written such stand-
ards. This is precisely what this
amendment would do, and that is why
I ask it be defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Michigan has expired.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York.
(Mr. BROWN of California asked
and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BELL of California. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of California. I will
be happy to yield to the gentleman
from California.
Mr. BELL of California. Mr. Chair-
man, I recognize that the gentleman
from Michigan spoke very ably on
this subject but I wish to point out
that sometimes necessity is the moth-
er of invention.
The gentleman spoke to some ex-
tent about the Space Committee and
our space efforts. I might point out
that we discovered in that commit-
tee at various times, as the gentleman
from California knows, that by set-
ting a time and a place where we
could obtain certain results in the
way of space efforts we could accom-
plish a great deal. When we did set
these times and places the people in-
volved said that they could not meet
the goals but when all was said and
done they made an all-out effort and
did meet our time limitation.
[p. 24368]
The point of the gentleman's amend-
ment is to establish a time limit and
therefore mandate this all-out effort.
I believe that we in the House would
be surprised at the amount of achieve-
ment that the auto industry could ob-
tain in this field.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr.
Chairman, I want to thank the gentle-
man from California [Mr. BELL],
very much for those comments, be-
cause I know he is both intimately
acquainted with the space industry
as well as the petroleum industry,
which is, of course, an important part
of the automobile industry, and h->
remarks have particular significance
because of that.
Mr. Chairman, I am not at all im-
pressed with the remarks of the gen-
tlemen who have spoken with regard
to the fact that the present laws are
adequate and that progress has been
good in this field and that it is only
the old cars that are polluting the
atmosphere and so forth. In my opin-
ion, with all due respect to the good
judgment and intent of the speakers,
they are in every case completely
wrong.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of California. I am
glad to yield to the chairman of the
committee.
Mr. STAGGERS. In California do
you not have the authority to set up
standards of yuor own
Mr. BROWN of California. Yes, we
do.
Mr. STAGGERS. Then, is your
automotive pollution problem the
fault of the California Legislature or
this Congress?
Mr. BROWN of California. I am
not sure I understand your question.
526-702 O - 73 -- 30
-------
1034
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Mr. STAGGERS. If you have the
problem, then if you have the author-
ity to do something about it would it
be the fault of the California Legisla-
ture or this Congress?
Mr. BROWN of California. Insofar
as the State of California has the
right to set a standard, it is certain-
ly no fault of this Congress that they
have not set more stringent standards.
Mr. HARVEY. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. BROWN of California. Yes. I
yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HARVEY. Has the State of
California done anything with regard
to setting standards for used cars? It
is my understanding they have not.
Mr. BROWN of California. Only in
a very limited way, with regard to
certain blow-by devices, but they have
not applied the same stringent stand-
ards there as they have to new cars.
Mr. HARVEY. They have not. If I
understood the gentleman from Cali-
fornia who spoke earlier, he pointed
out that 18 percent of the pollution
today is coming from used cars and
that the State has done nothing about
it.
Mr. BROWN of California. With
regard to this term of 18 percent of
pollution coming from used cars, this
whole concept has to be modified in
the light of the definition of pollution.
Essentially, what we are talking
about in terms of present standards
with reference to pollution apply to
hydrocarbons and no standards have
been set to the best of my knowledge
—and I stand corrected if that state-
ment is not true—with respect to
the more serious problem of nitrogen
oxides and lead, for example, both of
which are critical ingredients in the
poisonous smog which exists in Los
Angeles and in other parts of Cali-
fornia as well as other parts of the
United States.
We have not actually begun to
grapple with the most serious aspects
of the pollution problem. We are talk-
ing about it only from the standpoint
of the emission of Fydrocarbons. We
have made some progress in that field
but we have made little or no progress
in controlling these other more serious
elements of pollution. This is what
I refer to with regard to the remarks
that it is only the old cars that are
polluting the air. It is the old cars
as well as the new cars which are
contributing to this pollution situa-
tion.
Mr. HARVEY. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of California. I yield
to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. HARVEY, I did not say it was
only the old cars that were doing the
polluting. I pointed out the fact that
they had reduced hydrocarbon pollu-
tion by 80 percent and carbon monox-
ide by 65 percent. But, certainly,
there is still pollution coming from
new cars. However, there is more
pollution coming from old cars.
Mr. BROWN of California. The
gentleman from Michigan is correct
insofar as he has gone here. What I
am trying to do here is to point out
the fact that hydrocarbon pollution is
probably the least serious element of
the total pollution problem. Insofar
as the emissions from internal com-
bustion engines is concerned I think
we are speaking basically of only
hydrocarbons and not the pollution
from other elements, when we say
progress is being made.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from California has ex-
pired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. BROWN
of California was allowed to proceed
for 5 additional minutes.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Now,
Mr. Chairman, I have been deeply
concerned about this problem for,
roughly, 15 years. It was at least 15
years ago that I became involved in
efforts to control pollution in Los
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1035
Angeles. As a local government offi-
cial at that time I was told then that
it could be done with the effort we
were then devoting to research, and
that progress was good. However,
what has happened? Essentially noth-
ing. Smog today in Los Angeles is
worse than it was 15 years ago. There
is no question about that. Yet, all
the time we have been told that the
automobile industry is doing every-
thing possible to correct the situation.
Then, Mr. Chairman, as a member
of the State legislature I conducted
hearings 10 years ago—hearings on
the problem of smog and more par-
ticularly lead and its contamination of
the atmosphere. We had before that
committee the best possible witnesses
that the petroleum industry could pro-
duce at that time. The reaction I had
after the hearing was that not only
was my concern with regard to lead
in the atmosphere unecessary, but
actually the more lead put into the
atmosphere the healthier it was for
the people of the area. The experts
have the statistics to prove it. Of
course, it does not take a very intelli-
gent person to know that lead is a
cumulative poison and that the more
there is in the atmosphere the worse
it is for the people.
I think industries which are con-
cerned with the production of lead—
and it is a very big industry, at least
one quarter of a billion dollars a year
—will state that it is unnecessary to
control the emission of lead and, in
effect, that the more you ingest the
better it is for you. However, I am
not sold on the proposition that prog-
ress is being made because in my opin-
ion the exact opposite is true.
The gentleman from Michigan has
made reference to what we have done
with regard to a lunar landing in
recent years. I can understand the
simple logic of the gentleman from
New York in offering this amend-
ment and in placing the time for the
correction of this problem into a pe-
riod roughly equal to what it took us
to reach the moon.
The cost of this lunar operation was
not $50 billion, but was essentially
$25 billion from the time that the
goal was set until the time it was
achieved. It has been pointed out how
large and important the automobile
industry is, and this is very true. The
very size of that industry makes it
possible for the industry at the ex-
penditure of perhaps $10 per unit
sold, for example, to have a fund of
$400 million a year for research. Yet
they have not begun to do this.
At much less than the cost of the
rew model changeover each year,
which runs to something like $4 or
$5 billion a year, they could have
produced a completely redesigned au-
tomobile which would not pollute the
atmosphere. At the price of 1 cent per
gallon of gasoline sold they could
have a fund of a quarter of a billion
dollars per year for researching into
how to eliminate pollution.
Have we seen the automobile in-
dustry or the petroleum industry offer
to de these things? Absolutely not.
What we have seen—and I have
pointed it out in the letter to the
Attorney General, and I made ref-
erence to it yesterday in the RECORD
—is that the automobile companies
and the manufacturers' association
are now the subject of an antitrust
suit because they have failed to take
any action with regard to the question
to avoid doing anything about con-
They have actually conspired over
the last 10 years, according to the
complaint of the Justice Department,
to avoid doing anything about con-
trolling this problem.
Hence I believe that the only practi-
cal thing to do is that which was sug-
gested by the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New York—which
I frankly consider to be too moderate
—and that we should, if anything,
-------
1036
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
cut off completely the manufacture
of automobiles with internal combus-
tion engines, probably within 3 years.
Given that stimulus, and given the
vast resources -which these companies
possess, I have no doubt but what
they could find a solution to
[p. 24369]
this problem. I have no doubt but
what they could find a solution. And
the argument that we should not
tamper with the automobile industry
because one person out of every six in
this country is engaged in the business
just does not appeal to me. What if
one person in every six were engaged
in the sale of heroin in this country?
Would you agree that we should do
nothing about heroin either? I doubt
that very seriously. And yet, in view
of the adverse impact of automobile
air pollution upon this country, there
is no question whatsoever but what
the automobile industry and the pe-
troleum industry and the poisons
which they are emitting into the at-
mosphere are having a far worse ef-
fect upon the health of our country
than heroin is. And that will continue
to be the result of these emissions
as they continue to concentrate in the
atmosphere, because we refuse to con-
trol an $80 billion-per year industry
in this country.
I say that the time has come for
this Congress to do something about
this. Again I compliment the gentle-
man from New York for his amend-
ment.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I was very much
impressed by the argument of the
gentleman from California, and the
other arguments in support of this
amendment. During the recess I had
occasion to do some flying around
Chicago, and one does not really ap-
preciate the immense dimensions of
our air pollution until one gets above
the ground and until you can take a
look at these large industrial centers.
In doing this flying it struck me
very forcibly that people are breath-
ing this filth. When we look through
these reports and look through the
testimony we are overwhelmed at all
sorts of statistics about what great
progress is being made when the fact
of the matter is, as the gentleman
just stated a moment ago, that in Los
Angeles the pollution and smog are
worse today than they were 15 years
ago.
Until we can get a total commit-
ment to deal with this problem of air
pollution, unless we have a national
total commitment that we are going
to destroy air pollution, it will de-
stroy us, and you know it and I know
it.
We talk about our space program.
On the day that these great Americans
walked upon the surface of the moon,
all of us here in this Chamber talked
about it. At that time I said that it
demonstrates what a nation can do,
and it demonstrates what mankind can
do if he has a total commitment.
This amendment gives the auto in-
dustry 8 years, but it does give us
a total commitment to do something
about the largest contributor toward
air pollution.
I ask the Members to come to my
district and stand near O'Hare Field,
and you will see the real ravages of
air pollution. Every day you can see
2,500 landings and takeoffs from
O'Hare Field—with each one of these
jet aircraft emitting a long stream
of black kerosene smoke over my
whole district.
Gentlemen, we have an opportunity
today to make a significant move. I
know it is not a popular one neces-
sarily. I know there are those who are
going to argue very effectively against
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1037
it, but this resolution will serve notice
that there is a total commitment by
this Congress to do something signifi-
cant about air pollution. I would hope
that this amendment would be
adopted.
I know it is a severe measure. I
know there will great outcries of
anguish against it. But the fact of the
matter is that the time has come when
this legislative body has to start
engaging in total commitments. We
are talking here about air pollution. I
believe if we will follow that doctrine
of total commitment that we can do
something about this problem. Other-
wise, we will be back here next year
or the year after that and we are
going to be overwhelmed by more
statistics about all the things that
need to be done.
The fact of the matter is that you
have people in the rural areas and in
the urban areas such as mine who are
continuing to breathe this filth jn
ever-increasing numbers. It seems to
me this is a logical approach. The
Congress always has the opportunity
to work its will. If after 3 or 4 or 5
years we do see that there is real sig-
nificant progress being made, the Con-
gress can always repeal this amend-
ment. What the Congress does—it can
undo with the same expedition.
But I say to you, this amendment
today would serve notice on the manu-
facturers that they have 8 years—and
that is all—8 years in which to do
something about this problem or they
will be out of business. It is going to
take that kind of severe action by the
legislative branch of the Government
to get this job done.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PUCINSKI. I yield to the
gentleman from West Virginia, the
chairman of this committee, for whom
I have great respect and who I think
is doing a magnificent job on this
committee.
Mr. STAGGERS. I thank the
gentleman for yielding and for his
comments.
Does the gentleman agree that the
Secretary now has the right to ban
any new motor vehicles if they do not
meet certain standards?
Mr. PUCINSKI. Yes, I do, Mr.
Chairman, but I want to tell you that
one thing that has been my greatest
single disappointment in my 10 years
of service in this legislative body is
the extent to which special interests
and vested interests affect every move
of this Government.
So while the Secretary does have
powers, and there is no question about
it, the fact of the matter is that these
people come in here screaming about
an $80 billion industry and every time
that somebody wants to move in a
positive way and a forward direction,
he gets boxed in and locked in by the
special interests.
Mr. STAGGERS. The gentleman
from Illinois says then that the Sec-
retary does have the power, but yet
you are still not going to let him set
the standards—because the Congress
is not expert and cannot set the stand-
ards. We in Congress have no agency
and no body of experts—no one. So
they have to set the standards and
they do have that right at the present
time.
I say, for that reason, it is good to
bring this to the attention of the Con-
gress and to an agency, but you are
duplicating the Secretary's powers
that he does have today and he would
only have to carry them out.
Mr. PUCINSKI. In reply to the
very eloquent statement made by the
chairman, the gentleman from West
Virginia [Mr. STAGGERS], of course,
this Congress is not equipped to cross
every "t" and dot every "i" and we
have to delegate to the administrators
of these bills the promulgation of
rules and regulations and standards.
But I must tell you in all honesty
-------
1038
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
and sincerity that I have lost faith
I have lost confidence in some of these
administrators. This is a Government
of three coequal branches and
I consider this legislative body a
coequal branch of our Government. So
I stand here on my own two feet today
and I feel capable and I hope that every
other Member of this Chamber can
stand here and feel capable of making
a decision as a legislator to say that
after 8 years there shall be no more
manufacturing of engines that lead to
the sort of filth that is killing our
cities. I think I am capable of making
that decision. I do not ask the Con-
gress to cross every "t" or dot every
"i" but basically on a fundamental
policy decision, I do not intend to
abdicate my responsibility to some
bureaucrat down range who makes
these decisions that are totally unre-
sponsive to the needs of the people in
our districts. I will make that decision
and that is why I support this amend-
ment.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PUCINSKI. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New York, the author of
the amendment.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. I just want to
state that we are not setting the
standards. The standards that I put
in my amendment are the standards
set by the State of California in the
purchase of their vehicles. That is all
that I do.
We would not be putting them out
of business—all we would say to the
producers of automobiles is, "You
manufacture engines that will not
emit any more hydrocarbons or what-
ever it is that causes air pollution
greater than the standards set by the
State of California in their purchase
of automobiles."
That is all I seek to do by my
amendment.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PUCINSKI. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. WAGGONNER. The gentle-
man talks eloquently about total com-
mitment and the problem of getting
rid of pollution. Is the gentleman
ready to say that we will not allow
the cities to utilize coal or fuel oil for
heating pur-
[p. 24370]
poses because there is pollution that
comes from their use?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Illinois has expired.
(On request of Mr. WAGGONNEK,
and by unanimous consent, Mr. PuciN-
SKI was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. WAGGONNER. If the gentle-
man will yield further, is the gentle-
man willing to take that position?
Mr. PUCINSKI. Yes. In fact, in
Chicago the Commonwealth Edison
Co. right now is undertaking a multi-
million-dollar conversion from coal to
other means of providing fuel to
generate electricity for that very
reason. I support every one of those
moves. I support every single move.
In fact I am perfectly willing to make
sure our own garbage disposal plants
are forced to use whatever methods
are possible to eliminate pollution.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Has the
gentleman checked with Consolidated
Edison to see how long it would take
them to convert the total heating
requirements in the city of Chicago,
where he lives, so that no longer will
fuel oil or any other fuel which causes
pollution be used? Would it not be
wise to know before we start drawing
deadlines?
Mr. PUCINSKI. The fact is that
the Edison Co. is now—not 1 year
from now, not 2 years from now, not
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1039
5 years from now—now—in the proc-
ess of conversion because they realize
the problem of pollution. So all the
gentleman here says is that we are
serving notice. Now, in 5 years, 3
years, or 2 years, if we can find that
these statistics are meaningful, if
indeed there is an appreciable decrease
in pollutants, I will be the first one to
stand here and argue for the repeal of
this amendment.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Before the
gentleman argues this, rather than
using the word "if," would it not be
better to know?
Mr. PUCINSKI. The fact is my
friend knows that we have talked
about pollution, and we passed the
original act that held out hope for
mankind. Look at the progress that
has been made.
Mr. WAGGONNER. This is a state-
ment that the Congress always makes.
We hold up some new token legisla-
tion as a program that will produce
an ideal situation. The gentleman
from California [Mr. BROWN] who
preceded the gentleman from Illinois,
talked as you do about getting rid of
pollution. Upon finishing his eloquent
remarks, he walked over to the rail
where he lit up a cigar that has now
polluted this Chamber, and there is
more smoke in here than there was to
begin with. In the interest of getting
rid of pollution, I would suggest that
the gentleman pay attention and look
at the smoke his cigar is giving off
now. Yes, the situation can be im-
proved but total accomplishment is a
dream. We must as we move forward
be practical. This amendment is not
practical.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the last word. I would
like to address my remarks to the
very able gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. PUCINSKI]. The greatest source
of pollutants, as I understand, in your
congressional district, is the airplane.
The largest airport in the world is
located either in your district or at
the edge of it. Is that correct?
Mr. PUCINSKI. That is correct.
Mr. SPRINGER. That is the great-
est source of pollutants that you have.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPRINGER. All you have to do
is to have a resolution in legal form
passed by the Cook County Board of
Commissioners saying that no airplane
can land in Cook County until the
engines of those airplanes reach a
certain rate of emission. That will
solve your problem entirely. So it is
within the ability of the board of
commissioners of Cook County to
resolve the question entirely, may I
say, to the gentleman's satisfaction.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will
my colleague yield?
Mr. SPRINGER. I yield to the
gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PUCINSKI. I am sure the
gentleman realizes that this is an un-
acceptable alternative. No one has
seriously suggested we close down
O'Hare. But I will tell you what one
alternative is, and I am trying to
pursue it. I am suggesting to the city
of Chicago that it file an injunction
suit against the airlines to bar them
from polluting the air with their
engine emissions. I want to get this
matter into court. The court will then
set a cutoff period, after which these
airplanes will have to comply with our
air pollution standards or be barred
from further operation. I do not
know how many years it would be, but
the court would set a reasonable date
when they have to retrofit their air-
craft with nonpolluting engines. Pratt
Whitney has developed an engine that
does not pollute the air. The only
thing is that the airlines have been
-------
1040
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
dragging their feet on retrofitting
their aircraft with these new engines.
The tax reform bill that we passed
before the recess—and which is now
before the Senate Finance Committee,
would give the airlines an incentive to
make the change because it provides a
faster writeoff through depreciation
of antipollution engines. Perhaps that
will do the trick. I do not know. But I
am trying to get this whole matter
into the courts, where the courts will
set the date for an end to air pollution
by aircraft, as this Congress is now
being asked to set a date for an end
to pollution by automobiles. I am
sure the court will set a reasonable
date when it realizes the extent of
pollution presently caused by the air-
lines.
There is no reason why the airlines
should not be compelled to observe
the same antipollution regulations that
we impose on all other industry. I
believe we should seek the same kind
of injunctive relief as the city of
Newark is seeking through an in-
junction against the airlines.
I want to make it clear I am not
trying to prohibit aircraft operation.
I merely want to seek a court order
which would set a reasonable date
to compel the airlines to install pol-
lution-free engines in their planes.
The tax reform bill permits them
to recapture their investment through
an accelerated depreciation in 5 years
instead of the usual 15 years. With
this kind of an incentive, there is
no reason why the airlines should not
be compelled to retrofit in a reason-
able time.
Mr. SPRINGER. I am suggesting
that the gentleman has an easy alter-
native that can be done in 30 days.
Mr. KOCH, Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the amendment offered
by the gentleman from New York
[Mr. FARBSTEIN]. I concur with the
statements made by the gentleman
from California [Mr. BROWN] and
others who have spoken in favor of
this amendment.
I want to point out some additional
facts to the Member. It is not po'ssible
to close down the Chicago airport be-
cause there have already been cases on
that, and it has been decided that is a
Federal responsibility and no locality
can impose its will with respect to
aviation standards. That is why we
cannot do that in New York and that
is why it cannot be done any place
else. We have tried it in New York.
So it is the obligation of this Congress
if we are to get air pollution stand-
ards affecting the aviation industry.
What distresses me most is to have
a scientist like Dr. DuBridge saying
it will be 21 years before we can have
a nonpolluting automobile engine.
That simply is not acceptable.
I know industry will never do any-
thing in the area of public safety
unless it has the carrot and the stick
•—the carrot, which is the money to do
the research and the stick, which is
the law, the law to compel them to
do it.
The automobile industry did not
move in the area of safety until Ralph
Nader spoke up and this Congress
ultimately passed laws on the subject.
The industry does not do it because of
the goodness of its heart; indeed
industry fought the safety standards
every step of the way.
Similarly, the tobacco industry,
when the bill regulating its com-
mercials was before this House not
very long ago, fought every step of
the way, and we unfortunately yielded
to them. It is only because of the
action of the other body that the
cigarette industry has given up the
fight with respect to radio and tele-
vision advertising. Remember how
they said it would be terrible? Now
they have done it voluntarily—again
under pressure.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1041
Similarly, the automobile industry
yielded and has met the deadline on
safety, and again they did it under
pressure.
This country loses hundreds of
millions of dollars every year because
of air pollution. It costs more and
more money. More important it also
costs in human health. There are
people whose lives are shorter today,
not just because of pollution caused
by the automobile industry, but by
pollution generally, by the electric
companies, and by cigarette smoking,
and by all the other things we hear
about, and the industries fight every
attempt to safeguard the health of the
public.
Do we just say to our citizens they
are unimportant? Professor DuBridge
says, not that they are unimportant,
but he says we should wait 21 years
before we abolish the condition. The
President of the United States, in one
of his most uninspired speeches, con-
curred.
I think if we had the commitment
and
[p. 24371]
provided the resources, and if we
set a date of 3 years or 8 years or
whatever the number of years, the
automobile industry, if it were under
the gun of law, would find the way to
do it.
I say if we are going to have a
better America and have cleaner
cities, we will have to make them
more habitable. Some of the scientists
have said that some of our cities will
be uninhabitable by 1990. We cannot
wait until 1990 to remove the causes
of air pollution. We can do something
meaningful now with the passage of
this amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOCH. I yield to the gentle-
man from Florida.
Mr. EOGEKS of Florida. Mr.
Chairman, I know the gentleman
from New York is concerned. I pre-
sume he is also concerned, as are
others who have talked about this,
with the automobile deaths at the rate
of 50,000 to 55,000 per year, plus all
the injuries, and so on, but I have
not seen any amendments to say we
are going to ban the automobile. This
is the approach the gentleman is
using. Rather than ban the auto, the
Congress has been trying to do some-
thing about safety.
Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, if I
may respond to that, those people who
cause deaths by automobiles are
punished for negligence civilly or with
criminal action. There is a law
against drunken driving. There does
not happen to be a law against pollu-
tion which is severe enough to do
the job.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. If there
is a drunken driver, of course, he is
punished, but we do not simply go
about it by abolishing the vehicle,
because it contributes too much to
our society.
Mr. KOCH. The gentleman is
absolutely correct, and we are not sug-
gesting we get rid of the automobile
but we are suggesting the automobile
should be measurably improved.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr.
Chairman, if the gentleman will per-
mit me, the gentleman is saying there
should be no automobiles by a certain
date. The gentleman is saying they
are banned. I do not think the gentle-
man really wants to take that
approach.
Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, I accept
what the gentleman is saying in the
spirit in which he says it, but the
gentleman is in error in interpreting
what I am saying. I am not saying
that there should not be any auto-
mobiles, but I am saying there should
not be any internal- or external-com-
bustion engines which do not meet
-------
1042
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
non-air-pollution standards. I am say-
ing if the art is not presently avail-
able to make the engine nonpolluting
that we give the industry a time limit
in which to do this. Frankly, I believe
the technology is presently available.
We have gone to the moon in less than
10 years, and many people thought we
could not do it. We did it because we
had the commitment and provided the
funds. I guarantee if we say Detroit
must do this in this time schedule, the
manufacturers will find the way and
do it.
[p. 24372]
Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the amendment. The
people of this country, and particu-
larly in the metropolitan areas, run
great danger of being strangled today
from the air pollution that we are
throwing into our atmosphere. It
amounts now to some 133 million tons
of particulate pollution per year. That
is almost double our annual produc-
tion of iron and steel in this country.
A large majority of that pollution
is produced by the internal combustion
engine.
Scientists with whom I have con-
sulted concerning the electric car and
the steamcar say that these means of
propelling vehicles are within just a
very few years of becoming both
economically and technologically
feasible. Last year I was privileged
to offer an amendment to the Clean
Air Act that would have promoted
production of such vehicles.
The automobile companies in this
country, on the other hand, have such
a tremendous commitment to the exist-
ing mode of propulsion that they show
no real inclination to do the research
and to put forth the effort necessary
to effect a transition.
This amendment would put them on
notice that the Congress is really
serious about doing something about
a condition which is threatening the
health of the people of this country.
I praise my colleague from New
York [Mr. FARBSTEIN] for offering
this amendment and urge its adoption.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. ROGERS] .
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I oppose very strongly the
amendment, and I think that anyone
who takes the time to read the amend-
ment will oppose it. Everybody wants
to try to stop pollution,, but the com-
mittee has gone into this problem
very carefully, and has reported a
very effective bill to the House.
In effect, what the gentleman would
do, although he says he would ban
automobiles in 1978, he is simply turn-
ing over to the State of California the
setting of standards. Right now we
have set up in the bill the fact that
the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare must set standards. If
we set specific standards in a bill this
then becomes a goal. I do not believe
we want to do that, because I believe
we want to do better, and we ought
not to say that the standards pro-
posed in this amendment are all that
Congress wants to accomplish. We may
want to do better than .75 gram per
mile of oxides of nitrogen, which is
specifically set forth in the amend-
ment, or .11 gram per mile of carbon
monoxide, or .5 gram per mile of
reactive hydrocarbon. That is simply
setting up California's present stand-
ards. We had better be looking toward
the future, and not set pollution
controls on a standard of the past.
Mr. Chairman, I hope this amend-
ment will be soundly defeated, as it
should be.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. RIEGLE].
Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment, and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1043
I wish to associate myself with the
earlier remarks of my colleague from
Michigan [Mr. HARVEY].
I understand the concern of those
who wish to reduce air pollution, and
I share that concern. Certainly it is a
pressing national issue.
I hope that we are going to be able
to control this problem, and that
industry, generally, will beat the sug-
gested timetable proposed in this
amendment.
But as the Chairman suggests, the
Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare has the power now to estab-
lish whatever emission standards he
determines to be in the national
interest.
This amendment does nothing to
add to the body of expert knowledge
now available to the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare.
Further, beneath the Federal level,
State and local authorities have the
right to establish emission standards
at whatever level they deem appropri-
ate in their particular environments.
It is a well-intentioned amendment,
but it is blind in its impact in that it
presumes events 8 years into the
future. Such a move is really a poor
substitute for careful administrative
decisions by the experts on this
problem.
So I urge the defeat of this amend-
ment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from California
[Mr. BURTON].
Mr. BURTON of California. Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
proceed out of the regular order.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from California?
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is
heard.
The Chair recognizes the gentle-
man from Ohio [Mr. MILLER].
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Mr. Chair-
man, I take this time because I am not
positive that we know exactly what we
are doing. I understand that in the
beginning the amendment was not
read, so I ask unanimous consent at
this time that the amendment be read.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. MILLER] ?
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES
Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chair-
man, a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
will state the parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman state his
unanimous consent request again
please?
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. I understand
that the amendment in the beginning
was not read. I am not positive that I
understand exactly what the amend-
ment consists of from some of the
remarks that have been made on the
floor and I believe we should have the
amendment read.
Mr. PUCHINSKI. Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
will state the parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, am
I to understand that if the amend-
ment is read, it will come out of the
total time allotted before debate closes,
and if the answer is "Yes," then I will
have to object and we can have the
amendment read after we have con-
sumed the time agreed to for debate.
The CHAIRMAN. The time will not
come out of the time limitation.
Mr. PUCINSKI. I thank the Chair-
man.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. MILLER] ?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read the amendment.
The Clerk read the amendment.
-------
1044
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Ohio has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Mr. Chair-
man, earlier today the gentleman from
Illinois made a comment about the air
pollution around O'Hare Field at
Chicago. Now I would like to ask the
author, will this amendment have any-
thing to do with the control of jet
engines?
Mr. FARBSTEIN. No, it does not
concern such vehicles or jet engines in
airplanes. The purpose of the amend-
ment is concerning automobiles only.
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Strictly auto-
mobiles? Are there plans for any
limitations of time as to when jet
engines would be restricted?
[p. 24374]
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Let us be suc-
cessful with this amendment and if
we are successful with this amend-
ment, then we can start to operate
on the others.
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. The subject
of jet engines seemed to take up a lot
of our time this afternoon and that is
why I wanted to make it clear
whether we are talking of automobile
engines or jet airplane engines.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. I yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, in
my discussion I referred to airplane
engine pollution in the context of the
total problem of pollution and I was
not suggesting in any way that that
would be affected by this amendment.
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. I thank the
gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman,
since reason gained dominance over
instinct, man has become the most
destructive of all living creatures.
This whole problem of pollution is a
manmade problem. The problem of
fumes being emitted by automobiles
is not a new problem. But there is no
question that the automobile today is
the most serious of all polluters in this
country, simply because there are
more of those particular vehicles in
the country than any other polluter.
We can always repeal this amend-
ment. I call my colleagues' attention to
section C of the amendment that was
just read. It does not bar the pro-
duction or manufacture of engines.
It does not mean, as has been sug-
gested here, that in 8 years there will
be no more automobiles in the country.
Not at all. All this amendment does is
to say to the automobile manufacturers
and the engine manufacturers that
this House has voted a total commit-
ment to deal with this problem, and
we are giving them 8 years in which
to do it. We are giving them 8 years
to bring down the amount of pollu-
tion that they emit to meet the
acceptable standards.
I honestly do not see how any well-
meaning Member can vote against
this amendment. It is a necessary
amendment. It does not put them out
of business tomorrow. This House can
always repeal the amendment if
indeed they meet this target before
the 8 years. So I hope the amendment
is agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from New York
[Mr. FARBSTEIN].
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman,
for almost 75 years the automobile
producers have been refining the in-
ternal combustion engine, and what
have we gotten after 75 years? A vast
increase in the level of air pollution,
particularly in our largest urban
areas, has been the result; and with
it disease and death. As far as I am
concerned one life is worth more
than the entire automobile industry.
Unless we force them to make the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1045
necessary changes in their automo-
biles—for which the technology now
exists—nothing is going to be done
in the next 75 years.
We hear pious statements to the
effect that they are making advances
in curing the situation. Seventy-five
years is certainly long1 enough to wait.
We see what the result has been. Are
we going to wait for the sitution to
reach the severity of a Tokyo? This
may surprise you. They have oxygen
tents on street corners in Tokyo.
Otherwise automobile operators could
not keep on driving.
In Los Angeles they tell teachers
not to permit the children to exercise
outside on certain days when there is
smog, and over 90 percent of that
smog is produced by internal com-
bustion engines. We have the tech-
nology and the means to manufacture
automobiles which do not emit, or at
least greatly decrease the level of
pollutants in the air.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
FEIGHAN] .
Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Chairman, I
support H.R. 12085, which is of major
significance in our commitment to
improve the condition of air in our
cities. The bill would extend the pro-
visions of the existing act, paving the
way for further research and develop-
ment in the control of pollution result-
ing from the combustion of fuels.
Although technical advances have
been made in this area, if, as is likely,
motor vehicle registrations continue to
increase, the blight caused by fuel
combustion will become uncontrollable.
At this time, driving an automobile 25
miles at a moderate speed uses up
more breatheable air than 7,000,000
people will use in the same period of
time. One meteorologist has gone so
far as to predict that by the year
2025, the air will be so polluted that
we will all die of asphyxiation. While
one may readily look askance at the
degree of these kinds of predictions,
there is an alarm sounded. We are
called to action now to avoid an even
more serious problem in the future.
As brought out in the committee
hearings, the automobile industry has
no economic incentives to conduct the
necessary research in the area of
emission-free automobiles. Conse-
quently, persons outside the industry
must be encouraged through adequate
financial support to carry on the
sorely needed business of making the
air breatheable. In the past, there
simply have not been sufficient moneys
appropriated for research in this
specific cause of pollution, even though
it is the source of 60 percent of the
problem.
All levels of government are in-
volved in the control of air pollution,
but the Federal Government must
take the lead. Extending the pro-
gram of research through H.R. 12085
will give State and local governments
added tools to aid in following through
with their enforcement programs.
The well-being of our Nation de-
pends on our continuing commitment
to clean air for our cities. Therefore,
I urge my colleagues to support this
most worthy legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from West Vir-
ginia [Mr. STAGGERS].
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman
and Members of the House, I rise
again to oppose this amendment. I
say that the amendment is completely
unnecessary. It is covered by the law
now. I sympathize with these gentle-
men who are trying to bring this
matter to the forefront, but we have
other problems besides the automobile.
In Chicago we have talked about the
airplane and the pollutants in the air
resulting from the airplane, but a
major problem in that city is sulfur
-------
1046
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
oxides that come from the steel in-
dustry to a great extent.
In New York City their municipal
incinerators are the greatest con-
taminators of the city. In Houston,
Tex., the chemicals emitted by industry
in that city are the greatest cause of
danger. So we have different problems
all over the country. We do not have
only one thing that we must attack.
We must go about it in an overall
effort, and that is why we are trying
to extend the time for research under
this bill.
I say the amendment is completely
unnecessary. I know the gentleman
from New York is sincere in what he
is trying to do. He has always been a
great Member of the Congress, and
has always tried to be helpful.
I am sure if the gentleman under-
stood and knew the law as it is now
written, he would understand the
amendment is completely unnecessary
to this legislation.
(Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN asked and
was given permission to extend his
remarks at this point in the RECORD.)
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, I take this time to express my
support for extending section 104 of
the Clean Air Act which would pro-
vide for 1 additional year of research
and development in the prevention and
control of air pollution.
As my colleagues are well aware,
we, in California, have experienced
unique problems with regard to smog
and air pollution in general. As a
result, our State has taken the
initiative to develop and implement
what I believe is a very unique and
far-reaching clean air program that
Governor Reagan and Senator Mxm-
PHY, in particular, have worked very
hard to advance.
The California plan is basically de-
signed to help alleviate the serious
smog problem in the Los Angeles
Basin and to prevent future air pollu-
tion problems in other areas of the
State.
One of my primary concerns with
this legislation has been to insure that
nothing in it will limit or inhibit
California's on-going efforts in this
regard and I have been assured by
several of my colleagues on the Inter-
state and Foreign Commerce Com-
mittee that nothing in this bill will
adversely affect the California clean
air program.
But, as we all recognize, pollution
is a very serious and compelling
national problem and there is much
that remains to be learned about its
actual causes, effects, and methods of
prevention and control. In the final
analysis, this knowledge can only be
gained through further extensive re-
search and development.
Certainly, favorable action on this
legislation would have the effect of
reaffirming and reinforcing the Fed-
eral Government's commitment toward
a
[p. 24375]
fully successful effort to restore clean
air to the Nation's cities and towns.
The Federal Government, however,
cannot and should not be expected to
assume total responsibility for com-
bating air pollution. In this regard, it
is section 104 of the Clean Air Act
which most clearly spells out the need
for comprehensive involvement of the
private sector in the never-ending
search for solutions to these problems.
(Mr. PICKLE asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at
this point in the RECORD.)
Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in strong support of this bill. The
research and development in the area
of improved methods to control the
air pollution resulting from combusti-
ble fuels is as important an any
matter our Government is acting on
today.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1047
The amendment which the gentle-
man from New York has offered to
prevent the manufacture of any
combustible engines within 10 years
time is startling to say the least.
I think we all recognize that it is
offered more for sensational reasons
rather than for serious hopes of
passage. At the same time, I do
recognize that the intent probably is
to bring attention to the very serious
problem facing the people of the
world with respect to the pollution
of air, not only in the automobile in-
dustry but in all phases of air pollu-
tion.
If the Congress had not taken im-
portant first steps in this matter, the
amendment offered might have more
meaning. The Congress, however, has
through the Clean Air Act and the
Air Quality Act laid out the guide-
lines for the initial steps that must
be taken. Every Member ought to read
title I of the Air Pollution Prevention
and Control Act, section 104 (A) and
(B). Here is listed the very strong,
clear directive to the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare that
positive and immedate steps should
be taken to find a better solution to
this problem. This is being done and
good progress is being made. To pass
such an amendment as offered by the
gentleman from New York would be
to take a drastic and almost unthink-
able step.
At the same time, we all should
admit that air pollution is as serious
as any problem facing us in the
world. A ride during the summertime
through the streets of any major city
in America is an open invitation for
discomfort, if not nausea. If we do not
do something about this problem, the
prospects are horrifying. I personally
think that present conditions could be
harmful to the health of this Nation.
It has far outstripped the point of
unpleasantness. It has become a health
menace. Although only a few of the
very largest cities in our country are
threatened at this point, principally
Los Angeles, New York, and perhaps
Chicago, it is obvious to all what will
happen if corrective steps are not
taken. In other parts of the world,
the problem is even more severe.
Recently, it was my privilege to visit
the city of Tokyo, Japan, and the
smog of air pollution hangs over that
city of 11 million people like an
ominous blanket, cutting off vision and
making breathing difficult. I am
advised that city has not yet really
come to grips with the air pollution
problem caused primarily by industry,
but automobile pollution, of course, is
a contributing factor. The cities of
this country will face the same fate if
we do not go forward in bold and
aggressive steps.
I am confident that we have made a
proper beginning, and I am confident
that Government and industry to-
gether can come up with better
answers. But the offender is not just
the automobile industry; it is a broad-
spread matter and our Government
should approach it from that stand-
point.
Mr. PRICE of Texas. Mr. Chair-
man, in view of the interest expressed
by the President and my colleagues
here in the concept of eliminating air
pollution created by carbon monoxide
fumes due to automobile engines, I
want to call the House's attention to
an electric car designed by the EMV
Corp. of Littlefield, Tex. The princi-
pals in the corporation have furnished
me with a booklet which fully
describes and pictures the electric car
which they hope will revolutionize the
auto industry.
I only wish my colleagues could see
each of the impressive photos of this
remarkable automobile, which is now
in its final testing stages. A second
prototype model will be produced in
-------
1048
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Amarillo, Tex., during the next
several months and subsequent to that
several production models will be built.
I include several pages from the
corporation's explanatory material in
the RECORD at this point for my
colleagues' benefit:
A REVOLUTION IN TRANSPORTATION
A dream has become a reality which will
give birth to a revolution in the automobile
transportation industry. Production is being
planned for the first practical electric car
ever built. Top cruising speed of the Electri-
car is 50 m.p.h. for best economy on bat-
tery usage. The car can be driven approxi-
mately 120 miles before a recharge. At pres-
ent, it takes eight hours to recharge the
system, however, a 15 to 20 minute recharge
method is currently in development. The re-
charger can be plugged into any normal 110-
volt electrical outlet. The battery system
could go as long as a week without recharg-
ing, depending on its use, however, it should
be recharged every night to prolong its life.
A full-cycle recharge, which requires eight
hours, takes approximately 8c worth of elec-
tricity. The Electricar has a set of eight six-
volt industrial batteries wired in series,
placed directly behind the seat. The batteries
need a total of one or two gallons of water
at intervals in a year's time. The batteries
will last 3 to SVz years. Normally, the wet
acid batteries can be bought anywhere for
$18 to $20 each. The heating system assures
quick warmth for the batteries in cold
weather, providing maximum efficiency. To
get the car to 50 m.p.h., 28 amperes are
required.
The car has three forward speeds and a
reverse. The electrical control unit is adapta-
ble to any electric motor on which various
rates of speed might be desired, and controls
both AC and DC current. The electrical con-
trols and batteries can be replaced in a few
minutes by a quick snap-out exchange. The
overall design of the Electricar is so simple
that any garage can repair the mechanical
brakes, repack the wheel bearings, or refill
the transmission. The average annual cost
of operation is approximately $12 to $20 for
recharging the batteries, a few cents for
grease and transmission oil when needed, and
approximately one gallon of water per year
to properly service the battery. The cost of
the five-horsepower electric motor ia approx-
imately $125. The motor should have a life
of 25 to 30 years, and simple rewinding of
the motor will be the most expensive upkeep
required. Without the batteries, the total
weight of the car is 700 pounds.
Air pollution from automobiles would be
completely eliminated. The prototype has
performed very successfully in various types
of driving tests, including climbing 700 feet
in a distance of 1.1 miles. The estimated
selling price of the Electricar is $2,000. Other
possible uses of the product include sand
buggies, golf carts, delivery vans, taxis, lawn
mowers, mail trucks, and airport vehicles.
The body of the ear is made in one piece of
fiberglass. An entire new body for the car
costs only approximately $250. The body can
be patched like a fiberglass boat or other
such structure very inexpensively. The front
seat of the car very comfortably seats three
people. The average automobile has 15,000
movable parts, the Electricar has less than
500, including the ball bearings and the
wheels. The current model weighs 2,000
pounds, however, the production model will
be reduced in weight to approximately 1,400
pounds.
THE ELECTRICAR
Width: 64 inches.
Height: 3 feet 10 inches.
Overall length: 14% feet.
Wheelbase: 96 inches.
Trackage: 53 inches.
Weight: 2,000 pounds.
Electric motor: 5 horsepower.
Equipped with eight six-volt batteries,
weighing 70 pounds each.
Solid state control system.
EMV CORP.
The EMV Corp. (Electrically Motivated
Vehicle Corp.) is the designer and developer
of the Electricar. The Corporation was
chartered by the State of Texas in Septem-
ber of 1967. The Corporation has 34 stock-
holders from Littlefield, Tulia, Dumas,
Gainesville and Amarillo, all located in
Texas. Five thousand shares of stock have
been issued at $10 per share.
Principal officers of the Corporation are
D. L. (Cotton) Whatley, President. Glen
Cowsar, Vice President; and Jim Finch, EMV
Secretary-Treasurer. These officers all cur-
rently live in Amarillo, Texas.
A contract has been signed between the
EMV Corporation and the Littlefield Indus-
trial Corporation calling for Littlefield,
Texas, to become headquarters for the de-
velopment of the Electricar.
A second prototype model will be produced
in Amarillo during the next four to five
months. Subsequent to that, several produc-
tion models are planned, and will be built
in Littlefield.
Further information about the develop-
ment of the car can be secured from any of
the principal officers mentioned above, or
from Mr. Jack Wicker, President of the Se-
curity State Bank, Littlefield, Texas, and also
a member of the Littlefield Industrial Cor-
poration. Also, information may be obtained
from Mayor J. E. Chisholm, of Littlefleld.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1049
The CHAIRMAN. All time has
expired.
The question is on the amendment
to the committee amendment offered
by the gentleman from New York
[Mr. FARBSTEIN].
The question was taken; and on a
division (demanded by Mr. FARB-
STEIN) there were—ayes 22, noes 99.
So the amendment to the committee
amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the committee amendment.
[p. 24376]
The committee amendment was
agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose;
and the Speaker having resumed the
chair, Mr. GALLAGHER, Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under
consideration the bill (H.R. 12085) to
amend the Clean Air Act to extend
the program of research relating to
fuel and vehicles, pursuant to House
Resolution 518, he reported the bill
back to the House with an amend-
ment adopted by the Committee of the
Whole.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule,
the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the engrossment and third reading of
the bill.
The bill was ordered to be en-
grossed and read a third time, and
was read the third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
The question was taken, and the
Speaker announced that the ayes ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, I
object to the vote on the ground that
a quorum is not present and make the
point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a
quorum is not present.
The Doorkeeper will close the doors,
the Sergeant at Arms will notify
absent Members, and the Clerk will
call the roll.
The question was taken; and there
were—yeas 332, nays 0, not voting
99, * * *.
*****
So the bill was passed.
Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Speaker, pur-
suant to House Resolution 518, I call
up from the Speaker's table for im-
mediate consideration the bill S. 2276.
The Clerk read the title of the
Senate bill.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as
follows:
s. 2276
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. FRIEDEL
Be it enacted by the Senate and Home
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That section
104(c) of the Clean Air Act is amended by
striking out "the fiscal year ending June 30,
1969" and inserting in lieu thereof "each of
the fiscal years ending June 30, 1969, and
June 30, 1970".
Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Speaker, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
[p. 24377]
Amendment offered by Mr. FRIEDEL: Strike
out all after the enacting clause of S. 2276
and insert in lieu thereof the provisions of
H.R. 12085 as passed, as follows:
"That the first sentence of section 104 (c)
of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1867b-l(e» is
amended by striking out 'and*, and by strik-
ing out the period at the end thereof and
inserting in lieu thereof ', and for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1970, $18,700,000.'"
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FRIEDEL. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa.
526-702 O - 73 -- 31
-------
1050
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, may I
ask the gentleman from Maryland
what is the nature of this legislation?
Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Speaker, we
have just passed a House bill, and we
are seeking to substitute in the Senate
bill the language passed by the House.
It is a similar bill.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank
the gentleman.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Maryland.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Senate bill was ordered to be
read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed, and a motion to
reconsider was laid on the table.
A similar House bill (H.R. 12085)
was laid on the table.
[p. 24378]
l.li(4)(c) Nov. 25: House and Senate agreed to conference report,
pp. 35640; 35805-35807
CONFERENCE REPORT
ON S. 2276, CLEAN AIR ACT
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I
call up the conference report on the
bill (S. 2276) to extend for 1 year
the authorization for research relating
to fuels and vehicles under the pro-
visions of the Clean Air Act, and ask
unanimous consent that the statement
of the managers on the part of the
House be read in lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
West Virginia?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
(For conference report and state-
ment, see proceedings of the House of
November 24, 1969.)
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I
move the previous question on the con-
ference report.
The previous question was ordered.
The conference report was agreed
to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
[p. 35640]
CLEAN AIR ACT-
CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
submit a report of the committee of
conference on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the amendment of
the House to the bill (S. 2276) to
extend for 1 year the authorization
for research relating to fuels and
vehicles under the provisions of the
Clean Air Act. I ask unanimous con-
sent for the present consideration of
the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
report will be read for the informa-
tion of the Senate.
The assistant legislative clerk read
the report.
(For conference report, see House
proceedings of November 24, 1969, p.
H11294, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection to the present consid-
eration of the report?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the report.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, on
July 8 the Senate unanimously agreed
to a 1-year extension of the broadened
research and demonstration section of
the Clean Air Act. Without this
legislation the Appropriations Com-
mittee would be unable to fund the
fuels combustion research efforts
which are so vitally needed to achieve
control of fossil-fuel-fired powerplants
and automobile engines. The House of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1051
Representatives passed the National
Air Pollution Control Administration
budget without funds for this section
due to the lack of an authorization.
The conference committee agreed on
[p. 35805]
an amount 50 percent less than that
which was. passed by the Senate and
which represents a $26.3 million in-
crease over the House figure. The
House committee argued that there
was no need to authorize an amount in
excess of the administration's budget
request. The Senate conferees dis-
agreed and indicated a strong belief
that the purpose of an authorizing
committee was to indicate program
need, not program expenditure. Also,
the Senate conferees did not think
that the administration's budget
request would provide an adequate
research investment this year.
Mr. President, across the Nation
people have spoken out for air pollu-
tion control. The manifestations of
public opinion which have occurred in
public hearing after public hearing
in numerous air quality regions have
indicated a growing demand for clean
air.
I will speak on this subject in the
near future when I discuss implemen-
tation of the Air Quality Act. How-
ever, suffice it to say that air quality
standards are being set. In many
regions, plans for implementation will
soon have to be developed. Those plans
for implementation will depend on the
availability of technology, alternative
fuels, and other methods of reducing
air pollution. Control technology for
oxides of sulfur, one of the two
pollutants for which standards are
being set, other than alternative fuels
and low sulfur fuels, is not available.
It was primarily for this purpose that
this section was enacted in 1967.
There is a limited supply of low
sulfur coal which will be available in
most communities to meet standards
now. But a major technological break-
through will be required to assure
compliance with the standards which
have been proposed and which meet
the Nation's energy demands at the
same time.
Mr. President, I understand that
those who sell and those who use high
sulfur coal are arguing against early
implementation of proposed standards
for sulfur oxides and are opposing use
of low sulfur coal because of costs.
They are content to wait until control
technology is developed pursuant to
this section of the Clean Air Act.
I find this unconscionable and unac-
ceptable. If air pollution control offi-
cials in any part of the Nation are in
fact not going to require alternative
fuels as a means of control and wait
for technology to be developed, I
would personally urge elimination of
this section of the law. Section 104
must not be used as an excuse to delay
effective control. Low sulfur coal and
alternative fuels must be used during
the entire period of technology
development.
Another area where more research
is needed is in developing alternatives
to the internal combustion engine and
a more effective means of controlling
the existing engine. Too little has been
done in this area. The administration
has been weak in its response to the
need to develop this technology. The
automobile industry has been guilty
of delay.
I would hope that, with this compro-
mise amount of $45 million, the Presi-
dent, the Director of the Bureau of
the Budget, and the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare would
take cognizance of the congressional
concern for this program and recog-
nize that $45 million is not merely a
compromise figure, but is a rejection
of an inadequate budget request and
an insistence on the part of the Con-
-------
1052
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
gress that additional funds be pro-
vided for this program.
Mr. President, today I have sent a
letter cosigned by Senator RANDOLPH
and other members of the Subcom-
mittee on Air and Water Pollution
requesting the Appropriations Com-
mittee to increase the funds for this
program this year in order that oxides
of sulfur research and motor vehicle
pollution control research can proceed
at an accelerated pace.
I hope that my colleagues will sup-
port me in this request.
I ask unanimous consent that the
letter to the Senator from Washington
[Mr. MAGNUSON] be printed in the
RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington, D.C., November US, 1989
Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
Chairman, Senate Appropriations Subcom-
mittee on Labor, Health, Education, and
Welfare, and Related Agencies, U.S. Sen-
ate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR WARREN : As you know, the Air Quality
Act of 1967 is a far-reaching and critically
important measure authorizing major Fed-
eral support for a national program of air
quality enhancement. Substantial progress
is being made toward the implementation of
this program. However, our capacity to
pollute exceeds our capacity to control pollu-
tion. For example, in the absence of control,
sulfur oxide air pollution levels will continue
to increase for the next ten years.
This situation need not continue. The Air
Quality Act of 1967 provided adequate au-
thority to develop necessary technology. How-
ever, appropriation and budget requests
for that program have been inadequate. In
1969 the Administration requested $31.3 mil-
lion for Section 104. Only $18.7 million were
appropriated. For FY 1970 the Administration
only requested $18.7 million for Section 104.
The effect of these reduced appropriations
will be continued delay in the development of
sulfur oxide and motor vehicle emissions
control technology. Standards are now being
set by the States under the Air Quality Act
for particulates and sulfur oxides, but effec-
tive long-term implementation of the sulfur
oxide standards may be delayed in the ab-
sence of technically feasible control systems.
Senate and House conferees have agreed
to authorize $45 million to carry out Section
104 in FY 1970 but, as mentioned above, the
Administration requested only $18.7 million.
The House did not appropriate any funds
for this section in the absence of an au-
thorization.
As you know, research and demonstration
efforts to control emissions from motor ve-
hicles and to develop alternatives to the
internal combustion engine are carried out
with Section 104 funds. This effort only re-
ceived approximately $4 million in 1969 for
new propulsion systems as well as control
methods applicable to existing systems. This
is obviously inadequate.
During recent hearings before your Sub-
committee, Mr. C. C. Johnson agreed with
Senator Case on the current status of sulfur
oxide control technology: "In other words,
we are at a very primitive state of the art
here." Air pollution control technologies
must keep pace with the standards setting
procedure by the states and the Federal pro-
gram must be strengthened in this area.
Yet, at this crucial time, the Administra-
tion reduced the fiscal 1970 budget of the
Consumer Protection and Environmental
Health Service by 13 percent, or $30 million.
Environmental quality must become a more
important priority. If the Administration
does not recognize this need, then the Con-
gress must make up the slack.
Your efforts to strengthen this program
by providing adequate funding for research
relating to the development of new and im-
proved methods to control fuel combustion
by-products will assist in indicating Con-
gressional concern.
We urge you to consider an increase in the
Section 104 appropriation to the authorized
level of $45 million, with a directive to em-
phasize development of sulfur oxide and
motor vehicle emission controls technology.
If we can be of further assistance in this
matter, please let me know.
Sincerely,
EDMUND S. MUSKIB.
HOWARD H. BAKER, Jr.
BIRCH BAYH.
THOMAS F. EAGLETON.
JOSEPH M. MONTOYA.
JENNINGS RANDOLPH.
WILLIAM B. SPONQ, Jr.
FUELS RESEARCH IS VITALLY ESSENTIAL
IN POLLUTION PROGRAMS
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, on
Thursday, November 20, following the
agreement of the House and Senate
conferees on S. 2276, I reported the
results of that conference to the
Senate. The $45 million which this bill
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1053
authorizes for research on controlling
air pollution from fuels combustion
and automobile emissions is needed to
fund this fiscal year's appropriation.
I reiterate that the amount of the
authorization falls short of the actual
needs for research funds in this field.
The authorization in this bill should
not be considered as a precedent for
future action. Next year the Com-
mittee on Public Works, through its
Subcommittee on Air and Water
Pollution, will review fuels combustion
research needs and attempts to estab-
lish authorizations which realistically
reflect them.
I hope that when the subcommittee
conducts its hearings in this area next
year that the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare will be able
to provide a clear statement of its
program and schedule for fuels com-
bustion research and for the develop-
ment of alternatives to the gasoline
internal combustion engine as pro-
pulsion for the automobile.
All of the projections for the energy
needs of the United States in the next
two or three decades, and all the pro-
jections for automobile production in
the near future indicate that the
quality of air of the urban centers of
the United States will continue to be
degraded unless these critical prob-
lems of eliminating the pollutants
from the combustion of fossil fuels
and from automobile emissions are
solved. There is no higher priority for
research and development in the field
of air pollution abatement than this
challenge. It is my hope that the
executive branch will assume greater
initiative in this area. The Congress
must act affirmatively.
[p. 35806]
Mr. MUSKIE. I urge the adoption
of the conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the con-
ference report.
The report was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
move to reconsider the vote by which
the conference report was agreed to.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, I move to lay that motion
on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
[p. 35807]
-------
1054 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
l.lj EXTENSION OF CLEAN AIR ACT
July 10, 1970, P.L. 91-316, 84 Stat. 416
AN ACT To extend the Clean Air Act, as amended, and the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act, as amended, for a period of sixty days
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That pend-
ing extensions by Act of Congress of the Clean Air Act and Solid
Waste Disposal Act, the authorizations contained in sections
104 (c) and 309 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1970, and the authorization contained in
section 210 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, shall remain available through
August 31,1970, notwithstanding any provisions of those sections.
Approved July 10,1970.
1.1 j(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
S. REP. No. 91-941, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
TEMPORARY EXTENSIONS OF CLEAN AIR AND
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
JUNE 23,1970.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. MUSKIE, from the Committee on Public Works,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 4012]
The Committee on Public Works reports a clean bill, S. 4012, and
recommends that the bill do pass.
The purpose of this bill is to provide an extension of the
authorization for the solid waste and air pollution programs.
This bill will continue those authorizations at their present level
through August 31, 1970. It is needed to provide time for careful
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1055
consideration of pending air quality and solid waste legislation.
The authorizations in existing law are greater than the levels of
appropriation requested in the President's budget. This extension
would allow appropriation for this 2-month period of the unap-
propriated balance of fiscal year 1970 authorizations. Therefore,
the Appropriations Committee can be guided by this resolution.
The Senate Committee on Public Works fully anticipates com-
pletion of action on both solid waste legislation and air pollution
legislation prior to the first of September. The Resource Recovery
Act, S. 2005, will be reported for Senate action in the near
future. Pending air pollution legislation will be available for
Senate floor action by mid-July.
-------
1056
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
l.lj(2) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 116 (1970)
1.1 j (2) (a) June 25: Considered and passed Senate, pp. 21363-21364
EXTENSION OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT AND SOLID WASTE DIS-
POSAL ACT
The bill (S. 4012) to extend the
Clean Air Act, as amended, and the
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended,
for a period of 60 days was con-
sidered, ordered to be engrossed for a
third reading, read the third time, and
passed, as follows:
S. 4012
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, That
pending extensions by Act of Congress of
the Clean Air Act and Solid Waste Disposal
Act, the authorizations contained in sec-
tions 104 (c) and 309 of the Clean Air Act,
as amended, for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1970, and the authorization con-
tained in section 210 of the Solid Waste
[p. 21363]
Disposal Act, as amended, for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1970, shall remain available
through August 31, 1970, notwithstanding
any provisions of those sections.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the RECORD an excerpt from the
report (No. 91-941), explaining the
purposes of the measure.
There being no objection, the
excerpt was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to provide an
extension of the authorization for the solid
waste and air pollution programs. This bill
will continue those authorizations at their
present level through August 31, 1970. It is
needed to provide time for careful consider-
ation of pending air quality and solid waste
legislation. The authorizations in existing
law are greater than the levels of appropri-
ations requested in the President's budget.
This extension would allow appropriation
for this 2-month period of the unappropri-
ated balance of fiscal year 1970 authoriza-
tions. Therefore, the Appropriations Com-
mittee can be guided by this resolution. The
Senate Committee on Public Works fully
anticipates completion of action on both
solid waste legislation and air pollution leg-
islation prior to the first of September. The
Resource Recovery Act, S. 2005, will be re-
ported for Senate action in the near future.
Pending air pollution legislation will be
available for Senate floor action by mid-July.
[p. 21364]
1.1 j(2) (b)June 30: Considered and passed House, p. 22095
EXTENDING THE CLEAN AIR
ACT, AND THE SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL ACT
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent for the im-
mediate consideration of the bill (S.
4012) to extend the Clean Air Act, as
amended, and the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act, as amended, for a period
of 60 days.
The Clerk read the title of the
Senate bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
West Virginia?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill as
follows:
S. 4012
Be it enacted by the Senate and Boose of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled. That pending
extensions by Act of Congress of the Clean
Air Act and Solid Waste Disposal Act, the
authorizations contained in sections 104 (c)
and 309 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and the
authorization contained in section 210 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, shall remain
available through August 31, 1970, notwith-
standing any provisions of those sections.
The Senate bill was ordered to be
read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed, and a motion to re-
consider was laid on the table.
[p. 22095]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1057
1.1k CLEAN AIR AMENDMENTS OF 1970
December 31, 1970, P.L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1676
AN ACT To amend the Clean Air Act to provide for a more effective pro-
gram to improve the quality of the Nation's air
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United, States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act
may be cited as the "Clean Air Amendments of 1970".
RESEARCH
SEC. 2. (a) Section 103 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857,
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following
new subsection:
"(f) (1) In carrying out research pursuant to this Act, the
Administrator shall give special emphasis to research on the
short- and long-term effects of air pollutants on public health and
welfare. In the furtherance of such research, he shall conduct
an accelerated research program—
"(A) to improve knowledge of the contribution of air
pollutants to the occurrence of adverse effects on health,
including, but not limited to, behavioral, physiological, toxi-
cological, and biochemical effects; and
"(B) to improve knowledge of the short- and long-term
effects of air pollutants on welfare.
"(2) In carrying out the provisions of this subsection the
Administrator may—
"(A) conduct epidemiological studies of the effects of air
pollutants on mortality and morbidity;
"(B) conduct clinical and laboratory studies on the im-
munologic, biochemical, physiological, and the toxicological
effects including carcinogenic, teratogenic, and mutagenic
effects of air pollutants;
"(C) utilize, on a reimbursable basis, the facilities of
existing Federal scientific laboratories and research centers;
"(D) utilize the authority contained in paragraphs (1)
through (4) of subsection (b) ; and
"(E) consult with other appropriate Federal agencies to
assure that research or studies conducted pursuant to this
subsection will be coordinated with research and studies of
such other Federal agencies.
"(3) In entering into contracts under this subsection, the Ad-
-------
1058 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
ministrator is authorized to contract for a term not to exceed 10
years in duration. For the purposes of this paragraph, there are
authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000. Such amounts as are
apropriated shall remain available until expended and shall be
in addition to any other appropriations under this Act."
(b) Section 104 (a) (1) of the Clean Air Act is amended to read
as follows:
"(1) conduct and accelerate research programs directed
toward development of improved, low-cost techniques for—
"(A) control of combustion byproducts of fuels,
"(B) removal of potential air pollutants from fuels
prior to combustion,
"(C) control of emissions from the evaporation of
fuels,
"(D) improving the efficiency of fuels combustion so
as to decrease atmospheric emissions, and
"(E) producing synthetic or new fuels which, when
used, result in decreased atmospheric emissions."
[p. 1676]
(c) Section 104 (a) (2) of the Clean Air Act is amended by
striking out "and (B)" and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"(B) part of the cost of programs to develop low emission alter-
natives to the present internal combustion engine; (C) the cost
to purchase vehicles and vehicle engines, or portions thereof,
for research, development, and testing purposes; and (D)".
STATE AND REGIONAL GRANT PROGRAMS
SEC. 3. (a) Section 105(a) (1) of the Clean Air Act is amend-
ed to read as follows:
"GRANTS FOR SUPPORT OF AIR POLLUTION PLANNING AND CONTROL
PROGRAMS
"SEC. 105. (a)(l)(A) The Administrator may make grants to
air pollution control agencies in an amount up to two-thirds of
the cost of planning, developing, establishing, or improving, and
up to one-half of the cost of maintaining, programs for the pre-
vention and control of air pollution or implementation of national
primary and secondary ambient air quality standards.
"(B) Subject to subparagraph (C), the Administrator may
make grants to air pollution control agencies within the meaning
of paragraph (1), (2), or (4) of section 302(b) in an amount
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1059
up to three-fourths of the cost of planning, developing, establish-
ing, or improving, and up to three-fifths of the cost of maintain-
ing, any program for the prevention and control of air pollution
or implementation of national primary and secondary ambient
air quality standards in an area that includes two or more
municipalities, whether in the same or different States.
"(C) With respect to any air quality control region or portion
thereof for which there is an applicable implementation plan
under section 110, grants under subparagraph (B) may be made
only to air pollution control agencies which have substantial re-
sponsibilities for carrying out such applicable implementation
plan."
(b) (1) Section 105 of the Clean Air Act is further amended
by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
"(d) The Administrator, with the concurrence of any recipient
of a grant under this section, may reduce the payments to such
recipient by the amount of the pay, allowances, traveling expenses,
and any other costs in connection with the detail of any officer
or employee to the recipient under section 301 of this Act, when
such detail is for the convenience of, and at the request of, such
recipient and for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of
this Act. The amount by which such payments have been reduced
shall be available for payment of such costs by the Administrator,
but shall, for the purpose of determining the amount of any grant
to a recipient under subsection (a) of this section, be deemed
to have been paid to such agency."
(2) Section 301 (b) of the Clean Air Act is amended (A) by
striking out "Public Health Service" and inserting in lieu thereof
"Environmental Protection Agency" and (B) by striking out
the second sentence thereof.
(c) Section 106 of the Clean Air Act is amended to read as
follows:
"INTERSTATE AIR QUALITY AGENCIES OR COMMISSIONS
"SEC. 106. For the purpose of developing implementation plans
for any interstate air quality control region designated pursuant
to section 107, the Administrator is authorized to pay, for two
years, up to 100 per centum of the air quality planning program
costs of any agency
[p. 1677]
designated by the Governors of the affected States, which agency
-------
1060 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
shall be capable of recommending to the Governors plans for im-
plementation of national primary and secondary ambient air
quality standards and shall include representation from the State
and appropriate political subdivisions within the air quality con-
trol region. After the initial two-year period the Administrator
is authorized to make grants to such agency in an amount up to
three-fourths of the air quality planning program costs of such
agency."
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY AND EMISSION STANDARDS
SEC. 4. (a) The Clean Air Act is amended by striking out
section 107; by redesignating sections 108, 109, 110, and 111 as
115, 116, 117, and 118, respectively; and by inserting after section
106 the following new sections:
"AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS
"SEC. 107. (a) Each State shall have the primary responsibil-
ity for assuring air quality within the entire geographic area
comprising such State by submitting an implementation plan for
such State which will specify the manner in which national pri-
mary and secondary ambient air quality standards will be achieved
and maintained within each air quality control region in such
State.
"(b) For purposes of developing and carrying out implementa-
tion plans under section 110—
"(1) an air quality control region designated under this
section before the date of enactment of the Clean Air Amend-
ments of 1970, or a region designated after such date under
subsection (c), shall be an air quality control region; and
"(2) the portion of such State which is not part of any
such designated region shall be an air quality control region,
but such portion may be subdivided by the State into two
or more air quality control regions with the approval of the
Administrator.
"(c) The Administrator shall, within 90 days after the date of
enactment of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, after consulta-
tion with appropriate State and local authorities, designate as an
air quality control region any interstate area or major intrastate
area which he deems necessary or appropriate for the attainment
and maintenance of ambient air quality standards. The Adminis-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1061
trator shall immediately notify the Governors of the affected
States of any designation made under this subsection.
"AIR QUALITY CRITERIA AND CONTROL TECHNIQUES
"SEC. 108. (a) (1) For the purpose of establishing national
primary and secondary ambient air quality standards, the Ad-
ministrator shall within 30 days after the date of enactment of the
Clean Air Amendments of 1970 publish, and shall from time to
time thereafter revise, a list which includes each air pollutant—
"(A) which in his judgment has an adverse effect on
public health or welfare;
"(B) the presence of which in the ambient air results from
numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources; and
"(C) for which air quality criteria had not been issued.
before the date of enactment of the Clean Air Amendments
of 1970, but for which he plans to issue air quality criteria
under this section.
"(2) The Administrator shall issue air quality criteria for an
air pollutant within 12 months after he has included such pollut-
ant in a list under paragraph (1). Air quality criteria for an air
pollutant shall accurately reflect the latest scientific knowedge
useful in indicating
[p. 1678]
the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or
welfare which may be expected from the presence of such pollut-
ant in the ambient air, in varying quantities. The criteria for an
air pollutant, to the extent practicable, shall include information
on—
"(A) those variable factors (including atmospheric con-
ditions) which of themselves or in combination with other
factors may alter the effects on public health or welfare of
such air pollutant;
"(B) the types of air pollutants which, when present in
the atmosphere, may interact with such pollutant to produce
an adverse effect on public health or welfare; and
"(C) any known or anticipated adverse effects on welfare.
"(b)(l) Simultaneously with the issuance of criteria under
subsection (a), the Administrator shall, after consultation with
appropriate advisory committees and Federal departments and
agencies, issue to the States and appropriate air pollution control
agencies information on air pollution control techniques, which
information shall include data relating to the technology and costs
-------
1062 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
of emission control. Such information shall include such data as
are available on available technology and alternative methods of
prevention and control of air pollution. Such information shall
also include data on alternative fuels, processes, and operating
methods which will result in elimination or significant reduction
of emissions.
"(2) In order to assist in the development of information on
pollution control techniques, the Administrator may establish
a standing consulting committee for each air pollutant included
in a list published pursuant to subsection (a) (1), which shall be
comprised of technically qualified individuals representative of
State and local governments, industry, and the academic com-
munity. Each such committee shall submit, as appropriate, to the
Administrator information related to that required by paragraph
(1).
"(c) The Administrator shall from time to time review, and,
as appropriate, modify, and reissue any criteria or information on
control techniques issued pursuant to this section.
"(d) The issuance of air quality criteria and information on
air pollution control techniques shall be announced in the Federal
Register and copies shall be made available to the general public.
"NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
"SEC. 109. (a)(l) The Administrator—
"(A) within 30 days after the date of enactment of the
Clean Air Amendments of 1970, shall publish proposed
regulations prescribing a national primary ambient air
"quality standard and a national secondary ambient air quality
standard for each?"air pollutant for which air quality criteria
have been issued prior to such date of enactment; and
"(B) after a reasonable time for interested persons to
submit written comments thereon (but no later than 90 days
after the initial publication of such proposed standards) shall
by regulation promulgate such proposed national primary
and secondary ambient air quality standards with such
modifications as he deems appropriate.
"(2) With respect to any air pollutant for which air quality
criteria are issued after the date of enactment of the Clean Air
Amendments of 1970, the Administrator shall publish, simulta-
neously with the issuance of such criteria and information, pro-
posed national primary and secondary ambient air quality
standards for any such pollutant. The procedure provided for in
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1063
paragraph (1) (B) of this subsection shall apply to the promulga-
tion of such standards.
[p. 1679]
"(b) (1) National primary ambient air quality standards, pre-
scribed under subsection (a) shall be ambient air quality stand-
ards the attainment and maintenance of which in the judgment
of the Administrator, based on such criteria and allowing an
adequate margin of safety, are requisite to protect the public
health. Such primary standards may be revised in the same
manner as promulgated.
"(2) Any national secondary ambient air quality standard
prescribed under subsection (a) shall specify a level of air quality
the attainment and maintenance of which in the judgment of the
Administrator, based on such criteria, is requisite to protect the
public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects
associated with the presence of such air pollutant in the ambient
air. Such secondary standards may be revised in the same manner
as promulgated.
"IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
"SEC. 110. (a) (1) Each State shall, after reasonable notice
and public hearings, adopt and submit to the Administrator,
within nine months after the promulgation of a national primary
ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof) under
section 109 for any air pollutant, a plan which provides for im-
plementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such primary
standard in each air quality control region (or portion thereof)
within such State. In addition, such State shall adopt and submit
to the Administrator (either as a part of a plan submitted under
the preceding sentence or separately) within nine months after
the promulgation of a national ambient air quality secondary
standard (or revision thereof), a plan which provides for im-
plementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such secondary
standard in each air quality control region (or portion thereof)
within such State. Unless a separate public hearing is provided,
each State shall consider its plan implementing such secondary
standard at the hearing required by the first sentence of this
paragraph.
"(2) The Administrator shall, within four months after the
date required for submission of a plan under paragraph (1),
approve or disapprove such plan or each portion thereof. The
-------
1064 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Administrator shall approve such plan, or any portion thereof, if
he determines that it was adopted after reasonable notice and
hearing and that—
"(A)(i) in the case of a plan implementing a national
primary ambient air quality standard, it provides for the
attainment of such primary standard as expedit'ously as
practicable but (subject to subsection (e)) in no case later
than three years from the date of approval of such plan
(or any revision thereof to take account of a revised primary
standard); and (ii) in the case of a plan implementing a
national secondary ambient air quality standard, it specifies
a reasonable time at which such secondary standard will be
attained ;
"(B) it includes emission limitations, schedules, and
timetables for compliance with such limitations, and such
other measures as may be necessary to insure attainment and
maintenance of such primary or secondary standard, includ-
ing, but not limited to, land-use and transportation controls;
"(C) it includes provision for establishment and operation
of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures
necessary to (i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on
ambient air quality and, (ii) upon request, make such data
available to the Administrator;
"(D) it includes a procedure, meeting the requirements of
paragraph (4), for review (prior to construction or modifica-
tion) of the location of new sources to which a standard
of performance will apply;
[p. 1680]
"(E) it contains adequate provisions for intergovernment-
al cooperation, including measures necessary to insure that
emissions of air pollutants from sources located in any air
quality control region will not interfere with the attainment
or maintenance of such primary or secondary standard in
any portion of such region outside of such State or in any
other air quality control region;
"(F) it provides (i) necessary assurances that the State
will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority to carry
out such implementation plan, (ii) requirements for installa-
tion of equipment by owners or operators of stationary
sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (iii) for
periodic reports on the nature and amounts of such emis-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1065
sions; (iv) that such reports shall be correlated by the State
agency with any emission limitations or standards estab-
lished pursuant to this Act, which reports shall be available
at reasonable times for public inspection; and (v) for author-
ity comparable to that in section 303, and adequate con-
tingency plans to implement such authority;
"(G) it provides, to the extent necessary and practicable,
for periodic inspection and testing of motor vehicles to
enforce compliance with applicable emission standards; and
"(H) it provides for revision, after public hearings, of
such plan (i) from time to time as may be necessary to
take account of revisions of such national primary or
secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of
improved or more expeditious methods of achieving such
primary or secondary standard; or (ii) whenever the Admin-
istrator finds on the basis of information available to him
that the plan is substantially inadequate to achieve the na-
tional ambient air quality primary or secondary standard
which it implements.
"(3) The Administrator shall approve any revision of an
implementation plan applicable to an air quality control region
if he determines that it meets the requirements of paragraph
(2) and has been adopted by the State after reasonable notice
and public hearings.
"(4) The procedure referred to in paragraph (2) (D) for
review, prior to construction or modification, of the location of
new sources shall (A) provide for adequate authority to prevent
the construction or modification of any new source to which a
standard of performance under section 111 will apply at any
location which the State determines will prevent the attainment
or maintenance within any air quality control region (or portion
thereof) within such State of a national ambient air quality
primary or secondary standard, and (B) require that prior to
commencing construction or modification of any such source,
the owner or operator thereof shall submit to such State such
information as may be necessary to permit the State to make a
determination under clause (A).
"(b) The Administrator may, wherever he determines neces-
sary, extend the period for submission of any plan or portion
thereof which implements a national secondary ambient air qual-
ity standard for a period not to exceed 18 months from the date
otherwise required for submission of such plan.
526-702 o - 73 -- 32
-------
1066 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
"(c) The Administrator shall, after consideration of any State
hearing record, promptly prepare and publish proposed regula-
tions setting forth an implementation plan, or portion thereof,
for a State if—
"(1) the State fails to submit an implementation plan
for any national ambient air quality primary or secondary
standard within the time prescribed,
"(2) the plan, or any portion thereof, submitted for such
State
[p. 1681]
is determined by the Administrator not to be in accordance
with the requirements of this section, or
"(3) the State fails, within 60 days after notification by
the Administrator or such longer period as he may prescribe,
to revise an implementation plan as required pursuant to a
provision of its plan referred to in subsection (a) (2) (H).
If such State held no public hearing associated with respect to
such plan (or revision thereof), the Administrator shall provide
opportunity for such hearing within such State on any proposed
regulation. The Administrator shall, within six months after the
date required for submission of such plan (or revision thereof),
promulgate any such regulations unless, prior to such promulga-
tion, such State has adopted and submitted a plan (or revision)
which the Administrator determines to be in accordance with
the requirements of this section.
"(d) For purposes of this Act, an applicable implementation
plan is the implementation plan, or most recent revision thereof,
which has been approved under subsection (a) or promulgated
under subsection (c) and which implements a national primary
or secondary ambient air quality standard in a State.
"(e)(l) Upon application of a Governor of a State at the
time of submission of any plan implementing a national ambient
air quality primary standard, the Administrator may (subject
to paragraph (2)) extend the three-year period referred to in
subsection (a) (2) (A) (i) for not more than two years for an
air quality control region if after review of such plan the Ad-
ministrator determines that—
"(A) one or more emission sources (or classes of moving
sources) are unable to comply with the requirements of such
plan which implement such primary standard because the
necessary technology or other alternatives are not available
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1067
or will not be available soon enough to permit compliance
within such three-year period, and
"(B) the State has considered and applied as a part of its
plan reasonably available alternative means of attaining
such primary standard and has justifiably concluded that
attainment of such primary standard within the three years
cannot be achieved.
"(2) The Administrator may grant an extension under para-
graph (1) only if he determines that the State i, an provides
for—
"(A) application of the requirements of the plan which
implement such primary standard to all emission sources
in such region other than the sources (or classes) described
in paragraph (1) (A) within the three-year period, and
"(B) such interim measures of control of the sources
(or classes) described in paragraph (1) (A) as the Adminis-
trator determines to be reasonable under the circumstances.
"(f) (1) Prior to the date on which any stationary source or
class of moving sources is required to comply with any require-
ment of an applicable implementation plan the Governor of the
State to which such plan applies may apply to the Administrator
to postpone the applicability of such requirement to such source
(or class) for not more than one year. If the Administrator
determines that—
"(A) good faith efforts have been made to comply with
such requirement before such date,
"(B) such source (or class) is unable to comply with
such requirement because the necessary technology or other
alternative methods of control are not available- or have not
been available for a sufficient period of time,
"(C) any available alternative operating procedures and
interim control measures have reduced or will reduce the
impact of such source on public health, and
[p. 1682]
"(D) the continued operation of such source is essential
to national security or to the public health or welfare,
then the Administrator shall grant a postponement of such re-
quirement.
"(2) (A) Any determination under paragraph (1) shall (i) be
made on the record after notice to interested persons and op-
portunity for hearing, (ii) be based upon a fair evaluation of
-------
1068 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
the entire record at such hearing, and (iii) include a statement
setting forth in detail the findings and conclusions upon which
the determination is based.
"(B) Any determination made pursuant to this paragraph
shall be subject to judicial review by the United States court of
appeals for the circuit which includes such State upon the filing
in such court within 30 days from the date of such decision of a
petition by any interested person praying that the decision be
modified or set aside in whole or in part. A copy of the petition
shall forthwith be sent by registered or certified mail to the
Administrator and thereupon the Administrator shall certify and
file in such court the record upon which the final decision com-
plained of was issued, as provided in section 2112 of title 28,
United States Code. Upon the filing of such petition the court
shall have jurisdiction to affirm or set aside the determination
complained of in whole or in part. The findings of the Administra-
tor with respect to questions of fact (including each determina-
tion made under subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) of
paragraph (1)) shall be sustained if based upon a fair evaluation
of the entire record at such hearing.
"(C) Proceedings before the court under this paragraph shall
take precedence over all the other causes of action on the docket
and shall be assigned for hearing and decision at the earliest
practicable date and expedited in every way.
"(D) Section 307(a) (relating to subpoenas) shall be applicable
to any proceeding under this subsection.
"STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
"SEC. 111. (a) For purposes of this section:
"(1) The term 'standard of performance' means a stand-
ard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree
of emission limitation achievable through the application of
the best system of emission reduction which (taking into
account the cost of achieving such reduction) the Adminis-
trator determines has been adequately demonstrated.
"(2) The term 'new source' means any stationary source,
the construction or modification of which is commenced
after the publication of regulations (or, if earlier, proposed
regulations) prescribing a standard of performance under
this section which will be applicable to such source.
"(3) The term 'stationary source' means any building,
-------
ST MUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1069
structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit
any air pollutant.
"(4) The term 'modification' means any physical change
in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary
source which increases tha amount of any air pollutant
emitted by such source cr which results in the emission of
any air pollutant not previously emitted.
"(5) The term 'owner or operator' means any person who
owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises a stationary
source.
"(6) The term 'existing source' means any stationary
source other than a new source.
[p. 1683]
"(b) (1) (A) The Administrator shall, within 90 days after the
date of enactment of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, publish
(and from time to time thereafter shall revise) a list of categories
of stationary sources. He shall include a category of sources in
such list if he determines it may contribute significantly to air
pollution which causes or contributes to the endangerment of
public health or welfare.
"(B) Within 120 days after the inclusion of a category of
stationary sources in a list under subparagraph (A), the Adminis-
trator shall propose regulations, establishing Federal standards
of performance for new sources within such category. The Ad-
ministrator shall afford interested persons an opportunity for
written comment on such proposed regulations. After considering
such comments, he shall promulgate, wjthin 90 days after such
publication, such standards with such modifications as he deems
appropriate. The Administrator may, from time to time, revise
such standards following the procedure required by this subsec-
tion for promulgation of such standards. Standards of perform-
ance or revisions thereof shall become effective upon promulga-
tion.
"(2) The Administrator may distinguish among classes, types,
and sizes within categories of new sources for the purpose of
establishing such standards.
"(3) The Administrator shall, from time to time, issue infor-
mation on pollution control techniques for categories of new
sources and air pollutants subject to the provisions of this section.
"(4) The provisions of this section shall apply to any new
source owned or operated by the United States.
-------
1070 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
"(c) (1) Each State may develop and submit to the Adminis-
trator a procedure for implementing and enforcing standards of
performance for new sources located in such State. If the Ad-
ministrator finds the State procedure is adequate, he shall delegate
to such State any authority he has under this Act to implement
and enforce such standards (except with respect to new sources
owned or operated by the United States).
"(2) Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the Administra-
tor from enforcing any applicable standard of performance under
this section.
"(d) (1) The Administrator shall prescribe regulations which
shall establish a procedure similar to that provided by section
110 under which each State shall submit to the Administrator
a plan which (A) establishes emission standards for any existing
source for any air pollutant (i) for which air quality criteria have
not been issued or which is not included on a list published under
section 108(a) or 112 (b) (1) (A) but (ii) to which a standard of
performance under subsection (b) would apply if such existing
source were a new source, and (B) provides for the implementa-
tion and enforcement of such emission stadards.
"(2) The Administrator shall have the same authority—
"(A) to prescribe a plan for a State in cases where the
State fails to submit a satisfactory plan as he would have
under section 110(c) in the case of failure to submit an
implementation plan, and
"(B) to enforce the provisions of such plan in cases where
the State fails to enforce them as he would have under
sections 113 and 114 with respect to an implementation plan.
" (e) After the effective date of standards of performance pro-
mulgated under this section, it shall be unlawful for any owner
or operator of any new source to operate such source in violation
of any standard of performance applicable to such source.
[p. 1684]
"NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
"SEC. 112. (a) For purposes of this section—
"(1) The term 'hazardous air pollutant' means an air pol-
lutant to which no ambient air quality standard is applicable
and which in the judgment of the Administrator may cause,
or contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in
serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness.
"(2) The term 'new source' means a stationary source the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1071
construction or modification of which is commenced after the
Administrator proposes regulations under this section estab-
lishing an emission standard which will be applicable to such
source.
"(3) The terms 'stationary source', 'modification', 'owner
or operator' and 'existing source' shall have the same mean-
ing as such terms have under section 111 (a).
"(b) (1) (A) The Administrator shall, within 90 days after the
date of enactment of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, publish
(and shall from time to time thereafter revise) a list which in-
cludes each hazardous air pollutant for which he intends to
establish an emission standard under this section.
"(B) Within 180 days after the inclusion of any air pollutant
in such list, the Administrator shall publish proposed regulations
establishing emission standards for such pollutant together with
a notice of a pubic hearing within thirty days. Not later than 180
days after such publication, the Administrator shall prescribe an
emission standard for such pollutant, unless he finds, on the basis
of information presented at such hearings, that such pollutant
clearly is not a hazardous air pollutant. The Administrator shall
establish any such standard at the level which in his judgment
provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health
from such hazardous air pollutant.
"(C) Any emission standard established pursuant to this
section shall become effective upon promulgation.
"(2) The Administrator shall, from time to time, issue infor-
mation on pollution control techniques for air pollutants subject
to the provisions of this section.
"(c)(l) After the effective date of any emission standard
under this section—
"(A) no person may construct any new source or modify
any existing source which, in the Administrator's judgment,
will emit an air pollutant to which such standard applies
unless the Administrator finds that such source if properly
operated will not cause emissions in violation of such stand-
ard, and
"(B) no air pollutant to which such standard applies may
be emitted from any stationary source in violation of such
standard, except that in the case of an existing source—
"(i) such standard shall not apply until 90 days after
its effective date, and
-------
1072 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
"(ii) the Administrator may grant a waiver permit-
ting such source a period of up to two years after the
effective date of a standard to comply with the standard,
if he finds that such period is necessary for the installa-
tion of controls and that steps will be taken during the
period of the waiver to assure that the health of persons
will be protected from imminent endangerment.
"(2) The President may exempt any stationary source from
compliance with paragraph (1) for a period of not more than two
years if he finds that the technology to implement such standards
is not available and the operation of such source is required for
reasons of national security. An exemption under this paragraph
may be extended
[p. 1685]
for one or more additional periods, each period not to exceed two
years. The President shall make a report to Congress with respect
to each exemption (or extension thereof) made under this para-
graph.
"(d) (1) Each State may develop and submit to the Adminis-
trator a procedure for implementing and enforcing emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants for stationary sources
located in such State. If the Administrator finds the State pro-
cedure is adequate, he shall delegate to such State any authority
he has under this Act to implement and enforce such standards
(except with respect to stationary sources owned or operated
by the United States).
"(2) Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the Administra-
tor from enforcing any applicable emission standard under this
section.
"FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT
"SEC. 113. (a) (1) Whenever, on the basis of any information
available to him, the Administrator finds that any person is in
violation of any requirement of an applicable implementation
plan, the Administrator shall notify the person in violation of the
plan and the State in which the plan applies of such finding. If
such violation extends beyond the 30th day after the date of the
Administrator's notification, the Administrator may issue an
order requiring such person to comply with the requirements of
such plan or he may bring a civil action in accordance with sub-
section (b).
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1073
"(2) Whenever, on the basis of information available to him,
the Administrator finds that violations of an applicable implemen-
tation plan are so widespread that such violations appear to
result from a failure of the State in which the plan applies
to enforce the plan effectively, he shall so notify the State. If
the Administrator finds such failure extends beyond the 30th
day after such notice, he shall give public notice of such finding.
During the period beginning with such public notice and ending
when such State satisfies the Administrator that it will enforce
such plan (hereafter referred to in this section as 'period of
federally assumed enforcement'), the Administrator may enforce
any requirement of such plan with respect to any person—
"(A) by issuing an order to comply with such require-
ment, or
"(B) by bringing a civil action under subsection (b).
"(3) Whenever, on the basis of any information available to
him, the Administrator finds that any person is in violation of
section lll(e) (relating to new source performance standards)
or 112(c) (relating to standards for hazardous emissions), or is
in violation of any requirement of section 114 (relating to inspec-
tions, etc.), he may issue an order requiring such person to
comply with such section or requirement, or he may bring a civil
action in accordance with subsection (b).
"(4) An order issued under this subsection (other than an
order relating to a violation of section 112) shall not take effect
until the person to whom it is issued has had an opportunity to
confer with the Administrator concerning the alleged violation. A
copy of any order issued under this subsection shall be sent to
the State air pollution control agency of any State in which the
violation occurs. Any order issued under this subsection shall state
with reasonable specificity the nature of the violation, specify a
time for compliance which the Administrator determines is
reasonable, taking into account the seriousness of the violation
and any good faith efforts to comply with applicable requirements.
In any case in which an order under this subsection (or notice
to a violator under paragraph (1)) is issued to a corporation,
a copy of such order (or notice) shall be issued to appropriate
corporate officers.
[p. 1686]
-------
1074 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
"(b) The Administrator may commence a civil action for ap-
propriate relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction,
whenever any person—
"(1) violates or fails or refuses to comply with any order
issued under subsection (a); or
"(2) violates any requirement of an applicable implemen-
tation plan during any period of Federally assumed enforce-
ment more than 30 days after having been notified by the
Administrator under subsection (a) (1) of a finding that
such person is violating such requirement; or
"(3) violates section lll(e) or 112(c); or
"(4) fails or refuses to comply with any requirement of
section 114.
Any action under this subsection may be brought in the district
court of the United States for the district in which the defendant
is located or resides or is doing business, and such court shall
have jurisdiction to restrain such violation and to require com-
pliance. Notice of the commencement of such action shall be given
to the appropriate State air pollution control agency.
" (c) (1) Any person who knowingly—
"(A) violates any requirement of an applicable imple-
mentation plan during any period of Federally assumed en-
forcement more than 30 days after having been notified by
the Administrator under subsection (a) (1) that such person
is violating such requirement, or
"(B) violates or fails or refuses to comply with any order
issued by the Administrator under subsection (a), or
"(C) violates section lll(e) or section 112(c)
shall be punished by a fine of not more than $25,000 per day of
violation, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by
both. If the conviction is for a violation committed after the first
conviction of such person under this paragraph, punishment shall
be by a fine of not more than $50,000 per day of violation, or by
imprisonment for not more than two years, or by both.
"(2) Any person who knowingly makes any false statement,
representation, or certification in any application, record, report,
plan, or other document filed or required to be maintained under
this Act or who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders
inaccurate any monitoring device or method required to be main-
tained under this Act, shall upon conviction, be punished by a
fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more
than six months, or by both.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1075
"INSPECTIONS, MONITORING, AND ENTRY
"SEC. 114. (a) For the purpose (i) of developing or assisting
in the development of any implementation plan under section 110
or 111 (d), any standard of performance under section 111, or any
emission standard under section 112, (ii) of determining whether
any person is in violation of any such standard or any require-
ment of such a plan, or (iii) carrying out section 303—
" (1) the Administrator may require the owner or operator
of any emission source to (A) establish and maintain such
records, (B) make such reports, (C) install, use, and main-
tain such monitoring equipment or methods, (D) sample
such emissions (in accordance with such methods, at such
locations, at such intervals, and in such manner as the Ad-
ministrator shall prescribe), and (E) provide such other
information as he may reasonably require; and
"(2) the Administrator or his authorized representative,
upon presentation of his credentials—
[p. 1687]
"(A) shall have a right of entry to, upon, or through any
premises in which an emission source is located or in which
any records required to be maintained under paragraph (1)
of this section are located, and
"(B) may at reasonable times have access to and copy any
records, inspect any monitoring equipment or method re-
quired under paragraph (1), and sample any emissions which
the owner or operator of such source is required to sample
under paragraph (1).
"(b) (1) Each State may develop and submit to the Adminis-
trator a procedure for carrying out this section in such State. If
the Administrator finds the State procedure is adequate, he may
delegate to such State any authority he has to carry out this
section (except with respect to new sources owned or operated
by the United States).
"(2) Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the Administra-
tor from carrying out this section in a State.
"(c) Any records, reports or information obtained under sub-
section (a) shall be available to the public, except that upon a
showing satisfactory to the Administrator by any person that
records, reports, or information, or particular part thereof, (other
than emission data) to which the Administrator has access under
this section if made public, would divulge methods or processes
-------
1076 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
entitled to protection as trade secrets of such person, the Admin-
istrator shall consider such record, report, or information or
particular portion thereof confidential in accordance with the
purposes of section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code,
except that such record, report, or information may be disclosed
to other officers, employees, or authorized representatives of the
United States concerned with carrying out this Act or when
relevant in any proceeding under this Act."
(b) Section 115 of the Clean Air Act (as so redesignated by
subsection (a) of this section) is amended as follows:
(1) Strike out the section heading and insert in lieu
thereof "ABATEMENT BY MEANS OF CONFERENCE PROCEDURE IN
CERTAIN CASES".
(2) Insert "and which is covered by subsection (b) or (c)"
after "persons" in subsection (a).
(3) Strike out subsections (b), (c), and (k).
(4) Redesignate subsections (d)(l)(A), (B), and (C)
as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (b), respec-
tively.
(5) Insert after subsection (b) (3) (as so redesignated)
the following:
"(4) A conference may not be called under this subsection with
respect to an air pollutant for which (at the time the conference
is called) a national primary or secondary ambient air quality
standard is in effect under section 109."
(6) Redesignate subsection (d) (1) (D) as subsection (c),
and strike out "subparagraph" each place it appears therein
and insert in lieu thereof "subsection".
(7) Redesignate subsections (d) (2) and (d) (3) as sub-
sections (d) (1) and (d)(2), respectively.
(8) Strike out "such conference" in subsection (d) (1) (as
so redesignated) and insert in lieu thereof "any conference
under this section".
(9) Strike out "under subparagraph (D) of subsection
(d)" in subsection (g) (1) and insert in lieu thereof "sub-
section (c)".
[p. 1688]
(10) Add at the end thereof the following new subsection:
"(k) No order or judgment under this section, or settlement,
compromise, or agreement respecting any action under this sec-
tion (whether or not entered or made before the date of enact-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1077
ment of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970) shall relieve any
person of any obligation to comply with any requirement of an ap-
plicable implementation plan, or with any standard prescribed
under section 111 or 112."
(2) Section 103 (e) of the Clean Air Act is amended by striking
out "section 108 (a)" and inserting in lieu thereof "section 115";
and by striking out "subsections (d), (e), and (f) of section
108" and inserting in lieu thereof "subsections (b), (c), (d), (e),
and (f) of section 115".
(c) Section 116 of the Clean Air Act (as so redesignated by
subsection (a) of this section is amended to read as follows:
"RETENTION OF STATE AUTHORITY
"SEC. 116. Except as otherwise provided in sections 209, 211
(c) (4), and 233 (preempting certain State regulation of moving
sources) nothing in this Act shall preclude or deny the right of
any State or political subdivision thereof to adopt or enforce (1)
any standard or limitation respecting emissions of air pollutants
or (2) any requirement respecting control or abatement of air
pollution ; except that if an emission standard or limitation is in
effect under an applicable implementation plan or under section
111 or 112, such State or political subdivision may not adopt or
enforce any emission standard or limitation which is less stringent
than the standard or limitation under such plan or section."
(d) The Clean Air Act is amended by adding at the end of
section 117 (as so redesignated by subsection (a) of this section)
the following new subsection:
"(f) Prior to—
"(1) issuing criteria for an air pollutant under section
108 (a) (2),
"(2) publishing any list under section lll(b)(l)(A) or
"(3) publishing any standard under section lll(b)(l)
(B) or section 112 (b) (1) (B), or
"(4) publishing any regulation under section 202 (a),
the Administrator shall, to the maximum extent practicable with-
in the time provided, consult with appropriate advisory com-
mittees, independent experts, and Federal departments and
agencies."
FEDERAL FACILITIES
SEC. 5. Section 118 of the Clean Air Act (as so redesignated
by section 4 (a) of this Act) is amended to read as follows:
-------
1078 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
"CONTROL OF POLLUTION FROM FEDERAL FACILITIES
"SEC. 118. Each department, agency, and instrumentality of
the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal
Government (1) having jurisdiction over any property or facility,
or (2) engaged in any activity resulting, or which may result, in
the discharge of air pollutants, shall comply with Federal, State,
interstate, and local requirements respecting control and abate-
ment of air pollution to the same extent that any person is subject
to such requirements. The President may exempt any emission
source of any department, agency, or instrumentality in the
executive branch from compliance with such a requirement if he
determines it to be in the paramount interest
[p. 1689]
of the United States to do so, except that no exemption may be
granted from section 111, and an exemption from section 112
may be granted only in accordance with section 112 (c). No such
exemption shall be granted due to lack of appropriation unless
the President shall have specifically requested such appropriation
as a part of the budgetary process and the Congress shall have
failed to make available such requested appropriation. Any ex-
emption shall be for a period not in excess of one year, but addi-
tional exemptions may be granted for periods of not to exceed
one year upon the President's making a new determination. The
President shall report each January to the Congress all exemp-
tions from the requirements of this section granted during the
preceding calendar year, together with his reason for granting
each such exemption."
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION STANDARDS
SEC. 6. (a) Section 202 of the Clean Air Act is amended to
read as follows:
"ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARDS
"SEC. 202. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection
(b)-
"(1) The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and
from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions
of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any
air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles
or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment causes
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1079
or contributes to, or is likely to cause or to contribute to, air
pollution which endangers the public health or welfare. Such
standards shall be applicable to such vehicles and engines
for their useful life (as determined under subsection (d)),
whether such vehicles and engines are designed as complete
systems or incorporated devices to prevent or control such
pollution.
"(2) Any regulation prescribed under this subsection (and
any revision thereof) shall take effect after such period as
the Administrator finds necessary to permit the development
and application of the requisite technology, giving appropri-
ate consideration to the cost of compliance within such period.
"(b)(l)(A) The regulations under subsection (a) applicable
to emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons from light
duty vehicles and engines manufactured during or after model
year 1975 shall contain standards which require a reduction of at
least 90 per centum from emissions of carbon monoxide and
hydrocarbons allowable under the standards under this section
applicable to light duty vehicles and engines manufactured in
model year 1970.
"(B) The regulations under subsection (a) applicable to emis-
sions of oxides of nitrogen from light duty vehicles and engines
manufactured during or after model year 1976 shall contain
standards which require a reduction of at least 90 per centum
from the average of emissions of oxides of nitrogen actually
measured from light duty vehicles manufactured during model
year 1971 which are not subject to any Federal or State emission
standard for oxides of nitrogen. Such average of emissions shall
be determined by the Administrator on the basis of measure-
ments made by him.
"(2) Emission standards under paragraph (1), and measure-
ment techniques on which such standards are based (if not pro-
mulgated prior to the date of enactment of the Clean Air Amend-
ments of 1970), shall be prescribed by regulation within 180 days
after such date.
[p. 1690]
" (3) For purposes of this part—
"(A) (i) The term 'model year' with reference to any
specific calendar year means the manufacturer's annual pro-
duction period (as determined by the Administrator) which
includes January 1 of such calendar year. If the manufacturer
-------
1080 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
has no annual production period, the term 'model year' shall
mean the calendar year.
"(ii) For the purpose of assuring that vehicles and
engines manufactured before the beginning of a model year
were not manufactured for purposes of circumventing the
effective date of a standard required to be prescribed by
subsection (b), the Administrator may prescribe regulations
defining 'model year' otherwise than as provided in clause
(i).
"(B) The term 'light duty vehicles and engines' means
new light duty motor vehicles and new light duty motor
vehicle engines, as determined under regulations of the
Administrator.
"(4) On July 1 of 1971, and of each year thereafter, the Ad-
ministrator shall report to the Congress with respect to the
development of systems necessary to implement the emission
standards established pursuant to this section. Such reports shall
include information regarding the continuing effects of such air
pollutants subject to standards under this section on the public
health and welfare, the extent and progress of efforts being made
to develop the necessary systems, the costs associated with de-
velopment and application of such systems, and following such
hearings as he may deem advisable, any recommendations for
additional congressional action necessary to achieve the purposes
of this Act. In gathering information for the purposes of this
paragraph and in connection with any hearing, the provisions
of section 307 (a) (relating to subpoenas) shall apply.
"(5) (A) At any time after January 1, 1972, any manufacturer
may file with the Administrator an application requesting the
suspension for one year only of the effective date of any emission
standard required by paragraph (1) (A) with respect to such
manufacturer. The Administrator shall make his determination
with respect to any such application within 60 days. If he deter^
mines, in accordance with the provisions of this subsection, that
such suspension should be granted, he shall simultaneously with
such determination prescribe by regulation interim emission
standards which shall apply (in lieu of the standards required
to be prescribed by paragraph (1) (A)) to emissions of carbon
monoxide or hydrocarbons (or both) from such vehicles and
engines manufactured during model year 1975.
"(B) At any time after January 1, 1973, any manufacturer
may file with the Administrator an application requesting the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1081
suspension for one year only of the effective date of any emission
standard required by paragraph (1) (B) with respect to such
manufacturer. The Administrator shallxmake his determination
with respect to any such application within 60 days. If he de-
termines, in accordance with the provisions of this subsection,
that such suspension should be granted, he shall simultaneously
with such determination prescribe by regulation interim emission
standards which shall apply (in lieu of the standards required to
be prescribed by paragraph (1)(B)) to emissions of oxides of
nitrogen from such vehicles and engines manufactured during
model year 1976.
"(C) Any interim standards prescribed under this paragraph
shall reflect the greatest degree of emission control which is
achievable by application of technology which the Administrator
determines is available, giving appropriate consideration to the
cost of applying such technology within the period of time avail-
able to manufacturers.
[p. 1691]
" (D) Within 60 days after receipt of the application for any
such suspension, and after public hearing, the Administrator
shall issue a decision granting or refusing such suspension. The
Administrator shall grant such suspension only if he determines
that (i) such suspension is essential to the public interest or the
public health and welfare of the United States, (ii) all good faith
efforts have been made to meet the standards established by this
subsection, (iii) the applicant has established that effective
control technology, processes, operating methods, or other alterna-
tives are not available or have not been available for a sufficient
period of time to achieve compliance prior to the effective date
of such standards, and (iv) the study and investigation of the
National Academy of Sciences conducted pursuant to subsection
(c) and other information available to him has not indicated
that technology, processes, or other alternatives are available
to meet such standards.
"(E) Nothing in this paragraph shall extend the effective
date of any emission standard required to be prescribed under
this subsection for more than one year.
"(c)(l) The Administrator shall undertake to enter into ap-
propriate arrangements with the National Academy of Sciences
to conduct a comprehensive study and investigation of the tech-
nological feasibility of meeting the emissions standards required
526-702 O - 13 -- 33
-------
1082 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
to be prescribed by the Administrator by subsection (b) of this
section.
"(2) Of the funds authorized to be appropriated to the Ad-
ministrator by this Act, such amounts as are required shall be
available to carry out the study and investigation authorized by
paragraph (1) of this subsection.
"(3) In entering into any arrangement with the National
Academy of Sciences for conducting the study and investigation
authorized by paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Administrator
shall request the National Academy of Sciences to submit semi-
annual reports on the progress of its study and investigation
to the Administrator and the Congress, beginning not later than
July 1, 1971, and continuing until such study and investigation
is completed.
"(4) The Administrator shall furnish to such Academy at its
request any information which the Academy deems necessary for
the purpose of conducting the investigation and study authorized
by paragraph (1) of this subsection. For the purpose of furnish-
ing such information, the Administrator may use any authority he
has under this Act (A) to obtain information from any person,
and (B) to require such person to conduct such tests, keep such
records, and make such reports respecting research or other
activities conducted by such person as may be reasonably neces-
sary to carry out this subsection.
"(d) The Administrator shall prescribe regulations under
which the useful life of vehicles and engines shall be determined
for purposes of subsection (a) (1) of this section and section 207.
Such regulations shall provide that useful life shall—
"(1) in the case of light duty vehicles and light duty
vehicle engines, be a period of use of five years or of fifty
thousand miles (or the equivalent), whichever first occurs;
and
"(2) in the case of any other motor vehicle or motor
vehicle engine, be a period of use set forth in paragraph (1)
unless the Administrator determines that a period of use of
greater duration or mileage is appropriate.
"(e) In the event a new power source or propulsion system
for new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines is submitted
for certification pursuant to section 206(a), the Administrator
may postpone certification until he has prescribed standards for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1083
any air pollutants emitted by such vehicle or engine which cause
or contribute to, or are
[p. 1692]
likely to cause or contribute to, air pollution which endangers
the public health or welfare but for which standards have not
been prescribed under subsection (a)."
ENFORCEMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION STANDARDS
SEC. 7. (a) (1) Section 203(a)(l) of the Clean Air Act is
amended to read as follows:
"(1) in the case of a manufacturer of new motor vehicles
or new motor vehicle engines for distribution in commerce,
the sale, or the offering for sale, or the introduction, or
delivery for introduction, into commerce, or (in the case of
any person, except as provided by regulation of the Adminis-
trator), the importation into the United States, of any new
motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine, manufactured
after the effective date of regulations under this part which
are applicable to such vehicle or engine unless such vehicle
or engine is covered by a certificate of conformity issued (and
in effect) under regulations prescribed under this part (ex-
cept as provided in subsection (b)) ;"
(2) Section 203 (a) (2) of such Act is amended by striking
out "section 207" and inserting in lieu thereof "section 208", and
by striking out "or" at the end thereof.
(3) Section 203 (a) (3) of such Act is amended by striking
out the period at the end thereof and inserting in lieu thereof
the following: ", or for any manufacturer or dealer knowingly
to remove or render inoperative any such device or element of
design after such sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser; or".
(4) Section 203 (a) of such Act is amended by inserting at
the end thereof the following new paragraph:
"(4) for any manufacturer of a new motor vehicle or new
motor vehicle engine subject to standards prescribed under
section 202—
"(A) to sell or lease any such vehicle or engine unless
such manufacturer has complied with the requirements of
section 207 (a) and (b) with respect to such vehicle or
engine, and unless a label or tag is affixed to such vehicle or
engine in accordance with section 207 (c) (3), or
-------
1084 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
"(B) to fail or refuse to comply with the requirements
of section 207 (c) or (e)."
(5) Section 203 (b) (1) of such Act is amended by striking out
", or class thereof, from subsection (a)," and inserting in lieu
thereof "from subsection (a)", and by striking out "to protect
the public health or welfare,".
(6) Section 203 (b) (2) of such Act is amended by striking out
"importation by a manufacturer" and inserting in lieu thereof
"importation or imported by any person".
(7) Section 203 of the Clean Air Act is amended—
(A) by amending subsection (b) (3) to read as follows:
"(3) A new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine in-
tended solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the outside
of the container and on the vehicle or engine itself, shall be
subject to the provisions of subsection (a), except that if the
country of export has emission standards which differ from the
standards prescribed under subsection (a), then such vehicle or
engine shall comply with the standards of such country of ex-
port."; and
(B) by adding at the end thereof the following new sub-
section :
" (c) Upon application therefor, the Administrator may exempt
from section 203(a) (3) any vehicle (or class thereof) manu-
factured before the 1974 model year from section 203 (a) (3) for
the purpose of permitting modifications to the emission control
device or system
[p. 1693]
of such vehicle in order to use fuels other than those specified in
certification testing under section 206(a) (1), if the Administrator,
on the basis of information submitted by the applicant, finds that
such modification will not result in such vehicle or engine not
complying with standards under section 202 applicable to such
vehicle or engine. Any such exemption shall identify (1) the
vehicles so exempted, (2) the specific nature of the modification,
and (3) the person or class of persons to whom the exemption
shall apply."
(b) Section 204 (a) of such Act is amended by striking out
"or (3)" and inserting in lieu thereof "(3), or (4)".
(c) Section 205 of such Act is amended to read as follows:
"PENALTIES
"SEC. 205. Any person who violates paragraph (1), (2), (3),
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1085
or (4) of section 203 (a) shall be subject to a civil penalty of not
more than $10,000. Any such violation with respect to paragraph
(1), (2), or (4) of section 203 (a) shall constitute a separate
offense with respect to each motor vehicle or motor vehicle
engine."
COMPLIANCE WITH MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION STANDARDS
SEC. 8. (a) The Clean Air Act is amended by striking out sec-
tions 206 and 211; by redesignating sections 207, 208, 209, 210,
and 212 as 208, 209, 210, 211, and 213, respectively; and by in-
serting after section 205 the following new sections:
"MOTOR VEHICLE AND MOTOR VEHICLE ENGINE COMPLIANCE TESTING
AND CERTIFICATION
"SEC. 206. (a) (1) The Administrator shall test, or require to
be tested in such manner as he deems appropriate, any new motor
vehicle or new motor vehicle engine submitted by a manufacturer
to determine whether such vehicle or engine conforms with the
regulations prescribed under section 202 of this Act. If such
vehicle or engine conforms to such regulations, the Administrator
shall issue a certificate of conformity upon such terms, and for
such period (not in excess of one year), as he may prescribe.
"(2) The Administrator shall test any emission control system
incorporated in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine submitted
to him by any person, in order to determine whether such system
enables such vehicle or engine to conform to the standards re-
quired to be prescribed under section 202 (b) of this Act. If the
Administrator finds on the basis of such tests that such vehicle
or engine conforms to such standards, the Administrator shall
issue a verification of compliance with emission standards for
such system when incorporated in vehicles of a class of which
the tested vehicle is representative. He shall inform manufactur-
ers and the National Academy of Sciences, and make available to
the public, the results of such tests. Tests under this paragraph
shall be conducted under such terms and conditions (including
requirements for preliminary testing by qualified independent
laboratories) as the Administrator may prescribe by regulations.
"(b) (1) In order to determine whether new motor vehicles or
new motor vehicle engines being manufactured by a manufacturer
do in fact conform with the regulations with respect to which
the certificate of conformity was issued, the Administrator is
-------
1086 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
authorized to test such vehicles or engines. Such tests may be con-
ducted by the Administrator directly or, in accordance with con-
ditions specified by the Administrator, by the manufacturer.
[p. 1694]
"(2) (A) (i) If, based on tests conducted under paragraph (1)
on a sample of new vehicles or engines covered by a certificate
of conformity, the Administrator determines that all or part of
the vehicles or engines so covered do not conform with the regula-
tions with respect to which the certificate of conformity was
issued, he may suspend or revoke such certificate in whole or in
part, and shall so notify the manufacturer. Such suspension or
revocation shall apply in the case of any new motor vehicles or
new motor vehicle engines manufactured after the date of such
notification (or manufactured before such date if still in the hands
of the manufacturer), and shall apply until such time as the Ad-
ministrator finds that vehicles and engines manufactured by the
manufacturer do conform to such regulations. If, during any
period of suspension or revocation, the Administrator finds that a
vehicle or engine actually conforms to such regulations, he shall
issue a certificate of conformity applicable to such vehicle or
engine.
"(ii) If, based on tests conducted under paragraph (1) on any
new vehicle or engine, the Administrator determines that such
vehicle or engine does not conform with such regulations, he may
suspend or revoke such certificate insofar as it applies to such
vehicle or engine until such time as he finds such vehicle or engine
actually so conforms with such regulations, and he shall so notify
the manufacturer.
"(B) (i) At the request of any manufacturer the Administra-
tor shall grant such manufacturer a hearing as to whether the
tests have been properly conducted or any sampling methods have
been properly applied, and make a determination on the record
with respect to any suspension or revocation under subparagraph
(A) ; but suspension or revocation under subparagraph (A) shall
not be stayed by reason of such hearing.
"(ii) In any case of actual controversy as to the validity of
any determination under clause (i), the manufacturer may at any
time prior to the 60th day after such determination is made file a
petition with the United States court of appeals for the circuit
wherein such manufacturer resides or has his principal place of
business for a judicial review of such determination. A copy of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1087
the petition shall be forthwith transmitted by the clerk of the
court to the Administrator or other officer designated by him for
that purpose. The Administrator thereupon shall file in the court
the record of the proceedings on which the Administrator based
his determination, as provided in section 2112 of title 28 of the
United States Code.
"(iii) If the petition applies to the court for leave to adduce
additional evidence, and shows to the satisfaction of the court that
such additional evidence is material and that there were reason-
able grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence in the pro-
ceeding before the Administrator, the court may order such ad-
ditional evidence (and evidence in rebuttal thereof) to be taken
before the Administrator, in such manner and upon such terms
and conditions as the court may deem proper. The Administrator
may modify his findings as to the facts, or make new findings, by
reason of the additional evidence so taken and he shall file such
modified or new findings, and his recommendation, if any, for the
modification or setting aside of his original determination, with
the return of such additional evidence.
"(iv) Upon the filing of the petition referred to in clause (ii),
the court shall have jurisdiction to review the order in accordance
with chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code, and to grant ap-
propriate relief as provided in such chapter.
"(c) For purposes of enforcement of this section, officers or
employees duly designated by the Administrator, upon presenting
appropriate credentials to the manufacturer or person in charge,
are authorized (1) to enter, at reasonable times, any plant or
other establishment of such
[p. 1696]
manufacturer, for the purpose of conducting tests of vehicles or
engines in the hands of the manufacturer, or (2) to inspect at
reasonable times, records, files, papers, processes, controls, and
facilities used by such manufacturer in conducting tests under
regulations of the Administrator. Each such inspection shall be
commenced and completed with reasonable promptness.
"(d) The Administrator shall by regulation establish methods
and procedures for making tests under this section.
"(e) The Administrator shall announce in the Federal Register
and make available to the public the results of his tests of any
motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine submitted by a manufac-
turer under subsection (a) as promptly as possible after the en-
-------
1088 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
actment of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970 and at the begin-
ning of each model year which begins thereafter. Such results
shall be described in such nontechnical manner as will reasonably
disclose to prospective ultimate purchasers of new motor vehicles
and new motor vehicle engines the comparative performance of
the vehicles and engines tested in meeting the standards pre-
scribed under section 202 of this Act.
"COMPLIANCE BY VEHICLES AND ENGINES IN ACTUAL USE
"SEC. 207. (a) Effective with respect to vehicles and engines
manufactured in model years beginning more than 60 days after
the date of the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1970, the manufacturer of each new motor vehicle and new motor
vehicle engine shall warrant to the ultimate purchaser and each
subsequent purchaser that such vehicle or engine is (1) designed,
built, and equipped so as to conform at the time of sale with
applicable regulations under section 202, and (2) free from
defects in materials and workmanship which cause such vehicles
or engines to fail to conform with applicable regulations for its
useful life (as determined under section 202 (d)).
"(b) If the Administrator determines that (i) there are avail-
able testing methods and procedures to ascertain whether, when
in actual use throughout its useful life (as determined under sec-
tion 202 (d)), each vehicle and engine to which regulations under
section 202 apply complies with the emission standards of such
regulations, (ii) such methods and procedures are in accordance
with good engineering practices, and (iii) such methods and pro-
cedures are reasonably capable of being correlated with tests con-
ducted under section 206(a) (1), then—
"(1) he shall establish such methods and procedures by
regulation, and
"(2) at such time as he determines that inspection facil-
ities or equipment are available for purposes of carrying out
testing methods and procedures established under paragraph
(1), he shall prescribe regulations which shall require manu-
facturers to warrant the emission control device or system
of each new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine to
which a regulation under section 202 applies and which is
manufactured in a model year beginning after the Adminis-
trator first prescribes warranty regulations under this para-
graph (2). The warranty under such regulations shall run to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1089
the ultimate purchaser and each subsequent purchaser and
shall provide that if—
"(A) the vehicle or engine is maintained and operated
in accordance with instructions under subsection (c) (3),
"(B) it fails to conform at any time during its useful
life (as determined under section 202 (d)) to the regula-
tions prescribed under section 202, and
"(C) such nonconformity results in the ultimate pur-
chaser (or any subsequent purchaser) of such vehicle or
engine
[p. 1696]
having to bear any penalty or other sanction (including
the denial of the right to use such vehicle or engine)
under State or Federal law,
then such manufacturer shall remedy such nonconformity
under such warranty with the cost thereof to be borne by the
manufacturer.
"(c) Effective with respect to vehicles and engines manufac-
tured during model years beginning more than 60 days after the
date of enactment of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970—
"(1) If the Administrator determines that a substantial
number of any class or category of vehicles or engines, al-
though properly maintained and used, do not conform to the
regulations prescribed under section 202, when in actual
use throughout their useful life (as determined under section
202 (d)), he shall immediately notify the manufacturer thereof
of such nonconformity, and he shall require the manufac-
turer to submit a plan for remedying the nonconformity of
the vehicles or engines with respect to which such notification
is given. The plan shall provide that the nonconformity of any
such vehicles or engines which are properly used and main-
tained will be remedied at the expense of the manufacturer.
If the manufacturer disagrees with such determination of
nonconformity and so advises the Administrator, the Ad-
ministrator shall afford the manufacturer and other inter-
ested persons an opportunity to present their views and
evidence in support thereof at a public hearing. Unless, as a
result of such hearing the Administrator withdraws such
determination of nonconformity, he shall, within 60 days
after the completion of such hearing, order the manufacturer
-------
1090 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
to provide prompt notification of such nonconformity in ac-
cordance with paragraph (2).
"(2) Any notification required by paragraph (1) with
respect to any class or category of vehicles or engines shall
be given to dealers, ultimate purchasers, and subsequent pur-
chasers (if known) in such manner and containing such in-
formation as the Administrator may by regulations require.
"(3) The manufacturer shall furnish with each new motor
vehicle or motor vehicle engine such written instructions for
the maintenance and use of the vehicle or engine by the ulti-
mate purchaser as may be reasonable and necessary to assure
the proper functioning of emission control devices and
systems. In addition, the manufacturer shall indicate by
means of a label or tag permanently affixed to such vehicle
or engine that such vehicle or engine is covered by a certifi-
cate of conformity issued for the purpose of assuring achieve-
ment of emissions standards prescribed under section 202.
Such label or tag shall contain such other information relat-
ing to control of motor vehicle emissions as the Administrator
shall prescribe by regulation.
"(d) Any cost obligation of any dealer incurred as a result of
any requirement imposed by subsection (a), (b), or (c) shall be
borne by the manufacturer. The transfer of any such cost obliga-
tion from a manufacturer to any dealer through franchise or
other agreement is prohibited.
"(e) If a manufacturer includes in any advertisement a state-
ment respecting the cost or value of emission control devices or
systems, such manufacturer shall set forth in such statement the
cost or value attributed to such devices or systems by the Secre-
tary of Labor (through the Bureau of Labor Statistics). The
Secretary of Labor, and his representatives, shall have the same
access for this purpose to the books, documents, papers, and rec-
ords of a manufacturer as the Comptroller General has to those
of a recipient of assistance for the purposes of section 311.
[p. 1697]
"(f) Any inspection of a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle
engine for purposes of subsection (c)(l), after its sale to the
ultimate purchaser, shall be made only if the owner of such
vehicle or engine voluntarily permits such inspection to be made,
except as may be provided by any State or local inspection pro-
gram."
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1091
(b) The amendments made by this section shall not apply to
vehicles or engines imported into the United States before the
sixtieth day after the date of enactment of this Act.
REGULATION OF FUELS
SEC. 9. (a) Section 211 of the Clean Air Act (as so redesig-
naed by section 8) is amended to read as follows:
"REGULATION OF FUELS
"SEC. 211. (a) The Administrator may by regulation designate
any fuel or fuel additive and, after such date or dates as may be
prescribed by him, no manufacturer or processor of any such fuel
or additive may sell, offer for sale, or introduce into commerce
such fuel or additive unless the Administrator has registered such
fuel or additive in accordance with subsection (b) of this section.
"(b) (1) For the purpose of registration of fuels and fuel ad-
ditives, the Administrator shall require—
"(A) the manufacturer of any fuel to notify him as to
the commercial identifying name and manufacturer of any
additive contained in such fuel; the range of concentration
of any additive in the fuel; and the purpose-in-use of any
such additive; and
"(B) the manufacturer of any additive to notify him as to
the chemical composition of such additive.
"(2) For the purpose of registration of fuels and fuel ad-
ditives, the Administrator may also require the manufacturer of
any fuel or fuel additive—
"(A) to conduct tests to determine potential public health
effects of such fuel or additive (including, but not limited to,
carcinogenic, teratogenic, or mutagenic effects), and
" (B) to furnish the description of any analytical technique
that can be used to detect and measure any additive in such
fuel, the recommended range of concentration of such ad-
ditive, and the recommended purpose-in-use of such additive,
and such other information as is reasonable and necessary to
determine the emissions resulting from the use of the fuel or
additive contained in such fuel, the effect of such fuel or addi-
tive on the emission control performance of any vehicle or
vehicle engine, or the extent to which such emissions affect
the public health or welfare.
Tests under subparagraph (A) shall be conducted in conformity
-------
1092 LEGAL COMPILATION—Are
with test procedures and protocols established by the Administra-
tor. The result of such tests shall not be considered confidential.
"(3) Upon compliance with the provision of this subsection,
including assurances that the Administrator will receive changes
in the information required, the Administrator shall register
such fuel or fuel additive.
"(c) (1) The Administrator may, from time to time on the
basis of information obtained under subsection (b) of this section
or other information available to him, by regulation, control or
prohibit the manufacture, introduction into commerce, offering
for sale, or sale of any fuel or fuel additive for use in a motor
vehicle or motor vehicle engine (A) if any emission products of
such fuel or fuel additive will endanger the public health or wel-
fare, or (B) if emission products of
[p. 1698]
such fuel or fuel additive will impair to a significant degree the
performance of any emission control device or system which is
in general use, or which the Administrator finds has been devel-
oped to a point where in a reasonable time it would be in general
use were such regulation to be promulgated.
"(2) (A) No fuel, class of fuels, or fuel additive may be con-
trolled or prohibited by the Administrator pursuant to clause (A)
of paragraph (1) except after consideration of all relevant
medical and scientific evidence available to him, including con-
sideration of other technologically or economically feasible means
of achieving emission standards under section 202.
"(B) No fuel or fuel additive may be controlled or prohibited
by the Administrator pursuant to clause (B) of paragraph (1)
except after consideration of available scientific and economic
data, including a cost benefit analysis comparing emission control
devices or systems which are or will be in general use and require
the proposed control or prohibition with emission control devices
or systems which are or will be in general use and do not require
the proposed control or prohibition. On request of a manufacturer
of motor vehicles, motor vehicle engines, fuels, or fuel additives
submitted within 10 days of notice of proposed rulemaking, the
Administrator shall hold a public hearing and publish findings
with respect to any matter he is required to consider under this
subparagraph. Such findings shall be published at the time of pro-
mulgation of final regulations.
"(C) No fuel or fuel additive may be prohibited by the Ad-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1093
ministrator under paragraph (1) unless he finds, and publishes
such finding, that in his judgment such prohibition will not cause
the use of any other fuel or fuel additive which will produce
emissions which will endanger the public health or welfare to
the same or greater degree than the use of the fuel or fuel ad-
ditive proposed to be prohibited.
"(3) (A) For the purpose of evidence and data to carry out
paragraph (2), the Administrator may require the manufacturer
of any motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine to furnish any in-
formation which has been developed concerning the emissions
from motor vehicles resulting from the use of any fuel or fuel
additive, or the effect of such use on the performance of any
emission control device or system.
"(B) In obtaining information under subparagraph (A), sec-
tion 307(a) (relating to subpenas) shall be applicable.
"(4) (A) Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (B)
or (C), no State (or political subdivision thereof) may prescribe
or attempt to enforce, for purposes of motor vehicle emission
control, any control or prohibition respecting use of a fuel or
fuel additive in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine—
"(i) if the Administrator has found that no control or
prohibition under paragraph (1) is necessary and has
published his finding in the Federal Register, or
" (ii) if the Administrator has prescribed under para-
graph (1) a control or prohibition applicable to such fuel
or fuel additive, unless State prohibition or control is identi-
cal to the prohibition or control prescribed by the Adminis-
trator.
"(B) Any State for which application of section 209(a) has at
any time been waived under section 209 (b) may at any time
prescribe and enforce, for the purpose of motor vehicle emission
control, a control or prohibition respecting any fuel or fuel ad-
ditive.
"(C) A State may prescribe and enforce, for purposes of motor
vehicle emission control, a control or prohibition respecting the
use of a fuel or fuel additive in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
engine if an applicable implementation plan for such State under
section 110 so provides. The Administrator may approve such
section 110 so
[p. 1699]
provides. The Administrator may approve such provision in an
-------
1094 LEGAL COMPILATION—Are
implementation plan, or promulgate an implementation plan
containing such a provision, only if he finds that the State control
or prohibition is necessary to achieve the national primary or
secondary ambient air quality standard which the plan imple-
ments.
"(d) Any person who violates subsection (a) or the regulations
prescribed under subsection (c) or who fails to furnish any in-
formation required by the Administrator under subsection (c)
shall forfeit and pay to the United States a civil penalty of
$10,000 for each and every day of the continuance of such viola-
tion, which shall accrue to the United States and be recovered
in a civil suit in the name of the United States, brought in the
district where such person has his principal office or in any
district in which he does business. The Administrator may, upon
application therefor, remit or mitigate any forfeiture provided
for in this subsection and he shall have authority to determine
the facts upon all such applications."
OTHER AMENDMENTS TO TITLE II
SEC. 10. (a) The first sentence of section 208(b) of the Clean
Air Act (as so redesignated by section 8 of this Act) is amended
to read as follows: "Any records, reports or information obtained
under subsection (a) shall be available to the public, except that
upon a showing satisfactory to the Administrator by any person
that records, reports, or information, or particular part thereof
(other than emission data), to which the Administrator has
access under this section if made public, would divulge methods
or processes entitled to protection as trade secrets of such person,
the Administrator shall consider such record, report, or infor-
mation or particular portion thereof confidential in accordance
with the purposes of section 1905 of title 18 of the United States
Code, except that such record, report, or information may be
disclosed to other officers, employees, or authorized representa-
tives of the United States concerned with carrying out this Act
or when relevant in any proceeding under this Act."
(b) Section 210 of such Act (as so redesignated by section 8
of this Act) is amended to read as follows:
"STATE GRANTS
"SEC. 210. The Administrator is authorized to make grants to
appropriate State agencies in an amount up to two-thirds of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1095
cost of developing and maintaining effective vehicle emission de-
vices and systems inspection and emission testing and control
programs, except that—
"(1) no such grant shall be made for any part of any
State vehicle inspection program which does not directly
relate to the cost of the air pollution control aspects of such
a program;
"(2) no such grant shall be made unless the Secretary of
Transportation has certified to the Administrator that such
program is consistent with any highway safety program de-
veloped pursuant to section 402 of title 23 of the United
States Code; and
"(3) no such grant shall be made unless the program in-
cludes provisions designed to insure that emission control
devices and systems on vehicles in actual use have not been
discontinued or rendered inoperative."
(c) Title II of the Clean Air Act is amended by inserting after
section 211 (as so redesignated by section 8) the following new
section:
[p. 1700]
"DEVELOPMENT OF LOW-EMISSION VEHICLES
"SEC. 212. (a) For the purpose of this section—
"(1) The term 'Board' means the Low-Emission Vehicle
Certification Board.
"(2) The term 'Federal Government' includes the legisla-
tive, executive, and judicial branches of the Government of
the United States, and the government of the District of
Columbia.
"(3) The term 'motor vehicle' means any self-propelled
vehicle designed for use in the United States on the highways,
other than a vehicle designed or used for military field train-
ing, combat, or tactical purposes.
"(4) The term 'low-emission vehicle' means any motor
vehicle which—
"(A) emits any air pollutant in amounts significantly
below new motor vehicle standards applicable under sec-
tion 202 at the time of procurement to that type of
vehicle; and
"(B) with respect to all other air pollutants meets
the new motor vehicle standards applicable under section
202 at the time of procurement to that type of vehicle.
-------
1096 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
"(5) The term 'retail price' means (A) the maximum
statutory price applicable to any class or model of motor
vehicle; or (B) in any case where there is no applicable
maximum statutory price, the most recent procurement price
paid for any class or model of motor vehicle.
"(b) (1) There is established a Low-Emission Vehicle Certifi-
cation Board to be composed of the Administrator or his designee,
the Secretary of Transportation or his designee, the Chairman
of the Council on Environmental Quality or his designee, the
Director of the National Highway Safety Bureau in the Depart-
ment of Transportation, the Administrator of General Services,
and two members appointed by the President. The President shall
designate one member of the Board as Chairman.
"(2) Any member of the Board not employed by the United
States may receive compensation at the rate of $125 for each
day such member is engaged upon work of the Board. Each
member of the Board shall be reimbursed for travel expenses,
including per diem in lieu of subsistence as authorized by section
5703 of title 5, United States Code, for persons in the Government
service employed intermittently.
"(3) (A) The Chairman, with the concurrence of the members
of the Board, may employ and fix the compensation of such ad-
ditional personnel as may be necessary to carry out the functions
of the Board, but no individual so appointed shall receive com-
pensation in excess of the rate authorized for GS-18 by section
5332 of title 5, United States Code.
"(B) The Chairman may fix the time and place of such meet-
ings as may be required, but a meeting of the Board shall be
called whenever a majority of its members so request.
"(C) The Board is granted all other powers necessary for
meeting its responsibilities under this section.
"(c) The Administrator shall determine which models or
classes of motor vehicles qualify as low-emission vehicles in ac-
cordance with the provisions of this section.
"(d) (1) The Board shall certify any class or model of motor
vehicles—
"(A) for which a certification application has been filed in
accordance with paragraph (3) of this subsection;
"(B) which is a low-emission vehicle as determined by
the Administrator; and
[p. 1701]
"(C) which it determines is suitable for use as a substitute
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1097
for a class or model of vehicles at that time in use by agencies
of the Federal Government.
The Board shall specify with particularity the class or model of
vehicles for which the class or model of vehicles described in the
application is a suitable substitute. In making the determination
under this subsection the Board shall consider the following
criteria:
"(i) the safety of the vehicle;
"(ii) its performance characteristics;
"(iii) its reliability potential;
"(iv) its serviceability;
"(v) its fuel availability;
" (vi) its noise level; and
"(vii) its maintenance costs as compared with the class
or model of motor vehicle for which it may be a suitable
substitute.
"(2) Certification under this section shall be effective for a
period of one year from the date of issuance.
"(3) (A) Any party seeking to have a class or model of vehicle
certified under this section shall file a certification application in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Board.
"(B) The Board shall publish a notice of each application re-
ceived in the Federal Register.
"(C) The Administrator and the Board shall make determina-
tions for the purpose of this section in accordance with procedures
prescribed by regulation by the Administrator and the Board,
respectively.
" (D) The Administrator and the Board shall conduct whatever
investigation is necessary, including actual inspection of the
vehicle at a place designated in regulations prescribed under
subparagraph (A).
"(E) The Board shall receive and evaluate written comments
and documents from interested parties in support of, or in op-
position to, certification of the class or model of vehicle under
consideration.
" (F) Within 90 days after the receipt of a properly filed certifi-
cation application, the Administrator shall determine whether
such class or model of vehicle is a low-emission vehicle, and within
180 days of such determination, the Board shall reach a decision
by majority vote as to whether such class or model of vehicle,
having been determined to be a low-emission vehicle, is a suitable
526-702 O - 73 -- 34
-------
1098 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
substitute for any class or classes of vehicles presently being pur-
chased by the Federal Government for use by its agencies.
"(G) Immediately upon making any determination or decision
under subparagraph (F), the Administrator and the Board shall
each publish in the Federal Register notice of such determination
or decision, including reasons therefor and in the case of the
Board any dissenting views.
"(e) (1) Certified low-emission vehicles shall be acquired by
purchase or lease by the Federal Government for use by the
Federal Government in lieu of other vehicles if the Administrator
of General Services determines that such certified vehicles have
procurement costs which are no more than 150 per centum of the
retail price of the least expensive class or model of motor vehicle
for which they are certified substitutes.
"(2) In order to encourage development of inherently low-
polluting propulsion technology, the Board may, at its discretion,
raise the premium set forth in paragraph (1) of this subsection
to 200 per centum of the retail price of any class or model of
motor vehicle for which a certified low-emission vehicle is a certi-
fied substitute, if the Board determines that the certified low-
emission vehicle is powered by an inherently low-polluting pro-
pulsion system.
[p. 1702]
"(3) Data relied upon by the Board and the Administrator
in determining that a vehicle is a certified low-emission vehicle
shall be incorporated in any contract for the procurement of such
vehicle.
" (f) The procuring agency shall be required to purchase avail-
able certified low-emission vehicles which are eligible for purchase
to the extent they are available before purchasing any other
vehicles for which any low-emission vehicle is a certified substi-
tute. In making purchasing selections between competing eligible
certified low-emission vehicles, the procuring agency shall give
priority to (1) any class or model which does not require exten-
sive periodic maintenance to retain its low-polluting qualities or
which does not require the use of fuels which are more expensive
than those of the classes or models of vehicles for which it is a
certified substitute; and (2) passenger vehicles other than buses.
"(g) For the purpose of procuring certified low-emission
vehicles any statutory price limitations shall be waived.
" (h) The Administrator shall, from time to time as the Board
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1099
deems appropriate, test the emissions from certified low-emission
vehicles purchased by the Federal Government. If at any time
he finds that the emission rates exceed the rates on which certifi-
cation under this section was based, the Administrator shall notify
the Board. Thereupon the Board shall give the supplier of
such vehicles written notice of this finding, issue public notice
of it, and give the supplier an opportunity to make necessary
repairs, adjustments, or replacements. If no such repairs, adjust-
ments, or replacements are made within a period to be set by
the Board, the Board may order the supplier to show cause why
the vehicle involved should be eligible for recertification.
"(i) There are authorized to be appropriated for paying addi-
tional amounts for motor vehicles pursuant to, and for carrying
out the provisions of, this section, $5,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1971, and $25,000,000 for each of the two succeed-
ing fiscal years.
"(j) The Board shall promulgate the procedures required to
implement this section within one hundred and eighty days after
the date of enactment of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970."
(d) (1) Paragraph (1) of section 213 of the Clean Air Act (as
so redesignated by section 8) is amended by inserting "202,"
immediately before "203".
(2) Paragraph (3) of such section 213 is amended by striking
out "The" and inserting in lieu thereof "Except with respect to
vehicles or engines imported or offered for importation, the"; and
by adding before the period at the end thereof "; and with
respect to imported vehicles or engines, such terms mean a motor
vehicle and engine, respectively, manufactured after the effective
date of a regulation issued under section 202 which is applicable
to such vehicle or engine (or which would be applicable to such
vehicle or engine had it been manufactured for importation into
the United States)".
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR AIRCRAFT
"SEC. 11. (a) (1) Title II of the Clean Air Act is amended by
adding at the end thereof the following new part:
"PART B—AIRCRAFT EMISSION STANDARDS
"ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARDS
"SEC. 231. (a) (1) Within 90 days after the date of enactment
of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, the Administrator shall
-------
1100 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
commence a study and investigation of emissions of air pollutants
from aircraft in order to determine—
[p. 1703]
"(A) the extent to which such emissions affect air quality
in air quality control regions throughout the United States,
and
"(B) The technological feasibility of controlling such
emissions.
"(2) Within 180 days after commencing such study and in-
vestigation, the Administrator shall publish a report of such study
and investigation and shall issue proposed emission standards
applicable to emissions of any air pollutant from any class or
classes of aircraft or aircraft engines which in his judgment cause
or contribute to or are likely to cause or contribute to air pollu-
tion which endangers the public health or welfare.
" (3) The Administrator shall hold public hearings with respect
to such proposed standards. Such hearings shall, to the extent
practicable, to be held in air quality control regions which are most
seriously affected by aircraft emissions. Within 90 days after the
issuance of such proposed regulations, he shall issue such regula-
tions with such modifications as he deems appropriate. Such
regulations may be revised from time to time.
"(b) Any regulation prescribed under this section (and any
revision thereof) shall take effect after such period as the
Administrator finds necessary (after consultation with the Secre-
tary of Transportation) to permit the development and applica-
tion of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration
to the cost of compliance within such period.
" (c) Any regulations under this section, or amendments thereto,
with respect to aircraft, shall be prescribed only after consulta-
tion with the Secretary of Transportation in order to assure
appropriate consideration for aircraft safety.
"ENFORCEMENT OP STANDARDS
"SEC. 232. (a) The Secretary of Transportation, after con-
sultation with the Administrator, shall prescribe regulations to
insure compliance with all standards prescribed under section 231
by the Administrator. The regulations of the Secretary of Trans-
portation shall include provisions making such standards applica-
ble in the issuance, amendment, modification, suspension, or revo-
cation of any certificate authorized by the Federal Aviation Act or
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1101
the Department of Transportation Act. Such Secretary shall
insure that all necessary inspections are accomplished, and, may
execute any power or duty vested in him by any other provision
of law in the execution of all powers and duties vested in him
under this section.
"(b) In any action to amend, modify, suspend, or revoke a
certificate in which violation of an emission standard prescribed
under section 231 or of a regulation prescribed under subsection
(a) is at issue, the certificate holder shall have the same notice
and appeal rights as are prescribed for such holders in the
Federal Aviation Act of 1958 or the Department of Transporta-
tion Act, except that in any appeal to the National Transportation
Safety Board, the Board may amend, modify, or revoke the order
of the Secretary or Transportation only if it finds no violation of
such standard or regulation and that such amendment, modifica-
tion, or revocation is consistent with safety in air transportation.
"STATE STANDARDS AND CONTROLS
"SEC. 233. No State or political subdivision thereof may adopt
or attempt to enforce any standard respecting emissions of any
air pollutant from any aircraft or engine thereof unless such
standard is identical to a standard applicable to such aircraft
under this part.
[p. 1704]
"DEFINITIONS
"SEC. 234. Terms used in this part (other than Administrator)
shall have the same meaning as such terms have under section
101 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958."
(2) Title II of the Clean Air Act is amended—
(A) by striking out "this title" wherever it appears in
sections 202 through 213 and inserting in lieu thereof "this
part";
(B) by striking out "TITLE II" in the heading for section
213 (as so redesignated by section 8 of this Act) and inserting
in lieu thereof "PART A";
(C) by amending the heading for title II to read as
follows: "TITLE II—EMISSION STANDARDS :FOR
MOVING SOURCES"; and
(D) by inserting after section 201 the following:
"PART A—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION AND FUEL STANDARDS".
-------
1102 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
(b) (1) Section 601 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49
U.S.C. 1421) is amended by adding at the end thereof the follow-
ing new subsection:
"AVIATION FUEL STANDARDS
"(d) The Administrator shall prescribe, and from time to
time revise, regulations (1) establishing standards governing the
composition or the chemical or physical properties of any aircraft
fuel or fuel additive for the purpose of controlling or eliminating
aircraft emissions which the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (pursuant to section 231 of the Clean Air Act)
determines endanger the public health or welfare, and (2)
providing for the implementation and enforcement of such
standards."
(2) Section 610 (a) of such Act (49 U.S.C. 1430(a)) is
amended by striking out "and" at the end of paragraph (7) ; by
striking out the period at the end of paragraph (8) and inserting
in lieu thereof "; and" and by adding after paragraph (8) the
following new paragraph:
"(9) For any person to manufacture, deliver, sell, or offer
for sale, any aviation fuel or fuel additive in violation of any
regulation prescribed under section 601 (d)."
(3) That portion of the table of contents contained in the first
section of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 which appears under
the side heading
"Sec. 601. General Safety Powers and Duties."
is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
"(d) Aviation fuel standards.".
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 12. (a) The Clean Air Act is amended by redesignating
sections 303 through 310 as sections 310 through 317, and by in-
serting after section 302 the following new sections:
"EMERGENCY POWERS
"SEC. 303. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
the Administrator, upon receipt of evidence that a pollution
source or combination of sources (including moving sources) is
presenting an imminent and substantial endangerment to the
health of persons, and that appropriate State or local authorities
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1103
have not acted to abate such sources, may bring suit on behalf of
the United States in the appropriate United States district court
to immediately restrain any person
[p. 1705]
causing or contributing to the alleged pollution to stop the emis-
sion of air pollutants causing or contributing to such pollution
or to take such other action as may be necessary.
"CITIZEN SUITS
"SEC. 304. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), any
person may commence a civil action on his own behalf—
"(1) against any person (including (i) the United States,
and (ii) any other governmental instrumentality or agency
to the extent permitted by the Eleventh Amendment to the
Constitution) who is alleged to be in violation of (A) an
emission standard or limitation under this Act or (B) an
order issued by the Administrator or a State with respect
to such a standard or limitation, or
"(2) against the Administrator where there is alleged a
failure of the Administrator to perform any act or duty
under this Act which is not discretionary with the Adminis-
trator.
The district courts shall have jurisdiction, without regard to the
amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties, to enforce
such an emission standard or limitation, or such an order, or to
order the Administrator to perform such act or duty, as the case
may be.
" (b) No action may be commenced—
"(1) under subsection (a) (1)—
"(A) prior to 60 days after the plaintiff has given
notice of the violation (i) to the Administrator, (ii) to
the State in which the violation occurs, and (iii) to any
alleged violator of the standard, limitation, or order, or
"(B) if the Administrator or State has commenced
and is diligently prosecuting a civil action in a court of
the United States or a State to require compliance with
the standard, limitation, or order, but in any such action
in a court of the United States any person may intervene
as a matter of right.
"(2) under subsection (a) (2) prior to 60 days after the
plaintiff has given notice of such action to the Administrator,
-------
1104 LEGAL COMPILATION—Are
except that such action may be brought immediately after such
notification in the case of an action under this section respecting
a violation of section 112(c) (1) (B) or an order issued by the
Administrator pursuant to section 113(a). Notice under this
subsection shall be given in such manner as the Administrator
shall prescribe by regulation.
"(c) (1) Any action respecting a violation by a stationary
source of an emission standard or limitation or an order respect-
ing such standard or limitation may be brought only in the
judicial district in which such source is located.
"(2) In such action under this section, the Administrator, if
not a party, may intervene as a matter of right.
" (d) The court, in issuing any final order in any action brought
pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, may award costs of
litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees)
to any party, whenever the court determines such award is
appropriate. The court may, if a temporary restraining order or
preliminary injunction is sought, require the filing of a bond
or equivalent security in accordance with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
"(e) Nothing in this section shall restrict any right which any
person (or class of persons) may have under any statute or
common law to seek enforcement of any emission standard or
limitation or to seek any other relief (including relief against the
Administrator or a State agency).
" (f) For purposes of this section, the term 'emission standard
or limitation under this Act' means—
"(1) a schedule or timetable of compliance, emission
limitation, standard of performance or emission standard, or
[p. 1706]
"(2) a control or prohibition respecting a motor vehicle
fuel or fuel additive,
which is in effect under this Act (including a requirement ap-
plicable by reason of section 118) or under an applicable im-
plementation plan.
"APPEARANCE
"SEC. 305. The Administrator shall request the Attorney Gen-
eral to appear and represent him in any civil action instituted
under this Act to which the Administrator is a party. Unless
the Attorney General notifies the Administrator that he will
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1105
appear in such action within a reasonable time, attorneys ap-
pointed by the Administrator shall appear and represent him.
"FEDERAL PROCUREMENT
"SEC. 306. (a) No Federal agency may enter into any contract
with any person who is convicted of any offense under section
113 (c) (1) for the procurement of goods, materials, and services
to perform such contract at any facility at which the violation
which gave rise to such conviction occurred if such facility is
owned, leased, or supervised by such person. The prohibition in
the preceding sentence shall continue until the Administrator
certifies that the condition giving rise to such a conviction has
been corrected.
"(b) The Administrator shall establish procedures to provide
all Federal agencies with the notification necessary for the pur-
poses of subsection (a).
"(c) In order to implement the purposes and policy of this
Act to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air, the
President shall, not more than 180 days after enactment of the
Clean Air Amendments of 1970 cause to be issued an order (1)
requiring each Federal agency authorized to enter into contracts
and each Federal agency which is empowered to extend Federal
assistance by way of grant, loan, or contract to effectuate the
purpose and policy of this Act in such contracting or assistance
activities, and (2) setting forth procedures, sanctions, penalties,
and such other provisions, as the President determines necessary
to carry out such requirement.
"(d) The President may exempt any contract, loan, or grant
from all or part of the provisions of this section where he deter-
mines such exemption is necessary in the paramount interest of
the United States and he shall notify the Congress of such ex-
emption.
"(e) The President shall annually report to the Congress on
measures taken toward implementing the purpose and intent of
this section, including but not limited to the progress and prob-
lems associated with implementation of this section.
"GENERAL PROVISION RELATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
AND JUDICAL REVIEW
"SEC. 307. (a) (1) In connection with any determination under
section 110(f) or section 202(b) (5), or for purposes of obtaining
-------
1106 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
information under section 202 (b) (4) or 210 (c) (4), the Adminis-
trator may issue subpoenas for the attendance and testimony
of witnesses and the production of relevant papers, books, and
documents, and he may administer oaths. Except for emission
data, upon a showing satisfactory to the Administrator by such
owner or operator that such papers, books, documents, or in-
formation or particular part thereof, if made public, would di-
vulge trade secrets or secret processes of such owner or operator,
the Administrator shall consider such record, report, or informa-
tion or particular portion thereof confidential in accordance with
the purposes of section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code,
[p. 1707]
except that such paper, book, document, or information may be
disclosed to other officers, employees, or authorized representatives
of the United States concerned with carrying out this Act, to
persons carrying out the National Academy of Sciences' study
and investigation provided for in section 202(c), or when rele-
vant in any proceeding under this Act. Witnesses summoned
shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses
in the courts of the United States. In case of contumacy or re-
fusal to obey a subpoena served upon any person under this sub-
paragraph, the district court of the United States for any district
in which such person is found or resides or transacts business,
upon application by the United States and after notice to such
person, shall have jurisdiction to issue an order requiring such
person to appear and give testimony before the Administrator to
appear and produce papers, books, and documents before the Ad-
ministrator, or both, and any failure to obey such order of the
court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof.
"(b) (1) A petition for review of action of the Administrator
in promulgating any national primary or secondary ambient air
quality standard, any emission standard under section 112, any
standard of performance under section 111, any standard under
section 202 (other than a standard required to be prescribed
under section 202(b) (1)), any determination under section 202
(b) (5), any control or prohibition under section 211, or any stand-
ard under section 231 may be filed only in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. A petition for re-
view of the Administrator's action in approving or promulgating
any implementation plan under section 110 or section lll(d) may
be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the ap-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1107
propriate circuit. Any such petition shall be filed within 30 days
from the date of such promulgation or approval, or after such
date if such petition is based solely on grounds arising after such
30th day.
"(2) Action of the Administrator with respect to which re-
view could have been obtained under paragraph (1) shall not be
subject to judicial review in civil or criminal proceedings for
enforcement.
"(c) In any judicial proceeding in which review is sought
of a determination under this Act required to be made on the
record after notice and opportunity for hearing, if any party
applies to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and
shows to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence
is material and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure
to adduce such evidence in the proceeding before the Administra-
tor, the court may order such additional evidence (and evidence
in rebuttal thereof) to be taken before the Administrator, in such
manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may
deem proper. The Administrator may modify his findings as to the
facts, or make new findings, by reason of the additional evidence
so taken and he shall file such modified or new findings, and his
recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting aside of
his original determination, with the return of such additional
evidence.
"MANDATORY LICENSING
"SEC. 308. Whenever the Attorney General determines, upon
application of the Administrator—
"(1) that^-
"(A) in the implementation of the requirements of
section 111, 112, or 202 of this Act, a right under any
United States letters patent, which is being used or in-
tended for public or commercial use and not otherwise
reasonably available, is necessary to enable any person
required to comply with such limitation to so comply, and
"(B) there are no reasonable alternative methods to
accomplish such purpose, and
[p. 1708]
"(2) that the unavailability of such right may result in a
substantial lessening of competition or tendency to create a
-------
1108 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
monopoly in any line of commerce in any section of the
country,
the Attorney General may so certify to a district court of the
United States, which may issue an order requiring the person who
owns such patent to license it on such reasonable terms and condi-
tions as the court, after hearing, may determine. Such certification
may be made to the district court for the district in which the
person owning the patent resides, does business, or is found.
"POLICY REVIEW
"SEC. 309. (a) The Administrator shall review and comment
in writing on the environmental impact of any matter relating to
duties and responsibilities granted pursuant to this Act or other
provisions of the authority of the Administrator, contained in any
(1) legislation proposed by any Federal department or agency,
(2) newly authorized Federal projects for construction and any
major Federal agency action (other than a project for construc-
tion) to which section 102(2) (C) of Public Law 91-190 applies,
and (3) proposed regulations published by any department or
agency of the Federal Government. Such written comment shall
be made public at the conclusion of any such review.
"(b) In the event the Administrator determines that any such
legislation, action, or regulation is unsatisfactory from the stand-
point of public health or welfare or environmental quality, he shall
publish his determination and the matter shall be referred to the
Council on Environmental Quality."
"APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. 13. (a) Section 104 (c) of the Clean Air Act is amended
to read as follows:
"(c) For the purposes of this section there are authorized to be
appropriated $75,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971,
$125,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and $150,-
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973. Amounts ap-
propriated pursuant to this subsection shall remain available until
expended."
(b) Section 316 of the Clean Air Act (as redesignated by sec-
tion 12 of this Act) is amended to read as follows:
"APPROPRIATIONS
"SEC. 316. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1109
out this Act, other than sections 103, (f)(3) and (d), 104, 212,
and 403, $125,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971,
$225,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and $300,-
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973."
SEC. 14. The Clean Air Act is amended by adding at the end
thereof a new title to read as follows:
"TITLE IV—NOISE POLLUTION
"SEC. 401. This title may be cited as the 'Noise Pollution and
Abatement Act of 1970'.
"SEC. 402. (a) The Administrator shall establish within the
Environmental Protection Agency an Office of Noise Abatement
and Control,
[p. 1709]
and shall carry out through such Office a full and complete in-
vestigation and study of noise and its effects on the public health
and welfare in order to (1) identify and classify causes and
sources of noise, and (2) determine—
"(A) effects at various levels;
"(B) projected growth of noise levels in urban areas
through the year 2000;
" (C) the psychological and physiological effect on humans;
"(D) effects of sporadic extreme noise (such as jet noise
near airports) as compared with constant noise;
"(E) effect on wildlife and property (including values) ;
"(F) effect of sonic booms on property (including values);
and
" (G) such other matters as may be of interest in the public
welfare.
" (b) In conducting such investigation, the Administrator shall
hold public hearings, conduct research, experiments, demonstra-
tions, and studies. The Administrator shall report the results of
such investigation and study, together with his recommendations
for legislation or other action, to the President and the Congress
not later than one year after the date of enactment of this title.
"(c) In any case where any Federal department or agency is
carrying out or sponsoring any activity resulting in noise which
the Administrator determines amounts to a public nuisance or is
otherwise objectionable, such department or agency shall consult
-------
1110 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
with the Administrator to determine possible means of abating
such noise. ,
"SEC. 403. There is authorized to be appropriated such amount,
not to exceed $30,000,000, as may be necessary for the purposes
of this title."
TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
SEC. 15. (a) (1) Section 302 of the Clean Air Act is amended by
striking out subsection (g) and inserting in lieu thereof the fol-
lowing:
"(g) The term 'air pollutant' means an air pollution agent or
combination of such agents.
" (h) All language referring to effects on welfare includes, but
is not limited to, effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-
made materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate,
damage to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transpor-
tation, as well as effects on economic values and on personal com-
fort and well-being."
(2) Section 103 (c) of the Clean Air Act is amended by striking
out "air pollution agents (or combinations of agents)" and insert-
ing in lieu thereof "air pollutants".
(b) (1) Subject to such requirements as the Civil Service Com-
mission may prescribe, any commissioned officer of the Public
Health Service (other than an officer who retires under section
211 of the Public Health Service Act after his election but prior
to his transfer pursuant to this paragraph and paragraph (2))
who, upon the day before the effective date of Reorganization
Plan Numbered 3 of 1970 (hereinafter in this subsection referred
to as the "plan"), is serving as such officer (A) primarily in the
performance of functions transferred by such plan to the En-
vironmental Protection Agency or its Administrator (hereinafter
in this subsection referred to as the "Agency" and the "Adminis-
trator", respectively), may, if such officer so elects, acquire com-
petitive status and be transferred to a competitive position in the
Agency; or (B) primarily in the performance of functions deter-
mined by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (here-
inafter in this subsection referred to as the "Secretary") to be
materially related to the functions so transferred, may, if author-
ized by agreement between the Secretary and the Administra-
tor, and if such officer so elects, acquire such status and be so
transferred.
[p. 1710]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY llll
(2) An election pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be effective
only if made in accordance with such procedures as may be pre-
scribed by the Civil Service Commission (A) before the close
of the 24th month after the effective date of the plan, or (B) in
the case of a commissioned officer who would be liable for training
and service under the Military Selective Service Act of 1967 but
for the operation of section 6(b)(3) thereof (50 U.S.C. App.
456(b) (3)), before (if it occurs later than the close of such 24th
month) the close of the 90th day after the day upon which he
has completed his 24th month of service as such officer.
(3) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), any commis-
sioned officer of the Public Health Service who, pursuant to para-
graphs (1) and (2), elects to transfer to a position in the Agency
which is subject to chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53
of title 5, United States Code (hereinafter in this subsection
referred to as the "transferring officer"), shall receive a pay rate
of the General Schedule grade of such position which is not less
than the sum of the following amounts computed as of the day
preceding the date of such election:
(i) the basic pay, the special pay, the continuation pay,
and the subsistence and quarters allowances, to which he is
annually entitled as a commissioned officer of the Public
Health Service pursuant to title 37, United States Code;
(ii) the amount of Federal income tax, as determined by
estimate of the Secretary, which the transferring officer, had
he remained a commissioned officer, would have been required
to pay on his subsistence and quarters allowances for the
taxable year then current if they had not been tax free;
(iii) an amount equal to the biweekly average cost of the
coverages designated "high option, self and family" under the
Government-wide Federal employee health benefits program
plans, multiplied by twenty-six; and
(iv) an amount equal to 7 per centum of the sum of the
amounts determined under clauses (i) through (iii), in-
clusive.
(B) A transferring officer shall in no event receive, pursuant
to subparagraph (A), a pay rate in excess of the maximum rate
applicable under the General Schedule to the class of position, as
established under chapter 51 of title 5, United States Code, to
which such officer is transferred pursuant to paragraphs (1) and
(2).
(4) (A) A transferring officer shall be credited, on the day of
-------
1112 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
his transfer pursuant to his election under paragraphs (1) and
(2), with one hour of sick leave for each week of active service,
as denned by section 211 (d) of the Public Health Service Act.
(B) The annual leave to the credit of a transferring officer on
the day before the day of his transfer, shall, on such day of trans-
fer, be transferred to his credit in the Agency on an adjusted
basis under regulations prescribed by the Civil Service Commis-
sion. The portion of such leave, if any, that is in excess of the sum
of (i) 240 hours, and (ii) the number of hours that have accrued
to the credit of the transferring officer during the calendar year
then current and which remain unused, shall thereafter remain
to his credit until used, and shall be reduced in the manner de-
scribed by subsection (c) of section 6304 of title 5, United States
Code.
(5) A transferring officer who is required to change his official
station as a result of his transfer under this subsection shall be
paid such travel, transportation, and related expenses and allow-
ances, as would be provided pursuant to subchapter II of chapter
57 of title 5, United States Code, in the case of a civilian employee
so transferred in the interest of the Government. Such officer shall
not (either at the time of such transfer or upon a subsequent
separation from the competitive service) be deemed to have
separated from, or changed permanent
[p. 1711]
station within, a uniformed service for purposes of section 404
of title 37, United States Code.
(6) Each transferring officer who prior to January 1, 1958,
was insured pursuant to the Federal Employees' Group Life In-
surance Act of 1954, and who subsequently waived such insurance,
shall be entitled to become insured under chapter 87 of title 5,
United States Code, upon his transfer to the Agency regardless
of age and insurability.
(7) (A) Effective as of the date a transferring officer acquires
competitive status as an employee of the Agency, there shall be
considered as the civilian service of such officer for all purposes of
chapter 83, title 5, United States Code, (i) his active service as
denned by section 211 (d) of the Public Health Service Act, or (ii)
any period for which he would have been entitled, upon his re-
tirement as a commissioned officer of the Public Health Service,
to receive retired pay pursuant to section 211 (a) (4) (B) of such
Act; however, no transferring officer may become entitled to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1113
benefits under both subchapter III of such chapter and title II of
the Social Security Act based on service as such a commissioned
officer performed after 1956, but the individual (or his survivors)
may irrevocably elect to waive benefit credit for the service under
one such law to secure credit under the other.
(B) A transferring officer on whose behalf a deposit is required
to be made by subparagraph (C) and who, after transfer to a
competitive position in the Agency under paragraphs (1) and
(2), is separated from Federal service or transfers to a position
not covered by subchapter III of chapter 83 of title 5, United
States Code, shall not be entitled, nor shall his survivors be en-
titled, to a refund of any amount deposited on his behalf in ac-
cordance with this section. In the event he transfers, after trans-
fer under paragraphs (1) and (2), to a position covered by an-
other Government staff requirement system under which credit is
allowable for service with respect to which a deposit is required
under subparagraph (C), no credit shall be allowed under such
subchapter III with respect to such service.
(C) The Secretary shall deposit in the Treasury of the United
States to the credit of the Civil Service Retirement and Disability
Fund, on behalf of and to the credit of such transferring officer,
an amount equal to that which such individual would be required
to deposit in such fund to cover the years of service credited to
him for purposes of his retirement under subparagraph (A), had
such service been service as an employee as defined in section
8331(1) of title 5, United States Code. The amount so required
to be deposited with respect to any transferring officer shall be
computed on the basis of the sum of each of the amounts described
in paragraph (3) (A) which were received by, or accrued to the
benefit of, such officer during the year so credited. The deposits
which the Secretary is required to make under this subparagraph
with respect to any transferring officer shall be made within two
years after the date of his transfer as provided in paragraphs (1)
and (2), and the amounts due under this subparagraph shall
include interest computed from the period of service credited to
the date of payment in accordance with section 8334 (e) of title 5,
United States Code.
(8) (A) A commissioned officer of the Public Health Service
who, upon the day before the effective date of the plan, is on
active service therewith primarily assigned to the performance of
functions described in paragraph (1) (A), shall, while he remains
in active service, as defined by section 211 (d) of the Public Health
526-702 O - 73 -- 35
-------
1114 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Service Act, be assigned to the performance of duties with the
Agency, except as the Secretary and the Administrator may jointly
otherwise provide.
(B) Paragraph (2) of section 6 (a) of the Military Selective
Service Act of 1967 (50 U.S.C. App. 456(a) (2)) is amended by
inserting "the Environmental Protection Agency," after "Depart-
ment of Justice,".
[P. 1712]
(c) (1) Section 302 (a) of the Clean Air Act is amended to read
as follows:
"(a) The term 'Administrator' means the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency."
(2) The Clean Air Act is amended by striking out "Secretary"
wherever it appears (except in reference to the Secretary of a
department other than the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare and inserting in lieu thereof "Administrator"; by strik-
ing out "Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare" wherever
it appears, and inserting in lieu thereof "Administrator"; and by
striking out "Department of Health, Education, and Welfare"
wherever it appears, and inserting in lieu thereof "Environmental
Protection Agency".
SAVINGS PROVISIONS
SBC. 16. (a) (1) Any implementation plan adopted by any
State and submitted to the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare, or to the Administrator pursuant to the Clean Air Act
prior to enactment of this Act may be approved under section 110
of the Clean Air Act (as amended by this Act) and shall remain
in effect, unless the Administrator determines that such imple-
mentation plan, or any portion thereof, is not consistent with the
applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (as amended by
this Act) and will not provide for the attainment of national pri-
mary ambient air quality standards in the time required by such
Act. If the Administrator so determines, he shall, within 90 days
after promulgation of any national ambient air quality standards
pursuant to section 109 (a) of the Clean Air Act, notify the State
and specify in what respects changes are needed to meet the
additional requirements of such Act, including requirements to
implement national secondary ambient air quality standards. If
such changes are not adopted by the State after public hearings
and within six months after such notification, the Administrator
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1115
shall promulgate such changes pursuant to section 110(c) of such
Act.
(2) The amendments made by section 4(b) shall not be con-
strued as repealing or modifying the powers of the Administrator
with respect to any conference convened under section 108 (d) of
the Clean Air Act before the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Regulations or standards issued under title II of the Clean
Air Act prior to the enactment of this Act shall continue in effect
until revised by the Administrator consistent with the purposes of
such Act.
Approved December 31,1970.
[p. 1713]
l.l(k)(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 91-1146, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1970
JUNE 3, 1970.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 17255]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 17255) to amend the Clean Air Act to
provide for a more effective program to improve the quality of the
Nation's air, having considered the same, report favorably there-
on with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended
do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
The amendment strikes out all after the enacting clause and
inserts in lieu thereof a substitute which appears in the reported
bill in italic type.
-------
1116 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION
The purpose of the legislation reported unanimously by your
committee is to speed up, expand, and intensify the war against
air pollution in the United States with a view to assuring that
the air we breathe throughout the Nation is wholesome once
again. The Air Quality Act of 1967 (Public Law 90-148) and its
predecessor acts have been instrumental in starting us off in this
direction. A review of achievements to date, however, make
abundantly clear that the strategies which we have pursued in the
war against air pollution have been inadequate in several im-
portant respects, and the methods employed in implementing those
strategies often have been slow and less effective than they
might have been.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS AND COMPARISON WITH EXISTING LAW
(1) National ambient air quality standards
The Secretary of HEW will be authorized and directed to
establish nationwide ambient air quality standards. The States will
be left free to establish stricter standards for all or part of their
geographic areas. Under present law, ambient air quality stand-
[P-l]
ards are to be adopted by the States on the basis of criteria set
forth by the Secretary.
By authorizing the Secretary to establish nationwide standards
based on the criteria developed by him for various pollutants, the
war against air pollution will be carried on throughout the Na-
tion rather than only in particular geographical areas. Further-
more, unless a State desires to set stricter standards, the time
that would be consumed by such States in adopting ambient air
quality standards will be saved.
(2) Air quality control regions
Each State is declared by law an air quality region. However,
the Secretary is authorized to establish interstate air quality
regions for the purpose of dealing with air pollution problems
of an interstate nature. Existing interstate regions remain in
effect.
Under present law, the Secretary is directed to establish air
quality control regions but only a few such regions have been
established thus far. Consequently, actual air pollution enforce-
ment activities have been delayed excessively. Additionally, the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1117
proposed regions are not contiguous and, therefore, do not cover
the entire United States.
By making each State area an air quality region, the time
consumed in establishing such regions on a selective basis will be
saved. By dividing the entire United States into contiguous air
quality regions, the war against pollution will be carried into
every part of the United States.
For the five pollutants for which the Secretary already has
established criteria,1 proposed national standards would be issued
within 30 days after the date of enactment of this legislation.
With regard to other pollutants such standards would be proposed
within 30 days after the criteria have been issued.
(3) Revision of implementation and enforcement provisions
Within 60 days after promulgation of national ambient air
quality standards, the Governor of a State may file a letter of in-
tent that such State will, within 180 days and after public hear-
ings, adopt a plan for the implementation (principally by pre-
scribing appropriate emission standards) and enforcement of
such standards. A State may adopt more stringent ambient air
quality standards, and the Secretary may extend the 180-day time
period for good cause shown but not to exceed an additional 180
days.
If a State fails to file a letter of intent or does not adopt a plan
or adopts a plan which does not meet the statutory requirements,
then after reasonable notice, the Secretary may publish proposed
regulations setting forth a State plan. The State within 30 days
either may adopt such plan or may petition for a public hearing.
The Secretary must give at least 30 days notice of such hearing.
Within 60 days after the hearing, the Secretary shall, on the
basis of the evidence presented at such hearing, promulgate either
the original or a modified plan.
If as a result of a State's failure to enforce its plan ambient air
quality standards are not met, the Secretary is to notify the State
and persons who violate the plan. If the State fails to act within
30 days the Secretary may request the Attorney General to bring
suit to secure abatement of the pollution. The court may assess
1 These pollutants are: (1) sulfur oxides, (2) paniculate matter, (3) carbon monoxide, (4)
hydrocarbons, and (5) photochemical oxidants.
[P-2]
a penalty of up to $10,000 for each day during which any person
fails to take action ordered by the Secretary to abate the pollution.
-------
1118 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
The Secretary may inspect any establishment for the purpose
of determining whether the State plan is enforced or whether the
establishment contributes to or fails to take required action to
abate pollution.
Under existing law, procedures are more complex and more
time-consuming, and no authority is provided for the Secretary to
inspect establishments.
(4) Federal emission standards for new stationary sources
The Secretary is authorized and directed to establish Federal
emission standards for new stationary sources where emissions
from such sources are extremely hazardous or where such emis-
sions contribute substantially to the endangerment of the public
health or welfare. The purpose of this new authority is to prevent
the occurrence anywhere in the United States of significant new
air pollution problems arising from such sources either because
they generate extra-hazardous pollutants or because they are
large-scale polluters.
At present emission standards for stationary sources are es-
tablished exclusively by the States.
The promulgation of Federal emission standards for new
sources in the aforementioned categories will preclude efforts on
the part of States to compete with each other in trying to attract
new plants and facilities without assuring adequate control of
extra-hazardous or large-scale emissions therefrom.
Such emission standards may be enforced either by a State as
part of that State's plan or by the Secretary if a State fails to
include such standards within its plan. The provisions for court
actions to secure abatement and the imposition of penalties are
comparable to the provisions described under (3) above.
(5) Automotive emission control—Motor vehicle testing and cer-
tification
The Secretary is authorized and directed to test, or require to
be tested in such manner as he deems appropriate, any new
motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine as it comes off the assembly
line in order to determine whether the vehicle or engine conforms
with the applicable emission standards. Such tests are in addition1
to testing the prototypes furnished by the automobile manufac-
turers for purposes of securing certificates of conformity. On the
basis of the assembly line testing, the Secretary may suspend or
revoke any such certificate in whole or in part. Hearings on the
record are to be conducted by the Secretary at the request of any
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1119
manufacturer who desires to challenge the Secretary's decision
to suspend or revoke a certificate, but such hearings shall not
stay the suspension or revocation. Determinations made by the
Secretary on the basis of such hearings are subject to judicial
review.
Experience has shown that the testing and certification of
prototypes does not of itself assure that automobiles coming off
the assembly line which are sold to the public comply with the
Federal emission standards. Therefore, the legislation authorizes
inspection of assembly plants and the testing of auotmobiles and
engines coming off the assembly line.
Additionally, the legislation provides that States must require
inspection of motor vehicles in actual use if the Secretary, after
consultation with the State, determines that the achievement of
ambient
[p. 3]
air quality standards requires such inspection and that such in-
spection is technologically and economically feasible.
Your committee is aware that low-cost, easily operated instru-
mentation techniques for such inspections are not available at
present. Since automobiles account for 60 percent of the air pollu-
tion problem in the United States and since new antipollution
devices must be developed and installed on automobiles to meet
more stringent emission standards, it will be necessary also to de-
velop more effective measuring devices to make possible inexpen-
sive and efficient tests.
The Secretary, therefore, is directed to conduct research and
development activities with respect to low-cost instrumentation
techniques to facilitate the measuring of automotive emissions.
The Secretary is directed to report to the Congress his recom-
mendations for testing programs to assure that emission stand-
ards are met during the life of vehicles and engines.
(6) Standards for automotive and other fuels
The Secretary is authorized to establish limitations on (or pro-
viding for elimination of) ingredients of fuels (including ad-
ditives) which endanger the public health or welfare or which
impair the performance of emission control devices or systems
on automobiles. Before imposing such limitations the Secretary
is required to make certain specific findings as to the necessity of
the imposition of such limitations.
-------
1120 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Present law does not authorize the imposition of such limita-
tions on automotive or other fuels.
(7) Aircraft emission standards
The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare is authorized
and directed to establish, after consultation regarding safety
aspects with the Federal Aviation Administrator, emission stand-
ards for aircraft and aircraft engines. Such standards would be
enforced by the Administrator in the certification and inspection
of aircraft or aircraft engines pursuant to his authority under the
Federal Aviation Act of 1958. The Administrator would also be
authorized to prescribe standards governing the composition of
any aircraft fuel or fuel additive for the purpose of achieving the
aircraft emission standards established by the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare. The authority of the Secretary
to establish emission standards would preempt State authority
to establish or enforce any aircraft emission standards.
Under present law the Secretary does not have such authority
to establish such standards although the aircraft industry has
voluntarily agreed to abate smoke emissions.
(8) Pollution from Federal facilities
The legislation directs Federal agencies in the executive, legis-
lative and judicial branches to comply with applicable Federal,
State, interstate, and local emission standards. The Secretary is
authorized to exempt any facility on a year by year basis. The
Secretary is to report each January to the Congress all exemp-
tions granted during the preceding calendar year, together with
the reason for granting each such exemption.
Instead of exercising leadership in controlling or eliminating
air pollution the Federal Government has tended to be slow in this
respect. The foregoing provisions are designed to reverse this
tendency.
[P. 4]
The level of appropriations available for the modification of
Federal facilities to eliminate or reduce air pollution has been
inadequate. The Committee hopes that the Administration will
seek and the Congress will provide adequate appropriations to
remedy this unfortunate situation.
(9) Extension of authorizations
The bill authorizes appropriations for the fiscal year 1971,
totaling $200 million, for the fiscal year 1972, $250 million, and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1121
for the fiscal year 1973, $325 million. Of these amounts, $75 million
for 1971, $100 million for 1972, and $125 million for 1973 are
earmarked for research relating to controlling pollution resulting
from the combustion of fuels. These authorizations constitute a
substantial increase over and above the level of appropriations
authorized during the preceding years. The highest amount
authorized for any one fiscal year (fiscal year 1969) was $185
million.
NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Air pollution continues to be a threat to the health and well-
being of the American people. While a start has been made in
controlling air pollution since the enactment of the Air Quality
Act of 1967, progress has been regrettably slow. This has been due
to a number of factors: (1) cumbersome and time-consuming
procedures called for under the 1967 act; (2) inadequate funding
on Federal, State, and local levels; (3) scarcity of skilled person-
nel to enforce control measures; (4) inadequacy of available test
and control technologies; (5) organizational problems on the
Federal level where air pollution control has not been accorded a
sufficiently high priority, and (6) last, but not least, failure on the
part of the National Air Pollution Control Administration to
demonstrate sufficient aggressiveness in implementing present
law.
On the other hand, the picture is not entirely bleak. Citizens
and officials on the grassroot level throughout the United States
have become seriously aroused over the threat of air pollution to
health and well-being and they are anxious to have stringent
controls imposed and enforced effectively at the earliest possible
date. It is also important to note that some industries have become
aware of the need for effective pollution control measures. This
ground swell is important if we are to secure clean air everywhere
in the United States, and it is important that this momentum not
be lost. Therefore, it is urgent that Congress adopt new clean air
legislation which will make possible the more expeditious im-
position of specific emission standards both for mobile and sta-
tionary sources and the effective enforcement of such standards
by both State and Federal agencies.
The imposition of national ambient air quality standards and
declaring each State as an air quality control region are steps
aimed towards the achievement of those objectives. Effective pol-
-------
1122 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
lution control requires both reduction of present pollution and
prevention of new significant pollution problems.
Therefore, particular attention must be given to new stationary
sources which are known to be either particularly large-scale
polluters or where the pollutants are extra hazardous. The legisla-
tion, therefore, grants authority to the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare to establish emission standards for any such
sources which either in the form of entire new facilities or in the
form of expanded or modified
[P. 5]
facilities, or because of expanded or modified operations or capac-
ity, constitute new sources of substantially increased pollution.
Automotive pollution constitutes in excess of 60 percent of our
national air pollution problem and such pollution is particularly
dangerous in the highly urbanized areas of our country. Therefore,
increased attention must be paid to that source of pollution by
insisting on the kinds of motor vehicles and fuels which will
reduce pollution to minimal levels. The committee hopes that the
automobile manufacturers will not limit their choice of antipol-
lution devices to those developed by them in-house, and that the
two great industries—automobile manufacturers and automotive
fuel producers—will join hands to develop the most effective
technologies. The Government is not particularly well equipped to
design cars or to determine the composition of fuels appropriate
towards these ends. However, Congress would be derelict if it did
not vest in the Government appropriate residual authority with
regard to vehicles and fuels to make the necessary decisions
should members of these industries fail to do so on their own.
The legislation, therefore, provides for more stringent testing
of automobiles. Such testing is not limited, as heretofore, to the
testing of prototypes. Such testing will continue but the tests
should require each prototype rather than the average of proto-
types to comply with regulations establishing emission standards.
In addition to prototype testing, daily testing either on a sam-
pling or car-by-car basis will be required of vehicles as they come
off the assembly lines. If such tests raise reasonable questions of
compliance with applicable emission standards, the Secretary may
suspend or revoke the certificate. He may, however, issue certifi-
cates for those cars which actually comply with the regulations
in effect at that time.
The manufacturers must warrant that the vehicles have control
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1123
systems or devices substantially of the same construction as the
systems and devices on the prototype vehicles for which a certifi-
cate has been issued. Labels or tags must be permanently affixed
to the vehicles or engines that are covered by a certificate. Such
labels or tags must contain such additional information as the
Secretary may prescribe.
In authorizing the Secretary to prescribe limitations for auto-
motive fuel ingredients, the committee has conditioned the Secre-
tary's authority by requiring specific findings based on specified
evidence. The committee has done this for the purpose of assuring
that such limitations will not be imposed lightly if other equally
satisfactory alternatives are available.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Sets forth the title: "Clean Air Act Amendments of
1970"
Sec. 2. National ambient air quality standards
Subsection (a) of this section adds a new subsection (e) to
section 107 of the Clean Air Act. Under existing law, the States
are given an opportunity, after the Secretary issues air quality
criteria,1 to establish ambient air quality standards. The new
1 Air quality criteria published by the Secretary according to existing law are to reflect ac-
curately the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifi-
able effects on health and welfare which may be expected from the presence of an air pollu-
tion agent, or combination of agents in the ambient air, in varying quantity. (Sec. 107(b) (2)).
Additionally the Secretary is to publish information on those recommended pollution control
techniques, the application of which is necessary to achieve levels of air quality set forth in
the criteria. Such information shall include technical data relating to the technology and
costs of emission control (section 107 (c)).
[p. 6]
section 107(e) directs the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare to establish nationally applicable ambient air quality
standards for any pollutant or combination of pollutants for which
he has issued air quality criteria. (Section 4, however, authorizes
any State to establish more stringent standards.)
Proposed national ambient air quality standards are to be es-
tablished within 30 days after the enactment of this legislation
for any pollutant or combination of pollutants for which the
Secretary has issued air quality criteria. Such criteria have been
issued for the following five pollutants:
1. Sulfur oxide.
2, Particulate matter.
-------
1124 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
3. Carbon monoxide.
4. Hydrocarbons.
5. Photochemical oxidants.
For any pollutant or combination of pollutants with regard to
which the Secretary will issue criteria in the future, he is directed
to publish proposed ambient air quality standards within 30 days
after the issuance of such criteria.
Upon publication by the Secretary of the proposed standards,
interested parties are allowed a reasonable time for comments
thereon. After considering the comments and other relevant in-
formation, the Secretary is directed to promulgate the standards
with such modifications as he deems appropriate. From time to
time thereafter, the Secretary may revise such standards.
Section 2(b) of the bill makes conforming amendments to sec-
tions 107 (c), 109, and 306 of the Clean Air Act.
Sec. 3. Air quality control regions
Subsection (a) of this section amends section 107 (a) of the
Clean Air Act to constitute each State as an air quality control
region. It also authorizes the Secretary, after consultation with
appropriate State and local authorities, to designate as an (inter-
state) air quality control region any area consisting of all or
part of more than one State where the Secretary determines that
the establishment of such region is necessary to deal with inter-
state air pollution problems. Interstate air quality control regions
established prior to the enactment of this legislation continue
to be considered air quality control regions.
Subsection (b) repeals section 106 of the Clean Air Act which
authorized the Secretary to provide Federal financial assistance
for the planning costs of interstate air pollution control agencies,
and to establish interstate air quality planning commissions.
Sec. 4. Revision of implementation and enforcement provisions
Subsection (a) of this section amends section 108(c) of the
Clean Air Act to revise the procedures for implementing and en-
forcing ambient air quality standards, which will be set by the
Secretary under the bill rather than by the States as under exist-
ing law. The procedure which would be followed under the legisla-
tion in implementing and enforcing each national ambient air
quality standard would be as follows:
Sec. 108(c) (1) of Act. If the Governor of the State files a letter
of intent that such State will adopt a plan for the implementa-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1125
tion, maintenance, and enforcement of the standard, and if the
State
[P. 7]
adopts such a plan, such plan will be applied in such State, if
the Secretary determines that—
(1) the State plan assures achieving such standard within
a reasonable time;
(2) adequate authority for the plan's enforcement is pro-
vided ;
(3) such plan makes appropriate provisions for intergov-
ernmental cooperation including provisions for dealing with
interstate air pollution problems within any interstate air
quality control region; and
(4) such plan contains adequate provision for revision
from time to time to take account of improved or more expe-
ditious methods of achieving the standards.
The State must file its letter of intent within 60 days of the
adoption of the national ambient air quality standard, and must
adopt its plan within 180 days of filing the letter of intent, except
that for good cause shown the Secretary may extend the 180 day
period by up to 180 additional days. Reasonable notice must be
given of, and public hearings held on, any proposed plan. A State
may adopt an ambient air quality standard applicable to such
State, or any portion thereof, which is more stringent than the
national ambient air quality standards for any pollutant.
If the Secretary determines, after consultation with the State,
that the achievement of air quality standards requires inspection
of motor vehicles in actual use and that such inspection is techno-
logically and economically feasible, the State is required to revise
its plan to provide for such inspection. If a State fails within
60 days after notification by the Secretary or such longer period
as the Secretary may prescribe to revise its plan in order to pro-
vide for inspection of motor vehicles in actual use as required by
the preceding sentence, or in order to take account of improved
or more expeditious methods of achieving ambient air quality
standards, then such State shall be regarded as not having a
plan. Any revised State plan which the Secretary determines is
consistent with the requirement of section 108 (c) (1) of the act
shall be the plan applicable to such State.
Sec. 108(c}(2) of the Act. If a State does not file a letter of in-
tent or does not have a plan which meets the requirements of
-------
1126 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
section 108 (c) (1) of the act, the Secretary may, after reasonable
notice, publish proposed regulations setting forth a plan which
would be applicable to such State. If, within 30 days after publica-
tion, the State has not adopted the plan prepared by the Secretary
or has not filed a petition for public hearings on such proposed
plan, then the Secretary shall promulgate such plan which there-
upon becomes applicable to such State.
Sec. 108 (c) (3) of the Act. If the Governor of a State petitions the
Secretary for a hearing, the Secretary is directed to call a public
hearing for the purpose of receiving testimony from State and
local air pollution control agencies and other interested parties
affected by the proposed regulations. The hearing is to be held
in or near one or more of the places where the plan will take
effect. Notice of such hearing is to be published in the Federal
Register and given to interested parties at least 30 days prior
to the date of such hearings.
[P. 8]
The Secretary is directed to make findings within 60 days on
the basis of the evidence presented in such hearings as to whether
the proposed plan should be modified. If the Secretary determines
no modification is necessary, the plan shall take effect. If he deter-
mines modifications are necessary, he is directed to promulgate
revised regulations setting forth a modified plan which will be-
come effective immediately upon promulgation.
Sec. 108 (c) (4) of the Act. Whenever the Secretary finds that
as a result of the failure of a State to enforce the plan applicable
to such State, any ambient air quality standard is not met, the
Secretary is directed to notify the affected State or States,
persons not in compliance with the plan and other interested
parties. If the failure of the State to take action extends beyond
the 30 days after the Secretary's notification, the Secretary may
request the Attorney General to bring a suit on behalf of the
United States in the appropriate U.S. district court to secure
abatement of the pollution. The court may enter such judgment
and orders as it deems necessary in the public interest and the
equities of the case. In so doing the court must give due con-
sideration to the practicability and to the technological and
economic feasibility of complying with the provisions of the
plan. The court may also assess a penalty of up to $10,000 for
each day for which a person notified by the Secretary of reme-
dial action to be taken fails to take such action. The efforts of
the defendant to abate the pollution in question must be taken
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1127
into account by the court in determining the amount of the
penalty.
Sec. 108 (c) (5) of the Act. Officers or employees duly designated
by the Secretary are authorized to enter any establishment
within an air quality control region with respect to which the
Secretary determines the air quality does not meet prescribed
ambient air quality standards. In addition, such entry may be
made where the Secretary has reason to believe that an estab-
lishment is or may be contributing to air pollution subject to
abatement under section 108 (c) (4), or that the establishment
has failed to take remedial action required by a notice issued
under that section.
Air pollution will continue to be subject to control or abatement
in accordance with the conference procedure set out under existing
law (section 108(d)-(j)) ; however, under the amendment made
by section 4 (b) a conference may not be called under sub-
paragraph (A), (B), or (C) of section 108(d) (1) (and subse-
quent proceedings based on such conference may not be conducted
under section 108(e)-(j)) with respect to a pollutant for which
(at the time the conference is called) a national ambient air
quality standard has been prescribed.
Subsection (c) of this section provides that ambient air-quality
standards and implementation and enforcement plans approved or
submitted for approval by the Secretary before the date of enact-
ment of this legislation continue in effect as if this legislation had
not been enacted until such dates as the Secretary shall establish.
No such date, however, shall be later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of the legislation.
Sec. 5. Federal emission standards for new stationary sources
Subsection (a) of this section would add a new section 112 to
the Clean Air Act. It authorizes and directs the Secretary to
establish
[p. 9]
emission standards with respect to any class of new stationary
sources which because of the nature or amount of emissions may
contribute substantially to endangerment of the public health or
welfare. The purpose of this authority is to prevent the occurrence
of significant new air pollution problems arising from or asso-
ciated with such new sources. In prescribing such standards the
Secretary is directed to give appropriate consideration to tech-
nological and economic feasibility.
-------
1128 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
As explained above, such new sources may take the form either
of entirely new facilities or expanded or modified facilities, or of
expanded or modified operations which result in substantially
increased pollution.
In the case of any class of emissions which the Secretary de-
termines is extremely hazardous to health, the emission standards
shall provide that no new sources of such emissions shall be con-
structed or operated, except where (and subject to such conditions
as he deems necessary and appropriate) he makes a specific ex-
emption with respect to such construction or operation.
With regard to other emissions for which he may prescribe
emission standards under this section, the emission standards
shall provide that sources of such emissions shall be designed and
equipped to prevent and control such emissions to the fullest ex-;
tent compatible with the available technology and economic feasi-
bility as determined by the Secretary. (In order to be considered
"available" the technology may not be one which constitutes a
purely theoretical or experimental means of preventing or con-
trolling air pollution.)
The Secretary may exempt any industry or estabishment, or any
class thereof, for the purpose of research, investigations, studies,
demonstrations, or training, or for reasons of national security.
In such cases, however, he may specify such terms and conditions
as he may find necessary to protect the public health or welfare.
Any such standards may be established only after reasonable
notice and opportunity for interested parties to present their
views at a public hearing, and after consultation with appropriate
Federal departments and agencies having responsibilities related
to such sources.
If, within such period as may be prescribed by the Secretary,
any State or interstate air pollution control agency adopts a plan
for the enforcement of the emission standards, and if the Secre-
tary determines that such plan provides adequately for the en-
forcement of such standards, the plan thereupon shall become ap-
plicable within such State or area.
If a State does not adopt such a plan, the Secretary shall, after
reasonable notice and a conference of representatives of appro-
priate Federal departments and agencies as well as State agencies,
prepare regulations establishing an enforcement plan for such
State. The Secretary may promulgate regulations effectuating
such plan unless the State decides to adopt it.
If at any time the Secretary determines that any person is vio-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1129
lating the emission standards or that the State or interstate agen-
cy is failing to carry out such plan, the Secretary is directed to
notify the agencies as well as the violator, and specify the time
within which such violation must cease. If the violation does not
cease within such time, the Secretary may request the Attorney
General to bring suit on behalf of the United States in the appro-
priate U.S. district court to secure abatement of the pollution.
The court may enter such judgment
[p. 10]
as the public interest and the equities of the case may require.
Also, the court may assess a penalty of up to $10,000 for each
day of violation after the time specified by the Secretary for the
cessation of the violation. In determining the amount of such
penalty, the court is directed to take into account the efforts of
the defendant to abate the pollution involved.
Officers or employees duly designated by the Secretary are au-
thorized to enter at reasonable times any establishment which the
Secretary has reason to believe is or may be in violation of regula-
tions issued under this section, to determine whether any violation
is occurring. Such employee must present appropriate credentials
and a written notice to the owner or person in charge of such
establishment. Such inspections may include records, files, papers,
processes, controls and facilities relevant to compliance with the
regulations.
Subsection (b) of this section makes a conforming amendment
to section 108(b) of the Clean Air Act, designed to assure that
the Secretary's establishment of emission standards does not pre-
clude State action with regard to stationary sources.
Sec. 6. Automotive emission control—motor vehicle and motor
vehicle engine compliance testing and certification
Subsection (a) of this section amends section 206 of the act to
direct the Secretary to test, or require to be tested in such manner
as he deems appropriate, prototypes of any new motor vehicle and
new motor vehicle engine submitted by a manufacturer to deter-
mine whether such vehicle or engine conforms with the motor
vehicle emission standards established by him. If the vehicle or
engine does conform, the Secretary is directed to issue a certi-
ficate of conformity upon such terms and for such period (not in
excess of 1 year) as he may prescribe.
The Secretary is authorized to test vehicles or engines being
manufactured by the manufacturer, in order to determine whether
526-702 O - 73 -- 36
-------
1130 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
such vehicles or engines do in fact comply with the emission
standards with respect to which the certificate was issued. Such
tests may be conducted either directly by the Secretary or by the
manufacturer in accordance with conditions specified by the
Secretary.
If the Secretary determines on the basis of such tests that such
vehicles or engines do not conform to the emission standards, he
may suspend or revoke the certificate in whole or in part, and he
so must notify the manufacturer. Such suspension or revocation
applies to any vehicle or engine manufacturer after the date of
notification (or manufactured before such date if still in the hands
of the manufacturer) and until such time as the Secretary finds
that vehicles and engines manufactured by the manufacturer do
conform to such emission standards. If during a period of sus-
pension or revocation the Secretary finds that any such vehicle or
engine actually conforms to such regulations, he shall issue a
certificate of conformity applicable to such vehicle or engine.
The Secretary is required to grant any manufacturer making
such request a hearing as to whether the tests conducted on the
vehicles or engines are appropriate, whether any sampling meth-
ods which have been applied are appropriate, or whether the tests
have been properly conducted. On the basis of such hearing, the
Secretary is directed to make a determination on the record with
respect to such suspension or revocation. Such suspension or
revocation, however, will not be stayed by reason of such hearing.
[P. 11]
In any case of actual controversy over such determination, the
manufacturer may within 60 days file a petition for judicial re-
view with the U.S. court of appeals for the circuit wherein such
manufacturer resides or has his principal place of business.
The court may order additional evidence to be taken before the
Secretary if the petitioner applying for leave to adduce such evid-
ence shows to the satisfaction of the court that such evidence is
material and that there are reasonable grounds for the failure to
adduce such evidence in the proceeding before the Secretary. The
Secretary may modify his findings as to the facts, or make new
findings, by reason of the additional evidence, and he may also
modify or set aside his original determination.
Officers and employees of the Secretary are authorized to inspect
at reasonable times any plant or other establishment for the pur-
pose of testing vehicles or engines coming off the production line,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1131
or to inspect records, files, papers, processes, controls, and facili-
ties used by such manufacturer in conducting tests on such vehicles
and engines.
Subsection (b) of section 6 of the bill amends section 206 of the
act to require manufacturers to warrant every new motor vehicle
or engine to have emission control systems or devices that are sub-
stantially of the same construction as systems or devices upon pro-
totype vehicles or engines for which a certificate has been issued.
(Because of the present unavailability of adequate, low-cost test-
ing devices to test automobile emissions while vehicles are in
actual use, the committee decided that a performance warranty
would be inappropriate at this time.) Manufacturers are also re-
quired to furnish with each vehicle or engine written instructions
for necessary maintenance by the ultimate purchaser. Additional-
ly, the manufacturer must indicate by means of a label or tag
permanently affixed to such vehicle or engine that it is covered
by a certificate of conformity issued for the purpose of assuring
achievement of emission standards prescribed under section 202
of the act. Such label or tag must also contain such other in-
formation relating to control of motor vehicle emissions as the
Secretary shall prescribe by regulation. The warranty provision
added by this subsection does not relieve a manufacturer from
any liability at common law or under statutory law.
Under existing law, manufacturers are prohibited from manu-
facturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, or introducing or de-
livering for introduction into commerce any new motor vehicle or
engine to which emissions standards apply, unless such vehicle
or engine is in conformity with the emission standards. (Any
vehicle which is in all material respects of the same construction
as a prototype for which a certificate has been issued is deemed
under existing law to be in conformity with the standards.) Section
6(c) of the bill modifies this prohibition so that a manufacturer
may not sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction
into commerce any vehicle or engine to which an emission stand-
ard applies, unless such vehicle or engine is covered by a certifi-
cate of conformity. (As noted above a certificate may be suspended
or revoked if the Secretary's production-line testing shows that
vehicles or engines covered by it do not actually meet the appli-
cable emissions standards.)
Subsection (d) of section 6 of the bill provides that the amend-
ments made by section 6 relating to compliance testing and certi-
-------
1132 LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
fication, and to warranties, instructions and labels apply to vehicles
and engines
[p. 12]
manufactured after the 30th day after the enactment of the bill
or after such later date (within 180 days after enactment) as
the Secretary prescribes and publishes in the Federal Register.
Subsection (e) of section 6 of the bill modifies the provisions of
title II of the Clean Air Act which apply to imported vehicles and
engines. Under existing law, emission standards apply only to new
vehicles, or engines imported for sale or resale. The amendments
made by subsection (e) would make the requirements of title II
applicable to any imported vehicle or engine (whether or not new
and whether or not imported for sale or resale) if the vehicle or
engine was subject to the standards when manufactured (or would
have been so subject had it been manufactured for importation).
The provisions of this subsection are applicable in the case of
motor vehicles or engines imported into the United States on or
after the 60th day following the date of enactment of this act.
Sec. 7. Automotive emission control testing report
The Secretary is required to report to the Congress within 1
year of the date of enactment of this bill the results of research
and development conducted by him with respect to low cost in-
strumentation techniques to facilitate the determination of the
quantity and quality of air pollutants emitted from motor vehicles.
Such report is to include his recommendations for a program to
assure that emission standards for motor vehicles and engines are
met during the life of such vehicles and engines.
Sec. 8. Standards with respect to fuel
Section 8 amends section 210 of the Clean Air Act by adding
the new provisions described below. These provisions deal with
standards with respect to all types of fuels (except aviation
fuels), but special requirements are set forth with regard to the
establishment of standards for motor vehicle fuels.
The Secretary is authorized to establish standards respecting
the composition of the chemical or physical properties of any fuel
or fuel additive by specifying limitations on (or providing for
elimination of) ingredients (including additives) or on the physi-
cal or chemical characteristics of any fuel or class of fuels. He
may establish standards respecting a fuel (or fuel additive) only
if either (1) emission products therefrom endanger public health
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1133
or welfare, or (2) the fuel or fuel additive will significantly im-
pair performance of an emission control device or system in
general use (or likely to be in general use) on a significant num-
ber of motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines.
Standards established on the basis that any emissions of any
fuel or fuel additive will endanger the public health or welfare
must be based on specific findings derived from relevant medical
and scientific evidence. In the case of a standard applicable to
motor vehicle fuel or fuel additive, he must also find that, in the
absence of a standard with respect to such fuel or additives, it
will not be technologically or economically feasible to achieve the
automotive emission standards established by him under section
202 of the Clean Air Act. Standards established on the basis that
a fuel or fuel additive will impair to a significant degree the per-
formance of any emission control device or system in general use,
or likely to be in general use, must be based on specific findings
derived from scientific evidence, including a cost-benefit analysis
comparing emission control devices or systems which
[p. 13]
will require the proposed standard, with devices or systems which
will not do so.
The Secretary's authority under this section is applicable to all
types of fuels, whether used in stationary sources or in motor
vehicles, except that it does not apply to aviation fuel or additives
thereto. (With regard to aviation fuels, special provisions aro
contained in section 9 of the bill granting appropriate authority
to the Federal Aviation Administrator.)
For the purpose of making these findings, the Secretary may re-
quire the manufacturer of any fuel or fuel additive and the manu-
facturer of any motor vehicle or engine to furnish any information
which has been developed concerning emissions from motor
vehicles resulting from use of any fuel or fuel additive, or the
effect of such use on the performance of any emission control
device or system.
Failure to comply with the provisions of this section may sub-
ject the manufacturer to penalties of up to $10,000.
Sec. 9. Aircraft emission standards
Section 9 (a) would add to title II of the Clean Air Act new
sections 231 and 232. Section 231 directs the Secretary to pre-
scribe, as soon as practicable, giving appropriate consideration to
technological feasibility and economic costs, emission standards
-------
1134 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
for any class of aircraft or aircraft engines which cause or con-
tribute to air pollution endangering the health or welfare of any
persons. Such standards are to apply, whether the aircraft or
engines are designed as complete systems or whether they incor-
porate other devices to prevent or control pollution. Such stand-
ards are to include requirements with respect to manufacturers'
warranty of such systems or devices.
Any such standards shall be prescribed only after consultation
with the Federal Aviation Administrator in order to assure ap-
propriate consideration for aircraft safety. The Administrator is
directed to apply such standards in the certification and inspection
of aircraft or engines pursuant to his authority under the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958.
Under section 232, States or political subdivisions thereof are
prohibited from attempting to enforce or adopting any standard
relating to the control of emissions from aircraft or aircraft en-
gines subject to sections 231 and 232. No State may require
certification, inspection, or any other approval relating to the
control of emissions from any aircraft or engines as a condition
precedent to the initial sale, titling, or registration of aircraft or
engines.
Section 9(b) of the bill amends section 601 of the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958 by adding a new subsection (d). The new
provision authorizes the Administrator to prescribe and revise
from time to time regulations establishing standards governing
the composition or the chemical or physical properties of any air-
craft fuel or fuel additive for the purpose of controlling or elim-
inating aircraft emissions which endanger the public health or
welfare as determined by the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
Sec. 10. Federal facilities
This section would amend section 111 of the Clean Air Act to
direct Federal agencies in the executive, legislative, and judicial
local emission
[p. 14]
standards. The Secretary is authorized to exempt any facility for
a period not in excess of 1 year. Additional exemptions for the
same facility may be granted, but the Secretary is required to
report each January to the Congress all exemptions granted dur-
ing the preceding calendar year, together with the reason for
granting each such exemption.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1135
Your committee would like to note that the Capitol Power Plant
which provides electricity, heating and cooling to the Capitol, the
House and Senate Office Buildings, the Supreme Court and the
Library of Congress is not presently subject to the provisions
of the Clean Air Act. The bill reported by your committee would
correct this situation and make this facility along with other Fed-
eral installations subject to the provisions of this section.
Sec. 11. Extension of authorizations
Section 11 amends section 104 (c) of the Clean Air Act (which
authorizes appropriations for rssearch relating to fuels and
vehicles) by authorizing the following additional appropriations:
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $75 million.
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, $100 million.
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, $125 million.
This section would also amend section 309 of the Clean Air Act,
authorizing appropriations for activities other than research re-
lating to fuels and vehicles by authorizing the following additional
appropriations.
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $125 million.
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, $150 million.
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, $200 million.
In addition, the section would authorize such sums not to exceed
1 percent of such appropriations to be available for evaluation
(directly or by grants or contracts) of any program authorized by
the Clean Air Act.
CONCLUSIONS
Air pollution in the United States is the result of pollution from
numerous highly diversified sources. They range from millions of
automobiles driven on city streets or interstate highways to a
relatively limited number of facilities and plants which are large-
scale-polluters such as powerplants burning coal or fuel oil.
In fashioning effective strategies in the campaign for clean air
in the United States, the different pollutants which affect our
health and welfare in different ways and in varying degrees of
severity, and the different sources from which they emanate must
be controlled. Effective technologies to reduce or eliminate partic-
ular pollutants must be developed.
While the basic strategies in the Nation's war against air pol-
lution must be developed in a unified and consistent way by the
Federal Government, the implementation and enforcement of these
-------
1136 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
strategies will have to be effected in every community in the
United States. Therefore, prompt and effective regional, State,
and local efforts are needed to win the campaign for clean air.
The legislation reported by your committee is designed to ac-
hieve these several objectives and to do so without delay.
[p. 15]
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to
be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in
italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in
roman):
CLEAN AIR ACT
TITLE I—AIR POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL
FINDINGS AND PURPOSES
SEC. 101. (a) The Congress finds—
(1) that the predominant part of the Nation's population
is located in its rapidly expanding metropolitan and other
urban areas, which generally cross the boundary lines of local
jurisdictions and often extend into two or more States;
(2) that the growth in the amount and complexity of air
pollution brought about by urbanization, industrial develop-
ment, and the increasing use of motor vehicles, has resulted in
mounting dangers to the public health and welfare, including
injury to agricultural crops and livestock, damage to and the
deterioration of property, and hazards to air and ground
transportation;
(3) that the prevention and control of air pollution at its
source is the primary responsibility of States and local gov-
ernments ; and
(4) that Federal financial assistance and leadership is es-
sential for the development of cooperative Federal, State,
regional, and local programs to prevent and control air pol-
lution.
(b) The purposes of this title are—
(1) to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1137
resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and
the productive capacity of its population;
(2) to initiate and accelerate a national research and de-
velopment program to achieve the prevention and control of
air pollution;
(3) to provide technical and financial assistance to State
and local governments in connection with the development and
execution of their air pollution prevention and control pro-
grams ; and
(4) to encourage and assist the development and operation
of regional air pollution control programs.
COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES AND UNIFORM LAWS
SEC. 102. (a) The Secretary shall encourage cooperative ac-
tivities by the States and local governments for the prevention
and control of air pollution; encourage the enactment of improved
and, so far as practicable in the light of varying conditions and
needs, uniform State and local laws relating to the prevention and
control of air pollution; and encourage the making of agreements
and compacts between States for the prevention and control of
air pollution.
(b) The Secretary shall cooperate with and encourage co-
operative activities by all Federal departments and agencies hav-
ing functions relating to the prevention and control of air pol-
lution, so as to assure
[P. 16]
the utilization in the Federal air pollution control program of all
appropriate and available facilities and resources within the
Federal Government.
(c) The consent of the Congress is hereby given to two or more
States to negotiate and enter into agreements or compacts, not
in conflict with any law or treaty of the United States, for (1) co-
operative effort and mutual assistance for the prevention and
control of air pollution and the enforcement of their respective
laws relating thereto, and (2) the establishment of such agencies,
joint or otherwise, as they may deem desirable for making effec-
tive such agreements or compacts. No such agreement or compact
shall be binding or obligatory upon any State a party thereto un-
less and until it has been approved by Congress. It is the intent
of Congress that no agreement or compact entered into between
States after the date of enactment of the Air Quality Act of 1967,
-------
1138 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
which relates to the control and abatement of air pollution in an
air quality control region, shall provide for participation by a
State which is not included (in whole or in part) in such air
quality control region.
RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES
SEC. 103. (a) The Secretary shall establish a national research
and development program for the prevention and control of air
pollution and as part of such program shall—
(1) conduct, and promote the coordination and acceleration
of, research, investigations, experiments, training, demon-
strations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects,
extent, prevention, and control of air pollution;
(2) encourage, cooperate with, and render technical services
and provide financial assistance to air pollution control agen-
cies and other appropriate public or private agencies, institu-
tions, and organizations, and individuals in the conduct of such
activities;
(3) conduct investigations and research and make surveys
concerning any specific problem of air pollution in cooperation
with any air pollution control agency with a view to recom-
mending a solution of such problem, if he is requested to do
so by such agency or if, in his judgment, such problem may
affect any community or communities in a State other than
that in which the source of the matter causing or contributing
to the pollution is located;
(4) establish technical advisory committees composed of
recognized experts in various aspects of air pollution to assist
in the examination and evaluation of research progress and
proposals and to avoid duplication of research.
(b) In carrying out the provisions of the preceding subsection
the Secretary is authorized to—
(1) collect and make available, through publications and
other appropriate means, the results of and other information,
including appropriate recommendations by him in connection
therewith, pertaining to such research and other activities;
(2) cooperate with other Federal departments and agencies,
with air pollution control agencies, with other public and pri-
vate agencies, institutions, and organizations, and with any
industries involved, in the preparation and conduct of such
research and other activities;
[p. 17]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1139
(3) make grants to air pollution control agencies, to other
public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, and organi-
zations, and to individuals, for purposes stated in subsection
(a) (1) of this section;
(4) contract with public or private agencies, institutions,
and organizations, and with individuals, without regard to
sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C.
529;41U.S.C. 5);
(5) provide training for, and make training grants to, per-
sonnel of air pollution control agencies and other persons with
suitable qualifications;
(6) establish and maintain resarch fellowships, in the De-
partment of Health, Education, and Welfare and at public or
nonprofit private educational institutions or research organi-
zations ;
(7) collect and disseminate, in cooperation with other Fed-
eral departments and agencies, and with other public or pri-
vate agencies, institutions, and organizations having related
responsibilities, basic data on chemical, physical, and biologi-
cal effects of varying air quality and other information per-
taining to air pollution and the prevention and control there-
of ; and
(8) develop effective and practical processes, methods, and
prototype devices for the prevention or control of air pollu-
tion.
(c) In carrying out the provisions of subsection (a) of this sec-
tion the Secretary shall conduct research on, and survey the results
of other scientific studies on, the harmful effects on the health or
welfare of persons by the various known air pollution agents (or
combinations of agents),
(d) The Secretary is authorized to construct such facilities and
staff and equip them as he determines to be necessary to carry out
his functions under this Act.
(e) If, in the judgment of the Secretary, an air pollution prob-
lem of substantial significance may result from discharge or dis-
charges into the atmosphere, he may call a conference concerning
this potential air pollution problem to be held in or near one or
more of the places where such discharge or discharges are occur-
ring or will occur. All interested persons shall be given an oppor-
tunity to be heard at such conference, either orally or in writing,
and shall be permitted to appear in person or by representative
in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary. If the
-------
1140 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Secretary finds, on the basis of the evidence presented at such
conference, that the discharge or discharges if permitted to take
place or continue are likely to cause or contribute to air pollution
subject to abatement under section 108 (a), he shall send such find-
ings, together with recommendations concerning the measures
which he finds reasonable and suitable to prevent such pollution,
to the person or persons whose actions will result in the discharge
or discharges involved; to air pollution agencies of the State or
States and of the municipality or municipalities where such dis-
charge or discharges will originate; and to the interstate air pol-
lution control agency, if any, in the jurisdictional area of which
any such municipality is located. Such findings and recommenda-
tions shall be advisory only, but shall be admitted together with
the record of the conference, as part of the proceedings under
subsections (d), (e),and (f) of section 108.
[p. 18]
RESEACH RELATING TO FUELS AND VEHICLES
SEC. 104. (a) The Secretary shall give special emphasis to re-
search and development into new and improved methods, having
industrywide application, for the prevention and control of air
pollution resulting from the combustion of fuels. In furtherance
of such research and development he shall—
(1) conduct and accelerate research programs directed to-
ward development of improved, low-cost techniques for con-
trol of combustion byproducts of fuels, for removal of poten-
tial pollutants from fuels, and for control of emissions from
evaporation of fuels;
(2) provide for Federal grants to public or nonprofit agen-
cies, institutions, and organizations and to individuals, and
contracts with public or private agencies, institutions, or per-
sons, for payment of (A) part of the cost of acquiring, con-
structing, or otherwise securing for research and development
purposes, new or improved devices or methods having in-
dustrywide application of preventing or controlling discharges
into the air of various types of pollutants; and (B) carrying
out the other provisions of this section, without regard to
sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C.
529; 41 U.S.C. 5): Provided, That research or demonstration
contracts awarded pursuant to this subsection (including
contracts for construction) may be made in accordance with,
and subject to the limitations provided with respect to re-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1141
search contracts of the military departments in, section 2353
of title 10, United States Code, except that the determination,
approval, and certification required thereby shall be made by
the Secretary: Provided further, That no grant may be made
under this paragraph in excess of $1,500,000;
(3) determine, by laboratory and pilot plant testing, the
results of air pollution research and studies in order to
develop new or improved processes and plant designs to the
point where they can be demonstrated on a large and practical
scale;
(4) construct, operate, and maintain, or assist in meeting
the cost of the construction, operation, and maintenance of new
or improved demonstration plants or processes which have
promise of accomplishing the purposes of this Act;
(5) study new or improved methods for the recovery and
marketing of commercially valuable byproducts resulting
from the removal of pollutants.
(b) In carrying out the provisions of this section, the Secretary
may—
(1) conduct and accelerate research and development of
low-cost instrumentation techniques to facilitate determina-
tion of quantity and quality of air pollutant emissions, includ-
ing, but not limited to, automotive emissions;
(2) utilize, on a reimbursable basis, the facilities of exist-
ing Federal scientific laboratories;
(3) establish and operate necessary facilities and test sites
at which to carry on the research, testing, development, and
programing necessary to effectuate the purposes of this sec-
tion ;
(4) acquire secret processes, technical data, inventions,
patent applications, patents, licenses, and an interest in lands,
plants, and facilities, and other property or rights by pur-
chase, license, lease, or donation; and
[P. 19]
(5) cause on-site inspections to be made of promising
domestic and foreign projects, and cooperate and participate
in their development in instances in which the purposes of the
Act will be served thereby.
(c) For the purposes of this section there are authorized to be
appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $35,000,000,
for the fiscal year ending June 30,1969, $90,000,000, [andj for the
-------
1142 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, $45,000,000, for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1971, $75,000,000, for the fiscal year ending June
80, 1972, $100,000,000, and for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1973, $125,000,000. Amounts appropriated pursuant to this sub-
section shall remain available until expended.
GRANTS FOE SUPPORT OP AIR POLLUTION PLANNING AND CONTROL
PROGRAMS
SEC. 105. (a) (1) The Secretary is authorized to make grants
to air pollution control agencies in an amount up to two-thirds of
the cost of planning, developing, establishing, or improving, and
grants to such agencies in an amount up to one-half of the cost
of maintaining, programs for the prevention and control of ajr
pollution and programs for the implementation of air quality
standards authorized by this Act: Provided, That the Secretary
is authorized to make grants to air pollution control agencies
within the meaning of sections 302 (b) (2) and 302 (b) (4) in an
amount up to three-fourths of the cost of planning, developing,
establishing, or improving and up to three-fifths of the cost of
maintaining regional air quality control programs. As used in
this subsection the term "regional air quality control program"
means a program for the prevention and control of air pollution
or the implementation of air quality standards programs as au-
thorized by this Act, in an area that includes the areas of two or
more municipalities whether in the same or different States.
(2) Before approving any grant under this subsection to any
air pollution control agency within the meaning of sections 302
(b) (2) and 302(b) (4), the Secretary shall receive assurances
that such agency provides for adequate representation of ap-
propriate State, interstate, local, and (when appropriate) inter-
national, interests in the air quality control region.
(3) Before approving any planning grant under this subsection
to any air pollution control agency within the meaning of sections
302(b) (2) and 302(b) (4), the Secretary shall receive assurances
that such agency has the capability of developing a comprehensive
air quality plan for the air quality control region, which plan
shall include (when appropriate) a recommended system of
alerts to avert and reduce the risk of situations in which there
may be imminent and serious danger to the public health or wel-
fare from air pollutants and the various aspects relevant to the
establishment of air quality standards for such air quality control
region, including the concentration of industries, other commercial
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1143
establishments, population and naturally occurring factors which
shall affect such standards.
(b) From the sums available for the purposes of subsection (a)
of this section for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall from time
to time make grants to air pollution control agencies upon such
terms and conditions as the Secretary may find necessary to carry
out the pur-
[p. 20]
pose of this section. In establishing regulations for the granting
of such funds the Secretary shall, so far as practicable, give due
consideration to (1) the population, (2) the extent of the actual
or potential air pollution problem, and (3) the financial need of
the respective agencies. No agency shall receive any grant under
this section during any fiscal year when its expenditures of non-
Federal funds for other than nonrecurrent expenditures for air
pollution control programs will be less than its expenditures were
for such programs during the preceding fiscal year; and no
agency shall receive any grant under this section with respect
to the maintenance of a program for the prevention and control
of air pollution unless the Secretary is satisfied that such grant
will be so used as to supplement and, to the extent practicable,
increase the level of State, local, or other non-Federal funds that
would in the absence of such grant be made available for the
maintenance of such program, and will in no event supplant
such State, local, or other non-Federal funds. No grant shall
be made under this section until the Secretary has consulted with
the appropriate official as designated by the Governor or Governors
of the State or States affected.
(c) Not more than 10 per centum of the total funds appropriat-
ed or allocated for the purposes of subsection (a) of this section
shall be granted for air pollution control programs in any one
State. In the case of a grant for a program in an area crossing
State boundaries, the Secretary shall determine the portion of
such grant that is chargeable to the percentage limitation under
this subsection for each State into which such area extends.
[INTERSTATE AIR QUALITY AGENCIES OR COMMISSIONS
[SEC. 106. (a) For the purpose of expediting the establishment
of air quality standards in an interstate air quality control region
designated pursuant to section 107 (a) (2), the Secretary is auth-
orized to pay, for two years, up to 100 per centum of the air qual-
-------
1144 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
ity planning program costs of any agency designated by the Gov-
ernors of the affected States, which agency shall be capable of
recommending to the Governors standards of air quality and plans
for implementation thereof and shall include representation from
the States and appropriate political subdivisions within the air
quality control region. After the initial two-year period the Sec-
retary is authorized to make grants to such agency in an amount
up to three-fourths of the air quality planning program costs of
such agency.
[(b) (1) Whenever the Secretary deems it necessary to ex-
pedite the establishment of standards for an interstate air quality
control region designated pursuant to section 107 (a) (2) he may,
after consultation with the Governors of the affected States, des-
ignate or establish an air quality planning commission for the
purpose of developing recommended regulations setting forth
standards of air quality to be applicable to such air quality con-
trol region.
[(2) Such Commission shall consist of the Secretary or his des-
ignee who shall serve as Chairman, and adequate representation
of appropriate State, interstate, local and (when appropriate), in-
ternational, interests in the designated air quality control region.
[(3) The Secretary shall, within available funds, provide such
staff for such Commission as may be necesary to enable it to carry
out its functions effectively, and shall pay the other expenses of
the Com-
[p. 21]
mission; and may also accept for the use by such Commission,
funds, property, or services contributed by the State involved
or poltiical subdivisions thereof.
[(4) Each appointee from a State, other than an official or em-
ployee thereof, or of any political subdivision thereof, shall, while
engaged in the work of the Commission, receive compensation at
a rate fixed by the Secretary, but not in excess of $100 per diem,
including traveltime, and while away from his home or regular
place of business, he may be allowed travel expenses, including
per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C.
3109) for persons in the Government service employed inter-
mittently.]
[AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS, CRITERIA, AND CONTROL
TECHNIQUES
[Sec. 107. (a) (1) The Secretary shall, as soon as practicable,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1145
but not later than one year after the date of enactment of the Air
Quality Act of 1967, define for the purposes of this Act, atmos-
pheric areas of the Nation on the basis of those conditions, includ-
ing, but not limited to, climate, meteorology, and topography,
which affect the interchange and diffusion of pollutants in the
atmosphere.
[(2) For the purpose of establishing ambient air quality stand-
ards pursuant to section 108, and for administrative and other
purposes, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate State
and local authorities shall, to the extent feasible, within 18 months
after the date of enactment of the Air Quality Act of 1967 desig-
nate air quality control regions based on jurisdictional boundaries.
urban-industrial concentrations, and other factors including at-
mospheric areas necessary to provide adequate implementation of
air quality standards. The Secretary may from time to time
thereafter, as he determines necessary to protect the public health
and welfare and after consultation with appropriate State and
local authorities, revise the designation of such regions and des-
ignate additional air quality control regions. The Secretary shall
immediately notify the Governor or Governors of the affected
State or States of such designation.]
Air Quality Control Regions and National Ambient
Air Quality Standards
Sec. 107. (a)(l) For the purpose of insuring the expeditious
attainment of ambient air quality standards throughout the
United States, the Congress hereby declares that each State shall
be an air quality control region.
(2) In addition to the regions provided for by paragraph (1),
the following areas shall be considered air quality control regions:
(A) Any air quality control region established under this
section before the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1970 which included all or part of more than
one State.
(B) Any region—
(i) which the Secretary designates after such date,
(ii) which includes all or part of more than one State,
and
(Hi) the establishment of which the Secretary deter-
mines is necessary to deal with interstate air pollution
problems.
The Secretary may designate an air quality control region under
526-702 O - 73 -- 37
-------
1146 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
subparagraph (B) of this paragraph only after consultation with
appropriate State and local authorities. The Secretary shall im-
mediately notify the
[p. 22]
Governors of the affected States of any designation made under
subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.
(b) (1) The Secretary shall, after consultation with appropriate
advisory committees and Federal departments and agencies, from
time to time, but as soon as practicable, develop and issue to the
States such criteria of air quality as in his judgment may be re-
quisite for the protection of the public health and welfare: Pro-
vided, That any criteria issued prior to enactment of this section
shall be reevaluated in accordance with the consultation procedure
and other provisions of this section and, if necessary, modified
and reissued. Such issuance shall be announced in the Federal Reg-
ister and copies shall be made available to the general public.
(2) Such criteria shall accurately reflect the latest scientific
knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identi-
fiable effects on health and welfare which may be expected from
the presence of an air pollution agent, or combination of agents
in the ambient air, in varying quantities.
(3) Such criteria shall include those variable factors which of
themselves or in combination with other factors may alter the
effects on public health and welfare of any subject agent or com-
bination of agents, including, but not limited to, atmospheric con-
ditions, and the types of air pollution agent or agents which, when
present in the atmosphere, may interact with such subject agent
or agents, to produce an adverse effect on public health and wel-
fare.
(c) The Secretary shall, after consultation with appropriate
advisory committees and Federal departments and agencies, issue
to the States and appropriate air pollution control agencies infor-
mation on those recommended pollution control techniques the ap-
plication of which is necesary to achieve levels of air quality set
forth in [criteria issued pursuant to subsection (b), including
those criteria subject to the proviso in subsection (b)(l)] the
standards issued under subsection (e), which information shall
include technical data relating to the technology and costs of
emission control. Such recommendations shall include such data
as are available on the latest available technology and economic
feasibility of alternative methods of prevention and control of air
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1147
contamination including cost-effectiveness analyses. Such issu-
ance shall be announced in the Federal Register and copies shall
be made available to the general public.
(d) The Secretary shall, from time to time, revise and reissue
material issued pursuant to subsections (b) and (c) in accordance
with procedures established in such subsections.
(e) (1) The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register pro-
posed regulations establishing nationally applicable standards of
ambient air quality for any pollutant or combination of pollutants
which he determines endanger or may endanger the public health
or welfare and with respect to which criteria have been issued
under this section, and he shall allow a reasonable time for com-
ment thereon by interested parties.
(2) Within thirty days after the date of enactment of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1970, the Secretary shall publish pro-
posed regulations establishing ambient air quality standards for
each pollutant or combination of pollutants for which air quality
criteria have been issued pursuant to this section before such date
of enactment. The Secretary shall publish proposed regulations
establishing such standards for any other pollutant or combina-
tion of pollutants within thirty days after he issues criteria with
respect thereto pursuant to this section.
[p. 23]
(3) After considering the comments referred to in paragraph
(1) and other relevant information, the Secretary shall, by reg-
ulation, promulgate such standards with such modifications as he
deems appropriate. He may from time to time thereafter, by reg-
ulation similarly prescribed, revise standards promulgated under
this section.
IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
SEC. 108. (a) The pollution of the air in any State or States
which endangers the health or welfare of any persons, shall be
subject to abatement as provided in this section.
(b) Consistent with the policy declaration of his title, municipal,
State, and interstate action to abate air pollution shall be en-
couraged and shall not be displaced by Federal enforcement action
except as otherwise provided by or pursuant to a court order un-
der subsection (c), (h), or (k) or under section 112 of this Act.
[(c)(l) If, after receiving any air quality criteria and recom-
-------
1148 LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
mended control techniques issued pursuant to section 107, the
Governor of a State, within ninety days of such receipt, files a
letter of intent that such State will within one hundred and eighty
days, and from time to time thereafter, adopt, after public hear-
ings, ambient air quality standards applicable to any designated
air quality control region or portions thereof within such State
and within one hundred and eighty days thereafter, and from time
to time as may be necessary, adopts a plan for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of such standards of air quality
adopted, and if such standards and plan are established in accord-
ance with the letter of intent and if the Secretary determines
that such State standards are consistent with the air quality cri-
teria and recommended control techniques issued pursuant to sec-
tion 107; that the plan is consistent with the purposes of the Act
insofar as it assures achieving such standards of air quality with-
in a reasonable time; and that a means of enforcement by State
action, including authority comparable to that in subsection (k)
of this section, is provided, such State standards and plan shall be
the air quality standards applicable to such State. If the Secretary
determines that any revised State standards and plan are consist-
ent with the purposes of this Act and this subsection, such stand-
ards and plan shall be the air quality standards applicable to such
State.
[ (2) If a State does not (A) file a letter of intent or (B) estab-
lish air quality standards in accordance with paragraph (1) of this
subsection with respect to any air quality control region or portion
thereof and if the Secretary finds it necessary to achieve the pur-
pose of this Act, or the Governor of any State affected by air
quality standards established pursuant to this subsection petitions
for a revision in such standards, the Secretary may after reason-
able notice and a conference of representatives of appropriate
Federal departments and agencies, interstate agencies, States,
municipalities, and industries involved, prepare regulations set-
ting forth standards of air quality consistent with the air quality
criteria and recommended control techniques issued pursuant to
section 107 to be applicable to such air quality control region or
portions thereof. If, within six months from the date the Secre-
tary publishes such regulations, the State has not adopted air
quality standards found by the Secretary to be consistent with
the purposes of this Act, or a petition for public hearing has not
been filed.
[P- 24]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1149
under paragraph (3) of this subsection, the Secretary shall
promulgate such standards.
[(3) If at any time prior to thirty days after standards have
been promulgated under paragraph (2) of this subsection, the
Governor of any State affected by such standards petitions the
Secretary for a hearing, the Secretary shall call a public hearing
for the purpose of receiving testimony from State and local pol-
lution control agencies and other interested parties affected by the
proposed standards, to be held in or near one or more of the places
where the air quality standards will take effect, before a hearing
board of five or more persons appointed by the Secretary. Each
State which would be affected by such standards shall be given
an opportunity to select a member of the hearing board. Each Fed-
eral department, agency, or instrumentality having a substantial
interest in the subject matter as determined by the Secretary shall
be given an opportunity to select one member of the hearing
board and not less than a majority of the hearing board shall be
persons other than officers or employees of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare. The members of the board who
are not officers or employees of the United States, while partici-
pating in the hearing conducted by such hearing board or other-
wise engaged in the work of such hearing board, shall be entitled
to receive compensation at a rate fixed by the Secretary, but not
exceeding $100 per diem, including traveltime, and while away
from their homes or regular places of business they may be al-
lowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence,
as authorized by section 5703, title 5, of the United States Code
for persons in the Government service employed intermittently.
At least thirty days prior to the date of such hearing notice of
such hearing shall be published in the Federal Register and given
to parties notified of the conference required in paragraph (2)
of this subsection. On the basis of the evidence presented at such
hearing, the hearing board shall within ninety days unless the
Secretary determines a longer period is necessary, but in no event
longer than one hundred and eighty days, make findings as to
whether the standards published or promulgated by the Secretary
should be approved or modified and transmit its findings to the
Secretary. If the hearing board approves the standards as pub-
lished or promulgated by the Secretary, the standards shall take
effect on receipt by the Secretary of the hearing board's recom-
mendations. If the hearing board recommends modifications in the
standards as published or promulgated by the Secretary, the Sec-
-------
1150 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
retary shall promulgate revised regulations setting forth stand-
ards of air quality in accordance with the hearing board's recom-
mendations which will become effective immediately upon pro-
mulgation.
[ (4) Whenever, on the basis of surveys, studies and reports, the
Secretary finds that the ambient air quality of any air quality
control region or portion thereof is below the air quality standards
established under this subsection, and he finds that such lowered
air quality results from the failure of a State to take reasonable
action to enforce such standards, the Secretary shall notify the
affected State or States, persons contributing to the alleged viola-
tion, and other interested parties of the violation of such stand-
ards. If such failure does not cease within one hundred and eighty
days from the date of the Secretary's notification, the Secretary—
[p. 25]
[(i) in the case of pollution of air which is endangering
the health or welfare of persons in a State other than that in
which the discharge or discharges (causing or contributing
to such pollution) originate, may request the Attorney
General to bring a suit on behalf of the United States in the
appropriate United States district court to secure abate-
ment of the pollution.
[(ii) in the case of pollution of air which is endangering
the health or welfare of persons only in the State in which
the discharge or discharges (causing or contributing to such
pollution) originate, at the request of the Governor of such
State, shall provide such technical and other assistance as in
his judgment is necessary to assist the State in judicial pro-
ceedings to secure abatement of the pollution under State or
local law, or, at the request of the Governor of such State,
shall request the Attorney General to bring suit on behalf of
the United States in the appropriate United States district
court to secure abatement of the pollution.
In any suit brought under the provisions of this subsection the
court shall receive in evidence a transcript of the proceedings of
the hearing provided for in this subsection, together with the rec-
ommendations of the hearing board and the recommendations and
standards promulgated by the Secretary, and such additional evi-
dence, including that relating to the alleged violation of the stand-
ards, as it deems necessary to complete review of the standards
and to determination of all other issues relating to the alleged vio-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1151
lation. The court, giving due consideration to the practicability
and to the technological and economic feasibility of complying
with such standards, shall have jurisdiction to enter such judg-
ment and orders enforcing such judgment as the public interest
and the equities of the case may require.]
(c)(l)If—
(A) ivithin sixty days after promulgation of any new or
revised national ambient air quality standard under section
107(e), the Governor of a State files a letter of intent that
such State will ivithin one hundred and eighty days after such
filing, adopt, after reasonable notice of the proposed plan and
public hearings on such proposal, a plan for the implementa-
tion, maintenance, and enforcement of such standard of air
quality,
(B) such plan is established in accordance with the letter of
intent, and
(C) the Secretary determines—
(i) that the p^n is consistent with the purposes of
this Act insofar as it assures achieving such standard of
air quality within a reasonable time,
(ii) that an adequate means of enforcement by State
action, including authority comparable to that in sub-
section (k) of this section, is provided,
(Hi) that such plan contains adequate provisions for
intergovernmental cooperation, including, in the case of
any area covering part or all of more than one State and
designated as an air quality control region by the Secre-
tary under section 107(a) (2), appropriate provision for
dealing with interstate air pollution problems, and
(iv) that such plan contains adequate provisions for
revision from time to time, as required by the Secretary,
to take account
[p. 26]
of improved or more expeditious methods of achieving
the standards,
then such plan shall be the plan applicable to such State. A State
may adopt an ambient air quality standard applicable to such
State or any portion thereof for any pollutant if the Secretary
agrees such State standard is more stringent than the national
ambient air quality standard for such pollutant. Upon application
by a State, the Secretary may for good cause shown grant (with
-------
1152 LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
respect to all or part of a plan) an extension of such one hundred
and eighty day period for such additional period, not to exceed
one hundred and eighty days, as he determines necessary. If a
State which has such a plan fails within 60 days after notification
by the Secretary or such longer period as the Secretary may pre-
scribe to revise it as required pursuant to subparagraph (C)
(iv) or the last sentence of this paragraph, then such State shall
be regarded for purposes of paragraph (2) as not having such a
plan. Any revised State plan which the Secretary determines is
consistent with this subsection shall be the plan applicable to such
State. At such time as the Secretary, after consultation with the
State, determines that the achievement of an air quality standard
under section 107(e~) requires inspection of motor vehicles in ac-
tual use and that such inspection is technologically and economi-
cally feasible, the State shall revise its plan to provide for such
inspection.
(2) If a State does not (A) file a letter of intent, or (B) have a
plan in accordance with paragraph (1) of this subsection, the
Secretary may after reasonable notice publish proposed regula-
tions setting forth a plan for the implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement of such standard of air quality to be applicable
to such State. If, within thirty days from the date the Secretary
publishes such proposed regulations, the State has not adopted
a plan determined by the Secretary to be in accordance with para-
graph (1) of this subsection, or a petition for public hearing has
not been filed under paragraph (3) of this subsection, the Secre-
tary shall promulgate the plan applicable to such State in accord-
ance with the proposed regulations.
(3) If, before the thirtieth day after proposed regulations have
been published under paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Gov-
ernor of the State affected by such proposed regulations petitions
the Secretary for a hearing, the Secretary shall call a public
hearing for the purpose of receiving testimony from State and
local air pollution control agencies and other interested parties
affected by the proposed regulations, to be held in or near one or
more of the places where the plan will take effect. At least thirty
days prior to the date of such hearing, notice of such hearing
shall be published in the Federal Register and given to interested
parties. On the basis of the evidence presented at such hearing,
the Secretary shall within sixty days make findings as to whether
the proposed plan should be modified. If the Secretary determines
no modifications are necessary, the plan shall take effect. If the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1153
Secretary determines modifications in the plan as published are
necessary, he shall promulgate revised regulations setting forth
a plan in accordance with such modifications, which will become
effective immediately upon promulgation.
(4) Whenever, on the basis of surveys, studies, or reports, the
Secretary finds that as a result of the failure of a State to take
reasonable action to enforce the plan applicable to such State,
the ambient air quality of any air quality control region or portion
thereof does not meet an air quality standard established under
section 107(e), the Secretary shall notify the affected State or
States, persons not in compliance with the plan, and
[p. 27]
other interested parties, of such finding. If such failure by the
State to take such action extends beyond the thirtieth day after
the date of the Secretary's notification, the Secretary may request
the Attorney General to bring a suit on behalf of the United
States in the appropriate United States district court to secure
abatement of the pollution. The court, giving due consideration
to the practicability and to the technological and economic feasi-
bility of complying with provisions of the plan established to
implement such standards, shall have jurisdiction to enter such
judgment and orders enforcing such judgment as the public in-
terest and the equities of the case may require. In the case of any
person who is notified by the Secretary of remedial action to be
taken to abate such pollution and who fails to take such action
within the time specified by the Secretary, the court may also
assess a penalty of up to $10,000 for each day of violation after
the end of such specified time. In determining the amount of such
penalty, the court shall take into account the efforts of the de-
fendant to abate the pollution in question.
(5) For purposes of carrying out paragraph (4), officers or em-
ployees duly designated by the Secretary, upon presenting appro-
priate credentials and a written notice to the owner or person in
charge, are authorized to enter, at reasonable times—
(A) any establishment located in an air quality control
region within any part of which the Secretary determines
the air quality does not meet an air quality standard pre-
scribed under section 107(e), in order to determine whether
the requirements of the State plan applicable to such estab-
lishment are being enforced, or
(B) any establishment which the Secretary has reason to
believe is or may be—
-------
1154 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
(i) contributing to air pollution subject to abatement
under paragraph (4), or
(ii) failing to take remedial action required by a notice
issued under paragraph (4),
in order to determine whether any such contribution or
failure is occurring,
including, for this purpose, inspection, at reasonable times, of
records, files, papers, processes, controls, and facilities relevant
to such purpose. A separate notice shall be given for each such
inspection, but a notice shall not be required for each entry
made during the period covered by the inspection. Each such
inspection shall be commenced and completed with reasonable
promptness.
[5] (6) In connection with any hearings under this section
no witness or any other person shall be required to divulge trade
secrets or secret processes.
[6] (7) Nothing in this subsection shall prevent the application
of this section to any case to which subsection (a) of this sec-
tion would be otherwise applicable.
(d) (1) (A) Whenever requested by the Governor of any State,
a State air pollution control agency, or (with the concurrence
of the Governor and the State air pollution control agency for the
State in which the municipality is situated) the governing body
of any municipality, the Secretary shall, if such request refers
to air pollution which is alleged to endanger the health or wel-
fare of persons in a State other than that in which the discharge
or discharges (causing or contributing to such pollution) orig-
inate, give formal notification thereof to the air pollution con-
trol agency of the municipality where such discharge or dis-
charges originate, to the air pollution control agency of the State
[P. 28]
in which such municipality is located, and to the interstate air
pollution control agency, if any, in whose jurisdictional area such
municipality is located, and shall call promptly a conference of
such agency or agencies and of the air pollution control agencies
of the municipalities which may be adversely affected by such
pollution, and the air pollution control agency, if any, of each
State, or for earh area, in which any such municipality is located.
(B) Whenever requested by the Governor of any State, a
State air pollution control agency, or (with the concurrence of the
Governor and the State air pollution control agency for the State
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1155
in which the municipality is situated) the governing body of any
municipality, the Secretary shall, if such request refers to alleged
air pollution which is endangering the health or welfare of per-
sons only in the State in which the discharge or discharges
(causing or contributing to such pollution) originate and if
a municipality affected by such air pollution, or the municipality
in which such pollution originates, has either made or concurred
in such request, give formal notification thereof to the State
air pollution control agency, to the air pollution control agencies
of the municipality where such discharge or discharges originate,
and of the municipality or municipalities alleged to be adversely
affected thereby, and to any interstate air pollution control
agency, whose jurisdictional area includes any such municipality
and shall promptly call a conference of such agency or agencies,
unless in the judgment of the Secretary, the effect of such pol-
lution is not of such significance as to warrant exercise of Federal
jurisdiction under this section.
(C) The Secretary may, after consultation with State officials
of all affected States, also call such a conference whenever, on the
basis of reports, surveys, or studies, he has reason to believe that
any pollution referred to in subsection (a) is occurring and is
endangering the health and welfare of persons in a State other
than that in which the discharge or discharges originate. The Sec-
retary shall invite the cooperation of any municipal, State, or
interstate air pollution control agencies having jurisdiction in
the affected area on any surveys or studies forming the basis of
conference action.
(D) Whenever the Secretary, upon receipt of reports, surveys,
or studies from any duly constituted international agency, has
reason to believe that any pollution referred to in subsection (a)
which endangers the health or welfare of persons in a foreign
country is occurring, or whenever the Secretary of State requests
him to do so with respect to such pollution which the Secretary
of State alleges is of such a nature, the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare shall give formal notification thereof to
the air pollution control agency of the municipality where such
discharge or discharges originate, to the air pollution control
agency of the State in which such municipality is located, and to
the interstate air pollution control agency, if any, in the jurisdic-
tional area in which such municipality is located, and shall call
promptly a conference of such agency or agencies. The Secretary
shall invite the foreign country which may be adversely affected
-------
1156 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
by the pollution to attend and participate in the conference, and
the representative of such country shall, for the purpose of the
conference and any further proceeding resulting from such confer-
ence, have all the rights of a State air pollution control agency.
This subparagraph shall apply only to a foreign country which the
Secretary determines has given the United States essentially the
same rights with respect to the prevention or control of air pollu-
same rights with respect to the prevention or control of air
[p. 29]
pollution occurring in that country as is given that country by
this subparagraph.
(E) A conference may not be called under subparagraph (A),
(B), or (C) of this paragraph with respect to a pollutant for
which (at the time the conference is called) a national ambient
air quality standard has been prescribed under section 107(e).
(2) The agencies called to attend such conference may bring
such persons as they desire to the conference. The Secretary shall
deliver to such agencies and make available to other interested
parties, at least thirty days prior to any such conference, a
Federal report with respect to the matters before the conference,
including data and conclusions or findings (if any); and shall
give at least thirty days' prior notice of the conference date to
any such agency, and to the public by publication on at least three
different days in a newspaper or newspapers of general circula-
tion in the area. The chairman of the conference shall give inter-
ested parties an opportunity to present their views to the con-
ference with respect to such Federal report, conclusions or
findings (if any), and other pertinent information. The Secretary
shall provide that a transcript be maintained of the proceedings of
the conference and that a copy of such transcript be made avail-
able on request of any participant in the conference at the expense
of such participant.
(3) Following this conference, the Secretary shall prepare and
forward to all air pollution control agencies attending the con-
ference a summary of conference discussions including (A) occur-
rence of air pollution subject to abatement under this Act; (B)
adequacy of measures taken toward abatement of the pollution;
and (C) nature of delays, if any, being encountered in abating
the pollution.
(e) If the Secretary believes, upon the conclusion of the con-
ference or thereafter, that effective progress toward abatement
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1157
of such pollution is not being made and that the health or welfare
of any persons is being endangered, he shall recommend to the
appropriate State, interstate, or municipal air pollution control
agency (or to all such agencies) that the necessary remedial
action be taken. The Secretary shall allow at least six months
from the date he makes such recommendations for the taking of
such recommended action.
(f) (1) If, at the conclusion of the period so allowed, such
remedial action or other action which in the judgment of the
Secretary is reasonably calculated to secure abatement of such
pollution has not been taken, the Secretary shall call a public
hearing, to be held in or near one or more of the places where
the discharge or discharges causing or contributing to such
pollution originated, before a hearing board of five or more per-
sons appointed by the Secretary. Each State in which any dis-
charge causing or contributing to such pollution originates and
each State claiming to be adversely affected by such pollution
shall be given an opportunity to select one member of such hear-
ing board and each Federal department, agency, or instrumental-
ity having a substantial interest in the subject matter as deter-
mined by the Secretary shall be given an opportunity to select
one member of such hearing board, and one memeber shall be
a representative of the appropriate interstate air pollution agency
if one exists, and not less than a majority of such hearing board
shall be persons other than officers or employees of the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare. At least three weeks'
prior notice of such hearing shall be given to the State, interstate,
and municipal air pollution control agencies called to attend such
hearing and to the alleged polluter or polluters. All interested
hearing and to the alleged polluter or
[p. 30]
polluters. All interested parties shall be given a reasonable op-
portunity to present evidence to such hearing board.
(2) On the basis of evidence presented at such hearing, the
hearing board shall make findings as to whether pollution referred
to in subsection (a) is occurring and whether effective progress
toward abatement thereof is being made. If the hearing board
finds such pollution is occurring and effective progress toward
abatement thereof is not being made it shall make recommenda-
tions to the Secretary concerning the measures, if any, which
526-702 O - 73 -- 38
-------
1158 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
it finds to be reasonable and suitable to secure abatement of
such pollution.
(3) The Secretary shall send such findings and recommenda-
tions to the person or persons discharging any matter causing
or contributing to such pollution; to air pollution control agencies!
of the State or States and of the municipality or municipalities
where such discharge or discharges originate; and to any inter-
state air pollution control agency whose jurisdictional area
includes any such municipality, together with a notice specifying
a reasonable time (not less than six months) to secure abatement
of such pollution.
(g) If action reasonably calculated to secure abatement of the
pollution within the time specified in the notice following the
public hearing is not taken, the Secretary—
(1) in the case of pollution of air which is endangering
the health or welfare of persons (A) in a State other than
that in which the discharge or discharges (causing or con-
tributing to such pollution) originate, or (B) in a foreign
country which has participated in a conference called under
subparagraph (D) of subsection (d) of this section and in
all proceedings under this section resulting from such con-
ference, may request the Attorney General to bring a suit
on behalf of the United States in the appropriate United
States district court to secure abatement of the pollution.
(2) in the case of pollution of air which is endangering
the health or welfare of persons only in the State in which
the discharge or discharges (causing or contributing to such
pollution) originate, at the request of the Governor of such
State, shall provide such technical and other assistance as
in his judgment is necessary to assist the State in judicial
proceedings to secure abatement of the pollution under
State or local law or, at the request of the Governor of such
State, shall request the Attorney General to bring suit on
behalf of the United States in the appropriate United States
district court to secure abatement of the pollution.
(h) The court shall receive in evidence in any suit brought
in a United States court under subsection (g) of this section a
transcript of the proceedings before the board and a copy of
the board's recommendations and shall receive such further evi-
dence as the court in its discretion deems proper. The court, giving
due consideration to the practicability of complying with such
standards as may be applicable and to the physical and economic
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1159
feasibility of securing abatement of any pollution proved, shall
have jurisdiction to enter such judgment, and orders enforcing
such judgment, as the public interest and the equities of the
case may require.
(i) Members of any hearing board appointed pursuant to
subsection (f) who are not regular full-time officers or employees
of the United States shall, while participating in the hearing con-
ducted by
[p. 31]
such board or otherwise engaged on the work of such board, be
entitled to receive compensation at a rate fixed by the Secretary,
but not exceeding $100 per diem, including traveltime, and while
away from their homes or regular places of business they may be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence,
as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the Govern-
ment service employed intermittently.
(j) (1) In connection with any conference called under this
section, the Secretary is authorized to require any person whose
activities result in the emission of air pollutants causing or con-
tributing to air pollution to file with him, in such form as he may
prescribe, a report, based on existing data, furnishing to the
Secretary such information as may reasonably be required as to
the character, kind, and quantity of pollutants discharged and
the use of devices or other means to prevent or reduce the emis-
sion of pollutants by the person filing such a report. After a con-
ference has been held with respect to any such pollution the Sec-
retary shall require such reports from the person whose ac-
tivities result in such pollution only to the extent recommended
by such conference. Such report shall be made under oath or other-
wise, as the Secretary may prescribe, and shall be filed with
the Secretary within such reasonable period as the Secretary
may prescribe, unless additional time be granted by the Secretary.
No person shall be required in such report to divulge trade secrets
or secret processes and all information reported shall be consid-
ered confidential for the purposes of section 1905 of title 18 of
the United States Code.
(2) If any person required to file any report under this sub-
section shall fail to do so within the time fixed by the Secretary
for filing the same, and such failure shall continue for thirty
days after notice of such default, such person shall forfeit to the
United States the sum of $100 for each and every day of the
-------
1160 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
continuance of such failure, which forfeiture shall be payable
into the Treasury of the United States, and shall be recoverable
in a civil suit in the name of the United States brought in the
district where such person has his principal office or in any dis-
trict in which he does business: Provided, That the Secretary
may upon application therefor remit or mitigate any forfeiture
provided for under this subsection and he shall have authority
to determine the facts upon all such applications.
(3) It shall be the duty of the various United States attorneys,
under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States,
to prosecute for the recovery of such forfeitures.
(k) Nothwithstanding any other provision of this section, the
Secretary, upon receipt of evidence that a particular pollution
source or combination of sources (including moving sources)
is presenting an imminent and substantial endangerment to the
health of persons, and finding that appropriate State or local
authorities have not acted to abate such sources, may request the
Attorney General to bring suit on behalf of the United States
in the appropriate United States district court to immediately
enjoin any contributor to the alleged pollution to stop the emis-
sion of contaminants causing such pollution or to take such other
action as may be necessary.
STANDARDS TO ACHIEVE HIGHER LEVEL OF AIR QUALITY
SEC. 109. Nothing in this title shall prevent a State, political
subdivision, intermunicipal or interstate agency from adopting
standards
[p. 32]
and plans to implement an air quality program which will achieve
a higher level of ambient air quality than that prescribed or
approved by the Secretary.
PRESIDENT'S AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD AND ADVISORY
COMMITTEES
SEC. 110. (a) (1) There is hereby established in the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare an Air Quality Advisory Board,
composed of the secretary or his designee, who shall be Chairman,
and fifteen members appointed by the President, none of whom
shall be Federal officers or employees. The appointed members,
having due regard for the purposes of this Act, shall be selected
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1161
from among representatives of various state, interstate, and local
governmental agencies, of public or private interests contributing
to, affected by, or concerned with air pollution, and of other public
and private agencies, organizations, or groups demonstrating an
active interest in the field of air pollution prevention and control,
as well as other individuals who are expert in this field.
(2) Each member appointed by the President shall hold office
for a term of three years, except that (A) any member appointed
to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term
for which his predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for
the remainder of such term, and (B) the terms of office of the
members first taking office pursuant to this subsection shall expire
as follows: five at the end of one year after the date of appoint-
ment, five at the end of two years after such date, and five at the
end of three years after such date, as designated by the President
at the time of appointment, and (C) the term of any member
under the preceding provisions shall be extended until the date
on which his successor's appointment is effective. None of the
members shall be eligible for reappointment within one year after
the end of his preceding term, unless such term was for less than
three years.
(b) The Board shall advise and consult with the Secretary on
matters of policy relating to the activities and functions of the
Secretary under this Act and make such recommendations as it
deems necessary to the President.
(c) Such clerical and technical assistance as may be necessary
to discharge the duties of the Board and such other advisory
committees as hereinafter authorized shall be provided from the
personnel of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
(d) In order to obtain assistance in the development and imple-
mentation of the purposes of this Act including air quality
criteria, recommended control techniques, standards, research and
development, and to encourage the continued efforts on the part
of industry to improve air quality and to develop economically
feasible methods for the control and abatement of air pollution,
the Secretary shall from time to time establish advisory commit-
tees. Committee members shall include, but not be limited to, per-
sons who are knowledgeable concerning air quality from the stand-
point of health, welfare, economics, or technology.
(e) The members of the Board and other advisory committees
appointed pursuant to this Act who are not officers or employees
of the United States while attending conferences or meetings of
-------
1162 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
the Board or while otherwise serving at the request of the Secre-
tary,
[p. 33]
shall be entitled to receive compensation at a rate to be fixed
by the Secretary, but not exceeding $100 per diem, including
traveltime, and while away from their homes or regular places of
business they may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem
in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5 of the
United States Code for persons in the Government service em-
ployed intermittently.
[COOPERATION BY FEDERAL AGENCIES TO CONTROL AIR POLLUTION
PROM FEDERAL FACILITIES
[SEC. 111. (a) It is hereby declared to be the intent of Congress
that any Federal department or agency having jurisdiction over
any building, installation, or other property shall, to the extent
practicable and consistent with the interests of the United States
and within any available appropriations, cooperate with the De-
partment of Health, Education, and Welfare and with any air
pollution control agency in preventing and controlling the pollu-
tion of the air in any area insofar as the discharge of any matter
from or by such building, installation, or other property may cause
or contribute to pollution of the air in such area.
[(b) In order to control air pollution which may endanger the
health or welfare of any persons, the Secretary may establish
classes of potential pollution sources for which any Federal de-
partment or agency having jurisdiction over any building, installa-
tion, or other property shall, before discharging any matter into
the air of the United States, obtain a permit from the Secretary
for such discharge, such permits to be issued for a specified period
of time to be determined by the Secretary and subject to revoca-
tion if the Secretary finds pollution is endangering the health and
welfare of any persons. In connection with the issuance of such
permits, there shall be submitted to the Secretary such plans,'
specifications, and other information as he deems relevant thereto
and under such conditions as he may prescribe. The Secretary
shall report each January to the Congress the status of such per-
mits and compliance therewith.]
Control of Pollution From Federal Facilities
Sec. 111. Each department, agency, and instrumentality in the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1163
executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Govern-
ment having jurisdiction over any real property or facility, or
engaged in any activity resulting in the discharge of pollutants
into the air, shall comply with the applicable Federal, state, inter-
state, and local emission standards and with the purposes of this
Act in the administration of such property, facility, or activity.
The Secretary is authorized to exempt any department, agency,
instrumentality, property, facility, or activity, in whole or in part,
from compliance with any applicable emission standard if he de-
termines it to be in the paramount interest of the United States
to do so. An exemption may not be granted under the preceding
sentence for a period in excess of one year. Nothing in the pre-
ceding sentence shall be construed to prevent the granting of
additional exemptions to the same parties and with respect to the
same activities upon expiration of the original exemption. The"
Secretary shall report each January to the Congress all exemp-
tions from the requirements of this section granted during the
preceding calendar year, together with his reason for granting
each such exemption.
[p. 34]
Emission Standards for New Stationary Sources
Sec. 112. (a) For the purpose of preventing the occurrence of
significant new air pollution problems arising from or associated
with any class of new stationary sources which, because of the
nature or amount of emissions therefrom, may contribute sub-
stantially to endangerment of the public health or welfare, the
Secretary shall from time to time by regulation, giving appropri-
ate consideration to technological and economic feasibility,
establish standards with respect to such emissions. Such emission
standards may be established only after reasonable notice and
opportunity for interested parties to present their views at a
public hearing. Any regulations hereunder, and amendments
thereof, shall become effective on a date specified therein, which
date shall be determined by the Secretary after consideration of
the period reasonably necessary for compliance. The Secretary
may exempt any industry or establishment, or any class thereof}
from this section, upon such terms and conditions as he may find
necessary to protect the public health or welfare, for the purpose
of research, investigations, studies, demonstrations, or training,
or for reasons of national security.
(6) Such emission standards shall provide that—
-------
1164 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
(1) If such emissions are extremely hazardous to health,
no new source of such emissions shall be constructed or
operated, except where (and subject to such conditions as
he deems necessary and appropriate) the Secretary makes
a specific exemption with respect to such construction or
operation.
(2) In the case of other emissions, any new source of such
emissions shall be designed and equipped to prevent and
control such emissions to the fullest extent compatible with
the available technology and economic feasibiity, as deter-
mined by the Secretary.
(c) (1) If, within such period as may be prescribed by the
Secretary, any State or interstate air pollution control agency,
adopts a plan for enforcement of the emission standards promul-
gated by the Secretary under this section, such plan shall, if the
Secretary determines it provides adequately for the enforcement
of such emission standards, be applicable within such State or
other area.
(2) If a State does not adopt a plan in accordance with para-
graph (1) of this subsection, the Secretary shall, after reasonable
notice and a conference with representatives of appropriate Fed-
eral departments and agencies and State agencies, prepare regula-
tions establishing an enforcement plan for such State. If, prior
to the date the Secretary publishes such regulations the State has
not adopted such plan, the Secretary shall promulgate such regula-
tions.
(d) If at any time the Secretary determines that any person is
violating the emission standards established by him pursuant to
this section, and that the State or interstate agency is failing to
carry out the plan adopted as provided in subsection (c) (1) or
established as provided in subsection (c) (2), he shall notify the
affected State or the interstate agency and the person violating
the emission standard, and shall specify the time within which
such violation must cease. If such violation does not cease within
such time the Secretary may request the Attorney General to
bring suit on behalf of the United States in the appropriate
United States district court to secure abatement of the pollution.
The court shall have jurisdiction to enter such judgment and
orders enforcing such judgment as the public interest and the
equities of the case may require. The court may also assess a
penalty of up to $10,000 for each
[P- 36]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1165
day of violation after the time specified by the Secretary pursuant
to this subsection for the cessation of the violation, except that,
in determining the amount of such penalty, the court shall take
into account the efforts of the defendant to abate the pollution
involved.
(e) Prior to establishing emission standards under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall consult with appropriate Federal depart-
ments and agencies and State agencies having responsibilities
related to any stationary sources to which such emission standards
will be applicable.
(/) For purposes of enforcement of this section, officers or
employees duly designated by the Secretary, upon presenting ap-
propriate credentials and a written notice to the owner or person
in charge, are authorized to enter, at reasonable times, any es-
tablishment which the Secretary has reason to believe is or may
be in violation of regulations issued under this section to deter-
mine whether any such violation is occurring (including, for this
purpose, inspection, at reasonable times, of records, files, papers,
processes, controls, and facilities relevant to compliance with the
regulations). A separate notice shall be given for each such in-
spection, but a notice shall not be required for each entry made
during the period covered by the inspection. Each such inspection
shall be commenced and completed ivith reasonable promptness.
TITLE II—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS ACT
SHORT TITLE
SEC. 201. This title may be cited as the "National Emission
Standards Act".
Part A—Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards
ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARDS
SEC. 202. (a) The Secretary shall by regulation, giving ap-
propriate consideration to technological feasibility and economic
costs, prescribe as soon as practicable, standards, applicable to the
emission of any kind of substance, from any class or classes of
judgment cause or contribute to, or are likely to cause or to con-
new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his
tribute to, air pollution which endangers the health or welfare
-------
1166 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
of any persons, and such standards shall apply to such vehicles or
engines whether they are designed as complete systems or incor-
porate other devices to prevent or control such pollution.
(b) Any regulations initially prescribed under this section, and
amendments thereto, with respect to any class of new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines shall become effective on the
effective date specified in the order promulgating such regulations
which date shall be determined by the Secretary after considera-*
tion of the period reasonably necessary for industry compliance.
PROHIBITED ACTS
SEC. 203. (a) The following acts and the causing thereof are
prohibited—
(1) in the case of a manufacturer of new motor vehicles or
new motor vehicle engines for distribution in commerce, [the
manufacture for sale,} the sale, or the offering for sale, or the
intro-
[p. 36]
duction or delivery for introduction into commerce, or (in
the case of any person, except as provided by regulation of
the Secretary), the importation into the United States [for
sale or resale], of any new motor vehicle or new motor
vehicle engine, manufactured after the effective date of
regulations under this [title] part which are applicable to
such vehicle or engine unless [it is in conformity with] such
vehicle or engine is covered by a certificate of conformity
issued (and in effect) under regulations prescribed under this
[title] part (except as provided in subsection (b));
(2) for any person to fail or refuse to permit access to or
copying of records or to fail to make reports or provide in-
formation, required under section 207; [or]
(3) for any person to remove or render inoperative any
device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle
or motor vehicle engine in compliance with regulations under
this title prior to its sale and delivery to the ultimate pur-
chaser [.]; or
(4) for any manufacturer of a new motor vehicle (A) to
sell any new motor vehicle to which subsection (e) of section
206 applies unless such vehicle is warranted, and a label or
tag is affixed thereto, in accordance with such subsection, or
(B) to fail to comply with such a warranty.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1167
(b) (1) The Secretary may exempt any new motor vehicle or
new motor vehicle engine, or class thereof, from subsection (a),
upon such terms and conditions as he may find necessary to pro-
tect the public health or welfare, for the purpose of research, in-
vestigations, studies, demonstrations, or training, or for reasons
of national security.
(2) A new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine offered
for importation [by a manufacturer] or imported by any person
in violation of subsection (a) shall be refused admission into the
United States, but the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare may, by joint regulation, pro-
vide for deferring final determination as to admission and author-
izing the delivery of such a motor vehicle or engine offered for
import to the owner or consignee thereof upon such terms and
conditions (including the furnishing of a bond) as may appear
to them appropriate to insure that any such motor vehicle or
engine will be brought into conformity with the standards, re-
quirements, and limitations applicable to it under this [title] part.
The Secretary of the Treasury shall, if a motor vehicle or engine
is finally refused admission under this paragraph, cause disposi-
tion thereof in accordance with the customs laws unless it is
exported, under regulations prescribed by such Secretary, within
ninety days of the date of notice of such refusal or such additional
time as may be permitted pursuant to such regulations, except
that disposition in accordance with the customs laws may not be
made in such manner as may result, directly or indirectly, in the
sale, to the ultimate consumer, of a new motor vehicle or new
motor vehicle engine that fails to comply with applicable stand-1
ards of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare under this
[title] part.
(3) A new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine intended
solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the outside of the
container and on the vehicle or engine itself, shall not be subject
to the provisions of subsection (a).
[p. 37]
INJUNCTION PROCEEDINGS
SEC. 204. (a) The district courts of the United States shall
have jurisdiction to restrain violations of paragraph (1), (2),
[or] (3), or (4) of section 203(a).
(b) Actions to restrain such violations shall be brought by and
in the name of the United States. In any such action, subpoenas
-------
1168 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
for witnesses who are required to attend a district court in any
dictrict may run into any other district.
PENALTIES
SEC. 205. Any person who violates paragraph (1), (2), [or]
(3), or (4) of section 203 (a) shall be subject to a fine of not more
than $1,000. Such violation with respect to sections 203(a) (1)
[and], 203(a)(3), or 203(a,)(4) shall constitute a separate of-
fense with respect to each new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle
engine.
Motor Vehicle and Motor Vehicle Engine Compliance Testing
and Certification
SEC. 206. (a) [Upon application of the manufacturer, the]
The Secretary shall test, or require to be tested [,] in such manner
as he deems appropriate, any new motor vehicle or new motor
vehicle engine submitted by [such] a manufacturer to determine
whether such vehicle or engine conforms with the regulations
prescribed under section 202 of this [title] Act. If such vehicle or
engine conforms to such regulations, the Secretary shall issue a
certificate of conformity [,] upon such terms, and for such period
[not less than one year] (not in excess of one year), as he may
prescribe.
[(b) Any new motor vehicle or any motor vehicle engine sold
by such manufacturer which is in all material respects substan-
tially the same construction as the test vehicle or engine for which
a certificate has been issued under subsection (a), shall for the
purposes of this Act be deemed to be in conformity with the
regulations issued under section 202 of this title.]
(b)(l) In order to determine whether new motor vehicles or
new motor vehicles engines being manufactured by a manufactur-
er do in fact conform with the regulations with respect to which
the certificate of conformity was issued, the Secretary is author-
ized to test such vehicles or engines. Such tests may be conducted
by the Secretary directly or in accordance with conditions specified
by the Secretary, by the manufacturer.
(2) (A) If, based on such tests, the Secretary determines that
such vehicles or engines do not conform with the regulations with
respect to which the certificate of conformity was issued, he may
suspend or revoke such certificate in whole or in part, and shall
so notify the manufacturer. Such suspension or revocation shall
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1169
apply in the case of any new motor vehicles or neiv motor vehicle
engines manufactured after the date of such notification (or
•manufactured before such date if still in the hands of the manu-
facturer) , and until such time as the Secretary finds that vehicles
and engines manufactured by the manufacturer do conform to
such regulations. If, during any period of suspension or revoca-
tion, the Secretary finds that a vehicle or engine actually conforms
to such regulations, he shall issue a certificate of conformity ap-
plicable to such vehicle or engine.
[p. 38]
(B) (i) At the request of any manufacturer the Secretary shall
grant such manufacturer a hearing as to whether the tests con-
ducted on the vehicles or engines are appropriate, ivhether any
sampling methods which have been applied are appropriate, or
whether the tests have been properly conducted, and make a de-
termination on the record with respect to such suspension or
revocation; but suspension or revocation under subparagraph (A)
shall not be stayed by reason of such hearing.
(ii) In any case of actual controversy as to the validity of any
determination under clause (i), the manufacturer may at any
time prior to the sixtieth day after such determination is made
file a petition with the United States court of appeals for the
Circuit wherein such manufacturer resides or has his principal
place of business, for a judicial revieiv of such determination. A
copy of the petition shall be forthivith transmitted by the clerk
of the court to the Secretary or other officer designated by him
for that purpose. The Secretary thereupon shall file in the court
the record of the proceedings on which the Secretary based his
determination, as provided in section 2112 of title 28 of the United
States Code.
(Hi) If the petition applies to the court for leave to adduce ad-
ditional evidence, and shoivs to the satisfaction of the court that
such additional evidence is material and that there ivere reason-;
able grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence in the pro-
ceeding before the Secretary, the court may order such additional
evidence (and evidence in rebuttal thereof) to be taken before
the Secretary, in such manner and upon such terms and conditions
as the court may deem proper. The Secretary may modify his
findings as to the facts, or make new findings, by reason of the
additional evidence so taken and he shall file such modified or new
findings, and his recommendation, if any, for the modification or
-------
1170 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
setting aside of his original determination, with the return of
such additional evidence.
(iv) Upon the filing of the petition referred to in clause (ii),
the court shall have jurisdiction to revieiv the order in accordance
with chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code, and to grant ap-
propriate relief as provided in such chapter.
(v) The judgment of the court affirming or setting aside in
whole or in part, any such determination of the Secretary shall be
final, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States
upon certiorari or certification as provided in section 1254 of title
28 or the United States Code.
(vi) Any action instituted under this subparagraph shall sur-
vive, notwithstanding any change in the person occupying the
office of Secretary or any vacancy in such office.
(c) For purposes of enforcement of this section, officers or
employees duly designated by the Secretary, upon presenting ap-
propriate credentials and a written notice to the manufacturer or
person in charge are authorized (1) to enter, at reasonable times,
any plant or other establishment of such manufacturer, for the
purpose of conducting tests of vehicles or engines coming off the
production line, or (2) to inspect, at reasonable times, records}
files, papers, processes, controls, and facilities used by such manu-
facturer in conducting tests under regulations of the Secretary. A
separate notice shall be given for each such inspection, but a notice
shall not be required for each entry made during the period
covered by the inspection. Each such inspection shall be com-
menced and completed with reasonable promptness.
(d) The Secretary shall establish methods and procedures for
making tests under this section and inform the manufacturers
with respect thereto.
[p. 39]
(e) Every new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine sold
by a manufacturer shall be warranted to have systems or devices
for the control or reduction of substances emitted from the vehicle
or engine that are substantially of the same construction as
systems or devices, on test vehicles or test engines, for which a
certificate has been issued to the manufacturer under subsection
(a), and the manufacturer shall furnish with each vehicle or
engine written instructions for necessary maintenance by the
ultimate purchaser. In addition, the manufacturer shall indicate
by means of a label or tag permanently affixed to such vehicle or
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1171
engine that such vehicle or engine is covered by a certificate of
conformity issued for the purpose of assuring achievement of
emissions standards prescribed under section 202 of this Act. Such
label or tag shall contain such other information relating to con-
trol of motor vehicle emissions as the Secretary shall prescribe
by regulation.
RECORDS AND REPORTS
SEC. 207. (a) Every manufacturer shall establish and main-
tain such records, make such reports, and provide such informa-
tion as the Secretary may reasonably require to enable him to
determine whether such manufacturer has acted or is acting in
compliance with this [title] part and regulations thereunder and
shall, upon request of an officer or employee duly designated by
the Secretary, permit such officer or employee at reasonable times
to have access to and copy such records.
(b) All information reported or otherwise obtained by the
Secretary or his representative pursuant to subsection (a), which
information contains or relates to a trade secret or other matter
referred to in section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code,
shall be considered confidential for the purpose of such section
1905, except that such information may be disclosed to other of-
ficers or employees concerned with carrying out this Act or when
relevant in any proceeding under this Act. Nothing in this section
shall authorize the withholding of information by the Secretary
or any officer or employee under his control, from the duly author-
ized committees of the Congress.
STATE STANDARDS
SEC. 208. (a) No State or any political subdivision thereof
shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the
control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle
engines subject to this [title] part. No State shall require certifica-
tion, inspection, or any other approval relating to the control of
emissions from any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle
engine as condition precedent to the initial retail sale, titling (if
any), or registration of such motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine,
or equipment.
(b) The Secretary shall, after notice and opportunity for public
hearing, waive application of this section to any State which has
adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards) for
-------
1172 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor
vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966, unless he finds that such
State does not require standards more stringent than applicable
Federal standards to meet compelling and extraordinary condi-
tions or that such State standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) of this [title]
part.
[p. 40]
(c) Nothing in this [title] part shall preclude or deny to any
State or political subdivision thereof the right otherwise to con-
trol, regulate, or restrict the use, operation, or movement of
registered or licensed motor vehicles.
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN DEVELOPING VEHICLE INSPECTION PROGRAMS
SEC. 209. The Secretary is authorized to make grants to ap-
propriate State air pollution control agencies in an amount up to
two-thirds of the cost of developing meaningful uniform motor
vehicle emission device inspection and emission testing programs
except that (1) no grant shall be made for any part of any State
vehicle inspection program which does not directly relate to the
cost of the air pollution control aspects of such a program; and
(2) no such grant shall be made unless the Secretary of Trans-
portation has certified to the Secretary that such program is con-
sistent with any highway safety program developed pursuant to
section 402 of title 23 of the United States Code.
REGISTRATION OF FUEL ADDITIVES
SEC. 210. (a) The Secretary may by regulation designate any
fuel or fuels (including fuels used for purposes other than motor
vehicles), and after such date or dates as may be prescribed by
him, no manufacturer or processor of any such fuel may deliver
any such fuel for introduction into interstate commerce or to
another person who, it can reasonably be expected, will deliver
such fuel for such introduction unless the manufacturer of such
fuel has provided the Secretary with the information required
under subsection (b) (1) of this section and unless any additive
contained in such fuel has been registered with the Secretary in
accordance with subsection (b) (2) of this section.
(b) For the purposes of this section the Secretary shall require
(1) the manufacturer of such fuel to notify him as to the com-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1173
mercial identifying name and manufacturer of any additive con-
tained in such fuel; the range of concentration of such additive or
additives in the fuel; and the purpose in the use of such additive;
and (2) the manufacturer of any such additive to notify him as to
the chemical composition of such additive or additives as indicated
by compliance with clause (1) above, the recommended range of
concentration of such additive, if any, the recommended purpose
in the use of such additive, and to the extent such information is
available or becomes available, the chemical structure of such
additive or additives. Upon compliance with clauses (1) and (2),
including assurances that any change in the above information
will be provided to the Secretary, the Secretary shall register
such fuel additive.
(c) All information reported or otherwise obtained by the
Secretary or his representative pursuant to subsection (b) or
subsection (h), which information contains or relates to a trade
secret or other matter referred to in section 1905 of title 18 of the
United States Code, shall be considered confidential for the
purpose of such section 1905, except that such information may
be disclosed to other officers or employees of the United States
concerned with carrying out this Act or when relevant in any
proceeding under this [title] part. Nothing in this section shall
authorize the withholding of information by the Secretary or any
officer or employee under his control, from the duly authorized
committees of the Congress.
[p. 41]
(d) Any person who violates subsection (a) or the regulations
prescribed under subsection (/) (2) or fails to furnish any infor-
mation required by the Secretary within the period specified by
him pursuant to subsection (h) shall forfeit and pay to the United
States a civil penalty of [$1,000] $10,000 for each and every day
of the continuance of such violation or failure, which shall accrue
to the United States and be recovered in a civil suit in the name
of the United States, brought in the district where such person
has his principal office or in any district in which he does business.
The Secretary may, upon application therefor, remit or mitigate
any forfeiture provided for in this subsection, and he shall have
authority to determine the facts upon all such applications.
(e) It shall be the duty of the various United States attorneys,
under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States,
to prosecute for the recovery of such forfeitures.
526-702 O - 73 -- 39
-------
1174 LEGAL COMPILATION—Ara
(/) (1) The Secretary may, on the basis of specific findings
made in accordance with subsection (g), establish standards re-
specting the composition or the chemical or physical properties of
any fuel or fuel additive by specifying limitations on (or providing
for elimination of) ingredients (including additives) or on the
physical or chemical characteristics of any fuel or class of fuels
(A) if any emission products of such fusl or fuel additive will
endanger the public health or welfare, or (B) if such fuel or fuel
additive will impair to a significant degree the performance of any
emission control device or system ivhich is in general use, or which
the Secretary finds has been developed to a point where in a
reasonable time it will be in general use, on a significant number
of motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines.
(2) For the purpose of carrying out such standards the Secre-
tary may prescribe regulations prohibiting the manufacture for
sale, the sale, the offering for sale, or the delivery of any fuel or
fuel additive unless it is in conformity with such standards as
may be applicable to it.
(3) This subsection shall not apply to aviation fuel or additives
thereto.
(g) (1) Any standards pursuant to clause (A) of subsection
(f) (1) shall be established by the Secretary on the basis of specific
findings derived from relevant medical and scientific evidence, in-
cluding (in the case of a standard with respect to a motor vehicle
fuel or fuel additive) a finding that it is not otherwise technologi-
cally or economically feasible to achieve the emission standards
established pursuant to section 202 of this Act.
(2) Any standards pursuant to clause (B)of subsection (f) (1)
shall be established by the Secretary on the basis of specific find-
ings derived from scientific evidence, including a cost-benefit
analysis comparing emission control devices or systems which are
or will be in general use and require the proposed standard, with
emission control devices or systems which are or will be in general
use and do not require the proposed standard.
(h) For the purpose of making his findings under subsection
(g), the Secretary may require the manufacturer of any fuel or
fuel additive and the manufacturer of any motor vehicle or motor
vehicle engine to furnish any information which has been devel-
oped concerning the emissions from motor vehicles resulting from
the use of any fuel or fuel additive, or the effect of such use on the
performance of any emission control device or system.
[P- 42]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1175
NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS STUDY
SEC. 211. (a) The Secretary shall submit to the Congress, no
later than two years after the effective date of this section, a
comprehensive report on the need for and effect of national emis-
sion standards for stationary sources. Such report shall include:
(A) information regarding identifiable health and welfare effects
from single emission sources; (B) examples of specific plants,
their location, and the contaminant or contaminants which, due
to the amount or nature of emissions from such facilities, consti-
tute a danger to public health or welfare; (C) an up-to-date list of
those industries and the contaminant or contaminants which, in
his opinion, should be subject to such national standards; (D) the
relationship of such national emission standards to ambient air
quality, including a comparison of situations wherein several
plants emit the same contaminants in an air region with those in
which only one such plant exists; (E) an analysis of the cost of
applying such standards; and (F) such other information as may
be appropriate.
(b) The Secretary shall conduct a full and complete investiga-
tion and study of the feasibility and practicability of controlling
emissions from jet and piston aircraft engines and of establishing
national emission standards with respect thereto, and report to
Congress the results of such study and investigation within one
year from the date of enactment of the Air Quality Act of 1967;
together with his recommendations.
DEFINITIONS FOR [TITLE II] PART A
SEC. 212. As used in this [title] part—
(1) The term "manufacturer" as used in sections 203, 206, 207,
and 208 means any person engaged in the manufacturing or as-
sembling of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, or
importing such vehicles or engines for resale, or who acts for and
is under the control of any such person in connection with the
distribution of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines,
but shall not include any dealer with respect to new motor vehicles
or new motor vehicle engines received by him in commerce.
(2) The term "motor vehicle" means any self-propelled vehicle
designed for transporting persons or property on a street or high-
way.
(3) [The] Except with respect to vehicles or engines imported
or offered for importation, the term "new motor vehicle" means
-------
1176 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
a motor vehicle the equitable or legal title to which has never been
transferred to an ultimate purchaser; and the term "new motor
vehicle engine" means an engine in a new motor vehicle or a
motor vehicle engine the equitable or legal title to which has never
been transferred to the ultimate purchaser; and with respect to
imported vehicles or engines, such terms mean a motor vehicle
and engine, respectively, manufactured after the effective date of
a regulation issued under section 202 which is applicable to such
vehicle or engine (or which would be applicable to such vehicle
or engine had it been manufactured for importation into the
United States).
(4) The term "dealer" means any person who is engaged in
the sale or the distribution of new motor vehicles or new motor
vehicle engines to the ultimate purchaser.
(5) The term "ultimate purchaser" means, with respect to any
new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine, the first person
who in good
[P. 43]
faith purchases such new motor vehicle or new engine for pur-
poses other than resale.
(6) The term "commerce" means (A) commerce between any
place in any State and any place outside thereof; and (B) com-
merce wholly within the District of Columbia.
Part B—Aircraft Emission Standards
Establishment of Standards
Sec. 231. (a) The Secretary shall by regulation, giving appropri-
ate consideration to technological feasibility and economic costs,
prescribe as soon as practicable standards applicable to the emis-
sion of any kind of substance from any class or classes of air-
craft or aircraft engines which in his judgment cause or con-
tribute to, or are likely to cause or to contribute to, air pollution
which endangers the health or welfare of any persons, and such
standards shall apply to such aircraft or aircraft engines whether
they are designed as complete systems or incorporate other de-
vices to prevent or control such pollution. Any such standards
shall include requirements with respect to the manufacturers'
warranty of such systems or devices necessary for the purposes
of this Act.
(b) Any regulations initially prescribed under this section, and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1177
amendments thereto, with respect to any class of aircraft or
aircraft engines shall become effective on the effective date
specified in the order promulgating such regulations, which date
shall be determined by the Secretary after consideration of the
period reasonably necessary for compliance.
(c) Any such regulations, or amendments thereto, with respect
to aircraft, shall be prescribed only after consultation with the
Federal Aviation Administrator in order to assure appropriate
consideration for aircraft safety. The Administrator shall apply
such standards and regulations in the certification and inspection
of aircraft or aircraft engines pursuant to his authority under
the Federal Aviation Act of 1958.
State Standards
STATE STANDARDS
Sec. 232. (a) No State or any political subdivision thereof shall
adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control
of emissions from aircraft or aircraft engines subject to this
part. No state shall require certification, inspection, or any other
approval relating to the control of emissions from any aircraft or
aircraft engine as a condition precedent to the initial retail sale,
titling (if any), or registration of such aircraft or aircraft engine.
TITLE III—GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION
SEC. 301. (a) The Secretary is authorized to prescribe such reg-
ulations as are necessary to carry out his functions under this
Act. The Secretary may delegate to any officer or employee of the
Department of Health, Eductaion, and Welfare such of his powers
and duties under this Act, except the making of regulations, as he
may deem necessary or expedient.
(b) Upon the request of an air pollution control agency, person-
nel of the Public Health Service may be detailed to such agency
for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act. The
provisions of
[p. 44]
section 214(d) of the Public Health Service Act shall be appli-
cable with respect to any personnel so detailed to the same extent
-------
1178 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
as if such personnel had been detailed under section 214(b) of
that Act.
(c) Payments under grants made under this Act may be made
in installments, and in advance or by way of reimbursement, as
may be determined by the Secretary.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 302. When used in this Act—
(a) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare.
(b) The term "air pollution control agency" means any of the
following:
(1) A single State agency designated by the Governor of
that State as the official State air pollution control agency
for purposes of this Act;
(2) An agency established by two or more States and hav-
ing substantial powers or duties pertaining to the prevention
and control of air pollution;
(3) A city, county, or other local government health author-
ity, or, in the case of any city, county, or other local govern-
ment in which there is an agency other than the health
authority charged with responsibility for enforcing ordi-
nances or laws relating to the prevention and control of air
pollution, such other agency; or
(4) An agency of two or more municipalities located in the
same State or in different States and having substantial
powers or duties pertaining to the prevention and control of
air pollution.
(c) The term "interstate air pollution control agency" means—
(1) an air pollution control agency established by two or
more States, or
(2) an air pollution control agency of two or more munici-
palities located in different States.
(d) The term "State" means a State, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and
American Samoa.
(e) The term "person" includes an individual, corporation, part-
nership, association, State, municipality, and political subdivision
of a State.
(f) The term "municipality" means a city, town, borough, coun-
ty, parish, district, or other public body created by or pursuant
to State law.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1179
(g) All language referring to adverse effects on welfare shall
include but not be limited to injury to agricultural crops and live-
stock, damage to and the deterioration of property and hazards
to transportation.
OTHER AUTHORITY NOT AFFECTED
SEC. 303. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this sec-
tion, this Act shall not be construed as superseding or limiting the
authorities and responsibilities, under any other provision of law,
of the Secretary or any other Federal officer, department, or
agency.
(b) No appropriation shall be authorized or made under section
301, 311, or 314 of the Public Health Service Act for any fiscal
year after the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, for any purpose
for which appropriations may be made under authority of this
Act.
[p. 45]
RECORDS AND AUDIT
SEC. 304. (a) Each recipient of assistance under this Act shall
keep such records as the Secretary shall prescribe, including rec-
ords which fully disclose the amount and disposition by such
recipient of the proceeds of such assistance, the total cost of the
project or undertaking in connection with which such assistance
is given or used, and the amount of that portion of the cost of
the project or undertaking supplied by other sources, and such
other records as will facilitate an effective audit.
(b) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the
Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly
authorized representatives, shall have access for the purpose of
audit and examinations to any books, documents, papers, and rec-
ords of the recipients that are pertinent to the grants received
under this Act.
COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC COST STUDIES
SEC. 305. (a) In order to provide the basis for evaluating pro-
grams authorized by this Act and the development of new pro-
grams and to furnish the Congres with the information necessary
for authorization of appropriations by fiscal years beginning after
June 30, 1969, the Secretary, in cooperation with State, interstate,
and local air pollution control agencies, shall make a detailed es-
-------
1180 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
timate of the cost of carrying out the provisions of this Act; a
comprehensive study of the cost of program implementation by
affected units of government; and a comprehensive study of the
economic impact of air quality standards on the Nation's indus-
tries, communities, and other contributing sources of pollution,
including an analysis of the national requirements for and the
cost of controlling emissions to attain such standards of air quality
as may be established pursuant to this Act or applicable State
law. The Secretary shall submit such detailed estimate and the re-
sults of such comprehensive study of cost for the five-year period
beginning July 1, 1969, and the results of such other studies, to
the Congress not later than January 10, 1969, and shall submit a
reevaluation of such estimate and studies annually thereafter.
(b) The Secretary shall also make a complete investigation and
study to determine (1) the need for additional trained State and
local personnel to carry out programs assisted pursuant to this
Act and other programs for the same purpose as this Act; (2)
means of using existing Federal training programs to train such
personnel; and (3) the need for additional trained personnel to
develop, operate and maintain those pollution control facilities de-
signed and installed to implement air quality standards. He shall
report the results of such investigation and study to the President
and the Congress not later than July 1, 1969.
ADDITIONAL REPORTS TO CONGRESS
SEC. 306. Not later than six months after the effective date of
this section and not later than January 10 of each calendar year
beginning after such date, the Secretary shall report to the Con-
gress on measures taken toward implementing the purpose and
intent of this Act including, but not limited to, (1) the progress
problems associated with control of automotive exhaust emissions
and the research efforts re-
[P- 46]
lated thereto; (2) the development of air quality criteria and
recommended emission control requirements; (3) the status of
enforcement actions taken pursuant to this Act; (4) the status
of [State] ambient air standards setting, including such plans
for implementation and enforcement as have been developed; (5)
the extent of development and expansion of air pollution monitor-
ing systems; (6) progress and problems related to development
of new and improved control techniques; (7) the development of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1181
quantitative and qualitative instrumentation to monitor emissions
and air quality; (8) standards set or under consideration pursuant
to title II of this Act; (9) the status of State, interstate, and
local pollution control programs established pursuant to and as-
sisted by this Act; and (10) the reports and recommendations
made by the President's Air Quality Advisory Board.
LABOR STANDARDS
SEC. 307. The Secretary shall take such action as may be nec-
essary to insure that all laborers and mechanics employed by con-
tractors or subcontractors on projects assisted under this Act
shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing for the
same type of work on similar construction in the locality as deter-
mined by the Secretary of Labor, in accordance with the Act of
March 3, 1961, as amended, known as the Davis-Bacon Act (46
Stat. 1494; 40 U.S.C. 276a-276a-5). The Secretary of Labor shall
have, with respect to the labor standards specified in this sub-
section, the authority and functions set forth in Reorganization-
Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 (15 F.R. 3176; 64 Stat. 1267) and
section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended (48 Stat. 948;
40 U.S.C. 276c).
SEPARABILITY
SEC. 308. If any provision of this Act, or the application of any
provision of this Act to any person or circumstance, is held in-
valid, the application of such provision to other persons or cir-
cumstances, and the remainder of this Act, shall not be affected
thereby.
APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. 309. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this Act, other than sections 103(d) and 104, $74,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $95,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1969, [and] $134,300,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1970, $125,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 80, 1971, $150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June SO,
1972, and $200,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June SO, 1973.
Such portion as the Secretary may determine, but not more than
1 per centum, of any appropriation for grants, contracts, or other
payments under any provision of this Act for any fiscal year
-------
1182 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
(directly, or by grants or contracts) of any program authorized
beginning after June 30, 1970, shall be available for evaluation
by this Act.
SHORT TITLE
SEC. 310. This Act may be cited as the "Clean Air Act."
[p. 47]
FEDERAL AVIATION ACT OF 1958
*******
TITLE VI—SAFETY REGULATION OF CIVIL AERONAUTICS
SEC. 601. General safety powers and duties.
(a) Minimum standards; rules and regulations.
(b) Needs of service to be considered; classifica-
tion of standards, etc.
(c) Exemptions.
(d) Aviation fuel standards.
TITLE VI—SAFETY REGULATION OF CIVIL
AERONAUTICS
GENERAL SAFETY POWERS AND DUTIES
MINIMUM STANDARDS; RULES AND REGULATIONS
SEC. 601. (a) The Administrator is empowered and it shall be
his duty to promote safety of flight of civil aircraft in air com-
merce by prescribing and revising from time to time:
(1) Such minimum standards governing the design, materials,
workmanship, construction, and performance of aircraft, aircraft
engines, and propellers as may be required in the interest of
safety;
(2) Such minimum standards governing appliances as may be
required in the interest of safety;
(3) Reasonable rules and regulations and minimum standards
governing, in the interest of safety, (A) the inspection, servicing,
and overhaul of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and ap-
pliances; (B) the equipment and facilities for such inspection,
servicing, and overhaul; and (C) in the discretion of the Admin-
istrator, the periods for, and the manner in which such inspection,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1183
servicing, and overhaul shall be made, including provision for
examinations and reports by properly qualified private persons
whose examinations or reports the Administrator may accept in
lieu of those made by its officers and employees;
(4) Reasonable rules and regulations governing the reserve
supply of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, and
aircraft fuel and oil, required in the interest of safety, including
the reserve supply of aircraft fuel and oil which shall be carried
in flight;
(5) Reasonable rules and regulations governing, in the interest
of safety, the maximum hours or periods of service of airmen, and
other employees, of air carriers; and
(6) Such reasonable rules and regulations, or minimum stand-
ards, governing other practices, methods, and procedure, as the
Administrator may find necessary to provide adequately for na-
tional security and safety in air commerce.
NEEDS OF SERVICE TO BE CONSIDERED; CLASSIFICATION OP
STANDARDS, ETC.
(b) In prescribing standards, rules, and regulations, and in
issuing certificates under this title, the Administrator shall give
full consideration to the duty resting upon air carriers to perform
their services
[P. 48]
with the highest possible degree of safety in the public interest
and to any differences between air transportation and other air
commerce; and he shall make classifications of such standards,
rules, regulations, and certificates appropriate to the differences
between air transportation and other air commerce. The Admin-
istrator may authorize any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller,
or appliance, for which an aircraft certificate authorizing use
thereof in air transportation has been issued, to be used in other
air commerce without the issuance of a further certificate. The
Administrator shall exercise and perform his powers and duties
under this Act in such manner as will best tend to reduce or
eliminate the possibility of, or recurrence of, accidents in air
transportation, but shall not deem himself required to give prefer-
ence to either air transportation or other air commerce in the
administration and enforcement of this title.
-------
1184 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
EXEMPTIONS
(c) The Administrator from time to time may grant exemp-
tions from the requirements of any rule or regulation prescribed
under this title if he finds that such action would be in the public
interest.
Aviation Fuel Standards
(d) The Administrator may prescribe, and from time to time
revise, regulations (1) establishing standards governing the com-
position or the chemical or physical properties of any aircraft fuel
or fuel additive for the purpose of controlling or eliminating air-
craft emissions which the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare (pursuant to section 231 of the Clean Air Act) determines
endanger the public health or welfare, and (2) providing for the
implementation and enforcement of such standards.
PROHIBITIONS
VIOLATIONS OP TITLE
SEC. 610. (a) It shall be unlawful—
(1) For any person to operate in air commerce any civil air-
craft for which there is not currently in effect an airworthiness
certificate, or in violation of the terms of any such certificate;
(2) For any person to serve in any capacity as an airman in
connection with any civil aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller or
appliance used or intended for use, in air commerce without an
airman certificate authorizing him to serve in such capacity, or in
violation of any term, condition, or limitation thereof, or in viola-
tion of any order, rule, or regulation issued under this title;
(3) For any person to employ for service in connection with
any civil aircraft used in air commerce an airman who does not
have an airman certificate authorizing him to serve in the capacity
for which he is employed;
(4) For any person to operate as an air carrier without an
air carrier operating certificate, or in violation of the terms of
any such certificate;
[p. 49]
(5) For any person to operate aircraft in air commerce in
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1185
violation of any other rule, regulation, or certificate of the Ad-
ministrator under this title; and
(6) For any person to operate a seaplane or other aircraft of
United States registry upon the high seas in contravention of the
regulations proclaimed by the President pursuant to section 1 of
the Act entitled "An Act to authorize the President to proclaim
regulations for preventing collisions at sea", approved October
11, 1951 (Public Law 172, Eighty-second Congress; 65 Stat. 406) ;
(7) For any person holding an air agency or production certifi-
cate, to violate any term, condition, or limitation thereof, or to
violate any order, rule, or regulation under this title relating to
the holder of such certificate; [and]
(8) For any person to operate an airport serving air carriers
certificated by the Civil Aeronautics Board without an airport
operating certificate, or in violation of the terms of any such
certificate [.]; and
(9) For any person to manufacture, deliver, sell, or offer for
sale, any aviation fuel or fuel additive in violation of any regula-
tion prescribed under section 601 (d).
*******
[P- 50]
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. LIONEL VAN DEERLIN,
HON. RICHARD L. OTTINGER AND HON. ROBERT 0.
TIERNAN ON H.R. 17255
H.R. 17255 is woefully inadequate to meet the menace of motor
vehicle-generated air pollution.
During executive markup of this bill, we offered a series of
amendments designed to strengthen the legislation, to equip it to
deal more effectively with the smog that is threatening to strangle
our urban areas.
We recognize that some of the reforms which we proposed and
which will be reoffered as floor amendments to the bill, may seem
drastic at first glance. But the problem of air polluted by auto-
mobiles has become, in our view, so massive that it cries out for
drastic remedies.
The old solutions won't work, because as far as the automobile
inventory is concerned we're involved in a stacked numbers game.
Even with the newly announced Federal standards for emission
control, the amount of pollutants from automotive sources is going
-------
1186 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
to increase with the number of cars on the road. Last year, for the
first time, there were more than 100 million motor vehicles in this
country, and by 1980 that figure is expected to rise to 150 million.
We are not impressed by the wails of the auto industry that
meaningful improvements in their product pose insurmountable
cost and engineering problems. We listened to the same complaints
back in 1967, when Congress agreed to permit California to depart
from national auto emission norms in setting and enforcing more
stringent controls. The industry demonstrated then that it has
the expertise and the know-how to make just about any change
for the better when the public demand is great enough.
Earth Day—barely a month ago—and the many other mani-
festations for a cleaner environment have given us, or at least
should have given us, a reasonably concrete expression of public
feeling.
Is THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE REALLY NECESSARY?
A few years ago, we might have been reluctant to support, much
less offer, any proposal so sweeping as to contemplate the outright
abolition of the internal combustion engine.
But times have changed, and this proposal is not nearly so
startling today.
Just last year, the California State Senate, a legislative body
with long experience in combating smog, approved, by a record
vote of 25 to 6, legislation which would have completely barred
new internal combustion engines from California by 1975. The
measure died in a State Assembly committee, but is being revived
this year.
An amendment which will be offered on the floor is actually less
far-reaching than the California plan. It would at least give the
auto industry a chance to clean up the internal combustion engines.
If the
[p. 51]
existing engines could not measure up, they would gradually be
phased out, starting with the dirtiest, largest horsepower.
Current emission standards are based on what the inherently
polluting internal combustion engine can achieve. The amendment
would set standards on the basis of the cleanest feasible propul-
sion system and leave responsibility for meeting the standards
where it belongs—in the auto industry. If the standards could not
be met, the biggest engines packing 375 or more horsepower (and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTOBY 1187
comprising less than 5 percent of new car sales) would be phased
out in 1975—the terminal year for all internal combustion engines
in the California bill. Under the House amendment, the last of the
internal combustion and any other high polluting engines would
not be ruled off production lines until 1978, and then only if
they could not match the peak performance of alternative systems
such as steam and gas turbine.
As for the other systems, there is compelling evidence that
despite the protestations of Detroit they can be mass produced at
little or no additional cost to consumers. To be disabused of any
notion that this is not possible, one need only glance at the findings
of in the landmark study, The Search For a Low-Emission Vehicle,
prepared last year by the staff of the Senate Commerce Com-
mittee.
In effect, the amendment tells the auto industry to either shape
up or devise another way of powering our cars. It is direct action,
striking at the basic cause of the pollution problem.
But more immediate relief is also needed, and other amend-
ments will be introduced to tighten up the provisions of the bill
dealing with existing pollution control devices and fuel com-
position.
How EFFECTIVE ARE EMISSION CONTROL DEVICES?
Today, we have no assurance that the control devices required
by law meet even the present minimal standards. Tests for
Federal and State certification of new vehicles are performed on
prototype models, with no followup to determine the effectiveness
of the devices after they are operational.
The skimpy data available are not very reassuring. One Federal
study showed that devices in 57 percent of cars owned by the
Hertz rental agency were not living up to their billing as smog
deterrents, after only 11,000 miles in use.
We propose to add a new dimension to quality control of the
devices by providing for voluntary Federal inspections after the
devices have been in service for at least 4,000 miles. If a defect
pattern is uncovered, the manufacturer would be required to
correct it at his own expense, and HEW certification of the device
would be suspended until the defect was corrected. Most auto
engineers agree the effectiveness of an individual device cannot
be adequately gauged until the automobile has been broken in—
after it has been driven at least 4,000 miles.
A third amendment would make California's relatively stringent
-------
1188 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
SHOULD CALIFORNIA'S STANDARDS BE ADOPTED NATIONALLY?
auto emission standards for 1971, 1972, and 1974 applicable na-
tionwide. Otherwise, the limited 1970 standards set by HEW for
hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide will remain unchanged until
1975.
[p. 52]
Air pollution intrudes just as much on the quality of life in New
York as it does in Los Angeles, and we see no reason why the
residents of New York should be denied the benefits of the Cali-
fornia standards.
Surely, the auto industry would accept this as the most reason-
able of proposals, since it has already obligated itself to produce
the cleaner cars for California and, therefore, should have little
difficulty in doing the same thing for the other 90 percent of its
market.
A table comparing the standards set by HEW and California
follows:
COMPARISON OF EMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
[In grams per mile]
Hydrocarbons
Carbon monoxide . -
Oxides of nitrogen. _
Current
model
2 2
23.0
California
1971
2.2
23.0
'4.0
1972
1.5
23.0
3.0
1974
1.5
23.0
1.3
HEW
1973
2.2
23.0
3.0
1975
0.5
11.0
.75
1 The regulation of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide has increased the emission of oxides of nitrogen beyond the
level of the unregulated internal combustion engine.
In passing, we will comment briefly on changes made by the
committee in the original administration Air Quality bill, H.R.
15848. A major element in the bill affecting automotive pollution
dealt with the regulation of fuel composition.
Unfortunately, this key section has been, in our view, signifi-
cantly weakened by the committee in H.R. 17255. In fact, the
fuel oil composition provision in H.R. 17255 may be almost totally
unworkable.
As Democrats, in a Congress led by Democrats, this causes us
some anguish.
An amendment to restore the administration version of the fuel
composition section of the bill will be offered on the floor.
LIONEL VAN DEERLIN,
RICHARD L. OTTINGER,
Env.:.,,r .,, ,, T, .,, , ....,.,. ,_ ROBERT 0. TIERNAN.
" ....... ..... -1 [p- 53]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1973 O - 526-702
-------
-------
------- |